County Governor Forum
Date Thursday 21st March 2013
Time 18:00 – 20:30
Location Conference Room, Falcon House, Winchester
Present:Colin Broadley / Hampshire Governors Association (HGA)
John Clarke / Hampshire County Council (HCC)
John Coughlan / HCC
Cllr Peter Edgar / HCC
Ann Hammond / HGA
Ashley Jeffries / Education Personnel Services (EPS), HCC
Ian Langley / HCC
Roy Lee / HGA
John Mason / HGA
Shirley Nellthorpe / HGA
Mandy Parsons / HGA
Melanie Saunders / HCC
Judith Rutherford / HGA
Amanda Stevens / EPS, HCC
Andrew Turk / HGA
David Wright / HGA
Glynis Wright / HCC
Helen Hardy / Minutes
Apologies: / Robin Gray / HGA
Amanda Meadows / HCC
Sylvia Vine / HGA
Terry Tillman / HGA
1. / Welcome and Apologies
Councillor Edgar welcomed members to the meeting. Apologies were received and accepted from Robin Gray, Amanda Meadows, Sylvia Vine and Terry Tillman.
2. / Minutes of Previous Meeting (16 October 2012) and matters arising
The minutes of the meeting on 16 October 2012 were accepted as a true and accurate record. There were no matters arising that were not covered by agenda items.
3. / Chairman’s comments
Cllr Edgar gave a brief update on recent events.
· New primary schools have been approved for Whiteley and the west of Waterlooville.
· He had visited the opening of the new “Learning outside the Classroom” facility at Otterbourne CE Primary School which provides a very valuable educational resource for the children. The school had worked closely with HCC on this project.
· He had attended the Primary Heads Conference today. There had been excellent attendance and the event was both impressive and encouraging. This type of corporate working is highly effective for sharing experiences and maintaining high standards in schools. He congratulated HCC on providing this experience for Headteachers.
4. / Introduction / Update to the Supporting Troubled Families Programme (presentation previously circulated)
Ian Langley, head of the programme, talked to the group about this programme. This programme was set up by the Prime Minister following the civil unrest in the summer of 2011 and the unit is led centrally by Louise Casey. All local authorities have signed up to the programme. HCC is the accountable body in Hampshire but relies on local partners, including schools, police, social services etc to deliver the programme.
In Hampshire, 1600 families have been identified as being in need of the programme’s support. These families have often not been helped by services that are aimed at them. The team aims to work with 530 families this year. Although the programme will not work for all the families, the aim is that there should be positive outcomes for 50% – 60% of families. This is a payment by results programme.
Families must meet two of the three criteria to claim the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) funding:
1. Are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour
2. Have children not in school (85% or less attendance, 3 or more fixed-term exclusions or permanent exclusion)
3. Adult on out of work benefits
There are two local discretion filters which are applied across Hampshire: domestic violence; and mental health issues.
Local Co-ordination Groups (based on District Councils) will identify both those families needing to be involved with Family Intervention Projects where a dedicated skilled worker works with a maximum of 5 or 6 families over a 6 – 12 month period and those requiring a lighter touch. There has been an initial scheme involving 42 families which have shown a success rate of 50 – 60% (matching the national results). Hampshire has commissioned support for a further 500 families from Barnados and Family Lives (national charities) and Motivate and Step by Step (local charities). (Full accountability structure shown in presentation)
The teams work with all families involved in the programme to develop a plan (nearly 400 have been completed). The plan sets out who is in the family and who is involved with the family. Schools are a key partner in the development of this plan and the delivery through use of the Pupil Premium fund.
Judith Rutherford asked how success will be measured. Ian Langley explained that it would be achievement in the three criteria, a reduction in the number of referrals to Children’s Services and unnecessary callouts to the Police.
Ann Hammond asked why officers have been pulled out of Children’s Centres. Ian Langley explained that the focus of this programme is for families with older children but that there is flexibility for including families who don’t meet the criteria.
Shirley Nellthorpe asked how schools can access funding from this programme. Ian Langley explained that meeting the criteria does not necessarily trigger the funding, it is up to the LCGs. If a school has concerns about a family, they should contact the Senior Responsible Officer who will take it on to the LCG.
Roy Lee asked if troubled families are spread across Hampshire? Ian Langley said that the data is not surprising and broadly matches the areas of deprivation. Basingstoke has the highest number with around 90 families and Hart the fewest.
SN asked if there is funding through the Worklessness agenda for learning opportunities for parents. Melanie Saunders explained that there is central funding for maths and literacy training for adults who have not achieved level 2 qualifications. The Adult Learning team provides this in Hampshire.
Peter Edgar emphasised that it is critical that GPs are involved in this programme and must have confidence in sharing information with schools and other partners. HCC is working with Clinical Commissioning Groups to break down these barriers. He thanked Ian Langley for this thorough presentation.
[IL left the meeting at 6.45pm]
5. / Update on teachers pay changes ahead of governor briefings
Ashley Jeffries provided the draft paper on NQT Service Proposals which will go to the Schools Forum on 23 May 2013.
From April 2013 the funding for “appropriate body” activity (previously HCC) will be delegated to schools. The amount to be delegated is £249, 000 whether a school has an NQT or not (equivalent to £1.54 per pupil).
EPS has explored a number of options ranging from the Collective pooling of funds on a per pupil basis to schools purchasing the Appropriate Body NQT service on an individual basis. The consultation process is as follows:
19/03/13 – Primary Headteacher Executive
22/03/13 – Primary Headteacher Standards
09/05/13 – Primary Headteacher Resources
14/05/13 – Secondary Headteacher Resources
14/05/13 – Secondary Headteacher Executive
17/05/13 – Secondary Headteacher Standards
Recommendations will be confirmed once the consultation process has been completed on 22 May 2013.
Peter Edgar asked for clarification about academies. AJ explained that HCC provides a sold service to most academies in Hampshire. PE asked AJ to provide him with the exact number of academies.
Roy Lee asked what the impact is for Teaching Schools. AJ clarified that Teaching Schools could apply to become an “Appropriate Body” but would have to be approved by the DfE.
Peter Edgar thanked AJ for the information and said that this showed the importance HCC places on the role of NQTs.
Teachers’ Pay: National Direction
Amanda Stevens provided a presentation on the draft School Teacher Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) 2013 which affects maintained schools only and will be implemented from September 2014. There is a national desire to be less prescriptive on teacher pay and to increase professionalism through increased competition and performance related pay.
EPS is currently drafting a Model Pay Policy which is able to deal with a range of point or percentage progression scales, is flexible but deliverable through a payroll system and mitigates the risk of multiple pay appeals.
There are proposed changes to: the upper pay range (no longer permanent if move school); leading practitioners; and allowances (fixed term TLR3 for time-limited school improvement projects).
What is the impact for Governors?
Governors need to hold school leaders to account for managing and rewarding teachers’ performance in the interests of pupils.
OFSTED will also have a focus on this in the Leadership and Management section: looking at teacher performance, both good and bad, and how this is managed; anonymised data on the proportion of teachers who have progressed on the main pay scale, through the upper pay scale and receive additional payments.
Schools should be able to demonstrate a correlation between the proportion of teachers passing through the UPR and the overall quality of teaching.
Pay recommendations should continue to go to the Pay Committee to ensure that not all governors are tainted should there be the need for a pay appeal.
HCC has looked at Headteacher pay, OFSTED inspection results and KS2 and GCSE results and there are some areas of concern where there are Headteachers receiving high performance points but OFSTED has indicated that the school is either satisfactory or requires improvement or performance in below floor standards.
Next steps
There will be governor briefings in April and May and Headteacher / Business Manager workshops in June and July.
There will be separate work with Academies who need to take TUPE into consideration.
The national document will be consulted on with the Unions. HCC will develop a draft Model Pay Policy for maintained schools by the end of the summer.
HCC will continue to work with academies who currently buy services.
Roy Lee asked if teachers will take their points with them. AB confirmed that in future this will not happen. Jobs are likely to be advertised with a pay scale and successful candidates will have to negotiate their salary. EPS anticipates that schools will want to work together to avoid unnecessary competition / teachers playing them against each other to increase salaries.
Peter Edgar asked what the situation is in other Authorities, particularly those who have taken a step back from involvement in education. AB reported that HCC appears better prepared than others. Peter Edgar thanked the officers for the excellent work going on to prepare schools for this and encouraged governors and schools to feedback on the consultation.
[AJ and AM left the meeting at 7.15pm]
6. / The Attainment Gap for FSM Children in Hampshire and using the Pupil Premium (presentation tabled at the meeting)
MS explained that the DfE has done a lot of work around the poor performance of children on FSM.
· Poverty is the biggest single factor which affects achievement.
· Only 16% of FSM children go on to Higher Education (compared with 96% of children in private education)
· High early achievers on FSM are overtaken at the end of KS1 by lower achievers not on FSM.
2011/12 Data
KS2 / FSM / Non-FSM / Gap
Hants / 67% / 86% / 19%
National / 68% / 84% / 16%
KS4 / FSM / Non-FSM / Gap
Hants / 29% / 63% / 34%
National / 39% / 65% / 26%
MS also presented data showing performance at GCSE which showed that the range of performance is the widest amongst the poorest pupils. The poorest pupils achieve at the highest level as well as the most well-off pupils but at a level far lower than any other.
GW explained the provision of Pupil Premium funds, including additional funds for Looked After Children, Services Children, Ever 3 and Ever 6.
Central Government is concerned about how this money is being spent and therefore OFSTED are focussing on Pupil Premium in inspections and are asking very specific questions. Information about how the Pupil Premium, the school’s allocation and what difference it is being made.
Useful resources
OFSTED have recently published a report on schools and the Pupil Premium:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium-how-schools-are-spending-funding-successfully-maximise-achievement
Analysis and Challenge Toolkit:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium-analysis-and-challenge-tools-for-schools
HCC staff are currently writing a best practice guide.
John Clarke added that the DfE and Schools Minister, David Laws MP, are looking at FSM performance in Hampshire’s secondary schools, an area of under-performance. They will be visiting all secondary schools, including academies to see what is happening, starting with those with the biggest gap in performance. There has also been a shift in focus at OFSTED who will be looking at LA performance.
John Coughlan added that even before the Pupil Premium, the Schools Forum had agreed a £500 / term for each Looked After Child which is paid to schools. Social Services should be involved in how this money is spent at the school but this is not happening in some schools.
Andrew Turk asked for clarification on what data must be published. MS explained that FSM data is easy to anonymise and therefore has been chosen to be the data published. In many schools the number of LAC or Services children is very low and they could therefore be easily identified.
MS also explained that some children can be double-funded, i.e. receive both FSM and LAC funding. Schools must share information across the age groups to ensure good coordination from infant to junior and then to secondary.
Colin Broadley asked about how funding is allocated in relation to a specific question on the allocation of DHT time working with specific FSM groups. The cost is that of the class teacher covering the DHT’s class.
Roy Lee asked about the “fuzzy benefit” to other children. MS clarified that DfE guidance allows for the “scoop-up” of other children as long as the school can demonstrate the impact on the FSM cohort. One specific group which will benefit from this is young carers. The primary aim is to close the gap. The baseline for OFSTED is that all teaching is at least good and in many cases outstanding – this will help all pupils and the pupil premium will only further reinforce this.