The Holy Family Catholic Primary School
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Academy Local Governing Body (LGB)
Monday 20 July 2015 at 7pm
Present:
Foundation governors:Lyn Coyle (CoG),RobSharpley (vCoG),Mary Holt Goldsmith,
Abi Folorunso, Michael Reidy
Headteacher: Rosemary Wajs Parent governor: Chris Overy Staff governor: John Atkinson Co-opted governor: Sue Hill Visitor: Michele Stenning (Asst HT) Clerk: Clare Nursey (KCC)
Agenda item / ActionItem 1 Opening Prayer, welcome and introduction
1.1 CoG led an opening prayerand welcomed all to this meeting.
1.2 CoG advised that both she and the HT would discuss items as they arose during this meeting rather than wait to report under HT and CoG items as this would be more effective. The structure of future agendas would be reviewed over summer.
Item 2 Apologies for absence
Apologies received and accepted from Daniel Wills and Father Roy Tablizo (Foundation governors).
Item 3 Disclosure of conflicts of interest
3.1 MHG declared an interest through her daughter’s employment at the school. No new interests disclosed.
3.2 Clerk reminded governors that this information had to be published on the school website from September, together with details of governor posts elsewhere. MR confirmed he was also a governor at St Augustine’s Academy.
Item 4 Minutes of the last meetings (27 April & 29 June 2015)
4.1 Minutes were approved as an accurate record and signed by the CoG.
4.2 Matters arising:
a)Smoking policy – clerk would resend the draft to HT and CoG. HT confirmed that parents were already asked not to smoke or “vape” in or around the school site. Governors noted that any necessary No Smoking signs might be expensive.
b)Clerk confirmed that the Education Commission had not yet notified MR and AF’s formal appointments as governors but had confirmed it had all necessary paperwork.
c)CoG confirmed she had written to all governors following her meeting with the bursar to advise that the school no longer proposed a deficit budget. HT advised this was largely because the school would receive £38k more Pupil Premium (PP) funding than it had expected, and Universal Infant Free School Meals (UIFSM) funding had now been confirmed as £24k. CoG advised that many Trust schools were proposing deficit budgets this year so HF was now in a quite favourable position, though a recent Trust meeting had suggested that it would not be viewed as good practice for schools to show they were holding a large reserve for an unspecified purpose. The recommendation was that schools identified a project on which to spend the money in future (eg building work) and moved reserves into “deferred capital” in the budget to show that the money was being held for a specific purpose. / Clerk
Item 5 School Improvement
Progress data
5.1 CoG advised governors that T6 school data had been studied in depth at the progress review before this meeting. Governors present (CoG, RS, MHG) had recognised that the overall picture was rapidly improving but CoG assured other governors that they had still asked hard questions about the data, particularly where results showed that progress was not so fast or so strong. Notes would be circulated as soon as possible, key data was already provided in the HT’s report.
5.2 HT advised that staff were delighted with SATs results but obviously recognised there was still room for improvement. T6 progress data showed an improving overall picture and also that Writing remained a priority area for action across the school. HT was particularly pleased to advise governors that she had analysed progress over the last 2 years, since her leadership of the school had begun, and this showed that the current Year 6 children had made outstanding progress in all 3 subjects, and the current Year 5 children had already made good progress and were on track to make outstanding progress by the end of Year 6. Nonetheless, she assured governors that staff were not sitting back and the drive for improvement continued:
- Pupil Premium (PP) children would continue to be closely monitored to ensure results remained in line with non PP children’s results, and these would be investigated where there was a discrepancy
- Pupil Progress meetings had been held with current and next year’s class teachers present and individual children had been discussed to ensure new teachers were familiar with the children they would be getting; 3 teachers were moving with their current class which would help continuity
- Pixlsoftware would be very helpful as it provides a detailed gaps analysis and teaching material to fill the gaps identified; currently it was applicable only to Year 6 but JA advised it was being developed now to filter down through KS2 and was being refined to cater for the expected new “levels” in the new National Curriculum
- There would be a particular challenge in getting the current Year 5 (not such a strong cohort as the current Year 6) to meet the higher targets next year, particularly the “secondary ready” target, but in preparation for this the children had been giventhe 2014 SATs papers this termand “Early risers” was being introduced earlier next year (from September, 4 mornings pw) to offer children help with maths; governors thanked staff for being willing to come in early to offer 1:1 support to children attending.
5.4 Governors agreed that data showed that good progress had been achieved and things were moving in the right direction at the school and they thanked and congratulated all staff, particularly MS for the impressive results achieved by Year 6. They agreed with the HT that the data evidence of rapid improvement in progress must be available to Ofsted when they next inspected the school.
Raising Attainment Plan (RAP)
5.5 HT confirmed she would draft the new RAP this week and circulate it to governors next term. Governors discussed whether the RAP was still needed - the school was now in a different phase of progress since the last Ofsted inspection and possibly the SDP would be sufficient? MR described how theprocess was managed at another school, where the SDP (shown on screen) was a 2 page document and discussions at FGB meeting agendas were structured around headings/priorities in this document. HT advised she found the RAP a helpful and manageable document and MS suggested it would be good to keep this document until the school achieved a “good” rating from Ofsted, as the RAP clearly focused on the vision for the school and the journey towards that. CoG reminded the meeting that,as well as the RAP and SDP, the RE inspection report was also a document linked with raising attainment and this must not be overlooked. CoG suggested that the format of the SDP in particular be discussed further at the T1 Strategy team meeting.
Progress on SEF
5.6 HT described the management software package (Perspective) introduced to all Trust schools whichprovided a range of information, including for performance management. The programme enabled the SEF to be completed electronically and Strategy team had looked at the GB section at their last meeting [see team meeting notes]. However, HT advised she was holding fire completing any more of the current document as the Ofsted framework would change in September and the SEF format would need to be revised to accommodate changes. She assured governors that SMT were aware of the need to complete and keep the document up to date and would work on it over time.
5.7 HT was pleased to advise governors that although at the start of the year, all judgements in the SEF had been 3 (RI), she had moved all judgements up to 2 (Good) in the latest SEF following progress meetings with Nick Cross. The school had evidence to support these judgements and would collect more before Ofsted next visited.
5.8 CoG reported that a recent KCSP meeting had advised that Ofsted’s current key focus areas were Leadership & Management (which included the GB), Progress & Achievement, and Safeguarding (which had an increased emphasis on guarding against radicalisation). She was pleased to confirm that MR had agreed to monitor safeguarding for the GB. It would be helpful to compile a list of “tasks” for the new Safeguarding governor, including a review of E Safety (CO would help with this).
5.7 SH advised that Patrick Leeson had attended the recent KGA meeting and had emphasised the impact of ambitious school leaders on pupil outcomes in their schools. He had mentionedthe need to provide a broad and balanced curriculum and to ensure robust safeguarding, and CoG reminded the meeting that governors as well as SMT would be expected by Ofsted to be fully informed on all these matters and able to answer questions on pupil progress and attainment. A governor asked whether it was up to the HT to decide what assessment scheme to follow to track progress. HT advised that the Trust had introduced Pupil Asset for all its schools, although it was proving difficult to access training as demand was so high (staff were booked for training on 29 September). Governors asked what assessment would be in place next year until Pupil Asset was up and running. HT advised that this would be reviewed in the first month back; staff would know where the children were in terms of the old NC levels and would track these against the broad definitions in the new NC (likely to be “emerging, expected or exceeding”) and then refine judgements. / Clerk
HT
T1
MR/CO and others
Item 6Finance matters
6.1 HT had confirmed next year’s funding for PP and UIFSM at para 4.2 above.
6.2 Governors received draft copies of the KCSP Financial Value Standard return, compiled by the HT, CoG, school bursar and the clerk. Governors discussed:
- Benchmarking – the return noted there had been no benchmarking this year (information not available as a “new” school following academisation) though this had taken place in previous years. CoG advised she had volunteered the school to take part in a pilot benchmarking exercise with 2 other schools in the Trust and a meeting had been arranged for HTs, CoGs and bursars in November. She explained that making use of local accountability boards would help the Trust monitor the 20 school budgets within the chain, and schools themselves would find it useful to compare data (eg spending on staffing) with local, directly comparable schools. The return would be amended to reflect this development;
- Risk Register – a governor asked whether the Emergency Business Continuity Plan covered all manner of financial risks as well as fire, IT failure, other threat etc. The meeting agreed many of these would be covered in the school’s Finance policy but it would be worth checking that the documents together were sufficiently comprehensive for a range of risks. RS would study them and report back.
6.4 HT confirmed that the KCSP audit report had not yet been received by the school.
6.5 CoG advised governors that Mark Harris (KCSP Finance Director) had warned at a recent meeting that 3 year budget planning would be difficult as future funding was so uncertain. This was likely to impact particularly on money available for staffing and he suggested schools review their staffing structure closely in the next year or so. / RS
Item 7Premises matters
7.1 Governors had received the 3 year premises plan before the meeting. HT invited questions on proposals and the meeting discussed:
- Much work was planned for the summer holiday – the hall would have new curtains and all classes would be repainted as well as the hall, entrance area and Yr 5/6 corridor. A contractor would carry out some of this work but much would be done by the caretaker, John Powell, and SH reported how impressed she had been with JP’s enthusiasm and positive attitude at their recent meeting.
- Work would begin to convert the KS1 cloakroom into a teaching area (whether further work would be needed to complete the project depended on how this first phase went); the new area would need carpet and HT advised governors that the enterprising bursar had found a former pupil who was willing to donate this.
- New display boards would be installed in the entrance at reception.
- External security – HT advised that the best improvement would be achieved by relocating the main entrance to the side near the children’s gate and making the current entrance accessible only by staff and delivery people. However, the school was unlikely ever to be able to afford this and a governor noted it was unfortunate that the school had not benefitted financially from the massive building work in the area. HT advised that prices had been obtained to install an electric gate at the main entrance which would prevent unauthorised access. Governors were not convinced this would resolve their concerns about free access through the school once someone had gained entrance through the main door. They felt there should be a barrier to prevent unauthorised entry beyond the reception area to safeguard staff and children. HT advised her concern was that a barrier would prevent children from coming to the HT’s or main office. CO advised governors that a risk assessment had been undertaken of current arrangements and this had weighed the risks (rare and always different so hard to plan for) against the drawbacks of change (parents and children liked the open door culture at the school). A simpler solution to making internal changes may be to build a porch on to the existing main entrance to provide another door and thus prevent free access. Governors noted that classroom doors were often left open during lessons (observed during governor visits) which provided another means of accessing the school interior, however it was pointed out that: gates to the school grounds were locked in the school day in order to prevent unauthorised access; the field itself was hedged or fenced all round (making this more secure was unlikely to be possible as the land backed on to residential properties),and that EYFS included an outside classroom so it was inevitable that a door would be open and children would be outside most days. Governors remained concerned about the possibility of an incident and suggested MHG and John Powell (caretaker) be consulted about their experience at Loose School, where new entrances had recently been installed at both buildings.THT
- Fire alarm system – governors asked how urgently this work was needed. HT advised that the current system was not faulty but an engineer (carrying out repairs last year) had commented that the system was old so she was flagging the project at an early stage.
- ICT suite – governors asked why the ICT suite was not included in the premises plan. HT advised that ICT work now took place in classrooms - the suite was little used so did not require redecorating etc.
- HT advised that in the long term, the goal was to replace the mobile with a permanent building, possibly for a nursery etc.
- Governors asked what improvements would be made to the KS1 corridor (a mural had been discussed as part of the library project). HT advised that other areas took priority for spending this year but the caretaker would redecorate this in time.
Item 8H&S and Safeguarding
8.1 For the benefit of new governors, SH reminded the meeting how impressed she had been when she observed a fire drill at the school. The building had been cleared in 3 minutes and the children had been able to explain what they were doing and why.
8.2 SH’s monitoring report had been circulated to governors and she drew attention to the lump of concrete near the wildlife area which might pose a risk and perhaps ought to be fenced off. MR would be asked to review this as part of his safeguarding monitoring role.
8.3 HT reported that Trish Avis (FLO) had completed CP training so 3 staff were now fully trained at the school (HT, MS, TA). / MR
Item 9 HT’s report
9.1 HT confirmed that most items in her report (circulated before the meeting) had been covered already and she invited questions and updated governors: