Eynsham Partnership Academy

Registered in England & Wales Company No. 07939655

DRAFTMinutes of the Meeting of the EPA Directing Board Standards Committee

held on Thursday 23November 2017 at 5.30pm at Bartholomew School

Present: James Bird (JB), Jenny Faulkner (JF),Sarah Kerswell (SK), Jane Osborne (JO) (CHAIR),

Mike Lawes (ML), Charlie Marshall (CM), Frances Bartlett (FB),Anne Carter (AC), (arrived 5:41pm)HilaryEmery (HE)

In Attendance: Beth Bedford (BVB)(Clerk)

Apologies:None

Item / Action
1.Welcome and Apologies
JO welcomed members.
2.Declarations of Interest - None for this meeting.
3. Terms of Reference
A more up to date version has not been found so it was agreed to adopt the most recent version available. BVB offered to find the 2016 version and re-date and issue to all.
Code of Conduct
JO advised there don’t appear to be versions available specifically for trustees on The Key. (Bartholomew School has a subscription to The Key but only one other EPA school does). All agreed this is a very useful tool. JO tabled copies of the generic CoC, asking if directors would be happy to sign up to this with all in agreement. / BVB
4. Minutes of meeting held 20 September 2017 for Accuracy and Matters Arising
4.1 Now the Chairs of Governors (CoGs) group is set up, issues can be raised via this forum – SK and JO both in attendance. JO suggested they need to agree dates for future meetings of that group. BVB advised she would be happy to clerk their meetings but would need to know dates in advance.
5.2 JB apologised for not having sent CM the ARE and will do so.
5.3 JB tabled a sample Data Dashboard (DD), seeking opinion on the format and content. JF queried (AC arrived) the AP dates, advising the SH SLT and governors are not happy with the current format. The SLG can raise this but it is not something that would be addressed by this committee. JO asked if for PPG a percentage and number could be included. FB asked for the full capacity figure for each school to be added. JB therefore advised that these amendments will be made and the final version available for the next DB meeting. He advised these will be issued after each AP but AP3 would be more problematic but could be given in September, as long as it is borne in mind that it refers to data from the preceding summer. HE suggested presentation of this data should include an explanation/cover paper of highlights for the DB as this will provide the key areas of focus by the Standards Committee (SC), then being reported to the DB. CM queried whether the DD is QA’d by JB and SK with JB responding in the affirmative, but to a point as it wouldn’t be possible to quality assure (QA) everything in full detail HE asked if the date of the last Ofsted could be included too please.
Minutes from FGBs should be sent to BVB for upload to GH but discussion took place as to the reasons for having them. JO suggested the CoG group could discuss how to QA the minutes from LGBs. SK mentioned that a PM target for JB is liaison with the CoGs. JO proposed that it be insisted with the CoGs that Notes of Visits (NoVs) are sent to all governors once these are received by CoGs as well as Headteachers.
The minutes were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting held on 20/09/17. / JO/SK
JB
JB
JB
JO
5. School Improvement
Inspection Data Summary Reports (formerly Dashboards): JB advised this is purely for information purposes, advising the benefits of having direct access to these for all EPA schools. JB advised some work is being undertaken on DVD pupils, adding he doesn’t currently have the national data for this category.
He advised this document has already proved useful, for example, during a visit to SHS today, as they are anticipating an Ofsted inspection. JB offered to provide guidance with HE responding her view that this would be beneficial, specifically in how to interpret this documentation in line with how he and SK utilise the data to ensure directors’thinking is not at odds with theirs. It was suggested to hold this session as a separate training event, driven from JB/SK’s time availability. It was agreed this would provide directors and governors with greater confidence.
Data Report Review: JB tabled a sample copy and referred to page 18 that contains the progress scores of all main cohorts and groups. He offered to take the committee through this data at the next meeting. FB asked if high prior attainers are included separately anywhere within this document. JB advised now that direct access to the IDSR is possible, this information can be gleaned from there. However, FB cautioned the IDSR doesn’t provide all key stages. AC asked who completes the comments box with JB responding the whole document is completed by the HT so they can include as much as they like. HTs complete it, return to JB/SK and share with their governors. JB and SK will then go back directly to the HT to ensure agreement between them as to the content of these, particularly the comments box. SK added that clarity and feedback is sought from the HT on any matter that is unclear. CM asked if this is a collation of information from various sources with JB responding by providing information as to the content of this document, where it comes from and the purpose for doing so. SK added that some screen shots from Target Tracker (TT) are included. HE asked concerning the absence of PEX (permanent exclusions) although FTEs (fixed term exclusions) are included. She also asked concerning turnover of pupils at the EPA schools, suggesting that performance data can be affected by this. SK advised this information is available in the SEFs, adding these can be filtered within TT too. JB commented that this data is available within school.
Pupil Premium: SK advised that these reports are available on the EPA website except for BS and ECPS and she is meeting with the SENCo next week. She advised that across the EPA, DVD pupils out-performed the non-DVD in reading and writing but not in maths.
Summary of SDPs and SEFs: JB advised concerning the process of spending an hour in each EPAmember academy reviewing their SEF and SDPs and he referred to the summary document of the schools’ own judgements. JO asked for comparison with the Quality of Teaching Overview in conjunction with this summary. JB advised this information is from school based observations, JB and SK having been involved in some of them. JO commented concern for SS with 2 of their 7 teachers observed being graded RI. SK commented the need to bear in mind that this is very much comparing “apples with pears” as different subjects will have been observed. JB advised his assurance that for any teachers that achieved less than good, he is fully aware. CM commented that also it needs to be borne in mind there can be many factors that have an impact on observations. JB commented that health issues and staff changes can have quite an impact on figures too.
CT advised concerning the changes to the BS observation system, advising though this is simplified, it is no less rigorous. He advised that the school has moved away from number gradings as Ofsted no longer use these. JB advised he will be meeting with Kirsty Lowdon for her to provide him with further detail and context of the changes at BS.
Secondary Data: KS3CT took the meeting through the summary. No snapshot in Year 7 but 3 in Years 8 and 9. He explained the life after levels system of colour-banding the students based on their KS2 data. A prediction is made, based on where they are anticipated to be by Year 11. 90% of students in both year groups are making good progress or better. There are approximately 210 students per year group and HE asked if there are roughly equal numbers in each band. No significant gender gaps; however, there would appear to be a possible gap emerging in Year 9 which will be considered by SLT and Heads of Department (HoDs). CM queried why no figures are provided for SEN with CT responding he will seek the reasons for this; possibly the data didn’t feed through. He advised that under-performing students can be very quickly identified using this system. Students have to make sufficient progress to stay within band. CT expressed his thanks to Adam Wood for all his work on the creation and implementation of this system.
KS4: Headline measures in both English and Maths appear strong and the school is happy with these. Attainment 8 is ok – this is a weaker cohort. +0.50 for Progress 8 is the key figure. However, CT advised there are a lot of caveats with these figures, the expectation being for some shift in these figures by the next SC meeting. He advised that data meetings are held with each HoD after each snapshot.
CT explained that the A Band students follow an alternative curriculum so do not fill all the buckets.
KS5: CT explained that the Alps programme is used, giving an outline of the grading system. SK commented it will be very interesting at the end of the year to see how the system fits with the actuals. CT agreed, adding there has been a real drive on QA of predictions for all years and all subjects.
CM asked if there are any concerns that the SC should be aware of. CT responded advising about the Supported Review (SR) process and how this is customised to seek to address specific areas of concern within departments where there is cause for concern. He advised that SRs (can last up to six weeks) are currently underway for D&T Food, Product Design, Maths (as didn’t do as well as English) and Music. JO added that BS has several governing body committees, one of which does the number crunching and the minutes of these committees would provide more detailed answers.
HE asked if there will be a one-page summary for BS, as with the other EPA member academies, with JB responding the document provided by CT is as much in summary form as possible without losing data.
CEO Report
Sports/PE grants: SK advised these are all available on the EPA website.
Performance Management: SK advised this whole process has been completed.
Update on ECPS: SK advised she will propose to the DB that an IEB is implemented, the GB will be removed and the IEB will be made up of 5-6 people. She has taken this idea from the LA. She advised that the format for this is - 2 former governors, seek to train them up, 2 directors, the CEO, and the HT (IM) plus one other. SK sought views and opinions, posing the question as to who should make the ultimate decision. CM commented her belief that IEBs do work and it makes perfect sense to implement one at ECPS. SK commented this will be an action group, and there will be a considerable time commitment as the IEB would meet every fortnight for approximately an hour. The IEB could have six people without IM and this could be preferable if seeking to train the governors included for the future GB. SK suggested the benefits of starting small and then adding to the group as appropriate. HE queried if the situation being addressed is a failing GB rather than a failing leadership team. SK responded, referencing conversations with the current CoG, suggesting that the formation of this group would be supportive as well as challenging. She advised that she would chair the group. This would send a bold but positive message. SK advised this suggestion did engender quite a positive response from IM, if viewed from the perspective of being ground-breaking. SK advised that the school is currently recruiting to the post of a DHT and she is involved in that process. The leadership structure has had to be changed. Kit Howells will clerk the meetings of this IEB. FB spoke about an example of another IEB that would meet for an hour but for one hour prior to that meeting, one person would undertake a book review, someone else would undertake some other interaction with the school and so on thus ensuring that the members of the IEB were fully involved with the school. SC members suggested decisions should be made by SK, as interim CEO, with it queried as to whether this has to be formally done. The CoG will take it to the LGB for information but they will not have any input as to who will be on the IEB. This will then be taken to the full DB. / JB/SK
CT
6.Review of the Standards and Performance Protocol
JB advised that some tweaking has been made, specifically to level 3 and level 4 criteria. Reviews are undertaken after each AP and with all staffing changes. FB advised that the Diocese use a colour-coding system: clear, green, amber, red but added she’s not suggesting that the utilised system is changed. HE asked how well this works in practice as that is the acid test. JB responded by stating that is why consideration of the wording is undertaken. SK added this is more of a tool for her and JB to use, adding the levels do not equate to Ofsted gradings. JO suggested that some statements within the document are ambiguous, citing an examplebut after further discussion, it was agreed that, as this is predominantly a tool utilised by SK/JB only, any wording used could be open to interpretation by any external body, without additional explanation from JB and/or SK.
7. Preparation for a MAT-Centred Ofsted Report
This item carried over to the next meeting. / Agenda
8.Review of recently updated EPA policies
SK advised this will be covered at the full DB meeting.
9. Date of Next Meeting
17 January 2018 at 5.30pm.

The meeting closed at 7:24pm

BVB/29.11.17

Page 1 of 4

Signed……………………..………………………………….Date…………………………..