Thursday 2 May 2013 Wicor Primary School 7

South East Governors’ Forum

6 February 2017

Minutes of the SouthEast Governors’ Meeting

Date: Monday 6 February 2017 Time:7.00pm

Location: Henry Cort Community College, Fareham

1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

Governors were welcomed to the meeting and apologies were received as listed above. Shirley Nellthorpe took the Chair as Andrew March had sent his apologies for the meeting.

There remained a vacancy for an incoming new Vice Chair. No self-nominations had been received in advance of the meeting and none were received at the meeting so it was agreed that Andrew March would continue in his role as Chair and Shirley Nellthorpe in her role as Vice Chair until September when the position would be reviewed.

1. UPDATE ON LIFE AFTER LEVELS

Caroline Wilkins, School Improvement Manager, attended the meeting to give an update on Life after Levels.

Schools had always talked about achievement which was based on attainment and progress. The new system was focused more on progress. The new term being used for progress was Age Related Expectations (ARE). To be making expected progress pupils would reachARE at the end of each school year and each year group had an amount of progress they were supposed to be making.

Year R worked towards a Good Level of Development (GLD). The % of pupils achieving a GLD needed to maintain this level of progress as they continued through the school system. Therefore, if, in one cohort, 55% of pupils achieved GLD, then 55% of pupils would be expected to achieve ARE in each year throughout their school career.

It was expected that each year, schools added value to pupils.

Last year, nationally 59% of pupils reached ARE in Year 6 which was a very low figure. This was because of the new curriculum, the new testing and the cohort only having completed parts of the curriculum.

The expectation was that all pupils were expected to meetARE and some would be working at Greater Depth Standard (GDS)or ARE+ (both terms mean the same thing). Those pupils making better than expected progress were given opportunities to use and apply the skills they had been taught.

In the old system, about 15% of cohorts were not meeting the government standard. The Government wanted to reduce that figure and have more pupilsmeeting the expected standard. Therefore, schools were expected to get all pupils to ARE unless they had a special educational need that prevented them from achieving it. Some pupils would need more support and different resources but over the course of the year they shouldachieve the ARE.

Key Stage 1

Governors received a copy of ‘Key Stage 1: Interim Teacher Assessment Frameworks. July 2016’. The document described the expected standards at the end of Year 2.

Governors asked if they were right in thinking that pupils had to achieve all the statements listed to be marked as working at ARE. Caroline Wilkins said that was correct, it was an absolute model rather than a best fit model that had been used in the past. Pupils must be able to do all of the statements listed to be working at ARE. Governors asked what happened if they moved onto KS2 still unable meet some of the expectations at KS1. Caroline Wilkins said that it was critical that during the transition process teachers received enough information to know where the gaps were. The first half term would be spent working on the areas the pupils hadn’t managed to do in the previous year so that they could catch up. In addition, the pupils would need to keep up with everyone else with the Year 3 curriculum. This was quite a challenge for teachers but the idea was for the whole cohort to move forwards together.

If pupils met ARE each year they were expected to achieve good standards at GCSE.

The essence of teaching in the new curriculum was that there was no time to waste. It was important to move pupils on quickly and to challenge them. Once pupils had grasped the skills being taught, they needed to be moved onto apply them to something else.

Key Stage 2

Governors received a copy of Key Stage 2: Interim Teacher Assessment Frameworks. July 2016’.

It worked in the same way for Key Stage 1. Teachers needed a very good subject knowledge. They need to balance moving pupils on and keeping the pace up while giving opportunities for working at greater depth. Pupils needed to be challenged and apply skills they had been taught.

Not all schools were tested in Science last year and they wouldn’t be this year either. Governors would want to ask whether schools were still delivering a robust science curriculum to make sure that the focus hadn’t moved to just maths and English.

Hampshire Assessment Model

Hampshire had developed an assessment model, the Hampshire Assessment Model (HAM) to support assessment when the levels were removed. The model broke learning down into four phrases of nine week blocks and could be used to find out where pupilswere at any particular time of year.

Pupils started learning phase one in the autumn term. Once they were able to do the skills they moved onto applying phase one in problem solving contexts and learning phase two. The next step was to apply phase one and two and learn phase three and finally apply phase one, two and three and learn phase four. By May, pupils had covered the entire curriculum and the rest of the summer term was spent applying it in a range of ways. A model was available for each year group.

Governors asked whether it worked in a similar way to levels, in that some pupils were moved onto phase 2 once they had completed phase one faster than others. Caroline Wilkinson explained that last year very few pupils nationally got greater depth. There was likely to be an increase in this number as teachers became more confident and pupils became more capable as they would have covered more of the curriculum. It might become a challenge in the future.

Pupils were measured at four key points in the year, at the end of each phase. Teachers assessed whether they were on track to meet ARE or if there were any gaps. Schools should be able to provide data four times a year to see whether pupils were on track. The data should show an increasing % of pupils on track to achieve ARE over the year as there should be a greater % of pupils on track as the year progresses.

Secondary Model

There was no ARE for Years 7,8,9,10 and 11. Hampshire was trying to help secondary schools develop a similar system for Year 7 and Year 8 pupils to ensure they were measured in a timely way ready for GCSEs.

The new measure for achievement at secondary included both attainment and progress. Progress was measured using the pupil’s attainment at the end of Key Stage 2 compared to the grades they achieved at GCSE. If pupils reached ARE in reading and writing at Year 6 it was expected that they would achieve a good English GCSE and if they reached ARE in maths at Year 6 it was expected that they would achieve a good maths GCSE.

At the moment, pupils in secondary education still had Key Stage 2 Levels but over time this would be phased out. By 2021 all pupils in secondary would have the new Key Stage 2 standardised score.

New GCSEs were being phased in, starting with English and maths in 2017. The final new GCSEs would be in place by 2019/20.

There were also changes to grades, which were moving from letters to numbers. The target was for pupils to achieve a Grade 5 which was the equivalent of an old Grade Bc/Ca. The standards had risen slightly as in the previous systempupils had been aiming to get a Grade C.

Caroline referred to the Department of Education Guidance ‘Progress 8 and Attainment 8 measure in 2016,2017 and 2018’ October 2016.

The following measures were now published in the performance tables and Raise Online:

• Progress across 8 qualifications
• Attainment across the same 8 qualifications
• % of pupils achieving the threshold in English and maths (currently a C grade but would be grade 5 when the new GCSEs in English and maths were reported on in 2017).
• % of pupils entering the English Baccalaureate
• % of pupils achieving the English Baccalaureate
• % of pupils staying in education or employment after key stage 4 (destinations)

Attainment 8 measured the achievement of pupils across 8 qualifications from three ‘buckets’.

Governors asked whether all pupils had to take the EBACC. Caroline explained that all pupils had to take English and maths, although some might take English Language rather than English Literature. It would be important for schools to keep all pupils engaged and excited by the curriculum. ‘Bucket 3’ contained more vocational subjects and might suit some pupils more than ‘Bucket 2’ which included the more academic subjects. Governors noted that the ECDL computer course was no longer included in any of the ‘buckets’ but instead had been replaced by Computer Science which was more academic and sat in ‘Bucket 2’.

Pupils could take more than 8 GCSEs but only the best 8 would count towards the measures. If pupils took less than 8 GCSEs then it would have a negative impact on the school’s results.

Governors said that if a pupil took a subject that they were not able to get a good result in then it would bring the school’s results down. This was a powerful argument for schools not to put pupils in for the wrong subjects. It was important to consider which subjects were most suitable for each individual pupil and to get the right programme of study in place for them. Ensuring that pupils were engaged so that they wanted to go to school.

Governors asked if pupils were still able to take GCSEs early if they were ready. Caroline said that quite a lot of schools were starting to get pupils through one GCSE early, potentially as early as Year 9 as this reduced the number later on. However, it was noted that it was the first score that counted so the pupils needed to be completely ready.

Governor Questions

Governors asked if there was any dispensation for pupils with special needs who would never be able to meet the expected standards. Caroline said that the government expected all pupils to meet the expectations apart from those SEN pupils with a special need that meant they would not be able to do so. Those pupils came outside of the remit and as long as schools could evidence that the pupils were making progress the school could still be ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. Governors asked if there was any guidance about how to show progress with SEN pupils. Caroline said that the Hampshire Model could be used to track the progress of pupils with SEN.

Governors asked if there was anything in place that could be used to back up school’s judgments that pupils had achieved ARE. Sometimes this was an issue at transition points as the new school lacked confidence in the data they were provided with. Caroline said that all pupils fell back over the summer break and would always need a boost to get them back up to speed in September. Schools needed to be able to trust the levels that the previous school sent up. Hampshire was asking all schools to take part in a lot of moderation which was a good way of benchmarking against other schools. The more benchmarking that took place, the more accurate assessment became. Caroline suggested schools should be asking teachers to attend the assessment sessions and local cluster sessions. There was also an increasing amount of resources available on-line.

Governors asked what action a school could take if they found there was an issue with the levels being sent up by the previous school. Caroline said it would be important for the schools to be moderating together, i.e. Year 2 teachers needed to be working with Year 3 teachers to share samples and moderation. This needed to include both teachers and Headteachers. It was the governors’ role to ensure this was happening but not to engage in it themselves. Governors needed to ensure collaboration and moderation between schools was taking place.

Caroline suggested governors might want to be asking the following questions of schools:

• How do you know where we are?
• How have we checked that?
• How robustly have we checked our data with other schools?

It was important to remember that behind every number was a child. Governors needed to look at any that were standing out and ask questions about why they were standing out. In particular, governors needed to act as the corporate parent for Looked after Children and look after them as if they were their own children. Governors needed to ask what the school was doing to move them on. It was the same for Pupil Premium children.

If governors spotted any patterns in the data they needed to question the Headteacher and ask:

• Why the %s were not as high for certain pupils (e.g. those in receipt of pupil premium) as it was for all others.
• What the school was doing about it to reduce the difference between the two groups
• When the school expected the difference to be significantly reduced.
• How the school was using the Pupil Premium funding.

A lot of schools used all of their Pupil Premium funding each year but the standards were not going up.

Governors thanked Caroline for her informative presentation.

CW left the meeting.

1. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 September2016 had been circulated in advance of the meeting. They were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting.

It was noted that all of the actions from the last meeting had been completed.

1. FEEDBACK FROM MEETINGS

Minutes from the following meetings were available via the website:

Hampshire Governors’ Association: 13.10.16 and 13.12.16

County Forum: 3.11.16

Schools’ Forum: 19.10.16 and 15.12.16

The main focus of all of the recent meetings had been the funding issues for schools going forward. All governors should have received a letter from Robin Gray, the Head of the Hampshire Governors’ Association with regards to the new National Funding Formula and the impact it would have on schools. It had been suggested that governors might want to write to their MPs.

County had tried to ensure the least amount of impact to schools across the area but the amount of funding per child would be going down across all age groups. At the last Forum meeting, Hampshire had said they were expecting additional funding to come into the budget. If this was received it should help to reduce the impact. The Schools’ Forum had looked at the budget area wide and was trying to save as much money as possible in a variety of areas so that the money could be put back into the pot for pupils in schools.

The consultation about the new National Funding Formula closed on 22 March 2017.