Agenda item
Improving Post 16 Educational Attainment in Tower Hamlets - Report of the Scrutiny Working Group
To agree the report and recommendations arising from the Scrutiny Review.
Minutes:
Councillor Amy Whitelock, Scrutiny Lead Member Children, Schools & Families 2012/13 and 2013/14 and Lead Member/ Chair Scrutiny Working Group: Post 16 Educational Attainment in Tower Hamlets, introduced and highlighted key points in the SWG report, which set out the context/ rationale for the review, methodology and analysis of data undertaken, key findings and recommendations. The following Officers were also in attendance to answer questions from the OSC.
· Anne Canning, Interim Corporate Director Education Social Care and Wellbeing.
· Di Warne, Interim Service Head Learning & Achievement, ESCW.
· Tim Williams, Post 16 Development Officer, ESCW.
The following points were highlighted by Councillor Whitelock:
· Background to identification of this as a potential area for review including:
o A discussion with other Councillors had noted significant that the progress in GCSE attainment appeared not to have been matched by post-16 results in Tower Hamlets.
o Improving performance for post-16 attainment was a Council and Mayoral priority and therefore underperformance merited further investigation.
o The ESCW directorate had recently undertaken an analysis of post 16 attainment in LBTH so this provided a good starting point for a review.
· Key Findings:
o Analysis of the data showed that at the higher grades A*-B, LBTH fell well below the national average, with students achieving As at GCSE tending to underperform at A Level. It was vital that higher ability students also performed well post-16, as not doing so impacted on subsequent life choices and fulfilling their potential.
o The range of subjects and destinations chosen for higher education was limited, with the vast majority opting to stay in London. Different types of universities might be more appropriate to certain career objectives, and it was important that all students were encouraged to think broadly and explore different options for their futures, and that a range of information was available to them to allow this.
o The evidence also suggested that parental perceptions were that sixth form colleges in Tower Hamlets were not as good as in Islington, Camden and elsewhere. The review had however found good practice in Tower Hamlets such as Central Foundation School, where a separate sixth form environment had been created and the Headteacher stretched students’ horizons.
o The reasons for the findings were found to be complex but included:
ØThe challenge of the jump between GCSE and A Level with much support available to students at the GCSE but A level requiring more independent study skills.
ØStudents choosing subjects they felt they ought to choose, rather than those suited to their skills set, resulting in not performing well.
ØThe difficulties in navigating a complex post-16 landscape.
· The review had found much good practice in and out of the borough eg Hackney and Camden, and this had informed the recommendations. The themed groups of recommendations were signposted.
· Formally thanking all those who had contributed to the review.
A discussion followed which focused on clarification being sought and given on the following points:-
· Whether the review had examined governance standards and the positive influence good governance could have on changing performance. What action could be taken to secure greater participation from parents? The review had examined the role of parent governors and recommended harnessing the resource of unsuccessful PG applicants who were interested in the school’s future eg through Parent Teacher Associations and as role models to support parents. Ms Canning commented that school governor confidence in understanding the ‘post -16 secret garden’ was key to raising attainment.
· Whether the review had examined the issue of teacher appraisal as a lack of this would lead to complacency and impact on students. Ms Canning agreed appraisal was important and it was important to have school governors on board in this regard.
· Expression of disappointment that good performance at GCSE was not being matched at A level and consideration that the Council’s leadership must identify a way to manage this underperformance. If students were encouraged and choosing to stay at the wrong school for their skill set, what steps was the Council taking to address this. Ms Canning responded that the universal improvement in secondary school attainment at GCSE, which was now above national standards was being driven forward post-16 and there were now pockets of excellence in the borough.
· Concern expressed that post -16 underperformance was driven by a lack of ambition for young people both on the part of parents, often lacking education themselves, and on the part of teachers. The provision of new school facilities would not address underperformance unless the approach to teaching changed. Councillor Whitelock commented that she shared the frustration regarding post -16 aspirations for young people. Central Foundation School was an example of good practice, with teachers encouraging broad horizons; and the review had found innovative schemes such as offering parental trips to universities which had led to students achieving university offers out of London. However the review had also found that a strong focus in Hackney on driving up teaching quality had led to significant improvements in post-16 performance. The Council could not force students into sixth forms but could support the Hackney Learning Trust Model. Ms Canning disagreed that the aspirations for post-16 attainment were not sufficiently ambitious, as there had been a significant push for improvement in the last 2-3 years. At the Heads of Sixth Form meetings all supported the post-16 strategy, and analysis of data for post-16 attainment was becoming forensic with schools held to account for non- achievement of individuals. To improve, investment in governors and parents was needed, improved academic literacy and provision of experience beyond the ‘walled world of everyday. With regard to post -16 destinations Tower Hamlets provided a diverse experience.
· Consideration that the perceptions of young people regarding post -16 education also needed examination as some did not have a positive attitude to learning as they felt the outcome would have little value.
· Although it was important to prepare young people for the jump from GCSE to post-16 learning, especially at university, where students were expected to be self-sufficient at learning, it was also important not to spoon feed them as this did not allow them to grow and cope with the post-16 world.
The Chair thanked Councillor Whitelock for her contribution in chairing the scrutiny review and presenting the report/ recommendations arising. He then Moved the recommendations as set out in the report, and it was:-
Resolved
1. That the draft report of the Scrutiny Review Working Group, and the recommendations contained in it be agreed; and
2. That the Service Head Corporate Strategy & Equality be authorised to amend the draft report before submission to Cabinet, after consultation with the Scrutiny Review Working Group.
Action by:
Daisy Beserve (Senior Strategy Policy & Performance Officer, Corporate Strategy & Equality Service, CE’s)
Sarah Barr (Senior Strategy Policy & Performance Officer, Corporate Strategy & Equality Service, CE’s)
Supporting documents: