Agenda and minutes

10.00

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and in particular the children of St. Ebbs Primary School who had come to sing to the Committee in honour of Sue Matthew who had been a Co-opted Member for the County Council specialising in Education for the past 30 Years.

Following the singing by the children, the Chairman presented Sue with a long Service Rose Bowl and a bouquet of flowers.  Members of the Committee then paid tribute to Sue for her work and dedication to Education.

10.10

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2016 (ESC4) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2016 were approved and signed subject to adding Mrs Carole Thomson to the list of those present.

Matters Arising on the Minutes:

Minute 42/16 – Minute 3/16 - Councillors requested that the Cabinet Member send the letter as soon as possible.

Minute 44/16 – Councillor Gill Sanders reported that they had met last week to look at the issue of affordable housing, including looking at areas where it could be built.  However, it had been decided that due to timing, the upcoming elections and the Unitary bid to postpone further discussion on this issue to the Autumn when things would become clearer.

Minute 46/16 (Elective Home Education Annual Report) – In response to a query on whether the letter detailed in the recommendation had been sent, Mr Roy Leach reported that the letter had not yet been sent as they were awaiting the outcome of a serious case review and a prosecution and then would use the letter to draw also draw attention to that.  Members acknowledge this but stated that they did not want the issue being left for too long.

10.15

Allyson Milward, Academies Manager will attend to present the Annual Report for Academies.

During 2016, the Council had continued to implement its policy on academies through the Academies Programme as part of its overarching Education Strategy.  There had been considerable change in the legislative framework and national education policy agenda and as a result the Council updated its policy position in October 2015.  The Scrutiny Committee had a report before them which identified and analysed trends in this programme during 2016 and indicated changes from those noted in 2015.

Allyson Milward in introducing the report drew the committee’s attention to the following conclusions from the year:

·           All schools that converted to academy status in 2016 did so as members of groups;

·           The number of schools converting to academy status was significantly lower.  The increase in applications seen later in 2016 was seen mainly as a reaction to the national education policy and perceived position of the Council;

·           Under performing schools had been identified, early support was put in place and schools have completed conversions as sponsored academies.  The Council sought to be proactive with Governing Bodies in promoting suitable sponsors to the RSC;

·           New academies and free schools continued to be set up in the county in response to demographic need and parental demand.  Procedures were in place to set up new academies as required by the county or to engage in positive dialogue with sponsors applying to open schools in the area through DfE bidding annual processes;

·           Resources would continue to be required to manage this process;

·           Over half the pupils in publicly funded education in Oxfordshire are taught in academies;

·           The value for money and availability of Council services for buyback by maintained schools may reduce providing a driver for their consideration of converting to academy status;

·           Additional powers of the RSC through legislation will impact on the future role of the Council and services to be provided;

·           To achieve the above programme considerably more resources may be required in the short term for the Council to comply with its obligations in respect of converting academies;

·            The creation of a new Cabinet Member for Education and aspiration to support maintained schools better and also to develop a good partnership approach to working with maintained schools and academies may impact on conversion trends in 2017. 

The Committee expressed concern about small rural schools not being attracted to MAT’s due to financial restictions.  In response Ms Milward reported that some MATs were interested in small schools and that it was not solely about money.  Much of the problem lay with the amount of time it took small resource strapped schools to dedicate to it.

The Chairman reported that Kent had had a very similar situation and had been in discussions with the DfE about creating a local Authority MAT.  Ms Milward reported that local authorities could only have a 20% interest in the company, but that Kent were very determined to achieve it.  Officers were working on a survey of the remaining maintained schools to see it there was any appetite for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51/17

10.30

Ofsted Regional Director, Christopher Russellwill attend for a discussion with the Committee.

Christopher Russell, Ofsted Regional Director, had been invited to attend the Meeting to discuss with the Council in what ways it could work with Ofsted to ensure the best educational outcomes for all the children in Oxfordshire.  The debate would also provide a chance to raise awareness of the key challenges faced by the Council in the provision of Education and improvement of educational standards across the County.

During questions and discussion members:

·                Established that the new Ofsted Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, would be fiercely independent and interested in evidence based training and would inevitably bring new flavour and individualism, but that it was envisaged that not too many changes would be made. There would be a strong focus on validity – a chance for Ofsted to look critically at what they were doing and to look at whether they were looking at the right things to assess whether a school was good.   The bringing in house of schools inspections would improve things dramatically.  There was a very strong direction in terms of focusing decisions and making them evidence based.  Ofsted would also be carrying out a large survey to look at the curriculum.

·                Established that an inspection converting from short to full did not always mean that a school was bad.  Mr Russell reported that the starting point for a short inspection was whether the school was good, it had to be focused to be good.  There might be things inspectors needed to look at in the first day such as safeguarding.  If this was the case, the inspection would then convert to get around that.  There was no suggestion that if the inspection converted that the school was bad, sometimes there was just a need to convert to get a full judgment.  Many schools had converted and got outstanding.  It was new for Ofsted, although it was felt the mythology had been tested and inspectors were now leading.  Ofsted had to focus on safeguarding.

·                In relation as to whether the new Chief Inspector had any intention to do something on standards and social mobility and whether there were any plans to change the Ofsted framework, established that when Ofsted had significant evidence they would make those statements.  In relation to the framework, it had to evolve and move on in terms of feedback, it would therefore change, had changed this term bringing Ofsted inspections in.  Ofsted were always looking at it and considering it. They did try to keep the inspections about key things and make sure the sector was consulted on changes.

·                In relation as to whether Ofsted have a view on inadequate schools that were in limbo waiting for an academy sponsor to come forward and whether Ofsted could revisit in this period which could be substantial, confirmed that the routine monitoring that Ofsted had carried out had now ceased as it could take a very long time and was in no-ones interest.  If there was a safeguarding issue Ofsted did go back within 3-6  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52/17

11.15

Janet Johnson, Strategic Lead for Vulnerable Learners, will attend to present the Strategic Overview 2016-2020 and Alison Wallis, performance Information Manager will present a report on the educational attainment of Vulnerable Leaners.

Mr Niall McWilliams, Principal of Oxford Academy and Mr Jon Gargan, Vice Principal of Oxford Academy have been invited to join the discussion and share good practice.

Education Scrutiny Committee considered a report which presented an overview of the educational attainment of vulnerable learners.  Janet Johnson, Strategic Lead for Vulnerable Learners, had attended to present the Strategic Overview 2016-2020 and Alison Wallis, performance Information Manage present the trend data in relation to the educational attainment of Vulnerable Leaners.

Mr Niall McWilliams, Principal of Oxford Academy had also been invited to join the discussion and share good practice as the 14^th best performing academy in the Country.

Mr McWilliams outlined the broad framework of how the Academy operated.  In terms of School Improvement, Mr McWilliams used 4 main building blocks

Behaviour – the academy expected very high standards of behaviour in and outside of the classroom and taught children about behaviour for learning.  The Academy also provided wrap around pastoral care.

Curriculum – the academy had adopted a curriculum approach with a very high focus on maths and English.  Students worked on maths, English and a science at least once a day and sometimes more.  The academy went for depth instead of breadth.

Teachers and Learning – all teachers follow a framework and tell students what they are going to learn.  The teachers show students what success looks like and to tell them if they are right or wrong after each lesson.

Track Progress Vigorously – the academy does lots and lots of testing – formal testing in the hall.  We look for subjects that will help the students and will help the school.  We look for courses to benefit students to give them a chance.

What are you doing that is different?

Rigour.  We apply teach – boost – teach and each student has a unique personal learning checklist. We do a lot of testing and then we analyse the data to see what we need to do to get the student into another group.

What would you say the most important step is?

Behaviour.  Also Head teachers and keeping teachers.

Is your Rigorous teaching based on tests more than teacher assessment?

Yes, I need validation data.  The data is then validated by people I know or by examiners.  This ensures a mastery of English and maths.

Your Progress 8 across open and EBac.  If you are focusing on these how are you achieving across the board?

We are really struggling with this.  I don’t think I can offer music and drama this year.  If I was a school in an advantage area I could offer a broad curriculum.  I do not have enough numbers coming through the doors to offer those subjects 1 language to 3, music, drama, RE and ICT are all under threat.  I am constantly scanning the horizon to look at what qualifications are good for students at school.  I am very concerned about the future of the Academy and being able to offer the level of pastoral care and curriculum. 

How has the new fairer funding formula affecting you?

New fairer funding is not fair.  At this moment in time we  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53/17

12.05

On 14 December 2016, The Department for Education (DfE) released Stage 2 of the School National Funding Formula consultation which closes on 22 March 2017.

Alongside the Schools National Funding Formula, the DfE has released Stage 2 of the High Needs National Funding Formula. This follows the same timeline.

Sarah Fogden, Finance Business Partner and Roy Leach, Strategic Lead for Education sufficiency and Access will present a paper that outlines the implications of the new formula for Oxfordshire and suggests a response to consultation.

Education Scrutiny Committee is asked to comment on the Oxfordshire response to the Consultations.

On 14 December 2016, The Department for Education (DfE) had released Stage 2 of the School National Funding Formula consultation which closed on 22 March 2017. Alongside the Schools National Funding Formula, the DfE had released Stage 2 of the High Needs National Funding Formula. This followed the same timeline.

Sarah Fogden, Finance Business Partner and Roy Leach, Strategic Lead for Education sufficiency and Access attended to present a report which outlined the implications of the new formula for Oxfordshire and suggested a response to consultation.

In introducing the report, Sarah Fogden explained that the DfE’s target was that the new scheme would be implemented in 2018-19 via Local Authorities local formula. Full implementation of the Schools National Funding Formula, with funding directly allocated to schools by the EFA/DfE, would commence in 2019-20. To provide stability, no school would receive an overall reduction of more than 3% per pupil as a result of the National Funding Formula and the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) of -1.5% per pupil year on year would continue.

The pupil premium, pupil premium plus, and service premium would continue to operate through the separate allocations. The DfE had confirmed that the Dedicated Schools Grant will be split into four blocks:

·      Early Years (this has already been consulted on - the first allocations have been released for 2017-18);

·      Schools National Funding Formula;

·      Central School Services Block (Taking historic LA commitments and the former ESG Retained Rate element – this has been renamed from Stage One for clarity);

·      High Needs National Funding Formula

The factors used to construct the National Funding Formula and theweightings

given to each factor cause the loss to schools. The main reasons for this were:

·                A smaller basic per pupil allocation;

·                A triple weighting for 'deprivation' (Free School Meals + Ever, in the past six years, FSM + IDACI, the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index);

·                A higher weighting for low prior attainment upon entry to school (which tends to be linked with deprivation); and

·                A smaller lump sum for all schools.

The last point meant that a school would have reduced funding unless there were sufficient gains from the other factors to offset the lump sum loss.

Oxfordshire was a member of the f40 group that represented a group of the lowest funded education authorities in England, where government-set cash allocations for primary and secondary pupils were the lowest in the country. In its response to the consultation, Oxfordshire proposed to agree the 4 main points of the f40 response, that was:

·      The weakness of evidence used to support the proposals;

·      The proportion of weighting given to additional needs rather than basic entitlement;

·      The 3% funding floor, which ‘locks in’ historical differences;

·      The amount invested in education funding and the cost pressures facing all schools.

The High Needs Funding Formula protected all local authorities with a funding floor, so that no authority loses. There was a small increase for Oxfordshire of £1.138m (2.3%). Oxfordshire currently had an overspend against the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54/17

12.45

The Chairman has produced a draft report detailing the activity and achievements of the Committee for the discussion, comment and approval.

The Committee considered the Scrutiny Annual Report prior to its submission to Council in May 2015.

Members commented that it was a good report covering the work of the Committee.

AGREED:  to note the contents of the report.

12.55

An opportunity to discuss and prioritise future topics for the Committee, potential approaches to its work and to discuss the schedule for future meetings.

The Education Scrutiny noted the Forward Plan and AGREED that due to the upcoming elections, the next meeting’s business to be confirmed at the agenda planning meeting.