Agenda item

11.10am

Frances Craven, Deputy Director for Education and Early Intervention, and Sue Bainbridge, Schools & Learning Manager, will present the finalised Oxfordshire County Council Schools Improvement Framework (ESC8), identifying the support offered to schools, how the impact of the support is measured and how the impact is then used to improve schools work.

Also presented is the OFSTED Local Authority Inspection Framework, and for note, the OFSTED letter to Norfolk County Council, to highlight how the strengths and weaknesses identified can be used in terms of current practice at Oxfordshire County Council.

The Committee had before them the Oxfordshire County Council’s Draft School Improvement Framework and the OFSTED Local Authority Inspection Framework, together with a presentation tabled at the meeting on the OFSTED Inspection of Local Authority School Improvement.

Frances Craven, Deputy Director for Education and Early Intervention told Committee that councillors were welcome to attend the interest sessions.

Sue Bainbridge, Schools & Learning Manager, presented the OFSTED Inspection of Local Authority School Improvement to the Committee, covering the:-

·                    effectiveness of corporate and strategic leadership of school improvement;

·                    clarity and transparency of policy and strategy for supporting schools’ and other providers’ improvement, and how clearly the local authority has defined its monitoring, challenge, support and intervention roles;

·                    extent to which the local authority knows schools and other providers, their performance and the standards they achieve and how effectively support is focused on areas of greatest need;

·                    effectiveness of the local authority’s identification of, and intervention in, underperforming schools, including, where applicable, the use of formal powers available to the local authority;

·                    impact of local authority support and challenge over time and the rate at which schools and other providers are improving;

·                    extent to which the local authority brokers support for schools and other providers;

·                    effectiveness of strategies to support highly effective leadership and management in schools and other providers;

·                    support and challenge for school governance, where applicable;

·                    way the local authority uses any available funding to effect improvement, including how it is focused on areas of greatest need.

The Committee heard that whilst they were being funded programmes like “Every Child” were very important and staff within schools were being trained to deliver these programmes themselves.  Exit strategy plans were in place and the Every Child Team had been to National Conferences and received national recognition for their work.

Councillor Tilley praised the Data Team within the Council, saying they were unsung heroes, providing excellent information.

Councillor Constance stated that she was impressed by the imagination that had been shown, having been forced by cuts.  Lots of good points had come out of the presentation and the impact being made on vulnerable groups was noted.

In discussion, Councillor Constance asked about the formal powers for intervention, and was advised by Sue Bainbridge that a Notice is sent outlining the schools problems, giving them 15 days to put a plan together to turn the school around.  Upon intervention, OFSTED become involved and the Head Teacher of the school can be scrutinised, with a recommendation that their contract be looked at.

It was confirmed that this applied only to maintained schools and the position with regards to academies was slightly different, whereby the Head of the academy would be approached first, and then escalated to the sponsor (i.e. the diocese).  The Education Funding Association would then become involved, which would in turn trigger an OFSTED inspection.

During discussion, the Committee questioned the ability to allocate existing funds to give some further assistance with continuing the Every Child programme.

Carole Thomson noted that the money for continuing funding of the programme would come from the schools budget, not the County Council’s budget.  The Schools Forum were under pressure to find money.  National leaders were also pushing to increase the number of Governors.  The point was made that the money was not Schools Forum’s, but money meant for schools.  Carole Thomson clarified that the point she was trying to make was that schools’ budgets were under pressure.

Councillor Brighouse noted that the monies being discussed was public money set aside for education, and that local authorities struggle to provide the support needed for schools.

Councillor Sanders noted the difficulties in recruiting Head Teachers and in particular, the difficulties in recruiting “good” or “outstanding” Head Teachers.  Concerns arose around the impact of the reductions of funding, as there is only so much a reduced team can achieve in terms of getting results to satisfy an OFSTED inspection.

The Committee heard that secondary school support within the Council had been reduced due to the increase in academy numbers.  There had been no identified secondary school supporters within the Directorate, so there was no assurance that “good” and “outstanding” schools would maintain those same levels.  There is now a secondary school specialist within post, and another is about to be supported, but the feeling is that this is not good enough.

Sue Bainbridge also advised Committee that they had struggled to find good science and English supporters.  Attempts had been made to rectify this, but it was a question of finding the right skill-set.  Frances Craven told Committee that the solution had to be with schools, and that she and Sue Bainbridge had been invited to join meetings with schools as partners in, and to help deal with, the issues that they faced.  This way issues would be shared, rather than be seen as schools or local authority problems.

The Committee was saddened to find the Norfolk letter was to do with evaluation levels.  It was noted that Oxfordshire was very rigorous and pioneering, and schools were challenged about self-examination.  Committee heard that at the National Association of School Head Teachers Conference, the Conference had been asked if members encouraged their Deputy Heads to become Head Teachers.  Very few admitted to doing this due to the enormous and constant changes faced by schools.  However, the Committee were encouraged to hear that new and younger Head Teachers within the county had been going direct to their partnership Heads asking for support.

The Committee also heard that work being undertaken by local scientists in Oxfordshire was now being transported into schools using new technology.

The Chairman asked if this was something that select committee style working group could be set up to deal with.  The Committee heard that working groups of this nature had been used in a scrutiny roll to test evidence available, rather than just take information at face value.  Such a working group could zone in on particular areas, satisfying both themselves and Education Scrutiny Committee that things were happening and making recommendations where necessary.  A future OFSTED inspection was one area where this may be appropriate, in order to produce a scrutinised take on the School Improvement Framework, whilst looking at particular aspects.  However, the timing and work programmes needed to be looked at, joined up and aligned so as to get the timing right.  Paragraphs 2 and 3 of page 102 of the agenda pack were also noted as an area which a select committee style working group could concentrate on.  Although concern was raised that maybe work may be duplicated, the Committee heard that they were not there to nod through paperwork, but to have a stronger role.

Frances Craven confirmed that she would welcome help to improve the framework, as it would demonstrate at an Inspection that the Council were not in the position of Norfolk or the Isle of Wight.  Although Oxford is not high on the list of “good” or “outstanding” schools, it was improving, and a journey to that effect could be demonstrated.

Councillor Brighouse confirmed that this was a matter not just for officers, but for Committee also, and was concerned that there is not a lot of support for officers, except from scrutiny, to do a piece of work.  The Council still have a basic educational need, and schools who can’t or don’t deliver should be invited in alone, or visited so this can be addressed.

Councillor Hoare was not persuaded of the need for a further Committee, but felt that there could be a sharper focus on the agenda with Education Scrutiny Committee, rather than another tier of committee adding to costs.  This Committee was in it’s early stages and there was a need to explore the energy of the Committee.

There was discussion about the Terms of Reference, the use of select committee style working groups for specific issues, or whether meetings should be more regular rather than a select committee style working group formed, although there was further feeling that a working group of this nature would be of support to officers on this issue.

The question of whether or not to form a select committee style working group was put to the vote and it was:

RESOLVED:  that a select committee would be formed.  Members were asked to volunteer and interest was expressed by Sue Matthew, Councillor Sanders, Councillor Waine*, Councillor Howson, Councillor Gray and Liz Smith who were appointed.

*Councillor Waine was appointed as Chairman for the new select committee following a nomination from Councillor Sanders, seconded by Sue Matthew.

At this point Chris Bevan left the meeting and the meeting adjourned temporarily at 12.25pm.

The Committee re-convened at 12.32pm.