13:10
The Deputy Regional Schools Commissioner, Dame Kate Dethridge will attend the Committee for a question and answer session regarding the work of the Regional School Commissioner and school performance across Oxfordshire.
Minutes:
The Deputy Director for the Regional Schools Commissioner, Dame Kate Dethridge attended the Meeting for a question and answer session regarding the work of the Regional School Commissioner and school performance across Oxfordshire.
By way of introduction the Deputy Director gave a brief overview of the work carried out by her office. The Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) covered North West London and South Central which covered 27 local authority areas from North London to Northampton. The RSC supported schools in difficulty in finding supporting sponsors; supported Multi Academy Trust development, school improvement and school grants - including managing £140mn school improvement grants for schools, MATs and an emergency fund.
The RSC established, developed and maintained relationships and believed in working in collaboration to achieve a best solution for schools and children. Stakeholder engagement was another key role of the RSC and had a MAT reference group, together with events that were run for maintained and academy schools on subject specific topics such as improvement of disadvantaged learners and the Pupil Premium.
During questions and discussion, the following points were made:
1. Performance at KS2 in Oxfordshire was reaching the expected standard, reading was slightly above and writing was slightly below. Results were in line with national levels but progress was an area of focus. Maths was slightly below average. At KS4 the national average was 42.9% versus Oxfordshire at 48.1% so the county was performing better than the national average. For Ofsted, academy schools had 74% good or outstanding ratings, this was 95% for maintained schools.
2. When asked what the Commissioner’s response was to tackling underperforming academies, the Deputy Director explained that when a school was underperforming it would be identified in September or October by a data triage. The RSC would then talk to MATs and would hold them to account of any underperformance. This would include meeting with the MAT CEO and Head Teacher and looking at their school improvement offer and progress. The RSC meet each term with the LEA including The Director, Roy Leach and Councillor Hibbert-Biles. When a school had been placed into special measures a robust solution was needed. The RSC talk to local sponsors and the local authority to find a solution that was in the best interests of the school and pupils. If the school was in a Trust we see it as the responsibility of the Trust to communicate what was happening to parents and pupils, not the role of the RSC. It was noted that this communication was not monitored so it was not known whether this happened in all cases.
3. The Head Teachers Board (HTB) was not a decision-making body, any decisions were made by the RSC. RSC would communicate with the HTB at a point where the project lead had found a strong sponsor or brokerage solution and would take this to the Board to stress test the solution. The minutes were published on the RSC website, the RSC had been requested to have more detailed/fulsome minutes and a weblink could be provided.
In response to how the RSC would expect a Dioceses to find a new sponsor, the Deputy Director explained that the request might require different treatment but that they would consider a mixed MAT (some of which existed for CofE schools) but there were no Roman Catholic mixed MATs that they were aware of at the moment and would seek to appoint a new Roman Catholic MAT.
4. In relation to how RSC consult parents about the future of the school their children attend, the Deputy Director explained that Ofsted information was shared widely and it was good practice for a MAT to engage.
5. When asked how many academies in Oxfordshire were currently operating with a deficit budget for 2018/19, the Deputy Director stated that it was Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) that held this information, but it would be fewer than 2% nationally as 98% of schools received an unqualified opinion on their accounts. The RSC could however provide this information for 16-17.
6. Referring to the letter from Lord Agnew encouraging RSC’s, their teams and the ESFA to involve chair of governors and non-executive board members in their meeting, the Deputy Director reminded members that the Trust was the employer. Moving forward the RSC would meet with a different range of people and would be keen to meet with Chairs and CEOs to support them in their position.
7. When asked if the RSC would nominate a trustee for a MAT Board, the Deputy Director stated that the RSC would not put people on to a Trust Board but may make recommendations to a Trust e.g. when they wanted somebody with particular skills in relation to risk or health and safety for example. The RSC ran an Academy Ambassador Programme to upskill Trust members and could sign post schools to this programme. It had been very successful in upskilling people.
The RSC’s view on whether an underperforming Trust could take on either new or convertor schools was that the first consideration was the capacity of that Trust and the likelihood of success. The RSC would always consider a range of options to seek to improve schools. If there was capacity in the Trust then there might be a reduced risk in taking on additional schools but if they had recently taken on new schools there would be a higher risk associated with taking on a new school. A balance needed to be struck.
When asked whether the RSC thought there was an optimum or a minimum size for a Trust? The Deputy Director stressed that the RSC needed to be very clear about why a Trust wanted to grow and they needed to supply growth plans. If the Trust was very small, then the RSC were noticing more conversations between MATs seeking to merge e.g. 2-3 MATs becoming a single MAT of 6 schools.
8. In response to a question on the length of time the RSC would allow a school to be both in financial special measures and rated inadequate, the Deputy Director stressed the importance of it being as short a time as possible - ideally within 9 months at the most. The shortest time was usually around 6 months. Sometimes this was outside of the RSC control e.g. land issues or due diligence and the capacity of the local authority.
9. When asked about how the RSC gathered local intelligence about individual academies, the Deputy Director explained that the RSC wanted as rounded a picture as possible. The RSC met with the local authority (the last meeting they had was just before Christmas) and worked in partnership with them. Information from the local authority helped them to make the right decisions that were not just data driven.
10.In response to a question around how the RSC were addressing the rise in permanent exclusion in Oxfordshire academies: the Deputy Director reported that they held MAT meetings, together with looking at school performance data including attendance and absences. These meetings provided the RSC an opportunity to challenge schools about exclusions. The RSC also looked at exclusion figures over time and Trust Boards would be challenged over this where there wasn't improvement.
11.When asked whether the RSC would agree to single academy trusts or whether there was a preference towards MATs and if it were MATs whether local or national, The Deputy Director answered that they haven't had many single academy trusts - mainly MATs but that they were not in a position to refuse a single academy trust. The preference was always towards the right solution and in many cases, that would be a local solution.
12.In relation to schools that had been judged as inadequate by Ofsted and were in a poor state of repair so unable to secure sponsorship, The Deputy Director acknowledged that there was a problem. The RSC worked in partnership with the ESFA and the local authority to find a solution. There were rare and exceptional cases but the RSC did everything they could. She indicated that she was aware of the case the committee was referring to and the building had been less than attractive to sponsors but that the RCS were working in partnership to find a solution.
13.When asked what future the RSC felt that UTC/Studio Schools had in Oxfordshire, The Deputy Director explained that it had been mixed to date - 2 pieces of legislation to support this. Firstly, the duty to write to parents regarding the options and secondly meeting with parents at least once per year had made a difference. Teaching schools had also made partnerships with UTCs to improve standards, sometimes working with MATs and in some cases even joining MATs.
In relation to how the RSC ensured that vulnerable groups received the correct interventions, the Deputy Director explained that they would always look at vulnerable pupil data to check how disadvantaged pupil were doing against other pupils, looking at schools where there was no gap. They had also held very robust conversations about this and hosted many events to find the best way forward to support vulnerable learners.
Following the question and answer session, the Chairman thanked Dame Kate Ethridge and her team for their attendance and openness and stressed that the Committee was keen to maintain the good working relationship established between the County Council and the Commissioner’s Office.