Hartlepool Education Commission

Hartlepool Education Commission Report from Meeting held on 7th May 2014

1. Attendance

Present: Professor Steve Higgins (Durham University) Gill Alexander, Director, Child & Adult Services Rachel Smith, Strategy Manager, Child & Adult Services Andrew Jordan, Headteacher, Dyke House Sports & Technology College John Hardy, Headteacher, St John Vianney RC Primary School Antony Steinberg, Economic Regeneration Manager, Regeneration & Neighbourhoods Dean Jackson, Assistant Director, Child and Adult Services Denise Ogden, Director, Regeneration & Neighbourhoods Deborah Gibbin (representing Louise Wallace), Public Health Karl Telfer, Headteacher, Springwell School Julie Thomas, Headteacher, Brougham Primary School Judy Thompson, Governor, Owton Manor Primary School Neil Nottingham, Headteacher, Stranton Academy Mark Patton, Senior School Improvement Advisor, Child & Adult Services Councillor Chris Simmons, Chair, Children’s Service Committee Councillor Marjorie James, Vice-Chair, Children’s Service Committee Michael Lee, Headteacher, English Martyrs Academy Alby Pattison, Governor, Manor College of Technology/High Tunstall of Science Darren Hankey, Principal, Hartlepool College of Further Education Tom Grieveson, Senior HMI, Ofsted

Apologies: Louise Wallace, Director, Public Health Damien Wilson, Assistant Director, Regeneration & Neighbourhoods Anne Malcolm, Headteacher, Manor College of Technology

1. Report of Meeting Held on 1st April 2014

The report of the previous meeting was accepted.

2. Presentations

2.1 The performance of Hartlepool schools compared to the North East and National picture, Tom Grieveson (Ofsted)

Key issues:

Regionally the picture is one of contrasts with significant variation in the performance of schools and local authorities across the North East region.

Percentage of schools judged to be good or better: It was noted that in Hartlepool over the last three years the percentage of schools judged to be good or better has remained fairly static in the primary sector, compared to a 10% increase nationally. Hartlepool secondary sector showed a 20% decline in the percentage of schools judged to be good or better, however, this relates to a small cohort of schools. The national picture for the secondary sector over the same three year period indicates an increase of 4%.

Key Stage 1 Hartlepool picture in 2013: The proportion of pupils achieving Level 2 and above in 2013 in English and mathematics places Hartlepool above the North East and national averages across all subject areas. Hartlepool outperforms the majority of local authorities in the North East across reading, writing, speaking & listening and mathematics.

FSM in the North East: In the North East the percentage of pupils eligible for FSM is higher than the England average. Hartlepool’s figure for FSM is higher than the North East average. This is a sizable issue in Hartlepool primary and secondary schools.

KS2 performance of FSM vs. Non-FSM: At the end of KS2 non-FSM pupils outperform FSM pupils, this is a picture that is seen at a national and regional level. In Hartlepool the difference between the proportion of FSM and non-FSM pupils achieving L4 and above in reading, writing and mathematics in 2013 is 24%, the highest locally compared with other NE local authorities. The regional percentage is 20% and the national picture is 19%.

KS1 – KS2 progress in Hartlepool: The data from 2013 highlights that progress is very high in Hartlepool schools for writing and mathematics. However, this is not the case for reading, it would appear that performance from KS1 – KS2 is very strong for the non-FSM cohort but not for FSM pupils. This is an issue that needs to be further investigated.

Key Stage 4 performance: The proportion of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs, A*- C including English and mathematics in 2013 in the region is in line with the national figure. The Hartlepool percentage is slightly below the national average.

KS4 performance FSM vs. Non-FSM: In 2013 the North East and Hartlepool performances of young people eligible for FSM achieving 5 or more GCSEs, A*-C (inc. E and M) is below the national average. However, for non-FSM pupils in Hartlepool, their performance is in line with the national figure.

KS2 – KS4 progress in Hartlepool: The expected progress in English and mathematics from KS2 – KS4 is amongst the lowest in the region. At KS2 Hartlepool is in line with the national average yet this is not the picture at KS4. Why don’t children in Hartlepool make better progress from KS2 – KS4?

The Hartlepool Challenge:  The performance of FSM pupils in both primary and secondary schools;  The performance of secondary schools in inspection;  The achievement of pupils in Hartlepool’s secondary schools.

Areas that the Commission considered arising from the presentation were as follows;

FSM gap at KS1: It was noted that the gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils was smaller at KS1, this may be due to the impact of the Pupil Premium. Current data evidences that early intervention works. Secondary sector performance: It was acknowledged that the secondary performance in Hartlepool in 2013 did not reflect the true picture. Three of the secondary schools in Hartlepool did not perform as well as expected, with two secondary schools performing very well. This skewed the data. The focus should be on discovering ways to support the lesser performing schools.

National FSM picture: the lowest performing regions are the South East and East Anglia which have the lowest proportion of pupils eligible for FSM. The highest performing authorities can be found in Inner London which have the highest proportion of FSM young people.

Areas for further consideration: It was noted that it would be useful to look at Ofsted analysis mapping the demographic profiles in successful areas. As highlighted in the previous report, areas comprising high percentage of white, working class groups do not achieve as well as areas of high ethnic minority.

It was also highlighted that it would be useful to discover the kind of choices young people are making in post 16 provision, looking at destination data. This is an area that requires further exploration.

Hartlepool needs to understand why pupils eligible for FSM perform less well in the same schools as non-FSM pupils. What is the underlying cause?

Following group discussions, points highlighted are summarised below.

KS1 performance: It was noted that Hartlepool’s performance at KS1 in 2013 produced the best results ever. A 3 year average is a more reliable indicator for comparison purposes. However, further work needs to be undertaken in relation to the reading performance of Hartlepool children at KS1.

Transition: It was noted that transition is an area requiring further work. Primary aged children are taught to succeed in a particular format, with a single teacher covering a number of subjects. When the transition to secondary school occurs they experience a number of different teachers in numerous subjects, moving from classroom to classroom. It may benefit pupils to slowly introduce them to the new way of learning, and extend the primary model into the early part of secondary school life.

FSM: The impact of FSM aspect is not just around poverty but the expectations of family. It was acknowledged that home has a huge influence on children and their aspirations and attitudes to learning.

Excellent practice: Further exploration of excellent practice and how to share this expertise across the town is a priority. It was recognised that this is not a general problem that requires a general solution. It was also highlighted that there should be a drive to recruit excellent teachers to Hartlepool schools.

2.2 Secondary School Perspective – Context, Successes, Challenges, Michael Lee (English Martyrs Academy)

Key issues Context: Roman Catholic secondary academy and sixth form college, with six RC feeder primary schools. The primary schools perform extremely well presenting difficulties when it comes to demonstrating progress from KS2 to KS4.

Challenges: It was highlighted that the recruitment of staff, particularly to science and maths subjects is extremely difficult. There is a need to attract exceptional teachers to Hartlepool but it is recognised that we also need to ‘grow’ our own. Currently sixth form students are able to apply for a single year internship as Teaching Assistants to try and encourage interest in the profession. The key focus should be to identify, develop and retain our own teachers. It was acknowledged that the Teaching School Alliance in Hartlepool is nationally renowned but it is felt that the focus is largely on primary school needs. This requires further development to resolve the issue.

Resource issues also provide challenge in a school context. The Schools Forum regularly discusses funding allocations but little debate is undertaken in relation to value for money. Further analysis needs to be commissioned on the impact of Early Years and early intervention, presently the largest schools are subsidising the smaller schools. These issues need to be evaluated and consideration needs to be given to value for money.

It was highlighted that the current school buildings are not fit for purpose, with an example given of pupils being educated in porta-cabins. It was noted that Hartlepool suffered under the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme. The school saw Academy conversion as a way to address this issue.

Transition is not only an issue from primary to secondary but also impacts on post 16 provision.

Partnership working can cause tensions because of elements of competition versus collaboration. This is a challenge for Hartlepool, as a small authority we should be working together but in reality collaboration has declined in the last few years. There appears to be a parochial and introspective outlook which needs to be addressed. It was highlighted that English Martyrs Academy is fortunate to work with 13 schools in partnership through Diocesan collaboration, this provides opportunities to work and learn with other schools.

Successes: It was acknowledged that although recruitment is a challenge, the cohort of new, young teachers that do work in Hartlepool are committed and energetic.

2.3 Secondary School Perspective – Context, Successes, Challenges, Andrew Jordon (Dyke House Academy)

Key issues

Context: It was highlighted that the academy sits within a deprived area, where pupils starting in Year 7 have a lack of social, emotional capital. 56% of students are eligible for FSM, and there is little parental involvement or interest.

Challenges: Pupils’ Literacy levels on entry to the academy are a major challenge. 40% of the Yr7 cohort has a reading age which is more than 2 years below their chronological age. It was also noted that funding provides challenge, schools need to become more entrepreneurial to identify and win other sources of funding.

The national agenda brings challenges to all secondary schools in Hartlepool, changes in the curriculum impact on the retention and recruitment of good quality staff.

Parental aspiration was also identified as a key challenge to the academy. An example was given of the ‘Morning Reading Programme’ where all Year 7 students were asked to attend school at 8am. All parents were contacted and out of 210 pupils, 10 parents refused to send their children to the reading sessions. This problem has been overcome, and the programme extended to include Years 8 and 9. The programme has been running successfully for 3 years, however, it is an expensive intervention. It was highlighted that this is where funding is needed for those schools situated in deprived areas.

Factors leading to improvement: The Building Schools for the Future programme enabled the academy to change. It initiated a change in behaviour, no longer were excuses for underachievement accepted, after school progress clubs were introduced, and a ‘school within a school’ approach was adopted. It was noted that the ‘school within a school’ model was based closely to the primary teaching approach where students stay within their space for 70% of the school day, leaving only for specialist subjects. The same subject teachers take them for 5 years which enables staff to develop meaningful and supportive relationships with both students and parents alike.

The academy has also introduced ‘Learning Guide’ groups, which involves a member of staff taking responsibility for 10 students. These groups meet twice a day, where they set targets, carry out literacy work, look at data, review homework etc. The member of staff telephones parents every six weeks to discuss data, learning and any issues. This approach has established a community atmosphere in the academy and has a positive impact on students’ attitudes towards learning.

It was highlighted that the 5 Heads of School and Heads of Departments undertake work scrutinies every six weeks as part of a Quality Assurance approach. This involves assessment, planning for progression. Every six weeks students are tasked with redrafting significant pieces of work following a review.

A positive impact has been evident through curriculum change. Two years ago the percentage of pupils achieving the EBac qualification was 0%, this has now risen to 24%. The academy has progressed from 20 young people choosing to study MFL at GCSE to 120 students and can be seen as a huge success in raising the aspirations of pupils.

It was acknowledged that the conversion to Academy status hasn’t had a huge impact on the day to day business of the school. However, it has led to opportunities of working with other schools, providing middle/senior leaders with opportunities to learn and observe good practice from elsewhere and has enabled the academy to broaden its horizons and become more entrepreneurial. 2.4 Primary School Perspective – Context, Successes, Challenges, Julie Thomas (Brougham)

Key issues

Context: It was highlighted that the school is situated in the same area of deprivation as Dyke House Academy. The proportion of pupils eligible for FSM is 61% with the Pupil Premium at 78% by the end of Year 6.

Challenges: It was noted that the main challenge experienced by the school is the feeling of increased isolation and the struggle to remain pro-active. Hartlepool is in a unique position due to its size and location, all Headteachers know each other and in the past have been very supportive of town-wide issues, e.g. the boycott of the KS2 SATs in 2010. This gave a sense of unity and common purpose, however, this unanimity has since changed due to the introduction of the Pupil Premium.

The school benefits from a substantial amount of money through the Pupil Premium and has focused on ‘blanket’ support across the school. This has increased standards of achievement with the gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils reducing. The difficulty faced by the school is the uncertainty over the continuation of this level of funding.

The introduction of the Pupil Premium has led to a debate as to whether this funding should be focused only on those schools in deprived/disadvantaged areas. The impact on other schools within the town has caused the previously acknowledged collaborative primary culture to fracture. Fewer Headteachers attend the Primary Headteacher meetings which signifies less town-wide support, fewer opportunities to share ideas and gather information. The SEN Framework and 2014 Curriculum is an example of this dissolution. In the past Headteachers would have worked together to discuss the implications and implementation of new directives, this did not happen on this occasion. It is imperative that Hartlepool Headteachers share experiences and ideas to ensure a town-wide approach.

It was noted that the school sent a teacher to attend a SEN conference in London to gather further information, it was queried why this was necessary as Hartlepool is a pathfinder authority in this area. It was acknowledged that an LA event has been organised in July for schools but this timeframe is too late for schools to implement for September.

Transition was identified as a challenge with the perception that secondary schools don’t trust the Teacher Assessments from primary schools. The school is attempting to address this issue by inviting the secondary school to visit the Year 6 classes to understand the ability of the students.

Successes/Opportunities: It was acknowledged that the LA has a role to play in facilitating the collegiate approach in education. There are many opportunities available to the town and it is hoped that the establishment of the Education Commission and the planned conference will challenge Hartlepool Headteachers to work together. It was noted that Hartlepool is one of the best LAs to work with, and with the review of the School Improvement Service work needs to be undertaken in setting clear distinctions between the Teaching School Alliance and the LA support and how they can work together. 2.5 Special School Perspective – Context, Successes, Challenges, Karl Telfer (Springwell)

Key issues

Context: It was highlighted that a very small percentage of Hartlepool SEN pupils are educated out of the LA. Springwell School and Catcote Academy cover a large range of Special Educational Needs in contrast to other LAs where there are specialist Special Schools.

Challenges: It was noted that the school experiences similar issues and challenges as any other mainstream school. Currently the key issue is the increase in pupil numbers. As advances are made in health and medical research there are greater opportunities for pupils with very complex needs to access the educational provision at the school. The complexity of pupil needs is sometimes difficult to manage owing to the broad range of conditions.

The school has to pay for Occupational Therapy using the education budget which is a drain on resources. This has huge implications for the school and its ability to plan future priorities as funding requirements change depending on the complexity of individual pupil needs.

It was acknowledged that recruitment is a challenge, the school has a responsibility to ensure it appoints the right staff to provide the support the young people deserve.

Successes: The school caters for primary aged pupils, however currently there are 2 year olds and 13 year olds accessing provision. Working with the LA enables the school to look at the individualised education and environment for pupils to ensure the best provision.

The school has recently achieved Autism accreditation which involved an intense 3 day inspection. The recognition from the Autistic Society that the school provides excellent autistic provision for its young people is a source of great pride and achievement within the school.

It was noted that the only difference to the curriculum offered in a mainstream school is that Springwell paces the curriculum to the needs of the pupils. Pupil progression is outstanding, and the school has facilitated successes where pupils have moved to mainstream secondary schools.

Partnership working is very strong within cluster groups where the school has opportunities to discuss the national curriculum and various approaches to education. This demonstrates the inclusive system in Hartlepool.

The school benefits from excellent relationships with parents, excellent support from the SEND Team and from being part of the Association of Special School Headteachers (ASSH).

Future focus: It was noted that the impact of the Children and Families Act 2014, SEN Code of Practice and SEN Preparing for the Future initiatives require planning and funding to ensure compliance and success. The school is focused on developing current partnership arrangements within Hartlepool and as part of the Teaching Schools Alliance with a view to expanding the collaboration to include the North East.

3. Next Steps

3.1 Consultative Conference

The purpose of the conference is to share the emerging themes identified by the Commission for Hartlepool’s children and young people and ask colleagues in schools, colleges and academies to respond and identify strategies to address the educational challenges faced by the town.

The Commission agreed to postpone the conference until September 2014 to allow the opportunity to plan and prepare following further research. It was acknowledged that the Commission must not lose momentum but continue to drive the process forward. It was agreed that Gill Alexander, Dean Jackson and Steve Higgins would meet to consider how to progress. It was suggested that individuals involved in the London Challenge be invited to Hartlepool to discuss their experiences.

3.2 One Team, One Town, One Plan

It was agreed that there is a need to re-establish one team, one town, one plan, and how we all contribute to joint goals.

It was acknowledged that further work needs to be undertaken to ensure that schools, academies and the LA are working together with a focused strategy.

It was noted that colleges and further education establishments also need to be involved to better understand the wider family community context.

3.3 Future Meetings

Two further meetings of the Commission will be arranged for June/July 2014. The following items were identified for future discussion;

 Data around Science and the emerging economy  Exploration of themes identified in previous meeting around; o Community and Family Capacity Building o Broadening horizons

It was noted that once the exam period is over young people involved in the Children’s Services Committee and Children in Care Council will be invited to attend.