Report to: Overview and Date of meeting: 30 January 2018 Scrutiny Committee (Children’s Services and Safeguarding) Subject: School Performance – Possible Reasons for the Deterioration of Attainment at Secondary Schools. Report of: Head of Schools Wards Affected: All & Families
Is this a Key N0 Included in No Decision: Forward Plan: Exempt / No Confidential Report:
Summary
This report looks at the performance of secondary schools in Sefton against the nationally available research on the way different factors affect the progress and attainment of pupils.
National research into pupil attainment and progression inevitably concludes ‘it’s complicated’ but some key themes which have an impact are: Deprivation & Poverty; Parental Education, Involvement, and Environment; School Culture, Quality, and Teacher Turnover; and of course The Pupil.
The report outlines work that schools are doing to improve performance and some of the challenges to doing this.
Recommendation(s):
Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Children’s Services and Safeguarding) are recommended to:
i) Note the report .. Reasons for the Recommendation(s):
Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Children’s Services and Safeguarding) requested a report on this issue for their consideration.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: (including any Risk Implications)
None
What will it cost and how will it be financed?
There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. However, it should be noted that if a school is operating under a licensed deficit budget agreement with the Council then there is a financial risk to the Council if the school is inspected and is given a poor judgement. If as a result of the inspection the Regional Schools Commissioner invokes an academy order against the school then at the point of the school converting any financial deficit against the converting school will have to be met by the Council.
(A) Revenue Costs
See above
(B) Capital Costs
See above
Implications of the Proposals:
Resource Implications (Financial, IT, Staffing and Assets):
As part of the consultation process meetings have been held with staff in the school and their trade union representatives
Legal Implications:
The consultation on the proposal to merge the school and publication of the statutory notice has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and specifically the School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools) Regulation 2013/3109 as amended.
Equality Implications:
There are no equality implications.
Contribution to the Council’s Core Purpose:
NA
Protect the most vulnerable:
Facilitate confident and resilient communities
Commission, broker and provide core services:
Place – leadership and influencer:
Drivers of change and reform:
Facilitate sustainable economic prosperity:
Greater income for social investment: Cleaner Greener::
What consultations have taken place on the proposals and when?
(A) Internal Consultations
The Head of Corporate Resources (FD5010/18.) and Head of Regulation and Compliance (LD4294/18.) have been consulted and any comments have been incorporated into the report.
(B) External Consultations
N/A
Implementation Date for the Decision
Immediately following the Committee.
Contact Officer: Mike McSorley Telephone Number: 0151 934 3428 Email Address: [email protected]
Appendices:
None
Background Papers:
There are no background papers available for inspection.
1. Background
1.1 Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Children’s Services and Safeguarding) have had concerns around the outcomes for secondary age pupils for some time and asked officers to produce a report on the possible reasons for the deterioration of attainment at Secondary Schools.
1.2 A report elsewhere on the agenda provides an overview of the performance in Sefton schools at key stages up to KS4.
2 Summary of secondary school performance (2017)
2.1 Progress and attainment 8 outcomes
KS4 Attainment 8 Progress 8 Sefton 44.5 -0.20 National 46.1 -0.03 Regional 45.3 -0.14 LCR 43.6 -0.23 Sefton’s attainment 8 figure is lower than the national and regional figures and 3rd within the LCR. Sefton’s progress 8 figure is second in the LCR but significantly worse than the national and regional figures. It should be noted that outside of London only one region has a positive progress 8 figure. Progress in English and maths is weak, particularly in English which is declining
2.3 Progress and attainment figures for individual schools is shown in Appendix 1. From this data it can be seen that the South Sefton area (which accounts for around 20% of pupils) is of particular concern: there are no good/outstanding schools and progress and attainment figures are the worst in Sefton. The four poorest performing schools in Sefton are all in the south of the borough.
3. The Potential Impact of Deprivation on Educational Attainment
3.1 Independent research suggests that there is a pathway from childhood poverty to reduced employment opportunities, and those who end up with lower earnings are those with a lack of skills and qualifications: in other words, deprivation has a negative impact on educational attainment, leaving young people with fewer qualifications and skills which in turn affects future employment. However there many other factors that can and do impact on educational attainment and outcomes for young people, which should also be considered alongside deprivation
3.2 Measuring deprivation:
3.2.1 Deprivation may be defined in many different ways but for the purposes of this paper it refers to adverse economic circumstances in a child's family and/or local area.
3.2.2 Pupils are recorded as known to be eligible for free school meals (FSM) if their parents or carers are in receipt of certain benefits and have applied to Sefton Council to claim entitlements to a free school meal. FSM is therefore a binary measure (pupils are either eligible for it, or they are not) and it is an imperfect indicator of deprivation, because it does not pick up all pupils who experience deprivation. Pupils in families which do not claim benefits to which they are entitled, pupils in families which do not apply to receive free school meals for which they are eligible, and pupils in households where the parents are in paid employment are not counted by the FSM measure, may experience deprivation.
3.2.3 The pupil level annual schools census collects the home postcode of each pupil. These postcodes can be linked to local areas called lower layer super output areas (LSOAs), which are small areas in England, each with an average population of 1500 people. A number of deprivation indicators are available for LSOAs, such as the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), which measures the proportion of children under 16 in each area that are eligible for certain income‐related benefits. Unlike FSM, the IDACI score for each pupil does not relate directly to their individual family circumstances, but is a proxy measure based on their local area. However, it is useful as a broader measure of deprivation since it includes children in working households which are nevertheless income deprived, as well as children in families where the parents are unemployed; and is consequently preferable for measuring deprivation in areas of Sefton where there is high income poverty amongst working families, or low take‐up of free school meal eligibility.
3.3 School Level
3.3.1 At school level there is a reasonable statistical correlation between overall performance and average deprivation experienced by pupils. Figure 1 below illustrates the average attainment score for pupils by mainstream schools in Sefton for the four year 11/12 to 14/15 period. This is plotted against the average level of deprivation for all pupils within the timeframe.
Figure 1 - Mainstream School Level Points Score and IDACI
380 0.45 360 0.40 340 0.35 Score 320 0.30 Score
300 0.25 Points 280 0.20 IDACI 260 0.15 240 0.10 Ca pped
220 0.05 Average 200 0.00 The Hawthorne'sLITHERLANDST. WILFRID'SSt Free Savio AmbroseHIGH School Salesian HIGHSCHOOLHILLSIDE Barlow SCHOOLSTANLEY CollegeSt Catholic HIGH Michael's ChesterfieldHIGH SCHOOLST. College GEORGE SCHOOLCE High HighCHRIST SchoolMAGHULLOF SchoolENGLANDBIRKDALE THEHOLY HIGHKING FAMILY SECSACRED HIGHMeols SCHOOL SCHOOLCATHOLIC CopHEARTMARICOURT DEYESHigh CATHOLIC SchoolHIGH HIGHGreenbank CATHOLIC SCHOOLFORMBY COLLEGERANGE HighHIGH HIGH School SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOLAvg Capped Average Pnts Avg IDACI Score
3.3.2 In general on average the schools with higher average performance have catchments made up of pupils who are – on average – from less deprived areas. However, several other factors are at work here underlying this overall apparent trend. As seen in Figure 1 some schools appear to either ‘under or over’ perform compared to their average level of catchment deprivation. This pattern is repeated in more recent Attainment 8 data for the 15/16 year illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 – Attainment 8 Score & 2015 IDACI for Schools (15/16) 70 0.45
60 0.40 Score
8
0.35 Score 50 0.30
40 0.25 IDACI
30 Attainment 0.20 0.15 20 0.10 10 0.05 Attainment 8 0 0.00Average St AmbroseThe Barlow Hawthorne'sMAGHULL CatholicSavio Free HIGHCollegeHILLSIDE Salesian School StSCHOOL Michael's HIGHCollegeSTANLEY SCHOOLLITHERLAND CE High HIGH School CHRISTSCHOOLMARICOURT ChesterfieldHIGH THESCHOOL KING CATHOLICMeolsHighHOLY SchoolSACRED Cop FAMILY HIGH High HEART SCHOOLSchoolCATHOLICBIRKDALE CATHOLICFORMBY HIGHDEYES COLLEGE HIGHSCHOOLRANGE HIGH SCHOOLGreenbank SCHOOLHIGH SCHOOL High School IDACI Average
3.3.3 Figure 3 illustrates the average proportion of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) for each of the above schools over the whole time period. Whilst this pattern can explain some of the differences there remains a pattern of attainment that cannot be directly explained purely by relative levels of deprivation.
Figure 3 - Proportion of Pupils SEN / Statemented
45.0 8.0 40.0 7.0 SEN 35.0 6.0 30.0 5.0 Pupils 25.0 Statemented 4.0 All
20.0
of 3.0 15.0 Pupils 10.0 2.0 All 5.0 1.0 of 0.0 0.0
TheProportion Hawthorne'sLITHERLANDST. WILFRID'SSt Free SavioAmbroseHIGH School Salesian HIGHSCHOOLHILLSIDE Barlow SCHOOLSTANLEY CollegeSt Catholic HIGH Michael's ChesterfieldHIGH SCHOOLST. College GEORGESCHOOLCE High HighCHRIST SchoolMAGHULLOF SchoolENGLANDBIRKDALE THEHOLY HIGHKING FAMILY SECSACRED HIGHMeols SCHOOL SCHOOLCATHOLIC CopHEARTMARICOURT DEYESHigh CATHOLIC HIGHSchool HIGHGreenbank CATHOLIC SCHOOLFORMBY COLLEGERANGE HIGHHigh HIGH School SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL
% SEN Proporion
% Statemented
3.4 Attainment Gaps
3.4.1 Tables 1 and 2 show the average ‘Attainment 8’ score for pupils at KS4 in 2015/16 for selected pupil groups. These are compared to the overall averages for all pupils at Sefton and national levels within the IDACI relative deprivation deciles. The continued influence of relative deprivation continues to be seen, but it is clear that gaps in attainment occur across all cohorts. For example: In 2016 the ‘most deprived’ cohort boys’ attainment is 16% below that of girls; but even in the ‘least deprived’ cohort boys’ attainment is still 6% below that of girls.
3.4.2 Whilst in 2017 the figures have reduced in both IDACI areas, the ‘most deprived’ cohort boys’ attainment is only 6% below that of girls; but in the ‘least deprived’ cohort boys’ attainment has reduced to just 1% below that of girls. The biggest difference between boys and girls in 2017 occurs in the 40% IDACI rank were boys are working 20% below the girls and the 90% IDACI rank were boys 17% below the girls.
3.4.3 In particular, pupils with Special Educational Needs perform significantly below average and deprivation has little influence on their ultimate attainment levels. For these pupils deprivation is nowhere near as influential a factor on their attainment as will be their ‘support networks’ within the home and at school.
3.4.4 Note there has been a reduction in the average attainment 8 score in 2017 which is believed to be a result of changes to the grading of the GCSE English and Mathematic subject areas and thus comparisons between years should be undertaken with caution. Additionally it should be noted the 2016/17 outturns are provisional.
3.4.3 Table 1: Attainment Gaps for Pupils within IDACI Deciles – Attainment 8
Average Attainment 8 Score 2015/16 and Provisional Sefton 2016/17 Total Income Total Pupil Cohort Current Free School Meal Eligibility Cohort Deprivation Not Not Affecting Children Sefton Sefton Sefton Eligible Eligible England NW Eligible Eligible Index (IDACI) Rank 2016 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
d 0 - 10 % 520 43.2 41.9 42.4 38.6 36.0 31.8 45.9 42.7 e v i r 10 - 20 % 226 45.4 44.5 44.2 42.2 37.6 34.8 46.0 43.6 p e D
20 - 30 % 219 46.9 46.1 48.8 44.4 38.1 35.7 50.6 46.0 t s o 30 - 40 % 356 48.2 48.3 48.2 43.5 39.8 32.3 49.6 45.6 M
>
- 40 - 50 % 338 49.8 49.5 49.2 44.5 38.6 35.0 50.5 46.2 - - -
< 50 - 60 % 451 51.3 51.6 52.5 49.5 44.1 38.8 53.3 50.5
d
e 60 - 70 % 251 52.8 52.7 54.3 50.5 * * 55.0 51.2 v i r
p 70 - 80 % 225 54.1 54.3 55.5 50.0 * * 56.0 50.7 e D
t 80 - 90 % 237 55.5 55.8 54.2 52.4 * * 54.4 52.4 s a e
L 90 - 100 % 193 57.7 57.6 57.7 52.4 * * 57.6 52.9 3,016 50.1 49.4 49.8 45.4 38.2 33.5 51.7 47.6
Income Total Gender Special Educational Needs 3.4.4 TableDepriva t2:ion GenderCoho rtand SEND attainment data Affecting Children Sefton Female Female Male Male Not SEN Not SEN SEN 2016 SEN 2017 Index (IDACI) Rank 2016 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
d 0 - 10 % 520 45.6 40.7 39.4 36.5 45.9 40.8 23.6 22.2 e v i r 10 - 20 % 226 46.9 44.7 41.8 39.8 47.2 45.7 30.1 21.3 p e D
20 - 30 % 219 50.7 46.4 47.1 42.6 51.6 46.9 27.3 23.6 t s o 30 - 40 % 356 49.8 47.3 46.7 39.4 50.4 46.3 28.0 21.4 M
>
- 40 - 50 % 338 52.0 46.7 46.2 42.3 51.7 47.3 30.9 22.8 - - -
< 50 - 60 % 451 56.2 51.3 48.6 48.0 55.3 52.7 28.8 21.5
d
e 60 - 70 % 251 56.8 52.7 52.0 48.8 55.8 52.2 38.3 * v i r
p 70 - 80 % 225 58.0 52.4 52.8 48.0 57.4 52.2 34.4 20.7 e D
t 80 - 90 % 237 56.8 56.5 52.0 48.4 56.0 54.6 33.4 33.5 s a e
L 90 - 100 % 193 59.5 52.7 55.9 52.1 59.8 54.4 28.6 * 3,016 52.6 47.6 47.2 43.3 52.5 48.0 28.9 22.6 * Small Nos (<10) Average Attainment 8 Score 2015/16 and Provisional Sefton 2016/17 Total Income Total Pupil Cohort Current Free School Meal Eligibility Cohort Deprivation Not Not Affecting Children Sefton Sefton Sefton Eligible Eligible England NW Eligible Eligible Index (IDACI) Rank 2016 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
d 0 - 10 % 520 43.2 41.9 42.4 38.6 36.0 31.8 45.9 42.7 e v i r 10 - 20 % 226 45.4 44.5 44.2 42.2 37.6 34.8 46.0 43.6 p e D
20 - 30 % 219 46.9 46.1 48.8 44.4 38.1 35.7 50.6 46.0 t s o 30 - 40 % 356 48.2 48.3 48.2 43.5 39.8 32.3 49.6 45.6 M
>
- 40 - 50 % 338 49.8 49.5 49.2 44.5 38.6 35.0 50.5 46.2 - - -
< 50 - 60 % 451 51.3 51.6 52.5 49.5 44.1 38.8 53.3 50.5
d
e 60 - 70 % 251 52.8 52.7 54.3 50.5 * * 55.0 51.2 v i r
p 70 - 80 % 225 54.1 54.3 55.5 50.0 * * 56.0 50.7 e D
t 80 - 90 % 237 55.5 55.8 54.2 52.4 * * 54.4 52.4 s a e
L 90 - 100 % 193 57.7 57.6 57.7 52.4 * * 57.6 52.9 3,016 50.1 49.4 49.8 45.4 38.2 33.5 51.7 47.6
Income Total Gender Special Educational Needs Deprivation Cohort Affecting Children Sefton Female Female Male Male Not SEN Not SEN SEN 2016 SEN 2017 Index (IDACI) Rank 2016 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017
d 0 - 10 % 520 45.6 40.7 39.4 36.5 45.9 40.8 23.6 22.2 e v i r 10 - 20 % 226 46.9 44.7 41.8 39.8 47.2 45.7 30.1 21.3 p e D
20 - 30 % 219 50.7 46.4 47.1 42.6 51.6 46.9 27.3 23.6 t s o 30 - 40 % 356 49.8 47.3 46.7 39.4 50.4 46.3 28.0 21.4 M
>
- 40 - 50 % 338 52.0 46.7 46.2 42.3 51.7 47.3 30.9 22.8 - - -
< 50 - 60 % 451 56.2 51.3 48.6 48.0 55.3 52.7 28.8 21.5
d
e 60 - 70 % 251 56.8 52.7 52.0 48.8 55.8 52.2 38.3 * v i r
p 70 - 80 % 225 58.0 52.4 52.8 48.0 57.4 52.2 34.4 20.7 e D
t 80 - 90 % 237 56.8 56.5 52.0 48.4 56.0 54.6 33.4 33.5 s a e
L 90 - 100 % 193 59.5 52.7 55.9 52.1 59.8 54.4 28.6 * 3,016 52.6 47.6 47.2 43.3 52.5 48.0 28.9 22.6 * Small Nos (<10)
3.4.5 Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the similar achievement and progression patterns as above. However, of note is the significant impact of the gender gap on overall progression (table 3). For instance the progression score for boys from deprived areas is on average worse than for some children within the SEN cohort. Additionally the progression of children who are eligible for Free School Meals in the spring term before their exams (and presumably have parental background of low or no-wage households) score particularly poorly in terms of their progression.
3.4.6 Table 3: Progress Gaps for Pupils within IDACI Deciles – Progress 8
Average Progress 8 Score 2015/16 and Provisional Sefton 2016/17 Income Total Total Pupil Cohort Current Free School Meal Eligibility Deprivation Cohort Affecting Sefton Sefton Sefton Eligible Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible Children Index England NW 2016 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 (IDACI) Rank
d 0 - 10 % 511 -0.30 -0.49 -0.56 -0.57 -0.82 -0.81 -0.41 -0.41 e v i r 10 - 20 % 224 -0.17 -0.30 -0.46 -0.24 -0.81 -0.60 -0.37 -0.17 p e D
20 - 30 % 212 -0.12 -0.25 -0.21 -0.08 -0.90 -0.83 -0.09 0.05 t s o 30 - 40 % 342 -0.09 -0.17 -0.30 -0.21 -0.68 -0.94 -0.24 -0.08 M
>
- 40 - 50 % 336 -0.04 -0.16 -0.12 -0.17 -0.30 -0.48 -0.10 -0.12 - - -
< 50 - 60 % 442 0.01 -0.06 -0.07 0.08 -0.37 -0.26 -0.04 0.11
d
e 60 - 70 % 244 0.06 -0.03 -0.03 0.16 * * 0.00 0.19 v i r
p 70 - 80 % 222 0.11 0.03 -0.01 0.05 * * 0.00 0.07 e D
t 80 - 90 % 233 0.16 0.10 -0.04 0.14 * * -0.04 0.15 s a e
L 90 - 100 % 189 0.23 0.18 0.22 0.27 * * 0.21 0.29 2,955 0.00 -0.20 -0.20 -0.14 -0.70 -0.71 -0.12 -0.03 Income Total Gender Special Educational Needs 3.4.7 TableDepriva t4:ion Gender Coho randt SEND progress data Affecting Sefton Female Female Not SEN Not SEN Children Index Male 2016 Male 2017 SEN 2016 SEN 2017 2016 2016 2017 2016 2017 (IDACI) Rank
d 0 - 10 % 511 -0.31 -0.40 -0.79 -0.73 -0.48 -0.56 -0.99 -0.62 e v i r 10 - 20 % 224 -0.34 -0.03 -0.58 -0.46 -0.36 -0.16 -0.93 -0.75 p e D
20 - 30 % 212 -0.09 0.02 -0.32 -0.18 -0.11 0.00 -1.02 -0.84 t s o 30 - 40 % 342 -0.23 -0.01 -0.37 -0.42 -0.26 -0.16 -0.72 -0.65 M
>
- 40 - 50 % 336 0.12 0.00 -0.38 -0.34 -0.07 -0.13 -0.43 -0.54 - - -
< 50 - 60 % 442 0.14 0.25 -0.28 -0.07 0.02 0.17 -0.82 -0.70
d
e 60 - 70 % 244 0.12 0.46 -0.16 -0.06 -0.03 0.21 -0.06 * v i r
p 70 - 80 % 222 0.19 0.24 -0.23 -0.11 0.03 0.09 -0.44 -0.46 e D
t 80 - 90 % 233 0.09 0.32 -0.15 -0.04 -0.02 0.13 -0.35 0.21 s a e
L 90 - 100 % 189 0.32 0.36 0.11 0.15 0.27 0.32 -0.50 * 2,955 -0.02 0.03 -0.37 -0.30 -0.13 -0.08 -0.72 -0.60 * Small Nos (<10) Average Progress 8 Score 2015/16 and Provisional Sefton 2016/17 Income Total Total Pupil Cohort Current Free School Meal Eligibility Deprivation Cohort Affecting Sefton Sefton Sefton Eligible Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible Children Index England NW 2016 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 (IDACI) Rank
d 0 - 10 % 511 -0.30 -0.49 -0.56 -0.57 -0.82 -0.81 -0.41 -0.41 e v i r 10 - 20 % 224 -0.17 -0.30 -0.46 -0.24 -0.81 -0.60 -0.37 -0.17 p e D
20 - 30 % 212 -0.12 -0.25 -0.21 -0.08 -0.90 -0.83 -0.09 0.05 t s o 30 - 40 % 342 -0.09 -0.17 -0.30 -0.21 -0.68 -0.94 -0.24 -0.08 M
>
- 40 - 50 % 336 -0.04 -0.16 -0.12 -0.17 -0.30 -0.48 -0.10 -0.12 - - -
< 50 - 60 % 442 0.01 -0.06 -0.07 0.08 -0.37 -0.26 -0.04 0.11
d
e 60 - 70 % 244 0.06 -0.03 -0.03 0.16 * * 0.00 0.19 v i r
p 70 - 80 % 222 0.11 0.03 -0.01 0.05 * * 0.00 0.07 e D
t 80 - 90 % 233 0.16 0.10 -0.04 0.14 * * -0.04 0.15 s a e
L 90 - 100 % 189 0.23 0.18 0.22 0.27 * * 0.21 0.29 2,955 0.00 -0.20 -0.20 -0.14 -0.70 -0.71 -0.12 -0.03 Income Total Gender Special Educational Needs Deprivation Cohort Affecting Sefton Female Female Not SEN Not SEN Children Index Male 2016 Male 2017 SEN 2016 SEN 2017 2016 2016 2017 2016 2017 (IDACI) Rank
d 0 - 10 % 511 -0.31 -0.40 -0.79 -0.73 -0.48 -0.56 -0.99 -0.62 e v i r 10 - 20 % 224 -0.34 -0.03 -0.58 -0.46 -0.36 -0.16 -0.93 -0.75 p e D
20 - 30 % 212 -0.09 0.02 -0.32 -0.18 -0.11 0.00 -1.02 -0.84 t s o 30 - 40 % 342 -0.23 -0.01 -0.37 -0.42 -0.26 -0.16 -0.72 -0.65 M
>
- 40 - 50 % 336 0.12 0.00 -0.38 -0.34 -0.07 -0.13 -0.43 -0.54 - - -
< 50 - 60 % 442 0.14 0.25 -0.28 -0.07 0.02 0.17 -0.82 -0.70
d
e 60 - 70 % 244 0.12 0.46 -0.16 -0.06 -0.03 0.21 -0.06 * v i r
p 70 - 80 % 222 0.19 0.24 -0.23 -0.11 0.03 0.09 -0.44 -0.46 e D
t 80 - 90 % 233 0.09 0.32 -0.15 -0.04 -0.02 0.13 -0.35 0.21 s a e
L 90 - 100 % 189 0.32 0.36 0.11 0.15 0.27 0.32 -0.50 * 2,955 -0.02 0.03 -0.37 -0.30 -0.13 -0.08 -0.72 -0.60 * Small Nos (<10)
4. National Research
4.1 There is no local research on this issue but current national research into pupil attainment and progression inevitably concludes ‘it’s complicated’. However, there are some clear themes that do arise through national research findings. These are summarised below into core factors affecting overall pupil attainment / progression
4.2 Deprivation & Poverty
4.2.1 Research has shown that low income has an independent effect on children’s educational outcomes after controlling for measures of family background and child ability (Blanden and Gregg, 2004). This early disadvantage follows the child into adulthood with a clear pathway from childhood poverty to reduced employment opportunities; with earnings estimated to be reduced by between 15 and 28%; and the probability of being in employment at age 34 reduced by between 4% and 7% (Blanden, Hansen & Machin, 2008).
4.2.2 However, not all children from deprived backgrounds will have lower than average attainment, but those from deprived backgrounds who initially appear to be doing well find it harder to sustain progress as they get older (Feinstein et al., 2008). Additionally the relationship between early cognitive skills and later academic achievement operates in a different way for children from lower socio‐economic groups: Feinstein (2003) showed that even those children from lower socio‐economic groups performing well initially were, on average, overtaken by others from higher socio‐economic groups by the time they started primary school.
4.2.3 Essentially educational problems start early and persist and these problems are in part related to the level of deprivation and poverty the child is subject to.
4.3 Parental Education, Involvement, and Environment
4.3.1 Peters, Seeds et al. (2008) found that regardless of socioeconomic group, the vast majority of parents express positive attitudes about education and hold positive views about the value of education for their children. In addition, most parents want to be more involved in their children’s school life, with the desire to be more involved more strongly apparent among those from lower socio-economic groups.
4.3.2 However, whilst ineffective parenting and educational practices in the home are not an inevitable consequence of deprivation, many studies have indicated that parental factors do have a significant impact on pupil success. Rasbash et al. (2010) found that the composite family effect accounted for some 40% of the overall variation on learning progression.
4.4 School Culture, Quality, and Teacher Turnover
4.4.1 Rasbash et al. (2010) identified that shared environments of school, neighbourhood and LEA account for 22% of variation in learning progression. Indeed Sharp et al (2015) found that where students from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve as well as, or even better than, students from non- disadvantaged backgrounds, it was a combination of what schools were doing (i.e. the strategies they were using) and how they were doing it (i.e. the way they were implementing their strategies) that was making the difference.
4.4.2 Evidence highlights the importance of a school ethos which promotes positive aspirations and expectations. For example, the Social Exclusion Task Force (2008) demonstrated that school characteristics are significant mediating factor in the relationship between deprivation and aspiration, which indicates that the school plays an important role in maintaining and raising pupils’ aspirations.
4.4.3 There is limited evidence to suggest that effective pedagogy for pupils from deprived backgrounds is qualitatively different to effective pedagogy for other pupils. There is, however, evidence to suggest that pupils from deprived backgrounds may be less likely to experience good quality teaching. Sammons et al. (2006), in an analysis of teaching practice in 125 Year 5 classes, found that the quality of teaching tended to be poorer in schools with higher levels of pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM). The Cabinet Office cited evidence in 2008 that teachers in schools with more than 20% FSM eligibility were more likely to be rated worse in their teaching, and less likely to have come from an outstanding teacher training institution.
4.4.4 Kendall et al. (2008) reported evidence that extra‐curricular learning programmes can have benefits for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who become disaffected with school, however, Ofsted also found that schools often relied heavily on parental contributions to fund day and residential trips, which could be problematic for low income families and schools in deprived areas.
4.5 The Pupil
4.5.1 Whilst attainment and progression can be seen to have numerous and complex drivers, it should be remembered that everyone is different and indeed Rasbash et al. (2010) identified that having taken into account family, environment, and school variation 38% of the remaining variation relating to school progression remained at pupil level.
5. Discussion 5.1 National research suggests that deprivation (measured by FSM and IDACI) is strongly associated with poorer performance on average at every Key Stage of the national curriculum. However, although the evidence is considered to be strong in some areas, the evidence base is weaker in others, and occasionally contradictory. This is because there are other significant factors that are, to a greater or lesser extent, implicated in poor educational outcomes.
5.2 The direct effect of income and material deprivation on children’s opportunities for learning identified from the national research is undoubted. However educational attainment can be directly affected by other factors beyond income and material deprivation including health, family stress, parental education, parental involvement in their children’s education, aspiration, and the experience of schooling and the overall performance of the school itself. Independent research has concluded that:
• Physical health can affect the educational outcomes of children from a very early age, particularly those in lower socio‐economic groups who are more prone to poor health.
• Low income creates economic hardship for families, which in turn has a negative effect on parents’ well‐being, leading to less warm and supportive parenting (i.e. being less likely to interact with, socialise with and teach their children). This can lead to problems with children’s emotional development, self‐esteem and educational achievement.
• Parental education can be transmitted inter-generationally and can directly influence the factors such as learning behaviours in the home, which impact on child development.
• Parental involvement in education is a significant positive influence on children’s educational outcomes, including contact with schools to share information, participation in school events and participation in the work of the school. However parental involvement can also serve to stimulate intellect, encourage parent‐child discussion, set aspirations relating to personal fulfilment and set good examples of constructive social and educational values.
• Although children from deprived and non‐deprived backgrounds are equally likely to believe in the importance of education and have aspirations, those from deprived backgrounds are more likely to feel that they lack the "ability to thrive within the system," which can directly impact the value they attach to school and belief in their own ability.
• Schools are independently important for pupils’ outcomes, although effectiveness can vary considerably between schools. The school size, standards and culture, level of leadership and challenge quality of teaching, pupil grouping practices, assessment for learning, curriculum and related extension activities, educational resources, response to behaviour and voice of the child can have a range of effects in areas including self-esteem, social, personal and emotional confidence, and sense of responsibility, efficacy and skills. 5.3 If we look specifically at the deprivation and Key Stage 4 attainment data for Sefton it is too simplistic to say that ‘rich kids do well and poor kids do badly and that until the poor kids are rich there is nothing that can be done for them’. The statistical analysis done at pupil level shows no immediate correlation between deprivation and attainment at an individual level, suggesting that whilst ‘in general’ deprived children may do ‘less well’; individuals supported by parents, schools, and indeed the local authority can perform much better than would be expected based wholly on their geographic location. Equally pupils from less deprived areas can under-perform if they are not properly supported and encouraged by their ‘support network’ of school and family.
5.4 Indeed local research provided examples which show that schools may have similar levels of attainment across all cohorts of their pupils despite their pupils having significantly different ‘deprivation profiles’. Similarly, there are examples that show that schools with similar ‘deprivation profiles’ can have very different pupil attainment across all levels of ability and background.
5.5 The analysis presented in this report shows that the relationship between deprivation and educational outcomes in Sefton is complex. This is explained to some extent by the meaning of deprivation and its reach. Deprivation encompasses a lack of opportunities as well as a lack of material resources and is therefore wider than poverty, which is often defined as a lack of money. While eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is a well-used indicator of deprivation in educational policy making and research, this analysis has found that there is a range of factors which interact with pupils’ educational attainment. In addition to eligibility for FSM, these factors include having special educational needs (SEN), being a persistent school absentee, and living in the most deprived 30% of areas of Sefton. Some 43% of KS4 pupils in Sefton are affected by one or more of these factors.
5.6 Overall, boys from the most deprived 30% of areas, who are not SEN, but are eligible for FSM have an average attainment score some 37% below that of girls in the least 30% deprived areas, not eligible for FSM, and not SEN. The interaction of these factors has a continuing and cumulative association with pupils’ attainment. This suggests that a strategic response needs to include different interventions in order to address the multi-faceted deprivation-education relationship.
5.7 Taking a purely geographic approach to addressing the educational impact of deprivation, by targeting responses and interventions exclusively on pupils who live in deprived areas, may not, therefore, offer a comprehensive solution. Such an approach will, for example, exclude pupils living in other parts of Sefton with less deprivation who are SEN, eligible for FSM and performing less successfully than their peers. It is suggested that a broader approach is required that ensures that support is provided for vulnerable pupils wherever they live. Pupils’ personal circumstances are more influential than their geographic location.
5.8 Detailed data analysis finds evidence of an attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils for nearly all groups, which starts at the beginning of pupils’ school life and widens during secondary education. Pupils eligible for FSM make less progress than other pupils in their attainment at key stages of the National Curriculum. This suggests that early intervention is required to identify pupils who are struggling with education in the Foundation Phase and to provide additional support to help improve their learning capability. It is also recommended that effective tracking of pupils’ progress is required to make interventions at an appropriate time and prevent pupils falling further behind as a result of the effects of deprivation.
5.9 Pupils eligible for FSM perform considerably less well than non-FSM pupils at all key stages. This suggests that the catch-up learning activities for literacy and numeracy need to be extended and intensified in order to close these critical attainment gaps. The study identifies a gender gap in attainment in addition. Girls perform better than boys at GCSE whether or not they are eligible for FSM or whether or not they are from more deprived backgrounds. Boys who are eligible for FSM are the lowest-performing group at GCSE. These findings indicate that additional tracking and support is required to help under-performing boys improve their educational progress and attainment.
5.10 Finally, there is no simple solution to breaking the association of deprivation with pupils’ educational attainment. Addressing this issue requires the application of a combination of targeted preventative interventions alongside the provision of continuing additional support and catch-up learning activities.
6. Work of the Local Authority and Sefton Schools
6.1 Development of a School Led School Improvement System: government policy is for schools to have responsibility and to develop school led systems of school improvement and peer support with funding channelled through teaching schools and regional school improvement hubs.
6.2 As part of meeting this agenda and being able to access available resources through the Strategic School Improvement Fund, Sefton schools are working towards setting up a series of all phase School Improvement Hubs which will be co-ordinated by a Strategic School Improvement Group. This group will be made up of a range of stakeholders including the local authority and will link into the LCR and North West Regional school improvement networks.
6.3 A number of meetings have been held with schools and it is envisaged that this new system will be in place in 2018.
6.4 Mathematics Pilot: following on from the review this Committee undertook into secondary school performance the Council allocated some funding to support school improvement in secondary schools. It was agreed that this would be focussed on improving mathematics as this was an area of significant concern.
6.5 Overall the project has had some positive outcomes and impact:
1. Progress 8 improvement in relation to a number of schools. The most significant P8 improvements are with those schools who fully engaged with the project. 2. The heads of department meetings allowed colleagues to work together in a very supportive environment where challenging professional conversations could occur. This is something that is difficult to measure in terms of impact but has undoubtedly had a positive effect in in relation to supporting staff during a period of considerable national change. 3. A number of research projects are beginning to develop where the emphasis is upon trying new ideas and doing things differently. Further time needs to be allowed to successfully measure impact.
6.6 A Strategic School Improvement Fund bid is being developed, which if successful will provide the funding to continue and expand this project.
6.7 Merger of Hugh Baird and South Sefton Colleges: the local authority was instrumental in facilitating the merger of these two colleges which ensured that there was an ongoing educational pathway for post 16 provision in the most deprived part of the borough.
7. Challenges
7.1 There will be a number of challenges to improving progress and attainment in Sefton’s secondary schools including:
• Funding levels for secondary schools, • Engagement of academies/MATs; • Position of Archdiocese/catholic school improvement trust; • Too much competition between schools; • Lack of inclusion. • Capacity of Teaching School Alliance/better schools to support. • Lack of engagement from RSC. Appendix 1 – Current School Level Performance & Rating 2016/17 2015/16 Year on Year Difference 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-C Ofsted Attain Attain Attainm Ofsted Rating SCHOOL NAME Progress 8 Score DfE GCSE Progress 8 Score DfE GCSE Progress GCSE Date Pupils ment 8 Pupils ment 8 Pupils ent 8 Assessment inc Eng Assessment inc Eng 8 Score inc Eng Score Score Score & Math & Math & Math Above average Average 2013 Good Birkdale High School 133 51.9 73.0% 168 53.2 56% - 35 -1.3 0.19 17% 0.3 0.11 Chesterfield High Above average Average 2014 Good 189 50.7 69.0% 201 51.6 50% - 12 -0.9 0.45 19% School 0.39 -0.06 Requires Christ The King Average Below average 2015 172 50.0 64.0% 210 49.8 55% - 38 0.2 0.52 9% Improvement Catholic High School 0.17 -0.35 Average Average 2015 Good Deyes High School 225 48.0 64.0% 210 54.9 69% 15 -6.9 -0.08 -5% -0.15 -0.07 Above average Average 2008 Outstanding Formby High School 161 53.0 82.0% 157 54.1 73% 4 -1.1 0.22 9% 0.2 -0.02 Greenbank High Average Above average 2010 Outstanding 164 50.5 73.0% 183 57.5 73% - 19 -7.0 -0.22 0% School 0.17 0.39 Well below average Below average - Hillside High School 179 38.3 41.0% 163 45.3 45% 16 -7.0 -0.24 -4% -0.66 -0.42 Requires Holy Family Catholic Average Average 2017 135 47.1 64.0% 113 52.2 65% 22 -5.1 -0.15 -1% Improvement High School -0.13 0.02 Litherland High Well below average Below average - 173 40.5 43.0% 166 48.3 42% 7 -7.8 -0.34 1% School -0.52 -0.18 Requires Below average Well below average 2016 Maghull High School 142 43.6 46.0% 167 43.9 39% - 25 -0.3 0.48 7% Improvement -0.39 -0.87 Maricourt Catholic Below average Below average 2015 Good 253 47.1 63.0% 238 51.8 63% 15 -4.7 0.08 0% High School -0.21 -0.29 Meols Cop High Average Above average 2012 Outstanding 153 43.9 52.0% 143 52 58% 10 -8.1 -0.35 -6% School 0.06 0.41 Average Average 2013 Outstanding Range High School 153 51.5 76.0% 194 56 71% - 41 -4.5 -0.10 5% 0.05 0.15 Sacred Heart Catholic Below average Below average 2015 Good 215 47.3 62.0% 207 51.8 65% 8 -4.5 0.08 -3% College -0.33 -0.41 Savio Salesian Below average Below average 2016 Inadequate 124 39.4 39.0% 120 45 44% 4 -5.6 -0.01 -5% College -0.35 -0.34 St Michael's Church of Average Average - 107 41.0 50.0% 71 47.6 46% 36 -6.6 0.03 4% England High School -0.13 -0.16 Above average Average - Stanley High School 143 47.4 66.0% 112 46.8 51% 31 0.6 0.40 15% 0.28 -0.12 Requires The Hawthorne's Free Well below average Well below average 2015 42 37.9 36.0% 66 44.3 47% - 24 -6.4 -0.23 -11% Improvement School -0.76 -0.53 2016/17 2015/16 Year on Year Difference 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-C Ofsted Attain Attain Attainm Ofsted Rating SCHOOL NAME Progress 8 Score DfE GCSE Progress 8 Score DfE GCSE Progress GCSE Date Pupils ment 8 Pupils ment 8 Pupils ent 8 Assessment inc Eng Assessment inc Eng 8 Score inc Eng Score Score Score & Math & Math & Math Presfield High School Well below average Well below average 2013 Good and Specialist 16 6.7 0.0% 7 9.9 0% 9 -3.2 -1.86 -1.3 College Merefield School 10 NE NE NE 9 NE NE NE 1 Well below average Well below average 2014 Good Crosby High School 31 2.0 0.0% 24 8.1 0% 7 -6.1 -1.66 -1.43 Well below average Well below average 2014 Good Newfield School 19 9.3 0.0% 12 10.1 0% 7 -0.8 -2.01 -2.59 Well below average Hugh Baird College NA NA NA NA 58 16.7 0% -2.62 Below average Below average Sefton 3,025 44.5 57.4% 3,076 49.2 54.90% - 51 -4.7 0.04 2% -0.2 -0.24 England - state-funded 528,959 46.0 -0.03 60.6% 540,656 49.9 -0.03 57.40% - 11,697 -3.9 3% schools only England - all schools 589,096 44.2 56.0% 600,301 48.5 53.50% - 11,205 -4.3 3%