North Education Excellence Partnership Board & School Standards Board Meeting

Monday 6th November 2017

Haywood Village , Weston-super-Mare

8.00am – 12.00pm

Present: Steve Davis Northleaze Primary School & Chair of PHANS Philippa Clark Ravenswood Special School & Chair of SENS Susan Elliott Worle Village Primary School & Representing HANS John Wells Clevedon Learning Trust Zoe Elder Clevedon Teaching School Alliance Penny Boardman Inspirational Futures Trust Tony Searle & Cabot Learning Federation Isobel George Teaching School Alliance Simon Marriott Kaleidoscope Multi Academy Trust Gary Lewis Lighthouse Schools Partnership Adam Matthews Extend Learning Academy Network Sharon Roberts St Peter’s Teaching School Sheila Smith Director of People & Communities, NSC (Chair) Louise Malik Head of Education Transformation, NSC Gail Webb Challenge Partner, NSC Wendy Packer Vulnerable Learners’ Service Leader & Virtual School Head, NSC Sally Varley Service Leader – Strategic Planning & Governance, NSC

Present for Schools Standards Board Only: Alison Fletcher Director, CLF Institute

Observing: Kathleen McGillycuddy Dionne Elliott Nailsea Academy

In Attendance: Becky Farler Minute-taker

Part 1 – Education Excellence Partnership Board

Item 1 – Apologies and Introductions (Sheila Smith) SS welcomed everyone to the meeting, and attendees introduced themselves.

Apologies:

Eifion Price – Assistant Director Children’s Support & Safeguarding, NSC Kerri McArdle – The Beach Teaching School Alliance

1

Steve Taylor – CEO, Cabot Learning Federation

Did Not Attend:

Neville Coles – Priory Learning Trust Helen Fenn – Diocese of Bath & Wells Philip Bowditch – Bath & Wells MAT Colleen Collett – The Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton Delyth Lloyd Evans - GANS

Item 2 – Declarations of Interest (Sheila Smith)

GW declared an interest in Agenda Item 11

Item 3 – Minutes from the previous meeting and Notification of AOB (Sheila Smith) On page 7 the minutes should be amended to record that the Governing Body has been involved in responding to parental complaints.

SS advised new EEPB members that meetings do not usually cover the amount of information that was discussed at the last meeting.

Notification of Any Other Business LM would like to remind colleagues that the Fair Funding Consultation was issued last week and it runs until 24th November 2017. A briefing session is scheduled for later this week at Hans Price Academy. All details are in Noticeboard.

Item 4 – Feedback from Heads Liaison 20/10/17 (Louise Malik) A number of the issues discussed at the Heads Liaison Meeting are on the Agenda for today, for example the Early Help system, Ofsted feedback and the Specialist Provision Review. WP will take forward identified actions regarding evidence for EHCP’s. PC commented that Secondary representation at the HLM seems to have been lost. A SHINS meeting is due to take place this week Action - LM.

Item 5 – Ofsted Inspection Feedback (Sheila Smith) The outcome of the Local Authority’s inspection was that the overall judgement was Requires Improvement. There were 12 recommendations and the Local Authority will respond to all of the actions raised during the inspection.

The Heads Liaison Group has asked for the action plan to be shared and this will be done through Noticeboard Action - LM.

The most pressing issues relate to the NSSCB so an action plan is in place.

The arrangements will change in the near future and the LSCB will not have any further reviews in its current format. The three lead agencies, i.e. LA, Health and Police, will be considering possible new arrangements from 2018 and there will be consultation on the options.

PC advised that the Heads Liaison Group also discussed whether there is a need for the Local Authority to review its Safeguarding Policy given that the Safeguarding Board has

2

been rated Inadequate. Ofsted have suggested that schools need to satisfy themselves that advice they are given is correct. SS clarified that there was no suggestion at all in the Ofsted Report that the Council’s policies and procedures are not robust. She asked EEPB members if they have any concerns. PC commented that some schools were concerned about how long it took for the model safeguarding policy to be approved by the Board. SS expressed surprise about this because the issue has not been raised by any of the Heads’ Reps at other meetings. She suggested that perhaps the membership of some of these groups needs to be reviewed. PC advised that the concerns had been reported to the Safeguarding Officers, and she feels that the lines of communication need to be made clearer for schools. SS advised that she will put an article in Noticeboard. Action – SS.

Item 6 – Specialist Provision Review (Wendy Packer) WP advised that she does not have a lot to add to what has been written in the Paper circulated to the EEPB. The recommendations will be presented to DLT and SSF in December, and the EEPB will also be asked for their input. The Authority is keen to ensure that evidence collecting and interviews are robust so that the current situation and projections are very clear. The Authority knows that there is some good provision currently, but there are also gaps that need to be addressed. Mike Newman’s team has been involved with the data collection and Gail Smith has been looking at SEND and Helen Caldwell at AP. They have been talking to stakeholders about areas of strength and weakness to identify gaps and obtain a full overview. This will then be collated to support the development of firm recommendations. The analysis has not revealed any surprises. WP asked whether the EEPB had any questions and there were none.

WP confirmed that the Out of School Panel is struggling to place children at the moment. There have been 25 permanent exclusions since September which is an unprecedented amount. Many of the children do not have EHCP’s which means that they cannot be placed in special provision, the PRU is full and there are no other options locally. There needs to be a focus on early intervention and a proactive approach to finding provision for these children and WP asked for schools engagement in this.

AM asked whether more work needs to be done to get the message out to schools about starting the EHCP process early and WP agreed. AM suggested that an article could be included in Noticeboard. WP recognised that schools have historically worked very hard to keep children, so their behaviour escalates a long way down the line before an EHCP is applied for. Moving forward schools need to start the EHCP process early even if they are holding on to the child, and liaison about any managed moves also needs to start as early as possible if this is identified as a possibility. SR commented that this applies to Early Years settings as well as schools Action - WP

Item 7 – Admissions and Fair Access Protocol (Sally Varley and Wendy Packer) The Fair Access Protocol was circulated and SV led the discussion. She advised that the biggest issue is to agree the definitions of the key factors, e.g. what is challenging behaviour and what is a reasonable timescale etc. The Protocol is for North Somerset, but there are some issues with children who are out of school because of discussions within other admissions departments in other local authorities so the Admissions team has written a general Protocol for the process.

For normal in-year admissions, some schools will use the North Somerset Protocol and others will use their own school’s procedure. If a school is the most local school for a child, that school will be asked to take them. There is a flow chart detailing the process

3

for offering places. A school should look to take a child even if they know the family and have concerns. If a child does not meet the fair access protocol and the school has recently taken other challenging children the school must inform the Local Authority. The Authority also needs to know if a school is involved with any managed moves. A school is able to look at having a child on a temporary basis through a managed move to see if they manage any better at a new school, but it is not committed to keeping the child if the placement is not successful. There seems to be a concern within schools that if they do not have the resources and capacity to manage a child they still have to keep them if they have agreed to try a managed move, and this is not the case.

GL commented that if a school has a child who is, for example, going through the EHCP process, the impact of taking another challenging child could be too much to manage. It is important for the timing to be right so that there is a balance. SV agreed that time factors are important but there are two issues – the time that a school needs and also the time that a child could be out of school while options for them are considered. SV advised that the Local Authority needs to know when a school has a child with challenging behaviours because Admissions are not always aware of this.

GL asked for clarification about whether the Out of School Panel is now the Fair Access Panel as well. WP advised that a number of reports have recently been submitted to the Out of School Panel, so they have been discussed, but for others WP and SV have met separately to consider them. The process does need to be made clearer for schools. Action WP/SV

SV commented that schools are sometimes completing Fair Access forms when it is not a Fair Access request and she confirmed that schools cannot refuse a place unless it is under Fair Access. Schools have to have a valid reason for refusal, and challenging behaviour is not a reason, although as previously stated the definition of what challenging behaviour is within North Somerset must be clarified. GW advised that it is also necessary to look at the impact of a child’s behaviour on a school.

SS agreed that there must be a system to establish whether an application does fall under the Fair Access Protocol.

If a school states that they cannot meet the needs of a child and is therefore unable to take them, they must give a reason.

AM suggested that step by step protocols should be issued by the Local Authority so that there is a bullet point list of what schools should do. SV advised that she is happy to ask Admissions to do this Action - SV, but some schools who do their own admissions may feel that the Local Authority should not be dictating to them. AM felt that there is a difference between an exchange of information and any legal details.

SE commented that a school can sometimes receive an application for an in-year transfer from another authority for a child with significant needs, and then North Somerset may ring up and ask the school to take another child because they are not aware of that external application. SV confirmed that the school needs to inform the LA.

SV advised that under the Code of Practice schools should notify Admissions when they receive school applications, and advise the LA about the outcome of these, but this does not always happen in North Somerset. Action – SV to put an article in Noticeboard asking schools to send this information to Admissions.

4

WP advised that the Local Authority is often approached by schools who ask for Top Up Funding to support an admission, and she confirmed that there is no emergency funding at all for this

GL asked whether, if challenging behaviour sits outside of the Fair Access Protocol, there are powers that the Local Authority could use to instruct a school to take a child. SV confirmed that for Academies the Local Authority can approach the DfE to instruct on their behalf.

TS commented that one of the difficulties for schools is the transient nature of some families, and the fact that sometimes schools are asked to find somewhere else for a child before they get excluded. Ideally schools would try a managed transfer, but all parties involved would have to sign up to the agreement and this does not always happen. Schools need to support each other in order to give children a chance, and the process needs to be quicker and smoother.

Item 8 – Update on potential transfer of services to Somerset (Louise Malik) Within the paperwork sent out prior to the meeting, there was a link to the Executive Report and this has also been circulated via Noticeboard. All the recommendations within the report have been agreed, so plans are moving ahead. There are a number of challenges that need to be addressed and there is a meeting with Somerset again today to discuss whether the proposals can be delivered within the budget set. There will be a consultation with staff which will start on 20th November, with a plan for services to be transferred by April 2018. If this is not achievable the implementation will be in September 2018.

Traded services will be offered through Somerset from September 2018 and the plan is for these to be on the website for schools to buy between January and March 2018 (they will be available after this as well).

LM advised that she is confident that moving towards this model is the best option for keeping the sustainability and quality of services.

Item 9 – Early Help Review (Wendy Packer) Following the withdrawal of SSF funding, the Authority would like to understand what the impact has been on schools and how well they have been able to pick up the early intervention work.

AM felt that although schools are stretched on the pastoral side, there is good practice which enables them to manage the issues. However, there are now children who have not had support in nurseries or pre-schools, where in the past there would have been a lot of early intervention support for families. This is resulting in challenging behaviours at a younger age, lower down the line, and families are in crisis but they do not meet the threshold for support. Schools are feeling the impact of this.

SE commented that with the reduction in Educational Psychology provision from the Authority, and the lack of access to mental health services or social emotional support for children, schools are trying to help without sufficient training and staff are worried about saying and doing things that are not right. AM commented that a lot of family support that used to be available was around domestic violence and there is no support for that now. It is a worry for schools.

5

WP felt that there are two issues – a lack of resources but also a lack of money within schools to buy them if they were available.

GL expressed concern about where this is heading.

WP advised that EP asked for it to be added to the agenda today, and that it could be taken back to the SSF for discussion. GL commented that SSF colleagues will then have the choice between leaving the situation as it is or taking money from elsewhere which will be a dilemma. WP felt that there may be areas of good practice within Multi Academy Trusts that could potentially be developed.

PC felt that the process for accessing the limited resources that are available is very time- consuming and clunky through the early help module, and schools would rather spend that time helping families.

AM felt that there is a need to look at how money is being spent. An increasing onus is being put on schools to deliver social programmes but they do not have the resources or capacity to do this.

SS advised that there was an agreement at SSF that rather than money being spent in a central pot the responsibility should transfer to schools, but there needs to be an overview of this. All services across the board have taken a hit and budgets are under tremendous pressure. It is necessary to look at the impact of the SSF’s decision to give the responsibility to schools and review where the gaps are.

TS advised that there is good practice in other Local Authorities, but also some practice that North Somerset may not want to adopt. There seems to be a discrepancy between what early help means and what early help actually is in reality. The quality of services and the quality of signposting to services could be improved, and schools and individuals need to have clear information about how they can access services and what the criteria is.

SS advised that Gosha Port is the Local Authority’s Early Help Co-ordinator and that she does run surgeries for schools. PC advised that these surgeries are about how to use the portal and occasionally about courses, they do not signpost to services. Action – SS to talk to Gosha Port.

Item 10 – EEPB Annual Work Plan (Louise Malik) This was put together in order to give an overview of the meeting dates and the work that is required. It may be necessary to change the date of the next meeting. GW suggested that a venue is confirmed even if the date changes. GL offered to host at . LM asked if there were any questions about the work plan and there were none.

Item 11 – Terms of Reference and Appointment to Roles (Louise Malik) Terms of Reference The EEPB looked at these at the last meeting in June and as a result of that discussion the document has been updated. The amended draft has been issued to the Board for this meeting with all the mark-up showing so that the changes can be seen clearly. The main change is that the Terms of Reference for the EEPB have been separated from those for the Schools Standards Board so that there can be appropriate representation on both Boards.

6

The Schools Standards Board TOR has been amended to only include people who have accountability for standards, so moving forward some members of EEPB who have historically stayed for SSB will no longer need to stay on.

LM asked if there were any questions about this and there were none.

GW advised that some members of the Local Authority recently attended the local Sub Regional Improvement Board (SRIB) meeting and presented a discussion document about how to make the system work. It had been hoped that the DfE/RSC would clarify the role of the Local Authority but they would not elaborate on this because as soon as the role is defined there will be a need for funding which may not be available. The DCS has responsibility for provision and outcomes even though this will not be stated clearly, so North Somerset will put this in the discussion document. SS is the DCS for North Somerset. Consideration needs to be given to whether single academy trusts should sit on the EEPB and the SSB and GW will discuss this with them afterwards.

SE queried whether there is a legal requirement for Academies to sit on the SSB and was advised that there are no legal requirements to have a School Standards Board at all, although it is recommended to have one. Feedback from the school community in North Somerset is that they would like the meetings to take place for cohesiveness and cooperation.

Lines of accountability remain the same. SE asked how EEPB members can make sure that schools are ok about the information that is shared at meetings. SM advised that he shares her concern and feels that there is a high level of detail specific to individual schools that is discussed and minuted. LM advised that the minutes of the EEPB will be published because they are about strategic matters, but the minutes of the Schools Standards Board will not be published. A summary of the themes of the SSB with be published instead. LM acknowledged that this is a new way of working, and advised that there does need to be open discussion between colleagues so that gaps can be identified and strong bids can be put together for vital funding.

SS advised that the money available in the second bid round for the Strategic School Improvement Fund (SSIF) is £120 million, and currently, even if all bids are accepted, the take-up is only £70 million. The North Somerset schools community needs to take advantage of the opportunity to apply for funding and put meaningful bids in that will make a difference to local schools.

GW confirmed that the minutes of the previous meeting are only in draft form and the names of schools can be taken out. She also highlighted the fact that when Academies were first introduced there was a complete break between them and the Local Authority, but now Local Authorities are becoming much more involved with them again.

At the recent meeting, the RSC officers were impressed by the work done in North Somerset, and they asked to have a presence at Schools Standards Board meetings. The group needs to agree whether this is acceptable or not.

TS queried how it will work if the minutes of the SSB are not published. Whether they are published or not, they will still be subject to any Freedom of Information Requests and it will be important for schools to know what has been discussed about them. TS felt that the content of the minutes and how information is presented will be very important.

7

SS advised that the proposal is to look at publishing themes rather than naming schools, but some thought will need to be given to the representation of single academy trusts (SATs). GW advised that she has held some discussions with SATs and has advised them that she can take forward any issues they raise. GW will also talk to maintained schools about this, and information has been put in Noticeboard.

LM advised that the plan is to have everyone present for the entirety of today’s meeting, including the SSB.

WP advised that there are new proposals for the Virtual School Governing Body for this Academic Year onwards. This group used to meet after the Learning Exchange Board, but this meeting no longer exists. The suggestion is that colleagues who leave at the end of the no longer need to attend the Schools Standards Board could potentially form the Virtual School Governance Board so these meetings would take place after EEPB, at the same time as the SSB.

SD queried whether this would give a suitable balance of representation and LM confirmed that there would be members of SHINS, PHANS and HANS as well as EP so there would be a good range of attendees. The EEPB gave their general agreement to this proposal.

PC asked about how North Somerset children out of area will be tracked. LM advised that some parts of the EEPB and SSB need to be developed, e.g. discussion of Post 16 and Early Years children so out of area children will be added to the list.

Appointment to Roles GW stepped out of the meeting at this point. LM confirmed that the Challenge Partner Role currently carried out by GW is a two day per week position. At the June meeting it was agreed that GW would take up the role between September and December 2017, with the role being advertised for recruitment in January 2018. However, there are some concerns about the continued funding for the role beyond March 2018. The grant used to fund the role is likely to continue until August, and potentially beyond, but this has not been confirmed. The EEPB is being asked to consider whether the role should still be advertised despite the funding uncertainty, or whether current arrangements should continue until there is some clarity.

SE, SD and SM felt that the current arrangements should continue, and there were no objections to this so SS confirmed that this decision will be taken forward. LM advised that the Local Authority will update colleagues as soon as there is more information about the future funding arrangements, and that if nothing has been heard by April it can be discussed again.

GW rejoined the meeting.

Item 12 – Data sharing agreement (Gail Webb) A data sharing protocol has been drafted and agreed by the Information Governance Team. This will now go out to consultation with schools over a four week period, and be in place from the beginning of term 3. SE advised that there are free resources available online that give information about the GDPR and a particularly good resources is from Group Call. SE cannot quality assure this, but she feels it may be useful to colleagues. Action – SE to send the document or a link to it to BF for circulation.

8

Item 13 – North Somerset Commissioning Strategy (Sally Varley) SV led a Powerpoint presentation to highlight the key messages in this strategy. The slides were circulated as hand-outs along with the accompanying report and Executive Summary. SV advised that she has not passed round a copy of the complete commissioning strategy as it is a large document. This will be circulated after the meeting. Action – SV to circulate the full document. SV stressed that this document is confidential, to only be shared amongst school groups, and that it is very much a first draft for feedback so that necessary amendments can be made before it is put into the public domain. The purpose of this agenda item today is to go through the principals, procedures and proposals within the strategy. SV read through the slides and the key points made are detailed below:

 The Local Authority’s role remains the same despite all the changes – it will just deliver its responsibilities differently  The work of the EEPB will feed into the strategy  Please can colleagues forward updated photographs of their schools so that they can be included within the strategy document  There will be a huge increase in housing within North Somerset over the next couple of years – the largest growth in the history of North Somerset and the South West  Any schools that are built or expanded will need to contribute to the community. For example, the Haywood Village building and grounds have areas for community use as well as school use.  The DfE have changed the legislation whereby schools can no longer have two separate sites – all sites have to be considered as one single school.  A lot of work has been already been done to provide additional school places – approximately 1700 additional spaces have been provided and there are also some breach classes. Schools are thanked for their support with these arrangements.  The new housing developments will predominantly be in Weston, but there are some planned elsewhere in North Somerset: o Weston urban area – between Weston and Banwell/Churchill o Nailsea area o Area between Backwell and Churchill  The Portishead and Pill wards have been split because their schools have joined different Multi Academy Trusts  A paper will be presented at the Full Council Meeting in December about the presumption consultation for a new school in Yatton. This will start as a 210 place school and will then expand to 420 places.  Some existing schools are struggling with take-up of places and this needs to be looked into  The new school planned for Locking Parklands will hopefully be open by 2018  The Head Teacher Board has agreed an expansion at Priory for 2018, and further additional Secondary provision in Weston needs to be considered.  A site is being sought for a new special school as part of the Specialist Provision review. Details are still being discussed.  If any schools feel they can expand their Early Years provision can they please advise the Local Authority.

SS advised that she is aware that when the last Commissioning Strategy was put together some comments were made about the Authority ‘cherry-picking’ certain areas and schools for expansion. She would like to assure colleagues that this is not the case and that the

9

Local Authority would like to work with all schools. However, the level of housing growth within the area is phenomenal and the potential issues need to be addressed.

Item 14 – Evaluation of Meeting (Sheila Smith) SS asked for feedback about this meeting and whether there are any issues that colleagues wanted to discuss that weren’t raised. She asked whether colleagues feel that the meeting is a good use of time.

JW suggested that there needs to be some clarity around the relationships between SHINS, PHANS, SENS and this group in view of all the changes that have taken place over recent months, and queried how the information sharing process is going to work. LM confirmed that the EEPB will work at a very strategic level.

SD feels that this group is very important because it allows for a broader perspective on the issues at hand. Parts of the meeting were covered quite quickly due to time constraints and the amount that needed to be covered and this was slightly challenging, but understandable.

PC advised that some of the feedback during the specialist provision review mentioned the lack of a forum in which to discuss education matters. It will be important to communicate with schools and inform them that the EEPB is the place where these conversations will take place. SS commented that schools within MATS do have such discussions but she acknowledged the need to ensure that other schools are able to do the same.

SS confirmed that North Somerset wants the EEPB to be relevant to everyone and a forum that issues can be brought to and taken from. JW commented that it should not be too operational, however, because this is the remit of SHINS.

SS commented that a good measure for success will be how quickly the leads for items discussed at meetings become colleagues from schools rather than the Local Authority.

SS confirmed that the minutes from this part of the meeting will be published through Noticeboard once they have been approved.

Part 2 – Schools Standards Board

Item 1 – Introductions and Welcome (Sheila Smith) SS welcomed AF to the meeting.

Item 2 – Reminder of, and updates, to the school improvement process (Louise M) LM confirmed that the landscape has completely changed. Previously the Local Authority had information about schools and worked directly with those schools to look at any issues that arose. No other schools were privy to any of this information.

The funding available for school improvement is now totally different, and it is accessed through a bidding process which means that more people need to be involved in the exchange of information. The Schools Standards Board was established in order to have

10

an overview of the issues and to enable us to identify priorities and attract the funding that is needed within North Somerset. As it is a newly established group, the way this part of the meeting is handled will develop over time. There may be aspects that are difficult or uncomfortable, and information may be shared where it would not have been in the past. LM confirmed that the minutes will not be published but a summary of themes instead.

GW advised that some of the initial feedback about having a different structure within North Somerset indicated a concern that there may not be a key point of contact for issues, but it seems that there have not been any difficulties with this, and all concerns and issues have been addressed. GW has been in telephone contact with schools on a regular basis.

The current focus for Ofsted inspections is on progress, and previously the Local Authority would have been responsible for that but it is now the schools that are responsible for collating and providing progress data. Ofsted also seem to have more of an opinion about what schools should be doing and this does present certain challenges. Action – GW to write a piece for Noticeboard.

Item 3 – Draft Education Excellence Policy (Gail Webb) This was sent out prior to the meeting. It has been challenging to write this document given the current climate of change. The EEPB are being asked to agree that it can be circulated to schools alongside the data sharing protocol. This was agreed. Action – BF to circulate.

Item 4 – Feedback from recent meetings (Louise Malik) There has been a meeting with the RSC, and they were positive and supportive about the work that is being done in North Somerset. The RSC indicated a degree of confidence, and it was clear that the Authority is not currently on the ‘risk list’. They expressed a willingness to work in partnership, and they asked if they could attend Schools Standards Board meetings in future. This could cause an element of concern for colleagues but it could also have a positive impact.

The RSC also encouraged North Somerset to put bids in for funding from the Strategic Schools Improvement Fund (SSIF). The specific areas they spoke about were leadership, peer-to-peer work, maximising resources for school improvement and maths.

The Sub-Regional Improvement Board covers North Somerset, Bristol, South Gloucestershire and Bath & North East Somerset and also has representatives from the RSC and DfE in attendance. The expectation is that North Somerset Officers attend to represent all schools and academies in their area at that meeting, and the SSB will help the Authority to do that.

If North Somerset can find a way to manage the bidding processes, there are sources of money that would make a big difference to our children in need so it is important to find an effective way of accessing this.

SS commented that from a strategic point of view it appears that the RSC is looking to develop relationships with local authorities, and they are making requests rather than dictating about issues. The Authority is able to push back a bit and highlight the need for funding in order to take actions requested. GW commented that the RSC have indicated that they want to see how the MAT landscape develops, but this is a significant change from their previous approach which was a much more about intentional design. Schools

11

cannot be left in a void and they need guidance and decisions from the RSC to support them. This has been raised with the RSC.

This was the second SRIB meeting that has taken place, and it was better than the previous one because there was more guidance. People who had submitted bids were also allowed to stay in the meeting which was helpful because it enabled questions to be asked. Some bid paperwork was not completed very well and there was some discussion about how time-consuming the process is.

There was an overview of data for the South West and some slides were shown. These will be sent out to the EEPB separately. Action – BF to circulate. There was an unfortunate comment about North Somerset ‘stagnating’ at KS2 and this was challenged. A lot of positive comments were made about B&NES. AM pointed out that there is only two years of data and B&NES had a low intake last year so their results will have shot up. JW feels that there is an issue about the context in which the data is being looked at. GW advised that there was a good discussion about data and they have said that this can be shared. PC commented that this will be interesting for schools and GW agreed but advised that it would need to go to the Scrutiny Panel first, before being shared. It can come to the EEPB first as long as it remains within the meeting.

The SSIF process is very time consuming. Through TSOG Teaching Schools, MATs & LAs can put in a bid for funding for development, but it is an issue of who would be able/have the capacity to do this. The attempt to work across local authorities to compile bids did not work.

Item 5 – Operation of the School Standards Board (Louise Malik) The Learning Exchange worked at a very high level of confidentiality, so there is a need to be very careful moving forward and ensure that schools are not named in the minutes of meetings. GW confirmed that she is concerned about the data because it is not validated, and the data sharing protocol has not been signed off yet. The 2016 validated data is available but 2017 data is not validated.

LM advised that when the data sharing agreement has been implemented, and this group is established, the data could be discussed with input from the CEO of the relevant MAT about strategies that are in place and support that is needed. It may be that themes start to come through that can inform the work of the teaching schools.

AM felt strongly that the membership of the Schools Standards Board needs to be finalised. LM advised that the plan is for it to be SS, LM and GW from North Somerset, plus CEO’s of MATS, the RSC and a representative from the Diocese. However, it is not the membership that we have here today, so at this meeting there needs to be consideration of what work should be done before the next meeting, and what CEO’s should expect when they attend future meetings.

JW commented that it is important to realise what it could be like for schools when they come in to this sort of meeting. He and SS attended a meeting with a previous RSC and it was very uncomfortable, and the SSB must not be like that.

AM advised that he would welcome challenge from the SSB as an opportunity to explain issues and obtain support from colleagues.

12

DE advised that she would feel more comfortable if she was able to present her school’s data directly to the Board, as a single academy trust, rather than having GW presenting it for her, purely because she will know the data and circumstances and be able to respond to any questions raised.

GW advised that it is also necessary to consider what the role of the SSB is. It is not the remit of the Board to hold CEO’s to account because that responsibility lies with the RSC. If, after a meeting, the SSB felt that a MAT had not responded sufficiently to their questions they would have to say that they were going to refer it to the RSC.

TS commented that in his opinion the 2016 validated data is not worth sharing because it is already too far out of date to be relevant. The 2017 data may not be validated but it could be considered in that context. TS expressed some concern about whether the SSB is an appropriate forum for scrutiny. He suggested that rather than sharing individual school level data, the LA, SATs and MATs could be encouraged to share information about priority areas that they would like support on to see if any other schools have the same issues, and then these could be passed to TSOG to consider support and a SSIF bid. SM agreed with this, as did JW who suggested that Heads could come in with a list of priorities and make links with the teaching schools.

GW advised that SS does need to know that schools are doing what they should be doing, and LM and GW need to be able to have an informed view about what is happening when they have conversations with Councillors or the RSC.

With Single Academy Trusts, GW would talk to the schools so they are aware of what will be presented. SS asked whether there is any reason why a Head of a Single Academy Trust could not attend and there is no reason, but there are different options. GW could represent them, they could attend as automatic attendees, or they could attend as required. KM advised that she agrees with DE’s earlier comment about presenting their own data and it was agreed that SAT’s can be members of the SSB.

SS urged for an element of caution due to the infancy of this style of meeting because there is the potential for misunderstandings to arise until the format and content of meetings has been established.

JW highlighted the need for there to be clear communication before each SSB. He noted that a particular school had been mentioned at the last meeting but he was not aware that the school was going to be discussed and he would have appreciated a phone call beforehand.

SV advised that the data spreadsheet has been used before to decide which schools should be approached for breach classes etc. AM felt this was appropriate as long as schools are aware that the data is being used. GW confirmed that they are, but that it is not just about data. GW holds a significant amount of contextual knowledge about schools and so do the CEO’s. ZE commented that additionally all MATs and SATs will have their own school improvement strategies so if there are common themes around areas where schools are struggling it would be helpful for schools to know they are not alone.

GW requested confirmation that the decision has been made for data to stay with the challenge partner role because she is aware of the context, and this was confirmed. LM advised that if there are conversations with an individual school, SAT or MAT she would like that to be shared with other schools to share learning through themes and priorities.

13

It was agreed that CEO’s SATs and GW will all share information, that they will be invited to attend the SSB and to share priorities and themes.

GW suggested that there needs to be a sub group to look at data in special schools and understand what information is required and how to use the data. Action – GW to establish special school task and finish group

There are five Single Academies – Churchill, Backwell, Nailsea, Broadoak and Birdwell.

WP and TS left the meeting at this point.

GW recalled that there had been the suggestion that Heads of Teaching Schools should not attend the EEPB or SSB and she asked whether this is still the case. AM felt that they should be at a separate meeting, but JW and ZE disagreed because it would be another layer of communication whereas being here would provide the contextual information. AM acknowledged this and suggested that they could perhaps attend as observers.

It was agreed that Heads of Teaching Schools will be invited to meetings as attendees who can speak but not vote, and they will then liaise with the TSOG. PB suggested that the Terms of Reference now need to be amended and SS confirmed that they will be. Action – GW to update the TOR and recirculate.

Item 6 – Summer 2017 Headline Data It has been agreed that this data is not being circulated at this meeting and the LA is concerned about leaving the conversation there. The next EEPB meeting is in February, and the next bidding round starts before that. GW asked if there are any key messages that the EEPB would like to pass to the TSOG before the next bidding round.

AM and SR advised that the planning will need to start well in advance, so schools will need to be identified and some informal conversations will need to take place. It will be important for schools to be given notice. SR also felt that the size of the bids makes a difference because smaller bids are much easier to deal with.

GW advised that she will ask the deputy RSC some direct questions about the bidding process and the wider context of it, including eligible schools.

Item 7 – Evaluation of Meeting (Sheila Smith) SS asked whether colleagues felt that this meeting was useful and this was confirmed.

The Terms of Reference need to be re-evaluated, but those present felt more reassured about the plans for future meetings, and that there has been some forward movement in terms of establishing where the group sits strategically.

SS advised that she feels it has been a very useful meeting. She asked for it to be recognised that if at any point in future meetings any colleagues say anything that is deemed inappropriate, this will not be out of deliberate intention, it will be through trying to build upon the trust and discussions that have already been started. SS thanked all colleagues for their time today.

Item 8 – Date of Next Meeting

14

The next meeting will be held in February 2018 – date and venue TBC.

15