Children and Young People's Service Scrutiny Sub-Committee Second Despatch

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S SERVICE SCRUTINY SUB-COMMITTEE SECOND DESPATCH

Date and Time: Thursday 1 March 2012 7.00 pm

Venue : Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW

Contact for enquiries: Website: Jacqueline Davy www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee Democratic Services Officer Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 2167 Lambeth Council – Democracy Live Fax: 020 7926 2361 on Facebook Email: [email protected] http://www.facebook.com/

Governance and Democracy @LBLdemocracy on Twitter Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy London, SW2 1RW To tweet about Council agendas, minutes or meetings use #Lambeth Despatched: Monday 27 February 2012

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Councillors BEST (Vice-Chair), COSGRAVE, HARRISON (Chair), MORGAN and MORRIS

CO-OPTED MEMBERS : Voting education representatives [4]

Paulette Roberts, Paul Ebanks, Ms Barbara Lane and Vacancy 1

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors CAMERON, GIESS, MEMERY, OGDEN, J.WHELAN and BIGHAM

AGENDA

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING

Page Nos. 6. Standards of Achievement in Lambeth Schools for the previous 1 - 28 academic year

(All Wards) (Report No. 297)

Contact: Feyisa Demie, Head of Research and Statistics, 020 7926 9448 [email protected]

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

7. The Council’s relationship with schools 29 - 36

(All Wards) (Report No. 298)

Contact: Cathy Twist, 0207 926 9541 [email protected]

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

8. School Admissions - Update 37 - 66

(All Wards) (Report No. 292,299)

Contact: Peter Scott (Head of School Admissions) 020 7926 1469 [email protected]

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

The Chair is of the opinion that although this report had not been available for at least five clear days before the meeting, nonetheless it should be considered now as a matter of urgency because of the special circumstances that this report contains important information about how admissions is working in Lambeth and will give the Chair and CYPS Scrutiny members a clearer picture on how Lambeth is cooperating with the Pan-London Admissions procedure for both secondary and primary schools. Though the final outcomes of both the Pan-London Secondary Transfer and Primary Schemes are not included in the report, the information does still provide a good precursor for any subsequent information on final outcomes, which will be available to Lambeth Council departments, the Secretary of State and the Office of Schools Adjudicators shortly after the 1 March 2012. The report also informs the Committee on the results of a recent MEDSOC Review, a matter previously discussed at Scrutiny, and highlights recommendations that School Admissions and the MEDSOC Panel will be adopting. It had not been possible to obtain all necessary information in time for the dispatch of this agenda.

9. Inspection outcomes in Lambeth Schools for the previous year 67 - 76

(All Wards) (Report No. 296)

Contact: Gareth Ball, SIMG Project Support Officer, 020 7926 7642 [email protected]

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

PUBLIC INFORMATION QR CODES (for use with smart mobile phones)

Dates of future meetings, the agenda management timetable and details of past meetings can be found on the Council’s website, if you are viewing this online http://tinyurl.com/cypsdates

Access Information: • Lambeth Town Hall is on the corner of Acre Lane and Brixton Hill, 200 metres south of Brixton tube station (Victoria Line) – turn left on leaving the station and look for the clock tower. • If you are viewing this online, http://tinyurl.com/lambethtownhallmap

Facilities for disabled people:

Access for people with mobility difficulties, please ring the bell (marked with the disabled access symbol) on the right-hand side of the Acre Lane entrance.

Sound enhancement system available in meeting room. Please contact the officer shown on the front page of this agenda to discuss your needs. .

Adapted toilets on the premises.

Meeting papers are available in large print and other formats on request.

For further assistance please contact the officer listed on the front page Queries on reports: Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The name, email address and telephone number of the report author is shown on the front page of each report.

Other enquiries: Please contact the officer shown on the front page to obtain any other information concerning the agenda or meeting.

Accessing Agendas, Reports and Minutes All public committee papers are available for inspection at Lambeth

libraries, and also on the internet from the day of publication in the following manner which you can access by logging onto www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee

• Log on to www.lambeth.gov.uk • Click on Council and Democracy in the menu on the left hand side • Then click on the third main item in the body of the page– Committee reports, minutes and agendas, and then Council meetings and decisions pages . Click on the relevant committee in the list and then the meeting you require.

If you are unable to locate the document you require, please contact the officer shown on the front page above.

Representation:

Ward Councillors (details via the website www.lambeth.gov.uk or phone 020 7926 2131) may be contacted at their surgeries or through Party Group offices to represent your views to the Council: (Liberal Democrats 020 7926 2028) (Conservatives 020 7926 2213) (Labour 020 7926 1166).

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Page 1

b Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub-Committee 1 March 2012

Raising Achievement in Lambeth Schools – Outcomes for Pupils 2010-2011

All Wards

Report authorised by : Cathy Twist, Assistant Director, Standards

Executive summary

The report highlights the significant progress made by Lambeth schools in supporting children and young people to achieve well. The provisional 2011 GCSE results are the best ever achieved in Lambeth. In addition, Lambeth has matched the national attainment this year in the percentage of pupils gaining 5+A*-C passes including English and Maths. This is the 14th consecutive year of improvement in GCSE results in Lambeth. At Key Stage 2 both English and maths results are above the national average.

This report also examines the standards of pupils’ progress over time and the extent of and reasons for any underachievement in schools. The performance of four cohorts of pupils at KS1, KS2, KS3 and GCSE are analysed to illustrate the effects of gender, ethnicity, English fluency and mobility on educational achievement. This is followed by a discussion of the achievement gap between pupils in Lambeth schools. The final section pays attention to the implications of raising standards of underperforming groups and narrowing the gap.

Summary of financial implications

There are no financial implications arising from the content of this report.

This report is for information only.

Recommendations (1) That the Scrutiny Sub-Committee notes the contents of this report. (2) The committee notes and congratulates pupils, their parents, teachers and other school staff on the significant overall LA level of attainment at Key Stage 2 and also at GCSE.

Consultation

Name of Department or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee response appear in report received para:

Internal Debbie Jones Executive Director of CYPS 8 Oct 12 Oct Agreed 2011 2011 Page 2

Cathy Twist Assistant Director Standards 8 Oct 12 Oct Agreed - White and School Improvement 2011 2011 achievement and FSP to be added Alfred Ansong Departmental Finance 22/2/12 22/2/12 Agreed Alison McKane Governance & Democracy 22/2/12 23/2/12 Agreed – amendments to 3.1 Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 22/2/12 23/2/12 Agreed

Report history

Date report drafted: Report deadline: Date report sent: Report no.: 25.01.12 17.02.12 24.01.12 297/10-11 Report author and contact for queries: Feyisa Demie, Head of Research and Statistics 020 7926 9448 [email protected]

Background documents

1. Education Statistics, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, June 2010 2. Raising Achievement of Black Caribbean Pupils: Good Practice in Lambeth schools, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, March 2003 3. Raising Achievement of Portuguese Pupils in Lambeth Schools, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, May 2008. 4. Raising Achievement of Somali Pupils: School responses and challenges, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, March 2007. 5. Raising Achievement in Somali Pupils: Good Practice in London Schools, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, March 2008. 6. Raising Achievement of African Heritage pupils: Good Practice in Lambeth schools, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, March 2006. 7. Raising Achievement of White working Class pupils: School Strategies, Raising Achievement of African Heritage pupils: Good Practice in Lambeth schools, January 2010 8. White Working Class: Barriers to learning, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, June 2010 9. Language Diversity in Lambeth Schools, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, September 2010 10. Raising Achievement: Good Practice in Secondary Schools with Outstanding Leadership, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, June 2010 11. Outstanding schools: A study of Successful Practice, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, June 2010

Appendices

None

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

Page 3

Page 4

Raising Achievement in Lambeth Schools – Outcomes for Pupils 2010-2011

1. Context

1.1 Background and current situation

A vital element of school improvement is raising the levels of achievement of underperforming groups of pupils in schools.

LA research into ethnic 1 and gender differences 2 in educational achievement and pupil mobility 3 has also highlighted the importance of raising achievement in Lambeth schools. Research based on school case studies draw on the views of headteachers, staff, governors, parents and pupils. Overall conclusions were that the local authority schools had bucked the national trend through the use of a range of strategies which include leadership, effective teaching and learning, parental involvement, partnership with parents and the community, an inclusive curriculum, effective use of data, well co-ordinated support and guidance, effective use of a diverse black and white workforce and a commitment to equal opportunities and the diversity agenda. Black Caribbean and African students who attend case study schools in the authority are performing well above the national average suggesting that with commitment, similar results could be achieved elsewhere. The LA studies also confirm that the quality of education provided in the local authority schools is the reason for bucking national trends.

There is a clear and comprehensive policy on school improvement that has been developed and made more robust over many years in Lambeth. Schools work well with and receive rigorous challenge from the school improvement services. The borough has had a high percentage of schools recognised as outstanding by HMCI and work in raising achievement has been well recognised and noted in national and local media.

LA research into Portuguese, Somali, EAL and mobile children also notes improvement in performance over the last 10 years. This is despite challenges in English support for large numbers of new arrivals in the local authority. Overall Lambeth has a positive story of gradual improvement in attainment over the last ten years and in some instances that improvement has been faster than the national level.

The LA and schools have focused considerable time and resources to ensure that pupils achieve well in basic skills. There has been a noticeable improvement in attainment in English and mathematics as a result of this work over the last 10 years. It is accepted by all in schools that if young people are going to succeed when adults a good understanding of English and mathematics is essential in gaining employment, post 16 and higher education qualifications.

This report examines the standards of pupils’ progress. The performance of four cohorts of pupils at KS1, KS2, KS3 and GCSE is analysed to illustrate the effects of gender, ethnicity,

1. For details see Ethnic Differences in educational achievement and implications for school improvement strategies , Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth Education, Spring Term 2001; McKenley, J., Power, C., Louise, I. and Demie, F. (2003). Raising Achievement of Black Caribbean Pupils: Good Practice in Lambeth Schools, Research and Statistics Unit, March; Ethnicity and Educational Achievement: Implication for school Improvement strategies, Research and Statistics Unit, London Borough of Lambeth, March 2010.

2. For details see Gender Differences in Levels of Attainment in Lambeth Schools , Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth Education, Autumn Term 2000. 3. For details see, Pupil Mobility in Lambeth Schools: Implications for Raising Achievement & School Management. Inclusion and Standards Division, Lambeth Council, 2004.

Page 5

English fluency and mobility on educational achievement. This is followed by a discussion of the achievement gap in Lambeth schools.

Conclusions and implications for narrowing the gap

The LA’s school improvement initiatives put much emphasis on the monitoring of performance and the need to identify the factors behind underachievement in order to close the gaps between different groups.

Overall, the findings from LA data suggest that

• At each key stage, performance has improved at a faster rate than nationally, and the gap between Lambeth and national performance has narrowed (KS1 and KS3) or been eradicated (Foundation stage, KS2 and GCSE). At both KS2 and GCSE, Lambeth now outperforms the national average. Furthermore the borough achieves extremely well on the KS1-KS2 two levels of progress indicator, being joint second highest in maths, and joint 6 th in English.

• Portuguese pupils, traditionally the lowest attaining of the main ethnic groups have been closing the gap with the other main ethnic groups and the overall LA average. In each of KS2, KS3 and GCSE between 2005 and 2011 they more than halved the gap in attainment. At each of the key stages they tended to have the highest rates of improvement.

• The picture for Caribbean pupils, another underachieving group, was more varied. At KS1 the gap with Lambeth widened, while at KS2, KS3 and GCSE they made some progress in closing the gap.

• The relative performance of African pupils at KS1-KS3 has been at or around the borough average each year. However the picture is different at GCSE where they consistently have been the highest achieving group. At each of the four key stages, their rate of improvement has been higher than in the borough overall.

• Somali pupils have previously been identified as underperforming in Lambeth. They have made very strong progress in each of the key stages and are now at the Lambeth level at each key stage with the exception of KS3.

• White British pupils consistently had the highest levels of attainment at KS1 and KS2, and their improvement since 2007 was also slightly above the Lambeth average. This year, White British pupils were also the highest attainers at KS3, while at GCSE they were only outperformed by African pupils.

• All “White” and “White Other” pupils achieved relatively poorly in 2010 but this profile improved in 2011. In Lambeth data on White British, Turkish, Greek, Portuguese, and White Irish are collected separately. White Other consists of everyone who does not fall into one of those groups

• This group includes a number of groups such as Eastern European arrivals who may struggle with English.

• Girls outperformed boys each year in reading and writing at KS1. At KS2 this was only consistently true for English, with much smaller gaps for maths, varying in favour for girls and boys. There was a similar picture at KS3. Girls outperform boys gaining five or better GCSE passes although the gap has fluctuated over the last ten years.

Page 6

• Fully fluent bilingual pupils were consistently the highest attainers, although their improvement rate was often lower than the corresponding borough improvement. At KS1, stage 3 fluency pupils outperformed English only speakers but this position reversed through the key stages

• Pupils who were eligible for a free meal improved at a faster rate than those who were not eligible at each of the key stages.

2 STANDARDS OF PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT

Standards in the Early Years Foundation Stage

Table 1. Percentage of pupils gaining 78+ points

78+ points including 6+ in CLL and PSE Lambeth National 2007 30 46 2008 42 49 2009 45 52 2010 55 56 2011 59 59 Difference 2007-11 +29 +13 Difference 2010-11 +4 +3

The DfE classifies a good level of development as those pupils who get a total of 78+ points including 6 or above in each of the areas of CLL and PSE. In 2007, Lambeth was achieving below national levels with at about two thirds as many pupils gaining a good level of development (30% and 46% respectively). However over the last five years, the proportion of pupils attaining this standard in Lambeth has practically doubled and now is at the corresponding national level of 59%.

Table 1a. Percentage of pupils reaching level 2 and above at KS1 (2002-2011)

Writing Reading Maths Lambeth National Lambeth National Lambeth National 2002 79 86 78 84 85 90 2003 71 81 75 84 81 90 2004 76 82 78 85 85 90 2005 73 82 78 85 84 91 2006 73 81 76 84 84 90 2007 75 80 78 84 84 90 2008 74 80 79 84 85 90 2009 76 81 79 84 85 89 2010 79 81 81 85 86 89 2011 81 81 82 85 87 90 Difference 2002-11 +2 -5 +4 +1 +2 0 Difference 2010-11 +2 0 +1 0 +1 +1

Attainment in writing in Lambeth is now on a par with the national figure, with a two percentage point improvement since last year, and now stands at 81% gaining level 2 or above. In reading, Lambeth has narrowed the gap with national standards, halving it over the last ten years, and it now stands at 82%, compared with 85% nationally. Results have improved, both in Lambeth

Page 7 and nationally, in maths over the last ten years, and currently 87% of Lambeth pupils and 90% of pupils nationally get level 2 or above.

However, it is important to note that the way KS1 results are reported changed in 2005. Teacher assessments, underpinned by tests, are now reported nationally as opposed to tests only. Therefore, any comparisons made with KS1 data prior to 2005 should be treated with some caution.

Standards at Key Stage 2

Table 2. Percentage of pupils reaching level 4 and above at KS2 (2002-2011) English Maths English+maths Lambeth National Lambeth National Lambeth National 2002 68 75 67 73 2003 72 75 67 73 2004 76 78 70 74 2005 76 79 68 75 2006 78 79 70 76 2007 77 80 71 77 2008 80 81 74 78 69 73 2009 79 80 78 79 71 72 2010* 82 80 81 79 75 74 2011** 83 81 83 80 78 74 Difference 2002-11 +15 +6 +16 +7 Difference 2010-11 +1 +1 +2 +1 +3 0 In 2010 the KS2 tests were boycotted by about 25% of Lambeth schools. All 2010 data is based only on 47 schools ** all 2011 figures are provisional and subject to change

At key stage 2, Lambeth pupils have made dramatic improvements over the last ten years and now have higher levels of achievement than the comparative national figure. English achievement in the borough has improved by 15 percentage points to its current level of 83% reaching the expected level, while in maths the improvement was 16 points and now stands at 83% gaining level 4+.

Since 2008, statistics have also been collected on the percentage of pupils gaining level 4+ in both English and maths. Again for this indicator, Lambeth now outstrips the national figure. Provisional figures for 2011 show 78% of Lambeth pupils and 74% of pupils nationally achieving this indicator.

As of 2010 science is no longer a test subject, and in all subsequent key stage 2 tables any averages referred to relate to English and maths only, and data for previous years has been recalculated on this basis.

Two levels of progress between KS1 and KS2

In addition to looking at overall attainment, the DfE also looks at the percentage of pupils making at least two levels progress between KS1 and KS2. Table 2a shows that this is an indicator where Lambeth has consistently been higher than the corresponding national figure. In 2011 89% of Lambeth pupils made two levels of progress compared with only 82% of pupils nationally in maths, which was the joint second highest of any LA in the country. Similarly, in English in 2011, Lambeth was the joint 6 th highest LA with 89% making two levels of progress, compared with 83% nationally.

Page 8

Table 2a – Two levels of progress between KS1 and KS2 English Maths Lambeth National Lambeth National 2009 86 81 83 80 2010 91 83 88 82 2011 89 83 89 82

Table 2b – Two levels of progress by top performing LAs English Maths Camden 91 London, City of x Kensington & Chelsea 91 Wandsworth 90 Hammersmith & Trafford Fulham 90 89 Wandsworth 90 Kensington and Chelsea 89 Westminster 90 Lambeth 89 Knowsley 89 Greenwich 89 Trafford 89 Richmond upon Thames 89 Islington 89 Darlington 88 Lambeth 89 St. Helens 88 London, City of 89 Tameside 88

England 83 England 82

Standards at Key Stage 3

Table 3. Percentage of pupils achieving level 5 or above (2002 - 2011) English Maths Science Lambeth National Lambeth National Lambeth National 2002 59 67 55 67 55 67 2003 61 69 62 70 59 68 2004 69 71 66 73 56 66 2005 71 74 65 74 59 70 2006 72 72 71 77 63 72 2007 69 74 72 76 64 73 2008 71 73 71 77 59 71 2009* 78 77 77 79 73 78 2010 81 79 79 80 75 80 2011 82 82 78 81 78 83 Difference 2002-11 +23 +15 +23 +14 +23 +16 Difference 2010-11 +1 +3 -1 +1 +3 +3

From 2009, there were no statutory tests at key stage 3, and so the results of the teacher assessments are reported here, which are not directly comparable with previous years reported data. Table 3 shows that the gap in attainment between national and Lambeth results has been closed in English and narrowed in both maths and science, over the last 10 years.

Page 9

Standards at Key Stage 4 (GCSE)

Table 4. Percentage of pupils achieving level 5+A*-C and 5+A*-G (2002-2011) 5+ A* - C 5+ A* - C including 5+ A* - G English + maths Lambeth National Lambeth National Lambeth National 2002 40 52 - - 87 89 2003 42 53 - - 88 89 2004 48 54 - - 90 89 2005 52 56 38 45 89 89 2006 55 59 42 46 89 89 2007 56 62 41 46 89 92 2008 62 65 47 48 92 91 2009 71 70 54 50 94 92 2010 74 76 53 53 93 93 2011 79 79 60 58 94 93 Difference 2002-11 +39 +27 +7 +4 Difference 2010-11 +5 +4 +7 +5 +1 - *national figures for 2011 are based on NCER provisional statistics which will exclude a small number of LAs and academies.

Provisional figures for 2011 are now available, Lambeth has closed the gap to the national outcomes on the percentage of pupils gaining five or more good passes. In addition, Lambeth has surpassed the national attainment this year in the percentage of pupils gaining 5+A*-C passes including English and Maths. In 2005, the first year this indicator was reported, Lambeth was seven percentage points below the national figure. Now it is two percentage points above (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. GCSE 5+ A*-C achievement 1991-2011

Page 10

THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN LAMBETH SCHOOLS

The Achievement Gap of Ethnic Minority Children in Schools

It is now widely acknowledged that closing the gap in educational attainment between different ethnic groups is a pressing concern of both local and national importance.

The following four tables show the average test performance in key stages 1 to 4 from 2005 to 2011 for the largest ethnic groups in terms of size. Somali pupils have also been included as this is a growing group in Lambeth, and their performance is a cause for concern due to the significant gap in their achievement when compared with other groups. However, the data shows a significant improvement for this group of pupils due to a focus by schools and the LA.

Table 5. KS1 attainment by ethnic background (2005-2011) Key Stage 1 Average (% Level 2B+) Ethnic Group Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 05-11 10-11 African 60 61 63 61 64 70 69 +9 -1 Somali 51 44 56 51 58 68 67 +16 -1 Caribbean 57 57 57 55 56 59 59 +2 - White British 71 71 70 72 75 73 78 +7 +5 Portuguese 45 42 46 46 50 54 53 +8 -1 White Other* 71 60 66 64 62 70 73 +2 +3 Black Other 66 59 57 59 62 61 62 -4 + Lambeth -all 62 61 62 62 64 67 68 +6 +1

Of the major ethnic groups, Portuguese pupils have consistently been the lowest performing group. Their improvement of eight percentage points over the last seven years was only bettered by African pupils, (up nine percentage points). In 2011 the gap between Portuguese pupils and those in Lambeth overall was 15 percentage points.

African pupils made the most improvement over the last seven years, up nine percentage points and they now outperform Lambeth pupils overall, albeit by one percentage point.

Caribbean pupils’ performance has always been below the borough average, and there has only been a two percentage point improvement since 2005, and so the gap between their performance and Lambeth has widened. ‘Black Other’ pupils’ performance has also consistently been below the Lambeth average, and the gap has widened since 2005, as they were the only group to record a net decrease in performance over the period, falling from 66% to 62% gaining level 2B+.

White British pupils have consistently been the highest achieving group at KS1 and the gap widened slightly with Lambeth. In 2005, 71% of White British pupils and 62% of all pupils gained level 2B+. By 2011, this figure had increased to 78% for White British and 68% in Lambeth, a rise in the gap of one percentage point. White Other pupils in the borough had one of the smallest net improvements since 2005, but they are still above the borough average.

The performance of Somali pupils has also been included in this table (and the other key stage tables), and this group is a subset of the African data. The cohort size of this group is consistently small for each key stage, and so the data is subject to fluctuation, so any interpretation of this group’s results should be taken with caution. Somali pupils showed the strongest performance over the seven years, up 16 percentage points, although there have been year on year fluctuations.

Page 11

The gap between White British (the strongest performers) and the weakest performers, the Portuguese pupils remained relatively constant at about 25 percentage points.

Table 6. KS2 attainment by ethnic background (2005-2011) Key Stage 2 Average (% Level 4+) Ethnic Group Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 05-11 10-11 African 71 71 76 75 76 82 85 +14 +3 Somali 50 49 50 59 74 74 84 +34 +10 Caribbean 61 57 58 67 71 78 78 +17 - White British 75 74 78 82 87 84 89 +14 +5 White Other 74 78 83 83 85 90 87 +13 -3 Portuguese 53 49 59 73 71 76 77 +23 +1 Black Other 62 62 73 71 75 80 84 +22 +4 Lambeth 72 74 74 77 79 81 83 +11 +2

Again at KS2, Portuguese pupils are the lowest attaining group. However they have narrowed the gap considerably since 2005, moving from being 19 percentage points below the borough average, to only six points below this year.

The performance of African pupils has been on or around the borough average in each of the last seven years. Of all the major ethnic groups they had the joint smallest net improvement in attainment over the period. Somali pupils closed the gap with Lambeth, reducing a gap of 22 percentage points in 2005 to nothing by 2011, although again the cohort size is small.

The gap between the highest (White British) and lowest (Portuguese) achievers has narrowed, from 22 percentage points in 2005, to 12 points in 2011. Figure 2 below illustrates that each of the major ethnic groups have improved since 2005, and that there is much less disparity in attainment by 2011.

Figure 2. Key Stage 2 level 4+ performance by ethnic background (2005-2011)

African Caribbean White British Portuguese

95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 Percentagee 55 50 45 40 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Page 12

Table 7. KS3 attainment by ethnic background (2005-2011)

Key Stage 3 Average (% Level 5+) Ethnic Group Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 05-11 10-11 African 62 68 73 74 78 79 82 +20 +3 Somali 26 38 30 55 64 65 71 +45 +6 Caribbean 55 61 60 61 75 73 73 +18 - White British 70 79 73 68 81 79 83 +13 +4 White Other 60 70 72 66 76 83 82 +22 -1 Portuguese 44 65 56 57 68 69 68 +24 -1 Black Other 70 72 74 62 72 85 79 +9 -6 Lambeth 65 69 68 67 78 79 80 +15 - At KS3, the test average is calculated using the actual outcomes in English, maths and science.

Similar to the trend seen at KS1 and KS2, Portuguese pupils have shown a significant improvement at KS3 since 2005, with an increase of 24 percentage points, and reducing the gap with Lambeth from 21 to 13 percentage points over the period.

White Other pupils also showed strong improvement between 2005 and 2011, up 22 percentage points, the second highest net improvement of any of the major groups.

In 2011, White British pupils had the highest levels of attainment with 83% gaining level 5+, although their rate of improvement was lower than that found for the other major ethnic groups.

The attainment of African pupils has nearly reached that of White British pupils by 2011, and is now 82%, an increase of 20 percentage points since 2005, and improving faster than pupils in the borough overall. Caribbean pupils have also improved faster than in Lambeth although they are still below the LA average.

Table 8. GCSE attainment by ethnic background (2005-2011) GCSE Results (% 5+ A* -C grades) Ethnic Group Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 05-11 10-11 African 57 57 65 65 81 85 86 +29 +1 Somali 12 33 30 37 65 79 82 +70 +3 Caribbean 43 52 44 53 64 71 73 +30 +2 White British 46 52 50 61 68 71 76 +30 +5 Portuguese 37 33 47 63 65 81 74 +37 -7 Black Other 49 56 57 66 78 63 70 +21 +7 Lambeth 52 55 56 62 71 74 79 +27 +5

Again, Portuguese pupils have shown the strongest improvement, and have narrowed the gap with Lambeth. In 2005, Portuguese pupils were 15 percentage points below the borough average, but they are currently six percentage points below, and they have overtaken Caribbean and black Other pupils.

Caribbean pupils have improved at a slightly faster rate than in Lambeth and currently they are seven percentage points below the borough average, (at 73% and 80% respectively.)

At GCSE African pupils are one of the highest achieving groups at GCSE with a consistent upward trend over the last 7 years. African pupils achieved 86% at 5 A* to C in GCSE this year. The small number of Somali pupils have closed the gap with Lambeth and have made substantial improvement over the last two years in particular.

The research into the achievement of African heritage children found that the high expectations of and support from parents and their belief in the importance of education was a significant factor in the achievement of African pupils. These families had also experienced a “British”

Page 13

style of education in West Africa which may also help children from this heritage to be successful in the British education system.

Table 8a. GCSE attainment by ethnic background (2007-2011)

GCSE Results (% 5+ A*-C grades including English and maths) Change Change 07-11 10-11 Ethnicity 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 African 49 51 65 66 71 22 5 Somali 11 20 48 50 61 50 11 Black other 35 58 60 41 51 16 9 White Other 30 51 62 49 62 32 +13 Caribbean 32 40 43 45 49 17 4 Portuguese 26 37 39 42 52 26 10 White British 37 45 45 46 57 20 11 All Pupils 41 47 54 53 60 20 8

Again, for the indicator of five good passes including English and maths, African pupils were consistently the highest attainers. In 2011, 71% of African pupils gained this level, compared with 61% in Lambeth. Portuguese pupils made the most progress, and improved by 26 percentage points and they have now overtaken Caribbean pupils, who are currently the lowest attaining of the main ethnic groups.

Figure 3a. GCSE 5+ A*-C attainment by ethnic background (2005-2011)

African Caribbean White British Portuguese

90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 Percentage 45 40 35 30 25 20 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Page 14

The Achievement Gap of Mobile and Non-mobile pupils

Table 9. Performance of mobile and non-mobile pupils (2010 & 2011) Key Stage 2010 2011 Non - Non - Mobile Difference Mobile Difference mobile mobile KS2 86 83 76 +7 +13 English 73 (Level 4+) Maths 82 76 +6 85 77 +8 Average 82 76 +6 85 75 +10 KS3 English 82 64 +18 84 63 +21 (Level 5+) Maths 79 74 +5 80 62 +18 Science 77 61 +16 79 59 +20 Average 79 66 +13 81 61 +20 GCSE 5+A*-C 76 68 +8 81 72 +8

This year, the gap at KS2 widened to 10 percentage points, with 75% of mobile pupils and 85% of non mobile pupils gaining the expected level. The gap also widened for KS3 pupils, and remained constant for GCSE. Although these figures look concerning, the trend (as shown in figures 4 and 6) for KS2 and GCSE has shown a narrowing of the gap over the last six years. However the picture is more mixed for KS3.

Figure 4. Average Key Stage 2 test performance at level 4 or above (2005-2011)

Non-mobile Mobile 90 85 85 82 80 79 80 76 76 76 76 75 75

70 65 64 65 60

% at Level 4 or above or 4 Level at % 60 57 54 55

50 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

At KS2, non-mobile pupils were those who had entered their respective school in year 3 or before i.e. were present in school at the start of the key stage. Mobile pupils were those who had joined school during the key stage i.e. during year 4, 5 or 6.

Figure 4 illustrates that the gap between the two groups has narrowed since 2005, when it was at a high of 22 percentage points, to 10 points this year.

Page 15

Figure 5. Average Key Stage 3 test performance at level 5 or above (2005-2011)

Non-mobile Mobile 90 79 79 81 80 72 71 71 68 67 70 66 66 55 60 61 60

50 38 40

% at Level 5 or above 5or Level%at 30

10 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

At KS3, non-mobile pupils were those who had entered their respective school in year 7 i.e. the beginning of the key stage. Mobile pupils were those who had joined during years 8 or 9.

The gap in attainment at KS3 between those who spent all of their secondary education at one school and those who joined part way through the key stage narrowed between 2005 and 2008 but has been widening for the last four years.

Figure 6. GCSE performance – percentage achieving 5+ A*-C passes (2005-2011) Non-mobile Mobile 90 80 76 81 76 72 70 64 61 60 55 54 68 50 54 53 50 46 47 40 34 30 % 5+ A*-Cpasses %5+ 19 20 10 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

At GCSE level, non-mobile pupils were those who had entered their respective school in year 7. Mobile pupils were those who had joined in year 8 onwards.

In 2004, less than half as many pupils who were mobile gained 5 good GCSE passes, as those who were not mobile, but this gap had narrowed by 2011 to nine percentage points.

Table 10. KS2 average level 4+ performance by length of time spent in school (2005-11) Length of time spent in 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 school Joined in Year 3 or before 76 76 76 79 80 82 85 Joined in Year 4 60 58 69 64 66 81 80 Joined in Year 5 59 63 63 63 71 80 74 Joined in Year 6 37 49 58 47 54 59 61

The achievement of the non mobile pupils was relatively stable with slow steady improvement, but the relative performance of those pupils who joined part way through the key stage has

Page 16 improved, most significantly for those who joined in year 5 (up by 25 percentage points, compared with four percentage points for those who joined by the start of key stage 2). However, it should be noted that the number of pupils who joined in years 5 and 6 are relatively small and so the data is more susceptible to fluctuations.

Table 11. KS3 average level 5+ performance by length of time spent in school (2005-2011) Length of time spent 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 in school Joined in Year 7 66 72 71 68 79 79 81 Joined in Year 8 46 56 63 74 68 64 66 Joined in Year 9 30 52 49 64 65 68 55

Pupils who joined the school in year 7 had the highest levels of attainment, and their results have improved by 15 points over the last seven years, and are currently 81%. These results are higher than for the pupils who joined in years 8 and year 9, although these two groups have made a better rate of improvement since 2003. However the caveat about small cohort sizes is still relevant.

Table 12. GCSE 5+ A*-C attainment by length of time spent in school (2004-2010) Length of time 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 spent in school Joined in Year 7 54 53 55 64 76 76 81 Joined in Year 8 34 53 50 52 74 69 66 Joined in Year 9 39 48 38 51 68 70 79 Joined in Year 10 43 42 53 65 82 73 71 Joined in Year 11 14 18 48 63 15 44 70

Pupils who joined in year 7 always had the highest levels of attainment. More recent joiners tended to do less well (however in 2011 only 10 pupils joined in year 11).

Page 17

The Gender Gap

Table 13. KS1 performance by gender 2002-2011 (% Level 2B+) Gender Year Reading Writing Maths Average Boys 2002 57 47 70 58 2003 55 48 64 56 2004 58 52 67 59 2005 61 49 65 58 2006 56 45 62 54 2007 60 46 65 57 2008 60 47 66 58 2009 63 51 66 60 2010 63 54 68 62 2011 63 53 70 62 Girls 2002 68 60 72 67 2003 63 60 62 62 2004 68 64 71 68 2005 71 60 65 65 2006 69 62 67 66 2007 71 61 67 66 2008 71 61 69 67 2009 71 63 69 68 2010 75 69 72 72 2011 77 69 73 73 (Girls -Boys) 2002 11 13 2 9 Difference 2003 8 12 -2 6 2004 10 12 4 9 2005 10 11 - 7 2006 13 17 5 12 2007 11 15 2 9 2008 11 14 3 9 2009 8 12 3 8 2010 12 15 4 10 2011 14 16 3 11

In each of the years examined, girls have consistently outperformed boys in writing and reading, and in the majority of years, also in mathematics. The biggest gap was for writing, at about 15 percentage points, although the figure varied slightly each year from about 11 to 17 points. The gap for reading was lower each year than the corresponding writing gap, by about two or three percentage points and ranged from 8 to 13 percentage points in favour of girls. In 2011 the gap was wider in reading and writing than for any of the last five years. In mathematics, there was much closer agreement in performance between boys and girls, with a gap of on average about three points in favour of girls.

Comparison with the 2011 national figures show that boys in the borough have the same level of attainment in writing as boys nationally (at 53%), but are less likely to gain level 2B+ in reading (with a gap of three percentage points), while in maths the gap was five percentage points. The attainment of girls in Lambeth was generally closer to girls nationally. There was a gap of one percentage point in writing, two in reading, and three in maths.

Page 18

Figure 7. Average KS1 performance at level 2B+ by gender (2002-2011) Boys Girls 73 75 72

68 68 70 67 67 66 66 65 65 62 62 62 60 59 58 58 58 60 57 56 Level 2B+ 2B+ Level 54 55

45 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Table 14. KS2 Test Performance by Gender 2002-2011 (% Level 4+) Gender Year English Maths Average Boys 2002 65 68 67 2003 65 65 65 2004 69 68 69 2005 69 68 69 2006 71 68 70 2007 74 73 74 2008 76 73 75 2009 74 77 76 2010 77 81 79 2011 78 81 80 Girls 2002 70 66 68 2003 77 67 72 2004 82 73 78 2005 83 69 76 2006 84 72 78 2007 82 70 76 2008 84 73 79 2009 82 77 80 2010 87 81 84 2011 90 86 88 Diff erence 2002 5 -2 2 (Girls -Boys) 2003 12 2 7 2004 13 5 9 2005 14 1 8 2006 13 4 9 2007 8 -3 3 2008 8 - 8 2009 8 - 8 2010 10 - 5 2011 12 5 8 At KS2, girls consistently outperformed boys in English. The gap was 12 percentage points in 2011, slightly wider than in each of the previous four years. In earlier years the gap has been as large as 14 percentage points and as small as five points. For the majority of the years examined, girls outperformed boys in mathematics by a few percentage points, and the gap in 2011 at five percentage points was the largest since 2004.

In 2011, the attainment of girls in Lambeth was higher than for girls nationally in both subjects, with a gap of four percentage points in English, and six percentage points in maths. Boys in Lambeth also outperformed boys nationally in English (by one percentage point), and had the same level of attainment in mathematics.

Page 19

Figure 8. Average KS2 test performance at level 4+ by gender (2002-2011) Boys Girls 90 88 85 84

80 78 80 76 79 78 76 79 80 75 76 72 68 74 75 70 69 70 69 65 67 65

60 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Table 15. KS3 test performance by gender 2002-2011 (% level 5+) Gender Year English Maths Science Average Boys 2002 51 55 57 54 2003 55 61 59 58 2004 65 67 56 63 2005 67 70 65 67 2006 68 73 64 68 2007 64 70 62 65 2008 64 71 58 64 2009 78 80 73 77 2010 76 78 76 77 2011 79 78 77 78 Girls 2002 65 54 53 57 2003 66 63 59 63 2004 72 64 56 64 2005 74 61 55 63 2006 76 69 62 69 2007 74 74 64 71 2008 77 71 60 69 2009 82 78 75 78 2010 86 79 75 80 2011 86 79 80 82 (Girls - 2002 14 -1 -4 3 Boys) 2003 11 2 0 5 2004 7 -3 0 1 2005 7 -9 -10 -4 2006 8 -4 -2 1 2007 10 4 2 6 2008 13 - 2 5 2009 4 -2 2 1

2010 10 1 -1 3 2011 +7 +1 +3 +4 In common with the other key stages, girls outperformed boys in English at KS3. However, the gap here has closed, from 14 percentage points in 2002, to seven points in 2011. In mathematics, the picture was more mixed. For the last four years there has been reasonably similar attainment levels for boys and girls, but prior to that the gap was as large as nine percentage points in favour of boys. The picture in science was similar to that found in maths, with close agreement for both boys and girls over the last six years.

In 2011 girls in Lambeth had the same level of attainment as girls nationally in English, but there was a gap of three percentage points in maths, and five points in science. Boys in Lambeth outperformed boys nationally, being three percentage points higher, but in maths they were two percentage points below the corresponding national figure, and in science they were four points below.

Page 20

Figure 9. Average KS3 test performance at level 5+ by gender (2002-2011) Boys Girls 85 82 80 78 80 78 75 69 71 77 77 70 64 68 64 69 65 63 67 63 65 60 57 63 54 55 58 50 45 40 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Table 16. GCSE performance by gender 2002-2011 % 5+ A* -C % 5+ A* -C % 5+ A* -G % 1 + A* -G inc EM Gender Year Boys 2002 n/a 36 84 94 2003 n/a 38 84 95 2004 n/a 45 87 97 2005 35 50 85 96 2006 40 54 86 98 2007 43 57 87 99 2008 44 58 88 99 2009 46 64 89 99 2010 47 65 89 99 2011 57 75 92 99 Girls 2002 n/a 43 89 97 2003 n/a 45 91 97 2004 n/a 50 93 98 2005 38 54 92 98 2006 42 56 92 99 2007 41 55 91 98 2008 47 65 94 99 2009 54 79 98 100 2010 53 81 96 99 2011 62 82 96 99 (Girls - 2002 n/a 7 5 3 Boys) 2003 n/a 7 7 2 2004 n/a 5 6 1 2005 3 4 7 2 2006 2 2 6 1 2007 -2 -2 4 -1 2008 3 6 6 - 2009 8 16 9 1 2010 6 16 7 - 2011 5 +7 +4 -

Girls have outperformed boys in the percentage gaining 5 or more good passes including English and maths, in six of the seven last years. In 2011 the gap was five percentage points in favour of girls (in 2005 it was only three points).

For the indicator of five or more good GCSE passes girls have consistently outperformed boys, but the gap this year was substantially smaller than in 2010, as boys contributed to the majority of the LA’s improvement, up 10 percentage points, compared to an improvement of only two points for girls..

Page 21

Girls outperform boys on the percentage gaining five or more passes at any grade. Over the last ten years, the gap has been about five percentage points.

For each of the key indicators the attainment of both boys and girls were similar to their peers nationally, with the exception that boys in Lambeth were more likely to gain five or more A*-C including English and maths, than boys nationally (a difference of two percentage points).

Figure 10. Percentage achieving 5+ A*-C passes by gender (2002-2011) Boys Girls 90 85 79 82 80 81 75 75 70 66 65 65 60 54 56 55 50 62 55 57 58 50 45 54 43 45 50 % 5+ A*-C grades A*-C 5+ % 40 45 35 30 36 38 25 20 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The main findings of the analysis show that there is a significant gap between boys’ and girls’ achievement in English at key stages 1 to 3, with the differences being less pronounced in other subjects.

The Achievement Gap for EAL Pupils

The speed of acquisition of English for pupils with English as an additional language and its implications for performance is, as yet, a relatively under-researched field, but one of crucial importance to all involved in education. In this section of the report we look at the influence of fluency in English on pupils’ performance at different key stages. Lambeth, in common with many other inner London boroughs, has a high proportion of pupils whose first language is not English.

Table 17 – Percentage of pupils at each level of fluency by Key Stage 2011 Fluency Level Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2 Key Stage 3 GCSE Beginner - Stage 1 4 1 1 0 Stage 2 16 5 2 0 Stage 3 20 18 8 6 Fully Fluent – Stage 4 11 24 29 36 English Only 49 48 60 56

As table 17 shows, most of the bilingual pupils with low levels of English fluency (stages 1 and 2) have been at KS1 and KS2, and by the time they reach secondary school far fewer are at this level. Of course, there will be some pupils who may have no English if they join a secondary school from abroad and this is reflected in the figures.

EAL Attainment at KS1 and KS2

National testing and assessment provide a comprehensive account of the attainment of bilingual pupils at various key stages of the National Curriculum. Amongst bilingual pupils at all key stages, the general trend has been as fluency in English improves so average outcomes correspondingly increases.

Page 22

Table 18 – Average Key Stage 1 performance at level 2B+ (2005-2011)

Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fluency Level 05-11 10-11 Beginner Stage 1 14 14 12 14 23 26 23 +9 -3 Stage 2 42 40 45 45 49 55 47 +5 -8 Stage 3 74 75 74 74 75 76 78 +4 +2 Fully Fluent Stage 4 81 80 81 85 85 91 91 +10 - English Only 65 64 65 65 66 66 69 +4 +3 All Pupils 62 61 62 62 64 67 68 +6 +1

Fully fluent (stage 4) pupils have consistently been the highest performers since 2005, followed by pupils at stage 3 of English fluency. Both groups outperformed English only speakers by a clear margin each year, whilst English only speakers have shown the smallest net improvement over the last seven years.

The performance of stage 1 and 2 pupils, those in early stages of English language acquisition have been more variable, partly because the cohort sizes are relatively small and subject to fluctuations.

Table 19 –Average Key Stage 2 Test Performance at Level 4+ (2005-2011)

Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fluency Level 05-11 10-11 Beginner Stage 1 21 18 37 16 35 38 30 +9 -8 Stage 2 32 34 37 39 38 49 52 +20 +3 Stage 3 72 72 69 71 72 79 79 +7 - Fully Fluent Stage 4 90 88 91 92 92 95 97 +7 +2 English Only 73 74 74 77 79 80 84 +11 +4 All Pupils 72 74 74 77 79 81 83 +11 +2

Again at KS2, fully fluent bilingual pupils had the highest levels of attainment, with 97% gaining level 4+. This compares favourably with the borough average of 83%. Unlike at KS1, English only pupils had slightly higher attainment levels than stage 3 fluency pupils.

Again, the performance of pupils at the earliest stages of learning English fluctuated each year due to the small cohort sizes, but their attainment is significantly below the borough average.

Page 23

Figure 11. Average KS2 test performance in 2011 by fluency in English (level 4+)

100% 97% 84% 90% 79% 80%

70%

60% 52% 50%

40% 30% 30%

20%

10%

0% Beginner Stage Stage 2 Stage 3 Fully Fluent English only 1 Stage 4

EAL Attainment at KS3 and GCSE

Table 20 –Average Key Stage 3 test performance at level 5+ (2005-2011) Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fluency Level 05-11 10-11 Beginner Stage 1 20 4 24 10 22 7 12 -8 +5 Stage 2 14 30 31 26 42 33 33 +19 - Stage 3 55 60 59 54 66 67 65 +10 -2 Fully Fluent Stage 4 74 78 80 80 84 87 89 +15 +2 English Only 65 73 70 67 78 78 80 +15 +2 All Pupils 65 69 68 68 76 79 80 +15 +1

At KS3, fully fluent pupils are again the highest attainers. Unlike the position at KS1 and KS2, English only speakers have markedly higher levels of attainment than stage 3 fluency pupils.

In contrast, the non fluent pupils have not shared in the overall improvement, with stage 1 beginners actually widening the gap with their peers.

Table 21 –GCSE performance – 5+ A*-C passes (2005-2011) Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fluency Level 05-11 10-11 Beginner Stage 1 20 8 0 0 0 0 0 -20 - Stage 2 20 23 28 13 50 38 43 +23 +5 Stage 3 35 34 38 49 62 70 63 +28 -7 Fully Fluent Stage 4 68 65 73 75 86 88 89 +21 +1 English Only 47 52 51 61 70 73 76 +29 +3 All Pupils 52 55 56 62 73 74 79 +27 +5

At GCSE, for the majority of years since 2004 no stage 1 pupils gained 5+A*-C grades, although the absolute number of pupils was very small.

As at KS3, fluent bilingual pupils were both the highest attainers with 89% gaining five or more GCSE passes at grade A*-C, this was up 21 percentage points on 2005. Both English only

Page 24

speakers and stage 3 pupils made about the same improvement over the period up 28 points and so the relative positions remained the same, although they both closed the gap with stage 4 speakers..

Figure 12. GCSE 5+ A*-C attainment in 2011 by fluency in English

100

90 89

80 76

70 63 60

50 43 40

10 0 0 Beginner Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Fully Fluent Stage 4 English only

It should be remembered that pupils at the earliest stages of English fluency often comprise small cohorts, especially at secondary level. At each key stage their improvement rate was much lower than that found in the borough overall, and the gap is widening with their more fluent peers. This may not be surprising as until they have an adequate grasp of English in order to access the curriculum effectively, it is a bar to attainment and improvement.

The achievement gap by eligibility for free school meals

Social class differences have commonly been assumed to play a large influence on educational attainment. Eligibility for free schools has often been used as a proxy for deprivation in a number of studies, both in Lambeth and nationally. School level data shows a clear relationship between levels of poverty and examination results.

Table 21 Average KS1 attainment by eligibility for free school meals (level 2B+) Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 05-11 10-11 Eligible 52 50 53 53 55 60 60 +8 - Not Eligible 69 68 69 68 69 71 72 +3 +1 All Pupils 62 61 62 62 64 67 68 +6 +1

There was a clear consistent gap in performance between those eligible for a free meal and those who paid for a meal at key stage 1. In 2005 the gap was 17 percentage points, but by 2011 this had reduced to 12 percentage points.

Table 22 Average KS2 attainment by eligibility for free school meals (level 4+) Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 05-11 10-11 Eligible 63 65 67 68 70 74 78 +15 +4 Not Eligible 79 80 80 82 83 86 88 +9 +2 All Pupils 72 74 74 77 79 81 83 +11 +2

Page 25

At key stage 2, pupils who were eligible for a free meal were again less likely to gain level 4+ than those who were not eligible. The relative gap remained the same at 12 percentage points in both 2004 and 2010.

Figure 13 – Average KS2 attainment by FSM eligibility (level 4+) Eligible Not Eligible 100

88 90 86 82 83 79 80 80 80

78 70 74 70 65 67 68 60 63

40 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Table 23 Average KS3 attainment by eligibility for free school meals (level 5+) Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 05-11 10-11 Eligible 51 62 63 61 71 72 74 +23 +2 Not Eligible 72 76 77 72 81 81 82 +10 +1 All Pupils 65 69 68 67 78 79 80 +15 +1

The improvement of pupils eligible for a free meal was twice the rate of those not eligible for a free meal, over the period 2005-2011. In 2005, the gap was 21 percentage points, but by 2011 this had reduced to 8 percentage points, with 74% of pupils eligible for a free meal and 82% of those not eligible gaining the expected level.

Page 26

Figure 14 – Average KS3 attainment by FSM eligibility (level 5+) Eligible Not Eligible 85 81 81 82 80 76 77 75 72 72

70 71 72 74 65 60 62 63 61 55

50 51 45 40 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Table 24 GCSE attainment by eligibility for free school meals (5+A*-C Grades) Change Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 05-11 10-11 Eligible 37 43 48 53 67 70 74 +37 +4 Not Eligible 59 62 59 68 77 78 82 +23 +4 All Pupils 52 55 56 62 73 74 79 +27 +5 *includes unclassified pupils

Pupils who were eligible for a free meal improved their levels of attainment by a higher margin than those who were not eligible, reducing the gap from 22 percentage points in 2005, to eight points in 2011, when 74% of pupils eligible and 82% of pupils not eligible gained five or more good GCSE passes.

Figure 15 – GCSE attainment by FSM eligibility (5+A*-C Grades)

Eligible Not Eligible

90 82 77 78 80 68 70 62 74 59 59 70 60 67

50 53 40 48 43 30 37

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The Achievement of White and Black pupils in Lambeth schools

There is increasing evidence that the performance of pupils from a White background in inner city schools is beginning to fall behind that of some of the other ethnic groups. Yet the educational underachievement of particularly White British pupils in inner city schools has seldom been discussed in the achievement debate and national policy formulation.

Page 27

Table 25. 5 A to C including English and Maths by all Black and White pupils (% )

Black Pupils White Pupils White British Pupils All Pupils

Year Lambeth National Gap Lambeth National Gap Lambeth National Gap Lambeth National Gap 2006 42 34 +8 34 44 -10 40 44 -4 42 46 -4 2007 42 38 +4 35 46 -11 37 46 -9 41 46 -6 2008 47 42 +5 44 48 -4 45 48 -3 47 48 -1 2009 56 45 +11 48 51 -3 45 51 -6 54 50 +3 2010 54 49 +5 45 55 -10 46 55 -9 53 53 - 2011 60 n/a n/a 58 58 - 58 58 - 60 58 +2

Recent national data shows that at GCSE, 58% of White pupils in Lambeth achieved 5+A*-C including maths compared with 58% of pupils nationally in 2011. There is big improvement compared to last year and there is no gap in percentage points for white pupils in Lambeth and national performance. (Table 25).

Table 26. 5 A to C including English and Maths by Ethnicity and Free School Meals (%) Lambeth 2011 National 2010 Ethnic Background All Pupils Non FSM FSM Gap All Pupils Non FSM FSM Gap Indian 86 82 100 -18 71 73 55 18 White/Black Caribbean 58 55 73 -18 45 50 30 20 Bangladeshi 83 78 92 -14 54 57 50 7 Chinese 63 67 60 7 75 76 68 8 Black African 71 75 66 9 53 59 42 17 Black Caribbean 49 54 39 15 44 47 33 14 White/Black African 48 55 33 22 57 60 38 22 Pakistani 71 80 50 30 49 53 41 12 White British 57 64 31 33 55 59 25 34 All White 58 64 39 25 55 58 26 32 All Black 60 64 53 11 49 53 39 14

The Lambeth and national data also suggests that there is a strong association between poverty and successful achievement in education. In particular White British pupils are the ethnic group most polarised by the impact of socio-economic disadvantage.

Table 26 shows that the gap in attainment between White pupils eligible and not eligible for free school meals was 25 percentage points in Lambeth, and 32 percentage points nationally. Considering only White British pupils, the gap is slightly larger again. Looking at Black pupils, the gap was much smaller, at 11 percentage points in Lambeth and 14 points nationally. By contrast the gap for Chinese pupils, traditionally identified as a group that has high attainment, was even smaller, at only seven percentage points in Lambeth and eight points nationally.

While poverty makes little difference to the achievements at school of some ethnic groups, it makes a huge difference to White British children on free school meals. Making comparisons between the educational attainments of different ethnic groups without explicitly considering the effect of economic disadvantage, effectively treating White British as a single group, is extremely misleading.

2. Finance Comments

2.1 The service provided is covered by the core budget of Standards and School Improvement . There are no financial implications resulting from this report.

Page 28

3. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy

3.1 There are no legal implications arising from this report

4. Results of consultation

4.1 n/a

5. Organisational implications

5.1 Risk management: n/a.

5.2 Equalities impact assessment: n/a

5.3 Community safety implications: n/a

5.4 Environmental implications: None

5.5 Staffing and accommodation implications: none

5.6 Any other implications: none

______

Agenda Item 7 Page 29

Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub-Committee 1 March 2012

Update on the ‘Learning Together’ Strategy: a new relationship between Lambeth schools and the Local Authority

All Wards

Report authorised by : Assistant Director, Schools and Educational Improvement: Cathy Twist

Executive Summary

The Education White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching” published in November 2010, the recent Education Act, (November 2011) have signalled an important legislative and policy context for the future development of the relationship between the Local Authority (LA) and schools and for the development and provision of services to schools.

The Government’s ambition to raise standards is to be met by giving schools more autonomy, through an escalation of the academies programme, the establishment of free schools, devolved control of all budgets related to teaching and learning and radical changes in curriculum. This is in addition to raising the bar as far as ‘floor standards’ achieved at age 11 and age 16 are concerned and raising expectations relating to school inspection outcomes.

The shifting emphasis is now for school improvement support to be found in effective schools rather than in LA services

The ‘Academy’ and ‘Free Schools’ policies reflects the Government’s push for more autonomy for schools and increases the diversity of school provision on offer. The expectation is that any new schools will be set up out of LA control as ‘free schools.’ This is set in the wider context of Local Authority budget cuts and the possibility of the fragmentation or disappearance of services as resources reduce.

In Lambeth the Executive Director and the Lead Member for Children & Young People’s Services (CYPS) have a clearly stated vision for children and young people in Lambeth which is shared and actively supported by its partners in the primary care trust, police, child and adolescent health service (CAMHs), schools and the voluntary sector.

This vision “All children and young people in Lambeth will be supported to enable them to be happy, feel and stay safe, enjoy and achieve and contribute positively to society and experience emotional and physical well being” is well documented. Page 30

The recently agreed council priorities also place quality school places, high aspiration and high achievement in schools at the heart of the new local agenda.

It is therefore imperative for local children and young people that Lambeth CYPS continues to work with schools to provide a balanced and considered response to this complex context locally and nationally. The relationship between the LA and schools has in recent years been a very successful one leading to excellent outcomes. Working with the Local Authority, Lambeth schools have achieved huge success with results in recent years at the end of primary and secondary schooling above national averages and over 80% of schools and settings judged ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. None are currently in an Ofsted category.

We look to build on this success in new and innovative ways in the new political and economic climate. A range of responsibilities remain with the LA including statutory oversight of admissions, pupil place planning and special educational needs. The LA also retains its role as ‘champion’ of children focusing on narrowing gaps in achievement and improving standards. Through the development of a Lambeth ‘Charter’ the LA seeks to include all schools within the local ‘family’ of schools to work together for the benefit of pupils.

Conferences and events with headteachers and Chairs of Governors in 2011 have developed a ‘Learning Together’ strategy to implement the changing relationship. The LA will facilitate the move from an LA-led approach to providing school improvement services to school Cluster Partnerships, Federations and a Teaching School Alliance taking more responsibility for their own improvement needs. The LA will retain an oversight, brokering, challenging and providing support.

Summary of financial implications

Required resources will be funded from existing revenue budget within school improvements. There are no additional funding sought.

Recommendations (1) That Scrutiny committee supports the aims and objectives of the strategy (2) Scrutiny notes the continuing core work of the Local Authority in supporting and challenging schools regardless of how they are governed.

Name of Department or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee response appear in report received para:

Internal Dunni Komolafe Head of Departmental Finance 25.02.12 25.02.12 2.0 - CYPS Alison McKane Governance & Democracy 24.02.12 24.02.12 Agreed – amendments to

Page 31

3.1 Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 24.02.12 24.02.12 Agreed

Report history

Date report drafted: Report deadline: Date report sent: Report no.: 25.01.12 17.02.12 24.02.12 298/10-11 Report author and contact for queries: Cathy Twist, Assistant Director, Schools Educational and Improvement 020 7926 9541 [email protected]

Background documents

• DLT Report 13.12.2010. • Presentation to Headteachers’ Working Together meeting 21 st Jan 2011 • Presentation to Chairs of Governors Working Together 25 th Jan 2011 • DLT Report on Traded Services 23. 2. 2011

Appendices

Appendix A: Cluster Partnerships list – January 2012 Traded services brochure School improvement handbook

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

Page 32

Update on the ‘Learning Together’ Strategy: a new relationship between Lambeth schools and the Local Authority

1. Context

1.1 The ‘Learning Together’ Strategy established in March 2011 outlined a three- year plan for implementing Lambeth’s ‘new’ relationship with schools. This consists of developing a new infrastructure of support for schools . A smaller core team of school improvement professionals will remain in the Local Authority offering challenge and intervening where concerns arise, and a range of high quality services will be traded with schools . Schools will be supported to work together in strong Cluster groups, federations and partnerships with school leaders themselves providing system leadership. Schools will also be encouraged to become ‘ Teaching Schools’ offering Initial Teacher Education, Continuous Professional Development and a range of Leadership Development programmes. The locus for leading school improvement across the borough will therefore over time move to schools themselves.

1.2 From April 2011 much of the existing grant funding to assist LAs to support schools to implement initiatives and strategies to raise pupil achievement and meet attainment targets ceased. At this point schools became responsible for funding many of their own school development needs. Based on the ‘extended services’ model of locality clusters, schools have realised the importance of belonging to strong partnerships that can commission services and provide a secure base from which to operate. They are beginning to look to ways of being responsible for the quality of education and the standards achieved across their cluster. To strengthen the LA support for Cluster Partnerships senior LA officers are attached to each one.

1.3 Crucial to the ‘Learning Together’ Strategy is the successful trading of a range of LA services to schools. As schools now have oversight of budgets for a range of support, some services that were funded at LA level are now available for purchase. Schools can decide to buy services from a range of providers but it is hoped that LA services will prove competitive and enable the continuation of the successful collaboration that has characterised the work and achievements of Lambeth schools over recent years.

1.4 Over the three year period of implementation of the plan the success of the core and traded services, Cluster development and Teaching schools will be evaluated and modified to ensure that Lambeth schools continue to provide high quality and inclusive education to our children and young people.

2. Proposals and reasons

Page 33

2.1 The ‘Learning Together’ strategy consists of three key strands which complement each other in enabling the LA to develop its role of championing and quality assuring excellent provision in its schools and ensuring a strong source of school improvement expertise is available both centrally and in schools’ partnerships. These strands are:

• Further develop Cluster Partnerships to provide a range of school to school support and training

• Work towards the development of a high quality Teaching School Alliance in Lambeth which will provide initial teacher education, professional development and school improvement support.

• Maintain a core LA service which retains the role of challenge and intervention, brokering structural and developmental solutions for schools.

2. Finance Comments

2.1 This report is to provide an update on the core work of the Local Authority in supporting and challenging schools regardless of how they are governed. A range of responsibilities remain with the LA including statutory oversight of admissions, pupil place planning and special educational needs.

2.2 Any recommendations or improvements required will be met within existing budgets within the Schools, Educational Improvement Division. There are no financial implications and the report is not seeking additional funding.

3. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy

3.1 This report is for information only and there are no specific legal implications arising from the report.

4. Results of consultation

4.1 N/A

5. Organisational implications

5.1 Risk management:

5.2 Although some Cluster partnerships are strong and proactive, with governing bodies from each partnership school confirming the partnership, less well- developed clusters still may need to take ownership of the new educational agenda and take a proactive approach.

5.3 Schools may not buy into the traded services or eschew the core LA support and challenge offer, buying in external provision instead. This will mean that

Page 34

weaknesses may go undetected and develop into bigger problems or school failure.

5.4 The new Ofsted framework which ‘raises the bar’ may lead to schools falling into a concern category

5.5 Without appropriate funding for a core school improvement team there will be less capacity to intervene in schools with issues that might lead to adverse Ofsted judgements.

5.6 Without a core team schools may not keep up to date with literacy and numeracy initiatives and intervention leading to poorer outcomes for children. Gaps in achievement for different groups of children may widen .

6. Equalities impact assessment:

N/A

6.1 Community safety implications:

None

6.2 Environmental implications:

None

6.3 Staffing and accommodation implications:

Current Lambeth staff will be responsible for the implementation and management of facilitating the cluster partnerships, the teaching schools alliance and the core and traded services.

6.4 Any other implications:

None

7. Timetable for implementation

Date Milestones Outcomes

2011 -12 Consolidate ten Learning Together Cluster Clusters begin to take Partnerships responsibility for selecting services Proceed with first full financial year of traded services LA services are preferred providers Begin transfer of services from LA to Cluster Partnerships for indentified areas of service delivery (e.g. TLCs)

Page 35

Date Milestones Outcomes

Work with lead schools to set up a Teaching Schools Alliance

New service infrastructure, systems and processes for performance and business management Sharing of expertise and implemented services across South London Collaborative Investigate collaboration/traded services with other LAs

2012 -13 Review performance of traded services Meetings with lead headteachers and ascertain Continue to establish service delivery and needs of Partnerships and development of specialisms within each Cluster provide QA Partnership Managed moves within and between schools in Cluster Partnerships Review impact of Partnerships on standards and progress and wellbeing of pupils in their schools Begin to develop clients and services beyond Lambeth Development of traded services/collaboration with South London Collaborative

Full year of Teaching Schools Alliance in place

2013 -14 Consolidate traded services offer Partnerships are hubs of excellence, providing mutual Review impact of Cluster Partnerships/LA core support and challenge relationship Executive heads and Re-assess capacity of Partnerships to self-sustain LLEs/NLEs become system and self-improve co-leaders

Review impact of the new traded and core LA More federations, executive service heads, apprentice heads

All schools within Cluster partnerships are good or better and provide quality education, addressing the needs of the whole child in the whole system

LA/Partnership relationship continues to be strong, innovation is all around us because solutions are shared

Teaching Schools Alliance accredited Full programme of initial Teacher Education; continuous professional development and school to school support in place and providing good

Page 36

Date Milestones Outcomes

outcomes fro Lambeth pupils, teachers and leaders.

Page 37 Agenda Item 8

Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny 1 March 2012 Sub-Committee

School Admissions Update

All Wards

Report authorised by : Executive Director Children and Young People’s Service: Debbie Jones

Executive summary This report is to update and inform Committee of the following:

1. Provide an update on secondary transfer 2012 2. Provide a brief update on primary admissions 2012 3. Provide a final report on the MEDSOC Panel Review 4. Provide an update on school admissions (i.e.: summary of new Admissions Codes & Direct Offer By Schools (DOBS) initiative)

Summary of financial implications There are no financial implications regarding this document and its content and this has been confirmed by both Divisional and Corporate Finance.

Recommendations (1) The report is broadly for information only. However, the recommendations provided as a result of the review have been accepted by CYPS and will be fully implemented in MEDSOC Practices. However, CYPS Scrutiny can provide feedback regarding this review as well.

Consultation Name of Directorate or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee to response appear in consultee received report para: from consultee

Internal Debbie Jones Executive Director of CYPS 11 Jan 11 Jan Eg. 4.1 2012 2012 Mike Pocock Divisional Director, EECP 11 Jan 11 Jan 2012 2012 Page 38

Maggie Harriott Education Strategy Manager 11 Jan 11 Jan 2012 2012 Councillor Pete Cabinet Member for CYPS 13 Jan 13 Jan Robbins 2012 2012 Andrew Pavlou Governance & Democracy 22 Feb 22 Feb 2012 2012 Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 22 Feb 22 Feb 2012 2012 Alfred Ansong Department Finance 22 Feb 22 Feb 2012 2012

Entered in Consultation and Events Diary? No If yes, date

Report history Date report Report Date report sent: Report no.: drafted: deadline: 21/02/2012 17.02.12 21/02/2012 292/10-11 Report author and contact for queries: Peter Scott (Head of School Admissions) 020 7926 1469 [email protected]

Background documents N/A

Appendices - N/A

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

The Chair is of the opinion that although this report had not been available for at least five clear days before the meeting, nonetheless it should be considered now as a matter of urgency because of the special circumstances that this report contains important information about how admissions is working in Lambeth and will give the Chair and CYPS Scrutiny members a clearer picture on how Lambeth is cooperating with the Pan- London Admissions procedure for both secondary and primary schools. Though the final outcomes of both the Pan-London Secondary Transfer and Primary Schemes are not included in the report, the information does still provide a good precursor for any subsequent information on final outcomes, which will be available to Lambeth Council departments, the Secretary of State and the Office of Schools Adjudicators shortly after the 1 March 2012. The report also informs the Committee on the results of a recent MEDSOC Review, a matter previously discussed at Scrutiny, and highlights recommendations that School Admissions and the MEDSOC Panel will be adopting. It had not been possible to obtain all necessary information in time for the dispatch of this agenda.

Page 39

School Admissions Update

1. Context

1.1 This report will provide a update on

• Secondary Transfer 2012

• Primary Admissions 2012

• MEDSOC Panel Review

• Provide an update on school admissions (i.e.: summary of new Admissions Codes & Direct Offer By Schools (DOBS) initiative)

2. SECONDARY TRANSFER 2012

2.1 The following table highlights the number of on-time applications Lambeth LA has received. The 2012 data is compared with 2011.

Table 1 2011 ontime preference numbers for Lambeth schools Places Preferred school available FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTAL Archbishop Tenison's School 92 50 58 66 42 28 27 271 Bishop Thomas Grant Catholic Secondary School 180 229 174 186 155 107 54 905 Charles Edward Brooke Church of England Girls' School 90 9 20 23 23 25 9 109 Dunraven School 192 335 370 315 270 151 90 1531 Evelyn Grace Academy 180 185 131 107 115 56 49 643 La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls' School 150 110 127 116 72 45 35 505 Lambeth Academy 180 92 142 150 112 69 52 617 Lilian Baylis Technology School 124 106 88 86 71 60 41 452 St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls 140 98 89 87 74 42 35 425 Stockwell Park High School 210 110 117 108 89 60 39 523 The Elmgreen School 180 140 173 149 140 109 69 780 The London Nautical School 120 148 110 106 82 60 30 536 The Norwood School 150 56 78 93 88 58 47 420 TOTALS 1988 1668 1677 1592 1333 870 577 7717

2012 ontime preference numbers for Lambeth schools Places Pref. Estab. available FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTAL Archbishop Tenison's School 92 46 43 54 45 16 19 223 Bishop Thomas Grant Catholic Secondary School 180 233 196 182 133 87 52 883 Charles Edward Brooke Church of England Girls' School (St Gabriel’s College) 120 29 23 36 37 27 17 169 Page 40

Dunraven School 192 323 365 329 214 128 86 1445 Evelyn Grace Academy 180 162 105 113 87 63 40 570 La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls' School 150 114 108 85 84 38 16 445 Lambeth Academy 180 87 134 133 103 81 55 593 Lilian Baylis Technology School 124 96 76 88 88 52 36 436 St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls 140 71 93 87 61 54 26 392 Stockwell Park High School 210 124 94 94 84 47 37 480 The Elmgreen School 180 150 202 182 107 82 68 791 The London Nautical School 120 128 94 74 65 35 20 416 The Norwood School 150 52 72 92 80 70 57 423 Grand Total 2018 1615 1605 1549 1188 780 529 7266

Please note:

1. There is an increase in the number of secondary places available in Lambeth for 2012, due to the changes at St Gabriel’s College (CEB).

2. Most schools have received a lower number of on-time applications compared to last year. The most significant is The London Nautical, who has received 120 less applications than last year. This could be due to alternative/additional out-borough opportunities, or the reflection of more realistic parental preferences. However, this school, as are all our secondary schools, are still oversubscribed at the point of receipt of applications. The reduction in receipt of preferences for London Nautical should not have too much of a negative impact as the school normally admits only 30-37% of their places to Lambeth residents.

3. 11 out of the 13 schools are oversubscribed with first and second preferences alone. This still indicates the popularity of Lambeth secondary schools.

4. St Gabriel’s College (CEB) has received a higher number of applications this year than last. This 35% increase is fairly significant. 126 of these applicants in the 2012 round are female. The remaining 43 are boys. If the school becomes undersubscribed at the point of iteration, then the vacancies would largely be filled by boys as this represents the cohort of children without an offer.

2.2 Table 2 identifies the criteria parents want their child’s application to be considered under. However, it is important to note that the information below will change significantly, as admission authorities decide whether places will be offered on medical/social grounds and they will also confirm if children do have siblings on roll. This data will change significantly after National Offer Day (NOD, which is the 1 March 2012)

Table 2 - 2012 Grand Pref. Estab. DIST LAC MEDSOC SIBL Total Archbishop Tenison's School 201 4 4 14 223 Bishop Thomas Grant Catholic Secondary School 794 3 21 65 883 Charles Edward Brooke Church of England Girls' School 156 2 3 8 169 Dunraven School 1319 7 43 76 1445 Page 41

Evelyn Grace Academy 514 4 11 41 570 La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls' School 399 3 6 37 445 Lambeth Academy 538 6 10 39 593 Lilian Baylis Technology School 383 1 7 45 436 St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls 358 4 9 21 392 Stockwell Park High School 412 2 6 60 480 The Elmgreen School 705 4 26 56 791 The London Nautical School 382 2 14 18 416 The Norwood School 381 2 11 29 423 Grand Total 6542 44 171 509 7266

Please note:

• There will be little comfort to many families as a result of the reduced numbers of people applying to schools such as Dunraven. This year they have 76 siblings applying for a place there. This represents 40% of their total available places. If all these children are confirmed as siblings, they will certainly be offered a place, leaving only 116 places available for those children applying on the grounds of distance via banding. Only 1 in 12 children would receive an offer.

• The Elmgreen receives the second highest number of medical/social applications in the borough.

2.3 Table 3 indentifies a breakdown in applications made to Lambeth schools, and schools in other LAs by Lambeth and other LA residents:

Table 3 - 2012 Lambeth Other LA Grand Pref. Estab. residents residents Total Archbishop Tenison's School 153 70 223 Archbishop Tenison's School CofE High School 8 0 8 Ashcroft Technology Academy 63 0 63 Bacon's College 11 0 11 Battersea Park School 38 0 38 Bishop Challoner Catholic Collegiate Boy's School 1 0 1 Bishop Challoner Catholic Collegiate Girl's School 1 0 1 Bishop Justus Church of England School 1 0 1 Bishop Thomas Grant Catholic Secondary School 493 390 883 Bishopsford Arts College 10 0 10 Bolingbroke Academy 45 0 45 Brockhill Park School 1 0 1 Burntwood School 113 0 113 Carshalton High School for Boys 6 0 6 Carshalton High School for Girls 2 0 2 Cheam High School 1 0 1 Chelsea Academy 16 0 16 Chesham High School 1 0 1 Chestnut Grove School 250 0 250 Page 42

Chiswick Community School 1 0 1 Coloma Convent Girls' School 38 0 38 Conisborough College 1 0 1 Coombe Boys School 2 0 2 Coombe Girls' School 2 0 2 Dartford Grammar School for Girls 1 0 1 De Stafford College of Technology & the Arts 1 0 1 Deptford Green School 1 0 1 Dunraven School 1164 281 1445 Edenham High School 2 0 2 Elliott School 8 0 8 Epsom and Ewell High School 1 0 1 Ernest Bevin College 79 0 79 Evelyn Grace Academy 532 38 570 Forest Hill School 6 0 6 Fulham Cross Secondary School 1 0 1 Glenthorne High School 3 0 3 Graveney School 408 0 408 Greenshaw High School 6 0 6 Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College 27 0 27 Haberdashers' Aske's Knight Academy 3 0 3 Hammersmith Academy 1 0 1 Harris Academy at Beckenham 4 0 4 Harris Academy Bermondsey 11 0 11 Harris Academy Bromley 2 0 2 Harris Academy Purley 8 0 8 Harris Academy South Norwood 90 0 90 Harris Boy's Academy East Dulwich 25 0 25 Harris City Academy Crystal Palace 286 0 286 Harris Girls' Academy East Dulwich 26 0 26 Henry Compton Secondary School 1 0 1 Highworth Grammar School for Girls 1 0 1 Holland Park School 6 0 6 Hurlingham and Chelsea Secondary School 5 0 5 John Paul II School 1 0 1 King Solomon Academy 3 0 3 Kingsdale Foundation School 376 0 376 La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls' School 280 165 445 Lady Margaret School 6 0 6 Lambeth Academy 550 43 593 Langley Park School for Boys 1 0 1 Lilian Baylis Technology School 391 45 436 Newstead Wood School for Girls 3 0 3 Nonsuch High School for Girls 8 0 8 Norbury Manor Business and Enterprise College for Girls 69 0 69 Northbrook Church of England School 1 0 1 Notre Dame Roman Catholic Girls' School 84 0 84 Page 43

Oasis Academy Coulsdon 1 0 1 Paddington Academy 4 0 4 Pimlico Academy 254 0 254 Prendergast - Ladywell Fields College 2 0 2 Prendergast - Vale College 1 0 1 Prendergast-Hilly Fields College 4 0 4 Quintin Kynaston School 3 0 3 Ravens Wood School 1 0 1 Raynes Park High School 3 0 3 Ricards Lodge High School 8 0 8 Richmond Park Academy 1 0 1 Royal Alexandra and Albert School 1 0 1 Rutlish School 5 0 5 Sacred Heart High School 14 0 14 Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Secondary School 161 0 161 St Gabriel’s College 118 51 169 Saint John Bosco College 36 0 36 Saint Thomas More RC School 87 0 87

Sedgehill School 1 0 1 Shirley High School and Performing Arts College 3 0 3 Southfields Community College 18 0 18 St Andrew's CE School 3 0 3 St Augustine's CofE Secondary School 3 0 3

St Bede's School 1 0 1 St Cecilia's, Wandsworth Church of England School 26 0 26 St George RC School 2 0 2 St Joseph's College 150 0 150

St Mark's Church of England Academy 34 0 34 St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls 323 69 392 St Mary's High School 4 0 4 St Michael's RC School 29 0 29 St Olave's School 15 0 15

St Philomena's School 39 0 39 St Saviour's and St Olave's Church of England School 50 0 50 St Ursula's Convent School 2 0 2 Stockwell Park High School 452 28 480 Streatham and Clapham High School 1 1 Sutton Grammar School for Boys 51 0 51 Sydenham School 20 0 20

The Archbishop Lanfranc School 3 0 3 The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial RC School 25 0 25 The Charter Academy 258 0 258 The City of London Academy 16 0 16 Page 44

The Elmgreen School 698 93 791 The Globe Academy 24 0 24 The Grey Coat Hospital 189 0 189 The Harris Academy at Peckham 5 0 5 The Harris Academy Merton 83 0 83 The Henrietta Barnett School 2 0 2 The Holy Cross School 2 0 2 The John Fisher School 14 0 14 The King's School 1 0 1 The London Nautical School 168 248 416 The London Oratory School 42 0 42 The Norwood School 349 74 423 The Ravensbourne School 1 0 1 The Royal Grammar School 1 0 1 The St Marylebone School 31 0 31 The St Thomas the Apostle College 5 0 5 The Tiffin Girls' School 25 0 25 The UCL Academy 2 0 2 Thomas More School 1 0 1 Tiffin School 13 0 13 Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls 1 0 1 Ursuline High School Wimbledon 54 0 54 Virgo Fidelis Convent Senior School 75 0 75 Wallington Grammar School 13 0 13 Wallington High School for Girls 25 0 25 Walworth Academy 31 0 31 Warlingham School 1 0 1 Westminster Academy 9 0 9 Westminster City Boy's School 50 0 50 Westwood Girls' College for Language and Arts 21 0 21 Wilson's School 17 0 17 Wimbledon College 38 0 38 Woodcote High School 1 0 1 Grand Total 9964 1596 11560

3. PRIMARY ADMISSIONS 2012

3.1 The statutory deadline for receiving all on-time applications for children due to start reception in September 2012 was Sunday 15 January 2012, at which point Lambeth LA received 3099 on-time applications.

3.2 1875 are online applications (60%) and the rest is paper applications. Comparison data is as follows:

APPLICATIONS (CAFs) 2011 2012

Total Paper CAFs 1583 1223 Total On-line CAFs 1391 1875 TOTALS 2974 3098 Page 45

3500

3000

2500

2000 2011 1500 2012

1000

500

0 Total Paper CAFs Total On-line CAFs TOTALS

3.3 Please note, Lambeth Admissions are going through the double checking procedures at present and there maybe some duplicate CAFs (i.e CAFs from people who have submitted both a paper and an online form). Though these numbers should be small, there maybe a change in some totals for 2012 applications.

3.4 The following schools were applied to (by Lambeth families only. This data will increase once we interact with the Pan-London Register and receive out-of borough preferences on the 8 February 2012):

Places Grand Pref. Estab. available 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Total Ab Kettleby Community Primary School 1 1 Alderbrook Primary School 2 1 4 7 2 3 19 All Saints CofE Aided Infant School 1 1 All Saints' CofE Primary School 1 1 All Saints Infant School 2 1 3 1 1 8 Allen Edwards Primary School 53 30 28 24 11 7 153 Allfarthing Primary School 1 1 2 Archbishop Sumner Church of England Primary School 60 45 28 13 9 6 3 104 Ark Oval Primary 2 2 Ashburnham Primary School 1 1 Ashmole Primary School 30 18 24 21 8 11 3 85 Balgowan Primary School 1 1 Beatrix Potter Primary School 1 1 Beecholme First School 1 1 Bellenden Primary School 1 1 Belleville Primary School 1 8 9 4 4 1 27 Bessemer Grange Primary School 6 3 7 3 3 4 26 Beulah Nursery Infant School 1 1 2 1 1 6 Bickley Primary 1 1 Bishop Gilpin CofE First School 1 1 Bonneville Primary School 60 32 26 34 33 10 8 143 Bonnygate Primary School 1 1 Bousfield Primary School 1 1 Page 46

Brixton -Christ Church Brixton Church of England Primary School 60 14 24 10 11 8 5 72 Broadmead Primary School 1 1 Broadwater Primary School 1 1 2 Brunswick Park Primary School 1 1 1 3 Burdett Coutts and Townshend Foundation CofE Primary School 1 2 1 2 6 Busbridge Infant School 1 1 Charles Dickens Primary School 3 5 8 3 1 20 Charlotte Sharman Primary School 6 1 3 1 1 12 Chesterton Primary School 2 1 3 Christ Church CofE Primary School 1 1 2 Churchill Gardens Primary School 2 2 Clapham Manor Primary School 60 90 89 50 30 12 12 283 Cobourg Primary School 1 1 Colville Primary School 1 1 Comber Grove Primary School 1 4 2 1 1 9 Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School 52 90 68 35 19 9 6 227 Crampton School 2 2 3 1 8 Cranmer Primary School 1 1 Crawford Primary School 11 3 1 3 2 2 22 Crown Lane Primary School 60 46 23 21 30 21 15 156 Cypress Infant School 1 1 2 4 David Livingstone Primary School 1 1 1 3 Davidson Primary School 1 1 2 Dilkes Primary School 1 1 Dog Kennel Hill School 1 3 1 2 3 1 11 Downsview Primary School 2 1 2 3 1 9 Dulwich Hamlet Junior School 1 1 2 Dulwich Village Church of England Infants' School 14 34 13 6 9 6 82 Bexley School 1 1 1 Bexley School 2 1 1 Bexley School 3 1 1 Bromley School 1 3 3 Bromley School 2 1 1 Bromley School 3 1 1 Bromley School 4 1 1 Bromley School 5 2 1 3 Kingston-Upon-Thames 1 1 Outer London LA 1 1 Outer London LA 1 1 Durand Academy 125 127 57 45 29 18 11 287 Eardley School 12 6 6 5 2 2 33 Eliot Bank Primary School 1 2 3 Elm Wood Primary School 60 77 111 75 27 19 18 327 Elmwood Infant School 1 1 Page 47

English Martyrs Roman Catholic Primary School 1 1 Fairchildes Primary School 1 1 Fairlawn Primary School 1 1 Fenstanton Primary School 90 34 16 17 12 17 5 101 Fircroft Primary School 1 1 Freshfield Primary School 1 1 Friars Primary School 4 5 3 5 1 18 Furzedown Primary School 2 2 2 2 8 Garden Primary School 1 2 2 5 Gatton Primary 5 2 4 2 1 14 Glenbrook Primary School 60 21 17 16 15 12 10 91 Gonville Primary School 1 2 1 4 Goodrich School 2 2 4 Goose Green Primary School 3 2 4 9 Grange School 1 1 Granton Primary School 57 32 26 28 13 11 6 116 Groombridge St Thomas' Church of England Primary School 1 1 Hallfield Primary School 1 1 Hampden Gurney CofE Primary School 1 1 Heathbrook Primary School 60 39 30 30 12 7 4 122 Heber Primary School 4 1 1 6 Henry Cavendish Primary School (Balham site) 60 64 43 27 14 13 5 166 Henry Cavendish Primary School (Streatham site) 60 50 39 35 27 13 10 174 Henry Fawcett Primary School 60 24 16 14 11 6 5 76 Herbert Morrison Primary School 28 27 17 13 10 4 6 77 Hill Mead Primary School 60 43 13 13 16 18 10 113 Hillbrook School 4 1 2 1 1 9 Hitherfield Primary School 85 68 53 43 41 24 16 245 Holy Ghost RC Primary School 2 1 2 1 6 Holy Trinity Catholic Primary School 1 1 Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School 60 44 33 22 13 17 10 139 Holy Trinity CofE Primary School 2 1 3 Honeywell Infant School 7 5 3 10 7 1 33 Horniman Primary School 1 1 2 Immanuel and St Andrew Church of England Primary School 60 49 44 30 12 9 5 149 Iqra Primary School 30 27 35 19 5 5 3 94 Ivydale Primary School 1 1 James Dixon Primary School 1 1 2 Jessop Primary School 60 22 21 16 21 17 12 109 Johanna Primary Oasis Waterloo Academy 30 31 10 6 12 4 3 66 John Burns Primary School 3 1 1 6 1 12 John Donne Primary School 1 1 John Ruskin Primary School 2 3 1 1 1 8 Jubilee Primary School 60 42 31 30 40 16 23 182 Page 48

Julian's Primary School (Streatham site) 30 60 54 48 41 26 15 244 Julian's Primary School (West Norwood site) 60 20 44 33 18 10 9 134 Kelvin Grove Primary School 1 1 Kensington Avenue Primary School 2 1 1 1 1 6 Keyworth Primary School 1 1 1 1 4 King Athelstan Primary School 1 1 Kings Avenue Primary School 60 39 46 43 34 21 28 211 Kingswood Primary School 120 119 96 67 41 17 12 352 Langbourne Primary School 1 1 1 3 1 7 Lark Hall Primary School 60 32 12 14 6 8 6 78 Liberty School 1 1 1 3 Lonesome Primary School 2 2 5 9 Loughborough Primary School 60 34 28 17 17 8 7 111 Lyndhurst Primary School 8 4 2 2 4 1 21 Macaulay Church of England Primary School 30 26 21 14 7 6 6 80 Maple Infants' School 1 1 Marlborough Primary School 1 1 Merton Abbey First School 1 1 Michael Faraday School 1 1 Millbank Primary School 6 3 4 1 4 2 20 Norbury Manor Primary School 3 2 2 4 3 1 15 Oliver Goldsmith Primary School 1 1 2 Oratory Roman Catholic Primary School 1 1 2 Orchard Primary School 25 43 23 12 6 5 1 90 Our Lady of Compassion Catholic Primary School 2 2 Park Hill Infant School 1 1 Park Walk Primary School 1 1 Paxton Primary School 30 32 27 45 21 13 6 144 Peckham Park Primary School 1 1 Penwortham Primary School 3 3 4 4 14 Prendergast - Vale College 1 1 Ravenstone Primary School 6 26 5 6 43 Reay Primary School 30 61 52 24 11 12 10 170 Richard Atkins Primary School 60 38 22 36 26 20 18 160 Robert Browning Primary School 1 1 2 Rockmount Primary School 9 3 8 12 5 5 42 Rosendale Primary School 90 139 95 86 72 34 24 450 Royston Primary School 1 1 Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School 1 1 Sacred Heart Primary School 1 1 Saint Joseph's Roman Catholic School 2 2 Sellincourt Primary School 1 1 Servite RC Primary School 1 1 Shaftesbury Park Primary School 3 2 1 6 Sherwood Park Primary School 1 1 Page 49

Singlegate First School 1 1 Sir James Barrie Primary School 3 1 1 5 Smallwood Primary School 1 1 Soho Parish CofE Primary School 1 1 2 South Norwood Primary School 1 1 Southwark Park School 1 1 Ss Peter & Paul RC Primary School 1 1 2 St Andrew's Catholic Primary School 60 65 40 28 13 15 10 171 St Andrew's Church of England Primary School 30 26 22 13 15 6 8 90 St Anne's Catholic Primary School 54 44 24 19 13 3 5 108 St Anselm's Catholic Primary School 4 1 2 4 1 12 St Anthony's Catholic Primary School 1 1 2 2 2 8 St Barnabas' CofE Primary School 1 1 2 St Bede's Catholic Infant School 60 51 24 23 8 4 5 115 St Boniface RC Primary School 1 1 2 1 5 St Chad's RC Primary School 1 2 3 St Clement and St James CofE Primary School 1 1 St Clement Dane's CofE Primary School 8 1 2 2 1 14 St Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary School 2 1 1 1 5 St Edward's RC Primary School 1 1 St Gabriel's CofE Primary School 1 1 2 4 St George's Cathedral RC Primary School 11 5 4 2 1 23 St George's CofE Primary School 5 1 2 1 9 St George's Hanover Square CofE Primary School 1 1 St Helen's Catholic Primary School 38 24 28 27 11 9 10 109 St James the Great RC Primary and Nursery School 4 5 4 1 1 15 St Jerome's Catholic Primary School 2 2 St John The Divine Church of England Primary School 30 14 8 12 4 5 5 48 St John's and St Clement's Church of England Primary School 1 1 2 St John's Angell Town Church of England Primary School 30 23 18 16 7 7 2 73 St John's CofE Aided Infant School 1 1 St John's Walworth Church of England Primary School 1 1 Page 50

St Joseph RC Primary School 2 1 3 St Joseph Roman Catholic Primary School 1 1 St Joseph's Catholic Infant School 3 2 1 1 7 St Joseph's Catholic Junior School 1 1 St Joseph's RC Infant School 28 5 5 4 1 1 44 St Joseph's RC Primary School 2 2 St Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School 1 1 St Jude's Church of England Primary School 30 38 30 27 17 14 3 129 St Leonard's Church of England Primary School 30 31 30 20 14 15 7 117 St Luke's Church of England Primary School 30 15 11 17 14 11 6 74 St Mark's Church of England Primary School 30 15 13 14 9 12 6 69 St Mark's First School 1 1 2 St Mary Abbots CofE Primary School 1 1 St Mary Magdalene Church of England Primary School 1 1 St Mary's Catholic Primary School 1 1 St Mary's Catholic Primary School (Battersea) 3 1 1 5 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School (Lambeth) 45 47 35 23 14 12 8 139 St Matthew Academy 1 1 St Matthew's School 3 1 4 St Paul's Church of England Primary School 1 1 2 St Peter's Eaton Square CofE Primary School 7 3 3 1 1 15 St Saviour's Church of England Primary School 30 28 17 16 7 7 3 78 St Stephen's Church of England Primary School 30 22 11 13 8 7 3 64 St Thomas Becket Catholic Primary School 3 3 St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School 1 1 2 St Vincent de Paul RC Primary School 2 1 1 4 Stanford Primary School 2 5 6 6 2 2 23 Stockwell Primary School 60 60 51 41 36 28 17 233 Streatham - Christ Church Streatham Church of England Primary School 30 35 35 15 10 9 134 Streatham Wells Primary School 30 53 68 45 45 39 21 271 Strewart Fleming Primary School 1 1 Sudbourne Primary School 45 103 65 53 42 22 15 300 Page 51

Sunnyhill Primary School 60 56 39 39 31 26 18 209 Swaffield Primary School 1 2 3 Telferscot Primary School 30 46 63 31 23 10 10 183 The Cathedral School of St Saviour and St Mary Overie 1 3 4 4 1 13 The Globe Academy 1 1 The Sherwood School 2 2 Tower Bridge Primary School 1 1 Trinity St Mary's CofE Primary School 1 1 2 Trinity St Peter's CofE Primary School 1 1 Valley Primary 1 1 1 3 Vauxhall Primary School 60 24 20 20 10 9 4 87 Walnut Tree Walk Primary School 50 29 19 12 6 13 7 86 West Thornton Primary School 1 1 2 Westminster Cathedral RC Primary School 4 2 2 8 Whitehorse Manor Infant School 1 1 1 3 William Morris Primary School 1 1 Wix Primary School 16 4 5 10 2 2 39 Woodlands Primary School 1 1 Woodmansterne Primary School 60 60 42 24 15 13 6 160 Wyvil Primary School 60 59 21 21 13 9 12 135 Grand Total 3124 3089 2374 1924 1366 928 641 10322

Page 52

MEDSOC Review 2012

1. Introduction

1.1 After an Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) hearing held in July 2011 Mr Simon Hooberman (Chair of Governors for Hitherfield Primary) submitted a complaint to scrutiny. The basis of the complaint was due to, what he regarded as insufficient paperwork regarding a MEDSOC (medical/social) decision being presented at the hearing. A complaint was submitted to Scrutiny and the EECP Directorate informed Scrutiny attendees that a review of the MEDSOC Panel would occur to help ensure that a professional service is delivered to all vulnerable families seeking support via this criteria.

2. Current MEDSOC Panel Arrangements

2.1 Lambeth’s MEDSOC (medical/social needs) Panel is the multi-agency body which considers all applications made to Lambeth community and voluntary-controlled schools. These applicants seek for special priority to be given to their application over other distance based applications on the grounds of some extenuating medical or social need. Any child who receives a positive outcome is virtually guaranteed a place at the named school.

2.2 The LA’s admissions criteria for Lambeth community and voluntary-controlled schools are as follows:

i. To children looked after. ii. Siblings iii. Children with a professionally supported medical or social need that the school is especially able to meet. iv. Priority will be given on the basis of distance.

2.3 Agreed MEDSOC applications will not be prioritised over children looked after (i) or siblings (ii) in the above criteria.

2.4 Panel members will only be looking at and considering applications made by parents of non-statemented children. Panel members will need to reach a decision with regards to the following:

• Which application will be approved with MEDSOC priority, and

• Name the community/voluntary controlled school which the Panel feels would be especially able to meet the child’s needs.

2.5 All Panel decisions are final and are binding for both school and children. The Department for Education has stated in the Admissions Code that:-

Where the LA is the school’s admission authority, the governing body is under a duty to implement the LA’s decisions on individual applications, and to act in accordance with the LA’s admission arrangements. Admission arrangements, in relation to a maintained school, are the arrangements made by the school’s admission authority for the admission of pupils to the school, including the admission policy. Admission arrangements therefore include the number of pupils to be admitted in each year it is intended to admit pupils; the criteria to be used in the event of oversubscription; any selective arrangements in use or envisaged; the application process including forms, timetables, co-ordinated Page 53

arrangements, waiting lists; and admission arrangements for pupils with disabilities, special educational needs or challenging behaviour.”

2.6 Lambeth LA retains its responsibilities to formally decide which applications will be regarded as MEDSOC and those that will not via this panel. Though this panel will have a Chair, all final decisions should be regarded as panel decisions.

2.1.1 Composition

2.1.2 The MEDSOC Panel will comprise of the following:-

• A School Admissions Manager. • A representative from the Education Psychology Service (EPS) • A representative from SEN • A representative from a Lambeth school (Vacant post) • A representative from Early Years • A representative from Social Care • The Safeguarding Children’s Manager • A MEDSOC Panel Clerk, who will be a member of the School Admissions Team

2.1.3 Any member of this panel is eligible to stand for Chair.

2.1.4 In an effort to reduce carbon footprints, all Panel members will need to attend a meeting (if there are 15 cases or more) where these cases are viewed via an overhead projector. When the cases are less than 15 cases that need to be considered in one decision- making round, the cases will be forwarded to Panel members and then a ‘virtual panel’ will be held as members will submit their views electronically.

2.1.5 Both the Chair, the Clerk and at least two other members of the panel will need to be present at any meeting for it to be quorate. If the Panel cannot be quorate then all decisions will have to be made by a senior member of the School Admissions Team with the final approval coming from a director within the CYPS. This will ensure that coordination will continue and statutory deadlines met without them being hindered by rescheduled meetings.

2.2.1 Frequency of Panel Meetings

2.2.2 The MEDSOC Panel will formally meet twice per year to consider on-time applications. The first meeting will be held in January of each year looking at applications made on the grounds of medical /social needs to participating (that is participating in coordination) community and voluntary-control secondary schools, and once in March/April of the same year where they will consider the on-time primary applications for reception class.

2.2.3 Dates, times and venues of meetings will be organised by the Clerk as well as confirmation of panel membership. Each Panel meeting will normally lasts for the morning subject to the number/complexity of cases.

2.3.1 Panel Procedures

2.3.2 The Panel will consider cases and makes a decision about:-

• Whether or not to regard an application as a MEDSOC application • Which school the MEDSOC application status applies to.

Page 54

2.3.3 Post Panel follow -up

2.3.4 Decisions are recorded by the Clerk who will ensure that the ARETE Impulse (School Admissions) database is updated and all applications regarded as MEDSOC will be prioritised above distance based applications.

2.3.5 Parents will be informed in writing of the Panel’s decision as soon as practicably possible by the Clerk. Parents have no right of appeal against the panel’s decision but can appeal to the independent Appeals Panel if the child does not receive an offer from their preferred school.

2.4.1 Decision-making

2.4.2 As noted above the panel will decide which applications will be considered as MEDSOC and which school(s) these applications should be prioritised to. The LA retains its responsibilities and therefore this formal decision-making process will not to be delegated but remain with officers of Lambeth LA.

2.4.3 The Panel’s decisions are made in the context of legislation and guidance such as The School Admissions Code.

3. Background to Review

3.1 The MEDSOC panel has been running for a number of years, mostly very successfully and with considerable support. A significant number of places are now awarded on the strength of MEDSOC panels and it is therefore timely to review the panel’s workings to ensure they are appropriate in the current environment. In addition certain events, and one particular case which went to appeal, led to a request that some changes in process be considered further.

3.2 Summary of specific case

3.2.1 Child A’s parents were applying for a reception place at Rosendale Primary, as she was due to start school in September 2010. Child A had a very mild medical problem; Glue Ear. The paperwork attached to the application form (and subsequently the appeals paperwork from the families doctors) clearly stated that the child’s medical need was no longer an issue and that the child’s hearing was now perfectly normal. The MEDSOC Panel, after they saw this professional documentation, decided that the case did not meet the MEDSOC threshold and so rejected the case.

3.2.2 Due to staff shortages in the School Admissions Team there were certain non-statutory duties that could not be done/administered. Volunteers from other CYPS sections were called in to help with a number of tasks to help ensure Lambeth Admissions met its required statutory deadlines.

3.2.3 To further ensure that such deadlines were met, some non-statutory tasks were not done, such as writing out formal minutes for all 70 plus MEDSOC cases.

3.2.4 This process is normally a two or three day process, as minutes taken at the meeting is then transferred to another database, where the mail merge is created from. After the details are submitted to the database the information is then duplicated and transferred manually to the individual child’s record on the School Admissions Database system (IMPULSE). The mail merge is created and then letters are formed, which are sent out to parents on Pan-London Offer Day, 4 th April. As all of this work was taking place at the same time of meeting the statutory deadlines for iterations and notification days, it was Page 55

felt that to administer the full MEDSOC process at this point would hinder Lambeth Admissions from participating with the rest of London’s admissions process and widely damage our reputation.

3.2.5 To save time and ensure Lambeth were able to fully cooperate with the Pan-London timetable, the following procedure was administered for the 2010 Primary Admissions Round:

1. A laptop, with IMPULSE on it, would be brought to the MEDSOC meeting where the Clerk could access individual children’s records. 2. As each case was being considered, the Clerk would update the child’s records directly onto IMPULSE, with regards to the decision made by the Panel. This would ensure that we would have the live data available to participate with the Pan-London Admissions process immediately after the meeting without any further administration. 3. Parents would be informed of decisions via the notification in the Pan-London Offer Day letters.

3.2.6 As part of his complaint, Mr Hooberman suggests that:

1. The MEDSOC Panel provide a service that is highly professional and thorough service.

2. In all cases there should be ‘formal Minutes’ of its hearings and staffing levels should never compromise this.

3. The role of the Clerk should probably not be “an alternating role” and further recommends that this function should not be performed within the Admissions Team but should be taken on by the Council’s own department that performs these tasks, such as Democratic Services

4. Investigation into MEDSOC panel systems procedures

Investigating officer: Secondary Adviser

Stage 1:

4.1 Familiarisation with the procedural workings of the MEDSOC Panel:

1. The Terms of Reference 2. Outcome letter that is sent to parents outlining the panel’s decision.

4.2 Review of documentation by Graham Jackson and Sue Quirk (Primary and Early Years Adviser)

4.1.1 Findings

1. The procedure’s and processes as noted in the Terms of Reference (TOR) are clear and easily understood. 2. However, there are some issues of consistency with regard to abbreviations, acronyms official nomenclature in both the TOR and the outcome letter. Also suggested rewording a key sentence to provide for greater clarity.

Stage 2: Page 56

4.2.1 Responses were requested by GJ by email and telephone from a range of key stakeholders as follows:

1. Simon Hooberman (by telephone) 2. Peter Scott (Chair of the MEDSOC Panel) 3. MEDSOC Panel Members (Pat Walsh -Early Intervention Youth Advisor, Sarwan Jandu (on the behalf of Graham Griffin – Schools Safeguarding Manager, Adam Yarnold – SEN Manager, Julie Johnson – Education Psychologist) 4. Kate Atkins - Head of School for Rosendale Primary 5. Sue Quirk - Early Years Foundation Stage School Improvement Adviser 6. Matthew Mannion – Democratic Services Team Leader

4.2.1 The following responses were received:

4.2.2 Simon Hooberman : During this telephone discussion the precise nature of Mr Hooberman’s concerns was reconfirmed relating to the three points outlined earlier in this document. GJ offered brief feedback of emerging views on MEDSOC procedures arising from the correspondents above. Mr Hooberman’s main concern was to ensure that minutes and particularly outcomes relating to MEDSOC decisions should always be sent and received on time. He cited the example of one parent who did not receive any notification. He also reiterated his view that the MEDSOC panel should ideally not be clerked or minuted by a member of the admissions team. Mr Hooberman did not accept Peter Scott’s view of constraints relating to either expertise in the area of admissions or the need to access the admissions data base which would preclude the clerking and minuting of MEDSOC panel meetings by a member of another council team. Mr Hooberman also did not accept that this would generate extra cost as it merely amounted to an internal reciprocal arrangement or at best an intra LA cost. Mr Hooberman’s continuing preference is for the MEDSOC panel to be chaired and minuted by Lambeth Democratic Services.

4.2.3 Peter Scott (MEDSOC Chair) Pre-MEDSOC Panel decisions on whether applications would be prioritised under this criterion was made in-house by School Admissions. I was the named responsible officer and would make decisions with other experienced Admission Officers, who assisted me in deciding cases in line with the community school admissions criteria. However, it was becoming increasingly challenging and difficult to make certain medical decisions, in particular, as none of the School Admissions staff had any professional medical experience.

I contacted some other LAs, who basically operated in exactly the same way as Lambeth Council. Hence in 2006, I decided to formulate the MEDSOC Panel.

4.2.3.1 Since the MEDSOC Panel was formed in 2006, we immediately made decisions on about 250 applications for our primary and secondary community schools. However, the main test of whether our decisions were sound would would be experienced via the scrutiny process at appeal hearings.

4.2.3.2 In my view the MEDSOC Panel has ensured that:

• Better decisions are made – we have a number of professionals with SEN, medical and social care experience, who provide much closer scrutiny to applications and help the panel deliver more informed, qualified and sound decisions. These decisions have been challenged at appeal hearings and the Council has been in a much better decision in defending its position when an offer cannot be made for a particular child at one of our schools. Page 57

• Ensured that the Council is Code compliant – by providing a clear and fair way of processing such applications. Parents are fully aware of the Panel’s decision-making powers and make regular submissions to the panel if there has been a change in their child’s circumstances. • Provide a good service for some of our most vulnerable children – we have ensured that some of children that give us the most concern are placed in schools that they would not otherwise obtain a place in. This has improved the image of our service to many families, both to Lambeth and non-Lambeth residents. • Reduces carbon footprinting – An overhead projector is used at all meetings, which are held in a private room. The cases can clearly be seen by all Panel members. The clerk also logs into DataMap (the distance measurement system) in order that panel members can see home to school distances) IMPULSE Live (the School Admissions database, where panel members can see the full details of children’s applications and associated notes). • A robust decision-making model exists – Other LAs in London have asked Lambeth for their TOR and have mirrored procedures as far as allowed. This has presented Lambeth Council as a trailblazer. Many schools and LAs have copied our admissions criteria and now make panel based decisions.

4.2.3.3 I am pleased that the work of the Panel is being reviewed, as all systems should be reviewed to see if any improvements can be made. As Lambeth helped to trail blaze this initiative, it good practice for the LA to take a look at our practices and scrutinise it.. I was disappointed with some of the comments that Mr Hooberman made as the general feeling that I was getting from a number of other IAP members was that the work of the Panel was good. I do, however, understand that the MEDSOC Panel must ensure their work is above reproach and so feel it that we could comply with Mr Hooberman’s request accordingly.

1. The MEDSOC Panel to provide a service that is highly professional and thorough - This we have done and will continue to do in line with the reviewed and updated TOR.

2. In all cases there should be ‘formal Minutes’ of its hearings, and staffing levels should never compromise this – We have stated that this was not done for one admissions round and that this was a decision based on prioritising statutory workloads. We do normally take formal minutes but only resorted to this extraordinary decision for the primary admissions round 2011 as a bespoke arrangement outside of our TOR. We agree with this request and will seek to ensure that we take minutes at all hearings, as per usual.

3. The role of the Clerk should be “an alternating role” and should be performed by another department in the Council. –The Clerk is currently alternating as we have no service level agreement or otherwise with any other team/department to clerk the MEDSOC Panel. A lot of the work around MEDSOC decisions involves interaction with the School Admissions Database system and the Clerk would need not only access to this but also a good level of experience so they can navigate the system properly. Training to use this system takes months. There is also a licensing and cost issue as no-one is allowed to use the system without paying a substantial amount of money to the software provider. The Clerk will also need to be able to use DataMap measurement software.

This role only alternates depending on the availability of staff members at the time when the Panel will be considering cases. The letters must not (by law) be sent to families before offer day letters. They must be sent afterwards. Hence the Page 58

Clerk also needs to work closely with the Admissions Team to ensure that timetables are honoured and that all follow-up work needs to be done with as little bureaucracy as possible. In light of the cost, expertise and case work factors associated with Clerking this Panel, I do not think this is a good way forward for the MEDSOC Panel to be outsourced to another Council Department (especially in the light of reshaping initiatives) at present.

4.3 Education Psychologist (MEDSOC Panel Member) - Most of our ‘in year’ Medsoc panel decisions are done via email. This is because we all work in different buildings and they are often just one case at a time. We only meet twice a year (once for Secondary and once for Primary) prior to the offer date as a face to face meeting. We met 25.1.12 for the Secondary panel. As you are aware we can only discuss community schools – so we are down to 3 (Lilian Baylis, Elmgreen and Norwood). I am not sure this is clear to parents. How other schools use their Medsoc criteria, if they have it at all, is something that is beyond our remit. I am not sure this is made clear to parents. We regularly ask for more information from admissions and extra documents (e.g. further reports from Social Care or the Police). I am not aware of how much training admissions staff have or get about what Medsoc is and what it can make decisions on. All the people that I have been on the Medsoc panel with, have always behaved very professionally. I have been a member from 2005. Incidentally I chair admissions appeals in another borough so am aware of the importance of clear decision making.

4.3.1 A member of the admission team makes notes during our discussions and notes the decision. This part of the process is all led and organised by admissions, so it is difficult to comment on what they write. I have not seen minutes of the meetings. It may be helpful (to save time and for accuracy) for the member of the admissions team to come with a spreadsheet list with all the names and DOB to be discussed so that the decision notes can be written directly onto the list. At the last meeting some time was spent copying the sometimes very unusual spellings of pupil names. Panel members have no further involvement beyond the meeting. I understand letters are sent out with the offer letters but we don’t usually see these.

4.3.2 I think the panel tries to weigh up all the factors associated with a particular case. There are Medsoc guidelines and we try to be as consistent as possible. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances for a particular school and where the case is well made Medsoc would agree priority. No one in my experiences takes the duty lightly or unprofessionally as we are all very aware of the importance and anxiety the whole admission process causes both pupils and parents. From the outside occasionally decisions may look capricious but often outsiders do not have all the facts or documents.

4.3.3 To help parents and admissions staff, it may be useful to say in the school brochure that documents need to be current (i.e. no older than 2 years) to be considered. We often get reports 5/6 years out of date. Clearer advice about Medsoc needs to be in the brochure. It is currently a bullet point on page 9 and then on page 11 there is info about late Medsoc applications.

4.4 SEN manager (MEDSOC Panel Member ) Reiteration of points made above with the following additional points:

4.4.1 I think the actual panel meetings themselves are good, although they could be a bit better organised. There seems to be issues with IT as a recurrent problem. It could also be run more efficiently if Panel members had access to the papers prior to the Panel meeting so we can fully prepared with views. Page 59

4.4.2 A lot of the cases we look at could be ‘sieved’ out prior to the meeting as they clearly do not have the correct information – or they are not requesting a placement for a school that we can consider. I suggest that admissions go through the cases prior to the meeting so that the panel only consider relevant cases.

4.4.3 With the ad hoc cases we get throughout the year – it would useful to receive a response stating what the outcome was. We provide our views individually by email – but the actual out come is never shared. There also times when we request further information before a full decision can be made – but again this is not always responded to.

4.4.4 Finally looking at the current letter that goes out to parents (I hadn’t seen this previously) with MEDSOC outcome I think it should be carefully looked at again and re-written, as it is quite confusing for me to follow – so I imagine it could be even more so for a parent with English as a second language or with needs of their own.

4.5 Early Intervention Youth Adviser, Multi Agency Team (MAT) North Locality (MEDSOC Panel Member) - Chief amongst the MEDSOC panel’s strengths is that it consistently has a wealth of experience and knowledge around the table; this is working in partnership at its best. Peter is excellent at keeping us apprised of the most recent developments in admissions guidance and legislation. Also key is the organisation of the appeals prior to panel. We manage to make decisions often on up to as many as 40 appeals. Panel members have become very skilled at identifying key criteria required for a successful appeal.

4.6 Head of School – Rosendale - I have been a Headteacher in Lambeth for over a year and before that was a Deputy Headteacher with responsibility for Early Years. In both of these positions I have been involved in many appeal cases for Reception class places. I have always been impressed by the level of preparation undertaken by the Local Authority representative. My role at these appeal hearings is to put forward the school's point of view and not to discuss the admissions process or any representation to a Med Soc Panel. I am in the fortunate position that I know the representative from Lambeth will have all that necessary information and will be able to explain it to myself, the parents and the panel at the appeal hearing. In all of my experiences, there has been a very clear explanation of the reasoning behind any Med Soc panel decision and I have never been in a position to question their findings. From my perspective the process is working well. I find the Local Authority supportive and well informed.

4.7 Democratic Services - Democratic Services does not deal with MEDSOC panels directly. However, they are raised at Education Admission appeals regularly (including the results of MEDSOC panel hearings) either as a possible course of action that could be considered or as an action that has already taken place.

4.7.1 On some occasions parents have expressed concerns about the MEDSOC process or have demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what had actually happened It does not help the case for the admissions authority at appeals hearings if parents challenge the MEDSOC process and no written evidence can be provided to show that the process was correctly followed.

4.7.2 As always Democratic Services are available to discuss good governance arrangements for managing panels if that was considered useful.

5. Conclusions Page 60

5.1 Available evidence suggests that the MEDSOC panel has been a useful innovation with many positive features in terms of shared expertise and the ability to make decisions often from multiple applications on the basis of clear and fair criteria. Terms of reference and outcome letters were felt to be generally clear, although in need of some updating and clearer use of language on some individual points. These have been highlighted and sent to the Chair of MEDSOC for amendment. Panel members are largely positive about the work of the panel but do highlight aspects which would benefit from improvement in terms of working practices. These areas for improvement relating to sharing minutes and outcomes affirm some of the concerns raised by Mr Hooberman. It is reflective of good practice to ensure that systems are in place for providing minutes and outcomes to all members of the panel. It would seem to be particularly important that parental applicants receive notification of MEDSOC panel decisions within a stated time.

5.2 A difference of opinion remains concerning possibilities about (1) the clerking of the meeting and (2) the extent to which the Chair of the MEDSOC Panel’s position is relating to constraints concerning specialist knowledge, expertise and access to databases. Taking into consideration the need to avoid additional financial charges the Chair’s view should be upheld.

6. Recommendations.

1. That minor amendments should be made to TOR and outcome letter as outlined.

2. That all minutes of all meetings should be circulated in an agreed format as soon as possible after each MEDSOC panel meeting.

3. That outcomes and decisions on the basis of MEDSOC appeals are made within an agreed timescale to parents and carers.

4. Given the issues relating to internal charges and Mr Scott’s evidence about the need to access the admssions data base, the recommendation is that clerking should remain within admissions team on the grounds of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

7. Provide an update on school admissions (i.e.: summary of new Admissions Codes & Direct Offer By Schools (DOBS) initiative)

7.1 General Summary

7.2 The current School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code came into force on 1 February, along with the following supporting regulations:

• The School Admissions (Admission Arrangements and Co-ordination of Admission Arrangements)(England) Regulations 2012 • The School Admissions (Appeals Arrangements)(England)Regulations 2012 • The School Admissions (Infant Class Sizes) (England)Regulations 2012

7.3 The School Admissions Code takes full effect on admissions arrangements being locally determined in respect of the pupil intake for the 2013/14 academic year and thereafter. Page 61

However, for appeals lodged on or after 1 February 2012, these will be dealt with under the Appeals Regulations 2012 and the School Admission Appeals Code.

7.4 The Codes and supporting regulations are available to download from http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schooladmissions/a00195/current -codes-and-regulations

7.5 Summary of Admissions Code

• The Code allows “good” schools to increase the number of school places available by making it easier for popular schools to take more pupils • It also requires an improvement (not deletion) of the current in-year applications scheme so fewer children face delays in finding a new school. (In-year applications happen when a child moves to a new area during the academic year) • It gives priority to children of school staff when a school is over-subscribed, if the school wishes, making it easier for schools to recruit teachers and other staff. This is currently unpopular amongst many Councils as this could disadvantage local children, especially in areas where the need for school places. • It strengthens the military covenant by allowing children of armed forces personnel to be admitted to infant classes even if it takes the class over the 30- pupil limit • It allows twins and other multiple-birth children to be admitted to infant classes even if it takes the class over the 30-child limit • It bans local authorities from using area-wide “lotteries” • It proposes to reduce bureaucracy by requiring admissions authorities to consult on admissions arrangements every seven years (rather than every three years) if no changes are proposed. (They would still need to consult when they wanted to change their admissions arrangements). • Anyone will be allowed to submit complaints about schools and LAs to the Office of School Adjudicators (OSA). The OSA will also, for the first time, manage complaints made about Academies, as opposed to the Secretary of State. 7.6 Summary of the Appeals Code • Parents will have at least 30 days to lodge an appeal against primary or secondary school decisions. The current 10-day limit forces parents to appeal too quickly, according to the Code. • The rule that currently bans appeals from being heard on school premises is overturned. • The regulation for admission authorities to advertise for lay appeal members every three years will be cut. • In future anyone will be able to object to the Adjudicator. The draft code is also clear that local authorities will retain the power to refer any admissions arrangements they believe are not complying with the code to the Schools Adjudicator. The Adjudicator is encouraging this by proposing to make this a part of the OSA Report.

7.7 Direct Offers by Schools (D.O.B.S) Process – Lambeth In-Year Admissions ONLY

Page 62

Background:

5.3.2 This proposed D.O.B.S process governs in-year admissions (for primary schools) for 2011/12 admissions year only. This process will be re-adapted/changed/deleted pending on the forthcoming Admissions Code.

5.3.3 Current law requires the following:

• All applications made for a school place must be made through the child’s home LA. This must be done at all points through the admitting year. • Admissions authorities must still maintain the responsibility of considering applications in line with their admissions criteria, if they are oversubscribed. • All offers must be made through the child’s home LA, though the school can still correspond with the applicant afterwards.

5.3.4 Though the above process is highly simplified, in reality it is much more complicated as the LA and schools still have to deal with in-year transfers, sibling and medical/social applications, etc. The sheer volumes of these applications being submitted to one team on behalf of all Lambeth’s maintained schools can cause a negative impact on the timing of offers, resulting in children remaining out of school for long periods. This D.O.B.S arrangement hopes to address some of this.

How D.O.B.S process works

5.3.5 The main aim of D.O.B.S is:

To ensure that children who do not have a current school place can be made a direct offer by schools. However, for this system to work the following need to be understood:

5.3.6 Definitions: Children who do not have a current school are:

• Children who do not have a current school place (this MUST be confirmed by the LA and not based on the parents word only)

• Children who have not previously submitted an iCAF to Lambeth LA and are not due to be made an imminent offer at another school .

5.3.7 Direct offers can ONLY be made:

• If the school has no waiting list (or there is a short waiting list and none of the children on that list want the offer – this can be confirmed by Lambeth Admissions)

Process

1. Family attend school wanting a school place

2. If the school has a vacancy/number of vacancies in the child’s year group, the school should call School Admissions on 07949 042 905 and query whether the child is known to Admissions or not

3. If the child is known to Admissions and an imminent offer is due to be made by School Admissions, then the school cannot make a direct offer . The school should simply refer the family back to Lambeth Admissions or Customer Services at Olive Morris House, whilst waiting for the other offer.

Page 63

4. If the child is not known to Lambeth Admissions and the school has a waiting list, where offers will be made from, then the school cannot make a direct offer .

5. However, if Lambeth Admissions confirm with the school that there are no children on the waiting list for that year group, the school confirm that they have a vacancy in that year group, then the Admissions Officer will confirm with the school that a direct offer can be made. This will be verbal in the initial instance.

6. The school will then have a responsibility to ensure that they get the parent to complete a CAF (retrospectively) on the same day and forward that CAF to Lambeth Admissions.

7. The CAF will not arrive Lambeth Admissions on the same day, so the school must inform Lambeth Admissions of this offer via ATOMWIDE (secure document exchange) informing us of the child’s name, address, DOB, and parent details . The Admissions Team will then forward the parents an offer letter.

8. The school will be responsible for requesting proof of address.

7. Finance Comments

7.1 There are no financial implications regarding this review and its outcomes

8. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy

8.1 There are no specific legal implications arising from this report. Specific advice will be provided as required.

9. Results of consultation

9.1 All parties involved with the consultation of this document have approved the findings and information contained.

10. Organisational implications

10.1 Risk management: None identified

10.2 Equalities impact assessment: N/A

10.3 Community safety implications: N/A

10.4 Environmental implications: N/A

10.5 Staffing and accommodation implications: None

10.6 Any other implications: Page 64

None

11. Timetable for implementation

With regards to the MEDSOC Review: Page 65

Event Milestone

Review completed 11 February 2012

Inform CYPS Lead Cllr 11 February 2012

Inform CYPS DLT 11 February 2012

Implement ratified recommendations With immediate effect

Report title here in Arial 8pitch Page 66

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 67

Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub-Committee 1 March 2012

Lambeth school inspection outcomes September 2010 – July 2011

Report authorised by : Cathy Twist, Assistant Director, Schools and Educational Improvement

Executive summary

In addition to judgements made by Ofsted, Lambeth Council’s Children and Young People’s Service also uses its own set of identification criteria to identify schools that require additional support to improve. These are classed in a number of different categories which enable the right level of intervention, challenge and support to be offered. The progress that schools requiring additional support make in addressing their weaknesses is regularly monitored and evaluated by both the School Improvement advisory service and the local authority’s (LA’s) School Improvement Monitoring Group (SIMG). This consists of senior CYPS officers and is chaired by the Executive Director for Children and Young People. This information is confidential to the school concerned and the department under a protocol agreed between schools and the LA.

Summary of financial implications

Cost of supporting schools is met from core school improvement budget and schools own budgets

Recommendations (1) That the information is noted

Consultation

Name of Directorate or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee to response appear in report consultee received para: from consultee

Internal Cathy Twist Assistant Director, Schools and Author 21/2/12 None Educational Improvement Alfred Ansong CYPS Finance 22/2/12 22/2/12 None Page 68

Alison McKane Corporate Legal 22/2/12 22/2/12 3.1, 4.3 Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 22/2/12 22/2/12 None

Entered in Consultation and Events Diary? No

Report history

Date report drafted: Report Date report sent: Report no.: deadline: 25.01.12 17.02.12 24.02.12 296/11-12 Report author and contact for queries: Gareth Ball, SIMG Project Support Officer, 020 7926 7642 ([email protected] ) Cathy Twist, Assistant Director Schools and Educational Improvement, 020 7926 9541 ([email protected] )

Background documents

Ofsted report documents for each of the schools listed Education Achievement Plan 2009-10 Lambeth School Improvement Policy (updated September 2011)

Appendices

None

Special Circumstances Justifying Urgent Consideration

Lambeth school inspection outcomes September 2010 – July 2011

1. Context

1.1 This report focuses on Ofsted’s findings of those schools inspected during the previous academic year under the Ofsted inspection framework wh ich commenced in September 200 9. It focuses on schools inspected between September 2010 and July 2011.

1.2 Each school is judged on a termly basis by the local authority (LA) using a comprehensive but straightforward set of criteria. This is completed with the headteacher and the result of this analysis informs decisions about which

Page 69

schools have significant needs or are in need of additional support. When schools are judged to be requiring additional support they are informed of this decision and the reasons why. This decision triggers extra support from the advisory service and other LA officers.

1.3 No schools were judged as requiring ‘special measures’ or ‘notice to improve’ by Ofsted during the academic year 2010-11. These are Ofsted’s most serious categories of concern.

1.4 In September 2009 the inspection framework was updated , with more of a focus on ‘pupil outcomes’, ‘ capacity to improve’ and ‘leadership and management’. The LA has continued to support schools in their preparation for self-evaluation by building the capacity for rigorous and accurate self-evaluation and ensuring that it is embedded throughout the school, from senior management to classroom level.

1.5 In January 2012 the inspection framework was updated again.

2. Proposals and reasons

2.1 2010-11 proved to be another good year for Lambeth schools. Eleven Lambeth schools were inspected between September 2010 and July 2011 and of those 9% were judged to be ‘outstanding’, 55% were judged ‘good’, 36% judged ‘satisfactory and none were judged ‘inadequate’. It should be noted that during the academic year 2008-09, All Lambeth Nursery schools were judged as outstanding and therefore Lambeth Nursey schools were not subjected to any inspection during this cycle.

2.2 Each year since 1993-94 Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools (HMCI) has identified providers that have shown outstanding performance in inspections during the year. The list of ‘outstanding providers’ brings together all those that have been identified in this way and goes on to form part of HMCI’s Annual Report. The 2010-11 list of HMCI’s ‘outstanding providers’ was published in November 2011 and Lambeth has one ‘outstanding’ school listed – one primary school. This brings to 30 the number of Lambeth schools judged ‘outstanding’ in the last four years.

2.3 The Lambeth school on HMCI’s 2010-11 list of ‘outstanding providers’ is:

• Elm Wood Primary School

2.4 Of all schools inspected nationally in 2010-11, 55% of primary schools were judged to be good or outstanding, compared with 64% in Lambeth; 52% of secondary schools were judged to be good or outstanding compared with 0% (1 school inspected and judged satisfactory) in Lambeth. The overall percentage of schools inspected nationally during 2010-11 and judged to be good was 46% compared with 73% in Lambeth.

2.5 This report will focus on Ofsted’s findings of those schools inspected during the academic year 2010-11, from September 2010 – July 2011. The 11 schools inspected during this time comprise 8 primary schools, 1 secondary school and 2 alternative education provision (AEP).

Page 70

2.6 Below is a brief analysis, broken down into the inspection categories, of each the inspection findings, as documented in the Ofsted reports:

2.8 Overall effectiveness

2.8.1 Of the 11 schools inspected one school received an ‘outstanding’ grade for ‘overall effectiveness’, six schools received ‘good’ grades and four schools received a ‘satisfactory’ grade.

2.8.2 Overall effectiveness Percentage of schools % achieved ‘outstanding’ grade (1) 9% % achieved ‘good’ grade (2) 55%

% achieved ‘satisfactory’ grade (3) 36 %

% achieved ‘inadequate’ grade (4) 0%

2.9 Capacity for sustained improvement

2.9.1 Of the 11 schools, one school received an ‘outstanding’ grade for ‘capacity for sustained improvement’, seven schools received ‘good’ grades and three schools received ‘satisfactory’ grades

2.9.2 Capacity for sustained improvement Percentage of schools % achieved ‘outstanding’ grade (1) 9% % achieved ‘good’ grade (2) 64% % achieved ‘satisfactory’ grade (3) 27% % achieved ‘inadequate’ grade (4) 0%

2.10 Outcomes for individuals and groups

2.10.1 One of the 11 schools inspected received an ‘outstanding’ grade, six schools received a ‘good’ grade and four schools received a ‘satisfactory’ grade for ‘outcomes for individuals and groups’. *

2.10.2 Outcomes for individuals and groups Percentage of schools % achieved ‘outstanding’ grade (1) 9%

% achieved ‘good’ grade (2) 55%

% achieved ‘satisfactory’ grade (3) 36%

% achieved ‘inadequate’ grade (4) 0%

2.11 Quality of teaching

2.11.1 Of the 11 schools inspected, one school received an ‘outstanding’ grade for ’quality of teaching’, six schools received ‘good’ grades and four schools received ‘satisfactory’ grades.

2.11.2

Page 71

Quality of teaching Percentage of schools % achieved ‘outstanding’ grade (1) 9% % achieved ‘good’ grade (2) 55%

% achieved ‘satisfactory’ grade (3) 36%

% achieved ‘inadequate’ grade (4) 0%

2.12 Embedding ambition and driving improvement

2.12.1 Of the 11 schools inspected, one school were given an ‘outstanding’ grade for ‘embedding ambition and driving improvement’, seven schools were given ‘good’ grades and three schools were given ‘satisfactory’ grades.

2.12.2 Leadership and management Percentage of schools % achieved ‘outstanding’ grade (1) 9% % achieved ‘good’ grade (2) 64%

% achieved ‘satisfactory’ grade (3) 27%

% achieved ‘inadequate’ grade (4) 0%

2.13 Graphical representations of Ofsted inspection outcomes (September 2010 – July 2011)

Schools inspected in Lambeth September 2010 - July 2011

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Outstanding Good Satisfactory Inadequate

Overall effectiveness Capacity for sustained improvement Outcomes for individuals and groups Quality of teaching Embedding ambition and driving improvement

Page 72

2.14 Changes to the inspection framework – effective September 2009

2.14.1 After much consultation Ofsted had introduced its new arrangements for the inspection of state maintained schools, with a new online self-evaluation form, in September 2009. The revised framework has important implications for the work of schools and the support and monitoring role of the Local Authority.

2.14.2 The revised Ofsted framework gave much more emphasis to the wider Every Child Matters (ECM) outcomes, focusing on different groups of pupils as well as individuals, and providing a full suite of descriptors to enable inspectors and schools to pitch their judgments about how well pupils are doing across the range of outcomes. The judgments on ECM outcomes are also central in judging the effectiveness of the school.

2.14.3 The revised framework has important implications for the work of schools and the support and monitoring role of the Local Authority.

2.14.4 Schools could fall into an Ofsted Category if they fell below a judgement of ‘Satisfactory’ in any of the following: pupil progress, including the progress of all groups; ECM outcomes, including behaviour and spiritual, moral and social and cultural development; Teaching, Curriculum and Care good support; Leadership.

2.14.5 There were also 3 ‘limiting judgements’ which posed a particular risk to schools: a. The quality of the school’s procedures for safeguarding b. The extent to which the school promotes equal opportunity and tackles discrimination c. Pupil achievement: this takes account of pupils’ attainment and the quality of learning and progress including a much greater focus on the achievement of different groups of pupils (for example, the achievement of ethnic minorities, looked after children; pupils on free school meals)

2.14.6 If a school was judged to be inadequate in any of the three strands (a-c above) its overall effectiveness is likely to be judged inadequate. This potentially places all schools at much greater risk than in the previous inspection frameworks, and means that even schools deemed “outstanding” at their last inspection could fail if there are serious issues around any of the limiting judgments.

2.14.7 Timings of inspections also place schools at greater risk of falling into a category. Schools judged good or outstanding at their last inspection will be on a 5 year cycle but could receive an inspection earlier, dependent upon on a number of factors, for example safeguarding concerns, parental complaint or no SEF submitted. This means that all schools need to be on a state of “readiness” as it will be very difficult to predict when an inspection will take place.

2.14.8 The proportion of schools judged satisfactory at their last inspection who will receive a monitoring inspection is to increase, to about 40%. This new arrangement will apply to schools which were judged to be satisfactory before September 2009 as well as those inspected under the new framework. Schools whose inspection reports and subsequent performance indicate that they are making poor or indifferent progress are most likely to be selected for monitoring inspections. The window for carrying out such inspections has been extended and a monitoring visit may occur at any point between 12-14 months since the school was last inspected. Whilst the school will be notified within a four week period, they will not be informed of the actual date of the inspection. The inspector will make two key judgements. The first is the progress that the school has made in bringing about improvements since it was last inspected. The second encompasses the impact that the improvements have had on strengthening the school’s capacity for sustained improvement.

Page 73

2.14.9 Robust annual risk assessments based on a school’s performance data and the Self Evaluation Form, also places schools at greater risk of falling into a category if it is not demonstrating at least satisfactory judgements in all key areas.

2.14.10 Since September 2009 there have been two Lambeth schools judged to require Special Measures. The two schools were Henry Fawcett Primary and Vauxhall Primary schools. The new framework and increased rigour of the inspection led mainly to the judgement at Vauxhall. At Henry Fawcett school the LA had already taken action to intervene in the school, replacing the governing body with an Interim Executive Board (IEB). This action only took place in May 2009 and the new arrangements did not have sufficient time to address the many issues in the school before the inspection. Both schools were placed under robust new leadership arrangements, working in partnership / federations and both schools were removed from special measures in record times. Vauxhall was judged ‘good’ in June 2010 and Henry Fawcett ‘satisfactory’ with ‘good’ capacity to improve in June 2010.

3. Finance Comments

3.1 The cost of supporting schools is met from the core school improvement budget and other grants including Standards Fund as well as the schools’ budget.

3.2 There are no additional financial implications in the report.

4. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy

4.1 School inspections by H.M. Inspectorate is governed by part 1 of the Education Act 2005 which requires H.M. Inspectors to carry out inspections and publish reports on such inspections.

4.2 Under the Education Act 2005 the Council may undertake an inspection may inspect a school whether maintained by it or not where it is not reasonably practical for it to obtain information required by any other means

4.3 The Council has powers of intervention under section 14 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and under Section 60 of the Education Act 2006 and may appoint additional governors or withdraw the delegated budget of a school with a serious weakness . Following a warning notice the Council may also require a school to work with an Interim Education Board (IEB) in the place of a governing body or require a school to work with another school or schools to enhance capacity within a collaboration, group or federation. The Secretary of State may appoint additional governors or close a school.

4.4 Local Education authorities may issue directions to governing bodies of schools in which there has been a breakdown in discipline

4.5 It should be noted that local education authorities should only use the powers allowed under the Schools Standards and Framework Act in extreme circumstances

5. Results of consultation

5.1 N/a

Page 74

6. Organisational implications

6.1 Risk management: The issue of schools being judged adversely is a risk to the council as the outcomes from school inspections are included in the CSA and other Council audits. It is also the responsibility of school governing bodies and LA to ensure that all children achieve well and receive a good quality education. Additionally the reputation of schools is central for communities to have confidence in their local school .

6.2 Equalities impact assessment: All schools aim to address inequality and access to the curriculum and enabling pupils to achieve well. Good schools are more able to achieve this than those where there are significant issues to address.

6.3 Community safety implications: None .

6.4 Environmental implications: None

6.5 Staffing and accommodation implications: It can be more difficult to attract high calibre staff to schools where there are significant challenges than to other schools. Therefore it is in the interest of all pupils that all Lambeth schools are meeting the challenges effectively, so that they can attract good quality leaders, teachers and support staff to work in them.

There are considerable demands on LA School Improvement Teams within the new Ofsted inspection arrangements. Timescales are much reduced and the LA needs to ensure it has the capacity to undertake this work and provide the necessary support to such schools as well as ongoing support to schools in general.

6.6 Any other implications: Impact on front line and area implications – the aim of the support from the LA is to improve the overall quality of education in Lambeth schools

7. Timetable for implementation

7.1 Each school covered in this report currently has its own action plan with a clear timetable to make the improvements required in any areas of development.

7.2 The Education and Inspections Act 2006 was seen as a major step forward in the Government’s aim to ensure that all children in all schools get the education they need to enable them to fulfil their potential. These changes are being rolled out over a two year period, the first year of which has now been completed.

7.3 The Act merged several existing inspectorates to bring all learning issues within one body. It covers the full range of services for children and young people, as well as for lifelong learning. This will in time reduce the burden of inspection and associated bureaucracy and ensure that all inspection has a stronger focus on delivery and value

Page 75

for money. In January 2007 a new board for Ofsted was established and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills was created.

7.4 Amendments made to existing legislation enable LAs to intervene earlier and more easily tackle underperforming schools by issuing them with a formal warning notice. Schools are given a right to make representations to Ofsted against the issue of a notice. LAs are required to act more quickly and decisively in relation to schools that have received an adverse Ofsted report. A new power enables the LA to require a weak school to collaborate with another school or to work with a partner on school improvement. The LA has been given powers to intervene in schools causing concern. LAs are required to have regard to guidance in using their intervention powers under this Part of the Act. In May 2007 local authorities’ duties, powers and responsibilities were enhanced in relation to schools that are letting down their pupils.

7.5 In May 2010, the Coalition government came to power and through the Academies Act and Educational Act 2011 have sought to make a range of key significant changes to state education in England. These include increased autonomy for schools by encouraging them to take on ‘Academy’ status and function outside local authority control. This means that in future the LA will have limited influence on the effective functioning of these schools. Via the Education Act 2011, the Ofsted framework has been reviewed and changed again with the bar being raised further. ‘Floor standards’, the expected levels of achievement at the end of primary and secondary education have also been raised. A report to Scrutiny next year will comment on the impact of these changes in the ways that schools are judged in 2011/12.

______

Page 76

This page is intentionally left blank