Report to: Overview and Date of meeting: 30 January 2018 Scrutiny Committee (Children’s Services and Safeguarding) Subject: School Performance – Possible Reasons for the Deterioration of Attainment at Secondary Schools. Report of: Head of Schools Wards Affected: All & Families Is this a Key N0 Included in No Decision: Forward Plan: Exempt / No Confidential Report: Summary This report looks at the performance of secondary schools in Sefton against the nationally available research on the way different factors affect the progress and attainment of pupils. National research into pupil attainment and progression inevitably concludes ‘it’s complicated’ but some key themes which have an impact are: Deprivation & Poverty; Parental Education, Involvement, and Environment; School Culture, Quality, and Teacher Turnover; and of course The Pupil. The report outlines work that schools are doing to improve performance and some of the challenges to doing this. Recommendation(s): Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Children’s Services and Safeguarding) are recommended to: i) Note the report .. Reasons for the Recommendation(s): Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Children’s Services and Safeguarding) requested a report on this issue for their consideration. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: (including any Risk Implications) None What will it cost and how will it be financed? There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. However, it should be noted that if a school is operating under a licensed deficit budget agreement with the Council then there is a financial risk to the Council if the school is inspected and is given a poor judgement. If as a result of the inspection the Regional Schools Commissioner invokes an academy order against the school then at the point of the school converting any financial deficit against the converting school will have to be met by the Council. (A) Revenue Costs See above (B) Capital Costs See above Implications of the Proposals: Resource Implications (Financial, IT, Staffing and Assets): As part of the consultation process meetings have been held with staff in the school and their trade union representatives Legal Implications: The consultation on the proposal to merge the school and publication of the statutory notice has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and specifically the School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools) Regulation 2013/3109 as amended. Equality Implications: There are no equality implications. Contribution to the Council’s Core Purpose: NA Protect the most vulnerable: Facilitate confident and resilient communities Commission, broker and provide core services: Place – leadership and influencer: Drivers of change and reform: Facilitate sustainable economic prosperity: Greater income for social investment: Cleaner Greener:: What consultations have taken place on the proposals and when? (A) Internal Consultations The Head of Corporate Resources (FD5010/18.) and Head of Regulation and Compliance (LD4294/18.) have been consulted and any comments have been incorporated into the report. (B) External Consultations N/A Implementation Date for the Decision Immediately following the Committee. Contact Officer: Mike McSorley Telephone Number: 0151 934 3428 Email Address: [email protected] Appendices: None Background Papers: There are no background papers available for inspection. 1. Background 1.1 Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Children’s Services and Safeguarding) have had concerns around the outcomes for secondary age pupils for some time and asked officers to produce a report on the possible reasons for the deterioration of attainment at Secondary Schools. 1.2 A report elsewhere on the agenda provides an overview of the performance in Sefton schools at key stages up to KS4. 2 Summary of secondary school performance (2017) 2.1 Progress and attainment 8 outcomes KS4 Attainment 8 Progress 8 Sefton 44.5 -0.20 National 46.1 -0.03 Regional 45.3 -0.14 LCR 43.6 -0.23 Sefton’s attainment 8 figure is lower than the national and regional figures and 3rd within the LCR. Sefton’s progress 8 figure is second in the LCR but significantly worse than the national and regional figures. It should be noted that outside of London only one region has a positive progress 8 figure. Progress in English and maths is weak, particularly in English which is declining 2.3 Progress and attainment figures for individual schools is shown in Appendix 1. From this data it can be seen that the South Sefton area (which accounts for around 20% of pupils) is of particular concern: there are no good/outstanding schools and progress and attainment figures are the worst in Sefton. The four poorest performing schools in Sefton are all in the south of the borough. 3. The Potential Impact of Deprivation on Educational Attainment 3.1 Independent research suggests that there is a pathway from childhood poverty to reduced employment opportunities, and those who end up with lower earnings are those with a lack of skills and qualifications: in other words, deprivation has a negative impact on educational attainment, leaving young people with fewer qualifications and skills which in turn affects future employment. However there many other factors that can and do impact on educational attainment and outcomes for young people, which should also be considered alongside deprivation 3.2 Measuring deprivation: 3.2.1 Deprivation may be defined in many different ways but for the purposes of this paper it refers to adverse economic circumstances in a child's family and/or local area. 3.2.2 Pupils are recorded as known to be eligible for free school meals (FSM) if their parents or carers are in receipt of certain benefits and have applied to Sefton Council to claim entitlements to a free school meal. FSM is therefore a binary measure (pupils are either eligible for it, or they are not) and it is an imperfect indicator of deprivation, because it does not pick up all pupils who experience deprivation. Pupils in families which do not claim benefits to which they are entitled, pupils in families which do not apply to receive free school meals for which they are eligible, and pupils in households where the parents are in paid employment are not counted by the FSM measure, may experience deprivation. 3.2.3 The pupil level annual schools census collects the home postcode of each pupil. These postcodes can be linked to local areas called lower layer super output areas (LSOAs), which are small areas in England, each with an average population of 1500 people. A number of deprivation indicators are available for LSOAs, such as the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), which measures the proportion of children under 16 in each area that are eligible for certain income‐related benefits. Unlike FSM, the IDACI score for each pupil does not relate directly to their individual family circumstances, but is a proxy measure based on their local area. However, it is useful as a broader measure of deprivation since it includes children in working households which are nevertheless income deprived, as well as children in families where the parents are unemployed; and is consequently preferable for measuring deprivation in areas of Sefton where there is high income poverty amongst working families, or low take‐up of free school meal eligibility. 3.3 School Level 3.3.1 At school level there is a reasonable statistical correlation between overall performance and average deprivation experienced by pupils. Figure 1 below illustrates the average attainment score for pupils by mainstream schools in Sefton for the four year 11/12 to 14/15 period. This is plotted against the average level of deprivation for all pupils within the timeframe. Figure 1 - Mainstream School Level Points Score and IDACI 380 0.45 360 0.40 340 0.35 Score 320 0.30 Score 300 0.25 Points 280 0.20 IDACI 260 0.15 pped 240 0.10 Ca 220 0.05 Average 200 0.00 The Hawthorne'sLITHERLANDST. WILFRID'SSt Free Savio AmbroseHIGH School Salesian HIGHSCHOOLHILLSIDE Barlow SCHOOLSTANLEY CollegeSt Catholic HIGH Michael's ChesterfieldHIGH SCHOOLST. College GEORGE SCHOOLCE High HighCHRIST SchoolMAGHULLOF SchoolENGLANDBIRKDALE THEHOLY HIGHKING FAMILY SECSACRED HIGHMeols SCHOOL SCHOOLCATHOLIC CopHEARTMARICOURT DEYESHigh CATHOLIC HIGHSchool HIGHGreenbank CATHOLIC SCHOOLFORMBY COLLEGERANGE HighHIGH HIGH School SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOLAvg Capped Average Pnts Avg IDACI Score 3.3.2 In general on average the schools with higher average performance have catchments made up of pupils who are – on average – from less deprived areas. However, several other factors are at work here underlying this overall apparent trend. As seen in Figure 1 some schools appear to either ‘under or over’ perform compared to their average level of catchment deprivation. This pattern is repeated in more recent Attainment 8 data for the 15/16 year illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 – Attainment 8 Score & 2015 IDACI for Schools (15/16) 70 0.45 60 0.40 Score 8 0.35 Score 50 0.30 40 0.25 IDACI 30 Attainment 0.20 0.15 20 0.10 10 0.05 Attainment 8 0 0.00Average St AmbroseThe Barlow Hawthorne'sMAGHULL CatholicSavio Free HIGHCollegeHILLSIDE Salesian School StSCHOOL Michael's HIGHCollegeSTANLEY SCHOOLLITHERLAND CE High HIGH School CHRISTSCHOOLMARICOURT ChesterfieldHIGH THESCHOOL KING CATHOLICMeolsHighHOLY SchoolSACRED Cop FAMILY HIGH High HEART SCHOOLSchoolCATHOLICBIRKDALE CATHOLICFORMBY HIGHDEYES COLLEGE HIGHSCHOOLRANGE HIGH SCHOOLGreenbank SCHOOLHIGH SCHOOL High School IDACI Average 3.3.3 Figure 3 illustrates the average proportion of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) for each of the above schools over the whole time period. Whilst this pattern can explain some of the differences there remains a pattern of attainment that cannot be directly explained purely by relative levels of deprivation. Figure 3 - Proportion of Pupils SEN / Statemented 45.0 8.0 40.0 7.0 SEN 35.0 6.0 30.0 5.0 Pupils 25.0 Statemented 4.0 All 20.0 of 3.0 15.0 Pupils 10.0 2.0 All 5.0 1.0 of 0.0 0.0 TheProportion Hawthorne'sLITHERLANDST.