The Panel has invited representatives from West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and The Springboard Project to help inform their investigation.
Both Councillor Richard Burrett and a representative from the County Council have been invited to offer views on education, skills and associated employment in West Sussex and to understand the challenges the services face – now and in the future, together with the provision of initiatives and support currently being provided.
The Springboard Project has also been invited as one of the providers for disabled children, young people and families in the area to provide information on the current challenges, together with possible solutions.
Whilst the individuals named above identifies those witnesses anticipated to speak at the meeting, this may change subject to availability and, at the discretion of the Chair. Further witnesses may be called in addition or instead of those listed above should they be unavailable.
Minutes:
The Chair provided some background information on the Panel and then witnesses were asked to offer views on education, skills and associated employment in West Sussex and to understand the challenges the services face – now and in the future, together with the provision of initiatives and support currently being provided.
Councillor Richard Burrett (Cabinet Member for Education and Skills) and Mark Jenner (Head of School Effectiveness) from West Sussex County Council updated the Panel that:
· A new curriculum was introduced in 2014 and initially not all schools were prepared for the changes. However there have since been amendments in teaching styles and skills, principally in reading, writing and maths leading to a noticeable difference in performance, particularly in reading.
· The draft school effectiveness strategy had been out for consultation to be approved by the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills.
· There was an ambition to achieve more for Crawley schools. The aspiration was that by 2022, West Sussex will be one of the top 25% of local authorities nationally for the quality and provision of learning across all age groups and abilities.
· In terms of the proportion of children eligible for free school meals attending a good or outstanding schools (state funded secondary), Crawley was just one school away from its 100% target.
· The data for Crawley KS2 disadvantaged pupils shows improvement over 3 years (2016-2018), a distinct narrowing in the national gap figures over the years (29.5, 25.3, 17.9).
· KS4 figures were currently outstanding as GCSE data was currently being prepared but can be provided to the Panel later in the year.
During the discussion the following views were expressed:
· It was acknowledged there were no formal mechanisms for monitoring or working with academies. It was noted there were differences in the relationship with academies, as there was with performance, as too with LEA schools. However any issues can be raised with the regional schools commissioner.
· Some schools receiving lower Ofsted ratings were required to become academies. It was important to observe the reason for the transition and acknowledge that some schools had taken the decision themselves.
· There was recognition that schools were improving. They need confidence to achieve a good rating, then maintain this rating and improve further to outstanding. All schools have an aspiration to be good or better.
· With regards to parental preference or choice, it was thought there may be a need to alert parents as to all the options for each school.
· There was recognition that schools try hard to publicise free school meals as this benefits both pupils and schools. Schools receive additional funding from the government for each child registered for free school meals.
· In terms of exclusion data, it was confirmed that West Sussex data was proportionate with the national data. Maintaining children in education was key and it was questioned if resources could be involved at an earlier stage. It was acknowledged that it was a myth that high level exclusion rates resulted in low Ofsted ratings. It was commented that the alternative provision service worked well but there was disappointment that it did not continue past the age of 16.
· It was requested that data be provided in terms of gender and KS4 in general. This would be provided once available.
The Springboard Project had also been invited as one of the providers for disabled children, young people and families in the area to provide information on the current challenges, together with possible solutions. Unfortunately the witness no longer worked at the organisation, however the Springboard Project was still keen to be informed and further consideration would be given as to their involvement.
RESOLVED
That Panel Members thanked all witnesses for their attendance. Councillor Burrett also thanked the Scrutiny Panel for having the opportunity for being able to contribute.