Agenda item

4.1      Sue Tipler, Head of Standards and Achievement, presented the report to the committee and introduced Ruth Holden, Chair of the Secondary Heads Group. During the presentation the following key points were highlighted:

·      Table 2 on page 49 of the agenda had an error and the year on year change in St Matthew Academy should be listed as -9.0%.

·      Table 3 on page 50 of the agenda had an admission and the 2014 figure for Lewisham should be 51.3%.

·      The Council was working more strategically with Head Teachers to address issues of secondary school performance.

·      There was a good practice 14-19 year old strategy in place.

·      The Council aimed to ensure that all children would have the opportunity to attend a “good” or “outstanding” secondary school in Lewisham.

·      The 2014 Lewisham GCSEs results had been worse than expected and there were a number of factors that contributed to this as set out in the report.

·      The predictions for the 2014/15 year group were set to rise.

·      Mathematics performance had pulled the results down overall, and staffing issues were highlighted as a challenge in this area. There were also recruitment challenges more generally.

·      Non pupil premium students were performing worse than the national average whilst pupil premium students were performing slightly better than the national average. Results for both groups, however, needed to improve.

·      Head Teachers had formed a small steering group to help share best practice and improve performance across Lewisham secondary schools.

·      School leadership was very important at all levels within schools and a middle leaders’ development programme called the “Most Able Project” had been introduced.

·      The Council has set a target for a 10% rise in secondary results over the course of this administration. It was conformed that this was 10 percentage points from the 2013/14 baseline in line with the Council’s aspirations to have higher than national average achievement and to be at least at the London average by 2017.

4.2       In the discussion that followed, the following key points were raised:

·      No schools were complacent about Ofsted rating and all were committed to achieving or retaining an “outstanding” category.

·      The 5 A*- C category for monitoring standards nationally was being replaced with the “progress 8” category which looked at attainment across 8 subjects with higher weighting for Maths and English.

·      “Progress 8” was designed to encourage uptake of a broader range of subjects with more emphasis on key subjects such as Maths and English. It included an approved list of subjects that could be counted towards this measure.

·      Schools were working collectively. The local authority would intervene if schools were not achieving. Leadership was seen as key.

·      The Secondary Heads Group was seen as very helpful. The group met regularly and was divided into sub-groups working on leadership systems and working in a structured and planned manner. It was also a forum for frank discussion.

·      Networks of middle leaders were also meeting and looking at good practice out of the borough as well as learning from each other.

4.3       RESOLVED: That the report be noted.