Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2024 be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2024 be agreed as an accurate record.

There were none.

There were none.

To follow on 8 March due to pre-election restrictions on publicity.

RESOLVED

The report be noted.

Witnesses

Cllr Chris Barnham, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

Pinaki Ghoshal, Executive Director for Children and Young People
Angela Scattergood, Director of Education Services
Anthony Doudle, Head of Lewisham Learning

Susan Rowe, Lewisham Education Group

Key points from discussion

The Committee put questions to the witnesses. Key points included:

3.1.     Comparing Lewisham’s outcomes against other London boroughs’ and national averages was most insightful. Lewisham had improved its national standing, but in many cases needed to improve further relative to other London boroughs – which generally performed well nationally.

3.2.     The ambition now was to further improve Lewisham’s outcomes relative to other, comparator London boroughs, as well as performing well above national averages.

3.3.     The exams held in 2023 were most similar in nature to those held in 2019.

3.4.     The high proportion of male pupils not in education, employment or training (NEET) was anomalous. The causes were being explored.

3.5.     Anecdotally, sixth forms were reporting that young people were missing education because they were working to support their families.

3.6.     The factors affecting attainment were being considered at school level. The Council was supporting schools to use data to understand the factors affecting performance. National teacher strikes may have had a greater impact in Lewisham than elsewhere, and local strikes had significantly affected certain Lewisham schools.

3.7.     The Key Stage 2 reading assessment – an unseen test comprising three articles which children had to read and respond to within sixty minutes – had been particularly challenging due to the complexity and density of the texts. A ‘back-to-basics’ pedagogical approach – a focus on the learning which would make the biggest difference to a young person – to reading had been the focus of Lewisham Learning’s conferences with Year 6 teachers in the current academic year by Lewisham learning. A similar approach had been adopted for writing, which was teacher assessed rather than a test: Lewisham Learning had been working with Year 6 teachers regarding what good writing at the expected and higher standards looked like for that cohort to help them make better judgements; and work had been undertaken with moderators to ensure teachers were making true and accurate judgements. Teachers had provided positive feedback, reporting that the approach had not overcomplicated things and helped equip children to manage the reading test effectively and write purposively with a clear audience in mind, as well as use the correct spelling and grammar.

3.8.     Lewisham Learning had been in regular contact with the leaders of schools where Year 1 phonics scores needed to improve. Visits had been undertaken to ensure data were informing the provision required to secure improved outcomes. Schools where pupils with certain characteristics had performed better than their peers elsewhere had been visited to understand what interventions were enabling them to do so.

3.9.     Whether artificial intelligence bots could assist the teaching – at school or home – of underperforming cohorts was raised. Schools were using technology in highly innovative ways to support learning in the classrooms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To follow on 8 March due to pre-election restrictions on publicity.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Witnesses

Cllr Chris Barnham, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

Pinaki Ghoshal, Executive Director for Children and Young People
Angela Scattergood, Director of Education Services
Anthony Doudle, Head of Lewisham Learning

Jacqui Noakes, Headteacher – John Ball Primary School
Michael Sullivan, Headteacher – Forest Hill School
Lisa Williams, Headteacher – Rushey Green Primary School

Susan Rowe, Lewisham Education Group

Key points from discussion

The Headteachers in attendance made brief opening comments. Key points raised included:

4.1.     The education landscape was rapidly changing. Key challenges concerned school finances (particularly due to the increased costs of energy, materials and services), limited human resources and the increased level of need in children and families (including Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) numbers and complexity, particularly language, mental health and social communication needs). There was not enough funding to support children in the way schools would like.

4.2.     Schools needed to be creative in how they spent and directed funding. Government accountability measures for secondary education focused on educational attainment; broader outcomes were not measured by anyone.

4.3.     There was increased volatility at the periphery of education. For example, in-year admissions, which could be challenging for schools to manage.

4.4.     To provide holistic education, the ethos of schools needed to value it.

4.5.     Schools worked together collaboratively to meet the challenges they and their pupils faced.

4.6.     The churn of pupils through the borough and its schools meant that schools and teachers were often held to account for the progress of pupils with whom they had not worked with for a full year or whom they had not prepared to teach when developing strategic plans the year before.

4.7.     School leaders shared expertise among their schools.

4.8.     It was right for schools to support families with their needs (e.g. regarding housing, language or social needs) as the home environment was key to children’s success at school.

The Deputy Young Mayor and young advisor shared that:

4.9.     Schools generally provided the core/traditional education that young people needed, but there were gaps around practical issues and skills such as crime or managing their personal finances. 

4.10. School ethos and culture were key to raising pupils’ aspirations.

The Committee and its guests then put questions to the witnesses. Key points raised included:

4.11. Academy chains were responsible for their own improvement. More holistic support, such as the Mental Health Support Team in Schools programme, had been offered to all schools and colleges regardless of their governance. Academies engaged in processes such as the Fair Access Panel. The fragmentation of the education system made meeting the Council’s aims for children and young people more challenging, but it was not deterred by it.

4.12. Almost all primaries collaborated in small school development or peer review groups arranged by Lewisham Learning and via a highly collaborative headteachers’ forum.

4.13. There was positive collaboration between secondary schools despite the fragmentation of the system.

4.14. School Improvement Partners, who visited schools at least termly, brokered additional specialist support from external providers.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED

To suggest that an item on Family Hubs and Children and Family Centres be considered at the Committee’s first meeting of the 24/25 municipal year, subject to the meeting preceding the associated Mayor and Cabinet decision.

5.1.    The Committee had a reflective discussion of its years’ work and noted that its items had predominantly been education topics, some items received for information only may have warranted discussion, there were opportunities for elements of its meetings to be quicker and that the Committee had not made any formal recommendations or referrals.

Standing orders were suspended until 9.45 pm.

5.2.    The Committee made the following suggestions for the next municipal year. The Scrutiny Manager was to provide them to the Committee’s members in the next year.

·         The Committee meet informally to discuss its work programme before its first formal meeting.

·         The Committee consider the opportunity to make recommendations when selecting topics.

·         The Committee consider including in its work programme capacity to review emergent, urgent issues.

·         In exceptional circumstances, the Committee consider reviewing more than two substantive items at its meetings, suspending Standing Order 10 if necessary.

5.3.    The Chair’s view was that both validated and unvalidated education attainment data should both continue to be substantive items for discussion.

RESOLVED

To suggest that an item on Family Hubs and Children and Family Centres be considered at the Committee’s first meeting of the 24/25 municipal year, subject to the meeting preceding the associated Mayor and Cabinet decision.