AGENDA ITEM NO. 12 BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL CHILDREN & … › Data › Children's Services Scrutiny...

AGENDA ITEM NO. 12

BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL

CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE’S SERVICES

April 24 2012 Report of: Director of Children and Young People’s Skills Title: Bristol Schools- Structure and Performance Ward: Citywide Officer presenting report: Nick Batchelar Service Director

Education Contact telephone number: 9224836 RECOMMENDATION Scrutiny Commission is asked to note and comment on :

1. Changes to the structure of the school system in Bristol and to the role of the Local Authority

2. The commentary and analysis of school performance in Bristol

for 2010 - 2011 Summary

1. Following the change of national government in 2010 there have been significant changes to the structure of educational provision in England. This report summarises the current pattern of provision in Bristol.

2. Appendix C of this report sets out an analysis of school and

pupil performance in Bristol for the academic year 2010-2011. The commentary highlights some key aspects of this performance and proposes priorities arising out of the analysis.

Policy Children and Young People’s Plan Consultation

Internal

External Headteachers Schools Forum

Context 1. Structure of educational provision in Bristol

Current Position

There are 106 primary phase schools in Bristol. 7 are academies, including one former independent school. 25 are consulting on conversion with 19 of these expressing an interest with the DfE. This leaves 74 maintained schools. There are 21 secondary schools in Bristol. 10 are academies, including 2 former independent schools. 2 are about to become academies but awaiting clearance about PFI issues. 6 are consulting on conversion of which 3 have expressed an interest. There is one free school. This leaves 2 maintained schools. There are 9 special schools, none of which is an academy or have currently expressed an interest. Nursery Schools are currently outside the scope of the academies programme. Schools that have expressed an interest in conversion are likely to do so from September 2012. Appendix A lists the status of state funded schools and settings in Bristol with effect from Sept 2012. Governance The most notable change to schools which either convert to academy status or become sponsored academies is to how they are governed. Converter academies establish an academy trust, the members of which appoint the majority of governors to the school’s governing body. It is for the academy trust to determine the make up of the governing body with regard to staff, parent, community, Local Authority or other specified places.

Sponsored academies are governed by Board or Council of the sponsoring body. In broad terms this means that the key powers of governance in relation to individual schools are centralised and are held by the main governing ‘vehicle’ of the academy Trust/ Federation. Specified responsibilities are delegated to the school ‘ councils’ which are sometimes still referred to as ‘governing bodies’ even though they may have only limited powers of governance as such. Leadership Headteachers in maintained schools, with the possible exception of those in hard federations, are accountable directly to the governing body of the school. In contrast the most common structure of accountability for the head of an individual school which becomes a sponsored academy is to the lead professional in that academy ‘chain’, who is in turn accountable to the academy ‘Board’. In effect this means that there is a switch from accountability to governance to accountability to a more senior professional, a ‘professionalisation’ of accountability. Arguably it is this change in accountability, coupled with the reduced powers of governance at individual school level and enhanced strategic direction and accountability at the academy ‘Board’ level, which leads to strengthened capacity to secure high quality educational provision. In that sense the weakness of the pre –existing school system could be said to be that there was too much autonomy at the level of the individual schools, rather than too little. Funding and the role of Schools Forum Under existing arrangements Schools Forums have specified responsibilities in relation to the local allocation, through the locally agreed funding formula, of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Academies receive their finding directly from central government, currently via YPLA, and in future through the Schools Funding Agency. The budgets for academies are however determined in light of the local funding formula. Following consultation on the future of school funding the government has announced that Schools Forums will have a continuing and significant role in the allocation and distribution of funding, including in relation to academies. The role of the Local Authority The continuing importance of the role of the LA was signalled in the White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, 2010. While this role has changed, its key elements are:

1. Ensuring sufficient supply of school places

2. Ensuring excellence and tackling underperformance;

3. Ensuring support for vulnerable children and young people;

4. Exercising responsibility as the maintaining authority of LA maintained schools and other educational settings;

5. Trading services with both LA maintained schools, academies, educational settings and other organisations.

Bristol is one of 9 LAs currently involved in a national action research project looking at the role of the LA in a changing educational system. In response to the changing education landscape, Cambridge Education (CE) were commissioned to review services that the Council trades to schools, academies and educational settings across Bristol. The CE report highlights the need for the City Council to have a coherent and feasible strategy for the delivery of traded services which it offers to schools, both LA maintained and academies. The report sets out options which need to be evaluated before decisions are taken. This will include an evaluation of the impact on both the Council and schools of revised arrangements and the need to carefully plan any changes. The CE Executive report is attached as appendix B. A report on theses issues was presented to the Schools Forum on 20 March and invited comment on the recommendations in that Review. Specifically it is inviting comments on options that some services, including financial and HR services, should no longer be directly provided by the Council, and that the Council should act as broker in relation to such services in order to secure with schools the best possible provider/ providers which would meet the needs of schools, and in relation to maintained schools, the needs of the Council as the maintaining authority. 2. Performance of Bristol schools The Executive Summary to the report on Bristol school results for 2010-2011 (Appendix C) highlights where there has been particular improvement and where there are aspects causing concern. It recommends priorities for improvement going forward. In the context of an increasingly diverse structure of educational provision in the city, the report draws highlights the importance of ensuring that changes to the structure of the school system impact positively on outcomes for learners, and ensure that standards in Bristol continue the improving rate of progress seen over recent years.

Proposal This report is for information only Other Options Considered Not applicable Risk Assessment Not applicable Equalities Impact Assessment Not applicable Legal and Resource Implications

Legal

Financial Revenue Capital

Land

Personnel Appendices: Appendix A Status of Bristol schools Appendix B Cambridge Education Executive Summary Appendix C Bristol schools results for 2010-2011 ACCESS TO INFORMATION Background Papers

Appendix A - Status of schools

Key Types of school

C CommunityVC Voluntary ControlledVA Voluntary AidedF FoundationCA Converter AcademySA Sponsored AcademyDM Directly Managed

School / Academy Name

SecondaryAshton Park School F - SW Co-opertive Learning TrustBedminster Down Secondary School CA - May 2012Bridge Learning Campus - Secondary SA - TiL Sept 2012Brislington Enterprise College Currently - EOI for acedemy conversionBristol Brunel Academy SA - CLFBristol Cathedral Choir School AcademyBristol Free School Free schoolBristol Metropolitan Academy SA - CLFColston's Girls' School AcademyCotham School CAFairfield High School Currently Community - EOI SA with Aacedmies Enterprise TrustHenbury School CA due May 2012Merchants' Academy SA - Merchant Ventures and Bristol UniversityOasis Academy Brightstowe SA - OasisOasis Academy John Williams SA - OasisOrchard School SA - TiL Sept 2012Redland Green School Currently Community - EOI for acedemy conversionSt. Bede's Catholic College CASt. Bernadette Catholic Secondary School - Bristol VA - EOI submitted for academy conversionSt. Mary Redcliffe & Temple C.E. V.A. Secondary School VAThe City Academy Bristol SA - John Laycock

Appendix (12) A.xls


SpecialBriarwood Special CBristol Gateway CClaremont CElmfield School for Deaf Children CKingsweston Special CKnowle DGE CNew Fosseway Special CNotton House Special CWoodstock Special C


PRUsBristol Hospital Education DMLansdown Park School DMSt Matthias Park DMThe Meriton Centre DM


PrimaryAir Balloon Hill Primary School CAshley Down Primary School CAshton Gate Primary School CAshton Vale Primary School F- SW Co-operative Learning TrustAvon Primary School CAvonmouth C.E. V.C. Primary School CBadock's Wood Primary School CBank Leaze Primary School SA Oasis Sept 2012Bannerman Rd Community School & Childrens Centre SA- City Acdemy Sept 2012 (Not yet confirmed)Barton Hill Primary School & Children's Centre CBegbrook Primary School C to be SA CLF - September 2012Bishop Road Primary School CBlaise Primary & Nursery School CBrentry Primary School CBridge Farm Primary School CBridge Learning Campus - Primary CBurnbush Primary School & Children's Centre CCabot Primary School CCheddar Grove Primary School CChrist Church C.E. V.C. Primary School - Clifton VC

The Dolphin Primary School A - Colston's Girls - September 2012Colston's Primary School CA Sept 2012Compass Point: South St. School & Childrens Centre F- SW Co-op TrustConnaught Primary School SA - Oaisis Sept 2012Easton C Of E Primary School VAFair Furlong Primary School CFonthill Primary School CFour Acres Primary School & Children's Centre CGay Elms Primary School C - EOI CA with Merchants Academy Glenfrome Primary School CGreenfield Primary School SA EOI- E-Act - September 2012Hannah More Primary School CHareclive Primary School CA Sept 2012Headley Park Primary School CHenbury Court Primary School SA- EOIHillcrest Primary School CHillfields Primary School SA CLF- Sept 2012Holy Cross Catholic Primary School VAHorfield C.E. V.C. Primary School VCHotwells Primary School CIlminster Avenue E-Act Academy SA E-ActKnowle Park Primary School CLittle Mead Primary School CA Sept 2012

Lockleaze Primary School & Early Years Centre CLong Cross Primary And Nursery School CLuckwell Primary School F SW Co-op Learning TrustMay Park Primary School CMillpond Primary School CNew Oak Primary School SA- Oasis Sept 2012Oldbury Court Primary School SA- CLF Sept 2012Our Lady Of The Rosary Catholic Primary School VAParson Street Primary School CA EOISchool Of Christ The King VASea Mills Primary School CShirehampton Primary School CSouthville Primary School CSs. Peter & Paul R.C. Primary School VASt. Anne's Park Primary School SA EOI Sept 2012St. Barnabas C.E. V.C. Primary School VCSt. Bernadette Catholic Primary School VASt. Bernard's Catholic Primary School VASt. Bonaventure's Catholic Primary School VASt. George C.E. V.C. Primary School VCSt. John's C.E. V.C. Primary School - Clifton VC EOI CASt. Joseph's Catholic Primary School VASt. Mary Redcliffe C.E. V.C. Primary School VC

St. Matthias & Dr Bells C.E. V.A Primary School SA DOBAC with CLF as improvement partner Sept 2012St. Michael's On The Mount C.E. V.C Primary School VCSt. Nicholas Of Tolentine Catholic Primary School VASt. Patrick's Catholic Primary School VASt. Peter's Church Of England Primary School VCSt. Pius X Catholic V.A. Primary School VASt. Teresa's Catholic Primary School VASt. Ursula's E-Act Academy SA E-actSt. Werburgh's Primary School CStoke Bishop C.E. V.C. Primary School VCThe Bridge Primary SA- TiL Sept 2012Two Mile Hill Primary School CUpper Horfield Community School CVictoria Park Primary School CWansdyke Primary School CWaycroft Primary School CAWest Town Lane Primary School CAWestbury Park Primary School CA - Sept 2012Westbury-On-Trym Church Of England Academy CAWhitehall Primary School C


InfantAshley Down Infant School CBroomhill Infant School & Children's Centre CChester Park Infant School CElmlea Infant School CFilton Avenue Infant School SA TiL - Sept 2012Henleaze Infant School CHolymead Infant School CPerry Court Infant School CSefton Park Infant School CSt. Anne's Infant School CSummerhill Infant School C


JuniorBroomhill Junior School CChester Park Junior School CElmlea Junior School CAFilton Avenue Junior School CHenleaze Junior School CAHolymead Junior School CPerry Court Junior School CSefton Park Junior School CSt. Anne's Junior School CSummerhill Junior School SA - CLF

APPENDIX (12) B

Bristol Education Services Review

Executive Summary

February 2012Bristol City Council

Appendix 2 Bristol Schools Forum 20th March 2012 Agenda Item Item 7

300092 02 A

Document2

10 February 2012


Executive Summary

February 2012

Bristol City Council

Cambridge Education, 10 Fleet Place, London EC4M 7RB, United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 7651 0303 F +44 (0)20 7651 0310, W www.camb-ed.com


Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A 10/2/12 AG KAH

Issue and revision record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

Cambridge Education, 10 Fleet Place, London EC4M 7RB, United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 7651 0303 F +44 (0)20 7651 0310, W www.camb-ed.com


Executive Summary

Mott MacDonald has been commissioned to review the full range of education and business support services currently traded with Bristol schools. The main report has sought to look at the services from an end user perspective and not make undue reference to the different Directorates that deliver them. The intention is to present a coherent picture of activity with schools across the council.

Key findings

For those services that are currently fully traded with schools, either through a direct trading relationship or via an agreed top-slice of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) there would appear to be £650k worth of costs associated with the delivery of those services deemed as not currently economically viable not being fully recovered.

There are a range of services that have mixed funding sources and have the potential to trade with schools to either generate additional revenue, or reduce the need for the General Fund or DSG to fund activity that is not deemed either statutory or part of the core council provision to schools. In some cases these services are either providing additional support to education settings at no additional costs or are setting prices that are not necessarily based on full cost recovery. It is estimated that this equates to approximately £1.12m in terms of opportunity for additional cost recovery for services currently being provided.

There is an inconsistent approach to the application of overhead costs at a service level (with the overhead recharge as a percentage of net revenue ranging from 0.3% - 24%), and while both CYPS and Corporate services have a methodology for allocating recharges to units in some cases these are historical, and are applied only at year end for services that are currently consider to be not trading and are not transparently applied all the way through to an operational level. There is no single approach to trading with schools, and therefore customer care and management is not as coherent as it could be.

The reporting of financial information upwards is not always consistent or based on common expectations, and the role of service managers in terms of commercial accountability was unclear.

Summary of analysis

Five broad categories have been used to summarise the findings:

300092///02/A 10 February 2012

1. Strategic reasons for retention, currently economically viable: For units who currently achieve a surplus or could achieve a surplus with minimal commercial remodelling with a strategic case

Document2 1


2. Strategic reasons for retention, not economically viable: For units currently not making surpluses where there may be an economic viability but where significant remodelling or high risk exists with a strategic case

3. No strategic reasons for retaining, currently economically viable: For units who currently achieve a surplus or could achieve a surplus with minimal commercial remodelling with no clear strategic case

4. No strategic reasons for retaining, currently not economically viable: For units currently not making surpluses where there may be an economic viability but where significant remodelling or high risk exists with no clear strategic case

5. No strategic reasons for retaining, operating at a loss, but risks to council of ceasing service are high

It should be made noted that even those services deemed of strategic importance do not necessarily need to be directly delivered by the Council going forward.

Summary of service categorisation Strategic reasons for retention, currently economically viable

Strategic reasons for retaining, not currently operating as economically sustainable

No strategic reasons for retaining, economically viable

No strategic reasons for retaining, not economically viable

No strategic reasons for retaining, operating at a loss, but risks to council of ceasing service are high

Finance Consultancy Service Broadband

Service Legal CYPS

Performance and Commissioning Admissions Performance,

Analysis and Data Specialist

Services and Safeguarding Multi Partnership

Working Primary and

Secondary School Improvement

Capital and Assets Education

Psychology Education Welfare Early Years Client Unit

Facilities Management Property ICT Curriculum

Support Team Music Services SIMS ICT Team

No services are considered to be in this category

HR/STS Finance COPS,

Accounts Received (AR) and Account Payable (AP) finance support and procurement ICT System

Support

300092///02/A 10 February 2012 Document2

2


Views of clients

During this review a small sample of face to face interviews with representatives from 10 schools in Bristol was undertaken. They included LA maintained schools and academies, all school sectors and named individuals who are representative of those sectors, governors or bursars.

The Corporate Financial System (CFS) provided to schools was generally considered as “ok”, although it is not appropriate for academies and therefore is facing a decreasing market. There was widespread criticism of the COPS purchasing system both in terms of its capabilities as well as the way it was introduced. Some schools have moved to or said they were investigating alternative financial management systems. The secondary schools’ bursars group were looking at alternatives for schools both singly and collectively. However the Financial Consultancy Service was generally well rated by schools.

The Shared Transaction Service has had significant problems in terms of perception in the early stages, and there is still some criticism of the service – although this is seen to be improving. The loss of named HR advisors was consistently mentioned as a concern.

E-Reach – the recruitment service, Legal Services, Repairs & Maintenance were all reported as well regarded. The experience of the ICT support service was varied, and is take-up, but overall well received.

For the services such as SEN and inclusion, school improvement and related support services it is not a uniform picture, but there was widespread concern in the schools consulted that budget cuts to central services were leading to a fall off in services provided to them. There was a perceived risk that services could enter into a vicious cycle of decline.

There is mix of commercial experience and maturity amongst schools, with some already actively looking to the market or clustering together for joint procurement while others continue to only consider the services provided by the council.

If the authority chooses to move away from direct provision of services to its maintained schools, it would need to assess the capacity in schools to move towards a changed system. Schools with as few as 100 pupils on roll do appear to have bursars though smaller schools may only have a single administrative officer as well as the head teacher to manage any changes

300092///02/A 10 February 2012

Schools in Bristol (whatever their status) are looking to a range of solutions – joint purchasing through clusters or federations, linking with their local secondary school – LA maintained or academy-, drawing on the resources of sponsor organisations or trustees,

Document2 3


or thinking in terms of the potential for all sector solutions ( e.g. all nursery schools, all special schools).

Key recommendations

As part of the review an overview of the options available to the council for alternative delivery vehicles was considered. In the current climate there are a range of models currently being explored across the country with no clear favourite yet emerging. The key issue remains the uncertainty in the education market as the significant reforms to education funding and policy are yet to be fully worked through.

However the following models have been explored at a headline level: Outsource contract Joint venture Arms length trading company or Mutual / Trust Framework contracts Schools supported to become self-managed (mutual / trusts) Cease service and leave to the market

Each approach has both advantages and disadvantages in terms of the ability of the Council to manage both quality and the transfer of financial risk. Where any of these alternatives are considered it is essential the council has absolute clarity of the commercial basis on which the service is operating in order to secure the best position from the market. This should include both costs associated with the current service and secure forecasts of likely revenue.

With this is mind it is suggested that a review of HR (STS)/Finance System traded with schools should be undertaken urgently. Not only is this service not fully recovering the costs, but the re-procurement of both the Finance and HR systems are either in process or imminent. This provides the ideal opportunity to review the way in which the council supports its maintained education estate with these functions, and whether direct delivery is the most appropriate solution going forward. It is also advised that if either an outsource or joint venture model is considered as a solution that the whole STS function, rather than that simply provided to schools, should be included in the review as this is likely to more attractive proposition to the market – and therefore provides the opportunity for a more favourable offer for the council.

300092///02/A 10 February 2012

For those services that remain at the heart of the strategic purpose of the council’s support for schools it is suggested that a two stage approach is undertaken. First is to move these services onto a more commercial basis, with a clear approach to overhead recharging and therefore prices set on a full cost recovery basis, a co-ordinated offer to schools and tighter management of how much provision schools receive before being charged for the additional support. This should form the basis of an agreed, consistent

Document2 4


and strategic approach to trading with schools across all service areas. In addition internal reporting methods and use of management information systems to provide clarity of performance to senior and strategic managers should be embedded into operational practice.

With this complete it will be possible to assess the viability of moving these services into an alternative delivery vehicle if the council makes the decision to move to commissioned, rather than directly delivered services.


5


Scope and Methodology of Review

Scope

The focus of this review has been where activity is provided as a ‘traded service’ either funded through a top-slice of the DSG or directly by schools. In addition only education services, rather than children’s social care services have been considered.

Summary of service areas reviewed Corporate Services Directorate Children’s and Young Peoples Services

Directorate

Facilities CYPS Performance and commissioning

Finance COPS, AR and AP finance support and procurement

CAMS, Capital Assets and Schools Organisation Right

HR Learning Partnerships

Finance Consultancy Safeguarding and Quality Assurance

Legal Early Years

ICT Systems and ICT Traded Support Primary School Improvement

Property Secondary School Improvement

Inclusion in Learning and Education Psychology

Education Welfare Service

Methodology and approach

Based on experience of undertaking similar work in other English Local Authorities a diagnostic approach referred to as ‘LookUp’ has been developed - this has formed the basis of the analysis of services provided by the Council to schools.

Lookup is a three-stage review process involving: interviews with service managers seeking the views of customers (schools) analysis of costs, resources and pricing

In order to assess the true costs of services discussions with managers have been used to identify the activities undertaken by staff and an approximation of the time spent on individual tasks (referred to as activity analysis). The funding of education activities can be complex as there are a variety of incomes streams, and therefore it has been necessary to identify each activity within a service under the following four headings:


6


Statutory / Mandatory: Those activities that are required to be undertaken, or are considered strategically to be part of the core service offered by the local authority to the maintained estate (funded via the General Fund or Early Intervention Grant). Current Additional: Activity provided to schools above that considered by service

managers to be statutory or mandatory, but not funded through alternative sources. Dedicated Schools Grant Traded (DSG): Activity that is provided to schools of which

the costs are expected to be recovered through a top slice of the DSG (as agreed with the schools forum) Traded: Activity that is provided to schools of which the costs are expected to be

recovered through traded income direct from the service user.

Taking this information the budgeted income against each activity is then set against the costs based on the activity analysis – this provides an indicative view of whether the costs of each activity are covered by the appropriate funding stream.


7

Bristol school results for 2010 – 2011 3rd April 2012

APPENDIX (12) C

Table of contents Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 4

Purpose.......................................................................................................................... 4 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 4 Key Stage Commentary ................................................................................................. 7 A note on exclusions and attendance........................................................................... 10

Early Years Foundation Stage Profile .......................................................................... 13 Summary...................................................................................................................... 13 Gap between the lowest attaining and the rest............................................................. 15 Gap between those living in the most deprived areas of the city and the rest .............. 15 Gender gap .................................................................................................................. 16 Ethnicity gap................................................................................................................. 17 Children in care ............................................................................................................ 18

Key Stage 1 .................................................................................................................... 19 Summary...................................................................................................................... 19 Narrowing the gap ........................................................................................................ 19

Key Stage 2 .................................................................................................................... 23 Summary...................................................................................................................... 23 LA Ranking and Comparison........................................................................................ 24 Narrowing the gap ........................................................................................................ 25 Levels of Progress between KS1 and KS2................................................................... 31

Key Stage 1 and 2 – Improvement Priorities ............................................................... 32 Key Stage 4 - 5 A*-C (including English and Maths)................................................... 33

Summary...................................................................................................................... 33 Comparison over time .................................................................................................. 33 School Improvement .................................................................................................... 34 Narrowing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 36

Key Stage 4 - 5A*-C........................................................................................................ 41 Summary...................................................................................................................... 41 Comparison over time .................................................................................................. 43 School Improvement .................................................................................................... 43 Narrowing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 45

Key Stage 4 - English Baccalaureate ........................................................................... 50 Narrowing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 50

Key Stage 4 - 5A*-G ....................................................................................................... 51 Narrowing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 51

Key Stage 4 - Any Passes ............................................................................................. 52 Narrowing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 52

Key Stage 4 - GCSE English A*-C 2011........................................................................ 53 Comparison over time .................................................................................................. 53 School Improvement .................................................................................................... 53 Narrowing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 54

Key Stage 4 - GCSE Maths............................................................................................ 55 Comparison over time .................................................................................................. 55 School Improvement .................................................................................................... 55 Narrowing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 56

Key Stage 4 - Impact of Improvement Strategies........................................................ 58

Narrowing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 60 Key Stage 4 – Improvement Priorities .......................................................................... 60

Key Stage 5 .................................................................................................................... 62 Exclusion and Attendance ............................................................................................ 65

Fixed Term Exclusions for Academic year 2010 to 2011 ............................................. 65 Permanent Exclusions.................................................................................................. 65 Attendance ................................................................................................................... 66

Children in Care pupil outcomes.................................................................................. 67 Early Years Foundation Stage Profile .......................................................................... 67 Key Stage 1.................................................................................................................. 68 Key Stage 2.................................................................................................................. 69 Key Stage 4.................................................................................................................. 70 Attendance ................................................................................................................... 72 Exclusions .................................................................................................................... 73

Executive Summary

Purpose This report is a commentary on the detailed analysis of performance on a range of educational indicators in summer 2011 across all key stages from Foundation Stage to Post-16, including attendance, exclusions and the performance of different groups. The aim is to present an objective view of the achievement of the educational system city-wide, including any trends in the data, and the comparison of Bristol’s performance with that nationally or in similar LAs and core cities, so as to identify priorities for further improvement. These priorities can then influence the work of leaders in schools and colleges, the various strategic groups (e.g. Schools’ Forum, Education Strategy Group and the Attainment & Progression Group), as well as the LA school improvement team and academy groups in the city, so that partnership in improvement activity can be maximised. Such partnership is crucial given the increasing diversification of provision, with academies now well established in the secondary phase and beginning in primary phase. The Partnership Statement agreed in the city underlines the need for openness and honesty in evaluation as a precondition for joint action to build on strengths and eradicate remaining barriers to the educational success of children and young people.

Overview 2011 results broadly continue the significant progress made in recent years across the key stages to secure improved educational outcomes for children and young people in Bristol. From Foundation Stage to GCSE the main indicators continued to show improved standards, though this was not so for average points scores at post-16. Though rates of improvement often compare well with those elsewhere, these are sometimes from a low base. Even after several years of such improvement, Bristol remains below national average on almost all indicators. On the crucial 5+A*-C GCSE (including English and mathematics) measure, Bristol remains near the bottom of the ranking for LAs nationally (136/151) and below both the statistical neighbour and core city averages too. Schools in the city have achieved a very marked improvement since 2007 on this measure, at a rate well above that nationally, at a time when major refurbishment and rebuilding of all secondary schools was taking place. However, other low attaining cities have also improved fast and a big challenge remains in securing this key standard for a greater proportion of young people, thus improving their career opportunities and the wider economy. Outcomes now need to match the outstanding environment in which many Bristol secondary school pupils study. The chances of pupils attaining level 4+ in English and mathematics at Key Stage 2 and 5+ GCSEs at grades A*-C, including English and mathematics have improved markedly in recent years, taking the city as a whole, and this is a significant achievement.

However, such chances currently vary too widely from school to school and sometimes from year to year in the same school. There remain 19 primary schools whose results are below the ‘floor standard’, achieving less than 60% in English and maths combined and in most cases this has been so for several years running. Three secondary academies remain below the GCSE floor standard of 35% of pupils reaching 5A*-C (including English and Maths) and two other providers were below 40%. A major priority is for school leaders and governors in these schools to ensure they rapidly make any necessary changes and seek support to secure better outcomes for their pupils. Similarly, schools with results that are very inconsistent from year to year need to take action to address weaknesses in teaching or curriculum leadership. There were, for example, 6 secondary schools that saw their headline GCSE results fall in 2011 from 2010, despite the substantial rise nationally and locally. Without eradicating this inconsistency, it will be hard for the city’s ranking to rise substantially. Much effort has gone into narrowing attainment gaps between different groups of pupils in recent years, with some successes but with much more still to do. The gender gap in performance (with girls consistently out-performing boys) is very evident from the Foundation Stage and primary school results across most indicators, in Bristol as nationally. By the end of Key Stage 2, it is wider in Bristol than that seen nationally, particularly in literacy. While boys still dominate the small proportion of pupils who end their secondary years with no passes at GCSE and progress rates in English for boys still need to rise, success has been seen in narrowing the gender gap in secondary performance, partly by changes to the curriculum offer. However, some of the narrowing gap results from weak performance by girls of middle attainment and schools need to ensure that in addressing boys’ needs they are not inadvertently missing those of girls. Poverty continues to be too strongly correlated with educational outcomes in Bristol, as everywhere. Of concern is the widening gap between the lowest attaining 20% of Early Years children and their peers, despite the efforts to target support to disadvantaged groups and the generally very positive evaluations of the quality of provision made by Ofsted. In primary and secondary results there remains a wide gap between outcomes for pupils on free school meals (FSM) and all pupils, though this gap has narrowed slightly and is usually lower than that found nationally. The narrower gap results, however, more from the lower performance of non-FSM pupils than that seen generally, while Bristol FSM pupils themselves match, rather than exceed, national levels for this group. Of note, however, is the correlation between the proportion of pupils on FSM in a school and the overall outcomes. Although in general there is a correlation (with more socially advantaged schools attaining better results) the data clearly shows the link is not inevitable and several schools with high proportions of FSM pupils buck this trend and achieve excellent results. A priority is to secure the maximum school to school partnership, so that the practice in these schools can be transferred to schools in similar circumstances whose results remain modest and to schools in more advantaged social contexts whose pupils achieve too little. Indeed, as the proportion of schools in the city with ‘good or outstanding’ leadership and management and quality of teaching continues to rise, at all phases, the potential for powerful learning to take place through school to school contact, in the new context outlined by David Hargreaves in his paper on Creating a self-improving school system and at the recent Partnership Conference, is greatly enhanced. This opportunity needs to be seized by all partners as quickly as possible.

A particular success across the age range has been the much reduced gap between the performance of pupils for whom English is an additional language (EAL) and their peers. There has been significant success over recent years in improving black and minority ethnic (BME) achievement too, following extensive focus on this group, so that in those attaining any 5 GCSE passes at grades A*-C , EAL and BME students, as groups, match the performance of their peers, though this is not so when English and mathematics are included. Most ethnic minority groups have seen improved outcomes, though there is more to do to remove remaining performance gaps. However, the results for Black Caribbean pupils remain of particular concern across the phases as they have not shown the improvement seen by most other ethnic groups and remain very low. A further concern is in the lack of progress in the relative achievement of pupils with special educational needs, despite success in recent years in efforts to narrow the gap between their outcomes and those of all pupils. Improving outcomes for pupils with SEN remains a major priority for the city and the proportion of pupils with SEN but who do not have formal statements achieving GCSE success remains lower than that seen nationally for such pupils. Finally, there has been significant improvement in the outcomes of children in care (CiC), particularly at GCSE and in the Early Years, though the gap between their performance and that of their peers remains wide, as it does nationally.. The encouraging rise in GCSE outcomes is off-set by a fall in the proportion of these pupils attaining level 4+in core subjects at age 11. Ofsted inspection outcomes reflect this picture quite closely, with an improving profile but no room for complacency as too many providers remain at ‘satisfactory’ in their most recent inspection, an evaluation soon to be rephrased as ‘needing improvement’. Certainly most educators agree that only ‘good or outstanding’ provision is likely to lead to the rapid progress some pupils need to make if they are to ‘catch up’ having under-achieved, for whatever reason, in the past. There are phase differences in the inspection profile. In nursery and early years provision in primary schools, the picture is most positive, with nearly 4 out of 5 evaluations being good or outstanding. In primary phase (Key Stages 1 & 2) just under half of schools have been judged as good or outstanding, with a real need to move more ‘satisfactory’ schools to ‘good’ as a priority for the city, as well as urgently improving the 5% of ‘inadequate’ schools. The secondary phase profile shows 55% of schools evaluated as good or outstanding and no ‘inadequate’ provision, but the proportions still need to be shifted upwards to match national figures. Indeed, Bristol has one of the highest proportions of secondary schools nationally (9 out of 18) which have received a ‘satisfactory’ judgement from Ofsted on two successive inspections. For sixth forms, which have up to now been separately evaluated, more than half of providers inspected have not reached ‘good’, suggesting a priority to secure greater consistency between post-16 providers in the city, though this should not be confused with the proportion of ‘good or better’ provision overall, at student level, as there are large college providers and several comparatively small school sixth forms. For special schools and PRUs the proportion of provision deemed good or outstanding is over 66%.

Key Stage Commentary

a) Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) There was continued improvement in EYFSP outcomes in most areas of learning, particularly those most closely linked to later academic performance: reading, ’linking sounds and letters’ and calculating, though the 2ppt rise on the main indicator was 1ppt below that nationally and Bristol remains some 2ppts below national figures. Outcomes fell slightly in physical development and social/attitudinal measures, and early years settings and schools will need to ensure that a balanced approach to early education is maintained to promote strong dispositions to learning in the early years. Following a sharp reduction in 2010, there was a widening of the gap between the lowest attaining 20% and all children this year, which signals the continued need to target resources on children experiencing the greatest disadvantage, particularly at a time of budget cuts. Attention needs to be paid to the increased gap in outcomes between those in the most deprived areas of the city and other children, in particular the extent to which changes in population and the proportion of young children with English as an additional language may be involved. The progress of the lowest attaining and most disadvantaged children must remain a priority for the coming years. The gender gap, with boys outcomes lower than those of girls on all areas of the FSP, has increased slightly, particularly in Communication, Language & Literacy, but the gap between the overall BME group and all children narrowed on key indicators in 2011.

b) Key Stage 1 The good news here is the rise in performance at level 2+ and 2B+ in mathematics which is well above the national improvement. This reflects the priority given to early numeracy following the 2010 dip and the success of interventions made, in particular the Every Child Counts initiative. Relative attainment by EAL pupils and most BME groups has risen, though gaps remain between their performance and that of all pupils. Less consistent success in narrowing gaps for pupils with SEN or those on free school meals have been seen over recent years and these remain priority groups at Key Stage 1. Overall Key Stage 1 results in Bristol remain 1-2ppts below those seen nationally across the three areas of reading, writing and mathematics. Although there is no direct correspondence between EYFSP outcomes and anticipated literacy and numeracy performance, schools need to ensure that they set sufficiently ambitious targets for progress during Key Stage 1. Schools also need to work together to ensure they benefit from the best pedagogic models and advice on literacy and numeracy.

c) Key Stage 2 The substantial gains in 2010 in the proportion of pupils reaching the expected level (4+) and the higher level 5 in English and mathematics, as well as the average points score across the core subjects, have largely been maintained in 2011 and results continue to compare favourably with statistical neighbours and other core cities. There are difficulties in comparison with 2010 because of that year’s test boycott by some schools but results remain some 2ppts below those nationally and the ranking against all LAs dipped slightly

in 2011. The proportion of pupils making at least 2 levels of progress between key stages 1 and 2 in 2011 also dipped in both English and mathematics but remains above the national figure in both. However, these are from a modest base in past Key Stage 1 performance and progress needs to be even sharper if Bristol is to close the gap on national data. There remain concerns in primary school performance in at least four areas. The first and most significant is the number of schools still performing below the ‘floor standard’ referred to above. Secondly, boys’ performance needs improvement as the gender gap has not narrowed at level 4+ and remains significantly wider than that nationally, especially in English. Thirdly, progress by more able pupils in English, and hence the proportion of pupils attaining level 5, fell sharply from the very strong position of last year and by more than schools had been expecting. This mirrors a decline in English level 5+ nationally and there have been challenges from schools about the accuracy of marking, but this does suggest a need to continue to look at differentiation in the classroom, particularly in expectations placed on higher attaining pupils. Finally, as at Key Stage 1, the relative performance of pupils on free school meals and with SEN needs to improve, as does that for pupils of Caribbean heritage (despite the improved outcomes for most BME groups and pupils with EAL) and children in care.

d) Key Stages 3 and 4 The improvement in GCSE performance continued in 2011. However, the rise of nearly 4ppts in the proportion of pupils attaining 5+A*-C grades including mathematics and English still left Bristol below the average for both statistical neighbours and core cities. Although improvement was seen in most schools, it was not so in all. Greater consistency is needed if Bristol is to rise from its still relatively low position in national rankings on this measure and ensure all schools and academies rise above the ‘floor standard’. While boys’ performance has improved in recent years, leaving a gender gap well below that seen nationally, the performance of girls of middle ability did not match expectations, nor did those of many pupils on free school meals ( though there is significant variation between schools as to the correlation between poverty and performance) and those with SEN. There were improvements in the relative performance of most BME groups, narrowing the gap for this overall group, though Black Caribbean pupils’ results were static and they remain the lowest attaining group. The rise of 5ppts in 2011 in those attaining 5+ A*-C grades in any subjects was better than that nationally and Bristol continued to narrow the gap to national figures and now exceeds the average for the statistical neighbour group of LAs, showing the impact of a more diverse curriculum and improved quality of teaching. The improvement of 30 ppts since 2007 is nearly double the national rate and Bristol now ranks 114th of 151 LAs, a major rise over recent years. Boys’ results were particularly strong, and gaps for both FSM and CiC cohorts narrowed significantly in 2011 and there was no attainment gap at all for BME pupils, as a whole cohort, on this measure. One area where Bristol remains very near the bottom of LA rankings is on the ‘inclusion’ measures of pupils attaining 5 A*-G grades or ‘any passes’ at GCSE at all. As those failing to meet these measures are usually among the most vulnerable and

disadvantaged pupils, this is clearly a priority for the Attainment and Progression Group and the Outcomes Board, as well as for schools. GCSE English outcomes in Bristol rose faster than those nationally in 2011, though there remains a wide gender difference here as nationally and improving boys’ literacy remains a priority. In mathematics, though results improved, it is of concern that the proportion of pupils making 3 or 4 levels of progress over key stages 3 and 4 is well below that nationally. Given the modest starting points at the end of the primary years for many, this serves to limit outcomes on the main GCSE measure for too many pupils and schools. Most schools’ results matched or exceeded FFT D predictions on both GCSE measures and many schools now estimate results with considerable accuracy. However, for a minority of secondary schools there remained a wide gap between their ‘expected outcomes,’ as reported to the LA, and the final results. These schools need to review their internal assessment processes and the quality assurance of them, seeking external help where necessary. Schools will need also to be aware of proposed changes to the way qualifications (particularly those of a more ‘vocational’ nature) are counted in performance tables in future and the move away from contextual measures to straightforward measures of pupils’ progress. The use of the English Baccalaureate measure as an indicator of pupils’ attainment across a broader span of academic subjects is relatively recent, but Bristol schools have slightly fewer pupils both achieving and eligible to achieve on this measure than is the average nationally. In particular the proportion of pupils completing full GCSE courses in history or geography and in modern languages is significantly lower than the average nationally, with very wide variation from school to school. While the diversification of the Key Stage 4 curriculum has impacted positively on GCSE outcomes and pupils’ motivation, attendance and behaviour, schools will need to ensure that all pupils capable of benefiting from full GCSE courses in humanities subjects, modern languages and science are being given every opportunity and encouragement to take them.

e) Post -16 There was little change in provisional post-16 level 3 results, but the average points scores per candidate and per entry across all level 3 qualifications are both below national levels and are among the lowest in the region. The proportion of students achieving two or more passes at A level or its equivalent is just above the national average, reflecting success in maintaining the engagement of students. However, the overall dip in the proportion of A*/A grades is a concern at a time when both higher education places and employment and training opportunities are at such a premium for young people. The proportion of both boys and girls attaining this high level is below that seen nationally, in the case of boys very significantly so. Providers of post-16 education need to ensure that the quality of subject teaching on level 3 courses is sufficient to support high attainment from those students capable of it and whose future life chances will be affected by them so attaining. Post-16 students achieve many other forms of accreditation at City College, other colleges and school sixth forms which are not currently included in the city-wide performance profile, such as apprenticeships. It is important that the Attainment &

Progression Group in future has access to such data and finding ways of collating it is a priority for action. In December 2011 over 8% of 16-18 year olds were not in education, employment or training (NEET), an increase of over one percentage point above the same month in 2009 and 2010. This proportion is above that for statistical neighbours and that found nationally. Those newly joining the NEET group usually come from education (mainly further education) or from funded training. Of those leaving the NEET group most move on to further education and funded training or to either temporary or part-time employment, with very few gaining full time employment with training, reflecting the very challenging context these young people face. The position of vulnerable groups in this context continues to be a concern, with less than half of all16-19 teenage mothers or 19 year old care leavers being known to be in education, employment or training in December 2011. For a significant proportion of each of these groups education and employment status is not known.

A note on exclusions and attendance Improved attendance at both primary and secondary phases has supported the rise in outcomes. Fixed term exclusions have also fallen in both phases too. The poorer attendance and higher fixed term exclusion figures for special schools are mainly attributable to the two BESD special schools currently in special measures, which are now confirmed by HMI monitoring visits to be improving. It is of concern that permanent exclusions rose in the secondary phase again this year. However, the LA and schools have instigated a ‘managed move’ process, where students fit the criteria for a permanent exclusion due to their behaviour but the LA has brokered a school to school move and supported the reintegration process. During 2010/11 the LA prevented 17 potential permanent exclusions using this approach. The LA and schools of all kinds will need to continue to work together to address this issue in future, especially as the government seeks to greatly increase school accountability for the quality of alternative provision and securing positive outcomes for excluded pupils. Priorities in attainment and progression for 2011-12 from this commentary

- Secure rapid improvements in those primary and secondary schools that remain below the ‘floor standard’ and in all schools in Ofsted categories of concern;

- Increase the partnership between educational providers at all levels (leadership, governance and subject expertise) to ensure the transfer of effective practice from school to school and so aid consistency from year to year in outcomes, improve transition across the phases, and so move the whole system from below national levels of performance to match or exceed them;

- Analyse further the characteristics of the lowest attaining children on the EYFSP

and prioritise provision to narrow the attainment gap between their performance and that of peers at a time when funding will be scarce;

- Ensure there is sufficient challenge in the teaching of more able pupils across the

age range so that a higher proportion of pupils attain the highest levels and grades in each key stage, including GCSE and A-level;

- Reduce the number of permanent exclusions from secondary schools and continue to ensure good quality alternative provision exists in the city;

- Encourage partnership work on pathways from age 14 upwards to ensure appropriate progression for all young people to keep them in education, training or employment with training to 18 and beyond, including ensuring pupils for whom the English Baccalaureate subjects are appropriate have the opportunity and encouragement to study them;

- Through partnership working, seek to further narrow attainment and opportunity

gaps, with a particular focus on using the ‘pupil premium’ and other funding in a targeted way to secure engagement and attainment through to age 16 for:- - pupils with SEN, whether in mainstream or special schools - children in care - pupils entitled to free school meals - those BME groups which still under-achieve, especially Black Caribbean pupils across all phases - boys, especially in literacy, across the age range - ‘middle ability’ girls, particularly in the secondary years and beyond;

- Pay particular attention to improving the rate of pupils’ progress in mathematics

across the age range and especially in the secondary years, ensuring scarce expertise in maths pedagogy is well shared between institutions through partnership activity, CPD programmes and use of teacher educators, subject associations and Teaching Schools, as appropriate.

And a methodological priority is to find ways of collecting, collating and analysing the city-wide performance of post-16 students on the full range of qualifications and certification available to them, in order to gain a fuller and more accurate picture of the progress of all young people in Bristol in future years.

Table 1. Summary headline results across all key stages.

Bristol National Bristol Ranking 2009/10 2010/11 Progress 2009/10 2010/11 Progress 2009/10 2010/11

Early Years Foundation Stage Profile: Achieving 78 points or more across all 13 scales 76 77 1 80 79 -1 N/A N/A

Achieving a good level of overall achievement (78 pts including 6+ in PSED & CLLD NI72)

55 57 2 56 59 3 78 89

Gap between the median & bottom quintile NI92 31 33 2 33 31 -2 N/A N/A Source: SFR26 (2010) SFR28 (2011) Key Stage 1: Reading Level 2+ 83 83 0 85 85 0 83 106 Writing Level 2+ 78 79 1 81 81 0 87 99 Mathematics Level 2+ 86 88 2 89 90 1 93 99 Reading Level 2B+ 70 73 3 72 74 2 83 73 Writing Level 2B+ 57 59 2 60 61 1 87 87 Mathematics Level 2B+ 71 72 1 73 74 1 93 92 Reading Level 3+ 24 25 1 26 26 0 76 69 Writing Level 3+ 10 11 1 12 13 1 90 80 Mathematics Level 3+ 18 19 1 20 20 0 82 77 Source: SFR 21/2009, SFR 26/2010 Key Stage 2 Tests: English Level 4+ 78 80 2 81 82 1 99 101 Maths Level 4+ 79 80 1 80 81 1 79 78 English & Maths Level 4+ 72 73 1 74 74 0 93 95 English Level 5+ 34 29 -5 33 29 -4 38 64 Maths Level 5+ 34 35 1 35 35 0 57 69 Key Stage 2 TAs: English Level 4+ 78 80 2 79 82 3 108 91 Maths Level 4+ 79 82 3 81 82 1 109 60 Science Level 4+ 81 88 7 81 85 4 122 110 English Level 5+ 33 35 2 34 32 -2 55 30 Maths Level 5+ 34 35 1 35 35 0 79 67 Science Level 5+ 34 35 1 34 35 1. 89 59 Source: SFR 23/2010, SFR 31/2011 Key Stage 4: 5+A*-C GCSE or equivalent 72 77 5 75 81 6 129 114 5+A*-C GCSE or equivalent including English and maths 46 50 4 53 58 5 140 137 Source: SFR30 (2010) SFR02 (2012) Key Stage 5: APS per student 679.6 685.5 5.9 744.9 745.9 1 N/A N/A APS per exam entry 209.5 206.9 -2.6 214.4 216.2 1.8 N/A N/A Source: SFR31 (2010) SFR 27 (2011) SFR 01 (2012) Information and Analysis Team 2012

Early Years Foundation Stage Profile

Summary Provisional results indicate an increase of 2.1 points in the percentage of children achieving a good level of achievement at the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage in 2011. At 56.6ppts, this represents an overall increase of 9.3ppts since 2008. There have been gains in Communication Language and Literacy (1.6ppts), Problem Solving, Reasoning and Numeracy (2.2ppts) and Personal, Social and Emotional Development (1.1ppt). . • There has been a significant increase in outcomes for Reading (3ppts), as well as

gains of more than 1ppt in Linking Sounds to Letters (1.8ppts), Writing (1.1ppt) and Calculating (1.7ppts)

• There has been a reduction in outcomes for children of over 1ppt in Physical

Development (1.4ppts) and Dispositions and Attitudes (1.7ppts) • The EYFSP threshold target for this year has been exceeded by 1.6ppts

(NI72/PSA10) and the equalities target (NI92/PSA11) narrowly missed by 1.2 ppts. Achievement at the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage is in line with national averages in Personal, Social and Emotional Development, Creative Development and Physical Development. Despite gains in Communication, Language and Literacy and Problem Solving, Reasoning and Numeracy this year, scores in Bristol remain slightly below national averages in these areas.

Percentage achieving 6+ scale points

EYFSP Data (2008 - 2011)

2008 2009 2010 2011 %6+

% points

change % Achieved 78 points or more 72.9 73.0 76.4 77.4 1.0 Percentage of children achieving good level of overall achievement (6+ in all of PSED, CLL and 78+ points)

47.6 50.8 55.5 56.6 1.1

Gap between median & lowest quintile 36.3 34.4 31.4 32.6 1.2 Personal, Social and Emotional Development 73.3 75.9 78.6 78.6 0 Dispositions and Attitude 90.2 90.6 92.9 91.2 -1.7 Social Development 82.1 84.7 86.7 86.4 -0.3 Emotional Development 77.3 80.1 80.8 81.5 0.7 Communication, Language and Literacy 50.9 53.3 58.7 59.4 0.7 Language for Communication and Thinking 80.2 83.6 84.9 84.3 -0.6 Linking Sounds and Letters 71.1 73.6 76.9 78.7 1.8 Reading 68.1 70.8 73.7 76.7 3 Writing 57.9 59.7 64.2 65.3 1.1 Problem Solving, Reasoning and Numeracy 68.2 68.0 70.6 72.8 2.2 Numbers as Labels and for counting 86.8 86.4 88.5 89.2 0.7 Calculating 72.1 72.4 74.5 76.2 1.7 Shape, Space and Measures 80 80.5 83.4 83.2 -0.2 Knowledge and Understanding of the World 79.8 81.2 83.2 82.3 -0.9 Physical Development 89.6 90.5 92 90.6 -1.4 Creative Development 80.4 80.7 83.3 83.0 -0.3 Source: KEYPAS Sept for each reporting year CYPS Information & Analysis Team (24/8/2011)

Gap between the lowest attaining and the rest Figure a.1 Average EYFSP point score achieved by lowest quintile compared to the LA average (max = 117)

57 5862 61

86 85 87 87

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 2009 2010 2011

Bottom Quintile LA Average

The gap between the median score of all children and the average of the lowest quintile has increased by 1.7ppts this year, following a sharp reduction in 2010, and now stands at 32.6ppts. This is 1.4ppt below the 2011 national percentage gap which is 31.4%

Gap between those living in the most deprived areas of the city and the rest Figure a.2: Early Years FSP gap between children living in the most deprived areas of the city and the rest.

6669

73 71

4145

52 51

3842

48 48

83 84 8687

63 6467 68

59 6165 66

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2008

2009

2010

2011

2008

2009

2010

2011

2008

2009

2010

2011

6+ PSE 6+ CLL 6+ PSE & CLL

30% Most Deprived 70% Least Deprived

The gap between children in the most disadvantaged areas of Bristol and the rest is 18ppts an increase of 1ppt this year.

Gender gap Figure a.3 Gender gap for EYFSP by area of learning as a percentage of children achieving at least 6 points

47%47%45%

68% 69%73% 72%

43%

50% 50%

40% 42%

62%

66%

79%83% 85% 85%

59%

67%69%

56%60% 64%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2008

2009

2010

2011

2008

2009

2010

2011

PSED CLL CLL & PSEDBoys Girls

Girls have continued to achieve higher scores than boys across all six areas of learning with the most significant gender gaps continuing to be seen in Writing and Creative Development at 22ppts and 14ppts respectively.

Ethnicity gap Figure a.4 BME gap for EYFSP by area of learning as a percentage of children achieving at least 6 points

49%

41%39%

51%49%

42%

72%71%70%66%

45%

45%

59%54%

50%

63%62%

54%

81%82%78%

76%

60%

56%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011

PSED CLL CLL & PSED

BME Non BME

41% of Black or British Black children achieved a good level of development at the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage. This is the lowest achieving ethnic minority group in Bristol and there is a 19% gap between this group and the highest achieving group, children of White ethnic origins at 60%.

a.5 Percentage achieving at least 6 points in each of the 7 scales of PSE and CLL by ethnicity for England and Bristol

Bristol’s White pupils are 1% above England White pupils achieving at least 6 points in each of the 7 scales of PSE and CLL. However a higher percentage of England pupils in other ethnic groups achieve these scales compared to Bristol, particularly Chinese (15 ppts gap) and Black (14 ppts gap).

Children in care Figure a.6 CiC gap for EYFSP: percentage achieving 78 points and 6 or more in CLL and PSE

2017

30

5055 57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2009 2010 2011

Bristol CiC Bristol Overall

Although the number of children is relatively small, 30% of Children in Care achieved a good level of achievement this year which represents an increase of 17ppts.

Key Stage 1

Summary Outcomes have improved in writing and maths at all 3 levels Reading has improved at Level 2B+ by 3 percentage points (ppts) and at Level 3+ by 1ppt The faster rate of progress in Bristol has led to a closing of the attainment gap with national results. Outcomes are 1 ppt below national in reading at Levels 2B+ and 3+ and in maths at Level 3+. On all other measures the gap is 2ppts Although outcomes at KS1 have improved in 2011, results between 2008 and 2011 have moved only a few percentage points with the greatest gains at Level 2B+ in reading and writing. This reflects the picture nationally.

KS1 % Level 2+ % Level 2B+ % Level 3+ 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual

Reading 81 83 83 83 69 71 70 73 24 24 24 25 Writing 77 79 78 79 55 57 57 59 11 10 10 11 Maths 87 88 86 88 72 71 71 72 19 18 18 19

Source: SFR21/2008, SFR 26/2009, SFR 26/2010

Narrowing the gap

There has been success in narrowing gaps in educational attainment across Key Stage 1. This reflects the priority given to improving provision within classrooms through the accuracy and use of assessment information, the quality of teaching and early intervention

Gender gap Boys attainment is below girls on all measures except maths at Level 3+. The gap has closed in reading at all levels between 2006 and 2011 with the greatest gains at L2+ and 2B+. However the gaps remain large at 7ppts at L2+ and 8ppts at L2B+ and L3. In writing the gap has closed at Level 2+ but has remained static at L2B+ and widened at L3+ between 2006 and 2011. Gender gaps in maths have remained almost static at Levels 2+ and 2B+ . At Level 3 boys attainment is higher than girls and despite an improvement in girls attainment, the gap in 2011 is 5 ppts.

Figure b1: Percentage of pupils achieving level 2 + by gender

74

868586858686

7473716867

798079777475

89908990

848485848381

8686878686858889

50556065707580859095

10020

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

11

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Reading Writing Maths

BoysGirls

Ethnicity gap The attainment of BME pupils is below Non-BME pupils on all measures. However, gaps in attainment have closed considerably at both Level 2+ and 2B+ between 2006 and 2011 Over the same period gaps at Level 3+ have remained at 6ppts in reading, increased to 4 ppts in writing and decreased to 4 ppts in maths The KS1 cohort was 4208 with 1437 (34%) identified as being from a BME group. The largest groups of pupils are Black Somali (208), Pakistani (145), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (125), Mixed other (112) Indian (86) and Black Caribbean (85). At Level 2+ all of these groups have made improvements in at least one area against 2010 results. Pakistani, Indian and Black Caribbean pupils have made improvements across the three areas of reading, writing and maths. Figure b2: Percentage of pupils achieving level 2+ by ethnicity

61

74 76

888889898990

818181807878

848584848283 878385

817983

7570

69

817980

757571

50556065707580859095

100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011


Non BMEBME

English as an additional language Pupils whose first language is identified as English are achieving higher outcomes at all levels at KS1. However there has been significant improvement in closing gaps between, 2010 and 2011 and across the past six years, at all levels except L3 writing The gap is closest at L2+ in maths. Gaps are widest in reading and writing Figure b3: Percentage of pupils achieving level 2+ for EAL

62

71

888889888989

81808179777784848483818285

80827878

73707067

64

51

7775767269

50556065707580859095

100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011


EnglishEAL

Free school meals eligibility Non FSM pupils are attaining higher at all levels in reading, writing and maths Improvements in attainment for FSM pupils are greatest at levels 2+ and 2B. However, in reading and writing at L2+ the gaps remain large at 14 ppts in reading and 18 ppts in writing. At L2B+ the reading gap is 20ppts and in writing 25ppts. Figure b4: Percentage of pupils achieving level 2+ by FSM status

65

868787868485 838384828080

8991909190 90

807778

747777

666460

5754

727069666463

50556065707580859095

100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011


Non FSMFSM

Special educational needs There remains a wide gap in the attainment of pupils identified as having special educational needs (SEN) and non-SEN pupils in mainstream settings at KS1. At Level 2+ the gaps are 46ppts in reading, 51ppts in writing and 40 ppts in maths Bristol’s results in 2011 across all KS1 indicators identify limited change in closing educational gaps in attainment against 2010 or between 2006 and 2011. Figure b5: Percentage of pupils achieving level 2 or better by SEN status

3844 3948 48 46 46

33 314040 38

6156 59 59 56 56

94 9490 87 90

92 92 9285 84 87 89

89 8994 94 95 96

2030405060708090

100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011


SENNon SEN

Key Stage 2

Summary Results for 2011 show that outcomes remain on a trajectory of improvement and place Bristol very close to national outcomes. They also secure the improvements made in 2010, although this data set was incomplete due to the SATs boycott. The 2011 data are well above the last full data for 2009. Results at Level 5+ show a similar picture against national results: English 29% (national 29% 2009 26%) and maths 35% (national 35%, 2009 31%)

Keystage 2 summary table

SATs results TAs KS2

2008 Actual

2009 Actual

2010 Actual 2011 2011

(DCSF Nov 08)

(DCSF Nov 09)

(DCSF Nov 10)

2011 Target

2011 Schools’

aggregate expected outcomes

(April)

2011 Results

FFT B v3.2

FFT D v3.2

2010 2011

% KS2 En L4+ 74 76 78 81 80 80 77 83 78 80 % KS2 En L5+ 26 26 34 32 32 29 31 38 33 35 % KS2 Ma L4+ 73 75 80 83 81 80 77 84 79 82 % KS2 Ma L5+ 27 31 35 33 34 35 32 40 34 35 % KS2 En & Ma L4+ 65 68 72 77 76 73 70 78 73 % KS2 En & Ma L5+ 17 18 23 N/A N/A 21 22 29 24 % KS2 Sci L4+ 82 85 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 81 82 % KS2 Sci L5+ 38 40 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 34 35 Updated 19 December 2011

Level 4+

• Results have gone up 2 ppt in English to 80% and stayed at 80% in maths • Nationally English results and maths results have increased by 1 ppt, therefore the

gap is 1 ppt. • 2011 results evidence that Bristol has maintained the significant improvement on

2009. SAT results in 2010 were missing 21% of schools due to the national boycott • Teacher assessment in English is in line with SATs at 80%. In maths it is above

SATs by 2 ppts at 82%

Level 5+ • Results have declined in English at Level 5. At 29% they are level with national • Bristol results have increased by 1 ppt in maths to 35%. Nationally results have

stayed at 35% English and maths combined – Level 4+

• Results have increased in 2011 for English and maths combined to 73% , maintaining the significant improvement against 2009. Nationally results have also remained static at 74%

• 19 schools were below the floor standard of 60% English and maths combined • Between 2008 and 2011 the most improved schools in English and maths

combined at Level 4+ are: Greenfield 96% (65ppts), Knowle Park 83% ( 25ppts) and Little Mead 94% (25ppts)

Figure c1: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or better in both English and Maths (Bristol, 2011)

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11

BristolStat NeighboursCore CitiesEngland

LA Ranking and Comparison Bristol has declined at Level 4+ in national LA ranking against 2010 although it remains above the 2009 ranking. Within the group of 8 core cities Bristol is 3rd in English L4+ and = 1st in maths L4+ Within the group of 11 statistical neighbours Bristol is = 3rd in English L4+ and = 2nd in maths L4+. In Eng/ma L4+ combined Bristol is = 2nd against core cities and against statistical neighbours. Using Average Point Scores (APS) Bristol equals national results in both English and maths L4+.

Narrowing the gap

Gender Boys’ attainment is below girls at L4+ in English. The gap of 12 ppts is 3 ppts greater than the national gap. In reading boys are 10 ppts below girls (7 ppts nationally) and 15 ppts below in writing (13 ppts nationally). In maths boys are below girls by 1 ppt. Nationally there is no gender gap. At Level 5+ boys attainment is 12 ppts below girls in English both in Bristol and nationally In maths at Level 5 girls attainment is below boys by 3.5 ppts in Bristol and nationally. Figure c2: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or better, by gender

English Maths

74%

82%

86%

68%

71%73%

82% 82%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2008 2009 2010 2011

English

Boys Girls

80%

79%76%

72%

78%

80%

74%73%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2008 2009 2010 2011

Maths

Boys Girls

Ethnicity At Level 4+ in English and maths outcomes have improved for all pupils. Although the gap between BME and Non-BME pupils has closed by 2 ppts in English in 2011, there remains a significant gap in maths. In 2011 the KS2 cohort was 3752 with 1097 (29%) identified as being from a BME group. The largest groups of pupils are Black Somali (119), Pakistani (95), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (58), Mixed other (83) Indian (57) and Black Caribbean (61). Due to the SATs boycott data for 2010 are less reliable given the smaller groups of pupils being compared. However, teacher assessment and SAT outcomes mirror the results for each group. In 2011 at Level 4+ 3 of the groups have made improvements in both English and maths against 2010 results. The biggest improvement in SAT outcomes was for the Somali pupils where English improved by 5ppts and maths by 13 ppts. Results declined slightly or remained static for Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils in both subjects. Compared to outcomes in 2009, when there was a complete data set, all of the identified groups have made gains in both English and maths, with the largest gains for the Somali and Indian pupils. Figure c3: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4+ in English by ethnicity

77%78%

80%82%

68%

71% 70%

74%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2008 2009 2010 2011

English

Non BME BME

Figure c4: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4+ in English by ethnicity for England and Bristol

Bristol’s White pupils are level with the percentage of England’s White pupils achieving level 4+ in English. The biggest gap can be seen for Bristol’s Black pupils with a gap of 15 ppts compared to England’s Black pupils. Figure c5: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4+ in Maths by ethnicity

75%77%

81% 82%

64%

69%

72%

75%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2008 2009 2010 2011

Maths

Non BME BME

Figure c6: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4+ in Maths by ethnicity for England and Bristol

Bristol’s White pupils are 1% higher than the percentage of England’s White pupils achieving level 4+ in Maths. The biggest gaps can be seen for Bristol’s Black and Chinese pupils, both with a gap of 10 ppts compared to England’s pupils in these ethnic groups.

English as an additional language At Level 4+ in English and maths outcomes have improved for all pupils. The gap between EAL and Non-EAL pupils is being narrowed for both subjects.

Figure c7: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4+ - EAL/Non EAL:

English maths

77% 78%80%

81%

57%

65%62%

71%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2008 2009 2010 2011

English

Eng EAL

74%76%

81% 81%

58%

65% 65%

73%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2008 2009 2010 2011

Maths

Eng EAL

Special educational needs There remains a wide gap in the attainment of pupils identified as having special educational needs (SEN) and non-SEN pupils in mainstream settings at KS2. At Level 4+ the gaps are 51ppts in English and 44 ppts in maths Bristol’s results in 2011 identify limited change in closing educational gaps in attainment between 2008 and 2011. Figure c8: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or better by SEN status in: English Maths

91%89%87% 88%

40%39%42%38%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2008 2009 2010 2011

English

Non SEN SEN

88%83% 86%

90%

40% 43%45% 46%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2008 2009 2010 2011

Maths

Non SEN SEN

Free school meals eligibility Non FSM pupils are attaining higher at Level 4+ in English and maths Improvements in attainment for FSM pupils have been at a faster rate than Non FSM pupils. However, the gaps remain large at 17 ppts in English and 15 ppts in maths. Figure c9: Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or better by FSM eligibility in: English Maths

79% 81%84%

57% 59%61%

67%

81%

50%

55%60%

65%70%

75%

80%85%

90%

2008 2009 2010 2011

English

Non FSM FSM

77%79%

83% 83%

54%57%

64%68%

50%

55%

60%

65%70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2008 2009 2010 2011

Maths

Non FSM FSM

The figure below shows the attainment at L4+ in English and maths combined, mapped against the FSM cohort for individual schools. The median FSM in primary schools in Bristol in 2011 is 26%. The figure shows that overall schools with a lower percentage of FSM attain higher results at this indicator. However, there are a number of schools with FSM above the median which are outperforming schools with a lower percentage of FSM. Figure c10: Attainment at Level 4+ in E&M against school FSM cohort

Attainment at Level 4+ in E&M against school FSM cohort

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%Free School Meal Cohort

Perc

enta

ge o

f pup

ils a

chie

ving

L4+

median free school meal cohort: 26%

median: 73%

floor standard 60%

Levels of Progress between KS1 and KS2 Progression by 2 levels in English in Bristol is 87% , this is above the national average of 83% and is the highest in the statistical neighbours group. Progression by 2 levels in maths in Bristol is 85%, this is above the national average of 82% and is the highest in the statistical neighbours group. Figure c11: Percentage of pupils achieving two levels of progress in English or in Maths between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2

83%

87%

80%

89%

85%86%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

2009 2010 2011

Eng 2LPMaths 2LP

Source; FFTLive v3.2 (may differ from Performance Tables by +/-1%)

Key Stage 1 and 2 – Improvement Priorities Within the context of a significantly different policy and funding context, the priorities for Bristol’s primary sector are:

1. Continue to improve at faster than the national rate of progress, in order to close the gap with national averages particularly in writing at KS1 and at KS2 in English and maths combined

2. Ensure all primary schools and academies are above the floor standard of 60%

English and Maths combined by 2014 3. Respond appropriately to the curriculum changes

4. Respond to the demands of the new Ofsted Framework;

5. C

AGENDA ITEM NO. 12 BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL CHILDREN & … › Data › Children's Services Scrutiny...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA ITEM NO. 12 BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL CHILDREN & … › Data › Children's Services Scrutiny...