Agenda item

Report of Interim Strategic Director, Care Wellbeing and Learning

The Committee received a report highlighting the academic performance of disadvantaged and poorly performing pupils.  Following Committee’s review in 2015/16 it was recommended than an annual report be brought to Committee on the gap between disadvantaged and other pupils.

It was noted that at foundation stage, the achievement gap in Gateshead has narrowed since last year, this is just below national gap.  In terms of end of year 1 phonic assessment it was noted that the achievement gap remained static within Gateshead, however the achievement of disadvantaged children increased nationally.  It was reported that at Key Stage 1, nationally the achievement of disadvantaged children has increased, gaps have grown in attainment in maths in Gateshead but it is not a significant increase.  At Key Stage 2, 72% of disadvantaged pupils got level 4, this was a 2% increase in Gateshead, however, in terms of national ranking Gateshead dropped from 40 in 2014 to 46 in 2015. 

It was questioned whether the ethnic make up of Gateshead is a factor in attainment figures and that Gateshead’s figures may be skewed in comparison to more diverse areas.  It was acknowledged that this may be the case as white working class boys are usually at the bottom of attainment figures, however there are no statistics to analyse this.

It was reported that at Key Stage 4, achievement of 5 A*-C’s including English and Maths fell and national ranking dropped from 50 in 2014 to 105 in 2015.  It was acknowledged that this is disappointing as work is continuing to close the gap but is not reflected in outcomes.  Therefore, officers are waiting for the new data set to see whether there are improvements and if the ongoing work is effective.  It was confirmed that Link Inspectors continue to challenge school on the impact of pupil premium funding, which is hoped will help narrow the gap.

The point was made that more needs to be done to look at the underlying issues as to why young people are not learning and look at different models, for example the impact of cutting support services to some vulnerable groups like youth services and careers advice.  It was acknowledged that narrowing the gap is not straightforward and more needs to be done to unpick examples of good practice.  Cardinal Hume English department was used as an example, there are no gaps in attainment at Cardinal Hume for English.  It was recognised that there is a lot of work ongoing with schools to inspire and motivate to reduce gaps at a time when educational pathways are being removed.

It was suggested that some schools pay lip service to such issues, for example many secondary schools stream pupils from the start, this can have an impact on outcomes for some pupils.  It was also suggested that some schools chase headlines for the best results which does not account for gaps between that and the lower attaining pupils.

The point was made that pupil premium is paid for a child being in school 30 out of 52 weeks, therefore some of this funding should be redirected to support pupils outside of school.  It was acknowledged that previously schemes were in place, for example extended schools, however in real terms school budgets are going down.

It was requested that data be broken down into gender for the next report.