Agenda item

To consider the findings of the Social Mobility Commission in relation to West Berkshire.

Nick Carter introduced the report (Agenda item 10), which aimed to brief Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission regarding West Berkshire’s results for the measures used by the Social Mobility Commission in the ‘State of the Nation 2017: Social Mobility in Great Britain’ report. Nick Carter stated that the report had been published in November 2017 and had received a lot of press coverage, including a strap line that insinuated that West Berkshire was not a good place to grow up in if you were poor.

The report showed that West Berkshire had ‘cold spots’ in relation to young people, for example for free school meals and attainment and as a result, the overall index of social mobility placed West Berkshire within the bottom 20% of districts in England. Nick Carter drew attention to section 5.2 (5) ‘local policies adopted by local authorities and employers can positively influence outcomes for disadvantaged residents’ and commented that this was the key issue for the Commission to focus on whilst looking ahead to what needed to be done.

Councillor Graham Bridgman explained that Catalin Bogos had produced the covering report and had wished for a couple of points to be made on his behalf. The first point had related to 5.2 (5) as mentioned by Nick Carter and the second point related to 5.2 (4), which stated that there was no link between the affluence of an area and its ability to sustain high levels of social mobility. The Cotswolds and West Berkshire were mentioned as being two examples of ‘cold spots’ of social mobility even though they were amongst the least deprived areas in the country. Councillor Bridgman also drew Members’ attention to Appendix A, which listed the 16 indicators used to measure social mobility.

The Chairman welcomed Ian Pearson to the meeting who gave a presentation to the Commission on social mobility in relation to children and young people (circulated with agenda paperwork).

Ian Pearson reported that following the publication of the annual Social Mobility Commissioning Report in June 2017, Councillor Lynne Doherty had asked what lessons might be learned to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children and young people in West Berkshire. The presentation slides were focused on each section of the report. A gap had been identified in the area of Free School Meals (FSMs) and as West Berkshire was performing well in other areas, the area of FSMs was accentuated.

The Social Mobility annual report was divided into four life stages (Early Years, Schools, Young People and Working Lives), which were scored on a traffic light scale. Early Years and Young People were scored as ‘amber’ and young people and working lives as ‘red’. For each life stage Ian Pearson gave an overview of the area and then lessons learnt/recommendations.

The Department for Education (DfE) had written its own document in response to the Social Mobility Commissioning Report called ‘Unlocking Talent, Fulfilling Potential: A Plan for Improving Social Mobility through Education’. In its response to the report the DfE highlighted that 1.9 million more children were in ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools since 2010. In West Berkshire 95% of schools had been rated either ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. The DfE had also highlighted the following points:

·         Talent was spread evenly across the country but opportunity was not.

·         Issues could not be tackled quickly and there was no simple solution.

·         It was about relentless focus and the application of energy and resources where they could impact most.

·         ‘No community left behind’.

The DfE had four ambitions and there were as follows:

·         Close the ‘word gap’ in early years;

·         Close the attainment gap in schools while continuing to raise standards;

·         High quality post-16 education choices for all young people, and;

·         Everyone achieving their full potential in rewarding careers.

Ian Pearson moved on to talk about the West Berkshire position. West Berkshire had been ranked 265^th of the 324 districts placing it in the bottom 20% in England. Ian Pearson stated that this was not a good position to be in however when other aspects of performance were viewed, the picture was not as disappointing.

Ian Pearson introduced Officers and Headteachers to the Commission meeting, who would talk about each area in more detail and the work that was taking place across the district. 

Avril Allenby (Service Manager for Early Years) raised the following points:

·         Almost half (46%) of FSM eligible pupils failed to reach a good level of development (GLD).

·         A similar proportion of disadvantaged children (46%) failed to achieve GLD.

·         A similar proportion of those funded as two year olds (45%) failed to reach GLD.

·         When looking at overall progress for children aged five, West Berkshire compared favourably to the national average.

·         The gap between the bottom 20% (disadvantaged children) and those overall was smaller when compared to other areas.

·         There was a discrepancy with the Early Years Pupil Premium funding amount (£330 per child). There was slow uptake of this funding which could be awarded once a child turned three years old. This was because parents had to physically apply for the funding.

·         21 schools in 2017 had less than five pupils eligible for FSMs and no schools had more than nine pupils.

·         Schools with children receiving FSMs were invited to network meetings to share good practice.

·         Targeted robust discussions took place with Headteachers.

·         Data collections took place throughout the year, rather than just at the end to ensure progress was tracked.

·         At pre-school stage, there were a number of initiatives including the ‘Flying Start’ project, which helped to support children transitioning onto school.

·         The aim was to bring together professionals and families. 

·         The Every Child a Talker (ECaT) project helped to build up language amongst young children.

·         A bid had been submitted to Greenham Common Trust for the Imagination Library. This ensured children aged 0-5 had access to books and it was hoped that this scheme would be rolled out to other areas in need in the future.

·         Family Hubs worked with schools and early years’ settings to help support school readiness. These encouraged parents to play and learn with their child.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe noted that there was not 100% take up of places within early years. Avril Allenby clarified that this had not been in relation to place but to children eligible for Pupil Premium funding. A lot of information had to be supplied by parents applying for this funding and some were reluctant to provide this information. Councillor Metcalfe asked if there would be ample facilities if all eligible children were to take up the funding and Avril Allenby confirmed that there was, as there were a large range of providers across the early year’s sector.

Tessa Ford (School Improvement Advisor) raised the following points:

·         She was the lead for Pupil Premium (PP) funding within schools.

·         There was a small percentage of disadvantaged pupils in West Berkshire.

·         Nationally 14% of children received FSMs, compared to 6-7% in West Berkshire.

·         Nationally 31% of children received PP funding compared to 16.5% in West Berkshire.

·         The percentage of children in West Berkshire receiving the PP funding had remained relatively static. However few were choosing to claim PP funding over FSMs and therefore it could be assumed that they were more disadvantaged.

·         As had been mentioned by Avril Allenby, there were only small numbers of children in West Berkshire receiving the PP funding and this formed part of the problem. If there were larger numbers of children on PPF it would make the issue easier to deal with.

·         In KS2, 17% of pupils were classed as having Special Educational Needs (SEN) in West Berkshire. When looking at those receiving PP funding; 35% were SEN. The figures nationally were higher.

·         The introduction of Universal Credit (UC) would change the criteria for accessing FSMs and it was uncertain how this would affect data.

·         Ofsted had always been positive regarding PP provision in West Berkshire and therefore the data presented in the Social Mobility report had been particularly disappointing as it did not reflect the hard work that was taking place by WBC or schools, where PP children were a top priority.

·         The numbers of children receiving the PP had risen over the last three to four years. Improving the quality of teaching was the most important area for schools and WBC to focus on.

·         If each school could get one more child receiving PP funding though reading writing and maths, then the rate in West Berkshire would be increased to 52%, which was just above the national average. This highlighted the issue that only small numbers were involved.

·         Regarding KS4, if progress could be improved throughout KS2, then children often continued to improve into KS4. Eight subjects were, however, sometimes too many for some children and schools would need to make a judgement call on this.

·         A strategic plan was drawn up each year on how attainment across West Berkshire would be raised. Raising attainment was the key focus over ‘closing the gap’.

·         There was a KS1 cluster group of ten schools. The aim with these schools was to narrow the gap as much as possible through early intervention and parental involvement.

·         Other initiatives that were taking place across West Berkshire on improving attainment and narrowing the gap included conferences, training and PP funding reviews. 

·         There were vulnerable group meetings held which included Headteachers, SEN Officers and PP leads.

·         Tessa Ford had created a PP toolkit for West Berkshire, which supported schools in carrying out self-assessments.

·         A peer Headteacher PP challenge would be taking place, working with nine schools across West Berkshire.

Nikki McVeigh (Headteacher at St Joseph’s RC Primary School) raised the following points:

·         The determinants for pupils were the key.

·         It was about looking at each child; not accepting any excuses and putting the right interventions in place.

·         At her school there were a small number of PP pupils. These students sometimes stood out because of their background.

·         Schools needed to advocate PP children and work with their parents. It could sometimes be incredibly challenging getting parents to engage.

·         Nikki McVeigh worked with teachers to carry out structured conversations with parents. This involved looking at things that could be done to improve the situation for a child.

·         It was about looking at the school, its culture and everyone being determined for each child.

Barbara Hunter (Executive Headteacher for Westwood Farm) raised the following points:

·         In reflection she questioned what made West Berkshire different, particularly as there were smaller numbers of children accessing the PP funding. 

·         It was about improving Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) programmes in schools.

·         Barbara Hunter had worked in a school in a deprived area, prior to her time in West Berkshire and she felt that there was a much greater need for every child to have PSHE on their agenda.

·         There was a struggle to sustain teaching at a high enough calibre.

·         Children at school in West Berkshire were generally well behaved and compliant.

·         Because of the small numbers of children on PP funding, they had not been focused on to a great enough degree.

·         Schools needed to re-focus their efforts and those responsible for PP pupils needed to make PP pupils their sole purpose.

Neil Pilsworth (Deputy Headteacher at Francis Bailey Primary School), raised the following points:

·         Teachers’ attendance was integral to a child’s progress and attainment.

·         Focus needed to be placed on learning and improving student outcomes.

·         A key barrier what that the particular children in question often seemed distracted. This could make it difficult for teachers to engage them.

Mark Browne (Schools Improvement Advisor – post 16) raised the following points:

·         Disadvantaged as a label ended at 16 and there was no post 16 premium.

·      If a child had not made up the ‘gap’ by the time they reached 16 years old it was unlikely that they would do so post 16. Disadvantage continued with young people and was not something that schools or education could fix as it was often a wider family issue.

·      Although 16/17 year olds were tracked, there was no requirement to track them after this age.

·      NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) for 16 and 17 year olds in West Berkshire was at 2.4%.

·      Of those who were classed as disadvantaged (in receipt of FSMs in year 11) 4% (5 young people) were NEET. This was compared to 2% (29 young people) of young people who had not been classed as disadvantaged.

·      7% (disadvantaged) had been undecided in May (2017) in Year 11 regarding where they wanted to go onto after school, compared to 2.5% (not disadvantaged).

·      Those who were disadvantaged were not being prioritised in terms of progression and were less likely to make a positive transition from school. 

·      There was a careers network within schools and the Careers Enterprise Company often sent business mentors to work within schools.

·         Beyond 17 it was unknown which young people were previously disadvantaged.

·      It seemed that if pupils had not made enough progress at year 11, they stood very little chance of making the progress up at a later stage.

·      At A Level stage there was half a grade difference between disadvantaged children and non-disadvantaged. Nationally this was only a third.

·         Attainment and progress needed to be balanced.

·      Many opportunities might be beyond the reach of those who were low skilled or low qualified. It was difficult to know because 24 year olds were not tracked.

·      Looking at benefit data, it was indicated that young people were getting jobs however, were not able to compete for jobs that offered more opportunities. Not obtaining GCSEs closed the door on many jobs offering more opportunities. 

·      There was no national funding or programme for NEET. Many young people were entering into zero hour contract jobs. More entry level opportunities were required.

The Chairman thanked all Officers for their comprehensive reporting of what was taking place in West Berkshire. 

Councillor Lynne Doherty stated that she had spent the last 18 months looking at the issues and a lot of work was taking place across West Berkshire to improve the situation. There was no immediate solution for the problem, however, in Councillor Doherty’s opinion there was more that could be done. Schools needed to put more effort into closing the gap within the first 100 days. The problem started even earlier and this was apparent though programmes such as ‘Every Child a Talker’. Councillor Doherty fully supported the work that was taking place by the Family Hubs to identify issues early on. Councillor Doherty had felt very frustrated when reading the Social Mobility report and had noted that it only concerned small numbers, which made it particularly difficult for staff.

Councillor Bridgman noted that 95% of children in West Berkshire were attending schools rated as ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted. This did not correlate with West Berkshire’s ranking within the Social Mobility report. He asked if children who were deprived were often not attending schools rated as ‘Good’ or ‘outstanding’. If this was the case then it would indicate that these schools were not performing as well as the ones in affluent areas.

Ian Pearson reported that what the Social Mobility report picked up reflected the national situation. Government gave particular focus to areas with lower performing schools and these areas often had a high percentage of schools rated below ‘Good’.

Councillor Ian Morrin asked for clarification on whether disadvantaged children were attending ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ schools and it was confirmed that generally they were.

Tessa Ford stressed that schools had improved. Councillor Morrin commented that the data seemed statistically unimportant. He had noted that disadvantaged children displayed particular behaviours and he felt that some children that were not disadvantaged probably displayed these behaviours too and asked what was being done for this group of children who did not attract PP funding. Nikki McVeigh reported that it was about a schools ethos and culture. The same approach that was taken with PP children was also applied to non PP children. It was about a shift in school culture.  Nikki McVeigh was aware that there was a high cohort of families who were just coping in addition to those who were receiving the PP funding.

Avril Allenby commented on the importance of early years support. Parents often attended sessions with young children because they wanted to know what they could do to help their child develop. An overview had been given on what was being done for the smaller disadvantaged group as this was where targets were set however, there was a lot of other work and programmes in place that all children could access.

Councillor James Podger thanked Officers for their very informative presentation and stated that he had four questions as follows:

1)    Did the service understand the factors that determined lower quality of nursery provision?

2)    What actions had been implemented by the service to impact on the quality of provision?

3)    Did the service have an understanding of the percentage of children benefitting from free childcare entitlement that had places with providers rated less than ‘good’? and finally;

4)    What mitigation actions were in place to ensure minimum negative impact on children accessing lower quality provision?

Avril Allenby reported that results the data used within the report were out of date. Free provision in West Berkshire had risen from 79 providers to 135. The biggest area of growth was child minders and there was some concern about capacity to support child minders. If a nursery was rated any less then ‘good’ by Ofsted then an action plan would be put in place and they would not be permitted to take on further two year olds accessing the free entitlement. WBC offered an ‘advice line’ and they were also able to buy into a subscription. WBC had a good working relationship with many of the early years’ settings in the district. Nursery schools rated as ‘outstanding’ were also used to mentor those performing less well.

Councillor Metcalfe noted that Social Mobility was measured in academic attainment and good academic attainment led onto better jobs. He noted that there was a struggle to sustain teaching at a high enough calibre. Those wanting to become teachers had to obtain a degree and Councillor Metcalfe felt that the process to become a teacher had caused a lack of enthusiasm in the system.

In response to Councillor Metcalfe’s point, Nikki McVeigh reported that a lot of work was taking place with students to help them think about what they wanted to be when they left education. Barbara Hunter added that press coverage of the profession often did not help as it was portrayed as being target focussed and pressurised and as a result Barbara Hunter felt that the profession was in trouble. The cost of living in West Berkshire was also very high, which made it difficult for those becoming teachers to live in the district. Councillor Metcalfe felt that more time was required for teachers to be able to bond with students and Nikki McVeigh reported that work was carried out with children early on to help find out what their aspirations were.

The Chairman referred to negative coverage of the Social Mobility report and asked if this had impacted upon the recruitment or retention of staff and it was confirmed that there was no evidence to suggest that it had.

The Chairman noted the balance that was required between attainment and progress however, was aware that employers were more concerned with results. The Chairman asked how this issue could collectively be turned around. Mark Browne stated that it was a real issue. Recently he had been aware that the Mercedes Garage had been trying to recruit to an entry level job however, had been asking for applicants to possess A levels. Mark Browne was of the view that to turn the issue around a huge culture change would be required.  He felt that it was an issue that should be considered by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) as it could help to influence employers. Employers should be encouraged to speak to Officers supporting students to help identify which ones would be able to fulfil a role. 

The Chairman felt it would be helpful to invite the LEP and/or the Chamber of Commerce to the next Commission meeting. This would provide an opportunity to present some of the points that had been raised to employers.

Councillor Morrin felt that it was about gaining a holistic approach with regards to support, from a baby up until working life. From Councillor Morrin’s experience, many employers were keen to get young people in to work however, there needed to be a basic level of competence. As an employer he stated that he would be minded to opt for competence and capability over just capability.

Councillor Richard Somner noted that 18 – 24 year olds were not tracked and queried why this was the case. Mark Browne reported that to collect data on this cohort would require a huge amount of work. The DfE had attempted to collect information on 18 year olds however, had found it to be an unfruitful process. Mark Browne reported that they were often able to find out when young people had moved on to further education however, they did not know if those young people had carried on into their second year. Councillor Somner felt that this might be something the LEP could help with.

Councillor Somner was not aware that someone necessarily had to have a degree to become a teacher and was of the belief that training could start from A Level stage. He asked if there was adequate support for those who did not have a degree to become teachers. Barbara Hunter believed that a person needed a degree to become a teacher. Avril Allenby reported that a degree provided someone with the basic skills they required to become a teacher.

Ian Pearson concluded that professionals needed to retain ambition for children. An approach of ‘no child is left behind’ needed to be adopted. 

The Chairman stated that teachers within her ward and across the district had been disappointed at the way the press had portrayed the results from the Social Mobility report for West Berkshire. The Chairman thanked everybody for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED that:

·         Further thought should be given to inviting the LEP along to the next meeting to discuss points that had been raised in discussion with Education colleagues around employment.

·         The report was noted.