Council and democracy

Agenda item

The Annual Report of the Virtual School Headteacher for Children Looked After - Academic Year 2015-2016

Minutes:

The Headteacher of the Virtual School for Children Looked After introduced the report which detailed the provisional outcomes for all pupils in the Virtual School cohort for the academic year 2015-2016 and the ratified data which had been recently provided by the DFE Statistical First Release, highlighting the attainment of pupils place in care for longer than 1 year.

 

Councillor Kerin was pleased to see  the Progress 8 score and asked whether the current cohort was on course to improve the figures.  The data provided was for the 2016 cohort.  The 2017 cohort had achieved better but the DFE had not yet provided the measures.  The guidance for schools document advised that it would be difficult to gauge what their Progress 8 score would be and the DFE were not looking to make firm predictions until 2019.  The year 11 GCSEs had been very impressive,20% of the entire cohort attained 5 A-C, having been in care for a year of more.  There were only 25 pupils moving from year 10 into year 11, preliminary predictions were that their results might not be quite as good as this year’s due to the nature of the cases.

 

The Vice-Chair asked for clarification around the discrepancy in figures in section 3.2.4 of the report.  Members heard that 2 students attended special needs schools and therefore did not participate in the KS2 SAT.  2 children had not been in care for more than one year and therefore did not meet the criteria for the DFE return.

 

The Vice-Chair queried section 4.4 of the report which implied that Children Looked After could not cope with attainment 8 and why the council did  not have the same aspiration.  Members heard that not all students would be entered for 8 GCSEs therefore could not achieve Progress 8.  Schools only entered pupils for subjects where they were confident a pupil would obtain a grade, timetables were tailored to ensure the best outcomes.  The Service would continue to push for  higher achievement but was cautious  as they did not want to dishearten pupils.  Vocational subjects and B-Techs did not qualify as a GCSE result.  The Vice-Chair felt that the blanket statement was too generalised and it was wrong to imply that Children Looked After could not cope.

 

Councillor Kerin asked whether there were any schools where more or less Looked After Children were entered for 8 GCSEs.  Looked After Children were quite widespread across the borough but generally those in mainstream schools had a better chance of obtaining progress 8 than those in alternative provision, however the key aim was to provide the best outcomes for post-16 pathways.  There were varying other factors to influence these figures but mainstream schools on the whole aimed to achieve Progress 8.

 

Councillor Kerin asked for a breakdown  of  the data to see how Looked After Children were progressing in line with national averages and the difference between mainstream schools and alternative provisions.  It was outlined that any such data would be highly contextual and it would be hard to compare given the measures used.

 

The  Service Manager for Permanence for  added that as a Local Authority and a Corporate Parent Thurrock had clear aspirations for its children, individually and as a whole.  Thurrock was working with agencies to challenge and push all Thurrock’s young people and Looked After Children.

 

Councillor Watkins referred to page 38 of the agenda and the fact that 83% of Looked After Children in Year 11 attended provision outside of the borough.  He asked whether these were also living outside of the borough or commuting to school, and how much communication there was with those schools and relevant Local Authorities.  Members were advised that, from last year’s data, those pupils in out of borough schools were also in out of borough placements; where possible pupils were kept in a Thurrock School.  Those out of borough schools were visited once a term and Local Authorities were contacted if needs be such as in the case of  education health and care plans.  Students’ attendance was monitored regardless where they were placed but the biggest challenge the service faced was visiting children placed outside of the borough if they refused to attend. Face to face contact was more difficult but the service was aware and addressed issues accordingly.

 

The Vice-Chair asked for more information regarding the governing body.  The Governing body had been put in place the previous academic year to improve lines of accountability.  The Governing body provided a complementary reporting mechanism allowing the service to focus on Looked After Children and areas which needed development.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. The Corporate Parenting Committee notes the verified DFE outcomes of the summer 2016 tests and examinations and comments the pupils, their schools and parents/carers on their achievements.  In particular, that Thurrock CLA has performed above national CLA performance indicators in all areas.

 

2. The Corporate Parenting Committee approves the Annual Report of the Virtual School Headteacher for the academic year 2015-2016 and uses this information to acknowledge, evaluate and if appropriate, challenge the services that are provided for all CLA.

Supporting documents: