Contact: John Clarke, Deputy County Education Officer Tel: 01962 846464
email [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 Two new sets of data are available. The LEA has received its `Annual Profile' that summarises the various judgements made on Hampshire schools in the last inspection cycle and shows the average improvement - or the reverse - since their last inspections. Also, for the first time, national "value-added data" are available. These make it possible to compare the progress made by pupils in individual schools and LEAs with other schools and LEAs across the country.

1.2 This report summarises both sets of data and proposes new directions for the future that seek to deploy the central resources for school improvement towards helping to improve progress in those schools in most need.

1.3 The proposed actions set out in the report should have the effect of improving pupils' progress in schools and thus contribute to improving the quality of life in Hampshire, in support of Aim 1 of the County Council's Corporate Strategy (Maximising Life Opportunities).

2 Ofsted Inspection Headlines

2.1 Inspectors have judged Hampshire primary schools to have far higher standards overall than is the case in like counties and far higher than across the country as a whole. 73% of them were judged to have good or very good standards in their last inspection contrasted with 58% in like counties and 55% nationally.

2.2 Overall, primary schools in Hampshire were judged to be better than those elsewhere, in all the main inspection areas - quality of education, school climate and management and efficiency, which includes leadership. For example, 58% of them were judged to have very good management and efficiency compared with 38% elsewhere.

2.3 There is little discernible difference in quality between infant, junior and primary schools in Hampshire.

2.4 Many more primary schools in Hampshire have improved their standards since their last inspections than schools in like counties and across the nation. There are many more schools in the county now that have very good and good standards - as judged by the inspectors - and far fewer that require some or substantial improvement in this area, than there were the last time they were inspected.

2.5 The picture is much the same in secondary schools - i.e. Hampshire secondary schools overall outperform those in like counties and across the nation - although not by as much as do primary schools.

2.6 69% of secondary schools in Hampshire were judged to have good or very good standards contrasted with 65% in like counties and 58% in England.

2.7 90% of them were judged to have good or very good management and efficiency, which includes leadership, contrasted with 83% in like counties and across the country.

2.8 Although, of course, there are some schools, both primary and secondary that do not do as well in their inspections as the rest, generally these data suggest a very healthy picture in Hampshire schools.

3 Value Added Data

3.1 This year, for the first time, national value-added data are available. These use each pupil's progress between two fixed points (the end of Key Stage 1 to the end of Key Stage 2, for example) to calculate the average progress made by all the pupils in each school. The power of these data comes from the fact that the base for the calculations is always the progress of individual pupils. The county has run extensive exercises for itself in recent years to provide value-added data to schools but, of necessity, these have been exercises internal to Hampshire. Only this year has it been possible to compare data on Hampshire schools with those in the rest of the country, in terms of pupil progress.

3.2 The data can never in themselves make absolute statements about the performance of schools or LEAs. Pupils move to different schools within key stages and often the data sets for each school are not complete. Further, in the data for Key Stage 2 no allowance is made for contextual factors such as the socio-economic background from which the pupils come: research demonstrates clearly that it is more difficult for schools to make the same progress if their children come from disadvantaged areas than if they do not - although there are many examples of schools that have bucked that trend. The data for secondary schools do take account of contextual factors by weighting according to the numbers of pupils who are entitled to free school meals. The national value-added data in both primary and secondary are far less sophisticated than those we have traditionally produced for Hampshire schools - but at least they are national.

3.3 For special schools, the data do not lend themselves to the same kind of analysis. The county council is taking a leading role in the development of information (eg "P-scales" referred to in the recent DfES publication "Removing Barriers to Achievement") most useful for special schools, but the emphasis will remain on the more detailed and specific work on programmes in each child's statement or individual education plan. This report, therefore, focuses on the value-added data which are available for primary and secondary schools.

4 What the value-added data suggest about Hampshire schools

4.1 On raw results, Hampshire schools have always performed well - always outperforming the national averages and almost always doing better than the schools of statistical neighbours.

4.2 These new data make it possible to pose new and useful questions. Overall, schools with Key Stage 2 appear to make very slightly less progress for each pupil, on average, than is the case nationally. Further analysis shows that this may partly be connected with the very strong performance at Key Stage 1, which is the baseline data for this progress measure. It also shows that some schools do very well indeed, outperforming considerably the national average. However, the key conclusion is that a number of schools in Key Stage 2 make less than the expected progress for their children: this should be the focus of further work and support.

4.3 The same is true in secondary schools. Some schools produce excellent rates of progress for their pupils. A number of Hampshire schools are among the very best in the country when measured on the progress pupils make between the ages of 11 and 16. However, there are also schools that are "under-performing" against national average progress measures, and it would pay dividends to work with those schools to help them to improve pupils' progress.

4.4 In Key Stage 3, although its performance is still above the national average, Hampshire pupils appear to make less progress overall from Key Stage 2 than is the case in our statistical neighbours. Progress in Key Stage 4 in the county is much better but there is still a substantial difference between schools.

5 Proposed Action

5.1 Although these data are not as sophisticated as those we are used to, it is still important to be positive about them and to treat them seriously. The Education Department would always have been taking action to help to improve schools and these data add more impetus to that work. It will be important to work more closely and purposefully with "under-performing schools", not just with those that have serious weaknesses or are in special measures where Hampshire has such a strong track record.

5.2 The LEA will continue to deploy its central resources for school improvement in inverse proportion to success, but will take much more integrated and robust action in those schools where there is clear evidence of under-performance between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2. Such schools will be visited regularly by a School Improvement Manager or nominee, who will work closely with the headteacher and leadership team to capitalise on all the additional support that the school is receiving from English or mathematics primary consultants, the Primary Strategy Consultant Leaders, the Attached Inspector and that given by the county in the form of staff training. The purpose will be to ensure that these schools make the expected progress for their pupils by using all the support that comes into the school wisely, joining it up and making sure that it impacts where it should. The governing bodies will be advised on how to support the schools' progress through their "critical friend" role.

5.3 Before these improvement projects begin, the key thrusts will be agreed at a meeting in the local office between the local school improvement team and the headteacher and chair of governors. Schools will also be expected to show how they intend to spend the Standards Fund resource that they have, to effect the necessary improvement. The LEA will support the school in producing a short implementation plan, setting out what will be done and the key outcomes expected. Progress will be regularly monitored and, where necessary, additional steps will be taken.

5.4 Reports on the progress in each school in this programme - currently standing at about 10% of KS2 schools - will be made to the Schools Monitoring Panel.

5.5 A similar programme will be set up for some secondary schools. The identification of these schools will require professional skill. Some schools, for example, show low value-added for the pupils who took their GCSEs in 2003 but show much greater progress in recent years in Key Stage 3. Where this is the case no special project is likely to be called for, but the LEA will need to ensure that current levels of support from consultants and advisers are maintained.

5.6 For schools that appear to be `stuck' or whose GCSE value-added and recent Key Stage 3 data show under-performance, a similar programme to that for primary schools is needed. Conversations will need to be held with the headteacher and chair of governors and a plan established that will lead to improvement in pupil progress. Initially, this will involve the local Strategic School Improvement Manager supported by the County Education Officer and/or his Deputy.

5.7 Although central resources for school improvement are tight - less each year than those spent by most of Hampshire's statistical neighbours - it is still possible to work within these resources and ensure that a large proportion is channelled into the under-performing schools while continuing to ensure that the rest receive adequate support. For schools in this project there will be regular visiting by a School Improvement Manager or nominee; Key Stage 3 consultant time will be targeted on these schools and work which has been done in a range of schools to improve under-performing departments will now be undertaken almost entirely in these schools. The headteacher, leadership team and School Improvement Manager will need to work very closely together in order to ensure that all the work has the impact that it should. The intention, as with the primary schools, is to make sure that nothing drains through the sand but that all the advice and support is embedded in the day-to-day work of the school, so that the capacity for self improvement in the future is firmly established.

5.8 The Education Department is also exploring the possibility of taking part in a national project led by the National College for School Leadership (NCSL). This would involve inviting these particular schools to work together on their development, offering facilitation to them. Discussions with NCSL are at an early stage and more will be known about this project and its potential by mid-April.

5.9 Monitoring arrangements will be needed, similar to those in primary schools, including the involvement of the Schools Monitoring Panel.

6 Conclusion

6.1 These two programmes, for primary and secondary schools, demonstrate what the Education Strategy means in its implementation. The county is setting out to work purposefully and robustly with groups of schools, so that the children who attend them make the same sort of progress as in those schools which achieve high rates of development. The challenge is clear but the stakes could not be higher.

Recommendations

1. That the PRC notes the very positive results from Ofsted inspections of Hampshire schools.

2. That the PRC notes that value-added data point to under-performance in some schools.

3. That the PRC supports the broad thrust of these proposals for the Education Department to work with schools where pupils' progress needs to be improved.

4. That the PRC endorses the involvement of the Schools Monitoring Panel as set out in this report.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB The list excludes:

1 Published works

2 Documents which disclosed exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act

None