Weston Turville C E School Curriculum Committee

Transcription

1 Weston Turville C E School Curriculum Committee MINUTES of the meeting of the Curriculum Committee held at the School on Wednesday 28 th November 2012 at 7.00pm PRESENT: Jonathan McKenna Vice Chairman Karen Brooks Liz Hoodless Simon Turner James Ferris Louise Rolfe IN ATTENDANCE: Julie Barter Clerk Louise Hancock Curriculum Co-ordinator ABSENT: Viv Pangalos 1. APOLOGIES ACTION JM welcomed the Governors to the meeting. Apologies were received and accepted from Viv Pangalos. 2. NOTIFICATION OF AOB PDHW Learning Team Minutes. 3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST None. 4. REVIEW OF METRICS PACK (<ANON>) Key Stage 2 Comparison of results with previous cohorts The APS comparison was strong. Maths and reading results level 4 + were also good. Writing results had improved dramatically on 2011 but writing was still an area of concern. Comparison in relation to other schools Maths and reading results matched affluent schools and exceeded Bucks scores. Performance in writing was not so strong, matching Bucks levels but falling behind affluent schools. The small school factor was noted, i.e. each pupil representing 4 percentage points. Level 5 attainment Reading results were exceptional with 75% achieving level 5. Maths results were also very strong.

2 Writing results were disappointing. The discrepancy between the SPA figure of 23 and the school figure of 19.2 was due to one child being awarded an incorrect level. <ANON> confirmed 23 was the correct figure. Progress Progress was excellent with only one pupil making less than expected progress. This was pleasing as it was a key area in the SEF. Writing was above average but there was still room for improvement. As national and local data was not available it was not possible to do a comparison with other schools. Target achievement 78% of subject targets were achieved or exceeded. It was noted that stretched targets are set on an individual basis. It was clarified that level targets are set in advance while sublevel targets are set approximately 9 months before the written assessment. Gender/Group Analysis Boys continued to outperform girls as in 2011 but both were equally affected by the poor writing results. Fewer girls had achieved level 5. Term of birth data had not been included in this analysis. This would have been useful as in the previous year the performance of summer born boys had been raised as a concern. Two SEN children had performed well. Key Stage 1 Comparison of results with previous cohorts (based on level 2+) The APS chart indicated consistent achievement. Achievement in all main subjects was satisfactory. Comparison with other schools Results showed attainment was either equivalent to or below the level for Bucks. Attainment was stronger in maths with reading and writing only slightly behind. In all subjects the school was out performed by affluent schools. Level 3 attainment was disappointing especially in maths. It was noted there were a number of children who had underperformed and not achieved a level 3. Gender/Group Analysis Girls had performed well but boys results were significantly lower than the national average figures. The difficulty in meeting the different needs in the group was noted hence the extra support that had been put in place.

3 Both SEN and FSM children were performing below the national expectation. Term of birth The lower levels of achievement could not be explained by the relative youth of the cohort. Historically autumn born children consistently do better, but this year there had been an issue with the spring borns. Foundation Stage Although progress targets are not set in Foundation Stage, pupil performance is affected by on entry profiles which are different for each cohort. These are established via a base line assessment over each child s initial few weeks in school. Where on entry levels are higher, progress is lower. FS levels are determined by the number of activities the pupil is considered able to do. Foundation stage attainment was satisfactory. The expectation of each child gaining 6 points by the end of the first year was being achieved. Summary The summary sheet listed the performance indicators for each key stage as per the School Development Plan, and the school s current status for each item. KS2 results were good but need to be secured in KS1 results were disappointing. <ANON> agreed to incorporate term of birth data into future KS2 results analysis. <ANON> 5. BREAKDOWN OF RESULTS (KB) Pupil Achievement Grade Descriptor Breakdown The sheet detailed the evidence for a good assessment result for each grade descriptor. SEF Pupil Achievement The results were in line with those presented in the metrics pack. <ANON> agreed to reword the introductory paragraph. Comparison of 2011 and 2012 results for writing and maths showed an improvement between the two years. Progress was good but we need to determine if it is getting better. Writing improved due to targeted intervention but this will need to be monitored to check progress is sustained. We also need to be wary of comparing cohorts. Analysis of the data identified the following areas for development: o Level 5 writing o Current Year 3 focus on more able readers and mathematicians o Pastoral and academic support for Pupil Premium pupils in lower juniors. <ANON>

4 o Extra maths provision for current Year 5 o Continuation of 1:1 tuition with those falling behind. It was noted that Year 4 had fewer pastoral needs but more behavioural issues. More detailed analysis was provided on the KS2 results spreadsheet 2012 which showed actual achievement in relation to target levels and term of birth. 6. FOUNDATION STAGE On entry levels noted as key to progress. There was an upward trend in social development. There was a downward trend in maths. 7. YEAR 1 PHONICS CHECK More able pupils did not perform well in the phonics check as the test did not use real words. More able pupils tried to make sense of the words rather than sounding them out. National figures have now been received. <ANON> explained the figures in the graph are cumulative with the more able children represented by the section shaded in yellow. <ANON> also confirmed national results were represented by the horizontal line. Pupils had performed at above national average levels. 8. KEY STAGE 1 Results for reading, writing and maths were generally in line with national and Bucks averages for Level 2+ achievement; L3 achievement was behind these comparators. Fewer pupils than expected had achieved level 3. Low on entry profiles in Foundation Stage and high numbers of pupils with diverse needs had affected performance. Group analysis indicated half the class had some particular need. It was clarified that pupils with a Child Protection Plan are on the at risk register; those with a Child Protection Concern have had social service involvement in the past and are being monitored by the school. Actual results were shown in terms of progress and the metric target. The issues affecting those not making progress in the various groups was discussed. Pupil Premium money is currently being used to help support pastoral issues by funding extra TA support. The focus of this is to change to academic support. It was noted there were only 4 SEN children in the minority group. 9. KEY STAGE 2 Attainment and progress were good across all areas. The issue with writing in 2011 had been partially addressed and 2012 results were much improved. Small group work with particular children had produced good results. 1:1 tuition had also produced pleasing results. 96% of pupils in English and 92% of pupils in maths had made at least 2 levels of progress since KS1. This included 2 statemented children.

5 Group breakdown showed no significant outcome. It was noted there were more boys in the more able groups. 10. WHOLE SCHOOL Attainment and progress were good in reading and writing but FSM and SEN pupils had not performed as well. Attainment and progress was not as good in maths particularly in Y2 and Y4. The measures put in place so far this year to improve performance had seen some pupils improve by 3 sub-levels. 11. SEN REPORT <ANON> updated the Committee as follows. The green paper proposed that from 2014 only statemented children would remain on the SEN register with statements being replaced by individual Health Care Plans. It was clarified that School Action and School Action Plus funding has historically been received via the main budget. Less designated SEN funding would result in an overall reduction in delegated funding. There is a move to differentiate between special needs and low attainers. The paper stressed the need to show how Pupil Premium money is being spent and quantify the results. Staff training would be required to ensure teaching support staff could differentiate appropriately. Achievement for All trainers would be available to provide support but this would incur an extra cost to the school. 12. AOB PDHW Learning Team Minutes <ANON> noted the following points Internet safety had been identified as a key issue. This needed to be progressed through staff discussion to determine how it would be taught and included in topic webs. The challenge of meeting the physical development needs for G&T and SEN children was also noted. The safety of children cycling/scooting to and from school is to be covered by a new Cycle and Scooter Policy. The replacement/purchase of resources to support physical development is to take place next term. The Digital Parenting magazine had been sent out. 13. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 20 th March The meeting closed at Signed Date CHAIRMAN