HOUNSLOW EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE

Transcription

1 HOUNSLOW EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE YEAR APRIL 2004

2 EDP CONTENTS (Year 3) EDP Page No. 1 Introduction 3 2 Targets 2.1 Targets at LA level, for KS 1, KS2, KS3 and KS4 for 2003 and LA targets for the achievement of children leaving local authority care 2.3 LA targets for attendance 2.4 Target setting 2.5 Information used by the LA to support target-setting 2.6 The Process of Target Setting in Hounslow 2.7 The Process of Aggregating School Targets into LA Targets 3 Evaluation of EDP2 Year 1 ( ) 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Priority 1: Raising Attainment in Early Years and Key Stages 1 and Priority 2: Raising Attainment 11 to Priority 3: Narrowing Attainment Gaps and Tackling Underachievement 3.5 Priority 4: School improvement through self evaluation and support for schools causing concern 3.6 Priority 5: Information & Communication Technology 3.7 Priority 6: The Recruitment, Retention & Development of Staff 3.8 Value for Money School Improvement Programme 81 5 Annexes Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex 6: Targets Details of Action Underpinning the School Improvement Programme Resources for each Priority The LA s strategy for Monitoring and Evaluation of its EDP Hounslow s Consultation Process Glossary

3 1. INTRODUCTION Hounslow Council has a clear vision for its rôle within the local community and its purpose in School Improvement. Hounslow s Education Development Plan is central to its work in School Improvement. This plan, the third year of EDP2, covers the period It demonstrates how the Local Authority will provide schools with appropriately targeted challenge and support in order to achieve school improvement and raise pupil achievement. It takes account of the Code of Practice on LA-School Relationships and is based on the principle of intervention and support in inverse proportion to success. The programme of action has been developed following an evaluation of local performance 2003, an evaluation of EDP2 Year 2 ( ) and takes account of changes in local context, of the Ofsted inspection and the action plan written in response to its judgements. It also describes the LA s role in supporting schools in delivering national strategies and the Excellence in Cities programme. Hounslow has agreed with schools that it has a role in facilitating collaboration between schools and the dissemination of effective practice and this area of activity is contained within the plan. The plan also describes the process which has been developed in Hounslow to ensure that each school sets realistic yet challenging targets for pupil achievement, and also sets out the targets which have been agreed between Hounslow and the Department for Education and Skills. 3

4 2. TARGETS 2.1 TABLE 1: LEA KS1 PERFORMANCE TARGETS Proportion of Year 2 pupils on roll expected to achieve Literacy Maths Academic Year 2003/ /2005 Level 2 and above 87% 88% Level 2 and above 92% 92% TABLE 2: LEA KS2 PERFORMANCE TARGETS Proportion of Year 6 pupils on roll expected to achieve English Maths Academic Year 2003/ /2005 Level 4 and above 83% 80% Level 5 and above 32% 32% Level 4 and above 82% 82% Level 5 and above 32% 33% TABLE 3: LEA KS3 PERFORMANCE TARGETS Proportion of Year 9 pupils on roll expected to achieve Academic Year 2003/ /2005 English Maths Science ICT Level 5 and above 76% 77% Level 5 and above 75% 78% Level 5 and above 67% 73% Level 5 and above 75% 76% 4

5 TABLE 4: LEA GCSE/GNVQ PERFORMANCE TARGETS Proportion of 15 year old pupils on roll expected to achieve Academic Year 2003/ / grades A*-C 53% 55% 5+ grades A*-G (inc. English and Maths) 92% N/A Average point score per pupil TABLE 5: TARGETS FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF CHILDREN LEAVING LOCAL AUTHORITY CARE AT AGE 16 OR OVER IN 2004/2005 (AGE 15 OR OVER AT 31 AUGUST 2004) Academic Year Percentage of children leaving care 2004/2005 with:- 5 or more GCSE/GNVQ grades A* - C 22% 2.3 TABLE 6: LEA PUPIL ATTENDANCE TARGETS; AUTHORISED AND UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE Academic Year Primary Schools % half days missed 2003/ / % 6.0% Secondary Schools Special Schools % half days missed % half days missed 7.5% 7.0% 8.5% N/A 5

6 2.4 Target Setting Hounslow s approach to target setting is underpinned by the following principles: 1. Hounslow is committed to raising standards in all of its schools and recognises the importance of setting challenging targets as part of the improvement process. The LA will set targets in collaboration with all its schools and the local community taking into account national priorities and expectations. 2. We recognise that Hounslow schools serve varied communities and have different intake profiles. It would therefore be inappropriate for all schools to set the same targets. Some schools have higher attaining groups of pupils on intake than others and it is reasonable to expect differences in the achievement of pupils from school to school. 3. We understand that school profiles change from year to year (and even within years). In particular the prior attainment in a school will vary from year to year. It is likely that improvement will not occur in an even way. Thus, in some cases, apparently standing still may in fact be an improvement while in other cases an improvement in results may mask a school that is in fact coasting. 4. We acknowledge that the target setting process is far harder and less exact in schools with a high level of pupil mobility. 5. We believe the target setting process should use a wide range of pupil assessment information including value added data and that data about pupil progress should be provided by the LA. 6. We acknowledge that especially in small schools, there will be fluctuations from year to year as the performance of 1 child in a cohort of 25 can represent 4%. 2.5 Information used to support target setting Information used to support target setting is drawn from national performance tables, the Autumn Package, the LA Panda and LA s own analysis of results and pupil progress. a) Primary age ranges: Outcomes of KS1 and KS2 tests and teacher assessments for individual schools, the LA and the country. Baseline screening of reception year pupils at beginning and end of year. Information on age, ethnicity, gender, English as an additional language (EAL), free school meals (FSM) and children with statements of special educational needs. National analysis of pupil progress in each core subject. LA analysis of individual pupil progress. 6

7 Benchmarking information using both QCA and local groupings of schools. Profile of the LA s KS1 cohort, according to a range of pupil background factors (gender, FSM, ethnicity, SEN and mobility). Contextual analysis of results at KS1 and KS2 showing the different achievement of girls and boys and those eligible/ineligible for free school meals. Contextual analysis of results at KS1 and KS2 showing the different achievement of: pupils of different ethnic background pupils with different levels of language fluency Spring, Summer and Autumn born pupils mobile pupils who join the school after year 3 traveller pupils children in public care children unable to attend school due to medical needs Information on school attendance levels, authorised and unauthorised absence rates. Contextual analysis of long term absentees, irregular attenders, referrals to LA Education Welfare Service and successful interventions. b) Secondary age ranges Baseline screening of Year 7 using MIDYIS and KS2 tests and teacher assessment. School level outcomes of KS3 tests and teacher assessment. School level outcomes of GCSE and A level examinations and vocational courses. Overall LA results at KS3, GCSE, A level and on vocational courses Value added analysis of KS3, GCSE and A level results including Fischer Trust data. Information on age, ethnicity, gender, English as an additional language (EAL), free school meals (FSM) and children with statements of special education needs. Benchmarking information using QCA groupings of schools. Pupil achievement in each subject at KS3, GCSE and post 16. The relative performance of pupils in each subject compared to other subjects and to other comparable schools. Contextual analysis of KS3 and GCSE results on the main indicators showing differential achievement of: girls and boys pupils eligible/ineligible for free meals pupils of different ethnic backgrounds pupils with identified SEN mobile pupils who join their school after year 7 pupils with different levels of language fluency traveller pupils children in public care children unable to attend school due to medical needs 7

8 2.6 The process of Target Setting in Hounslow The LA has supported schools in setting targets through the provision of comparative data, written guidance and in service training for heads, teachers and governors. This work has built on the experience of data analysis which has been undertaken by the LA for several years and on schools participation in national projects such as Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPs), Middle Years Information System (MiDYIS), Year 11 Information System (YELLIS) and A Level Information System (ALIS). In essence the process is the same for primary, secondary and special schools although there are variations in detail: Hounslow schools continue to see target setting as an important strategy for raising attainment. It is possible for schools to use both local and national value added data to inform the process which is now finally embedded at Key Stage 3 as well as in Key Stages 2 and 4. Special schools which return a zero target against National Curriculum levels and/or GCSE targets continue to set measurable performance targets using P scales or other appropriate measures. To support the LA s drive to close the achievement gap for under performing ethnic groups, we have suggested to schools that in addition to setting individual pupil targets, they should set aggregated targets for any ethnic group with 10 or more pupils or 10% or more of the cohort, whichever is the greater. Hounslow s Excellence in Cities Plan identifies challenging targets for Key Stages 3 and 4 and includes targets for Gifted and Talented pupils. In the Autumn Term the LA provides for all schools a detailed analysis of their assessment results. This includes comparisons with other schools, the LA and the country as a whole together with value added data. From 2004 Fischer Trust data will also be made available to schools. Detailed guidance on target setting has been circulated to all schools and governors. This has now been updated to include specific guidance on setting targets for different ethnic groups. Training materials are provided for use in schools. Governing bodies are invited to consider what targets beyond the statutory minimum they would wish to set. The guidance encourages all schools to set targets at the beginning of a key stage thereby ensuring that they set long term trajectories for improvement. In particular, the LA wishes to encourage schools to set internal targets to Key Stage 1 and Post-16. In the Autumn term, all schools review their results against the national comparative data and, building on their expectations for individual pupils, identify draft targets for the relevant year groups. Schools then translate these numerical targets into a series of statements of what pupils need to learn in order to achieve them. These are then built into each school s planning. 8

9 In the Autumn term, attached advisers visit all schools to review the proposed targets. The data relating to each school is drawn together by the attached adviser prior to meeting the Headteacher. The LA also identifies a statistical range for each school s targets based on individual pupil data and advisers specifically challenge any school whose targets are outside this range. Advisers also discuss with headteachers the developments needed in the school to enable the targets to be achieved. Governing bodies (or governors committees) meet to adopt targets which are submitted to the LA in December. In a small minority of cases at Key Stages 3 and 4 negotiation between schools and the LA continue in order to ensure that targets are appropriate and challenging. A similar process is carried out by the Head of Education Welfare Service with those schools which are required to set attendance targets, although all schools were encouraged to do so as a matter of good practice. The LA sets targets which form part of the Behaviour Support Plan and Best Value Performance Plan. The LA examines exclusions figures in both sectors and bearing in mind recommendations of the Social Exclusions Unit and discussions with schools, sets LA exclusion targets which form part of the Behaviour Support Plan. The LA in consultation with Social Services Department has set targets for the achievement of pupils leaving care. These targets are set out in the Quality Protects Management Action and Best Value Performance Plan as well as in the EDP. 2.7 The Process of Aggregating School Targets into LA Targets Hounslow agreed with central government a set of very challenging targets for These targets are set to build on the achievements of the last 3 years and take into account pupil attainment at the previous key stage and the possible impact of the support and intervention programmes planned by the LA. At KS2 the targets set by schools were also taken into account. However, in 2003, despite making greater improvement than that made nationally, the LA did not meet its targets at Key Stages 2 and 3. This is largely due to pupil mobility. Hounslow pupils in all KS who joined their schools at the beginning of the key stage performed significantly better than mobile pupils. They achieved at or above national average and at KS2 exceed the target in English and were within 1% in maths. It is likely that there will be a similar level of pupil mobility within the current cohorts for which targets have been set. This means that for the targets to be met there will need to be exceptional progress, particularly at Key Stage 3. At Key Stage 2 the LA targets for maths and English for both level 4+ and level 5 are higher than the aggregated schools targets by 3% and 4% respectively. Pupil mobility is a significant factor. Only 64% of the 2003 year 6 cohort joined their schools at the start of year 3. In addition the last 3 years has seen the number of refugee and asylum seekers almost double as well as a continuing 9

10 increase in the number of schools receiving them. This makes the process of setting targets much more challenging for schools as many of these pupils have recently arrived in the country and are still in the early stages of learning English as an additional language when targets are set. As a result of particularly high levels of pupil mobility, some schools have set targets below the identified statistical range or in a very few cases below the government recommended floor target level. However, the LA considers these targets to be appropriately challenging. Hounslow will continue to monitor and prioritise support for these schools. The LA is confident that the target setting process in the vast majority of its schools is rigorous and leading to a rise in standards. In the few schools where improvement is slower than expected the LA is intervening robustly to challenge and support them in moving forward. At Key Stage 3 the aggregated schools targets show a shortfall in all subjects ranging from 3% in science to 9% in ICT. As at KS2, pupil mobility is a significant factor, although concentrated in a small number of secondary schools. As a result some schools have set targets below the recommended floor targets. In the case of ICT the continued lack of robust prior attainment has led to schools being cautious with their predictions. The LA expects the embedding of the Key Stage 3 strategy will result in further considerable improvement of attainment in all subjects. It will continue to monitor and intervene to move a school forward more rapidly where improvement is slower than expected. Activities 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 5.2 have been specifically designed to address these issues. GCSE targets for 2005 closely match those of the LA. Hounslow s targets beyond 2000 have been pitched to meet the Council s aspiration that the LA s results are in line with national expectations. Results for 2003 and targets for 2004 show schools are on track to meet the 2005 targets. 10

11 3. EVALUATION OF THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN

12 3. EVALUATION OF THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN The EDP ran from April 2003 to March The principal impact of the school improvement programme should therefore be seen in pupil attainment in test and examinations in Summer However this data is not yet available and this inevitably makes much of the evaluation that follows provisional in nature. Results for Summer 2003 are used where appropriate but clearly this EDP will have had limited impact on them. The following evaluation of each priority includes: an audit of strengths and weaknesses; an evaluation of the priority against the success criteria for each activity and sources of evidence; changes in School Improvement Activities Priority 1: Raising attainment in Early Years towards the Early Learning Goals and in primary education especially in numeracy and literacy Data Analysis Key Stage 1 Although targets are not statutory this information is to give a complete picture. Hounslow Target National Statistical Average 2003 Neighbours Average 2003 Reading/ 73% 80% 81% 82% (86) 87% 84% 83% Comprehension Writing 74% 83% 82% 79%(N/A) N/A 81% 79% Maths 79% 88% 88% 90% (91) 92% 90% 89% 1997 Science 80% 86% 87% 87% N/A 89% 88% Spelling 55% 68% 72% N/A N/A N/A N/A ( ) Target 2003 In 2002/03 there were 2,392 seven year olds in Hounslow who were eligible for the KS1 SATs. This includes those at the special schools. Foundation Stage The national baseline assessment for all pupils at the end of their reception year has only been in place one year so it is not possible to provide any comparative data analysis. 12

13 Key Stage1 At Key Stage 1 the proportion of Hounslow pupils gaining Level 2 and above improved in reading, maths and science. Although there was a decline in writing this was less than the decline nationally and can be attributed to the changes in the assessment of writing. The proportion of pupils gaining level 2b and the average points score improved in all subjects. For the first time the percentage of Hounslow pupils gaining level 2 and above in maths is at national average. In reading and writing this percentage is closer to national average than in Compared to its statistical neighbours Hounslow s performance has improved significantly so that in maths it is above, in writing it is in line with but in reading and science is it still fractionally below average. Key Facts Foundation Stage In 7 out of the 8 schools inspected by OFSTED in the last year pupil achievement in the Foundation Stage was found to be at least good, from a low baseline on entry. No unsatisfactory achievement was identified. However this is a very small sample. The full implementation of the Hounslow Early Years Development Profile should support the planned increase in the number of pupils reaching the Early learning Goals. KS1 82% achieved the target level 2 or above in reading/comprehension, 79% in writing, 90% in maths and 87% in the science teacher assessments. Spelling is no longer reported as a separate subject. Reading/comprehension shows an improvement of 1% over the previous year. Maths is up by 2% but writing is down by 3%. Science remains unchanged from last year. The average points scores (APS) for reading/comprehension, writing and maths are 15.3, 14.2 and 16.0 respectively. The APS for reading/ comprehension is up by 0.2, writing is up by 0.7 and maths is up by 0.1. The planned increase of the proportion of pupils gaining Level 3 at KS1 has not taken place except in writing. A comparison of the three-year averages for the percentage level 2+ performance over the last five years shows that the underlying trend in achievement is upwards in reading/comprehension, maths and science and static in writing. 13

14 In all subjects, girls did better at achieving level 2+ than boys and the differences in performance were statistically significant in reading / comprehension and writing. Between PIPS at the start of reception and KS1, overall girls made significantly more progress than boys. An analysis of the results by term of birth showed that those born in the autumn term did better than those born in the spring and summer terms. Those born in the spring term did better than those born in the summer term. There was no difference between these groups on the amount of progress between PIPS and KS1. There was a marked difference between the achievement levels and PIPS to KS1 progress, of those pupils eligible for free school meals and those not, with the latter group performing significantly better. Similarly, a significantly higher proportion of pupils who had prior nursery experience achieved the target level 2+ as compared with those who had not attended nursery, and had higher levels of progress. Schools were asked to provide data on the number of terms each pupil had been registered at the school where the assessments were done. This provided one measure of the effect of turbulence on achievement levels and showed that those at the school for nearly the whole of the Keystage (7-9+ terms) did significantly better than those who joined during the middle (4-6 terms and 0-3 terms). The latter group (0-3 terms) showed the poorest performance levels. On PIPS to KS1 progress, those at the school for 4-6 terms made the least amount of progress, while those at the school the longest period of time made better progress than those present for part of the key stage. The 2003 literacy target was for 86% to achieve level 2+. The actual performance was 82%. The numeracy target for 2003 was 91% to achieve level 2+ and the actual performance was 90%. Individual mainstream school performance rates show a range of 98% to 49% achieving L2+ in reading/comprehension, 100% to 36% in writing, 100% to 68% in mathematics and 100% to 56% in the science teacher assessments. Average school pupil residuals showing progress between PIPS to KS1 range from 95.0 to for reading/comprehension, 96.2 to in writing and 97.3 to in maths where is the LA average. When compared to the nearest eleven LEAs in its Ofsted family group Hounslow is 7 th in reading, 6 th in writing and 4 th in maths. 14

15 Summary The authority did not meet its targets at Key Stage 1 due to the impact of pupil mobility on attainment. However the proportion of pupils who had joined their schools at the beginning of the key stage achieving level 2 + is at national average in reading and above it in writing and maths. The percentage of non mobile pupils achieving national expectation meets the LA targets. Although the overall trend shows a slightly better rate of improvement than nationally, this is not the case with our more able pupils in reading and maths. It is likely that the target for level 2+ will be reached in maths but that the target for reading will involve a significant level of improvement, as will the target for level 3 in both subject areas. Action to address these issues is identified in the EDP. Data Analysis Key Stage 2 Hounslow Target National Statistical Average Neighbours English 49% 74% 72% 76% (80) Maths 48% 70% 72% 73% (79) Science 56% 86% 86% 85% (N/A) L4 L5 L4 L5 27% (30) 29% (30) 43% (N/A) L L5 83% 32% 75% 27 % 82% 32% 73% 29 % N/A N/A 87% 41 % Average % 70% 84% Average Point Score 1999 English N/A N/A N/A N/A Maths N/A N/A N/A N/A Science N/A N/A N/A N/A ( ) Target In 2002/03 there were 2401 eleven year olds in Hounslow who were eligible for the KS2 assessments. This includes those at the special schools and excludes pupils recently arrived from overseas who s first language is not English. The proportion of pupils achieving level 4 and above improved in English and mathematics but declined slightly in science. English is above the national average, mathematics is in line and science is slightly below. The proportion of pupils gaining level 5 improved in all subjects and is at national average in English and maths and above it in science. National value added measure 15

16 shows that the majority of schools in Hounslow have a better than average value added profile. 43% of schools in Hounslow are in the top 25% of schools nationally when ranked by their value added measure. Compared to its statistical neighbours Hounslow s performance has improved significantly so that it is now 3% above in maths and English and 1% in science. Hounslow has the highest value added measure when compared to its statistical neighbours. Key Facts 76% achieved the target level of four or above in English, 73% in maths and 85% in science. The English result is 1 percentage point above the national average. Maths is the same as the national average and science is 2 percentage points below. English shows an improvement of 4% above the previous year. Maths has increased by 1% and science declined by 1%. The average point scores (APS) for English, science and maths are 26.9, 28.6 and 26.8 respectively. The APS for English is up by 0.4 points from last year, science is up by 0.1 points and maths is down by 0.1 point. A comparison of the three-year averages for the percentage level 4+ performance shows that, over the last five years, the underlying trend in achievement is upwards in all three subjects. Individual mainstream school performance rates show a range of 100% to 30% achieving level 4+ in English, 98% to 42% in maths and 100% to 55% in science. Hounslow s progress between KS1 and KS2 is 0.8 points above the national average of The most progress was made in English, followed by maths and then science. In English and science girls did better than boys at achieving level 4+. The maths results were equal in both groups. Only the English difference was statistically significant. In terms of progress from KS1 to KS2, girls made more progress than boys in English, but boys made greater progress in maths and science. The 2003 literacy targets were 80% to achieve level 4+ and 30% to achieve level 5+. The actual performance was 76% and 28% respectively. The numeracy targets for 2003 were 79% to achieve level 4+ and 30% to achieve level 5+. The actual performance was 73% and 29% respectively. 16

17 An analysis of the results by term of birth showed that those born in the autumn term performed better than those born in the spring or summer terms. The maths difference between autumn and the other 2 terms was statistically significant. Spring born pupils did better than summer born pupils in maths and science but less well in English. When looking at progress between KS1 and KS2, those born in the summer term made the most progress. There was a marked difference between the achievement levels of pupils eligible for free school meals and those not eligible, with the latter group performing significantly better. There was no significant difference in the progress made by these two groups. Schools were asked to provide dates of admission of each pupil registered at the school where the assessments were done. This provided one measure of the effect of turbulence on achievement levels and showed that those at the school for nearly the whole of the key stage (admitted to the school pre Year 3) did significantly better than pupils who joined during the middle Years 4-5. Those admitted during Year 6 showed the poorest performance levels. This pattern is repeated when looking at progress between KS1 and KS2. Compared with the nearest eleven LEAs in its OFSTED family group Hounslow is 5 th highest in English, science and maths, 3 rd in the overall average points score and first in the KS1 to KS2 value-added measure. Summary Despite achieving at least national average in all 3 subjects, Hounslow did not meet its targets at Key Stage 2 due to the impact of mobility on attainment. However, the percentage of non-mobile pupils achieving national expectation is above the LA target in English and only 1% short in maths. There is still a substantial gap between the 2003 results and the LA level 4 target in English, although it is closer in maths. It will therefore be extremely challenging for the LA to meet this target in English. The LA continues on track to meet its level 5 targets in The EDP identifies action to further improve standards. 17

18 Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 1.1 To increase the number of pupils achieving level 3 at Key Stage 1 by at least 3% per year for the next 3 years. To increase the number of pupils achieving level 5 for English & mathematics at KS2 from 29% to 32% by 2004 and in line with further agreed targets by Identified pupils attend enrichment programmes and make progress that is appropriate to their ability. Target not met except in writing where it was exceeded. High turnout at KS1 literacy and maths courses with positive evaluations. Improvement on 2002 in percentage achieving level 5; now at least in line with NA. Schools are on track to meet 2004 and 2005 targets. This has been a focus of consultants work; relevant training has been positively evaluated. Maths Enrichment Project shows an increase in the average score of participants but pupil progress is inconsistent. There is a need to evaluate the in school provision of these pupils. LA analysis 2003 results - Research and Statistics Section INSET evaluations - HEC LA analysis of 2003 results - Research and Statistics Section INSET evaluations - HEC Report of evaluation of project - Primary Strategy Manager file 18 18

19 Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 1.2 Continued improvement in levels of attainment achieved in the KS1 and KS2 NC tests achievement of LA targets in the 2004 NC tests in English and maths. A 5% reduction per annum in the number of level 2Cs in reading, writing and mathematics, leading to an increase in secure level 2s in KS1. An improvement in boys performance by 3% per annum in order to bring them closer to the standards achieved by girls in English at KS2 and reading, writing and spelling at KS1. Reduction in number of schools not achieving their targets in KS1 and 2. Continued improvement at KS1 and KS2 against national average in all subject areas as a result of consultant focus on Yr 2 and Yr 6 in schools. This has led to teachers understanding the need to target specific groups. Target exceeded in writing; not met in maths or reading, although reading showed 2% increase in secure level 2 s. Consultant focus in supported schools so schools now target borderline pupils. Target not met in KS1 or 2 although boys outperform against national average at KS2. Strategies such as Cool kits for boys have had a good take up from schools and been positively evaluated. Target not met at KS1; met at KS2 in English but no change in maths. More schools are setting aspirational targets based on prior attainment so it is not necessarily a true mark of success if targets are met/exceeded. LA analysis 2003 results - Research and Statistics Section Consultants notes of visit and notes of primary strategy meetings Advisers Section LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section Consultants notes of visit and notes of primary strategy meetings Advisers Section LA analysis 2003 results - Research and Statistics Section Consultants notes of visit Advisers Section LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section 19 19

20 Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found % of references to breadth and balance of the curriculum in OFSTED reports are at least satisfactory. JSR judgements in 75% of schools cite breadth and balance as a strength. 12 schools were inspected by OFSTED in all references are at least satisfactory and two-thirds good or better JSR outcomes awaiting evaluation outcomes 75% of schools judged good or better in this section but breadth and balance only cited in some. OFSTED reports JSR outcomes Advisers Section and HVEC % of the identified pupils to move up by one EAL stage of English during academic year. Contribution to meeting the LEA targets for ethnic minority groups at KS1 and KS2 through percentage increase in EAL pupils in Year 6 achieving level 4, and those in Year 2 achieving Level 2. Target met. Percentage of EAL pupils at KS1 (Stage 1-3) achieving Level 2 increased from 68% (2002) to 76% (2003). Percentage of EAL pupils at KS2 (Stage 1-3) achieving Level 4 increased from 34% (2002) to 48% (2003). Pupil progress data HLS Section KS1 and 2 multilevel analysis 2003 Research and Statistics Section 20 20

21 Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 1.5 National Baseline Assessment implemented successfully in all schools and settings with reception age pupils. 70% of LA and 50% of EYDCP settings piloting Hounslow Early Years Development Profile (2002/2003). 10% increase in the number of schools where the majority of pupils achieve Early Learning Goals in all areas of development, during their reception year. (2004) LA targets for KS1 are met in NC tests. Pupils in at least 85% of schools identified in OFSTED inspections make average or above average progress in the Foundation Stage. Target met Partially met Draft trialled from June 2003 with very positive feedback from practitioners. Full profile ready for distribution with evaluation of take up planned in June 2004 Data not yet available Targets met by non mobile pupils In schools were inspected and met the target. In 7/8 achievement is good and in 3/8 it is very good LA Foundation Stage analysis Research and Statistics Section Audit reports of 50% of settings (EYAT) Notes of EYs team meetings, co-oridnator meeting, primary team minutes and EYDCP minutes Advisers Section LA analysis 2003 results - Research and Statistics Section

22 Changes/additions in School Improvement Activities for EDP Propose and run KS1 research project in conjunction with the DFES. Run conference for SMT and Able pupils co-ordinators. Update LA guidance in able pupil provision. Provide support through the Primary Leadership Programme to schools leadership teams through a range of strategies. Use audit information of PFML provision in primary schools and plan and prepare for a range of provision to support its development in school using a variety of pathways. To provide training to help schools review and consider the plan and design of their curriculum. To review and develop pupil assessment tools for isolated EAL learners termly programme of pupil EAL assessment in partnership with schools and designated EAL link teachers. School based training sessions in 16 targets schools. Sample lesson plans and project materials on HLS website and at HLS centre. Staff training using the EY/HLS EIC pilot video. To provide support an training on transition from FS to KS1 including the relationship between the ELGs for CCL in the FS and the national strategy initiative for speaking and listening. Implement Primary EiC and establish robust management and monitoring arrangements. 22

23 3.3 Priority 2: Raising Attainment 11 to 19 Data Analysis Key Stage 3 Target National Statistical Average Neighbours L Average English 57% 64% 71%(75) 76% 68% 65% Maths 52% 64% 68%(73) 75% 71% 67% Science 52% 62% 64%(65) 67% 68% 62% ICT N/A 54% 70%(70) 75% 67% N/A ( ) target for 2003 In 2002/03 there were 2712 pupils in Hounslow who were eligible (including those absent or disapplied) for the KS3 assessments. This includes pupils at special schools but excludes pupils recently arrived from overseas who do not have English as a first language. There is a rising trend at L5+ in all core subjects against the national average. There is also a rising trend against national average at L6+ in English and mathematics. Over five years the proportion of pupils achieving L5+ in English has risen by 12% compared with a national rise of 4%. In maths it has risen by 10% compared to a national rise of 5%. In science it has risen 14% compared to a national rise of 13%. In English Hounslow was 7% above its statistical neighbours. In Science it was 2% above and in mathematics it was 1% above. Pupil mobility is a significant factor affecting performance. Key Facts 71% achieved the target level of 5 or above in English an increase of 7% over 2001/02 and is 3% points above the national average for 2002/03. 68% achieved the target level of 5 or above in mathematics an increase of 4% over 2001/02 and is 3% points below the national average for 2002/03. 64% achieved the target level of 5 or above in science - an increase of 2% over 2001/02 and is 4% points below the national average for 2002/03. The average points scores (APS) for 2002/03 were: 33.4 for English an increase of 0.7 points over 2001/ for mathematics an increase of 0.8 points over 2001/ for science an increase of 0.5 points over 2001/02 Individual mainstream school performance rates show a range of 39% to 90% achieving level 5+ in English, 49% to 89% in maths and 44% to 85% in science. 23

24 In all subjects, girls did better at achieving level 5+ than boys. The difference in performance was statistically significant in English but not significant in either maths or science. Boys however made greater progress between KS2 and KS3 in maths and science. An analysis of the results by term of birth showed that those born in the autumn and spring term did better across all three subjects than those born in the summer term. There were no significant differences between KS2 to KS3 progress. The achievement levels and progress made by pupils who were eligible for free school meals was significantly lower across all three subjects than for those pupils who were not eligible for free school meals. One measure of the effect of turbulence on the percentage of pupils achieving level 5+ showed that those pupils who joined the school at the start of Year 7 did better than those who joined during Year 7 and significantly better than those who joined in Years 8 and 9. Generally the later they started at the school the lower their achievement levels. Pupils who had been at the school for the least amount of time showed the lowest rates of progress. The 2003 literacy target was 75% to achieve level 5+. The actual performance was 71%. The numeracy target for 2003 was 73% to achieve level 5+ and actual performance was 68%. The science target for 2003 was 65% to achieve level 5+ and actual performance was 64%. Hounslow s progress between KS2 and KS3 is 99.3, which compares with a national average of and is 0.1 points above the previous year s figure. English had the highest progress levels at 100.3, followed by maths at 99.9 and science at When compared to the nearest eleven LEAs in it s OfSTED family group Hounslow:- Ranked 2 nd in the number of pupils achieving the target level of 5 or above in English Ranked 5 th in the number of pupils achieving the target level of 5 or above in mathematics Ranked 4 th in the number of pupils achieving the target level of 5 or above in science Ranked 7 th for KS2 to KS3 value added measure Summary National value added measures show half of Hounslow schools have a better than average value added profile. There is a substantial gap between the LA 2004 target for Key Stage 3 and the 2003 results. The full implementation of the Key Stage 3 strategy will partly address the size of this gap. With recruitment issues in core subjects it is not possible to state with confidence that the LA will reach its 2004 targets. The EDP and the under-performing schools plan identify specific action to further improve standards in particular schools. 24

25 Key Stage 4 Target National Statistical Average Neighbours 2003 Average A* - C 42.3% 49.5% 52%(52) 53% 53% 48% 5A*-G N/A 89.2% 90%(91) 92% 89% 88% 1A*-G 93.3% 95.5% 95%(97.5) 98% 94.8% 94% Average (capped) Point Score (uncapped) N/A 34** ( ) Target for 2003 * Target to be revised in line with national requirements ** New methodology used therefore not comparable In 2002/03 there were 2638 pupils in Hounslow who were eligible (including those absent or disapplied) for GCSE/GNVQ. This includes pupils at special schools but excludes pupils recently arrived from overseas with little English. The performance of pupils at 5A* to C is 1.4% above the national average for all maintained schools (and all maintained London schools), 0.99% below for all schools but in line for all London schools. Key Facts 52% achieved 5+ A*-C - an increase of 2.5% from 2002 and 0.9% below the national average for 2002/ % achieved 5+ A*-G - an increase of 0.5% from 2002 and 0.9% above the national average for % achieved 1+ A*-G - an increase of 0.4% from 2002 and 0.3% above the national average for % of the cohort left school with no GCSE passes. The capped average points scores (APS) for 2003 was This is an increase of 0.3 points from 2002 and is 0.5 points below the national average for Hounslow met its 5A* to C target and was very close to meeting its other targets. Ten of the fourteen mainstream secondary schools met their 5A* to C target, seven met their 5A* to G target. Seven (out of thirteen) met their 1A* to G target and seven met their APS target. Individual mainstream performance rates show a range of 77% to 20% on 5A* to C indicator, 97% to 75% on the 5A* to G indicator and 100% to 86% on the 1A* to G indicator. The average point score ranges from 52 to

26 Against the 2006 floor target (25%) for 5A* to C Hounslow had one school below in The KS3 to GCSE/GNVQ LA value added measure is 99.9 where is the national average. This is 1.2 points above last year s performance. 69% Hounslow schools have a better than average value added profile with 50% in the top 25% of schools. The percentage of girls who achieved 5+ A*-C and 5+ A*-G was significantly higher than the percentage of boys achieving the same grades in Hounslow. An analysis of the results by term of birth showed that for both the uncapped APS and the capped APS those pupils born in the autumn term did better than those born in the spring term who in turn did better than those born in the summer term. In all categories the achievement of pupils who were eligible for free school meals was significantly lower than for those pupils who were not eligible for free school meals. One measure of the effect of turbulence on the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C and 5+ A*-G and of both their capped APS and uncapped APS showed that those pupils who joined the school before the start of Year 10 did significantly better than those who started during Year 10 who in turn did significantly better than those who started during Year 11. Generally the later they started at the school the lower their achievement levels. For all key indicators Hounslow was above its statistical neighbours, 5 A* - C was significantly above that of its statistical neighbours. When compared to the nearest eleven LEAs in it s Ofsted family group Hounslow: Ranked 3 rd on the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C Grades Ranked 5 th on the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-G Grades Ranked 4 th on the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-G Grades including English and Mathematics Ranked 6 th on the percentage of pupils achieving 1+ A*-G Grades Ranked 3 rd on the capped APS Ranked 4 th on the uncapped APS Ranked 5 th on the KS3 to GCSE/GNVQ value added measure 26

27 Summary Hounslow met its 5 A* - C target and was close to meeting its other targets. This represents a considerable improvement and continues the upward trend. This is despite high evidence of EAL needs, high and increasing mobility, pockets of significant social deprivation and three schools recognised as facing challenging circumstances. Pupil progress from KS3 to KS4 is broadly in line with the national average. One reason the LA is performing better at KS4 because schools are using target setting and pupil tracking effectively to better target under-performing pupils. Key Stage 5 GCE/VCE Average Point Score National Statistical Average Neighbours 2003 Average 2003 Per Student Per Entry In 2002/03 there were 1094 pupils in Hounslow who were eligible for GCE/VCE. Due to the new UCAS point system it would be inconsistent to use datasets prior to 2002 for comparison. There are no targets set at this level Area Inspection identified the following strengths and areas for development in relation to pupil performance post-16: Strengths Improvements in pupils motivation, participation and access to a wider curriculum and some improvements in achievements and retention. The wide curriculum offered at KS4 and the good and improving post-16 offer. The improved equality of opportunity for most learners resulting from the development of a more inclusive curriculum. The good teaching and learning in secondary and special schools. 27

28 Recent developments in joint strategic planning which build effectively on the collaboration and partnership developed by the LA. The inspection noted the good support for teaching and learning from Excellence in Cities and Aim Higher. The effective collaboration between schools and the college. The good provision by the Hounslow Language Service for refugees and those with EAL needs. Areas for Development The low point scores achieved on Advanced Level programmes and low pass rates on some vocational courses at KS4. The underachievement and poor progression of particular groups. The lack of coherent planning of progression routes across the Borough. The lack of an integrated data system to evaluate participation, achievement and the effect of initiatives. Key Facts The average points score (APS) per student for 2002/03 was This is an increase of 0.4 points from 2001/02 and is 61.5 points below the national average for 2002/03. The average point score per student and per entry is significantly below the national average and Hounslow s statistical neighbours. Female students achieved significantly higher average point score per student and average point score per entry than male entrants. Overall pass rates on vocational courses were low. Hounslow Education Business Partnership has been re-accredited with the National EBP Quality Award by the National EBP Network. The Assessors praised the Success is No Accident programme. Half of Hounslow s secondary schools have achieved specialist status. The average points per entry for 2002/03 was This is an increase of 0.5 points from 2001/02 and is 8.4 points below the national average for 2002/03. 28

29 When compared to the nearest eleven LEAs in it s Ofsted Family Group Hounslow: Ranked 10 th on the average point score (APS) per student Ranked 10 th on the average point score (APS) per examination entry Ranked 2 nd on the percentage of pupils achieving other advanced qualifications Ranked 8 th on the percentage of pupils achieving intermediate vocational qualifications Summary The Average Point Scores on Level 3 courses remains low but ALIS shows progress in line with expectations. There is scope for improvement in the staying on rate in some schools. The Aimhigher programme is beginning to impact on pupils aspirations in terms of entry to Higher Education. The LA post inspection action plan will identify strategies to address the areas for development identified in the Area Inspection. The LA audit of vocational provision at KS4 will identify good practice that will be shared with all schools in order to address the issues raised by the inspection. 29

30 Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 2.1 All primary schools use ICT to facilitate transfer of information. 85% of Year 7 students find the work in their first term of secondary school sufficiently challenging. All identified pupils identified as Gifted and Talented continue to achieve above the average progress for their age group. Electronic data transfer achieved. All schools use ICT to transfer information. Met but level of challenge in some Year 7 lessons remains an issue. KS2-KS3 value added for Gifted and Talented registered pupils is (LA average 99.3); KS3-KS (LA average 99.9). Research & Statistics and Admissions Sections. Pupil Attitude Survey Advisers Section LA analysis 2003 results - Research & Statistics Section 2.2 Continued improvement in levels of attainment achieved in the KS3 NC tests and teacher assessment. Achievement of the LA targets in the 2003 and 2004 NC tests. An improvement in boys performance that will bring them closer to the standard achieved by girls. English test results improved by 8%, maths by 5%, science by 2% and ICT by 14%. There were similar improvements in teacher assessment. Despite the significant improvements, the only target met was in ICT. In Hounslow, boys closed the gap with girls by 1% but girls overtook boys in both maths and science. In English, the gap is now the same as the national figure. In maths and science it is greater. LA analysis 2003 results - Research & Statistics Section LA 2003 results - Research and Statistics Section LA analysis 2003 results - Research and Statistics Section 30 30