HOUNSLOW EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2002-2007 OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE

HOUNSLOW EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2002-2007 OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE YEAR 3 2004-2005 APRIL 2004

EDP CONTENTS (Year 3) EDP 2 2004-2005 Page No. 1 Introduction 3 2 Targets 2.1 Targets at LA level, for KS 1, KS2, KS3 and KS4 for 2003 and 2004 2.2 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 (2002-2003) 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Priority 1: Raising Attainment in Early Years and Key Stages 1 and 2 3.3 Priority 2: Raising Attainment 11 to 19 3.4 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 4 4 5 5 6 6 8 9 11 12 12 23 35 58 63 67 80 4 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 104 105 125 199 204 207 208 2

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 2004-2005. 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 (2003-2004) 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

2. TARGETS 2.1 TABLE 1: LEA KS1 PERFORMANCE TARGETS Proportion of Year 2 pupils on roll expected to achieve Literacy Maths Academic Year 2003/2004 2004/2005 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 2003/2004 2004/2005 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 2003/2004 2004/2005 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

TABLE 4: LEA GCSE/GNVQ PERFORMANCE TARGETS Proportion of 15 year old pupils on roll expected to achieve Academic Year 2003/2004 2004/2005 5+ grades A*-C 53% 55% 5+ grades A*-G (inc. English and Maths) 92% N/A Average point score per pupil 41.0 42.0 2.2 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 2003/2004 2004/2005 6.5% 6.0% Secondary Schools Special Schools % half days missed % half days missed 7.5% 7.0% 8.5% N/A 5

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

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

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

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 2005. 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

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

3. EVALUATION OF THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2003-2004 11

3. EVALUATION OF THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2003-2004 3.1 The EDP ran from April 2003 to March 2004. The principal impact of the school improvement programme should therefore be seen in pupil attainment in test and examinations in Summer 2004. 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 2003-2004. 3.2 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 1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 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

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 2002. 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

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 102.5 for reading/comprehension, 96.2 to 101.4 in writing and 97.3 to 102.5 in maths where 100.0 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

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 1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 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) L4 2003 L5 83% 32% 75% 27 % 82% 32% 73% 29 % N/A N/A 87% 41 % Average 2003 73% 70% 84% Average Point Score 1999 English 26 26.6 26.4 26.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Maths 26.2 26.5 26.7 26.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Science 26.2 28.2 28.5 28.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A ( ) Target 2003 27.2 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

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 100.0. 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

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 2004. The EDP identifies action to further improve standards. 17

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 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 2006. 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

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 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

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 1.3 90% 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 2003-2004 - all references are at least satisfactory and two-thirds good or better. 2003-2004 JSR outcomes awaiting evaluation. 2003 outcomes 75% of schools judged good or better in this section but breadth and balance only cited in some. OFSTED reports - www.ofsted.gov.uk 2003 JSR outcomes Advisers Section and HVEC 1.4 77% 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

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 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 2003-4 8 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 www.ofsted.gov.uk 21 21

Changes/additions in School Improvement Activities for EDP2 2004-2005 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

3.3 Priority 2: Raising Attainment 11 to 19 Data Analysis Key Stage 3 Target National Statistical 1996 2002 2003 2004 Average Neighbours L5+ 2003 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 2001/02. 34.5 for mathematics an increase of 0.8 points over 2001/02 32.7 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

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 100.0 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 98.0. 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

Key Stage 4 Target National Statistical 1996 2002 2003 2004 Average Neighbours 2003 Average 2003 5A* - 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** 34.3 --- 34.8 33.2 41 41.0 ( ) 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 2002/03. 89.7% achieved 5+ A*-G - an increase of 0.5% from 2002 and 0.9% above the national average for 2003. 95.1% achieved 1+ A*-G - an increase of 0.4% from 2002 and 0.3% above the national average for 2003. 5% of the cohort left school with no GCSE passes. The capped average points scores (APS) for 2003 was 34.3. This is an increase of 0.3 points from 2002 and is 0.5 points below the national average for 2003. 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 24.2. 25

Against the 2006 floor target (25%) for 5A* to C Hounslow had one school below in 2003. The KS3 to GCSE/GNVQ LA value added measure is 99.9 where 100.0 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

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 2002 2003 Average Neighbours 2003 Average 2003 Per Student 196.7 197.1 258.6 224.1 Per Entry 68.5 69.0 77.4 72.3 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. 14-19 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

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 197.1. 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 69.0. This is an increase of 0.5 points from 2001/02 and is 8.4 points below the national average for 2002/03. 28

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 14 19 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

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 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 100.6 (LA average 99.3); KS3-KS4 103.3 (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

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 2.3 LA targets for GCSE are achieved in Summer 2003 and 2004. All secondary schools provide alternatives to GCSE for some pupils by September 2004. 100 pupils gain alternative accreditation in Summer 2003. Met for 2003. 2004 results not yet available. All but two schools provide alternative accreditation to GCSE. One school has been involved in planning for the implementation of a new WRL course that will start in 2004 and the SINA programme will support this development. Target exceeded. In 2003, 321 pupils achieved an alternative accreditation. The GNVQ Intermediate qualification was the most popular alternative qualification used by schools. 461 pupils were entered in total. 18 pupils achieved work-based qualifications in 2003 namely, NVQs and the OCR - Preparation for Work Qualification. In 2005 there will be a wider range of alternative course results because schools have implemented the new WRL qualifications with the current Year 10 pupils. LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section Audits HEBP Section LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section Audits HEBP Section 31 31

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 2.4 Achievement of all the annual and end of programme targets set out in the Excellence in Cities Plan (Hounslow Partnership, March 2001). Targets have been refined to take account of other programmes e.g. KS3 strategy and BIP. 19 out of 31 EiC targets have been achieved. Attainment at GCSE 5 A*-C and Level 6+ KS3 maths/science is strong. Inclusion targets have proved more difficult; attendance overall has improved strongly in line with targets whilst exclusions have risen in spite of the strong performance of Learning Mentor and LSU strands. However, there is evidence to suggest that LM and LSU interventions have limited the escalation in exclusions, as those students with long records of behavioural problems now make up a lower proportion of total exclusions. EiC target review Advisers Section Strand annual reports HVEC LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section LA analysis attendance and exclusion data Schools Section 2.5 An improvement in post-16 attainment as measured by value added analysis in Autumn 2004. All sixth form inspections, including area-wide inspection, find provision to be at least satisfactory. Data not available. APS per student up by 0.4 points and APS per entry up by 0.5 points in 2003. Area Inspection found: 1. Strategy satisfactory 2. Achievement satisfactory 3. Access good 4. Quality good 5. Guidance and Support satisfactory 6. Leadership and Management good LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section www.ofsted.gov.uk 32 32

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 2.6 Percentage increase in pupils at EAL Stages 2 & 3 achieving Level 5 at KS3 (targets Stage 2 = 1%, Stage 3 = 2%) Target exceeded. Percentage increase for KS3:- EAL Stage 2 = 6% EAL Stage 3 = 17% Percentage increase in pupils at EAL Stages 1 and 2 achieving accreditation at KS4 (GCSE 5 A*-G increase of 4%). Minimum of 90% pass for alternative ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) accreditation. Target met - Increase of 1% (5 A* - G). However, there was an increase of 30% (5 A* - C) Target exceeded. 86.5% of IGCSE entries achieved A* - G. 100% achieved Entry Level Certificates 93% achieved CLAIT ICT Certificate LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section 33 33

Changes/additions in School Improvement Activities for EDP2 2004-2005 Increase number of projects to support KS2 KS3 transition. Embed implementation of London Challenge transition (mathematics) across all schools. Establish models and projects to embed the use of data on gifted and talented pupils to support their primary-secondary transition and to raise standards. Identify talented PE pupils into secondary schools and ensure continuity and progression using SSCO programme. Further develop the pupil questionnaire. Further develop cross strand initiatives at Key Stage 3. Further develop the role of lead consultants in relation to cross-curricular activities and joint working across schools. Develop joined up intervention between the Key Stage 3 Strategy and Primary Excellence in Cities. Develop and implement guidelines for the most effective use of specialist schools in delivering cross-phase INSET and support. Draw up the post-area Inspection Action Plan and monitor implementation in accordance with LSC requirements. Ensure effective follow-up of the strategic review of post-16 education in Hounslow. Review and develop EAL assessment tools. Design and implement projects to raise the attainment of White working class pupils. 34

3.4 Priority 3: Narrowing Attainment Gaps and Tackling Underachievement Attendance Data Analysis LA PUPIL ATTENDANCE TARGETS; AUTHORISED AND UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE LA Target 2004 Actual Sept 03 April 04 Primary % half days missed 6.5% 6.0% Secondary % half days missed 7.5% 7.5% Special % half days missed 8.5% 16% Key Facts In primary attendance the interim performance data indicates an improvement from 93.6% to 94%. The national average was 93.9%. The 2003 target of 6.8% was exceeded by 0.2%. Secondary attendance continues to improve year on year and remains significantly above the national average. Attendance has improved from 92.2% in 2002 to 92.5% during 2003. The 2003 target of 7.8% was not met by 0.1%. Special school attendance has not improved this year so far. It is currently 3% down on last year. The data is influenced by one particular school which experiences attendance rates around 60%. The small number of pupils in this category means that the overall special school absence rate is distorted by the performance of one school which deals with challenging pupils with multi-complex family issues. As a result the 2003 target was not met. LPSA targets of 7% secondary absence and 6% primary absence have been set for an enhanced reduction in truancies by 2004-2005. Vulnerable pupils (e.g. SEN, Asylum, LAC Excluded pupils etc.) remain a focus group regarding attendance monitoring. There are however many other pupils who contribute to absence rates and they are being targeted, particularly those with regular short-term absences often condoned by parents. Attendance of traveller pupils increased by 1.1% from 2002 to 2003. Attendance of children in public care was 88%, just below the target figure of 90%. 35

Attendance at BIP schools continues to improve. More Hounslow (100% increase) parents (70+) are being prosecuted for not ensuring their children attend school regularly. New powers available to schools and local authorities are focusing on the enforcement of regular attendance and reductions in anti-social behaviour and youth crime. Exclusions Data Analysis Number of pupils permanently excluded during the year from all schools maintained by the local education authority per 1000 pupils at all maintained schools. 2000/1 2001-2002 2002-2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 56 ( 59 (61) 75 (74) 76 77 78 61) ( ) target Key Facts The principle underpinning the targets is a recognition of the underlying trend of a 6% year on year increase in projected exclusion numbers, which had been the trend for the previous three years, and an aspiration to reduce the rate of increase over time. The target set for 2003 was 74 permanent exclusions. The actual figure for 2002/2003 was 75 permanent exclusions. In order to set a target for 2005, the target of 77 for 2004 was used with a 1% increase applied. (This represents an aspirational prediction as opposed to the predicted trend forecast.) Fixed term exclusions for Black African-Caribbean pupils has reduced from 57 to 27. Permanent exclusions have risen from 3 to 6 during the first two terms of the academic year. The number of fixed term exclusions in BIP secondary schools has reduced by 40%. However, permanent exclusions continue to rise. BIP and KS3 Behaviour Strategy are being implemented. Overall in BIP schools there has been a large decrease in fixed term exclusions. 36

Children unable to attend school due to medical needs Data Analysis 18 pupils were referred 2002-2003; 8 pupils from Primary schools; 10 pupils from Secondary schools; 4 Year 11 pupils were entered for a range of examinations, 1 student taught at the PRS achieved GCSE A-C grades. 1 student taught by the Hospital and PRS achieved 4A* and 2 A GCSE grades. Key Facts Pupils who have been referred due to their medical needs are unable to attend full time at their mainstream school. They receive a minimum of 4 hours tuition per week in their homes, at the PRS or at a local library. Year 11 pupils on the PRS roll are entered for a range of examinations depending on their Baseline assessments and academic progress. Examinations include AEB Literacy and Numeracy in November and April, Certificate of Achievement in English, Welsh Board Entry Level in Mathematics and GCSE Maths/English. NICAS Level certificates are also presented for ICT achievements in word processing and Desktop Publishing. Pupils who are on a school roll are also supported in order to prepare for examinations and tutors liaise with the tutor/hoy for coursework. With one exception their performance was markedly below that of all other pupils. 37

Performance of Different Inclusion Groups Data Analysis Key Stage1 SEN No.of Reading/ Writing Maths Science TA Pupils Comprehension No SEN 1682 93% 92% 97% 95% School Action 425 65% 59% 81% 77% School Action Plus 174 43% 37% 63% 60% Statemented SEN 78 23% 23% 31% 26% Total 2359 82% 80% 89% 87% Diff: No SEN/School Action significant significant significant significant Diff: No SEN/School Action Plus significant significant significant significant Diff: No SEN/Statemented SEN significant significant significant significant EAL BY STAGE No.of Reading/ Writing Maths Science TA Pupils Comprehension No EAL Needs 1516 83% 80% 90% 89% EAL Stage 1 32 22% 16% 50% 25% EAL Stage 2 178 52% 52% 69% 59% EAL Stage 3 464 89% 87% 94% 91% EAL Stage 4 202 97% 94% 99% 98% Total 2392 82% 79% 90% 87% Diff: No Eal/Stage 1 significant significant significant significant Diff: No Eal/Stage 2 significant significant significant significant Diff: No Eal/Stage 3 significant significant significant not significant Diff: No Eal/Stage 4 significant significant significant significant ETHNICITY No.of Reading/ Writing Maths Science TA Pupils Comprehension White British - English 920 81% 78% 90% 89% Indian 421 90% 89% 94% 93% Pakistani 165 85% 82% 87% 87% Any other White background 74 78% 78% 92% 86% Black Somali 71 68% 68% 85% 77% Any other mixed background 64 89% 88% 89% 88% Afghanistani 60 63% 62% 73% 65% Black Caribbean 58 81% 76% 95% 90% Other Black African background 53 72% 66% 83% 77% Information not yet obtained 47 74% 72% 83% 89% Mixed/Dual White and Asian 39 82% 85% 87% 85% Mixed/Dual White & Black Caribbean 35 83% 83% 89% 89% Any other Ethnic Group 35 74% 66% 83% 80% Any other Asian background 29 86% 83% 93% 76% Any other Black background 29 79% 69% 86% 69% Arab other 29 83% 76% 93% 93% Sri Lankan Tamil 28 79% 75% 96% 79% Information Refused 28 86% 79% 96% 89% Other White British 25 96% 96% 100% 96% Mixed/Dual White & Black African 24 92% 88% 92% 92% Bangladeshi 21 71% 76% 71% 67% 38

White Irish 18 78% 61% 89% 72% Black Ghanaian 15 93% 93% 100% 87% Iranian 15 87% 80% 87% 87% Filipino 14 79% 86% 86% 86% White Kosovan 12 75% 67% 92% 83% Black Nigerian 12 92% 92% 92% 92% Iraqi 8 75% 75% 75% 75% White Albanian 5 80% 80% 100% 80% White Bosnian-Herzegovinian 5 80% 80% 100% 100% Chinese 5 100% 80% 100% 80% Lebanese 5 60% 80% 100% 60% White Traveller of Irish Heritage 4 0% 0% 0% 0% White Serbian 4 50% 75% 75% 75% Sinhalese 4 100% 100% 100% 100% White Croatian 3 67% 33% 100% 67% White British - Scottish 2 100% 100% 100% 100% White Gypsy/Roma 2 50% 50% 100% 50% Turkish/Turkish Cypriot 2 100% 100% 100% 100% White British - Welsh 1 100% 100% 100% 100% Kurdish 1 100% 100% 100% 0% Total 2392 82% 79% 90% 87% Diff: All/White British - English not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Indian significant significant significant significant Diff: All/Pakistani not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Black Somali significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Afghanistani significant significant significant significant Diff: All/Black Caribbean not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Mixed/Dual White and Asian not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Mixed/Dual White & BC not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Arab other not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Sri Lankan Tamil not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Mixed/Dual White & BA not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Bangladeshi not significant not significant not significant not significant TRAVELLER STATUS No.of Reading/ Writing Maths Science TA Pupils Comprehension Not Traveller 2375 82% 80% 90% 87% Traveller 17 24% 24% 53% 53% Total 2392 82% 79% 90% 87% Diff: Traveller/Not Traveller significant significant significant significant LOOKED AFTER STATUS No.of Reading/ Writing Maths Science TA Pupils Comprehension Not Looked After 2384 82% 79% 90% 87% Looked After 8 50% 63% 75% 88% Total 2392 82% 79% 90% 87% Diff: Not LAC/LAC not significant not significant not significant not significant The figures in bold represent the main ethnic groups consisting of 20 or more pupils. 39

Key Facts at Key Stage 1 An analysis of achievement levels by stage on the SEN register showed firstly that those not on the register did significantly better than those on the register, and secondly, the higher the stage the lower the performance levels. This pattern is mirrored when looking at the PIPS to KS1 progress rates. An analysis of the achievement levels by stage on the EAL register showed that those on stages 3 and 4 had the highest performance levels; the differences between these groups and those with no EAL being significant. Those at stages 1 and 2 did significantly less well than those not on the register with the stage 1 beginners showing the lowest performance, as would be expected. This pattern is mirrored when looking at the PIPS to KS1 progress rates. Focusing on the main ethnic groups of over 20 pupils, a breakdown of the results shows that in Reading/Comprehension, pupils in the Other White British group performed significantly better compared with the cohort as a whole. The Indian group and the Mixed dual White & Black African group also performed highly in all subjects. The lowest achievers among the main groups were Afghanistani, Somali and Bangladeshi. In maths, again the top-achieving group was Other White British, followed by Sri Lankan Tamil, Black Caribbean and Indian. The lowest achievers were Bangladeshi, Afghanistani, Other Black African and Somali. Looking at overall progress across all subjects, the Other White British group, any other White group and Bangladeshi pupils made the most progress, and Black Caribbean, White English and Other Black African pupils made the least amount of progress. There were 17 traveller children doing KS1 assessments this year. Their performance and PIPS to KS1 progress levels were below that of all other KS1 pupils. There were only 8 pupils on the looked after register at KS1 this year. Their performance was below that of all other KS1 pupils in Reading / Comprehension, Writing and Maths but above the LA average in Science, although none of these differences were statistically significant. Their overall PIPS to KS1 progress was significantly below those pupils not on the register. 40

Data Analysis Key Stage 2 SEN No.of English Maths Science Pupils No SEN 1710 92% 87% 95% School Action 390 48% 45% 71% School Action Plus 178 30% 35% 59% Statemented SEN 121 17% 23% 43% Total 2399 76% 73% 86% Diff: No SEN/Stage 1 Significant Significant Significant Diff: No SEN/Stage 2 Significant Significant Significant Diff: No SEN/Stage 3 Significant Significant Significant Diff: No SEN/Stage 4 Significant Significant Significant Diff: No SEN/Stage 5 Significant Significant Significant EAL BY STAGE No.of English Maths Science Pupils No EAL Needs 1599 76% 72% 85% EAL Stage 1 9 22% 33% 33% EAL Stage 2 47 34% 38% 51% EAL Stage 3 152 54% 47% 67% EAL Stage 4 593 86% 87% 95% Total 2400 76% 73% 86% Diff: No Eal/Stage 1 Significant Significant Significant Diff: No Eal/Stage 2 Significant Significant Significant Diff: No Eal/Stage 3 Significant Significant Significant Diff: No Eal/Stage 4 Significant Significant Significant ETHNICITY No.of English Maths Science Pupils White British - English 1019 72% 69% 84% Indian 459 86% 84% 94% Pakistani 170 77% 72% 84% Information not yet obtained 57 61% 65% 75% Any other White background 52 81% 77% 92% Any other mixed background 51 84% 84% 94% Afghanistani 46 59% 59% 70% Black Caribbean 44 64% 52% 80% Mixed/Dual White and Asian 41 90% 88% 93% Any other Ethnic Group 38 79% 68% 87% Other Black African background 36 69% 61% 81% Any other Asian background 34 85% 79% 94% Black Somali 34 50% 44% 65% Mixed/Dual White & Black Caribbean 33 79% 64% 85% Other White British 25 92% 92% 92% Any other Black background 25 80% 76% 84% Refused 22 77% 77% 86% Bangladeshi 21 71% 71% 67% Sri Lankan Tamil 20 90% 100% 95% White Irish 19 84% 84% 89% Mixed/Dual White & Black African 18 94% 89% 94% Arab other 18 83% 67% 89% 41

Filipino 16 94% 94% 94% Lebanese 15 73% 73% 80% Iranian 10 80% 80% 90% Black Ghanaian 9 89% 78% 100% Chinese 9 89% 89% 89% White Kosovan 8 38% 38% 50% Turkish/Turkish Cypriot 8 63% 63% 63% Black Nigerian 7 57% 71% 71% White British - Scottish 6 83% 83% 83% Sinhalese 5 80% 80% 80% Iraqi 5 80% 100% 100% White British - Welsh 4 50% 75% 75% Kurdish 4 75% 75% 100% White Traveller of Irish Heritage 3 67% 33% 33% White Albanian 2 0% 0% 0% White Bosnian-Herzegovinian 2 100% 100% 100% White Croatian 2 0% 0% 0% White Gypsy/Roma 1 100% 100% 100% White Serbian 1 0% 0% 0% Total 2399 76% 73% 86% TRAVELLER STATUS No.of English Maths Science Pupils Not Traveller 2384 76% 73% 86% Traveller 12 42% 33% 50% Total 2396 76% 73% 86% Diff: Traveller/Not Traveller Significant Significant Significant LOOKED AFTER STATUS No.of English Maths Science Pupils Not Looked After 2387 76% 73% 86% Looked After 12 33% 42% 67% Total 2399 76% 73% 86% Diff: Not LAC/LAC Significant Significant Not Significant The figures in bold represent the main ethnic groups consisting of 20 or more pupils. Key Facts at Key Stage 2 An analysis of achievement levels by stage on the SEN register showed firstly that those not on the register did significantly better than those on the register, and secondly, the higher the stage the lower the performance levels. In terms of progress, those with a statement showed the most amount of progress between KS1 and KS2. An analysis of the achievement levels by stage on the EAL register showed that those at stage 4 had the highest performance levels in all subjects; the differences between this group and other groups were significant. Those at stages 1-3 did significantly less well than those not on the register with the stage 1 beginners showing the lowest performance, as would be expected. In terms of progress, those at stages 2 and 3 made the greatest progress in English. Those at stage 4 made the most progress in Maths and Science. 42

Focusing on the main ethnic groups of over 20 pupils, a breakdown of the results shows that in English pupils in the Other White British group performed significantly better compared with the cohort as a whole. The Mixed Dual White & Asian group and the Sri Lankan Tamil group also performed highly in this subject. The lowest achievers in English were Somali and Afghanistani. In maths the top-achieving group was Sri Lankan Tamil followed by Other White British and Mixed dual White & Asian. The lowest achievers were Somali and Black Caribbean. In science the highest achieving group was again Sri Lankan Tamil, followed by Indian. The lowest achieving groups were Somali and Afghanistani. Looking at the progress of groups that had over 20 pupils with KS1 and KS2 results in English and maths, the most progress was made by the Other White Background and the least by Black Caribbean. In science, the most progress was made by the Other White British group and the least by the Other Mixed Background group. There were 12 Traveller children doing KS2 this year. Their performance was markedly below that of all other KS2 pupils. Their progress between KS1 and KS2 was however greater than the non-traveller group although the difference was only significant in science. There were 12 pupils on Hounslow s looked after register doing a KS2 assessment at a Hounslow school this year. Their performance was below that of other KS2 pupils in all 3 subjects although not significantly different in science. In terms of KS1 to KS2 progress this group made more progress in maths but the difference was not statistically significant, and less progress in English and science. The science difference was significantly lower than that made by all pupils in this subject. 43

Data Analysis Key Stage 3 SEN No.of English Maths Science Pupils No SEN 2016 82% 80% 75% School Action 471 47% 41% 37% School Action Plus 109 24% 23% 26% School Action Plus & Stat Assess 3 0% 33% 33% Statemented 104 14% 9% 12% Total 2703 71% 68% 64% Diff: No SEN/SA Significant Significant Significant Diff: No SEN/SA+ Significant Significant Significant Diff: No SEN/SA+ & St A Significant Significant Significant Diff: No SEN/Statemented Significant Significant Significant EAL BY STAGE No.of English Maths Science Pupils APR APR APR No EAL Needs 1252 99.7 99.2 97.6 EAL Stage 1 2 97.0 100.0 97.0 EAL Stage 2 14 100.9 100.4 97.4 EAL Stage 3 181 100.4 99.5 98.8 EAL Stage 4 819 101.3 101.3 98.7 Total 2268 100.3 99.9 98.0 Diff: No EAL/Stage 1 significant not significant not significant Diff: No EAL/Stage 2 significant not significant not significant Diff: No EAL/Stage 3 significant not significant significant Diff: No EAL/Stage 4 significant significant significant ETHNICITY No.of English Maths Science Pupils White British - English 1076 66% 65% 63% Indian 563 79% 77% 73% Pakistani 206 75% 64% 62% Any other Ethnic Group 97 69% 69% 68% Other Black African background 92 62% 50% 48% Black Caribbean 78 68% 59% 45% Any other White background 75 75% 76% 79% Refused 53 81% 68% 72% Any other Black background 37 68% 59% 57% White Irish 34 71% 74% 71% Any other mixed background 34 74% 56% 59% Mixed/Dual White & BC 31 84% 81% 74% Black Somali 28 54% 39% 29% Afghanistani 27 52% 44% 30% Any other Asian background 26 77% 58% 58% Mixed/Dual White and Asian 25 80% 88% 68% Other White British 23 83% 74% 78% Bangladeshi 20 80% 75% 75% Black Ghanaian 20 80% 65% 50% Arab other 19 68% 63% 53% 44

Iranian 19 53% 74% 47% Black Nigerian 17 59% 65% 41% Chinese 15 93% 100% 80% Sri Lankan Tamil 13 100% 100% 92% Filipino 12 92% 83% 100% Mixed/Dual White & Black African 11 91% 91% 82% Iraqi 8 88% 75% 75% Lebanese 8 75% 63% 63% Information not yet obtained 7 57% 71% 71% White Traveller of Irish Heritage 5 20% 20% 0% White Kosovan 5 80% 80% 20% White British - Welsh 4 50% 50% 50% Turkish/Turkish Cypriot 4 100% 100% 50% White British - Scottish 3 100% 100% 100% Sinhalese 3 100% 100% 100% White Bosnian-Herzegovinian 2 0% 0% 0% White Albanian 1 0% 0% 0% White Gypsy/Roma 0 0% 0% 0% White Croatian 0 0% 0% 0% White Serbian 0 0% 0% 0% Kurdish 0 0% 0% 0% Total 2701 71% 68% 64% All/White British - English Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Indian Significant Significant Significant All/Pakistani Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Any other Ethnic Group Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Other Black African background Not Significant Significant Significant All/Black Caribbean Not Significant Not Significant Significant All/Any other White background Not Significant Not Significant Significant All/Refused Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Any other Black background Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/White Irish Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Any other mixed background Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Mixed/Dual White & BC Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Black Somali Not Significant Significant Significant All/Afghanistani Not Significant Significant Significant All/Any other Asian background Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Mixed/Dual White and Asian Not Significant Significant Not Significant All/Other White British Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Bangladeshi Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant All/Black Ghanaian Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant TRAVELLER STATUS No.of English Maths Science Pupils Not Traveller 2692 71% 68% 64% Traveller 11 18% 27% 9% Total 2703 71% 68% 64% Diff: Traveller/Not Traveller Significant Significant Significant 45

LOOKED AFTER STATUS No.of English Maths Science Pupils Not Looked After 2695 71% 68% 64% Looked After 8 25% 13% 25% Total 2703 71% 68% 64% Diff: Not LAC/LAC Significant Significant Significant The figures in bold represent the main ethnic groups consisting of 20 or more pupils. Key Facts at Key Stage 3 An analysis of the percentage of pupils achieving level 5+ by stage on the SEN register showed firstly that those not on the register did significantly better than those on the register, and secondly, the higher the stage the lower the performance levels. Those not on the SEN register showed the greatest amount of progress between KS2 and KS3. An analysis of the achievement levels by stage on the EAL register showed that those on stage 4 had the highest achievement levels overall, including when compared to those pupils with no EAL needs. Those at stages 1 and 2 did significantly less well than those pupils at Stages 3 and 4 and those with no EAL needs. Those at stage 4 also showed the greatest amount of progress. Focusing on the main ethnic groups of over 20 pupils, a breakdown of the results shows that - In English, the highest achievers were in the Mixed/Dual White & BC, Other White British, Mixed/Dual White and Asian, Bangladeshi, Black Ghanaian and Indian groups. The lowest achievers among the main groups were Afghanistani, Somali, Other Black African and White British English. In Maths, the top achieving groups were Mixed/Dual White and Asian, Mixed/Dual White & BC, Indian, any other White Background and Bangladeshi. The lowest achievers were Afghanistani, Other Black African, Somali, any other mixed background and any other Asian background. In Science, the highest achievers were in the any other white background, other White British, Bangladeshi, Mixed Dual White & BC and Indian groups. The lowest achievers among the main groups were Somali, Afghanistani, Black Caribbean, Other Black African Background and Black Ghanaian. In terms of KS2 to KS3 progress In English, the groups showing the greatest progress were Other Mixed Background and Pakistani. The White Irish and White British groups showed the least amount of progress. 46

In Maths, the groups showing the greatest progress were Indian and Other White Background. The White Irish and Other Black African groups showed the least amount of progress. In Science, the groups showing the greatest progress were Other White and Other White British. The Black Caribbean and White Irish groups showed the least amount of progress. There were 11 traveller children at KS3 this year. Their achievement levels were significantly below that of all other KS3 pupils, as was their KS2 to KS3 progress particularly in English and Science. There were 8 pupils on the Hounslow looked after register at KS3 this year. Their achievement was significantly below that of all other KS3 pupils in all three subjects. There was no significant difference in their KS2 to KS3 progress. 47

Data Analysis Key Stage 4 SEN STATUS No.of Average Capped Average % Achieving % Achieving % Achieving Pupils Point Score Points Score 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-G 1+ A*-G No SEN 2115 44.7 38.0 61% 95% 99% School Action 348 27.2 24.3 22% 81% 97% School Action + 58 17.5 16.8 9% 76% 93% School Action + & Stat Assessment 0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% Statemented SEN 79 15.7 14.8 5% 59% 97% Total 2600 40.8 35.0 53% 92% 99% Diff: No SEN/ School Action significant significant significant significant not significant Diff: No SEN/ School Action Plus significant significant significant significant not significant Diff: No SEN/ School Action Plus & St. Ass - - - - - Diff: No SEN/Statemented SEN significant significant significant significant not significant EAL BY STAGE No.of Average Capped Average % Achieving % Achieving % Achieving Pupils Point Score Points Score 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-G 1+ A*-G No EAL Needs 1412 36.6 32.1 45% 88% 98% EAL stage 1 2 2.5 2.5 0% 0% 100% EAL stage 2 27 28.7 22.9 33% 67% 89% EAL stage 3 190 30.4 27.0 24% 91% 99% EAL stage 4 973 49.2 41.0 70% 98% 100% Total 2604 40.8 35.0 53% 92% 99% Diff: No EAL Needs/ EAL Stage 1 significant significant significant significant not significant Diff: No EAL Needs/ EAL Stage 2 significant significant not significant significant not significant Diff: No EAL Needs/ EAL Stage 3 significant significant significant not significant not significant Diff: No EAL Needs/ EAL Stage 4 significant significant significant significant not significant ETHNICITY No.of Average Capped Average % Achieving % Achieving % Achieving Pupils Point Score Points Score 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-G 1+ A*-G White British - English 987 35.2 31.1 42% 88% 97% Indian 603 48.3 40.0 68% 97% 100% Pakistani 186 44.1 36.6 54% 95% 100% Any other White background 111 45.0 38.9 60% 95% 100% Any other Ethnic Group 86 38.4 33.6 48% 86% 98% Black Caribbean 79 33.6 29.4 34% 90% 100% Other Black African background 77 32.8 28.8 39% 90% 96% Refused 70 47.4 39.4 66% 96% 100% Any other mixed background 43 43.7 37.5 51% 95% 100% White Irish 32 56.6 46.4 81% 100% 100% Any other Black background 32 39.9 35.0 56% 88% 97% Other White British 27 52.1 44.4 78% 100% 100% Mixed/Dual White & BC 26 34.5 30.3 42% 88% 96% Any other Asian background 23 49.6 40.1 74% 87% 100% Black Somali 23 29.3 26.2 30% 87% 96% Mixed/Dual White and Asian 21 54.9 45.9 81% 100% 100% Bangladeshi 18 33.9 29.4 39% 89% 100% Information not yet obtained 18 27.8 25.8 39% 67% 89% 48

Black Nigerian 15 45.7 38.9 67% 93% 100% Sri Lankan Tamil 14 50.8 42.9 79% 93% 100% Black Ghanaian 13 43.8 37.6 77% 100% 100% Afghanistani 13 24.0 21.6 8% 85% 100% Filipino 13 48.2 41.3 69% 100% 100% Iranian 13 46.8 41.5 62% 100% 100% Chinese 11 60.8 49.9 100% 100% 100% Arab other 9 34.6 29.7 44% 78% 78% White British - Scottish 6 33.4 31.1 33% 83% 100% White Kosovan 6 17.9 16.8 0% 83% 100% Mixed/Dual White & Black African 6 41.3 35.2 50% 100% 100% Lebanese 6 40.8 35.3 67% 83% 100% Iraqi 4 38.5 35.3 50% 100% 100% White British - Welsh 2 22.0 20.5 0% 50% 100% White Gypsy/Roma 2 36.5 31.0 50% 100% 100% White Albanian 2 44.5 40.0 50% 100% 100% White Croatian 2 43.0 36.5 50% 100% 100% White Traveller of Irish Heritage 1 42.0 39.0 100% 100% 100% White Bosnian-Herzegovinian 1 49.0 45.0 100% 100% 100% White Serbian 1 63.0 57.0 100% 100% 100% Turkish/Turkish Cypriot 1 62.5 52.5 100% 100% 100% Kurdish 1 52.0 46.0 100% 100% 100% Total 2604 40.8 35.0 53% 92% 99% Diff: All/White British - English significant significant significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Indian significant significant significant significant not significant Diff: All/Pakistani significant significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Any other White background significant significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Any other Ethnic Group significant significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Black Caribbean significant significant significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Other Black African background significant significant significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Refused significant significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Any other mixed background significant significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/White Irish significant significant significant significant not significant Diff: All/Any other Black background significant not significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Other White British significant significant significant significant not significant Diff: All/Mixed/Dual White & BC significant significant not significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Any other Asian background significant significant significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Black Somali significant significant significant not significant not significant Diff: All/Mixed/Dual White and Asian significant significant significant significant not significant TRAVELLER STATUS No.of Average Capped Average % Achieving % Achieving % Achieving Pupils Point Score Points Score 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-G 1+ A*-G Not Traveller 2601 40.8 35.0 53% 92% 99% Traveller 3 15.0 14.7 0% 67% 67% Total 2604 40.8 35.0 53% 92% 99% Diff: Traveller/Not Traveller significant significant significant not significant not significant 49

LOOKED AFTER STATUS No.of Average Capped Average % Achieving % Achieving % Achieving Pupils Point Score Points Score 5+ A*-C 5+ A*-G 1+ A*-G Looked After 10 22.2 20.5 20% 60% 90% Not Looked After 2594 40.8 35.0 53% 92% 99% Total 2604 40.8 35.0 53% 92% 99% Diff: LAC/No LAC significant significant significant significant not significant The figures in bold represent the main ethnic groups consisting of 20 or more pupils. Key Facts at Key Stage 4 An analysis of the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C and 5+A*-G and of both their capped APS and uncapped APS by stage on the SEN register showed firstly that those not on the register did significantly better than those on the register, and secondly, the higher the stage the lower the achievement levels. There was no significant difference between those on the SEN Register and those with no SEN when comparing achievement of the percentage of pupils achieving 1+ A*-G. An analysis of the achievement levels by stage on the EAL register showed that those on stage 4 had the highest achievement levels overall, including when compared to those with no EAL needs. Those at Stages 1 and 2 did significantly less well than those pupils at Stages 3 and 4 and those with no EAL needs. Generally the higher the EAL level the better the achievement. Focusing on the main ethnic groups of over 20 pupils, a breakdown of the results shows that - The highest achievers were in the White Irish, Mixed Dual White and Asian, Other White British, Any Other Asian Background and Indian groups. The lowest achievers were in the Black Somali, Other Black African Background, Black Caribbean, Mixed Dual White & BC and White British English groups. There were 3 traveller children at this stage. Their achievement level was significantly below that of all other pupils in the categories of achieving 5+ A*- C and 5+ A*-G and of both their capped APS and uncapped APS. There were 8 pupils on the looked after register. Their achievement was significantly below that of those pupils not looked after in achieving 5+ A*-C and 5+ A*-G and of both their capped APS and uncapped APS. 50

Data Analysis Key Stage 5 ETHNICITY No.of Average Point Score Average Point Score Pupils Per Student Per Entry Indian 435 205.0 66.2 White British - English 255 198.9 65.2 Pakistani 100 200.1 67.1 Any other White background 40 201.3 65.6 Refused 40 268.3 81.0 Any other Asian background 23 152.2 64.9 Other Black African background 23 179.6 61.4 Other White British 18 221.7 69.0 White Irish 14 175.0 59.0 Black Caribbean 14 190.7 67.2 Any other Ethnic Group 14 171.4 58.5 Chinese 11 195.5 71.0 Iraqi 10 183.0 62.7 Any other mixed background 9 216.7 66.3 Mixed/Dual White and Asian 8 203.8 61.5 Bangladeshi 8 188.8 73.0 Filipino 8 273.8 85.0 Iranian 8 212.5 75.5 Information not yet obtained 8 72.5 59.4 Mixed/Dual White & Black Caribbean 6 205.0 63.5 Black Nigerian 6 138.3 55.9 White British - Scottish 5 248.0 77.0 Black Ghanaian 5 290.0 85.0 Black Somali 5 160.0 58.0 Lebanese 5 242.0 81.5 Afghanistani 4 117.5 51.5 Any other Black background 3 200.0 59.7 Mixed/Dual White & Black African 2 110.0 44.0 Sinhalese 2 230.0 71.4 Arab other 2 185.0 62.5 White British - Welsh 1 310.0 88.6 White Albanian 1 350.0 100.0 Sri Lankan Tamil 1 260.0 86.7 Total 1094 202.1 66.5 Diff:All/Indian significant significant Diff:All/White British - English significant significant Diff:All/Pakistani significant significant Diff:All/Any other White background significant significant Diff:All/Refused significant significant Diff:All/Any other Asian background significant significant Diff:All/Other Black African background significant significant The figures in bold represent the main ethnic groups consisting of 20 or more pupils. No data is analysed at KS5 for the other inclusion groups. 51

Key Facts Focusing on the main ethnic groups of over 20 pupils, a breakdown of the results shows that: the highest achievers were in the Indian, Any Other White Background and Pakistani groups. the lowest achievers were in the Any Other Asian Background, Other Black African Background and White British English groups. Summary Overall, pupil attendance continues to improve and it is expected that this will be reflected in the attendance of pupils in the target groups when the data is analysed. Behaviour audits in the BIP schools provide positive messages. However, whilst the fixed term exclusions figures show an improvement in BIP schools generally and for Black-Caribbean boys, the number of permanent exclusions continues to increase. Improving the methods of engaging disaffected and vulnerable young people and improving educational and social outcomes continues to be a priority for the revised EDP. The pattern of achievement for the group of pupils targeted within this priority is patchy, with some positive progress in the areas of SEN, EAL Asylum Seekers/ Refugees and pupils and families supported through the enrichment activities. However, the poor attainment of pupils in public care and White boys is an ongoing cause for concern. Targets for under-performing minority ethnic groups were set for 2002 and 2004 and the progress of these groups across two years will be evaluated when results are available for 2004. 52

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 3.1 By 2004-90% of pupils who change schools, including Forces children, to attain in line with value added prediction. 68% targeted KS3/4 and 72% KS1/2 EAL Stage 1-3 refugee/asylum seeker pupils to progress through 1 EAL Stage. Increased attainment 2% increase in percentage of Traveller pupils at Key Stage 1 achieving L2+ and L4+ at KS2. 60% of pupils in public care achieve 1 GCSE A* - G. Data not yet available. Target exceeded in 2003 KS1/2 = 74%, KS3/4 = 71%. At KS1 not achieved significant decrease in performance. At KS2 target significantly exceeded in all core subjects. 45% of pupils leaving care achieved 1 GCSE Annual EAL Refugee/asylum seeker pupil progress database Hounslow Language Service Section LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section Increased attendance 2% increase in attendance by Traveller pupils in Key Stage 3 and 4. 90% attendance for pupils in public care. Achieved. Increase of 1.1%. Average of 88% attendance recorded for all pupils in public care. Social Education Unit return Schools Section Termly collation of figures from all schools with Traveller pupils on roll Schools Section 53 53

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 3.2 All schools can show progress for SEN/Disabled pupils at all key stages. To increase the proportion of statemented pupils working successfully in mainstream secondary schools Achieve BIP Targets All schools use appropriate attainment measures for pupils working below NC Level 1 Achieved. All schools hold annual reviews within required timescales or are followed up. Where progress is not being made, SEN Panel takes appropriate action e.g. advice to schools, funding adjusted, more suitable placement identified. Data shows greater progress by some SEN categories than average. Number of pupils with new statements placed in mainstream school or Centre increased from 72% to 76%. Behaviour Audits completed in 19 schools. Fixed Term exclusions reduced by 40%. All BEST Teams fully staffed. Attendance in BIP Schools is improving, but targets have not been met overall. Approx 85% schools record progress/attainment of pupils of pupils working below NC level 1 using P scales. Records of annual review, annual review minutes of meetings and pupils files, SEN Panel minutes Audit Commission Data Inclusion Section BIP Co-ordinator Survey Advisers Section Supporting documents for referrals for statutory assessment Inclusion Section 54 54

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 3.3 Study Support Centre activities show evidence of increased pupil achievement. 70 families involved in Family Learning Projects, 80% of adults achieving accreditation. All Hounslow schools working at Level 3 of the National Standard for Healthy Schools. Target met. Evidence shows increased pupil achievement Target exceeded. 103 families took part in Family learning programmes during summer and autumn terms. The Level 3 standard has been revised to become more challenging. 32 of 80 schools have achieved this standard to meet the criteria by 2006, in line with National Targets. All schools on target to achieve this by 2006 in line with National targets. Audit report carried out by external consultant HEBP Section Family learning reports which are produced at the end of each project Partnership Section PCT/FACT reports and records Partnership Section Adviser evaluation visits of cohorts 1 and 2 Advisers Section External evaluator report available from Adviser Advisers Section 55 55

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 3.4 Meet LA targets for attainment of minority ethnic groups and white UK boys that are achieving below LA averages. Reduced incidence of exclusion of targeted groups. Data not yet available. Targets were set for 2002 and 2004 only. In 2002, targets for the attainment of minority ethnic pupils were predominantly met for 5A* to C but were not met consistently at KS2. This is a similar pattern for White boys. Data for the number of exclusions of Black African-Caribbean pupils for 2004 still incomplete. Total number of permanent exclusions for this group in Autumn 2002 and Spring Terms 2003 was 3, and Fixed Term was 57. For Autumn Term 2003 and Spring Term 2004 it was 6 Permanent and 23 Fixed Term. Permanent exclusions for this group has increased from 3 to 6 and Fixed Term exclusions deceased from 57 to 23. LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section Exclusion Data Analysis Schools Section 56 56

Changes/additions in School Improvement Activities for EDP2 2004-2005 Plan and deliver suitable flexible response programmes, including the use of e learning, to newly arrived asylum seeker/refugee pupils, children in public care and sick children educated at home. Appoint e learning specialist teacher and provide staff training. Monitor impact of programmes on attendance. Develop a training programme for TAs to support a range of pupils with SEN. Put on new courses for pre-school children and KS2 through the Family and Community Team. Deliver 4 cross LA UFA training events. Develop the work of the Study Support Strategy Group and the Griffin Park Learning Zone Steering Group. Roll out of National Certification for Community Nurses. Further development of the school-based Health Service project. 57

3.5 Priority 4: School Improvement through self evaluation and support for schools causing concern. Data Analysis Ofsted/ HMI inspections during 2003-04 found that: 1 school under-achieving. - the school has made progress according to the HMI visit. 1 school with serious weaknesses - some concerns about the schools management and leadership according to HMI visit. 1 school no longer required special measures. Key Facts 3 identified schools were inspected and found to be effective. Ongoing assessment has been found to be at least satisfactory in all schools inspected and as a strength in 25%. The focus of the school self evaluation project has shifted over the year and developing the capacity of governing bodies to participate in this process is the key factor which needs to be addressed. Summary Monitoring by the LA shows that the majority of identified schools have made significant progress including the 3 London Challenge keys to success schools. The 1 school underachieving in a previous inspection was found by HMI to be making good progress. However 2 of the identified schools show a decline in effectiveness and 1 school has been found to have serious weaknesses. 58

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 4.1 All identified schools make at least satisfactory progress against key issues. All identified schools, if inspected or monitored by HMI, receive a positive report. Any schools in serious weaknesses or special measures come out in accordance with national timescales. 6 out of 9 LEA identified schools made significant progress and had an improved profile in the Joint School Review. One had the same profile and two schools showed a decline in effectiveness. Identified schools were inspected and were found to be effective. One school was monitored by HMI and found be making good progress. One school was found to have serious weaknesses One school was removed from special measures. The 3 London Challenge keys to success schools were all found in the JSR to be at least effective JSR outcomes Advisers Section HMI monitoring reports Advisers Section 59 59

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 4.2 90% of references to assessment in OFSTED reports are at least satisfactory. Pupil progress in 90% of schools targeted improves to at least satisfactory compared to national rates of progress. In Ofsted reports, ongoing assessment has been found to be at least satisfactory in all schools inspected, good or better in 50% of schools and a strength of the school in 25% Feedback from teachers in the project and work sampling shows that the strategies are having a positive impact on pupil progress. National comparisons not available until the autumn term after SATs publication www.ofsted.gov.uk Lesson observations Advisers Section Notes of network meetings and line management meetings Advisers Section 4.3 Feedback from schools confirms that the analysis provided is used to identify strengths and areas for development. LA is able to identify and support schools causing concern efficiently and effectively. Positive feedback from school. Outcomes of advisers attached visits show that schools are becoming more effective in using data. Schools causing concern were identified. These judgements were shared with and accepted by schools as being grounded in objective data analysis. Support plans were put into place to meet identified areas for development. Notes of visit Advisers Section Minutes of meeting Advisers Section Notes of visit Advisers Section Support plans/monitoring reports Advisers Section 60 60

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities 4.4 Specific examples of very effective practice identified as above expectations in 10% of schools. 10% of schools show improved profile. All joint review reports are comprehensive and make appropriate judgements based on agreed criteria. 16% of schools have been found to be highly effective and 39% have some aspects of highly effective practice 32% of schools show an improved profile and 26% show a decline in profile, giving a net improvement of 6%. Target met. The moderation of judgements has been more thorough and evidence available shows that judgements are more consistent. JSR reports 2003 Advisers Section 61 4.5 All identified schools have an effective system of self review. All identified governing bodies have a Governor Action Plan. All of the identified schools have regard for the principles of best value. JSR outcomes show that schools in the first cohort of this project improved their capacity to undertake self evaluation. The focus of the project has shifted during the year as it became clear that developing the capacity of governing bodies is the key factor that needs to be addressed in many schools. 10 schools undertook the Index for Governance during the year and developed an action plan to address the outcomes. All schools have regard for principles of best value. 61 JSR Report 2003 Advisers Section Records of Governor training Governing Body Section LA information EMT team

Changes/additions in School Improvement Activities for EDP2 2004-2005 The establishment of networking groups of target schools supported by key staff from schools with excellent practice. Provision of termly seminars for assessment co-ordinators on aspects of AfL Review the analysis provided by the Fischer Family Trust for GSCE 2003 and consult schools about its usefulness with a view to including their analysis as part of the LA s programme. Support for schools in the use of Pupil Achievement Tracker. Ensure compatibility with national models for self evaluation. Developing the role of governors in school self evaluation. To improve the skills of governing bodies through the use of the Index for Governance. 62

3.6 Priority 5: Raising standards through the effective use of ICT Data Analysis In information technology at KS3, 70% achieved Level 5 or above which is 3% above the national average and an increase of 14% from the previous year. All schools were connected to the London Grid for Learning Core Network by fibre optic link by January 2004. This was achieved 6 months earlier than the Hounslow Target of August 2004. Hounslow is the first London Borough to have achieved 100% of schools connected by fibre link to the LGfL. (The DfES Target is all schools by August 2006) Only one school inspected by Ofsted during this period was deemed to be unsatisfactory in respect of ICT provision. The majority of schools were deemed to have made significant progress since their previous inspection and in 45% of schools ICT provision were judged to be good or very good. Key Facts In 2003 attainment at KS3, as measured by teacher assessment, was above the national average. There is evidence from school review that teacher assessment still remains inconsistent. The Green School for Girls and Alexandra Junior School, were the only two schools in London to be awarded LGfL/Digitalbrain Exemplar Status for 2003/04, for outstanding work in developing effective whole school use of the LGfL Portal and Digitalbrain to enhance teaching, promote independent learning and support leadership and management. The Green School is the first secondary school in the country to have been awarded this status. The Hounslow ICT Review (2003) has provided a valuable overview and baseline of ICT provision across all schools in the Borough. It indicates that the LA targets for raising attainment in ICT have been met by most schools at all Key Stages and are steadily improving. Summary The LA wishes to build upon the excellent practice found in the Green School and Alexandra Junior School. Both are making very effective use of the LGfL Portal and Digitalbrain and a priority is to develop training opportunities to disseminate this practice to other schools. A key priority remains in ensuring teacher assessment at all phases is robust and LA targets are met. 63

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 5.1 All schools connected to the London Grid for Learning by August 2004. Pupils make effective use of LGFL resources. 5.2 LA targets for ICT met. No new schools being deemed by Ofsted to be underachieving in ICT. ICT provision for targeted schools is judged to be at least satisfactory. 6 schools to gain NAACE ICT Quality Mark. Target met 6 months early Excellent practice found in 2 schools (LGfL Exemplar Schools). Leading teachers are supporting LA to disseminate this practice to other schools to ensure all pupils make effective use of LGFL resources. Target met (2003) Hounslow ICT Review 2003 indicates most schools are raising ICT attainment and steadily improving. Only one school inspected by Ofsted was deemed to be unsatisfactory. 50% of schools had made significant progress since their previous inspection and their provision is good or very good. Targeted schools for ICT development have made good progress and are now providing at least satisfactory provision. Target not met but NAACE ICT Quality Mark framework has been presented to 8 schools. LGfL Completion list for Hounslow Advisers Section LGfL / Digitalbrain Exemplar Schools Roll of Honour Advisers Section Support Plans Advisers Section LA Analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section Hounslow ICT Review HVEC Schools inspection reports www.ofsted.gov.uk Monitoring visits to targeted schools to evaluate impact in the classroom Advisers Section INSET data Advisers Section 64 64

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 5.2 contd. NAACE Mark development is in progress in both leading edge schools and is also being used as a leadership and management model for ICT targeted schools. Notes of visit Advisers Section 5.3 90% of references to the Leadership and Management of ICT in Ofsted reports are at least satisfactory. The LA target for the percentage of pupils attaining Level 5+ in ICT at KS3 in 2003 and 2004 are met. Target exceeded at 96% Only one report has highlighted leadership and management of ICT as being unsatisfactory. Target met 2003. 70% achieved L5 and above. This is an increase of 14% from the previous year. www.ofsted.gov.uk LA analysis 2003 results Research and Statistics Section 65 65

Changes/additions in School Improvement Activities for EDP2 2004-2005 To work with secondary schools to implement the ICT in London schools Interactive Whiteboard Initiative. To encourage schools to review and improve their internal ICT networks. To use leading teachers to support the raising of attainment in identified schools. To develop a process for monitoring the quality of teacher assessments to standardise judgements in ICT. To encourage Headteachers to participate in the NCSL School Leadership in ICT scheme (SLICT). To co-ordinate the use of the CLCs to ensure consistent practice in ICT. 66

3.7 Priority 6: The Recruitment, Retention and Development of Staff 67

Data Analysis HOUNSLOW VACANCY SURVEYS 2000-2004 PRIMARY SECONDARY SPECIAL TOTAL SEPTEMBER 2000 60 (6.79%) 37 (4.25%) 4 (5.71%) 101 (5.53%) JANUARY 2001 71 (8.03%) 49 (5.63%) 2 (2.86%) 122 (6.68%) APRIL 2001 77 (8.71%) 54 (6.20%) 5 (7.14%) 136 (7.45%) SEPTEMBER 2001 55 (6.15%) 59 (5.63%) 5 (6.67%) 119 (5.90%) JANUARY 2002 65 (7.27%) 67 (6.39%) 7 (9.33%) 139 (6.89%) APRIL 2002 79 (8.84%) 93 (8.87%) 6 (8.00%) 178 (8.82%) SEPTEMBER 2002 67 (7.57%) 90 (8.26%) 7 (10.14%) 164 (8.02%) JANUARY 2003 65 (7.34%) 92 (8.44%) 4 (5.79%) 161 (7.88%) APRIL 2003 50 (5.65%) 75 (6.88%) 5 (7.25%) 130 (6.36%) SEPTEMBER 2003 52 (6.00%) 70 (6.70%) 8 (10.39%) 130 (6.54%) JANUARY 2004 47 (5.42%) 79 (7.56%) 9 (11.68%) 135 (6.79%) APRIL 2004 54 (6.19%) 98 (9.17%) 6 (7.40%) 158 (7.81%) 68 68

April 2004 Vacancies Primary Secondary Special No. vacant for less than a term 3 8 1 No. vacant for 1 term 18 22 2 No. vacant for 2 terms 8 12 1 No. vacant for 3+ terms 18 31 5 Number of overseas trained teachers employed in Hounslow. Primary Secondary Special Total January 2001 36 42 4 82 September 2001 58 77 6 141 January 2002 58 57 4 119 April 2002 71 79 5 155 September 2002 93 109 9 211 January 2003 97 110 8 215 April 2003 92 100 9 201 September 2003 83 96 10 189 January 2004 85 100 11 196 April 2004 84 99 11 194 69 69

Teacher Staffing Ethnicity Figures 2001 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004 1. School & Central 1. School & Central 1. School & Central 1. School & Central 2,239 2,276 (+37) 2,210 (-66) 2,236 (+26) White: (1,977) = 88.3% M. E. Origin: (262) = 11.7% White: (1,989) = 87.4% (-0.9) M. E. Origin: (287) = 12.6% (+0.9) White: (1,895) = 85.75% (-1.65) M. E. Origin: (315) = 14.25% (+1.65) White: (1,890) = 84.53% (-1.22) M. E. Origin: (346) = 15.47% (+1.22) 2. School 2. School 2. School 2. School 2,017 2,044 (+27) 1,987 (-57) 2,022 (+35) White: (1,797) = 89.09% M. E. Origin: (220) = 10.91% White: (1,803) =88.21% (-0.88) M. E. Origin: (241) =11.79% (+0.88) White: (1,714) = 86.26% (-1.95) M. E. Origin: (273) = 13.74% (+1.95) White: (1,718) = 84.96% (-1.30) M. E. Origin: (304) = 15.04% (+1.30) 3. Central 3. Central 3. Central 3. Central 222 232 (+10) 223 (-9) 214 (-9) White: (180) = 81.08% M. E. Origin: (42) = 18.92% White: (186) = 80.18% (-0.9) M. E. Origin: (46) = 19.82% (+0.9) White: (181) = 81.16% (+0.98) M. E. Origin: (42) = 18.84% (-0.98) White: (172) = 80.37% (-0.79) M. E. Origin: (42) = 19.63% (+0.79) 70 70

2001 2002 2003 2004 4. Primary 4. Primary 4. Primary 4. Primary 894 885 (-9) 866 (-19) 873 (+7) White: (806) = 90.15% M. E. Origin: (88) = 09.85% White: (794) = 89.72% (-0.43) M. E. Origin: (91) = 10.28% (+0.43) White: (782) = 90.30% (+0.58) M. E. Origin: (84) = 09.70% (-0.58) White: (772) = 88.43% (-1.87) M. E. Origin: (101) = 11.57% (+1.87) 5. Secondary 5. Secondary 5. Secondary 5. Secondary 1,048 1,090 (+42) 1,044 (-46) 1,068 (+24) White: (920) = 87.78% M. E. Origin: (128) = 12.22% White: (943) = 86.51% (-1.27) M. E. Origin:(147) = 13.49% (+1.27) White: (859) = 82.28% (-4.23) M. E. Origin:(185) = 17.72% (+4.23) White: (871) = 81.55% (-0.73) M. E. Origin: (197) = 18.45% (+0.73) 6. Unqualified 6. Unqualified 6. Unqualified 6. Unqualified 119 184 (+65) 240 (+56) 234 (-6) White: (98) = 82.35% M. E. Origin: (21) = 17.65% White: (144) = 78.26% (-4.09) M. E. Origin: (40) = 21.74% (+4.09) White: (165) = 68.75% (+9.51) M. E. Origin: (75) = 31.25% (-9.51) White: (161) = 68.80% (+0.05) M. E. Origin: (73) = 31.20% (-0.05) 7. Senior Staff (HTs & DHTs) 7. Senior Staff (HTs & DHTs) 7. Senior Staff (HTs & DHTs) 7. Senior Staff (HTs &DHTs) 185 174 (-11) 177 (+3) 177 (0) White: (180) = 97.30% M. E. Origin: (5) = 02.70% White: (165) = 94.83% (-2.47) M. E. Origin: (9) = 05.17% (+2.47) White: (167) = 94.35% (-0.48) M. E. Origin: (10) = 05.65% (+0.48) White: (165) = 93.22% (-1.13) M. E. Origin: (12) = 6.78% (+1.13) 71 71

Key Facts The number of Hounslow vacancies has risen considerably from 135 to 158. This results in a rise in the percentage vacancy rate from 6.79% to 7.81%. The teaching workforce shows an increase of 1.3% of those employed who are from a minority ethnic background. There has been an increase of 1.87% in primary and 0.73% in secondary of teachers employed who are from a minority ethnic background. The largest percentage (31.2%) of teachers from minority ethnic backgrounds are in the unqualified category although this has slightly decreased. A significant proportion of the unqualified teacher category (DfES) includes overseas trained teachers. The percentage of senior staff (Headteachers and Deputy Headteachers) has risen by 1.13%. In primary schools the percentage of minority ethnic teachers with management points has risen over three years by 3.16%. In secondary schools the percentage of minority ethnic teachers with management points has risen over three years by 4.19%. As with previous surveys there are still significant shortages within the secondary sector and there are now 25 vacancies in science, 10 in maths and 8 in D & T. The information provided by schools on general recruitment issues once again provides an invaluable insight to the recruitment crisis. Key notable facts: It was reported in January that 86 of the total 135 vacancies, or 63.7%, were at MS level. This has significantly increased to 74.7% (118 vacancies) in April. It is hoped that the increased number of NQT applicants will help the vacancy situation. 80 NQTs were accepted onto the Primary Pool and 32 have already been appointed. In addition 150 Secondary NQTs have applied to the Secondary Database which has been circulated to the 6 buy-back schools. Website Advertising Whilst the number of appointments in the previous term was obviously small there has still been a decrease in the number of school-based appointments via the internet. In order to promote this as an avenue of recruiting the Teacher Recruitment Team in association with Eteach have undertaken a programme of promotional work which will hopefully result in an increase in this area. It is worth noting however that over 10% of applicants to the 72

Primary Pool did so after being made aware of Hounslow via the internet and half of the 150 Secondary NQTs applied on-line. There was a small decrease in the number of school-based OTTs from 196 to 194. The cost of housing and the differentials between London Weightings continues to be a key factor in recruitment and retention. 73

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 6.1 All schools fully staffed by appropriate appointments. 1.45% rise in vacancies overall. Primary increased vacancy rate = 0.54%, secondary increased vacancy rate = 2.29%, special increased vacancy rate = 0.15%. Hounslow continues to depend significantly on overseas trained teachers and supply staff. Vacancy Survey April 2004 Personnel Section 6.2 95% of NQTs successfully complete their induction period. Teaching from overseas trained staff new to Hounslow is satisfactory or better. 2002-03 total number of NQTs = 87 Of 4 NQTs identified as at risk one completed, two resigned prior to completion and one did not have QTS target exceeded. 2003-04 total number of NQTs = 96 Ongoing support/monitoring of five NQTs at risk. Only one school was inspected where there was an OTT new to Hounslow. Within the school it was not possible to identify any individual references but overall quality of Teaching and Learning is identified as good. Some is very good or excellent. Observation and visit proformas - Advisers Section www.ofsted.gov.uk 74 74

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 6.3 100% of newly recruited TAs complete the DfES Induction Course for Teaching Assistants. Target met All TAs who started the course completed the course Attendance Records - HEC 100% OFSTED reports find work of TAs satisfactory or better in supporting pupils learning. Target met www.ofsted.gov.uk 50 TAs, from across the LA, achieve NVQ Level 2 or 3 through the Adult Education Service. Funding offered to TAs for NVQ courses and Foundation Degrees. Courses not finished. 8 schools embarked on remodelling the workforce courses. Remodelling Adviser data HEC 6.4 100% of participants complete the middle management course Achieved in both 2003 and 2004 Results list Kingston University. Telephone questionnaire responses HEC 75 75

Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 6.4 contd. Improved SAT s results or teachers assessments in targeted schools to meet LA targets. 25% of identified ethnic minority staff achieve promotion within the LA. 75% participants on middle management courses retained in Hounslow for two years. Art & Music: Initial findings show that the course has had a positive impact on the participants and the schools in which they teach. Teaching observed has been good or better. There have been other positive impacts re policies, whole staff INSET, resource audits and development plans. D & T: Six teachers participated. Initial analysis indicates that there has been a positive impact on the quality of D & T work undertaken in their schools and improvements in teaching and learning. Formal evaluation of the work will take place July 2004. Science: course cancelled due to provider closing course offer. Data not available, however in primary 9.57% from minority ethnic backgrounds have management points. This is a rise of 3.16% over three years. In secondary, 14.31% from minority ethnic backgrounds have management points. This is a rise of 4.19% over three years. Of the 2003 cohort, 85% have been retained so far. Evaluation Report Advisers Section Observations and evaluations report Advisers Section Ethnicity Survey 2004 Personnel Section As above Remodelling Adviser Data HEC Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. 76 76

Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities 6.5 New Deputy Headteachers and All independent reports indicate Headteachers provide effective effectiveness. leadership and management by the end of their induction year. Effective mentors are in place to support new Deputy Headteachers and Headteachers on appointment. All new primary DH & HT appointment have specifically selected LA mentors. All new appointments encouraged to undertake early enrolment for HIP. Systems being reviewed for secondary DH & HT. New induction protocols agreed by advisory staff. Evidence base and where found Adviser Visit Forms Advisers Section www.ofsted.gov.uk Joint School Reviews Advisers Section Meeting notes Adviser/Associate Adviser Advisers Section Adviser Visit Forms Advisers Section Joint School Reviews Advisers Section Meeting notes Adviser/Associate Adviser Advisers Section Participant questionnaires 6.6 Teachers/headteachers from at least 30% of schools contributing to school improvement work outside their own schools. All HT seminars facilitated by HTs and DHTs. All HT and DHT mentors currently HTs or DHTs. There have been: consultant HT s in leadership programme other HT s supporting work in other schools ASTs 23 primary leading teachers primary leading teaching assistants INSET programme Professional Development Section Mentor records Advisers Section LIG evaluation report and DfES feedback Advisers Section Adviser, Consultant Heads and AST notes of visit Advisers Section School evaluations of support provided Advisers Section Evaluation of EDP Priority against Success Criteria 2003-2004 contd. 77 77

Activity Success Criteria Effectiveness of School Improvement Activities Evidence base and where found 6.6 contd. All secondary schools contribute to a planned school improvement programme designed to raise standards across the borough. All primary beacon schools contribute to a planned school improvement programme designed to raise standards across the borough. Evaluations show that schools consider that there has been a positive impact on standards. The LIG programme is established and involves all secondary schools. DfES has approved the evaluation of year 1 and has consequently released funding for year 2 32% of primary schools are contributing to SI activity and all secondary schools All primary beacons have made contributions to SI work although this programme in now winding down as a result of the DfES decision to phase it out Evaluations confirm that the contribution of serving teachers and headteachers is valued and found to be effective. LIG evaluation report and DfES feedback Advisers Section School evaluations of support provided Advisers Section www.dfes.gov.uk School evaluations of support provided Advisers Section 6.7 Use is made in schools of examples of extremely effective practice. Users report that HVEC website contains appropriate and easily accessible material. Collection of this information is scheduled for attached visits Summer term 2004 All feedback is very positive Website feedback forms and emails HVEC Website Manager. Verbal responses reported from HT, TPDC and other meetings not formally noted Advisers Section. 78 78

Changes/additions in School Improvement Activities for 2004-2005 Explore demand for returner course provision. Further develop the induction course for OTTs. Recruit a further 40 schools to the Remodelling the Workforce. Provide courses leading to HLTA status. Use the CLC to facilitate the introductory courses for newly appointed associate staff. Encourage school administrators to take part in Bursar training run by NCSL. Revise Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher Handbooks. Increase the number of ASTs working in schools. Extend the team of leading teachers and departments to support school improvement. Support the LIG and Headship programmes to raise school improvement. Further develop the contribution of Headteachers to the Primary Leadership Programme. Implement the London Challenge collaborative initiative with Bromley and Westminster. Develop a professional development strategy, pilot it with 5 schools and evaluate the outcomes. 79

3.8 Value for Money The 2001Ofsted inspection found there were significant strengths in areas of school improvement: support to schools for raising standards in literacy and numeracy support for schools with serious weaknesses or requiring special measures the exercise of special educational needs functions in a way that supports school improvement support for behaviour and the work of the Pupil Referral Unit support for pupils with English as an additional language. The LA was judged to have made at least satisfactory contribution to school improvement in all schools visited and a good contribution in three quarters of the schools. Improvement in those schools that have received intensive support has been most marked. The costs of the advisory service are average and it provides good value for money (Ofsted 2001). Since 2001, there have been the following significant developments in the LA s work on school improvement: There are now no schools requiring special measures and only one in serious weaknesses All HMI monitoring reports on other schools or aspects of the LA s work are reported as at least satisfactory and on many occasions good progress and provision are highlighted. There was a significant improvement in GCSE results in 2003 The Pupil Referral Service was found by Ofsted to be an effective unit in 2003, in contrast to national findings which criticised many such units. The LA has successfully implemented key national initiatives including Excellence in Cities, Aim Higher, the Behaviour Improvement Programme and the Leadership Incentive Grant programme. Monitoring reports on the implementation of the National Strategies continue to be highly positive. These achievements have taken place against a background of no increase in the resources held centrally to promote school improvement. 80

5. ANNEXES 104

ANNEX 1 KEYSTAGE 1 TARGETS SET IN AUTUMN TERM 2003-YEAR 1 READING/COMPREHENSION KS1 SCHOOLS 2005 2005 No. 2+ NOR Yr 1 % Alexandra I 67 86 78% Andrew Ewing JI 47 55 85% Beavers JI 35 42 83% Bedfont I 58 66 88% Belmont JI 56 59 95% Berkeley JI 47 59 80% Cardinal Road I 55 68 81% Cavendish JI 20 26 76% Chatsworth I 52 59 88% Crane JI 25 50 50% Cranford I 59 68 87% Edward Pauling JI 37 48 77% Fairholme JI 34 38 89% Feltham Hill I 78 86 90% Forge Lane JI 38 44 86% Green Dragon JI 40 55 72% Grove Park JI 22 27 82% Grove Road JI 18 27 67% Heston I 60 70 86% Hounslow Heath I 91 111 82% Hounslow Town JI 50 62 81% Isleworth Blue CE JI 27 30 91% Isleworth Town JI 46 57 80% Ivybridge JI 24 30 80% Lionel JI 20 25 80% Marlborough JI 74 86 86% Norwood Green I 50 71 70% Orchard I 67 73 91% Oriel JI 32 43 74% Our Lady & St John RC JI 30 30 100% Rosary RC I 44 51 86% St Lawrence RC JI 50 55 91% St Mary's RC JI (Chis) 29 32 90% St Mary's RC JI (Isle) 28 30 93% St Michael/Martin RC JI 51 58 88% St Paul's CE JI 22 29 76% Smallberry Green JI 32 39 82% Southville I 78 88 89% Sparrow Farm I 44 50 88% Spring Grove JI 28 30 94% Springwell I 79 89 89% Strand-on-the-Green I 71 78 91% Wellington JI 39 54 72% William Hogarth JI 17 23 74% 105

KEYSTAGE 1 TARGETS SET IN AUTUMN TERM 2003 - YEAR 1 READING/COMPREHENSION Continued Worple JI 23 30 77% Cedars 0 2 0% Lindon Bennett 0 9 0% Marjory Kinnon 0 8 0% Total 1992 2406 83% LEA Targets 2003 86% LEA Targets 2004 87% LEA Targets 2005 88% 106

KEYSTAGE 1 TARGETS SET IN AUTUMN TERM 2003- YEAR 1 MATHEMATICS KS1 SCHOOLS 2005 2005 No. 2+ NOR Yr 1 % Alexandra I 70 86 81% Andrew Ewing JI 49 55 89% Beavers JI 36 42 86% Bedfont I 63 66 95% Belmont JI 56 59 95% Berkeley JI 50 59 85% Cardinal Road I 60 68 88% Cavendish JI 25 26 96% Chatsworth I 54 59 92% Crane JI 30 50 60% Cranford I 60 68 88% Edward Pauling JI 44 48 91% Fairholme JI 38 38 100% Feltham Hill I 77 86 90% Forge Lane JI 38 44 86% Green Dragon JI 41 55 74% Grove Park JI 23 27 85% Grove Road JI 20 27 74% Heston I 62 70 89% Hounslow Heath I 98 111 88% Hounslow Town JI 50 62 81% Isleworth Blue CE JI 28 30 94% Isleworth Town JI 48 57 85% Ivybridge JI 25 30 83% Lionel JI 20 25 80% Marlborough JI 77 86 90% Norwood Green I 60 71 85% Orchard I 66 73 90% Oriel JI 35 43 82% Our Lady & St John RC JI 30 30 100% Rosary RC I 44 51 86% St Lawrence RC JI 53 55 96% St Mary's RC JI (Chis) 30 32 94% St Mary's RC JI (Isle) 28 30 93% St Michael/Martin RC JI 51 58 88% St Paul's CE JI 27 29 93% Smallberry Green JI 34 39 87% Southville I 83 88 94% Sparrow Farm I 42 50 83% Spring Grove JI 28 30 94% Springwell I 78 89 88% Strand-on-the-Green I 73 78 93% Wellington JI 48 54 89% William Hogarth JI 20 23 87% 107

KEYSTAGE 1 TARGETS SET IN AUTUMN TERM 2003- YEAR 1 MATHEMATICS Continued Worple JI 27 30 90% Cedars 0 2 0% Lindon Bennett 0 9 0% Marjory Kinnon 0 8 0% Total 2098 2406 87% LEA Targets 2003 91% LEA Targets 2004 92% LEA Targets 2005 92% 108

LEA NUMBER: 313 LEA NAME: Hounslow SCHOOL PERFORMANCE TARGETS: SCHOOLS WITH YEAR 6 COHORT - ACADEMIC YEAR 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 KEY STAGE 2 TABLE SCH1 (all percentages as whole numbers) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 LEAESTAB SCHOOL NAME ELIGIBLE KS2 KS2 NUMBER PUPIL ENGLISH MATHS (7 digits) NUMBERS TEST TEST URN (as used for the Department's Edubase system) KS2 ENGLISH TEST LEVEL 4+ TARGET (%) LEVEL 5+ TARGET (%) LEVEL 4+ TARGET (%) KS2 MATHS TEST LEVEL 5+ TARGET (%) 3132000 102468 Alexandra Junior School 76 72 22 87 33 3132003 102470 Belmont Primary School 57 95 50 93 51 3132007 102472 Cavendish Primary School 24 75 33 83 33 3132008 102473 Chatsworth Junior School 61 85 23 83 23 3132012 102477 Cranford Junior School 67 84 52 80 52 3132016 102479 Bedfont Junior School 81 68 18 75 14 3132020 102483 Feltham Hill Junior School 99 74 21 74 25 3132022 102485 Grove Park Primary School 26 73 38 85 30 3132024 102486 Victoria Junior School 61 64 23 69 25 3132025 102487 Heston Junior School 70 92 51 85 43 3132031 102489 Hounslow Heath Junior School 83 72 29 82 28 Column 9 Column 10 SCHOOLS WITHOUT TARGETS ('A', 'X' or blank) SCHOOLS WITHOUT CHALLENGING TARGETS ('Y' or blank) 109 109

3132033 102491 Hounslow Town Primary School 41 81 25 76 25 3132034 102492 Isleworth Town Primary School 59 80 30 80 35 3132036 102493 Lionel Primary School 37 68 27 73 22 3132037 102494 Marlborough Primary School 90 84 36 89 38 3132038 102495 Norwood Green Junior School 76 84 33 84 43 3132041 102497 Southville Junior School 89 70 26 80 27 3132044 102500 Spring Grove Primary School 34 93 26 88 41 3132045 102501 Springwell Junior School 93 94 30 90 30 3132047 102503 Strand-on-the-Green Junior School 87 71 24 78 33 3132050 102505 Wellington Primary School 49 71 28 73 26 3132051 102506 Worple Primary School 20 65 5 60 0 3132056 102508 Sparrow Farm Junior School 59 66 25 85 25 3132057 102509 Oriel Primary School 51 70 10 72 22 3132058 102510 The Orchard Junior School 71 75 18 80 36 3132061 102512 Ivybridge Primary School 25 80 24 84 32 3132062 102513 Andrew Ewing Primary School 57 74 25 79 30 3132063 102514 Edward Pauling Primary School 46 52 11 65 11 3132064 102515 The Smallberry Green Primary School 40 70 11 83 15 3132071 102519 Grove Road Primary School 23 83 26 91 30 3132073 102520 Beavers Community Primary School 52 66 18 73 25 3132075 102522 Berkeley Primary School 58 67 14 72 16 3132078 132263 Crane Park Primary School 35 60 14 69 14 3132079 132264 Fairholme School 47 68 19 80 27 110 110

3132080 132265 Forge Lane Primary School 42 76 12 76 12 3132081 132266 Green Dragon Primary School 44 66 18 68 27 3133300 102523 The Blue School 32 85 30 88 21 3133302 102524 St Paul's CofE Primary School 25 72 25 68 32 3133500 102525 The Rosary RC Junior School 58 90 24 71 21 3133502 102526 Our Lady and St John's RC Primary School 33 85 48 76 36 3133503 102527 St Lawrence RC Primary School 52 93 57 94 44 3133504 102528 St Mary's Catholic Primary School 34 82 47 79 47 3133505 102529 St Mary's RC Primary School 33 100 60 100 60 3133507 102531 St Michael and St Martin RC Primary School 59 93 61 93 39 3137005 102554 Marjory Kinnon School 15 0 0 0 0 3137007 102556 Lindon Bennett School 6 0 0 0 0 3137010 102558 Cedars Primary School 9 33 0 66 0 Summary Row 2386 76.368 28.1463 79.49749 29.694 111 111

LEA NUMBER: 313 LEA NAME: Hounslow SCHOOL PERFORMANCE TARGETS: SCHOOLS WITH A YEAR 9 COHORT - ACADEMIC YEAR 2004/2005 KEY STAGE 3 TABLE SCH2 (all percentages as whole numbers but unauthorised absence target to 1 decimal place) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 LEA ESTAB NUMBER (7 digits) URN (as used for the Department's Edubase system) SCHOOL NAME ELIGIBLE PUPIL NUMBERS KS3 ENGLISH TEST LEVEL 5+ TARGET (%) KS3 MATHS TEST LEVEL 5+ TARGET (%) KS3 SCIENCE TEST LEVEL 5+ TARGET (%) KS3 ICT TEACHER ASSESSMENT LEVEL 5+ (%) SCHOOLS WITHOUT TARGETS ('A', 'X' or blank) SCHOOLS WITHOUT CHALLENGING TARGETS ('Y' or blank) 3134020 102532 Chiswick Community 206 71 65 64 64 School 3134021 102533 Hounslow Manor School 177 35 39 34 34 3134022 102534 Longford Community 217 62 62 62 62 School 3134023 102535 Feltham Community 212 50 55 54 55 College 3134024 102536 Brentford School for Girls 147 74 75 75 53 3134026 102537 Heston Community School 196 75 83 77 79 3134027 102538 Lampton School 209 71 66 64 70 3134028 102539 The Heathland School 270 80 75 77 75 112 112

3134029 102540 Cranford Community College 3134500 102541 Isleworth and Syon School for Boys 207 73 70 70 70 165 75 75 75 61 3134600 102542 The Green School 132 85 82 81 75 3134800 102543 St Mark's Catholic School 201 85 85 85 76 3135400 102544 Gumley House RC Convent School, FCJ 192 94 91 91 91 3135401 102545 Gunnersbury Catholic 183 86 86 87 73 School 3137005 102554 Marjory Kinnon School 18 0 0 0 0 3137006 102555 Oaklands School 5 0 0 0 0 3137009 102557 Syon Park School 10 0 0 0 0 Summary Row 2747 71.5213 70.8875 70.04805 66.63014197 113 113

LEA NUMBER: 313 LEA NAME: Hounslow SCHOOL PERFORMANCE TARGETS: SECONDARY SCHOOLS WITH 15 YEAR OLD PUPILS: ACADEMIC YEAR 2004/2005 GCSER/GNVQ TABLE SCH 3 (all percentages as whole numbers but APS to 1 decimal place) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 LEA ESTAB NUMBER (7 digits) URN (as used for the Department's Edubase system) SCHOOL NAME 15 YEAR OLDS ON ROLL 5+ GCSE/GNVQ GRADES A*-C AVERAGE GCSE/GNVQ POINT SCORE SCHOOLS WITHOUT TARGETS ('A', 'X' or blank) SCHOOLS WITHOUT CHALLENGING TARGETS ('Y') 3134020 102532 Chiswick Community School 210 48 37 3134021 102533 Hounslow Manor School 173 32 28.9 3134022 102534 Longford Community School 204 34 30 3134023 102535 Feltham Community College 234 35 35 3134024 102536 Brentford School for Girls 150 64 39.5 3134026 102537 Heston Community School 203 65 41 3134027 102538 Lampton School 211 54 42 114 114

3134028 102539 The Heathland School 268 68 51 3134029 102540 Cranford Community College 209 53 41 3134500 102541 Isleworth and Syon School for Boys 164 52 38 3134600 102542 The Green School 130 69 52 3134800 102543 St Mark's Catholic School 194 67 48 3135400 102544 Gumley House RC Convent School, 190 80 54 FCJ 3135401 102545 Gunnersbury Catholic School 175 65 42 3137005 102554 Marjory Kinnon School 16 0 15 3137006 102555 Oaklands School 5 0 0 3137009 102557 Syon Park School 7 0 0 Summary Row 2743 55.1596792 41.0429092 115 115

Aggregate of schools targets (i) Aggregate of targets for individual schools 2004-2005 KS2 Eligible Pupil Numbers KS2 English Test L4+ KS2 Maths Test L4+ 2386 76 79 KS3 Eligible Pupil Numbers KS3 English Test Level 5+ KS3 Maths Test Level 5+ KS3 Science Test Level 5+ 2747 72 71 70 KS4 5+ GCSE/GNVQ Grades A* to G (including English and Maths) Average GCSE/GNVQ Point Score 15 year olds on roll 5+ GCSE/GNVQ Grades A* to C 2743 1515 2520 41.0 116

(ii) Aggregate of minority ethnic targets 2004-2005 KS2 Minority Ethnic Groups Anticipated numbers of eligible pupils % of pupils anticipated to achieve Level 4 or above in English % of pupils anticipated to achieve Level 4 or above in Mathematics White - British 997 79 81 White - Irish 25 75 77 White - Traveller of Irish heritage 1 100 100 White - Any other White background 68 74 76 White - Gypsy/Roma 2 0 0 White - Total Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 38 73 75 Mixed - White and Black African 10 89 91 Mixed - White and Asian 40 81 84 Mixed - Any other mixed background 70 82 84 Mixed - Total Black - Caribbean Heritage 30 69 71 Black - African Heritage 110 75 76 Black - other 18 77 79 Black - Total Asian - Indian 418 90 92 Asian - Pakistani 171 83 85 Asian - Bangladeshi 25 83 85 Asian - Any other Asian background 32 80 82 Asian - Total Chinese 11 72 74 Any other minority ethnic group 110 75 76 All pupils 2386 80 82 117

Anticipated numbers of eligible pupils % of pupils anticipated to achieve Level 5 or above in English % of pupils anticipated to achieve Level 5 or above in Maths % of pupils anticipated to achieve Level 5 or above in Science KS3 Minority Ethnic Groups White - British 1036 80 81 76 White - Irish 38 80 81 76 White - Traveller of Irish heritage 4 0 0 0 White - Any other White background 81 77 77 72 White - Gypsy/Roma White - Total Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 44 72 72 68 Mixed - White and Black African 6 79 80 75 Mixed - White and Asian 50 78 79 74 Mixed - Any other mixed background 42 77 78 73 Mixed - Total Black - Caribbean Heritage 93 70 70 66 Black - African Heritage 103 69 70 66 Black - other 24 68 72 68 Black - Total Asian - Indian 485 82 83 78 Asian - Pakistani 186 73 74 69 Asian - Bangladeshi 14 68 69 64 Asian - Any other Asian background 65 69 71 67 Asian - Total Chinese 7 68 69 64 Any other minority ethnic group 125 69 70 66 All pupils 2747 77 78 73 118

KS4 Minority Ethnic Groups Anticipated numbers of eligible pupils % of pupils anticipated to achieve 5+ grades A* - C Anticipated Average Point Score White - British 1067 52 42.2 White - Irish 28 68 55.0 White - Traveller of Irish heritage 6 0 8.0 White - Any other White background 87 58 46.8 White - Gypsy/Roma White - Total Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 26 69 55.4 Mixed - White and Black African 10 81 65.6 Mixed - White and Asian 25 65 52.5 Mixed - Any other mixed background 31 54 43.9 Mixed - Total Black - Caribbean Heritage 73 44 35.7 Black - African Heritage 135 39 31.6 Black - other 28 45 36.1 Black - Total Asian - Indian 567 60 48.8 Asian - Pakistani 198 53 43.1 Asian - Bangladeshi 22 56 45.1 Asian - Any other Asian background 33 74 59.9 Asian - Total Chinese 15 85 68.9 Any other minority ethnic group 185 51 41.4 All pupils 2743 55 42.0 119

TABLE 8: LOCAL AUTHORITY MINORITY ETHNIC KS2 PUPIL PERFORMANCE 2000/2001 2004/2005 KS2 English Test Number of eligible % of pupils who achieved Level pupils 4 or above eligible pupils Anticipated % of pupils numbers of anticipated to achieve Level 4 or above White - UK Heritage 1060 71% White-British 997 79% White - European 76 79% White-Irish 25 75% White - other 61 67% White- Traveller of Irish heritage 1 100% White-Any other White background 68 74% White-Gypsy/Roma 2 0% White - Total 1197 71% White Total 1093 78% Black - Caribbean Heritage 51 73% Black - Caribbean Heritage 30 69% Black - African Heritage 97 60% Black - African Heritage 110 75% Black - other 37 70% Black - other 18 77% Black - Total 185 66% Black Total 158 75% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 38 73% Mixed - White and Black African 10 89% Mixed - White and Asian 40 81% Mixed - Any other mixed background 70 82% Mixed - Total 158 81% Indian 461 82% Asian-Indian 418 90% Pakistani 163 68% Asian- Pakistani 171 83% Bangladeshi 17 82% Asian -Bangladeshi 25 83% Asian Any other Asian background 32 80% Asian- Total 646 87% Chinese 9 89% Chinese 11 72% Any other minority ethnic group 202 71% Any other minority ethnic group 110 75% All pupils 2234 73% 2386 80% KS2 Maths Test White - UK Heritage 1060 66% White-British 997 81% White - European 76 76% White-Irish 25 77% White - other 61 61% White- Traveller of Irish heritage 1 100% White-Any other White background 68 76% White-Gypsy/Roma 2 0% White - Total 1197 66% White Total 1093 81% Black - Caribbean Heritage 51 71% Black - Caribbean Heritage 30 71% Black - African Heritage 97 57% Black - African Heritage 110 76% Black - other 37 57% Black - other 18 79% Black - Total 185 61% Black Total 158 75% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 38 75 Mixed - White and Black African 10 91 Mixed - White and Asian 40 84 Mixed - Any other mixed background 70 84 Mixed - Total 158 82% 120

Indian 461 81% Asian-Indian 418 92% Pakistani 163 67% Asian- Pakistani 171 85% Bangladeshi 17 76% Asian -Bangladeshi 25 85% Asian Any other Asian background 32 82% Asian- Total 646 89% Chinese 9 100% Chinese 11 74% Any other minority ethnic group 202 70% Any other minority ethnic group 110 76% All pupils 2234 69% 2386 82% TABLE 8: LOCAL AUTHORITY MINORITY ETHNIC KS3 PUPIL PERFORMANCE KS3 English Test Number of eligible pupils 2000/2001 2004/2005 % of pupils who achieved Level 5 or above Anticipated % of pupils numbers of anticipated to achieve eligible pupils Level 5 or above White - UK Heritage 1135 61% White-British 1036 80% White - European 205 62% White-Irish 38 80% White - other 27 78% White- Traveller of Irish heritage 4 0% White-Any other White background 81 77% White-Gypsy/Roma 0 0% White - Total 1367 61% White Total 1159 79% Black - Caribbean Heritage 64 52% Black - Caribbean Heritage 93 70% Black - African Heritage 131 48% Black - African Heritage 103 69% Black - other 49 67% Black - other 24 68% Black - Total 244 53% Black Total 220 69% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 44 72% Mixed - White and Black African 6 79% Mixed - White and Asian 50 78% Mixed - Any other mixed background 42 77% Mixed - Total 142 76% Indian 615 80% Asian-Indian 485 82% Pakistani 177 68% Asian- Pakistani 186 73% Bangladeshi 16 38% Asian -Bangladeshi 14 68% Asian Any other Asian background 65 69% Asian- Total 750 79% Chinese 8 100% Chinese 7 68% Any other minority ethnic group 203 70% Any other minority ethnic group 125 69% All pupils 2630 66% 2747 77% 121

KS3 Maths Test White - UK Heritage 1135 58% White-British 1036 81% White - European 205 63% White-Irish 38 81% White - other 27 85% White- Traveller of Irish heritage 4 0% White-Any other White background 81 77% White-Gypsy/Roma 0 0% White - Total 1367 59% White Total 1159 80% Black - Caribbean Heritage 64 47% Black - Caribbean Heritage 93 70% Black - African Heritage 131 38% Black - African Heritage 103 70% Black - other 49 57% Black - other 24 72 Black - Total 244 44% Black Total 220 70% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 44 72% Mixed - White and Black African 6 80% Mixed - White and Asian 50 79% Mixed - Any other mixed background 42 78% Mixed - Total 142 77% Indian 615 74% Asian-Indian 485 83% Pakistani 177 60% Asian- Pakistani 186 74% Bangladeshi 16 44% Asian -Bangladeshi 14 69% Asian Any other Asian background 65 71% Asian- Total 750 80% Chinese 8 100% Chinese 7 69% Any other minority ethnic group 203 61% Any other minority ethnic group 125 70% All pupils 2630 62% 2747 78% KS3 Science Test White - UK Heritage 1135 59% White-British 1036 76% White - European 205 63% White-Irish 38 76% White - other 27 74% White- Traveller of Irish heritage 4 0 White-Any other White background 81 72% White-Gypsy/Roma 0 0% White - Total 1367 60% White Total 1159 75% Black - Caribbean Heritage 64 45% Black - Caribbean Heritage 93 66% Black - African Heritage 131 40% Black - African Heritage 103 66 Black - other 49 59% Black - other 24 68% Black - Total 244 45% Black Total 220 66% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 44 68% Mixed - White and Black African 6 75% Mixed - White and Asian 50 74% Mixed - Any other mixed background 42 73% Mixed - Total 142 72% 122

Indian 615 70% Asian-Indian 485 78% Pakistani 177 58% Asian- Pakistani 186 69% Bangladeshi 16 44% Asian -Bangladeshi 14 64% Asian Any other Asian background 65 67% Asian- Total 750 75% Chinese 8 100% Chinese 7 64% Any other minority ethnic group 203 62% Any other minority ethnic group 125 66% All pupils 2630 61% 2747 73% TABLE 9: LOCAL AUTHORITY MINORITY ETHNIC GCSE/GNVQ PUPIL PERFORMANCE Numbers of eligible pupils 2000/2001 2004/2005 % of pupils who achieved the performance level Anticipated numbers of eligible pupils % of pupils anticipated to achieve the performance level 5+ grades A*-C White - UK Heritage 1046 42 White-British 1067 52% White - European 99 52 White-Irish 28 68% White other 21 52 White- Traveller of Irish heritage 6 0% White-Any other White background 87 58% White-Gypsy/Roma 0 0% White Total 1166 43 White Total 1188 53% Black - Caribbean Heritage 81 25 Black - Caribbean Heritage 73 44% Black - African Heritage 123 27 Black - African Heritage 135 39% Black other 36 36 Black - other 28 45% Black Total 240 28 Black Total 236 42% Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 26 69% Mixed - White and Black African 10 81% Mixed - White and Asian 25 65% Mixed - Any other mixed background 31 54% Mixed - Total 92 64% Indian 638 60 Asian-Indian 567 60% Pakistani 175 51 Asian- Pakistani 198 53% Bangladeshi 14 57 Asian -Bangladeshi 22 56% Asian Any other Asian background 33 74% Asian- Total 820 59% Chinese 17 76 Chinese 15 85% Any other minority ethnic group 199 53 Any other minority ethnic group 185 51% All pupils 2449 47 2743 55% 123

2000/2001 2004/2005 Numbers of eligible pupils % of pupils who achieved the performance level Anticipated numbers of eligible pupils Anticipated Average Point Score Average Point Score White - UK Heritage 1046 35.5 White-British 42.2 White - European 99 40.5 White-Irish 55.0 White - other 21 41.5 White- Traveller of Irish heritage 8.0 White-Any other White background 46.8 White-Gypsy/Roma 0 White - Total 1166 36 White Total Black - Caribbean Heritage 81 32.9 Black - Caribbean Heritage 35.7 Black - African Heritage 123 32.8 Black - African Heritage 31.6 Black - other 36 31.6 Black - other 36.1 Black - Total 240 32.7 Black Total Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 55.4 Mixed - White and Black African 65.6 Mixed - White and Asian 52.5 Mixed - Any other mixed background 43.9 Mixed - Total Indian 638 44.5 Asian-Indian 48.8 Pakistani 175 42.6 Asian- Pakistani 43.1 Bangladeshi 14 42.8 Asian -Bangladeshi 45.1 Asian Any other Asian background 59.9 Asian- Total Chinese 17 50.4 Chinese 68.9 Any other minority ethnic group 199 43.5 Any other minority ethnic group 41.4 All pupils 2449 38.8 42.0 124

ANNEX 3 RESOURCES FOR EACH PRIORITY PRIORITY 1:RAISING ATTAINMENT IN EARLY YEARS TOWARDS THE EARLY LEARNING GOALS AND IN PRIMARY EDUCATION ESPECIALLY IN NUMERACY AND LITERACY 1.1 Improve provision for more able pupils EDP funded Resources - 5,000 Adviser Time Standards Fund 186: EiC, Primary and Literacy, including the Primary Leadership Programme 1.2 Raising attainment in numeracy and literacy, including the Primary Leadership Programme EDP funded Resources - 43,000 Adviser time Hounslow Language Service Resources Consultant Leader Headteachers Resources Standards Fund 7 : Primary Strategy 22 : Primary Strategy Central Co-ordination 1.3 Raising attainment through primary curriculum enrichment EDP funded Resources - 21,000 Adviser time Specialist Language School Resources 1.4 EAL isolated learners project for early years and primary pupils Hounslow Language Service Resources Standards Fund 3: Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant 1.5 Continuity and progression from Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1. EDP funded Adviser time Resources - 8,000 Early Years Resources PRIORITY 2: RAISING ATTAINMENT 11-19 2.1 Improving transition from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 EDP funded Resources - 13,000 Adviser Time Standards Fund 18: EiC and Excellence Clusters 10: London Challenge Specialist Sports College Resources Research and Statistics Resources 199 199

2.2 Improve attainment through the KS3 Strategy Standards Fund 8: Key Stage 3 Strategy 2.3 To raise standards through more flexible curriculum at Key Stage 4 EDP funded Adviser Time Hounslow Education Business Partnership Resources 2.4 Managing, monitoring and evaluating the Excellence in Cities programme. EDP funded Resources - 11,000 Adviser Time Standards Fund: All EiC 2.5 Raising attainment Post 16 EDP funded Adviser Time LSC Funding: Post Inspection Action Plan Research & Statistics resources 2.6 Raise the attainment of EAL pupils Hounslow Language Service Resources PRIORITY 3: NARROWING ATTAINMENT GAPS/TACKLING UNDER- ACHIEVEMENT 3.1 Raising the achievement and attainment of specific groups of pupils EDP Resources - 9,000 Adviser time Standards Fund 28: Vulnerable Children Hounslow Language Service Resources Teaching Support Service Resources Pupil Referral Service Resources Choice Protects Resources 3.2 Increasing the effective management of inclusivity EDP Funded Resources - 9,000 Adviser time Education Psychology Resources Teaching Support Service Resources Schools Section Resources 3.3 Increasing attainment through school enrichment EDP funded Resources - 5,000 Adviser time Family and Community Team Resources 200

Standards Fund 30a & b: Playing for Success 27 : Health Partnerships 18 : Extended Schools 3.4 Raising the attainment of under-achieving ethnic groups EDP funded Adviser time Standards Fund 3: Ethnic Minority Achievement for Black Pupils Traveller Support Team Resources Research and Statistics Resources Education Welfare Service Resources PRIORITY 4: SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT THROUGH SELF EVALUATION AND SUPPORT FOR SCHOOLS CAUSING CONCERN 4.1 Support for schools causing concern EDP funded Resources - 65,000 Adviser Time All sections of Lifelong Learning, Leisure and Cultural Services as required by school action plans 4.2 Assessment for learning EDP funded Resources - 6,000 Adviser Time 4.3 Provision of analytical data EDP funded Resources - 2,500 Adviser time Research & Statistics Resources 4.4 Joint school review EDP funded Adviser Time 4.5 Developing the role of governors in school self evaluation EDP funded Resources - 7,000 Adviser Time Governor Training Resources 201

PRIORITY 5: RAISING STANDARDS THROUGH THE EFFECTIVE USE OF ICT 5.1 Developing ICT Infrastructure to meet the needs of teachers. EDP funded Resources - 8,000 Adviser Time Standards Fund 601 a & b : Infrastructure and Hands on Support 31a, b & c: Broadband Connectivity Schools Section Resources 5.2 Teaching and Assessment of ICT EDP funded Resources - 17,000 - Adviser Time 5.3 Management and Leadership of ICT EDP funded Resources - 10,000 Adviser Time PRIORITY 6: RECRUITMENT, RETENTION & DEVELOPMENT OF STAFF 6.1 Recruitment and retention of teachers EDP Funded Adviser Time TTA grant funded 6.2 Induction of teachers EDP funded - Adviser Time 6.3 Remodelling the workforce Standards Fund 25: LEA Support for Workforce Remodelling Personnel Section resources 6.4 Development of middle managers EDP funded - Resources - 37,000 - Adviser Time 6.5 Developing school managers and leaders EDP funded - Resources - 1,000 - Adviser Time Consultant Headteacher Resources Headteacher & Deputy Headteacher mentoring time 202

6.6 Developing the contribution of Headteachers and teachers to school improvement across the borough EDP funded Adviser time Standards Fund 4: Advanced Skills Teachers 9: LIG 10: London Challenge Specialist Schools Resources Leading Edge School Resources 6.7 Developing a professional development strategy EDP funded Resources - 25,000 Adviser Time Standards Fund 513: Early Professional Development 203

THE LA S STRATEGY FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATING ITS EDP Monitoring and Evaluating EDP2 ANNEX 4 Procedures for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of plans are already embedded in the systems within the Lifelong Learning Department. The EDP identifies who is responsible for monitoring and evaluating each activity and how that will be done. Monitoring As far as is possible, monitoring will be carried out by the responsible officer s line manager so that monitoring can be carried out as part of the performance management process rather than by creating additional meetings and /or systems. The person identified as responsible for monitoring is expected to check that the responsible officer is carrying out the activity as laid out in the EDP, in line with the stated timescales. Where actions are not in line with the plan, the two officers will identify the reasons and put in place action designed to ensure that the expectations of the plan are met. If particular circumstances mean that actions are no longer appropriate, this will be agreed, recorded and reported to the Advisory Service Management Team. Each priority is also kept under review by one of the Advisory Services standing groups. Progress will be considered at regular twice termly meetings and particular attention will be given to ensuring that the different activities are coordinated and, taken together, address the key issues identified for the priority. Evaluation The EDP identifies success criteria for each individual activity. However fundamental to the success of the EDP as a whole is whether or not the LA achieves its key targets. These are: Overall targets for pupil attainment at all key stages The attainment of particular groups of pupils Pupils attendance Rates of exclusion from school The effectiveness of individual schools as measured by inspection and by LA monitoring. Targets include: Statutory targets Best Value Performance Indicators Programme targets, particularly those for Excellence in Cities and the Behaviour Improvement Programme. LPSA targets 204

LA level targets for all aspects of pupils attainment are reviewed annually. The LA reports to elected members through reports to the Executive and to Scrutiny. Progress against targets are also reviewed in the annual stocktaking meeting with the DfES. However the timing of tests and examinations makes prompt evaluation of the EDP difficult in that basic results are not available until five months after the end an EDP annual cycle and comparative data is not available until at least eight months after the end of the cycle. The effectiveness of the EDP is also identified through the LA s procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of its schools. Each school s results are analysed in detail and then reviewed with the headteacher. This is then followed by a joint annual review which evaluates the effectiveness of the school as a whole, building on the school s self evaluation. These reviews contribute substantially to the process of identifying whether success criteria have been achieved. They also enable the LA to identify specific areas for development and therefore enables the EDP to be well targeted. A range of other evidence will be used to evaluate the impact of the EDP. This includes Ofsted judgements, other feedback from national and regional authorities, training records and feedback from headteachers, governors and other staff. Headteachers contribute individually and also through membership of a range of consultative and steering groups. These include the National Strategies Steering Group, the Excellence in Cities Board, the Behaviour Improvement Steering Group, LIG Partnership and the Education IT Strategy Group. Evaluation of individual activities will be carried out according to the timescales laid down and the person responsible for evaluation will judge whether, according to the available evidence, the activity is having the necessary impact. If the judgement is that this is not so, then this will be fed back to the responsible officer to enable the activity to be reviewed and amended to make it more effective. The overall progress of the plan will be monitored half yearly by the Advisory Service Management Team and progress will be reported to the Executive Lead Member for Education. The Annual Cycle In summary the monitoring and evaluation cycle is as follows: September: October Initial scrutiny of test and examination results Reports on the progress of schools causing concern Monitoring reports on EDP activities and priorities Initial evaluation reports on EDP activities and priorities 205

November December Feb/ March March/April April June Analysis of test and examination results against national and statistical neighbour comparisons and prior pupil attainment at LA and school level. Annual Stocktaking with DfES Report on pupil attainment to elected members Draft activities and priorities produced Joint School Review meetings Final evaluation reports on EDP priorities and activities Activities for new EDP on HVEC website Overall EDP evaluation compiled and reported to elected members and to the DfES. In addition, the outcomes of school inspections will be considered as they arise and will continue to be reported to and monitored by the Education Scrutiny Committee. 206

ANNEX 5 HOUNSLOW S CONSULTATION PROCESS Hounslow has undertaken extensive consultation at all stages of the preparation of EDP2. In addition stakeholders contribution to the ongoing evaluation of EDP2 Year 2 2003-2004 has enabled the authority to take their priorities into account. Initial consultation was undertaken with headteachers and governing bodies to establish their views on the success of the activities in EDP2 Year 2 2003-2004. These led to the key activities to be addressed in EDP2 Year 2 2004-2005 during the Autumn Term 2003. During November and December 2003 headteachers, Governing Bodies, Lead Members and other stakeholders were consulted more formally about draft priorities and the individual activities. The priorities and activities were available in draft form on HVEC. As part of the consultation Heads and Governors requested clearer identification of the resources to be used for each activity. These have been incorporated in the school improvement summary and within the more detailed activity programme. They requested a summary report so that they could quickly identify the activities. This was circulated to Heads and Chairs of Governing Bodies in May 2004. The document was then redrafted and put out to a final formal consultation in March 2004. The document was redrafted several times and each draft was placed on Hounslow s Virtual Education Centre (January 2004 March 2004) and comments requested. (This was carried out in the light of the emerging Education Budget to enable colleagues to consider the balance between and within the central budget headings and the Local Schools Budget). EDP 2 2004-2005 was then finally redrafted taking on board as far as possible any major issues arising during the course of EDP2 2003-2004. Bodies formally consulted The following groups were consulted through meetings and via Hounslow Virtual Education Centre: Teachers Consultative Panel Associate Staff Forum (non-teaching school staff unions) Director s Advisory Panel Ethnic Minority Consultative Group Headteacher Meetings Chief Officers Leadership Team Hounslow Schools Governing Bodies Association Education Business Partnership SACRE Early Years Partnership Westminster Diocese London Diocesan Board West London Learning and Skills Council 207

ANNEX 6 GLOSSARY ABCO ADE AEO ALIS AMT AMP AMPAG APS APCo ASETS AS/A AST BIP BSA BSP BST BV BVI CA CE CLAIT CLC CLL CMT CoP CPC CRE DAP DARG DETR DfES DoH EAL EAZ EBD EBP EDP EiC EITSG ELG EMAG EMAP EMCG EMS EMT EMT/LM Able Pupils Co-ordinator Assistant Director of Education Assistant Education Officer Advanced Level Information System Advisers Management Team Asset Management Plan Asset Management Planning Advisory Group Average Points Score Able Pupil Co-ordinators Attainment, Self-Evaluation and Target Setting Group Advanced Supplementary/Advanced Level Advanced Skilled Teacher Behaviour Improvement Programme Basic Skills Agency Behaviour Support Plan Behaviour Support Team Best Value Best Value Indicator Chief Adviser Chief Executive Computer, Literacy and IT City Learning Centres Communication, Language and Literacy Corporate Management Team Code of Practice Children in Public Care Council for Racial Equality Director s Advisory Panel Drug Action Reference Group Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions Department for Education and Skills Department of Health English as an Additional Language Education Action Zone Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties Education Business Partnership Education Development Plan Excellence in Cities Education Information Technology Strategy Group Early Learning Goals Ethnic Minority Attainment Group Ethnic Minority Attainment Plan Ethnic Minority Consultative Group Education Management System Education Management Team Education Management Team/Lead Members 208

EO EOTAS EPS ESOL EWO EWS EY EYDCP FACT FE FS FSM FTE GB GCSE GNVQ G & T GTC HE HELP HEP HEYDP HHSP HLTA HoD HoF HSGBA HSI HT HVEC ICT IELTS IEPs IIP ILU IMS INSET JSR KS LACE LBH LA LIG LGfL Education Officer Education Otherwise Than at School Education Psychology Service English Speakers of Other Languages Education Welfare Officer Education Welfare Service Early Years Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership Families and Community Team Further Education Foundation Stage Free School Meals Full-time equivalent Governing Body General Certificate of Secondary Education General National Vocational Qualification Gifted and Talented General Teaching Council Higher Education Hounslow Education Learning Partnership Hounslow Education Partnership Hounslow Early Years Development Profile Hounslow Healthy School Plan Higher Level Teaching Assistant Heads of Department Heads of Finance or Head of Faculty Hounslow Schools Governing Bodies Association Healthy School Initiatives Headteacher Hounslow Virtual Education Centre Information and Communication Technology International English Language Testing System Individual Education Plan Investors in People Initial Language Unit Information Management System In-service Training Joint School Review Key Stage Looked After Children s Education Group (now Children in Public Care) London Borough of Hounslow Local Authority Leadership Incentive Grant London Grid for Learning 209

LPSA LPSH LSA LSC LSP LSU MiDYiS MIS MLD MOE MTFR NAACE NC NCSL NFER NGfL NLS NNS NOF NPQH NQT Ofsted OTT P Scales PANDA PCT PDG PEPs PHSE PHWP PIAP PIPS PMFL POM PPS PQM PRS PRU PSA PSCL QCA R & R RSM SAN SATs Local Public Service Agreement Leadership Programme for serving headteachers Learning Support Assistants Learning and Skills Councils Learning Schools Programme Learning Support Unit Middle Years Information System Management Information Systems Moderate Learning Difficulty More Open Enrolment Make Time for Rhyme National Association for Advisers and Computer Education National Curriculum National College of School Leadership National Foundation for Education Research National Grid for Learning National Literacy Strategy National Numeracy Strategy New Opportunities Fund National Professional Qualification for Headship Newly Qualified Teacher Office for Standards in Education Overseas Trained Teachers Pre-National Curriculum Scales Performance and Assessment Data Primary Community Team Policy Development Group Personal Education Plans Personal Health and Social Education Primary Headteacher Working Party Post Inspection Action Plan Performance Indicators in Primary Schools Primary Modern Foreign Languages Performance and Operational Management Parent Partnership Service Primary Quality Mark Pupil Referral Service Pupil Referral Unit Public Service Agreement Primary Strategy Consultant Leader Qualification and Curriculum Authority Recruitment and Retention Recruitment Strategy Manager Standard Admission Number Standards Assessment Tasks 210

SDP SEN SENCOs SENDIST SEU SHI SI SIPs SLA SLICT SM SMART SMT SOC SOP SQM SRE SSA SSCO TA TCP TLF TSS TTA UFA VRH YELLIS Yr R School Development Plan Special Educational Needs Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators SEN and Disability Tribunal Social Exclusion Unit Starter Homes Initiative School Improvement School Improvement Programmes Service Level Agreement School Leadership in Information and Communication Technology Strategic Management Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and with Timescales Senior Management Team School Organisation Committee School Organisation Plan Secondary Quality Mark Sex and Relationships Education Standard Spending Assessment School Sport Co-ordinator Teaching Assistants Teachers Consultative Panel Teaching and Learning in Foundation Subjects Teaching Support Service Teacher Training Agency University of the First Age Volunteer Reading Help Year 11 information system Year Reception 211