Kent County Council (KCC) Executive Summary · Web viewExtend the existing entitlement for children on FSM to free school ... with Imperial College on Particle Physics. ... We are

Schools that Work for Everyone Consultation

Kent County Council response

Contents

Kent County Council (KCC) Executive Summary...........................................................................2Families who are just about managing...........................................................................................7

Independent Schools......................................................................................................................8Universities...................................................................................................................................10

Selective Schools.........................................................................................................................12Faith Schools................................................................................................................................17

1

Kent County Council (KCC) Executive SummaryKent is proud to have a mixed economy of schools, believing that no one type of school has a monopoly on excellence. Our vision is for Kent to be the most forward looking area in England for education and learning so that we are the best place for children and young people to grow up, learn, develop and achieve.

Led by strong strategic school leadership, supported by the LA, we are proud of Kent’s formidable track record in school improvement over the last five years. This has been achieved through the hard work and dedication of school leaders, staff, governors and pupils working together in strong school collaborative partnerships as a family of schools, both at a local level through district forums and in the four area Headteacher boards that have effective and purposeful working relationships. This has delivered, and continues to deliver, increasing numbers of good and outstanding early years settings and schools, which have access to the best teaching, and benefit from schools and other providers working in partnership with each other to share effective practice as they continue to improve. Currently, 90% of schools in Kent are good or outstanding and 88% of pupils attend a good or better school.

Kent is a selective education authority, with the largest number of children in grammar schools in the country (33,824 as at October 2015). Kent has 66 non-selective secondary schools and 32 selective grammar schools. On average, 28% of children from any one year will attend a grammar school in Kent. Within Kent, children claiming FSM make up approximately 12.5% of all school aged children, but only 2.8% of the pupils in grammar schools, which compares to 13.4% in non-selective secondary schools. However, the number of pupils in receipt of the Pupil Premium who are attending a grammar school in Kent has increased in recent years, from 5.7% of the total grammar school cohort in Kent (33,058) in 2014, to 7.3% in 2016 (33,745), an increase of 1.6% or 687 additional pupils in receipt of the Pupil Premium attending grammar schools in Kent.

A generation ago, evidence suggested that it was harder for children from minority ethnic groups to overcome their socio-economic disadvantages. Now it is apparent that nationally a group that requires special attention are children from white working class backgrounds. White children on FSM, in Kent, perform far worse than disadvantaged children from other groups. Nationally, just 28% of white children on FSM get 5 good GCSEs, including English and maths, compared with 38% of mixed race children, 41% of black children and 48% of Asian children. Kent has a BME population of 12%. Grammar schools have a higher proportion of ethnic minority pupils than non-selective schools, 20.2% compared to 13.9% (January 2015 school census figures).

Recognising the need to increase opportunities for disadvantaged children and young people, Kent County Council (KCC) decided to investigate why relatively few children and young people from low income backgrounds were accessing grammar schools and what needed to be done to improve this situation. Accordingly, KCC established a Select Committee on Grammar Schools and Social Mobility.

The Select Committee recognised the essential and good provision from non-selective secondary schools in Kent, but the focus of their report was on the under-representation of children from poorer backgrounds within Kent’s grammar schools. The Committee believed that this under-representation must change and sought to put forward practical recommendations to improve the social mobility of disadvantaged children by enabling more to access grammar schools across the county. Many of the selective schools proposals contained within the Schools that Work for Everyone consultation mirror the

2

recommendations within KCC’s Select Committee Report on Grammar Schools and Social Mobility.

Ways that access to Grammar Schools could be improved for disadvantaged pupils in Kent

KCC published its Grammar Schools and Social Mobility Select Committee report in June 2016. The report made a number of recommendations, which were agreed by County Council. It was recommended that KCC:

Work as a champion for able pupils and their parents, ensuring they have information about tests, grammar schools and travel entitlements

Work with primary schools to identify the academically able, especially those eligible for Pupil Premium and children from areas of low registration for the Kent Test

Urge primary Headteachers to advocate for the most academically able children supported by the Pupil Premium

Monitor and challenge the proportion of pupils supported by the Pupil Premium who go on to grammar school

Identify a lead professional in the Virtual School to provide support and guidance for looked after children and their carers, publishing information on secondary school destinations for looked after children.

The report also addressed a number of economic issues, with recommendations to:

(i) Extend the existing entitlement for children on FSM to free school transport to all children in receipt of Pupil Premium

(ii) Raise the low income threshold to £21k to enable pupils from low income families but not entitled to FSM to access free transport, and

(iii) Create a schools focused supplementary transport bursary, that would enable grammar schools and other types of schools, where appropriate, to provide bespoke transport solutions especially for children from rural areas to increase fair access to grammar schools.

The Select Committee also suggested that grammar schools should minimise uniform costs and subsidise/cover the costs of school trips and other expenses for pupils from low income families.

KCC recently received an interim report on progress, in relation to implementation of the Select Committee recommendations, four months on. Schools are being encouraged to implement these recommendations and the County Council is working to deliver on those recommendations for which it is responsible.

KCC’s views on the Schools that Work for Everyone proposals

Families who are just about managing

Kent County Council (KCC) welcomes the government’s ambition to find a better statistical definition and support for families that are ‘just about managing’. Students are entitled to FSM if their parents are in receipt of state benefits related to income. Many lower income working families earn more than the current state benefits income threshold (£16,190), denying them access to benefits. Only 14.9% of students are eligible for FSM in England, compared to government statistical measures of occupation which puts 36% of the population in groups that might best be described as lower income working families. This

3

clearly indicates that there is a cohort of families whose income excludes access to financial (or other) support that could enhance their children’s learning.

KCC undertook a Select Committee Inquiry into Grammar Schools and Social Mobility earlier this year in order to improve the representation of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in grammar schools, if suitable for their abilities. One of the recommendations that the Select Committee made to lessen the financial barriers to grammar schools for disadvantaged children was to raise the low income threshold to £21k, for access to free transport support for pupils from low income families but not entitled to Free School Meals, to travel to their school. Officers are currently exploring how this recommendation can be achieved.

Independent Schools

KCC welcomes increased collaboration and partnership with the independent sector and maintained schools in Kent. We welcome the offer from the independent sector in terms of supporting Kent’s schools to extend and enrich their provision and raise aspirations. We also welcome and support independent schools as effective academy sponsors of existing schools or new free schools.

There are 129 independent schools in Kent and it would be helpful if those with the capability and capacity were able to provide such support, as some but not all do. KCC invites the government to consider providing more financial support to facilitate greater collaboration between the independent and state school sectors to secure benefits of working together. This would help to enable the DfE to secure a consistent approach to the roll-out of independent-state school partnerships in a more strategic way across the country. We have some good examples of this type of support in Kent.

Universities

KCC benefits from having a number of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the county. They are involved as partners in a number of innovative projects that include the Kent and Medway Teaching School Alliances and HeadStart, offering their expertise as educators, researchers and promotors of enterprise and innovation, to help improve the attainment and wellbeing of children and young people.

KCC is keen to see effective sponsors coming forward with a track record of improving schools. If universities are to be involved in sponsoring academies or establishing new free schools, they need to be able to show their capacity and expertise in school improvement, and any new schools need to located in areas where there is a demonstrable need for new high-quality school places. Universities also need to demonstrate the capacity and capability to support school leadership, provide strategic governance and contribute to effective teaching and learning. Universities should be encouraged to focus their efforts in the most disadvantaged areas where there are a high number of vulnerable students.

We would like to see Universities more engaged in curriculum delivery at key stage 5 and in providing research projects and activities for schools. This works extremely effectively at the Simon Langton Boys Grammar School, which works closely with Imperial College on Particle Physics. There should be a system where researchers and young people in all schools can work jointly on curriculum enrichment activities.

Selective Schools

KCC welcomes the proposals in the consultation document to increase opportunities for more able children from lower income families to have better educational opportunities,

4

including accessing grammar education, while recognising that many able poorer students do well in non- selective schools. This needs to be a whole system approach which ensures that all children can go to a good school and make good progress. There is a danger that this is partial solution for a wider problem that needs a more comprehensive strategy.

KCC believes that the proportion of children in receipt of Free School Meals and attending grammar schools in Kent is relatively low (2.8%) and that action is required from schools to ensure that more able children from low-income backgrounds and children in care have the same chances and opportunities to access the grammar school system as those from more affluent backgrounds.

For this to happen, a number of key barriers for low-income families need to be addressed and schools need to work hard to accelerate work to break down these barriers to access grammar school provision. KCC’s Select Committee report on Grammar Schools and Social Mobility focuses on recommendations to overcome these barriers. Working collectively with schools, parents and pupils we will encourage further engagement with parents and families by primary and grammar schools, greater outreach work including after school English and maths, mentoring and preparation for grammar school entry and the removal of financial barriers such as uniforms, school trips and school transport. To increase social mobility we believe it is also crucial for all grammar schools to prioritise children in receipt of Pupil Premium in their admissions arrangements. Whilst we welcome steps already taken to prioritise Pupil Premium children in admissions arrangements for some grammar schools, the work of identifying suitable children and support to succeed in the assessment process and overcome some barriers to accessing grammar schools needs to take place as early as possible. Strong partnerships between primary and grammar schools are essential to see a greater proportion of poorer pupils in grammar schools, which reflects practice in some parts of Kent.

The best way to support existing grammar schools is to establish with a high degree of certainty whether expansion is in the best interests of the grammar school and the learning communities served by the school. The government needs to ensure that local authorities have the resources and powers to expand local provision where there is a clear demonstrable need. We believe the Local Authority needs to have a central role in deciding whether greater selection is introduced in an area in order to maintain choice and diversity of provision, ensuring a sensible and appropriate level of grammar provision as part of the mix and diversity of schools.

KCC welcomes the dedicated funding of £50 million a year to support the expansion of existing grammar schools, where that expansion is needed to accommodate a growth in pupil number, and where additional places would ensure more pupils from low income backgrounds could attend.

Faith Schools

Due to the current government cap on the proportion of places that new faith schools can offer to pupils of their own faith, the Catholic Education Service has chosen not to open any new free schools in the last six years. The government’s proposal to lift the 50% cap should enable new Catholic schools to open and, consequently, KCC welcomes the proposal to lift the cap.

KCC maintains the view that schools should be a focal point of their local communities and, as such, we are concerned to ensure in removing the 50% cap, we do not overly impact negatively on the local communities’ access to these schools. If there is a particular religious focus within a school, this should be welcomed and promoted to attract like-minded families. However, KCC would regard the immediate local community the school serves to

5

be the priority group for admissions along with those children admitted on the basis of faith. This should help promote a collection of schools that reflect the make-up of the local communities they serve.

Concluding Remarks

KCC welcomes the government’s premise in this consultation document that strong and effective schools (be they from the state or independent sectors) should support schools requiring improvement and that teachers from all sectors benefit from learning from each other. Selective schools are part of an offer of an appropriate education for academically able students but all schools should be capable of doing this and therefore more organised arrangements to link grammar and non-selective schools in working together are welcome. Therefore, the proposal to increase capacity in the system, through the expansion of existing and establishment of new grammar schools, is welcome, as long as this is part of a strategy to have a whole system approach to improving opportunity, outcomes and therefore social mobility for children from low income families. Most of these children will continue to be educated in non- selective schools. Equally, where universities have demonstrated they are effective sponsors and wish to establish new free schools, KCC welcomes additional support to build good capacity in the system.

If the proposals in this consultation are implemented, there will equally be a need to improve the quality of education for the majority of children who do not attend grammar schools. We would want to see proposals that support non-selective schools as well as selective schools. We would also welcome the development of a mix of selective and non-selective schools within multi-academy trusts. We see this as a positive way forward for Kent to provide education for all.

There needs to be a greater focus on improving technical education for more students to succeed by following a vocational education pathway. According to a report, entitled Apprenticeships, by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in 2012, "There remains an underlying assumption that vocational training is only for those unable to take an academic route. This is wrong and must be changed."

The way to secure more social mobility in England is to provide opportunities for the 50% of pupils who do not go to university, to take up apprenticeships, gain good qualification and to learn a vocational trade that can lead to skilled employment. We are working hard in Kent to ensure apprenticeships are taken up by more young people and that they are seen as being as good as a university education for more young people.

Our education system needs to re-orientate its learning and skills sector to promote ambitious apprenticeships, top class technical education and outstanding professional training. This is an urgent major challenge for the education system that needs to be addressed with more ambition.

6

Families who are just about managingThe Government wants to develop a way to identify the group of people who are ‘just about managing’ in order to understand the impact of policy on those falling just above the eligibility threshold for free school meals. We want to work with experts and specialists to identify the best and most robust way to identify this group and measure their attainment and progress in the school system.

Q1. How can we better understand the impact of policy on a wider cohort of pupils whose life chances are profoundly affected by school but who may not qualify or apply for free school meals?

Kent County Council (KCC) welcomes the government’s ambition to find a better statistical definition and support for families that are ‘just about managing’. Students are entitled to FSM if their parents are in receipt of state benefits related to income. Many lower income working families earn more than the current state benefits income threshold (£16,190), denying them access to benefits. Only 14.9% of students are eligible for FSM in England, compared to government statistical measures of occupation which puts 36% of the population in groups that might best be described as lower income working families. This clearly indicates that there is a cohort of families whose income excludes access to financial (or other) support that could enhance their child’s learning.

KCC undertook a Select Committee Inquiry into grammar schools and social mobility earlier this year in order to improve the representation of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in grammar schools. One of the recommendations that the Select Committee made to lessen the financial barriers to grammar schools for disadvantaged children was to raise the low income threshold for free transport to £21k, to enable pupils to access free transport to their grammar school.

We would welcome a change in government policy to reflect this need.

Free School Meals is an important indicator in helping to determine families in need and ‘just about managing’, but KCC recognises the need to explore other indicators beyond FSM. We know that children on Free School Meals are half as likely to gain 5 good GCSEs as their better off peers, and are significantly less likely to attend university. To promote social mobility, it is critical that children and young people who live in poor and disadvantaged circumstances get the same educational opportunities as their peers, and within Kent this includes better support and more opportunities for them to succeed in all schools and fair access to our grammar school system.

The school system cannot solve the lack of social mobility on its own, but it can contribute a great deal to improving life chances for young people. Schools matter and make a difference, and having access to a good school and good teaching matters even more. What matters most is that schools are inclusive, achieving good and outstanding outcomes for all pupils.

The government may also wish to consider making changes to admissions arrangements in order to extend access to a good school for all ‘just about managing’ families. This would inevitably have implications for the cost of transport to access good and outstanding schools which are likely to be further from their home. Currently, funding is in place to support LAs in delivering extended access to schools due to the low income status. However, there will be a significant financial burden associated with extending transport to children from ‘just about managing’ families to access grammar schools. The DfE may wish to match the legislative transport framework in relation to faith schools but LAs will need funding to support such an

7

initiative. Only with incentives like this will it be possible to genuinely remove financial barriers to school choice for families living on or close to the poverty line.

Q2. How can we identify them?

KCC Officers are looking to develop a system to support low-income families who are just above the current FSM threshold with additional financial assistance in relation to home-to-school transport.

The most robust approach would involve securing evidence from parents by way of their previous year’s tax return and a copy of their last three months’ bank statements. Existing DWP databases which are currently used for determining eligibility for FSM only provide information which determines whether parents’ income falls below £16,190.

There are a number of logistical and operational difficulties associated with introducing this Select Committee recommendation. This is primarily our inability to accurately establish levels of income and put in place measures to authenticate and audit the appropriate spending of public money by KCC.

If a new category of income level for support were introduced by the DWP, it would enable LAs to support the ‘just about managing’ group of families in a targeted and fair way. The current barrier is the LAs’ inability to establish families’ current income levels. A nationally adopted system to identify earnings levels would enable the LA to support the ‘just about managing’ group of working families. If the infrastructure which is currently used to identify those families eligible for benefit, can also capture data which relates to a higher family income bracket, which captures the modest ‘just about managing’ families, the same databases which LAs use to establish eligibility for FSM could equally be used to identify the ‘just about managing’ group for discretionary support where appropriate.

Independent Schools

Currently independent schools educate an estimated 425,000 pupils aged 5-15 outside the state system1, paid for privately. Many of the best independent schools have good results in GCSE and A level exams translating into better achievement for their pupils in gaining places within higher education, for example at Russell Group universities, than their state school counterparts. The best of the independent schools all benefit from the state from the benefits offered by charitable status. We should expect these schools to assist the state-funded sector more directly, without necessarily spending more money, by building capacity in the sector through more good places and choice and control for parents.

Q3. What contribution could the biggest and most successful independent schools make to the state school system? KCC welcomes increased collaboration and partnership with the independent sector and schools in Kent. We would welcome and support independent schools as effective sponsors of existing schools or new free schools, where the independent school has the capability and capacity to do so.

A number of Kent schools, facilitated by the local authority, have collaborated with well-regarded independent schools to generate productive partnerships that raise aspirations and

1 Source: Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics January 2016.

8

increased opportunities. Five pre-2010 academies had independent schools as co-sponsors (Folkestone Academy with Kings School Canterbury; Isle of Sheppey Academy with Dulwich College; John Wallis C of E Academy with Benenden School; Knole Academy with Sevenoaks School, and; Marsh Academy with Tonbridge School), although it should be recognised that not all have stayed the course. Equally five schools represents a small fraction of the 129 independent schools in Kent

This type of support, although rare, is welcome and should be extended and facilitated to ensure a greater number of independent and state school partnerships are developed. Currently, of the 16 Kent and Medway Teaching School Alliances, only one involves independent schools. If we are to secure a self-improving school-led system, independent schools have much to contribute in helping to achieve this ambition.

KCC welcomes the proposed requirement on independent schools to increase the proportion of fully funded bursary places to students from low income backgrounds. These bursaries should be made available across all phases of education.

KCC invites the government to consider providing a small amount of financial support to facilitate greater collaboration between the independent and state school sectors to secure benefits of working together. This would help to enable the DfE to secure a consistent approach to the roll-out of independent-state school partnerships in a more strategic way across the country.

Q4. Are there other ways in which independent schools can support more good school places and help children of all backgrounds to succeed?

Yes (please provide further comments below)

X No (please provide further comments below)

Q5. Are these the right expectations to apply to all independent schools to ensure they do more to improve state education locally?

X Yes (please provide further comments below) No (please provide further comments below)

Q6. What threshold should we apply to capture those independent schools who have the capacity to sponsor or set up a new school or offer funded places, and to exempt those that do not?

We would welcome an assessment process to evaluate capacity, leadership, track record, financial viability and sustainability and commitment to do this.

Q7. Is setting benchmarks the right way to implement these requirements?


Benchmarks could include the resources being made available to do this and the nature of the partnerships with other schools.

Q8. Should we consider legislation to allow the Charity Commission to revise its guidance, and to remove the benefits associated with charitable status from those independent schools which do not comply?

9


Removing the benefits associated with charitable status from independent schools which do not comply with the new benchmarks that they are expected to meet should be a last resort, after all other avenues have been exhausted.

Q9. Are any other changes necessary to secure the Government’s objectives?


Some financial incentive in the short term to develop and formalise a partnership with other schools, so that this is developed as a mature arrangement and not a general offer of support.

UniversitiesBritain has some of the best higher education institutions in the world with considerable academic expertise, and teaching resource, and they have a vested interest in improving attainment among school leavers. Universities are often criticised for charging higher tuition fees without widening access to lower income students, but they have little direct control over the main driver of better access: students’ school-level attainment. We believe universities have a greater and more direct role to play in improving school quality and pupil attainment.

Q10. How can the academic expertise of universities be brought to bear on our schools system, to improve school-level attainment and in doing so widen access?

Universities should be engaged in curriculum delivery at key stage 5 and should be providing research projects and activities for schools. This works extremely effectively at the Simon Langton Boys Grammar School, which works closely with Imperial College on Particle Physics. There should be a system where researchers and young people in all schools can work jointly on curriculum enrichment activities.

New progression pathways at key stage 5 should be developed with the universities to enable young people to access Degree Apprenticeships.

Q11. Are there other ways in which universities could be asked to contribute to raising school-level attainment? X Yes (please provide further comments below) No (please provide further comments below)

Kent Universities work through the Kent and Medway Progression Federation to target young people in schools, colleges and districts with high levels of deprivation to aspire to attend Universities. The primary focus of this work is to provide guidance to young people to gain the appropriate qualifications and skills to enable them to access University provision. This work is currently being extended to address gender gaps. We plan to extend this work to all Kent schools and young people who require additional support.

10

Q12. Is the DfA guidance the most effective way of delivering these new requirements?


Q13. What is the best way to ensure that all universities sponsor schools as a condition of higher fees?

KCC is keen to see effective sponsors coming forward with a track record of improving schools. We are not sure all universities can or should do this. If universities are to be involved in sponsoring academies or establishing new free schools, they need to be located in areas where there is a demonstrable need for new high-quality school places and where there is more social priority to improving outcomes for pupils from low income backgrounds. . Universities also need to demonstrate the capacity and capability to support school leadership, provide strategic governance and contribute to effective teaching and learning. Universities should be encouraged to focus their efforts in the most disadvantaged areas where there are a high number of vulnerable students.

Universities should work with the schools sector, first and foremost motivated by a genuine desire to help improve attainment, rather than as a requirement to secure their higher education fees. KCC wants universities to work with schools because they want to support them rather than because they are obliged to.

Q14. Should we encourage universities to take specific factors into account when deciding how and where to support school attainment?


As set out above.

Universities should be encouraged to focus their efforts in the most disadvantaged areas where there are a high number of vulnerable students.

KCC benefits from having a number of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the county. They are involved as partners in a number of innovative projects that include the Kent and Medway Teaching School Alliances and HeadStart, offering their expertise as educators, researchers and promotors of enterprise and innovation, to help improve the attainment and wellbeing of children and young people.

Within the 16 Teaching School Alliances in Kent and Medway, a number of HEIs are involved. These include Canterbury Christ Church University, the University of Brighton, the University of Exeter, the University of Greenwich and the University of Kent.

Selective Schools

11

There is good evidence to suggest that grammar schools deliver high-quality education to their pupils and that their pupils outperform their counterparts at non-selective schools, including when the effects of selection are taken into account. However, despite demand from parents, no new grammar schools have been allowed since the 1998 School Standards and Frameworks Act, which prohibited new grammars. We want more good schools, including selective schools, but we want selective schools to make sure they help children from all backgrounds.

Q15. How should we best support existing grammars to expand?

KCC welcomes the proposals in the consultation document to expand opportunities for pupils from low income families, to have greater social mobility, by increasing the proportion of children from lower income families accessing selective education and by ensuring grammar schools work more effectively in supporting and working collaboratively with other schools in their locality.

The best way to support existing grammar schools is to establish with a high degree of certainty whether expansion is in the best interests of the grammar school and the learning communities served by the school. The government needs to ensure that local authorities have the resources and powers to expand local provision where there is a clear demonstrable need. Local authorities need to have a central role in deciding whether greater selection is introduced in an area in order to maintain a balance of choice and diversity of provision, ensuring a sensible and appropriate level of grammar provision as part of the mix. This is crucial for Kent as we are a wholly selective local authority.

For example, KCC responded to a parental demand to establish satellite selective provision in the area of Sevenoaks. Many of Sevenoaks’ young people historically have had to travel to Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells to access grammar provision. KCC confirmed that there was a clear demonstrable need for selective provision in the area, based on our assessment of basic need and the expansion of places needed across all secondary provision in the area. KCC agreed to support a selective academy sponsor to expand their provision in the Sevenoaks area through the provision of an annexe. This annexe was eventually approved by the DfE but only meets the need for selective education for girls in the Sevenoaks area. There remains a demand for grammar provision for boys in the area. This issue is in part due to the fact that the Trust in question is a single sex school, had it been co-educational the issue would not have arisen.

KCC welcomes the dedicated funding of £50 million a year to support the expansion of existing grammar schools. Whilst this sum of money is welcome, KCC believes that this should be increased in order to enable good and outstanding grammars to expand where the need arises.

Having the opportunity to expand existing grammars will help to ensure a balanced approach to delivering sufficient selective and non-selective provision within all areas of Kent. However, in some circumstances, it may be more appropriate to consider opening a new selective school rather than expanding an existing grammar school.

Ministers will want to ensure a socially representative group of children are accessing grammar provision. This ambition is shared in Kent, and with 10% of grammar school places in the county, at Year 7, being taken by children from the independent schools sector, this represents a lower figure than the national average.

It is worth noting that recent changes to post-16 funding have had a limiting effect on the range of curriculum provision that grammar school sixth forms can offer. In Kent, this has resulted in a reduced curriculum offer for pupils attending grammar sixth forms and this has

12

subsequently had an adverse impact on the financial sustainability of grammar schools more generally.

KCC believes it would also be helpful if the DfE were to revise the criteria to enable selective academy schools to use Condition Improvement Funding (CIF) to meet the cost of capital expansion works rather than begin limited to capital maintenance and improvement.

Q16. What can we do to support the creation of either wholly or partially new selective schools?

We would welcome greater support for the creation of mixed selective and non-selective Multi Academy Trusts. We think this is the way forward to create stronger links between grammar schools and non-selective schools and to provide some greater flexibility for students at different ages and stages to move between the different types of provision.

Q17. How can we support existing non-selective schools to become selective? Please see Selective Schools section in the consultation.

Any consideration of whether a non-selective school should become a grammar school should include scrutiny of the role it is currently fulfilling within its local community and whether there is a need for more selective places in the area.

The need for schools that are developing a broad vocational curriculum offer is just as great and may be better suited to the learning needs of the school cohort. This vocational provision should be of high quality, leading to recognised qualifications and provide young people with the necessary skills to more easily access apprenticeship and the wider world of work. There are currently no barriers to a school streaming its more academically able students, and where this is the case, we can see benefits to non-selective partnering with a more academic institution such as an independent or grammar school or a local university. We have examples of this in Kent.

As a local authority, we do not see the need for, and would be concerned about the conversion of non-selective schools to selective provision. This would have an adverse impact on the balance of our existing provision. Already, 28% of secondary provision in Kent is selective. We believe that this is the correct balance in terms of the ability threshold of pupils within Kent.

This does not, however, negate the possible need to improve the quality of non-selective provision in an area on offer for children who will not be attending grammar school. For example, in an area that is experiencing rapid housing growth, in order to improve non-selective provision, there may be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider the conversion of a non-selective secondary school to a grammar school, as long as there was sufficient and appropriate high quality non-selective provision also available.

Q18. Are these the right conditions to ensure that selective schools improve the quality of non-selective places?



KCC believes that a number of the conditions in this section of the consultation paper may lead to unnecessary duplication of existing provision and the potential inefficient use of public funds. For example, the proposed option to establish a new non-selective secondary

13

school, where a new selective school is approved, could result in over-provision of non-selective places and have a negative impact on existing non-selective places.

There is nothing currently prohibiting the casual admission of pupils joining selective schools of different ages at any time. It should also be noted that pupils are already able to transfer at the ages of 11 and 16

Q19. Are there other conditions that we should consider as requirements for new or expanding selective schools, and existing non-selective schools becoming selective?


KCC believes that the proportion of children in receipt of Free School Meals and attending grammar schools in Kent is relatively low (2.8%) and that action is required from schools to ensure that more able children from low-income backgrounds and children in care have the same chances and opportunities to access the grammar school system as those from more affluent backgrounds.

For this to happen, a number of key barriers for low-income families need to be addressed and schools need to work hard to accelerate work to break down these barriers to access grammar school provision.

For example, in KCC’s Grammar Schools and Social Mobility Select Committee report (June 2016), the following recommendations were made:

KCC urged all grammar schools to use multiple uniform providers to minimise costs and subsidise or cover the costs of schools trips and other expenses for pupils from low income families to ensure these are not prohibitive factors to children applying for or securing a grammar school place;

KCC to extend the existing entitlement for children on FSMs to free school transport to their nearest appropriate school to all children in receipt of Pupil Premium;

KCC should raise the low income threshold to £21k to enable pupils from low income families but not entitled to Free School Meals to access free transport to their nearest appropriate secondary school;

Grammar schools should engage fully with parents and families to address misconceptions and promote the offer grammar schools can make to all students irrespective of background;

All grammar schools should provide more outreach to primary schools including after school classes in English and mathematics, mentoring and preparation for the Kent Test for primary aged pupils in Yrs 4-6 including those most academically able children in receipt of the Pupil Premium;

Urge all “super selective” grammar schools to allocate a number of places for pupils registered in that academic year for Pupil Premium support and who achieve an appropriate combined test score in the Kent Test. We would also invite these schools to review the impact of “super selection” on social mobility in their areas

Q20. What is the right proportion of children from lower income households for new selective schools to admit?

KCC believes that the proportion of children from lower income households, who are ‘just about managing’, that are accepted to new selective schools should reflect the local demographic and the percentage of all pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium in the local area.

14

KCC also believes that existing grammar schools, as well as new, should have to consider accepting a representative proportion of children from low-income households, who are ‘just about managing’.

Q21. Are these sanctions the right ones to apply to schools that fail to meet the requirements?



KCC believes that new grammar schools (selective academies) should be held to account through their Funding Agreements with the Secretary of State.

Kent is a selective authority. Proposing to restrict access to the future growth of grammar schools that do not admit the ‘right’ proportion of children from low-income households will have an adverse effect on the local authority fulfilling its statutory duty to secure sufficient school places for all children to meet the growing demographic demand for secondary school places – a demand that is currently forecast to keep rising until the early 2030s.

Q22. If not, what other sanctions might be effective in ensuring selective schools contribute to the number of good non-selective places locally?

N/A

Q23. How can we best ensure that new and expanding selective schools and existing non-selective schools becoming selective are located in the areas that need good school places the most?

In an existing selective system where we have (and will continue to face for more than a decade) growing demand for secondary provision the location and nature of any new provision is a critical issue, particularly at a time of major financial constraints. Good forecasting and long term planning is essential and as the responsible body we currently manage this very effectively through the annual production of a rolling five year plan – the Kent Education Commissioning Plan. That plan will continue to adapt to changing circumstances and legislation but if we are to deliver quality school places there will need to be a recognition that in a selective system we will need new and expanded selective schools and good, new and expanded non-selective provision if the selective system is to work effectively. To deliver the requirements set out in the Plan will require the co-operation of the EFA and RSC as well as Multi-Academy and single academy Trusts. To avoid over or under provision of places, there should be a greater duty placed upon these government agencies and academy Trusts to work with LAs who have a strong track record in accurately assessing and addressing demand, facilitating the delivery of the right types of school places.

Q24. How can we best ensure that the benefits of existing selective schools are brought to bear on local non-selective schools?

There are significant benefits to strong partnerships between grammar schools and their local primary schools including providing pupils and parents with the information required to choose the most appropriate secondary school for them including information about grammar schools, their admissions procedures and the potential benefits they offer. Partnerships including both grammar and primary schools can have a significant impact through delivering effective outreach to their communities, encouraging academically able pupils to apply for grammar schools and supporting pupils in the admissions process

15

Partnerships can also enable a joint focus between primary and grammar schools on the development and learning of disadvantaged groups, including children supported by the Pupil Premium, to counteract the disadvantages these children face.

KCC’s recent Select Committee on Grammar Schools and Social Mobility found numerous examples of existing partnership good practice across all phases in Kent. Primary and grammar school Headteachers during the Select Committee evidence sessions recognised the need to build on these examples and expressed their support for the development of proactive relationships between grammar and primary schools. To do this, KCC has an important role in facilitating learning, from both local and national examples, of what types of outreach, engagement and support works most effectively. This includes championing those schools using creative interventions and promoting a focus on ensuring all children are supported towards an appropriate educational setting.

Collaborative structures in education have changed significantly in recent years with schools now adopting a variety of formal arrangements including federations, and multi-academy trusts including those which sponsor.

Kent has a number of successful selective and non-selective secondary school partnerships that operate within local MATs. These include the Valley Invicta Academies Trust, the Coastal Academies Trust and the Skinners’ Company and Schools. As local MATs grow, KCC will endeavour to facilitate more of these selective and non-selective collaborations.

There are nearly 500 schools in Kent working as part of a collaboration or partnership including 70 improvement hubs with a focus on improving school performance, quality of teaching and standards of attainment. These improvement collaborations have been supported for a number of years with KCC funding.

These arrangements offer significant opportunities including more joint delivery of outreach, improved dissemination of best practice and the development of a shared ambition for improved outcomes for disadvantaged pupils.

Q25. Are there other things we should ask of existing selective schools to ensure they support non-selective education in their areas?


Please see our response to Question 24.

Q26. Should the conditions we intend to apply to new or expanding selective schools also apply to existing selective schools?


That makes sense to have coherence and similar expectations across the system.

Faith Schools

16

Faith schools make up a third of all schools in England. The government currently applies a 50% cap on the number of children admitted by faith for oversubscribed new free schools, in order to foster inclusivity. However, the evidence suggests that this rule does not achieve inclusivity and in fact prevents some high-performing faith schools from expanding or establishing new schools. We want to deliver real inclusivity in schools, while increasing the number of good school places, including at new faith schools.

Q27. Are these the right alternative requirements to replace the 50% rule?


KCC endorses the proposal to remove the 50% cap on the number of children admitted by faith for oversubscribed new free schools in order to deliver real inclusivity. Due to the current government cap on the proportion of places that new faith schools can offer to pupils of their own faith, the Catholic Education Service has chosen not to open any new schools in the last six years. The government’s proposal to lift the cap should enable new Catholic schools to open where the need for places is evident, and consequently, KCC welcomes the proposal to lift the cap.

KCC maintains the view that schools should be a focal point of their local communities and, as such, we are concerned to ensure in removing the 50% cap, we do not overly impact negatively on the local communities’ access to these schools. If there is a particular religious focus within a school, this should be welcomed and promoted to attract like-minded families.

Q28. How else might we ensure that faith schools espouse and deliver a diverse, multi-faith offer to parents within a faith school environment?

As MATs continue to grow, the government may also wish to consider how to encourage mixed-faith multi-academy trusts in order to deliver faith schools that promote tolerance and inclusivity, offering a diverse, multi-faith offer to parents and children.

Q29. Are there other ways in which we can effectively monitor faith schools for integration and hold them to account for performance?


Ofsted could inspect for a school’s effectiveness in promoting social cohesion, as it once did, and schools could be held to account for their inclusion of a proportion of their pupils to come from different or no faith backgrounds.

Q30. Are there other sanctions we could apply to faith schools that do not meet this requirement?


Re-impose the cap to 50%, for schools that do not respond appropriately.

17

Documents

Kent County Council (KCC) Executive Summary · Web viewExtend the existing entitlement for children on FSM to free school ... with Imperial College on Particle Physics. ... We are