The Governing Body of School

THE GOVERNING BODY OF JOHN BALL PRIMARY SCHOOL

Minutes of a meeting of the Governing Body held at the school on

Tuesday 6 December 2011 at 7.00 pm

6

John Ball GB minutes autumn 2011 (2)

PRESENT: Ian Blight

Angela East

Matthew Fields

Sarah Gilbert

Kate Jenkins

Carol Miller

Kathy Moss

John Odam-Adjei

Tara Parkhouse

Michael Roach – Headteacher

Jocelyn Shaw – Chair of Governors

Elizabeth Smith

Jo Young

Linda Yue

6

John Ball GB minutes autumn 2011 (2)

Also present: Damaris Dodds – Clerk to the Governors

Julia McCrossen – Deputy Headteacher

1.  APOLOGIES and DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Apologies for absence were received with consent from Tim Warner.
Governors were reminded that they must declare conflicts and pecuniary interests before items were discussed, and must withdraw from the meeting while the item was under discussion.
2.  TO AGREE THE BUSINESS FOR THE MEETING
It was agreed that the business for the meeting would be taken as set out in the agenda.
PART A – MAIN BUSINESS
3.  SCHOOL PERFORMANCE DATA AND SELF EVALUATION
The self evaluation report had been circulated shortly before the meeting; it was as up-to-date as possible but would need to be rewritten in January when the new Ofsted framework came into operation.
The School Achievement Review had taken place that afternoon and had been positive; the School Improvement Adviser, Gareth Williams, had been very complimentary. Based on current projections the school should be in Category 1 by the summer. JBS was allocated two days a year of the SIA’s time, which would be used in looking through the self evaluation framework. The meeting earlier in the day had looked at achievement in relation to performance data. The school was certainly good and there was evidence to suggest it was outstanding. The SIA had suggested that the SLT rewrite the SEF but also analyse gaps against the new Ofsted framework and write an action plan and decision-making tree so that the school was ready for an inspection. It was suggested that governors be invited in over the two days when the SIA was in the school and possibly have a session with him at the end.
The SEF judgements listed in the Headteacher’s Report were made against the old framework; it would be harder to be outstanding with the new framework. As an example of what the school was doing to improve under the new framework the Headteacher described staff training in benchmarking and standardisation in phonics. In the New Year key staff would look at this with reference to early intervention.
The Headteacher considered that the school had turned a corner; staff monitoring had never been so rigorous, and all staff had gone through pupil tracking with the SLT. The SLT had carried out learning walks and had looked at the Assessment for Learning Policy and pupil focus groups. Staff had gone through the assessment cycle with the John Synott tracker and the school now knew how each vulnerable group was performing, and how to reach these judgements; staff were now being supported and challenged in doing so.
Staff had been through moderation, and the Headteacher described the process of benchmarking levels and sharing professional judgements. There had been varying responses to what was a vulnerable situation for some staff but the vast majority had welcomed it. It meant that standards were shared across the school, as was consistency. This linked in to management issues and CPD. The school now had the most accurate data possible at this stage of the year, and had been able to produce percentages at the expected level. For example, 27% of children in Year 1 were already at level 1a which was a very strong position for the school. The SLT was trying to get staff to think holistically about children’s achievement rather than focus on tests. A lot of strengths had come out of the process, and greater consistency was apparent in children’s work. With regard to tests that were not consistent with the expected level for the child, staff were now less likely to accept the test outcome.
At the staff meeting the following week staff would be given up-to-date tracking information including data on attendance, specific interventions and progress made. The Deputy Headteacher had done an analysis of every year group and identified key children who might need interventions, and it would be possible to compare assessment judgements with progress data. Interventions could then be re-assessed to ensure better progress was made as a priority. The Headteacher would email the data to governors although it would not be completely accurate until a full year cycle had been completed. The school was predicting a big step in progress and attainment in the spring term; the picture across Years 3, 4 and 5 was particularly strong. Teaching in Year 5 was securely good at present and the gap was closing in Year 4 following a lower outcome for the cohort in Year 2.
Staff present at the meeting agreed that the tracker system had been useful although it was noted that the wider progress made did not necessarily show up in the data.
The Headteacher referred to the thorough analysis of attainment and progress using performance data that was given in the self evaluation form. In 2011 boys had outperformed girls, especially in maths; of the underperforming girls, some had been allowed to drift; they had made the expected two levels’ progress from Key Stage 1 but too late. The analysis enabled the school to question whether the interventions being made were targeted at the right children.
It was pointed out that according to the data girls were outperforming boys at Key Stage 1 in everything except maths, but this situation was reversed at the end of Key Stage 2. The Headteacher replied that this had been discussed with the SIA, and if data from the past three years showed it to be a steady trend it was an issue for the school to address.
The Headteacher was asked if he had any thoughts on why the rate of progress in Year 2 had reduced between 2010 and 2011. He said that this was because progress had previously been slow in Year 1 and rapid in Year 2 but the 2011 cohort had had steadier progress across both years. He was also asked if there were children who made expected progress in Key Stage 1 but not in Key Stage 2; the Deputy Headteacher replied that this was the case with the underachieving girls mentioned earlier. The tracker made this type of information more accessible and there was less opportunity for children to coast.
A number of key groupings had in 2011 been significantly above the national average for value added. Ian Blight illustrated how value added was calculated, and explained that a scatter of outcomes below the mean could be significant; variations between different groups could indicate areas of underachievement and help identify problems.
It was pointed out that although the value added summary generally gave a good picture, black Caribbean children appeared to be underachieving in comparison with others although the difference was not great. The Headteacher said that the majority of girls who had been underachieving in Year 6 in 2011 were from that group and some had had SEN. He went on to say that there were also questions to be asked about whether SEN had been a genuine factor, and provision would be reviewed to make sure the interventions being made were right for the individual children in question. Ms Parkhouse added that often needs were more complex than could be addressed in just one way. It was also noted that there was a wider national issue in relation to the underachievement of black Caribbean children.
Personalising the curriculum to meet the needs of all learners, making all staff aware of who the underachieving children were and being ambitious for them and ensuring that there were outside role models to help them develop confidence and an interest in learning were some of the ways in which the school could address underachievement in specific groups. Mentoring schemes, in which adults came in and supported children, had been discussed at JBS; this would involve an adult talking to a specific child and providing a role model if needed. It required a commitment to provide that support consistently but could make a huge difference. Some governors expressed an interest in mentoring, and the Headteacher agreed that, when children who might benefit were identified through tracking meetings, he would email governors to see who could help.
The self-evaluation form would be revised against the new Ofsted framework and re-circulated to governors for the next Governing Body meeting.
4.  HEADTEACHER’S REPORT
The Headteacher’s Report had been emailed to governors in advance. The Headteacher took governors through the report and the following were highlighted:
·  The school roll had increased; if available places were filled it would reach around 214.
·  There was an ongoing improvement in attendance.
·  The state of the budget was positive, and a slight underspend was expected.
·  The biennial financial audit had taken place, and there was a significant improvement on the last; although the report had not yet been received the school expected to be judged between ‘substantial’ and ‘satisfactory’ with no significant issues.
·  An audit of policies had been carried out and all statutory policies were in place. The Headteacher was asked about the RE policy and replied that it was quite old but valid, although it needed to be reviewed. He was also asked about the possibility of the school opting out of collective worship; he explained how it was applied in school in a broad context, through assemblies and reflection. Governors asked if the statutory policies were on the school website; the Headteacher said that some were, and others could be placed on the website if they were not.
·  The Governing Body section on the website contained a preamble on what governors did, but someone needed to take responsibility for it. There needed to be a pen portrait of each governor, and a decision on whether to display Governing Body minutes. Governors discussed parent access and what should be placed on the website. It was
RESOLVED that John Odam-Adjei would work on setting up the governors’ section of the school website, and would discuss governors’ use of Fronter with Julie Odeje.
5.  TARGET SETTING
The 2012 targets had been reviewed with the SIA, and the targets for 2013 would be shared with him. It was
RESOLVED to set the following targets for the end of Key Stage 2 in 2013:
·  93% of pupils to reach Level 4+ in reading, and 69% to reach Level 5;
·  90% of pupils to reach Level 4+ in writing, and 47% to reach Level 5;
·  92% of pupils to reach Level 4+ in maths, and 41% to reach Level 5;
·  90% to reach Level 4+ in both English and maths.
6.  CAPITAL SPEND STRATEGY
The school development working group had discussed John Ball’s capital spend strategy in medium to long term, and notes of the meeting had been circulated. It was
RESOLVED to delegate responsibility to the working group to continue to explore options for the development of the school and improvements to the buildings, and that the working group would bring its recommendations to the next full Governing Body meeting.
7.  ACADEMY STATUS
It had been previously agreed that Headteacher and Chair of Governors would start to explore the arguments for and against academy status for primary schools, in order to ensure that governors were better informed of the general political and local context. Both were clear at the start of the session that discussions at present were in the context of fact-finding rather than any decision about changing or not changing the status of JBS. The Chair and Headteacher gave a report on a DfE conference on Academies that they had attended. They said the financial benefits were currently unclear, and schools would have to buy in services that they otherwise received at a discountedprice from the local authority, including HR and legal services. Although freedom over the curriculum and decisions aboutthe length and time of the school day had been cited as an advantage the Headteacher did not feel he was currently constrained in Lewisham. Information from the conference had been circulated in advance and the Headteacher and Chair took governors through the main points. Governors discussed the local and national factors that influenced schools in deciding whether or not to become Academies. It was
RESOLVED that the Headteacher would arrange a visit to an academy primary school with similar context to John Ball for Governors to delve further into the issue. and that the Chair of Governors would find out more about DfE funding for academies.
PART B – COMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS AND GOVERNORS’ ACTIVITIES
8.  COMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS AND LINK GOVERNORS
a)  Any points for discussion from committees:
Personnel / Pay Committee: Minutes of the meeting of 15 November had been circulated in advance. The main item discussed had been arrangements for SEN and Inclusion following Jenny Hill’s departure, as the school had not been able to recruit to the SENCo post. Interim measures were that the Headteacher, Deputy Head and Sue Reilly would manage the caseload, and teaching cover would be provided to enable existing staff to take on leadership roles in relation to SEN. Staff with SEN responsibilities would meet weekly to share issues and co-ordinate the caseload. Parents had been informed of the arrangements and of who to contact. The post would be re-advertised in January.