Norfolk County Council s1

NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL

FRAMINGHAM EARL HIGH SCHOOL

Meeting of the Governors of FEHS on

14th June 2017

at 16.00 p.m

MINUTES

1. / Welcome: RM welcomed all to the meeting.
Present: Roger Margand (Chair of Governors), Nicola Furneaux (Head teacher), Liz Humphrey, Peter Porter, Trudy Musgrove (left at 18:20), Helen Otter (arrived at 16:30), Ray Sykes (left at 18:30), Alison Randall (left at 18:05), Jason Hodgkiss and John Gordon (left at 19:00).
Other: Terry Roberts (left at 19:40), Gareth Yassin, Julie Wilson, Arthur Vandenbergh (Associate Governors) and Deborah Steele (Clerk).
Apologies: None.
Quorate throughout meeting. / ACTION
2. / Register of Business Interests:
All governors present confirmed that they did not have any interests to declare in any items of this agenda in accordance with the duty imposed by section 16 of the School Governance (Roles, Procedures and Allowances) (England) Regulations 2013 other than those previously disclosed.
NF declared TR (Associate Governor) had accepted a non-executive Directorship of Modular Works (the company who provided the new on site modular building) as an unpaid role; time taken to advise the company will be taken as annual leave and further sales of buildings arising from promotion of the build at Framingham Earl will result in a 2.5% payment to the school.
AR required a log is retained of the time spent assisting the company to balance against the potential gain. NF agreed.
ACTION (Admin) TR to retain log of time allocated to Modular Works. / ACTION TR
3. / Minutes of the meeting held on 24th & 26th April 2017

Agreement and signature without amendment, proposed EH seconded RM and all agreed.

Agreement and signature with the following amendment:
“EH attended the SAFE meeting” (Item 15).
Proposed PP and seconded TM and all agreed.
4. / Matters arising from meeting 22nd March 2017
Was item 8 comparison of student absence (under 90%) compared to national - AVB update from meeting with County Officer.
AVB advised the figure for FSM and Ever 6 is the only data “announced” (as in nationally published) and is limited to two terms compared to Framingham Earl data which is calculated on the year to date.
NF noted a more direct comparison (of two terms of data) could be conducted and although Ever 6 includes LAC (of which there are 3 in school) and Service children, statistically the number is too small to effect a comparison.
ACTION AVB to conduct comparison and report back.
Was item 9 focused look at the gender and LAP/MAP/HAP profiles across Year 7 to identify students who are not doing well.
GY advised this related to the Year 7 Interim report and pupil’s status on entry and prior attainment (see doc 4.2 GHub for summary and tables) and areas for future focus when looking at the (to be) Year 8.
PP noted the area for consideration is LAPs in English.
NF noted the vulnerability in Year 8 and the high percentage of boys.
RM questioned the strategy and gender specific interventions?
GY advised for these students the interventions are very personalised as opposed to gender specific.
RM challenged the gender indicator.
GY advised “gender” interventions may not necessarily solve the problem.
NF advised on the potential to look again at girls when discussing the SIDP for next year and in particular books/topics to study; a number of topics have been chosen to attempt to improve boy’s engagement and it is important to ensure girls’ engagement.
NF stated the issue of gender will be an interesting objective on the SIDP and of the need for the school to be boy and girl friendly.
JG noted the data behind the SEND Report shows it is the lower attainment group regardless of gender, who are the most challenging and include students coming in at 4a and below the line of expected progress; the challenge is to provide a way to focus student progress rather than relying on gender, to raise attainment across the board.
RM questioned what the strategy will be.
GY advised further discussion will be held in Leadership and looking at what it is the students need to access to improve.
GY advised this will be discussed in detail in meetings with JG and TM and will be a theme for them as Lead Governors to look out for.
EH questioned the fact that the gender issue has not changed over many years and asked if single sex schools have gender specific initiatives and should the emphasis be on “just” teaching students.
NF agreed and advised on the need to get away from “gender” due to “gender fluidity”.
NF advised this year and last, female students from Framingham Earl visited Norwich HS for Girls (NHSG) and the visit demonstrated the fact NHSG is very comfortable about celebrating the success of women and the lack of need to deal with the counter argument.
Governors discussed the fact that discussions around gender and student engagement is a strength of the school.
Matters arising from the meeting 260417
Was item 5 SIDP 3 and 4 Student Achievement Report Years 10 and 11 (2) – GY & JG to report back in detail regarding Year 11 maths, PP and specific reasons.
GY advised the issue is picked up in the PP report to be discussed during Item 8.
Was item 6 SIDP 4 Achievement of Nurture students EH/GY
GY advised on the document (4.4 & 4.4.1) added to GHub and thanked GH and AH for drafting the reports and see documents for details of:
·  The Dragons:
·  Ccohort and the different measures of assessment.
·  Use of PP funding – 50% of cohort being PP (7) students.
·  Three case studies - illustrating student progress made and the challenges faced.
·  Evidence of progress - for some students.
·  Impact of interventions - to be further examined.
·  4.4.1 – parent feedback.
·  Questions for governors - whether the progress made by the Year 7’s can be maintained next year and Value for Money.
AR questioned of the 14 pupils (Year 7) benefitting from the core provision, how many attend overall.
GY advised the number is fluid as some students only attend for one lesson and only 6 of the previous Year 8’s still keep in touch with Dragons; the emphasis is to ensure transition into main school.
JW advised the measure of success is full access into mainstream education without bounce back.
AR questioned if an increase in “Dragon” numbers is expected.
NF advised the provision will broaden next year due to the cohort and broadening of the provision.
AR questioned if this includes out of catchment.
NF advised it did and there is a risk associated to pupils attending the school from out of catchment as the SEND funding is dependent upon the sufficiency of funds in Cluster and only the PP funding follows the child albeit late.
NF confirmed there is less funding available for children with need.
GY noted the potential for children out of catchment to be lost in traditional mainstream education and their vulnerability as a result.
NF noted the need to be very clear what is being provided in Nurture based on the particular needs of the children and risks associated.
RS noted the need to celebrate the success of the project.
JG questioned if questionnaires will be used for parent feedback on the effect of transition into mainstream.
NF advised some parents wish their children to remain in Nurture and the school is clear the intervention is a Year 7 intervention only and if transition is not possible, then Framingham Earl may not be the right school for them; this could impact upon answers provided.
GY advised GH works with teachers regarding transition for some pupils and the need to extend this work to all students.
NF advised on the need for a future report on transition and during a recent conversation with the County Inclusion Officer, the lack of LA (Nurture specific) provision was noted. / ACTION AVB
5. / Year 8 Focus Report
NF advised the format is the same as the previous Year 7 and 10 Reports and highlighted:
·  This is the anomalous Year group.
·  High number of boys and disadvantaged profile including SEND.
·  Mobility - 9 students joining Year 8 and need to obtain number joining at Year 7; 3 additional expressions of interest and difficulties of additional children joining this Year group.
·  Cross over in that 46% of disadvantaged students have SEND and lower attaining.
·  Reflected in behaviour.
·  Significantly higher negative events.
·  A challenging year group and not getting any easier but the new reporting system provides a lot more information and shows rotation of pupils off and on the system not seen before.
·  Need to have ensure we have robust data on the positive events; although not reported assurance given that the children are rewarded.
·  The Year group is a test case for the school and the challenge is to keep our practice excellent.
·  Impact of a “group” mentality upon behaviour.
JW advised on high incidents of parental mental health and domestic violence issues and training provided to staff to assist work with the children.
·  Need to keep the focus on all the children in the year and ensure the teaching is at its best for them as a group.
·  Important to monitor the SIDP and question for discussion is, should there be a Lead Governors to track and challenge.
·  The group is very well tutored and sick absence has been covered by GY.
·  Need to ensure a balance of students when “grouping” next year; the increase in groups from 5 to 6 was led by the curriculum but can lead to issues in how as a group, the students behave and learn.
PP noted during his recent visit, an inappropriate comment by a Year 8 student was ignored by students and the teacher during a Learning Walk and how positive he felt this was based upon the needs of this Year group.
PP questioned the 9 new students and have any left.
JW advised two moved accommodation and one more is due to leave; one was for what would be considered a negative reason and failure.
NF agreed it was useful to include in reports why a child leaves.
ACTION (Admin) NF.
PP noted the effort grade generally decreases and is typical of what occurs in school; but there is an anomaly in Year 8.
JG questioned the nature of the negative events and are there any trends including consideration of what time incidents occur to help prioritise staffing.
JW advised the data is discussed to inform the response from the teaching staff; with regard to the time of the incidents there are no obvious trends and it is about the right teaching taking place to motivate the students.
ACTION (Admin) GY to provide details in Report for Year Group 8 and 9 for future discussion with Lead governor TM.
JG questioned due to the fact there are reduced teaching days in some months could this impact upon the data.
JW agreed and noted the report also reflects supply teaching.
NF noted the need to ensure the broader issues are reported to governors rather than individual student issues and suggested PP discuss with the Guidance Team what reports would be useful.
ACTION (Admin) PP to discuss and include as required in future reports.
RM noted the need to agree if a Lead Governor role is advantageous.
NF advised the issues relate to a few changes.
JW advised discussions with students on subject options has shown that the students understand the impact of their behaviour on their choices.
JG questioned if any of the issues were signalled by the cluster schools.
NF advised the issues were well signposted and the current Year 7s show none of the issues.
TM noted the degree to which the boys are behind girls and the associated risk in maths.
GY agreed and on the need to look at setting carefully.
JG questioned if retaining Form Groups may be advantageous.
JW agreed as the move at the start of Year 8 was hard for the students; there is a strong Tutor Team and Nurture understanding is moving into tutoring.
Governors discussed:
·  Agreement as to Lead Governor roles to be held when the SIDP is agreed.
·  Existing cross over between Lead Governor topics.
·  Is behaviour a key issue and the difficulty in untangling behaviour from PP?
·  Potential for each Lead Governor to include a focus on Year 8.
·  To discuss further at the next FGB.
ACTION Clerk to carry forward,
RM thanked NF for a very helpful report. / ACTION NF
ACTION GY
ACTION PP
ACTION CLERK
6. / In-School Variation Report
TM reported:
·  Several meetings held throughout the year and examination of different subjects.
·  No surprises in data and changes to Curriculum resulted in a lack of comparison to previous years.
·  KS3 data has been added as the year progressed but unable to analyse objectively due to limited information.
·  GCSE predictions show weakness in geography and confident this will not be a trend.