Eversholt Academy Trust ( Academy Trust )

Company Number: 7697481

EVERSHOLT ACADEMY TRUST (“ACADEMY TRUST”)

Minutes of a meeting of the board of directors of the Academy Trust held atEversholt Lower Schoolon18th September 2014 at 7.30 pm (“Meeting”).

Present: / Rob Fraser
David Hunt
Steven Smith
John Logan
Pamela Finch
Gaynor Miller
Claire Kotecki
Dave Bottle
Vicky Burton
Parag Gandesha
Nathalie Muller
Simon Kitson
Steven Smith
In attendance: / Sam Allen
Apologies: / None

1Preliminary

The Chairperson reported that notice of the Meeting had been given to the directors of the Academy Trust who were entitled to receive it.

The Chairperson noted that a quorum was present and he declared the Meeting open.

2 Apologies

Noted above

3. Governing Body Elections- Chair and Vice-chair

The Chair and Vice Chair were re-elected.

RF happy to continue to act as Chair. Proposed by David Hunt and seconded by Nathalie Muller. Agreed unanimously.

CK happy to continue to act as vice-chair but does not wish to take over as Chair. In the interests of succession planning RF would like to nominate a vice-chair later in the year with a view to taking over as Chair in the future. CK happy to continue to act as vice-chair in the meantime. Proposed by Rob Fraser and seconded by David Hunt. Agreed unanimously.

4.Meeting Protocols

RF referred to the document distributed prior to the meeting “what do governing bodies do”. The meeting were reminded that the purpose of the governing body is to “govern”, not to be involved in day-to-day operations

In order to progress actions, the governing body will now meet 6 times per year. Agendas will be provided 14 days in advance. Repeated lack of attendance by a governor will mean a need to refill that role.

RF reminded everyone of the absolute need for confidentiality. Governance must be separated from community. Conversations should not leak out in order to ensure trust between leadership and the governing body.

No point of view is unreasonable. Everyone should feel free to contribute to the meeting in a calm and professional manner. RF’s job is to ensure that conclusions are reached and actions are assigned. We will try to finish meetings sooner.

A confidentiality and transparency policy is on the School’s website which clearly states what information is appropriate to keep confidential and what should be on record. There is an assumption that meetings should be made public, but we reserve the right to redact sections of minutes and clearly state what is confidential. Public versions will be published on the website.

A clear boundary should be set between the governors and the teaching staff: governors are here to act as critical friends to support the head and leadership of school in a way whichis supportive

JL referred to a failing school in the midlands where Governors were criticised for not being more active on committee. RF advised that the standard definition of governing body is “critical friends of the school”. Governors are not here to manage, but the failures in the schools JL was referring too was a failure of strategic leadership. This is certainly a governor responsibility, and strategy informs the “critical friend” role with the school leadership.

Looking at the detail of the handout defines what governing body’s do and don’t do : it sets out a clear separation, providing strategic support and direction versus stepping in to the detail of the curriculum, teaching etc. RF reiterated that it is important to be clear on boundaries moving forward.

5.Changes to Declarations of Interests

New forms were completed and returned even if no interests to declare.

No changes were noted to the Declarations. GM took blank forms to distribute to staff. To be returned to SA for filing.

6.Minutes of Previous Meeting

The minutes from the 19thJune 2014 meetingwere reviewed and it was agreed that they were a true and accurate record. The minutes were signed off by RF.

7.Matters Arising from the Minutes

Website - NM confirmed that she had looked at the basic criteria for information on the website to ensure it meets Ofsted disclosure guidance. It was noted that some of the website content needs updating including the calendar. This should be the responsibility of the school/office in the longer term. Action - NM happy to review and assist in the short term.

Leaflets to be distributed to Estate Agents. There are 2 spaces in Year 4. Action - SKhas arranged some leaflet drops already and will look to do more.

Health and Safety review – needs to be scheduled ahead of Ofsted inspection. Action - CK to meet with PF before next governors meeting.

Review of SDP and school data – PF to update later. Will look to produce a single summary document with trend date.

Narratives around assessment framework – PF to own.

Free school meals – RF had received confirmation that insurance arrangements cover this provision. A quick formal assessment had been made. Contractually the provider is covered. There is a proposal to talk to Ridgmont school regarding a contribution to electricity costs but this hasn’t happened yet and isn’t an immediate priority. It has not been possible to put a separate meter in to the supply to the kitchen but we will be able to look at general energy usage to get some indicative information regarding Ridgmont’s use.

Food hygiene training is not required. PF had found some information and shown to lunchtime individuals. Would need to pay for lunchtime staff to stay longer to complete food hygiene training. The lunchtime team are now managing to serve within 1 hour. Office ladies have been putting in extra time to deal with the additional administration. The uptake of meals has been a huge success at almost 100%. Portion sizes were discussed as there seems to be a lot of wastage but this does not affect the school from a cost perspective as a fixed price per meal is paid.

It was noted that huge congratulations and thanks were due to everyone involved in the arrangements to provide school meals, particularly Chris Warren and also SS. Action: RF – to send a thank you to Chris. Towards the end of term the governors will ask for parent feedback on the meals.

Ofsted planning – to defer to PF. Actions were set up before the summer but now to be led by PF

Governing structure and membership: staff governor –GM. Recruitment of additional parent governors to be discussed later.

RF had been redrafting terms of reference in relation to sub-committees and how the governors should be organised moving forward – to discuss later in the agenda.

8.Safeguarding

The governors reviewed the new process and details distributed by PF.

It was noted that the only thing missing is whistleblowing for each other which needs to be brought in to the policy. With each poster is a “cause for concern” sheet which must go to PF directly. PF to also speak to volunteers to make sure any concerns they may have again go directly to PF and not via the class teacher. Forms are accessible in the staff room and also PF’s office.

GM had queried where the key is held for the file in the Headteacher’s office should the Headteacher be absent – this has now been resolved directly.

9.Head Teacher Introduction & Head Teacher led discussion.

RF asked Governors to note that an“heroic” amount of effort had been put in prior to the start of term by PF and the staff. The flow of information was praised – all governors were hugely impressed with & thankful for the amount of work and dedication that staff had put in.

PF stated that she was drilling down in to data left by CW and she was working with a school improvement partner (SIP) to evaluate this.

PF acknowledged that “how to show progress” had been a source of frustration and that it is difficult to have an impact on progress. PF identified that there are 5 main elements of the framework the school will be judged on. The area where governors feature / will be judged on is the assessment of the quality of the leadership and management in the school and the impact they have had on the schools results.

PF had been reviewing school cycle and performance data which had just been received in September. Any data received prior to the September data can be spurious. This data enables PF to fine tune the SEF. Other data can be gathered, and judgments can be made about school/parent feedback but primarily the information must be data led.

PF had met with her SIP who had informed some judgments PF had started to make. PF showed a draft SEF which was intended to be a work in progress. Each section is a headline from the Ofsted framework, underneath which PF had gathered all the information she was able to from the last 3 years. The information had been pulled together to form a judgment of how well the school is performing. PF’s assessment was that the school had done well, however the data helps us to self-criticise and build an effective development plan. It was agreed that PF would do a detailed audit of data and to update the governors each term at GB meetings.

Using the same Ofsted criteria, PF has begun to start producing a school development plan, putting in priorities as they are identified.

Attainment

Behaviour

Quality of teaching / learning

Priorities based on information which come from SEF

PF stated that she would complete the plan by the end of term and thereafter would update the governors with what they can expect to see and what the intentions will be.

PF has said it would be possible to create a section for governors on the school learning platform which can be accessed via a username and password.

PF noted that the budgeting cycle is out of step with the way that performance data is received. This data is needed to identify priorities so this could benefit from a rethink as priorities cannot be identified without the performance data.

Teachers are now using diagnostic sheets to show ongoing assessment – they look at each skills area and use 1, 2 and 3 to evidence when they see the skill emerging or developing. Teachers have a paper copy for each child as they move through the school.

Each area is looked at per year group and the number of skills per subject are counted. The teachers then divide 120 by the number of skills to give a numerical value which is used for quantitative data. For example the governors were shown a sheet evidencing what a child in Y3 is expected to learn. To achieve less than that list of skills would not be good enough. To evidence progress, there needs to be evidence year on year in the tracking which shows that those children are achieving year on year.

There was some discussion regarding the use of numerical values. PF explained that there needs to be some way of tracking how a child has moved on from their individual starting point. 120 fits with the cycle of the year. All subjects are divided in to those areas. Children must make 120points in each year – if come in with 30 points, then they should leave that year with 30+120.

Total points must aggregate 120 points from their starting point. This is noted on an excel sheet. Eg. Maths has 42. Each skill in maths is worth 42/120.

Child comes in to year 3 – can already achieve 50% of tasks for that year. That child still needs to make 120 points so they still show a years worth of progress.

PF noted that we are ahead of other schools in tracking this information now.

Governors asked how we can measure that we got the right base line for each child. Issues in past with assessment of reception children. New way of recording, not a new way of behaving. Have always assessed against the skill. Replaced levels with numbers. Teachers have had moderators in to school the year before last to ensure that assessment is consistent with other schools. Subject leaders will also talk to other teachers in surrounding schools.

PF then talked to the key issue in the data that she could see concerning progress. Children have high starting points at Eversholt– this has historically always been the case in our data. Children leave higher than national averageand therefore attainment is very good, but we need to show the year on year progress. PF identified that while our high achieving pupilsare leaving with high attainment,the data we have shows that their progress starts to slow as they move through the school. SIP had talked to PF at length about this and this has been highlighted as a development area for our school – PF is already starting to address.

Looking in detail at the data, overall the LA average was 7.1 progress, we made 6.4. In maths we made 5.6 compared with the LA score of 6.5 (below expected progress of 6). Our data was based on figures available for 11 students and after 4 pupils hadleft the cohort. Those 4 pupils represented the most capable maths pupils. Had they stayed, data for progress would have appeared far better - we have unmatched data which shows maths progress would have been 7.2, far higher than local average and representative of outstanding progress.

Losing 1/3rd of students who are potentially the highest achievers highlights the importanceof tracking progress of children half termly. Ofsted look at progress as highest priority. If can’t show progress, will affect Ofsted’s judgment in other areas eg. Quality of teaching and learning.

DB challenged the view that the lower scores were as a result of attrition. Some discussion around this. Previously the school had only been aiming for expected in the scoring of progress but this will change.

Discussion around phonics test: poorer than national average & local average, though there are mitigating factors associated with the introduction of this scheme that are being addressed.

PF has already introduced some changes: assembly at end of day to maximise key learning time in the morning. Increased maths teaching in KS2 with maths challenge, bought in to a read, write ink programme, brought in phonics teaching and higher emphasis on phonics. Produced rigorous cycle for monitoring in each year group.

It was asked about the status ofthe creative curriculum approach used at the school. PF commented that we continue to have whole school theme includes music, art etc and that in any case creativity is a teaching style and approach not specific curriculum content.

RF commented that funding agreement requires the Academy to pursue a broad and balanced curriculum. Academies don’t have to follow national curriculum but still have to achieve levels and will have same judgments of curriculum whatever that is.

Need to publish details of our curriculum on our website. Need to ensure accurate reflection. PF to look at this with NM.

Other development areas identified apart from curriculum:

• Opportunities to hear from parents: introduction of a parent forum – PF asking parents via newsletter if would like to meet with her for 45 mins. To get contributions of how school can improve. Queried whether it always be held in school hours? PF said she would run different sessions at different times to reach out to as many parents as possible.
• We will hold Governors meetings downstairs in future in classrooms to give an opportunity to see learning environments
• outside area plans have taken a back seat because of the kitchen but areas identified included playground marking and painting the hall. PF had spoken to Fundraising lead and set out short, medium and long term plan.
• In terms of management it was agreed that low level activities which governors have driven historically should nowbe taken by the school leadership moving forward.

Criteria for Ofsted review has now changed – there is now a new way of receiving data. Ofsted criteria look at the Quality and Leadership of management. Stringently hold leaders to account. Have to acknowledge that only so much governors can do when not in school everyday.

RF updated the governors on an outstanding appeal by a local family who had moved in to the catchment area and were declined a place at the school. The family subsequently secured a reception place for a sibling and were now appealing to place the older child in to Year 2. Maximum legal class size for KS1 is 30. If the appeal is successful will need to hire another teacher (or experienced teaching assistant). This is already an issue in [KS1] where the class size is already 32.

10.Governing Body Structure & Membership in 14/15

SA Update: PF’s appointment as Director has been recorded at Companies House as taking effect from 31st August 2014. CW’s resignation has also taken effect from 31st August 2014. Fritha Fletcher’s resignation as parent governor had also been received dated 21st June 2014. FF has confirmed that she does not wish to be appointed as a staff governor at this time.

RF outlined the Governing Body 14-15 Composition Proposal circulated ahead of the meeting.

Role of members/trustees not necessarily active governors. RF wanted to make clear that there is no obligation for members to attend all 6 meetings but they were of course very welcome to do so. It was recognised that they did make a valuable contribution. JL expressed concern that if they didn’t attend they wouldn’t know what was going on which was acknowledged.