CYP(4)-32-13 – Paper to Note 4

Children and Young People Committee

Educational Outcomes for Children from Low Income Households

Estyn response to supplementary questions

Action:

§ They agreed to provide comments on plans to modify the banding formula to reflect closing the attainment gap for children on free school meals.

HMI and Estyn support staff provided advice to DfES officers when banding was first planned and introduced. We are meeting with DfES officers on 3 December 2013 to discuss effective presentation of school performance data to support tackling the impact of poverty on attainment.

Questions:

§ Whether they can share any information their recent discussions with the Welsh Government about how the inspection framework might be used in respect of improving outcomes for pupils from low income households;

Estyn published on its website detailed supplementary guidance on the inspection of literacy in primary and secondary schools in 2010 as part of the development of a new cycle of inspections. The supplementary guidance was expanded to cover the inspection of numeracy in September 2013. Supplementary guidance documents are based on the common inspection framework and provide inspectors and providers with more operational detail on how inspections are conducted.

Estyn will publish supplementary guidance on inspecting how providers tackle the impact of deprivation on attainment in 2014 (in time for implementation in the new academic year starting September 2014). Inspectors will be trained in the use of the new guidance in the summer term of 2014.

The guidance will explain Estyn’s inspection methodology and inspection requirements. All inspection reports from September 2014 will comment on how well schools tackle the impact of deprivation on attainment under Standards (quality indicator 1.1) and on the use of the Pupil Deprivation Grant (PDG) under quality indicator 3.4. These evaluations will be based on direct inspection evidence, including the analysis of available data. Estyn is in discussion with DfES officials on data requirements.

Estyn has also published seven ‘remit’ reports directly on poverty and disadvantage since 2007 and several other reports on related topics. To publicise these findings, we intend to hold a conference in May 2014, publish a summary report and produce training materials for schools.

§ What role Estyn think the inspection framework could play in this regard.

The inspection of the impact of poverty and deprivation currently lies at the heart of Estyn’s inspection methodology. The new supplementary guidance, training materials and conference mentioned above will be an opportunity to explain and communicate this clearly to schools and other providers and to bring inspection methodology and guidance up-to-date in terms of the introduction of the PDG.

Key question 1(outcomes) and in particular, standards (quality indicator 1.1) is the main driver of Estyn inspections.  For example, there is a strong link between the judgement for Key Question 1(outcomes), and the judgements for Key Questions 2 (provision) and 3 (leadership and management). Within standards (1.1) there are several ‘aspects’, such as skills (aspect 1.1.3). A key aspect of the Common Inspection Framework is the standards of groups of learners (aspect 1.1.2). Inspectors are told to consider the performance of particular groups of pupils, including:

• pupils eligible for free school meals;

• boys and girls; and

• pupils with ALN or belonging to a vulnerable group. 

Inspectors must therefore look at how pupils eligible for free school meals perform relative to their peers and expect schools to have analysed this data themselves too.

Under aspect 1.1.1 (results and trends in performance compared with national averages, similar providers and prior attainment), inspectors consider how well pupils do compared with similar schools. They must give more weight to analyses that present comparisons with similar schools on the free-school-meals benchmark quartiles and in the same family in the All Wales Core Data packs. Annex 7 of the inspection handbook provides detailed guidance on this and explains how the judgement for Key Question 1 cannot normally be above adequate when attainment is at ‘… levels significantly lower than the averages for similar schools, taking account of the school’s context, including deprivation factors.’