Agenda item

Ed Pryce delivered a presentation, introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Will McLean:

What do the current family rankings mean, and are these positions acceptable?

The figures do not describe absolute school performance, but show each school’s position within its comparator family, which groups schools by contextual factors such as disadvantage. For example, a ranking of 6 out of 10 indicates that a school sits broadly in the middle of its family, rather than underperforming. Chepstow and Monmouth sit within some of the least disadvantaged families in Wales, which is important context when interpreting these positions.

What explains recent improvements in some schools, and what learning can be shared?

Analysis of improvement happens through the annual school improvement cycle, led by the local authority and school improvement partners from September onwards. Schools are expected to interrogate their own data and explain the “why” behind changes in performance to governing bodies. Factors such as staffing changes or long?term absence within departments can have a significant impact in a given year.

Why are some schools experiencing ongoing challenges, and what is being done?

When performance is broken down by the most able, middle?attaining and least?able learners, most Monmouthshire schools perform above expectation across these groups, even when contextual factors are taken into account. For example, one school is performing slightly below expectation for some learner groups, and this is that school’s specific improvement challenge. Understanding the causes of such challenges happens through detailed subject?level analysis within schools and through engagement with governors, rather than being fully captured in the high?level report.

What learning can be taken from stronger?performing schools and applied elsewhere?

Structured sharing of practice takes place through school improvement networks, both within Monmouthshire and across the wider regional partnership. Schools and departments with stronger outcomes share approaches, teaching strategies and practice so that other schools and teachers can learn from them. This work is facilitated by the local authority and its school improvement partners and is part of the ongoing improvement cycle rather than a one?off exercise.

Are there any wider trends or common factors that can be shared?

A key overarching message from the data is that across Monmouthshire, schools generally perform above expectation for the most able learners, and largely above or close to expectation for middle and lower?attaining learners, regardless of the communities they serve. Where variation exists, it is school?specific rather than systemic, and addressed through targeted improvement work rather than broad authority?wide intervention.

Why is the variation greatest in the bottom third?

Variation in outcomes for the lowest?attaining learners is inherently greater because performance at this level is influenced by a wide range of complex and interacting factors. These include curriculum choices, qualification entry patterns, staffing changes within departments, individual pupil circumstances, and how pupils perform in assessments in a given year. Small changes in outcomes for lower?attaining learners can also have a disproportionately large effect on headline measures such as capped scores, for example where pupils move from no qualification to a low?grade pass. Because of this complexity, year?on?year variation in the bottom third is more pronounced and harder to interpret at a high level.

Is the data too variable to be meaningful for comparison, requiring a different route to identify issues?

The data is not meaningless, but it is designed to provide a high?level, contextual overview rather than detailed diagnostic insight into individual schools. Welsh Government policy deliberately limits how performance data is used, so that it supports understanding and improvement rather than public accountability or ranking. As a result, this type of report is intended to show broad patterns and relative positions, not to explain the detailed “why” behind performance differences. Drilling down into the causes of variation for individual schools would require far more granular analysis – typically undertaken by schools themselves using extensive national datasets and reported to governing bodies, with challenge provided through school improvement partners. The authority therefore holds a careful line between providing sufficient comparative information for scrutiny and remaining consistent with national expectations about the appropriate use of data.

For pupils who leave school at the end of Key Stage 4 with no qualifications, do we have robust post?16 tracking arrangements in place, and are we using schools’ understanding of the underlying reasons to ensure those young people are supported into appropriate pathways (for example through programmes such as Inspire)?

These pupils are recognised as being at high risk of becoming NEET. The authority has an early identification system that begins as early as Year 6, using a set of indicators to flag learners who may be at risk later in their school career. These learners are actively tracked through school and beyond. Post?16, tracking and support are provided through the Inspire project, which has recently secured continued funding, allowing Inspire workers to remain embedded in schools. This work is carried out in partnership with Careers Wales and focuses both on monitoring learners’ destinations after leaving school and on providing continued support where possible once they have finished compulsory education.

For pupils who are tracked as being at risk but still enter GCSE courses that result in F or G grades, do we know whether those pathways are experienced as positive and appropriate outcomes, or could earlier tracking be used more effectively to guide them into alternative routes that may offer a more meaningful and positive experience?

Schools are expected to design curricula and qualification pathways that reflect the needs of learners across the full ability range, ensuring that all pupils can access courses that are relevant, appropriate and purposeful. Schools have flexibility within measures such as the capped points score to include alternative qualifications alongside GCSEs, and this flexibility is intended to support pupils for whom traditional GCSE routes may not be the most suitable. Decisions about curriculum design and qualification entry are a key focus of professional discussions between schools and the local authority, particularly in the autumn term following examination results. During these discussions, schools are challenged on whether outcomes align with expectations and whether the curriculum offer is a fair and appropriate reflection of learners’ needs.

What is being done to ensure best practice is shared and embedded across all secondary schools?

Improvement work is long?standing and continuous, not triggered only by the current analysis. Each year, beginning in September, early data is reviewed through structured dialogue and challenge with school leaders, led by school improvement partners and local authority officers. This initial analysis identifies strengths, weaknesses and underperforming subjects, which then inform each school’s development priorities. Where weaknesses are identified – for example in science – schools are expected to direct leadership attention and professional learning accordingly, including engagement in subject networks, training, and best?practice sharing with other schools. The approach is explicitly framed as collective improvement, with the aspiration that all schools benefit from shared learning rather than isolated excellence.

Where some schools are performing significantly below modelled outcomes in key subjects such as science, what targeted action is being taken, and how is progress being monitored?

There is a variation in science outcomes but highlighted year?on?year movement rather than static underperformance. One school has significantly improved its position relative to family expectations, while another has moved in the opposite direction. These changes are used as the basis for targeted professional challenge and support. Subject?specific improvement is addressed through leadership focus, professional learning and network engagement, rather than through public identification or comparison of individual schools.

Is strong performance in some schools masking weaker performance elsewhere?

When outcomes are examined across the full set of measures, the vast majority of indicators are at or above modelled expectations. Out of twelve performance measures referenced, only one was identified as clearly below expectation, with the remaining measures meeting or exceeding benchmarks. It is therefore important to maintain a balanced view, recognising areas for improvement without overstating systemic weakness.

Does the variation in outcomes point to inconsistent teaching quality or leadership across schools?

Variation does not automatically indicate widespread inconsistency in teaching or leadership. Differences are school?specific issues that are identified early, challenged through professional dialogue, and addressed through leadership decisions and support. Accountability is shared between school leaders, governing bodies and school improvement partners, with scrutiny operating at a system?level rather than at the level of individual school practice.

Why is performance weakest among the lowest?attaining pupils, and what additional or different support is being put in place to prevent these learners from falling further behind and becoming at risk of NEET?

There is one school where outcomes for lower?attaining pupils sit further below modelled expectations, and this represents a legitimate improvement challenge. However, across the wider system, performance for lower?attaining learners is largely at or close to expectation. The issue is therefore targeted rather than systemic, with intervention focused where the data shows it is most needed.

Are you content that the processes in place are strong enough, and that we are on the right path?

We have confidence that the authority is on the right path, while maintaining deliberately high expectations. There is clear year?on?year progress at local authority level, emphasizing improvement over time rather than simple comparison with the Welsh average. Confidence in the processes is grounded in the robust professional challenge and dialogue with headteachers, where outcomes are scrutinized, questioned and reflected upon in depth. We would caution against over?reliance on “modelled expectations”, which are statistical regression lines rather than true indicators of ambition. Instead, expectations should be set at the maximum level each cohort of learners can realistically achieve. GCSE outcomes are the culmination of a long?term, whole?system approach to education, beginning in the early years, and that continued focus on high?quality teaching and learning across the entire system is essential to sustaining and improving performance.

What factors are driving the decline in CAP 9 scores for FSM pupils, especially given that these scores are now marginally below the Wales FSM average for the first time?

We would warn against over?interpreting the visual data; the chart is truncated, which makes relatively small changes appear much larger. In practical terms, the change identified represents a difference of around two CAP 9 points, which is equivalent to roughly one?thirtieth of a GCSE grade per learner. While outcomes for FSM pupils in Wales have risen slightly and have dipped marginally in Monmouthshire – which is not the desired direction – the scale of the change is small rather than dramatic.

What is driving the divergence between FSM and non?FSM outcomes?

The issue should be placed in a long?term context, noting that narrowing the FSM attainment gap has been a persistent national challenge for over 25 years. Outcomes for FSM learners are influenced by a complex mix of factors, with the most significant being the quality of provision in individual classrooms. Improvements for lower?attaining and disadvantaged learners are having a positive effect across the cohort without disadvantaging higher?attaining pupils. The divergence is attributed to a combination of educational, social and contextual factors.

How does this emerging pattern sit with the authority’s equity and inclusion objectives?

Tension with the authority’s equity ambitions is acknowledged, but FSM learners remain a central focus of school?level and authority?level work. All schools have complex tracking systems that go beyond attainment data, incorporating pastoral support, wellbeing, attendance monitoring and close adult intervention. Schools provide intensive, practical support to vulnerable learners, particularly around examination attendance, illustrating the extent of effort being made to mitigate disadvantage.

What targeted interventions or additional support are being put in place specifically to improve outcomes for pupils eligible for free school meals?

Targeted support is multi?layered and ongoing, rather than a single intervention. A key area of challenge and focus is attendance, which is closely linked to attainment. There is sustained scrutiny of how schools use the Pupil Development Grant, with schools routinely challenged on how funding is deployed to improve outcomes for FSM learners. The authority’s approach is one of relentless focus and sustained effort, recognising that while progress is difficult and uneven, closing the gap remains a priority requiring continued attention.

What should the council say to parents and learners when the only readily available external comparison suggests Wales is under?performing internationally?

Monmouthshire is a Welsh local authority operating within a devolved Welsh education system, and that direct comparisons with other UK nations or international systems at GCSE level are problematic because qualification structures and grading systems differ. As a result, the most meaningful judgements about performance are made through like?for?like comparisons within the Welsh system, taking account of school context rather than headline international rankings. While acknowledging that PISA provides a national (Wales?wide) picture, it cannot be used to judge individual local authorities or schools. Reassurance to parents and learners is instead drawn from post?16 outcomes, where qualifications are more comparable across England and Wales and where Welsh learners have shown improving performance at A level, including growth in higher grades. This suggests that pupils are leaving GCSEs appropriately prepared for further study. The council’s role is to ensure schools deliver the best possible education within the Welsh system, judged against appropriate contextual comparators, while wider international performance trends and reforms remain the responsibility of Welsh Government. – ACTION: to bring a Key Stage 5 report to the committee in the future

Chair’s Summary:

The Chair thanked the officers for the report and their responses to the questions. The report was moved.