Minutes:
The Committee received a presentation from Andy Chisholm, Director of Teaching representing Ambition Lincoln within which he:
a) confirmed the project was envisaged pre-pandemic and was essentially a place-based partnership for mutual benefit. It was aimed at all 39 Lincoln City schools and the project was funded by Lincoln County Council with a budget of £195,039.93. He added that the timeline for the project had been extended with completion expected to take place in July 2022
b) highlighted that staff continuously strove for achievement of the Children's Services vision, putting children first and everyone worked together for all children, young people and families to be happy, healthy, safe and the best they could be
c) advised that Lincoln City Foundation and The Network were organisations that were part of Ambition Lincoln’s project and added that the driver for the funding of the project was educational data. He addressed performance disparities particularly at EYFS, KS2 and KS4 and confirmed that the disparity started at EYFS with children performing 3% behind their peers in County
d) outlined that the City of Lincoln was in the top third most deprived areas in terms of average deprivation. It ranked 45 out of 326 Local Authorities (where 1 is most deprived) and was in the top 10% most deprived areas nationally in terms of health, disability and income deprivation indicators
e) advised it was acknowledged that Lincoln schools faced greater challenges than some of their peers with regard given to socio-economic indicators within their communities such as; high levels of disadvantage, residents with low skills and qualification levels; lower levels of aspiration and higher than average levels of EAL residents
f) reported that there was no correlation between there being a lack of talent in Lincoln schools and it was felt that the teaching quality was strong with professional development utilised well. He added that The LA accepted that its processes and systems were complex and there had been a lot of support removed over the last number of years
g) highlighted that there were many other means of receiving support, however, there was a level of understanding needed which simply wasn’t possible for busy headteachers with demanding schedules. He added that the second issue was around the mindset of the young people (and their parents) to achieve. Furthermore, Headteachers spoke about an inherent lack of ambition within certain communities, a lack of aspiration, thus the title of the project
h) added that there was strength in collaboration and the only way to shape the development of our own workforce was through our school leaders, but this required systemic change as continuation of processes previously exercises would result in the same achievement already experienced
i) Highted that elements such as transition only worked if there was coherence. In creation of a directory, toolkits had been given to head teachers that they needed
j) invited questions and comments from members of the Committee
As a result of discussion between members, officers and guest speakers, the following points were made: -
· The Chair gave her thanks for an enthusiastic and thorough presentation.
· Comments from members highlighted that everyone should have the opportunity to attend University and it was added that Ambition Lincoln worked closely with Linc Hire.
· Members discussed concerns surrounding funding and the availability of such for only one undergraduate degree and therefore, ambitions would be halted by undue haste as many undergraduates did not use their degree.
· Andy Chisholm confirmed that graduate ambitions were not the main part of the project and clarified that Ambition Lincoln worked with ages 3-18.
· When the legacy of the project was given consideration and how it would be followed once funding ended, there were comments regarding a lack of life experience at a young age and suggestions that careers advice could be better in terms of the variety of courses.
· Clarification was provided surrounding the GATSBY score, a copy of which would be sent to Councillor Calum Watt. It was confirmed that his had gone through into statutory guidance. Andy confirmed that next year, it would go into Year 7 in schools and would eventually become a transitional item form primary school, but a deepened evaluation would be carried out towards the end of the project. He confirmed that he would share final findings and conclusions with the Committee once complete.
· Once funding came to an end, the directory would be kept live and updated at a bare minimum cost and legacy work would provide the wrap around for schools which would maintain the support mechanisms for schools.
· Comments were raised regarding items not directly related to education. It was added that aspiration of family and of place was important and the promotion of the ‘Lincoln brand’ was significant. Aspirations of younger people came from the environment they were in and included housing, new businesses, job opportunities and innovation. Having the opportunity to see your peers and people in your community achieving and acting as role models is very important, supporting and improving education and attainment.
· It was suggested that a group that represented 1/3 of our population within the City, have not found an effective way of engaging to discover what young people were looking for, and for their young families. Methods of engagement to provide support to the legacy of Ambition Lincoln’s project would be better than using a survey as a blunt tool.
· Support for families was needed in early years and without it, the number would rise. It was added that there was not enough support going into families to support them at Lincolnshire County Council and we did less than other countries.
· Consideration of context of place was given and how the place around us made us feel. Signposting was a problem with ever changing names it made it difficult to know the up to date organisations. Members added that not every child was destined for Higher Education and there were things better suited to a technical or vocational capacity. Creation of a two tier path where students were considered better than young people who didn’t go to University, was a concern.
· There seemed to be specialisation far too early in choosing GCSE’s and then a course at University at a very young age. Members added that vocational training was of equal importance as educational training and when a degree had been completed, irrespective of subject, it provided opportunities in other areas but contributions concluded it was not essential to move forward in life.
· Comments concluded with Andy advising that the project was about the children. They talked to teachers, the teachers spoke to Head Teachers and so on. The project was centred around the concept of ‘top down, not bottom up’.
Councillor Edmund Strengiel left proceedings at this stage.