This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Minutes of Governors' meetings'.

FOI Request: 11 June 2019 
Governors’ Minutes 

Admissions Committee. 
Minutes of meeting held on Monday 15th October 2018 at 6:30 PM. 

 Mr. Mark Hurst (MH) 
Members present:  
Mr. Michael Goldmeier (MG) 
Mrs. Anne Shisler (AS) 
Mr. David Davis (DS) 
Mrs. Rachel Fink (RF) 
Others present: 
Ms. Maxine Ratnarajah (MR) 
Dr Oliver Walton (OW). 
1.  Apologies 
Mr Jamie Peston sent his apologies to the committee. 
2.  Membership of the committee 
Members were confirmed as, Mark Hurst (Chairman), David Davis, Anne Shisler, 
Michael Goldmeier and Rachel Fink (Headteacher).  
3.  Introductions 
Dr Walton, the new Head of Sixth Form, was welcomed by the committee.  
4. Draft minutes of meeting held on 29.01.18 for approval. 
The minutes were agreed and signed by the chairman. 
5.  Sixth Form statistics 2018 – OW – paper distributed at the meeting. 
Demographics – Sixth form numbers were at their height in 2015, reduced after 
that and are now rising again. There was a significant drop in the 2016-18 Year 
13 cohorts. One reason may be students who get low grades in mocks at the 
end of year 12 can panic and switch to another institution to try and raise their 
grades by the end of year 13. This can lead to smaller classes in year 13 and 
loss of weaker students. To counter this, mock exams this year wil  be earlier in 
year 12 allowing more time for students to remediate and the school to put 
support in place for start of year 13. 


External applications – similar numbers to previous years from other Jewish 
schools, particularly those looking for more subject focus away from ‘Yeshiva 
prep’. CASH courses are very popular and OW feels vocational courses are an 
area for development encouraging more students to move into 6th Form, 
especial y a science BTEC for students who may not be able to get the grades 
for science A ‘levels. 
Places offered are relatively low compared to the number of applications. JFS 
interviews all applicants and this may not be necessary. Some applicants could 
be offered provisional places based on predicted grades alone and targeted 
interviewing could reduce costs and time. 
There are a high number of applications withdrawn after results. This needs to 
be dril ed down to identify reasons but it may be due to not getting grades 
required or grades exceeding expectations. OW noted that JFS only has a 
skeleton staff available on results day who prioritise speaking to existing 
students, which means they may not be having discussions with external 
candidates quickly enough to prevent application withdrawals. OW suggested 
that switching to online results rather than calling students into school may be 
more comfortable for those who did not get expected grades and would free up 
staff to speak only to students (internal and external) who need support and 
advice regarding 6th form admission. 
Data management – the school is collecting data about where students are 
going when they leave, but not the reasons why. OW said offering exit interviews 
or questionnaires to understand why and looking at ways to meet the needs of 
those students may help with retention. 
There was a discussion about the entry requirements for 6th Form. There has 
been an understanding that students require 6 ‘B’s at GCSE to gain entry. RF 
noted that as a comprehensive school there are no selection requirements to 
enter the 6th Form. This is different however from conditional offers for specific 
courses which may require particular grades and entry to those courses may 
also depend on demand. If a student doesn’t meet the requirement for a 
particular course or the course is full, they should be offered an alternative 
pathway/ different course in the 6th Form. The only condition for internal students 
to move into/stay in 6th form may be to re-take English and/or Maths GCSEs if 
they failed in year 11. 
There are 20 places available for external students. OW raised that it may be 
helpful to ask them to identify a second choice of course or pathway when they 
apply and this would help with discussions on results day if they don’t get the 
grades for their first choice of course. 


Action agreed: Head of 6th Form to collect data on reasons students leave at end of 
year 11. 
Q – Does JFS have the same entry requirements for external applicants and existing 
JFS students? 
A – The entry requirements are not binding and there is flexibility but this can be 
seen as inconsistency by parents and students. Having more BTEC courses can 
widen the range of alternative pathways for students who can gain entry to the 6th 
Form but who do not achieve grades required for particular A’ level courses. 
Q – Historically many students have moved to West Herts college for BTECs or 
vocational courses. Are there courses there that JFS can’t offer? 
A – Yes. West Herts have huge workshops so are able to offer courses such as 
plumbing. JFS does not have the facilities for this. It wil  be in some students’ best 
interests to move to technical colleges if they are interested in specialist courses that 
JFS can’t offer. 
Q – How do BTECS work with apprenticeships?  
A - A Level 3 BTEC wil  meet the entry requirement for apprenticeships.  
Action agreed: Ensure Admissions policy and related documentation is updated to 
reflect there is no minimum required grades to enter 6th Form and MR to send 
updated pack to the committee for approval. 
6. Report on Prospective parents evening 2018 
Jamie Peston provided the committee with some written feedback regarding the 
Prospective Parents Evening (PPE) held on 10th October 2018. Feedback is 
anecdotal at this stage as it is too early to access information from follow up surveys. 
JFS students engaged well with families, tour guides were excellent and the 
presentations were short and to the point. The number of families visiting matches 
the numbers generally required to fil  places available. It doesn’t appear to be a 
bulge year this year which matches with PAIES statistics. 
Q- Do you anticipate any difficulty fil ing 300 places this year? 
A – No. A number of families already know they are going to apply to JFS so don’t 
necessarily come to the PPE.  
7.  Matters arising from the Minutes of 29.01.18 
7.1  The working party on the bulge class is no longer required. 


7.2  2019/20 Admissions policy consultation has been completed. With regards to 
the issue of ‘Children of Staff members’, it was decided not to include this. The 
LA were not in support of it and it was felt there are other ways to manage staff 
7.3  Current appeals statements discussion – no appeals last year or so far this 
year. The appeals statement wil  be reviewed in light of the circumstances of 
the school at the time as necessary".   
7.4  Training on admissions process – there was a discussion about what is 
available. Brent don’t offer this to governors and there would be a cost 
implication if provided by King Stone. It was decided that as long as King Stone 
approve all admission and appeals policies, there is no need for training 
8. Review of Terms of Reference (TOR) 
There are no updates to the TOR and they were noted by the committee. 
 9.  Review of admissions policy 2020/21 discussion of rationale 
MR asked the committee to consider the Upper / Lower Sibling policy and asked if it 
should apply equally to places in 6th Form. The PAN can be used flexibly across the 
school as long as each year group does not exceed 310 and the total number of 
students does not exceed 2065. With the Upper / Lower sibling policy there is always 
a risk that the student with the place leaves and the sibling (who receives priority in 
another year group based on their sibling having joined the school) stays. There is 
no way to get families to commit to keeping all siblings in the school. 
Q- What is the downside of applying the Upper / Lower sibling policy? 
A – it can result in uneven year groups. 
Q – Could JFS use its discretion to allow siblings in without having an Upper / Lower 
sibling policy in place? 
A –Yes. There would be no risk with entry to year 11 because no schools take new 
students into year 11. They either have to go down a year to year 10 or wait a year 
and apply to the 6th Form.  
Q – Is there a requirement for the Admissions Officer to write to governors seeking 
approval for admission of in-year applicants? 
A – Yes this is required. The Admissions Officer will write to governors confirming 
that the student has met required criteria when seeking approval. 


•  The Upper / Lower sibling policy wil  not be adopted but the school wil  
retain its discretion on a case by case basis regarding sibling 
admissions. Decisions wil  be taken by the Admissions team in 
consultation with the Head teacher.  
•  The Admissions Policy 2020/21 was approved subject to the wording of 
the admissions to 6th Form being amended to remove any reference to 
grade requirements in the criteria and other documentation wil  be 
cross referenced to ensure it complies. 
The consultation is due to start first week in November. 
 10. Mid- terms applications -MR 
There were 8 in-year admissions into year 7 and a 9th student wil  be joining year 
7 from South Africa in the New Year. This wil  bring the total in year 7 to 309. 
There is no waiting list for year 7 currently. 
11.  11+ Statistics 2018 admissions – report distributed at mtg MR. 
There were 791 applications and 666 with the Certificate of religious practice (CRP).  
The school made 330 offers in the first round (317 offers,10 distance offers and 3 
EHP offers) which led to 276 acceptances (185 siblings and 120 new families). In 
tranche 2, 56 offers were made which led to 28 acceptances. There were five rounds 
in total and all applicants were offered a place in the end. The logistics were 
improved this year particularly with forms being completed online. 
MR noted that there was an increase in applicants not ranking JFS as first choice 
this year and this may be because more scholarships being offered by private 
schools expanding places. 
Decision: MR proposed for admissions 2019/20 increasing offers in the first round to 
350 and this was agreed by the committee 
RF said she would like to review the meetings with Year 7 students and parents as 
there were concerns about consistency of content across the team offering them and 
a number of queries about some issues not being taken into consideration or some 
staff not understanding the religious background of some families. Information was 
collated incorrectly and not shared effectively at times.  
Action agreed: Head or deputy Headteacher to review incoming year 7 meetings. 


Fair Access Panel – JFS recently had to appeal a decision to place a student into 
year 9 with a history of permanent exclusions. Communication about the proposed 
admission did not reach the Admissions Officer or Head Teacher and the school only 
found out when the mother contacted the school. A meeting was held with the 
mother and student and it transpired JFS could not meet the student’s needs and he 
would miss out on vital Brent provision if he came to JFS so the family rejected the 
place. The appeal was held during Yom Tov so no one could attend. The appeal was 
rejected but the student was placed elsewhere. 
Action agreed: JFS to ensure it can attend Fair Access Panels in future to have 
input into decisions. 
 12. Report on SEN offers 11+ 2018 – Maxine 
Three EHCP (Educational Health and Care Plans) students out of seven were 
accepted by the SEN department.  
 13. Assessment of JFS strengths and weaknesses compared to ‘competitor 
schools’ – RF. 
RF outlined some of the advantages JFS has to offer including; 
 •  Development of vocational pathways 
•  Size allows for maintaining large range of curriculum choices while smaller 
schools may be reducing theirs 
•  High quality facilities. 
Areas for development; 
•  Improvement in quality of Jewish studies programme to meet needs of 
Shomer Shabbat families so they don’t feel the Kodesh provision is something 
they have to compromise on 
•  Need to keep recruiting best quality teaching staff. 
14. A.O.B 
15. Date of next meeting  
Tbc after the meeting as the proposed date is no longer possible. 


Date of Next Meeting:  Monday 13th February 2019 (confirmed after the 

Signed: _____________________________   
Date: ________________ 


 Appendix 1:  Committee Meeting Action Table 
Committee Meeting Action Summary Table 
Committee: Admissions 
Meeting date: 15th October 2018 
Agenda Item 
By whom  Target completion 
5. 6th Form Statistics 
Collect data on reasons for 
(exit data) 
leaving JFS end of year 11 
9. Review of Admissions  Ensure Admissions policy and  MR 
End October 2018 
policy 2020/21 
related documentation is 
(Policy update) 
updated to reflect there is no 
minimum required grades to 
enter 6th Form and MR to send 
updated pack to the committee 
for approval. 
11. 11+ Statistics 2018 
To review content and 
consistency of meetings for 
(Year 7 meetings) 
incoming year 7 students and 
11. 11+ Statistics 2018 
To set up a mechanism to 
Next meeting? 
ensure JFS is aware of and is 
(Fair Access Panels) 
able to attend / contribute to 
Fair Access Panels in future. 
Minutes Finalised?    Y/N 
Date minutes sent for filing:  


 Admissions Committee 
Minutes of the meeting held at the School on Wednesday 13 February 2019, commencing at 
6.30 pm. 
Mark Hurst 
Members present:   
Mr David Davis,  
Mrs Rachel Fink,  
Mr Michael Goldmeir 
Mrs Anne Shisler. 
Others present: 
Mr Dan Green. 
Dan Green a new parent governor was welcomed to the meeting as an observer. 
Draft Minutes of meetings held on 15 October 2018. 
The minutes were approved and signed. 
Matters Arising  
3.1 Action point 11+ Statistics 2018 Admissions ‘to review content of introductory 
meetings with incoming Year 7 students’ – RF said this is being reviewed to decide the 
value of these meetings and if they continue to be necessary. The can be time consuming 
and information gathered could be collected via online responses instead. It was noted 
some parents found them a positive experience. 
3.2 Action point Review of Admissions policy for 6th Form Entry ‘to ensure any 
reference to minimum grades is removed from al  literature’. RF said literature for the 
different key stages are being reviewed and amended where necessary. 
3.3 Action point 11+ Statistics 2018 Admissions (Fair Access Panels) ‘to set up a 
mechanism for the school to be aware of engaged in panels going forward’. The school now 
has a link with the panel and engagement has improved. It was also noted that JFS works 
with other Jewish Schools to ensure a fair access approach and look at managed moves 
between schools before reaching exclusions. The only exception is in relation to issues with 


3.4 Item 13 Assessment of JFS strengths and weaknesses compared to ‘competitor 
schools’ – RF said that she would like there to be a standing item on the JS Committee 
agenda regarding the quality of Kodesh in the school.  
Action point: RF to discuss with chair person of JS Committee standing item about quality 
of Kodesh teaching. 
Q – Regarding SEN students, what needs can and can’t be accommodated by the school? 
A – This year there are 4 students with an EHCP being accepted in year 7 Sometimes there 
are students with really complex needs which the school assesses would be better met by 
specialist provision but parents apply to JFS because they want their children to be in 
mainstream Jewish education.  
Q - How is JFS SEN provision compared to other schools? 
A- Generally good. Rabbi Cohen who has just joined the school has experience managing 
SEND and working with students with autism. The school has good teaching assistants 
(TAs) for SEN. Some provision for SEN K needs reviewing.   
Q – Is there a government standard or expectation of the level of SEN secondary schools 
should provide? 
A- No. For students with EHCPs, the school pays for first 10 hours and the local authority 
has to be relied on to pay for the rest and that can vary between different local authorities. 
Students’ needs can vary over time. Sometimes in the earlier key stages the school can 
meet their needs but as they develop their needs can increase. Some students are not 
assessed as having SEN but it becomes apparent over time and they are not funded for 
additional support. There is an increase in students with a diagnosis on the autistic 
spectrum and more specialist staff are needed to assess and manage their support.  
2020/21 Admissions Policy, SIF and CRP Forms for 11+ 2020, In Year Admissions 
2019 Year 7-11 and Sixth Form September 2020
The policy was approved.  
MR will send the policy to Brent and add all the forms to the website by 28th February 2019. 
There are no changes to the Certificate of Religious Practice (CRP) forms since last year 
except for the eligible dates.   

Q – In order to achieve 3 points on the CRP students have to attend synagogue as wel  as 
being part of a community organisation. Does the policy say that? 
A- The policy just says an applicant must complete the CRP. It doesn’t set out (1.2.1) that 
it’s the school’s current JFS CRP.   
Action agreed: change admissions policy 2021/22 ‘current JFS CRP’. 
Q- Is it stil  necessary to have a separate category for children in Jewish Care Homes as 
wouldn’t they fall under the category of Looked After Children (LAC) now? 
A – Yes, they would be covered under the criteria of children in care.  


Action agreed: 
Amendments to the 2021/22 Admissions Policy to include; 
•  1.2.1 – to reference the school’s ‘current JFS CRP’. 
•  To remove reference to children in Jewish Care homes.  
Review of Admissions Policy 2021/22 – consideration to be given to whether to 
prioritise students with special guardianship and child arrangement orders  
RF said she would like to include students under ‘Child Arrangement Orders’ as a priority 
because they are not classified as a ‘child in care’ or subject to ‘special guardianship so are 
not considered as a LAC. However, there is potentially a certain level of disadvantage in 
that they are not living with their birth parents in the same way as children who are in care, 
are fostered or adopted. It is generally an unusual situation so unlikely to impact on many 
students but Jewish Schools have a duty of care towards these students. A court order is 
required to establish a Child Arrangement Order so it would not create a loophole for any 
parents trying to circumvent the admissions criteria. 
Decision: The committee agreed to include students subject to Child Arrangement Orders 
to the priority criteria in the Admissions Policy. 
Action agreed:
 RF to establish the appropriate definition to add to the admissions criteria. 
11+ Offers and Statistics for September 2019 Tranche 1 – MR 
Application levels have been similar to last year but there was a slight increase in the 
number of applicants putting JFS as their first choice compared to last year. Approximately 
15% are from non-Jewish primary schools.  
Currently there are 1993 students at the school. The limit for years 7-11 is 1500 and 550 for 
6th Form. The school is working hard to retain students in year 11 to transfer to 6th Form and 
there have been 80 outside applicants for 6th Form this year. So far approximately 20 year 
11 students have given their intention to leave but this may increase as the year 
Q- Does the school track the number of pupils who leave from all year groups? 
A – The numbers from years 7-10 are minimal. Its mainly students leaving at the end of 
Year 11 and some at the start of Year 13 but work is being done to provide more support at 
the end of year 12 to reduce those leaving in year 13. 
  7.  Current Appeals Statement discussion and approval of appeals timetable 2019 for 
There was a discussion regarding the PAN which can be used flexibly up to 310 students 
per year group and the impact this could have on appeals when only 300 places are 
offered. Could applicants argue that the school could accommodate more students now the 
PAN has been increased to 310? The committee decided that there was a strong argument 


that 310 places is the maximum (one extra per class) that can be accommodated before 
additional resources would be required in terms of additional classrooms and teaching staff 
that is not available, not only for year 7 but for the subsequent 5 years as this year group 
progress up the school. Rabbi Cohen wil  be presenting for the school at any appeals 
panels this year. There were differing views as to that the total PAN was for the whole 
school, 2065 or 2165 which is in the appeals letter. 
Action agreed: The school to check the whole school PAN and amend the appeals letter if 
Decision: the committee approved the appeals timetable for 2019. 
Mid-term applications overview  
 In-year admissions; 
2 in year 7 
5 in year 8 – now 290 students in this year, 
2 in year 9 
1 in year 10. 
Any Other Business  
9.1 It was agreed that the committee meeting in the Spring term was more useful in 
February rather than January as there would be more accurate information available about 
the admissions applications that year. 
9.2 Governors were advised to refer any queries from parents about applications directly to 
Date of next meeting: tbc 
Signed: ………………………………………………. 
Date: ……………… 


Appendix 1 Admissions Committee Meeting Action Table 
Committee Meeting Action Summary Table 
Committee: Admissions  
Meeting date: 13th February 2019 
Agenda Item 
By whom  Target completion date 
3.3.4 Matters arising  To discuss with 
Next JS committee 
– Quality of Kodesh  chairperson of JS 
Committee to include a 
standing item about 
quality of Kodesh 
4. 2020/21 
Amendments to the 
Next committee meeting. 
Admissions Policy 
2021/22 Admissions 
Policy to include; 
•  1.2.1 – to 
reference the 
school’s ‘current 
•  To remove 
reference to children 
in Jewish Care 
5. Consideration to 
To establish the 
Next committee meeting. 
be given to whether  appropriate definition to 
to prioritise students  add to the admissions 
with special 
guardianship and 
child arrangement 
7. Current Appeals 
To check the whole 
school PAN figure and 
amend the appeals letter 
if necessary. 
Minutes Finalised?    Y/N 
Date minutes sent for filing:   


  JFS School Curriculum and Student Welfare Committee, Attendance & Behaviour 
(CSWAB) Committee. 
Minutes of meeting held on Monday 5th February 2018, at 6.30 PM. 
 Dr. Charlotte Benjamin(CB) 
Members present:  
Ms Geraldine Fainer (GF) 
Mrs Naomi Newman (NN). 
Mr. James Lake (JL) 
Mrs Anne Shisler (AS) 
Others present: 
Mr. Simon Appleman (SA) 
Mr Daniel Marcus (DM) 
Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum (RZ) 
Mr Andy De Angelis (AD) 
Mrs Sheri Berg (SB) 
Mr. Dharmesh Chauhan (DC) 
1.  Apologies 
Apologies were received from David Wragg and Julia Alberga (JA). 
2.  Membership 
The committee welcomed Mrs Naomi Newman who is now a member of 
governing body. 
3.  Minutes of previous meeting 
3.1 Spelling corrections – Edexcel, Jeff Peddie and David Wragg. 
3.2 3.1- Review of Terms of Reference – ‘Removal of policy for review entitled 
‘Behaviour Principles Written Statement’. The committee was unsure what this 
was referring to.  
Action agreed:  SA to investigate. 
3.3 3.1 second bullet point – ‘Updating language to reflect changes to the school’s 
current policies and procedures’. This has been superseded now as policies are 


being reviewed by Chris Ray and he wil  update language as appropriate. 
3.4 3. ‘Decision: The responsibility for convening discipline committees should 
remain with the CSWAB committee who wil  find external representation to sit on 
the panels. This can be a mixture of governors and associate governors.’ 
The committee clarified that external representation means within the wider 
governing body or associate members not external to governing body. The 
discipline committee doesn’t necessarily need to have a member of CSWAB on 
4.  Matters arising from previous meeting 
4.1 Item 41 GCSE – oral report from DM. 
At the committee meeting of 13th November 2017, DM presented a paper 
considering transferring from the dual faith GCSE to new single religion iGSCE. 
From a JS department perspective this was the preferred option in addition to 
providing a broad-brush course on major religions alongside. However, the main 
disadvantage was that the iGCSE is not counted by the government for state 
school statistics in relation to Progress 8 and Attainment 8. 
Since the last meeting DM has contacted other Jewish state schools who are 
switching to the new iGCSE to see how they wil  manage this issue. Al  those 
schools offer the option of 10 or more GCSE choices (often some taken early or 
over 3 years) so they can afford to remove the RS GCSE from their Progress 8 
scores as they have a buffer of 9 subjects left to count towards Progress and 
Attainment 8. 
At JFS only approximately a third of the year do 10 GCSEs as students have to 
take triple science to reach 10 GCSEs. Many take either 8 or 9. This would JFS 
students with no ‘buffer’ as all exams wil  count towards Progress 8 if the iGCSE is 
not counted. Historically JS has always had good results at JFS boosting Progress 
8 and Attainment 8 scores.  
The committee agreed the only way to switch to the iGCSE would be to offer 10 
subjects at GCSE which has significant timetabling ramifications so cannot be 
implemented quickly. It would make more sense to consider the transfer when 
timetables and GCSE choices in general are being reviewed in future. 
Q- How many students take additional GCSEs early currently? 
A –  Students can take astronomy and sociology in year 10. The government is 
not keen for students to take GCSEs early however and universities want to see 
that students can gain good results in many subjects in one go rather than spread 
out over a number of years.  
Q- What were the mock results for RS GCSE like? 
A – Not as good as previous years because the course is harder, but stil  better 
than other subjects. RS is still figuring in most pupil’s top 8 grades so raises their 
Attainment 8 score and the school’s Progress 8 score. It is also a popular subject 


with pupils and helps with writing skills. 
Q- When was the timetable last reviewed? 
A – The timetable was reviewed 12 months ago, changes were made and they are 
currently being reviewed. It takes time for changes to bed in and another change 
so soon could be unsettling following some many recent changes in the school. 
The new headteacher may decide to make further changes.  
4.2 Item 4b – Ivrit – DM and SA. 
Following the report at the last committee meeting regarding staff issues, a 
change was made to transfer 2 lower year 9 Ivrit sets to an alternative curriculum 
including extra PE and technology classes, a literacy support group and MFL 
support classes. Behaviour has improved and this eased the pressure on Ivrit 
Unfortunately, the staffing issues are ongoing. One member of staff is going on 
maternity leave and the department is trying hard to replace her. A JS teacher 
who is returning from maternity leave may be able to provide some cover. We are 
also trying to identify short term cover. If the situation continues the school may 
look to reducing Ivrit provision for the less interested and/or lower ability year 7 
and 8 classes and replace with an alternative curriculum as they have done with 
Year 9 to enable Ivrit staff to concentrate on the higher ability classes. Once 
exams start some year 11 and 13 teachers may be available to provide extra 
teaching time. 
Moving forward, JFS is in the second round of the PAJES project looking at a 
long-term strategy for Ivrit. They have found that each school has different 
requirements so a generic model is not appropriate. WZO and PAJES are helping 
source teachers. The school was going to use money agreed at the last 
Governors’ meeting for recruitment to hire a head hunter in Israel. RZ suggested 
they use the money to pay PAJES to assist with recruitment as they wil  be doing 
this anyway as part of the project. 
Q- JFS had a bad experience with the candidate placed by the WZO. Does the 
school now know how to spot issues earlier? 
A -The school knew on day 1 there were issues. They only had Skype interview. 
The school has asked WZO about their vetting procedures.  
Q- Can the school use the Shiniot for Ivrit teaching? 
A – No. They are here for more informal education / as madrachim.  
Q- How did the school find leads for next year? 
A-There were a couple of direct approaches, then interviews on Skype. Not all 
were appropriate / have good enough understanding of role 
Q- Is it possible to recruit teachers via Mizrachi as another Jewish school has 


A – The other school recruited a JS teacher who teaches a higher JS level and 
some of those classes are taught in Ivrit. They are not providing Ivrit teachers per 
Q – Is there any scope of using Israeli families in the school to identify potential 
Ivrit conversation teachers maybe for the lower ability year 9 classes? 
A – The school has reached out to the Israeli community in the UK. The school 
feels it is more important to have a good teacher than any teacher which could 
alienate pupils from learning the language maybe later on. 
Q- Has the school applied to JNF for funding? 
A – Yes. Details to follow at a later meeting. 
Q- what percentage wil  do Ivrit GCSE? 
A - Excluding the cohort who take the GCSE early (approximately 30), about 60 
students. This is higher than most other Jewish schools. 
4.3 Item 7.2 – Pupil Premium – report sent by JA. 
The Pupil Premium was introduced in 2011 to try and reduce the attainment gap 
between children from low income families and the general student population. 
Funding has been guaranteed until 2019/20.  JFS uses the Teaching and 
Learning tool kit.  
This year there are 62 students who are eligible for the pupil premium which is a 
significant increase from last year. The funding pays for part-time English and 
Maths intervention tutors, masterclasses and music lessons. Details are published 
on the school website. Pupil premium students have performed well at GCSE and 
A level and exceed national averages.   
Q –Why have the numbers increased? 
A – Better information from primary schools and research by the school have 
identified more eligible students.  
5.  Action arising from last meeting of FGB 
5.1 Intervention Programme (see item 7) 
5.2 Governor presences at staff exit interviews 
There was a discussion as to which committee should make this decision and 
whether this was something staff wanted or whether it related to some exceptional 
circumstances last year. Governors receive a regular report outlining the reasons 
staff members leave so this information is already available to governors. 


Decision: Staff members can choose whether to be interviewed by their line 
manager, a member of SLT or an HR representative. A governor wil  only sit in if 
specifical y requested by the staff member. 
5.3 Promotion of student welfare parental support group 
The SEN team and educational psychologist are considering setting up coffee 
mornings for parents of students facing similar issues for peer support. 
5.4 Value of the Behaviour reward scheme 
The behaviour reward scheme has been very successful (particularly with years 7 
and 8).  Changes are being made to reduce the cost. Rewards are now based on 
conduct points rather than reward points. There are options now to take a lower 
reward or hold onto points and work towards a larger reward. Non-monetary 
rewards (such as lunch passes) are also being increased.  
6.  Continuing Professional Development Update -AD 
There has been a change to CPD this year away from the whole school approach 
to a more bespoke personalised training model. Following a review and feedback 
on development needs a CPD menu has been devised and shared with staff. 
There has also been an audit of what level each teacher is at and training they 
have completed. The benefits of this approach is that staff have chosen their own 
options so they are more motivated. There is no cost because in-house staff with 
specific expertise run sessions.  
Q – Who decides what courses teachers can attend? 
A – the teachers choose the options that are available at their level and if they 
can’t get onto that course they can choose alternatives from the Inset options. It is 
also determined through discussions and recommendations by line managers. 
Q – How are candidates chosen to take part in the Middle or Senior Leadership 
National Programme? 
A – If a teacher chooses this option they wil  discuss it with AD. Only 3 people 
have gone through to the middle leadership programme because JFS now runs its 
own in-house middle leadership course. The Aspiring Senior leadership did not go 
ahead because of low demand.  
Q- Who pays for course and are teachers tied in afterwards for any time? 
A – The school can’t legally tie people in. For some courses, JFS pays 50% and 
the teacher pays the other half. 
Q- Can the school ask for the 50% to be paid back if the teacher doesn’t stay for 
an agreed period of time? 
A – This is possible and would need to be put in place via HR.  
Q- What training is there for internal coaches and mentors and how are teachers 


A – AD is now an accredited coaching facilitator. As part of the Outstanding 
Teacher Programme there are 2 sessions on coaching. This module can also be 
offered as standalone sessions so they can be offered to NQTs and teachers not 
on the programme. Next year there wil  be 12 people who wil  have completed the 
Outstanding Teacher Programme who wil  be available to help run the module. 
This is the first year it has been run at JFS and they hope to be able to market it 
externally next year as an additional revenue scheme.  
Q – How is the CPD programme reviewed? 
A-  Al  objectives are reviewed mid and end of year with line managers. If the 
teacher is taking an accredited programme, achievement of that award would be 
one of the review outcomes. 
Q- Do teachers get to observe other teachers and have opportunities to mentor 
each other? 
A-That’s what this programme wil  promote. There wil  be opportunities for peer 
observation and the school is developing a formal mentoring and coaching 
programme for staff. 
Q – Is the safeguarding training online only? 
A – This was looked into but face to face sessions were decided upon instead. 
Safeguarding training is differentiated according to role so the safeguarding team 
for example are trained to a higher level. 
Q- Who decides if a staff member can take a Master’s degree and who funds it? 
A - Any teacher can decide to and ask for financial support from head teacher. 
The numbers have reduced in recent years due to funding issues. No teachers are 
currently doing a Master’s degree. Some non-teaching staff are. It is a 
discretionary decision and it depends on the relevance of subject and benefit to 
the school as to whether the school wil  support it.  
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption 40: Personal Data 
7.  Data led interventions – SB and DC presentation 
There are progress tracking meetings looking at every student in year 11. The 
meetings are multi-disciplinary including the SEN team and heads of year for a 
holistic approach. There is a progress tracking proforma for each student. Key 
groups which are underperforming are highlighted so department heads and 
subject leads know who to target for interventions. Heads of year monitor the 
interventions. The programme wil  be reviewed next term. If there is no progress, 
alternative interventions are devised. 
Al  the data and intervention plans are on SIMS and it can generate student 
intervention report summaries. 
Achievement interventions are put in place for year 10 and 11 students. These 
can include summer interventions for year 11s, drop down days for intensive 


maths and English, and after half term a large English language intervention from 
8.30-9am is being run for year 11 students.   
Parents are invited in for short meetings to encourage buy-in from the whole 
family and to help them with strategies to support the student at home. Its 
presented as a positive rather than punitive experience. Interventions in English 
and Maths has improved Progress 8 scores for 2016/17. 
Q- How are the predictive grades made? 
A- They are based on the mock results and usually go up a grade if the teacher is 
confident the student wil  put in the extra work. It’s a teacher-based decision. The 
minimum expectation is what SISRA generates (government data) based on the 
KS2 score and government predictions. Last year, teacher predictions were very 
accurate but this may be more difficult with the new 9-1 courses. When the 
government benchmark it won’t be the same for English and Maths but for all 
other subjects they wil  make the same proportion of C, B and A grades this year 
and the teachers wil  use this for predictions. 
Q- If classes progress better than expected are teachers rewarded? 
A-  Its dealt with in part of performance management. 
Q – Can you track progress via teacher or cohort? 
 A- Individual students are tracked across all subjects and holistical y looking at 
behaviour and attendance when identifying the best way to intervene, using an 
‘Every Child Matters’ approach. Tracking individual teacher’s results isn’t possible 
when teachers share classes. Peer observations can be useful to motivate 
teachers however when they see successful teaching methods. 
Q – Do students get a letter home when there is evidence of progress? 
A -Data reports are sent out but no letters to reward progress. This could be 
looked into however in future. 
Q- There doesn’t seem to be much preparation for practical exams – comment? 
A –Art, DT, PE are all allocating time to practice practical element of exams. 
[check wording re: charging for photocopying]. 
8.  Curriculum offer KS4/5 - SA 
There has been a change at the Joint Council for Qualification (JCQ) so that 
students now have the opportunity to appeal a grade for course work before its 
sent to the exam board. It’s a way to avoid appeals to the exam board. It will only 
effect subjects with a course work component. JFS is working closely with Yavneh 
and JCOSS to develop a joint protocol to set the same timeframes and processes. 
One of the possible grounds for appeal is the quality of teaching. JCQ guidance 
says however as long as the school is explicit, students can’t appeal on that basis.  
If there is an appeal it must be responded to in 5 days. The work has to be re-
marked internally and this can be difficult for small departments. There is no extra 
funding for this. Parents wil  be charged (appeals to GCSE grades are charged 
and refunded if the grade goes up). The school may need additional administrative 


support during the period. 
Action: Governors to check the legality of whether refunds wil  be made if grade is 
increased on appeal.  
Curriculum update. 
There are now 4 pathways in 6th Form, CASH – childcare, BTEC programme 
business media, food science and art and design. KS4 is increasing the BTEC 
and vocational provision. There wil  be an update at the next committee meeting 
on uptake. 
Q- Someone from the head boy and girls’ team used to attend curriculum 
meetings but this has stopped. Should they be invited again? 
A – It’s for governors to decide if want them to attend.  
Decision: to invite head boy/girl to attend in future. They can step out if there are 
any sensitive topics being discussed. 
9.  Jewish curriculum update – covered in point 4.1 
10. Behaviour – SA 
There have been fewer incidents in January (239), then during December (370). 
Jermaine Hay joined the behaviour team and work on the behaviour room should 
be finished by half term which wil  make interventions easier and provide privacy 
for 1:1 sessions. Mr Bruce has been appointed temporarily to SLT until the end of 
the year. There has been a change of culture with more respect between pupils 
and staff. Pupils now have badges to identify year groups and there is a focus on 
correct uniform. 
Mr Bruce wil  take over as safeguarding lead so wil  reduce his work with the 
behaviour team. This is part of succession planning for when TT retires. There has 
been a safeguarding complaint and recommendations wil  be brought to the 
11. Attendance update 
In January attendance was marginally better for years 7-11 and 12 than this time 
last year at 95.8%, 95.33% last year.  Sept 2017- Jan 2018, 6th form – 93.1% and 
had been 92.87% last year. 
12. Home school agreement 
The only update required are the dates and Rachel Fink asked that the spelling of 
‘orah veykar’ should be changed to ‘orah viyikar’.  
13. Terms of reference 
Second half – standard for all committees Points 17-19. 


Re: respect to student discipline  
CSWAB are responsible for convening the panel but it doesn’t need to be made 
up exclusively of CSWAB members, but if possible at least one member should be 
from CSWAB. 
A.  In respect of student discipline cont./ 
The behaviour principles written statement is being reviewed by Chris Wray 
Keep 3 bullet points. 
Date of Next Meeting: Monday at 6.30pm. 
Signed: ________________________________  
Date: ____________________ 


Curriculum and Student Welfare, Attendance & Behaviour Committee. 
Minutes of meeting held on Monday 30th April 2018, at 6.30 PM. 
 Dr. Charlotte Benjamin(CB) 
Members present:  
Ms Geraldine Fainer (GF) 
Mrs Naomi Newman (NN). 
Mr. James Lake (JL) 
Mrs Anne Shisler (AS) 
Mrs Julia Alberga (JA) 
Others present: 
Mr. Simon Appleman (SA) 
Mr David Wragg (DW) 
Mr. Dharmesh Chauhan (DC). 
1. Apologies for Absence 
Apologies were received from Dr Rabbi Zarum and Mr Bruce (RB). 
2. Minutes of Previous meeting 
2.1 A number of spelling corrections were made. 
  2.2 To delete reference to payment for photocopying. 
2.3 Point 6 - Continuing Professional Development Update  
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 40 - Personal Data 
•  A clarification was made in relation to an answer to question 4 regarding 
requesting re-payment of course fees if a teacher leaves the school shortly 
after completion. This was referring to more in-depth training such as 
Masters degrees rather than shorter courses directly related to teaching. 
Action agreed: SA to speak to HR regarding about possibility of requesting some 
repayment of fees for a course if a member of staff leaves before a specified time 
period is completed. 
The minutes were approved subject to these amendments. 

3.  Matters arising from the previous meeting 
It was agreed that JFS should mirror the process for appeals to exam boards in that 
refunds are made when there is a grade increase but not if there are points 
increased which does not affect the grade. 
Action agreed: SA to ask Helen Furman (Exams Officer) to check if this is 
consistent with other schools. 
4.  Safeguarding Update (written report circulated) 
There were two reviews last week. The first were two visitors arranged via Brent 
Schools Partnership, commissioned by the school. The second was a return visit by 
Tony Lamport who started his review in February and was checking on progress. His 
feedback overall was very positive and the headline is that ‘Safeguarding at JFS is 
effective’. He raised a few issues which are documented in the report and SA 
reported that 90% of them have been actioned. Issues discussed were: 
•  Some issues from students regarding bul ying and poor behaviour – to be 
discussed in item 6. Behaviour Update 
•  Inconsistent audit trail when safeguarding concerns are referred, not all are using 
the proforma. RB to address this. 
•  Governors not always triangulating information 
•  To ensure data backups of safeguarding information is encrypted 
•  Offices where staff may meet with pupils without viewing windows, need windows 
installed in doors  
•  Recommendations to tackle bullying 
•  Fire dril s and emergency dril s held annually and wil  now be held every term. 
•  Warning sign to be added to the pond regarding deep water. 
SA recognised the huge amount of work completed by Raynn Bruce and Candace 
Bertie Candice in addressing safeguarding issues and noted that they have built on 
the foundations laid by Talia Thoret over the summer. 
Action agreed:  
1. SA to discuss adding glass to relevant office doors with Graham Pocock and 1440 
2. Any posters obscuring existing viewing panes to be removed immediately. 
5. Timetabling Update – DW 
5.1 Recruitment  A number of vacancies have been fil ed but the total number of 
vacancies for next term won’t be known until the resignation cut off date at the end of 
May. The school has recruited good candidates and no agencies have been used for 
recruitment this year. 7 teachers are known to be leaving, 4 are retiring, 1 is moving 
abroad and 1 is setting up her own business. 3 maternity leaves (in Dance, PE and 
English departments) have also been covered. Recruitment has also been 

successful in replacing staff on 1-year contracts with permanent staff. There has 
been successful recruiting to the English department but insufficient good candidates 
for Maths posts. 
Q- Was the difficulty retaining English staff to do with the structure of the 
A – No, it was due to specific difficult circumstances last year. 
5.2 Timetabling 
There wil  be similar challenges to last year because there has been no change to 
allocated teacher hours or subject allocations. There are numerous factors to take 
into account including p/t teachers, numbers of students for each subject for GCSE 
and A’ level choices, number of subject classrooms available and compromises often 
have to be made for students in terms of subject choices and for teachers in terms of 
how teaching hours are distributed. 
Q - Last year timetabling was brought in-house and there was a new process which 
made it difficult – why are the challenges the same this year? 
A – This year we are starting the process earlier because last year we had to wait for 
changes to the school day to be approved so that is an advantage. However, there 
are stil  numerous factors to be taken into account that make it challenging. 
Q- How confident are you that the timetable wil  be ok for next year? 
A- 100% confident it wil  be ready for September but it won’t be ideal because there 
are no extra staff to provide flexibility. 
Q- What type of compromises wil  there have to be? 
– For example there wil  be split classes with different teachers for the same 
subject. If a subject has 3 hours a fortnight, it may be split 1 hour with one teacher 
and 2 hours with a different teacher. Students and parents often dislike this. If there 
are too many maths lessons running at the same time they can’t all be in the Maths 
block so some lessons may be spread out across the school. Science and Maths are 
blocked together for years 8 and 9 which builds inflexibility into the system. Sixth 
form lessons for some subjects can end up all in the morning or all in the afternoon. 
Q- Have A’ level choices been affected by the timetable? 
– Only one student can’t be accommodated because he requested, Maths, Further 
Maths, Physics and English. English and further Maths are scheduled at the same 
time and there isn’t capacity to change the English timetable for one student. 
If students want to change their choices for A’ level after GCSE results, they can only 
do so if that course isn’t full. There is some flexibility however with Sociology and 

6.  Behaviour Update – SA for RB 
6.1 SA estimated 85% of the time behaviour is excel ent but there are stil  some 
issues with behaviour in the school that need addressing including in cover 
lessons and lunch time. There is an acknowledgement that some teachers are not 
applying the behaviour policy consistently and that they may be waiting for the 
new Head teacher to address issues with behaviour. But managing behaviour is a 
whole school responsibility. 
To address the issues, SLT have drafted a Behaviour Action Plan which they are 
taking to the Leadership Forum for consultation. It includes use of mobile phones 
in lessons, respect for teachers, peers and the school and reviewing the 
effectiveness of the behaviour policy. Governors can be assured that SLT are 
aware of and are addressing these issues. 
 Governors comments on the plan included; 
•  Requiring eye contact from students can be an issue for students on the Autism 
spectrum so this requirement should be re-considered, 
•  It should include respect required from parents/home environment for teachers as 
well, although this wil  be covered in the Home School Agreement.  
 Why is it an issue if students take their bags into the lunch hall? 
A –
 There can be health and safety issues if there are numerous bags brought in 
and left around the lunch hall. 
6.2 Questions relating to the Behaviour Report distributed by DW to NN and 
Q- What is the parking system? 
A – There is a rota in each faculty, of one teacher being available to supervise any 
student who is not able to stay in class, that child is ‘parked’ in another room. 
Q- The number of behaviour incidences have gone up. Has behaviour got worse or 
recording better? 
A – Behaviour has deteriorated around the school in the last 12 months in terms of 
frequency and type of incidents. There is also an issue with teachers becoming less 
responsive to poor behaviour. Anecdotally some teachers are not bothering because 
they say they set detention and there is no follow up or consequences if the student 
fails to attend. There is some progress in behaviour management but DW said he 
thinks this wil  be accelerated when the new Head starts.  
Q – SENK students have a disproportionally high number of behaviour points 
compared to the rest of the school – is there an aspirational goal for the SEN 
department to reduce this gap? 

A – Yes. The rate is too high. It is similar to national figures but too high for JFS. 
There needs to be a strategy for SENK students who often have behavioural issues 
which effects their progress. There is whole school training as part of CPD to 
address low level disruption and working with SENK students. 
Q- Why are there behaviour issues with Year 7, is this unusual? 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 40 - Personal Data 
7. Attendance Update 
Attendance figures are slightly better than this time last year. Punctuality figures are 
lower. KS4 year 10 and SENK students are a concern and year 11 is relatively 
normal for this time of year. The recording system changed this September and the 
new acting head of year 10 didn’t start until the end of February and is stil  learning 
the system. In 6th Form there is also a new system. Assistant Heads of year are 
now monitoring attendance and it is taking sometime to embed. The Attendance 
Officer post for 6th form has gone but there is a new administrator who is providing 
support with attendance. 
Q- It appears attendance and behaviour of SENK students is significantly lower. 
How is this being addressed? 
A – SENK is a particularly disaffected group. This is being addressed by Genice 
Watson, deputy SENCO who supports each Head of Year with the educational 
welfare officer (EWO) visits to see through actions. 
 8.  Attainment/ Progress Update -DC 
  •  GCSE predictions are lower than in 2017.  
•  There is a new marking system (9-1) and are new curricula for astronomy 
and sociology, so teachers have no experience making predictions for 
these exams. 
•  Maths predictions are not as high as other subjects but stil  at a good level. 
They are based on last years cohort and can change.  
•  EBAC scores are slightly lower than last year but well above national 
•  Maths and English have 92% pass rate, up from 91% last year. The 
national average is 63%. 
•  Extra interventions were put in place from September to increase the 
numbers likely to get a 5 in maths. 

•  Approximately 10% of students drop down from 9 to 8 subjects (some from 
10 to 9) before the exams for a range of reasons 
Q- what % SEN students don’t get English and Maths? 
A – There are 6 SEN E students this year doing better than expected and 8 
Q-Is the lower level of support available to SENK students impacting on slower 
progress than the SEN students? 
A-Support is identified on a case by case basis but some SEN K students are on 
a reduced curriculum so often can’t get the same scores. Also, school non-
attenders can skew the overall figures. For example, when you remove 2 school 
refusers progress is good. 
Q- Who identifies a student as SEN K? 
A – The SENCO makes that decision. Sometimes the school identifies it rather 
than parents. There are set criteria that need to be applied. It includes physical 
disability, behavioural issues and learning difficulties.  
A’ Levels 
Predicted grades are slightly lower this year for A and A*. AS levels have been 
removed for some courses and some curricula are new and there are no 
exemplars or test papers so grades are harder to predict. 
Q- Why when students ask for test papers are they are told they are being held 
back by the school for mocks? 
A – Any papers that are publicly available can be downloaded by students. Some 
exam boards wil  ask schools not to release a past paper or exemplars for new 
curriculums.  If there is only one exemplar with a mark scheme, it’s important to 
hold that back for the mock exam. 
 9.  Policies - SA 
9.1 Internet and School Network Policy 
•  This policy has been reviewed by Chris Ray.  
•  It was decided that point 5.1 Publishing on the web, should be 
incorporated into section 4.1 Teaching students to validate information 
•  An additional point to be added to 4.1 is that teaching wil  be via PHSE and 
computing lessons.  
•  It was agreed that e-safety training for years 7-11 is covered in a separate 
E-safety policy.  
•  It was agreed Appendix 2 p6 should be amended to say, ‘Rules for 
acceptable use of the Internet and school network for JFS Workforce’ to 
reflect governors now also have access to the school network so it should 
not be limited to JFS staff. 

•  Policy to be reviewed in 2020 but this can be brought forward if there are 
changes in technology or the IT contract that would warrant it. 
•  The wording of the section relating to deletion of files to be updated to 
‘reserve the right to delete files’ and reflect that it refers to files saved on 
the system. 
Action agreed: SA and DH to update the policy and circulate to the 
committee for approval 
  9.2    Curriculum (was the Teaching and learning policy) 
•  There are some minor changes and spelling corrections. 
•  Pathways as the school articulates them have been added. 
•  It was agreed the wording relating to collective worship (section 2) is too 
generic and should be changed to something more specific to JFS and the 
school’s religious ethos. 
•  To be reviewed in 12 months. 
•  In the Home School agreement (appendix), to change the section title from 
Behaviour, to ‘Behaviour and Respect’ and make it the first section. 
•  Home School Agreement – to add a bullet point about wellbeing.  
  9.3    Sex and relationships Education Policy 
•  There have been no changes to this policy. It wil  be reviewed in 2020. 
•  There was a discussion regarding the last sentence in the section on 
definitions ‘[SRE]…is not about promoting orientation or sexual activity’ as 
to whether it was required or not.  
 Action agreed: To approve the policy as is and CB wil raise the query 
discussed with the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR). 
 9.4 Special Educational Needs and Disability Policy. 
•  Majority of changes are to reflect JFS language. 
•  It was agreed that section 4 on the SEND budget should move to section 
•  Section 15 wording ‘social problems’ to be replaced with something more 
Policy approved subject to the aforementioned changes. 
Action agreed: SA to update with changes discussed above. 
10 A.O.B 
10.1 CSWAB invitation to Head Boy/Girl team 

Although discussed at the last meeting and FGB, it was decided not to invite 
representatives from the Head boy/girl team to this meeting due to the 
Safeguarding and Staffing update agenda items. 
10.2 Training on Critical Incident Policy 
The policy has been disseminated to all staff and the SLT members identified in 
the Critical incident group are receiving specific training. 
Signed: ___________________________________   
Date: _________ 

 JFS School Curriculum and Student Welfare Committee, Attendance & Behaviour (CSWAB) 
Minutes of meeting held on 12th November 2018 at 6.30 PM. 
 Dr. Charlotte Benjamin (CBenj) 
Members present: 

Ms Geraldine Fainer (GF) ( in chair for first hour) 
Mrs Julia Alberga (JA) 
Mr. James Lake (JL) 
Mrs Anne Shisler (AS) 
Mrs Naomi Newman (NN). 
In attendance: 
 Ms Caroline Bunder (CBund) 
Mrs Rachel Fink (RF) 
Mr Simon Appleman (SA) 
Mr. Dharmesh Chauhan (DC) 
  Ms Louise Fox 
1. Apologies for Absence 
None received. 
2. Minutes of previous meeting 30.04.18 
The minutes were agreed by those present. 
3. Matters arising from the previous meeting 
3.1  Item 2.2.3 Repayment of fees for a course if a member of staff leaves before a 
specified time period is completed 
SA confirmed this has been discussed with the Headteacher and wil  be instigated when 
necessary.  This is standard practice in schools and the amounts wil  depend on the type 
and cost of the course and at what stage the member of staff leaves. 
3.2  Item 3 – Refund practice for appeals to examination boards 
        SA confirmed this is being addressed and is in progress.   A student has to pay to appeal 
a grade. If the overall grade goes up, they wil  get a refund. Staff are careful not to 


advise appealing grades to ensure this is an independent decision by the student. 
3.3  Item 4 – Adding glass to some office doors 
SA responded. This arose as part of the safeguarding review; it was decided it was not 
necessary for the offices in question. 
Action agreed: SA check it does not apply to any other offices. 
3.4  Item 4 – removal of posters obscuring viewing panes 
This has been actioned. 
3.5  Item 6.2 – Review of extended transition for SEN E pupils 
This is under review by Gail Rosten (GR) SENCO and she is trialling some new processes 
to make sure the transition from year 6 to year 7 goes smoothly for this group. 
3.6  Item 9.1 -Review of internet and school network policy for committee consideration
 Action agreed: SA to check what this relates to. 
3.7  Item 9.3 -requirement in SRE Policy for sentence on promotion of orientation or 
[and?] sexual activity 
In light of the Chief Rabbi’s booklet, RF said she will check if information in the Bullying 
Policy needs to be updated. In terms of education, the school needs to review what 
information is made available to both the lower and upper schools with regards to sex 
and relationships. 
3.8  Item 9.4 – Updating of SEND policy 
This has been completed. 
4.  Headteacher’s report – Paper circulated to the Committee. 
RF said that her main report wil  be presented at FGB but she wil  structure the reports 
in future around the CSWAB aeiceda, to ensure reports presented at each meeting are 
relevant to that time of year. 
Q – What changes are coming in for Ofsted? 
A – The arrival of a new headteacher no longer triggers an inspection so if results remain 
where they should be and don’t fal  below the national average and there are no other 
reasons to trigger an inspection (for example if there aren’t a number of substantiated 
complaints going through) its unlikely JFS wil  be inspected before 2020 which provides 
time to plan and prepare. There will also be a new framework from September 2019 
separating Welfare and Wel being from the main inspection and there wil  be less focus 
on data and more focus on a holistic education which wil  be good for JFS with the 
development of more vocational courses planned. 
Q – Is the curriculum widening? 
A – The School needs to develop a bespoke curriculum that reflects the School’s intent and 
values. JFS is developing a curriculum booklet with a brief summary of the curriculum 


for each subject including PSHE and British Values. It wil  include the depth and breadth 
of the curriculum and how it wil  be made accessible for all abilities within the School. 
JFs wil  be ensuring that one of its key objectives to improve literacy in the School starts 
at KS3. 
Q – How is the organisation Prospects involved in the School? 
A – Prospects is a careers advisory service. The school has to have independent careers 
advice and Deepa meets with year 11 about A’ level choices and careers, she also meets 
with Year 10 and some Year 9’s who may benefit from help to focus on where they 
want to get to. 
5.  Safeguarding and Student Wel -being Update 
There was a discussion about the safeguarding list and vulnerable students list. The 
numbers on the safeguarding list are currently low because it is early in the academic 
year. There are 87 students on the Vulnerable students list based on information gained 
from their primary schools, which is approximately a third of the year group. They are 
discussed fortnightly with the transition team. There is some overlap between the two 
Any member of staff who has a safeguarding concern completes a form and sends it to 
the Head of Safeguarding and the information is kept on the safeguarding register. This 
does not mean there is always active safeguarding interventions with social services for 
each case. If the issue is resolved then the student comes off the School’s safeguarding 
register. This list can only be accessed by the DSLs, the Headteacher and Rabbi Howard 
Cohen (HC) who wil  be joining JFS as Deputy Headteacher, Wellbeing, Safeguarding & 
Behaviour. It is not necessarily pupil premium students on the list as issues can arise for 
students of al  backgrounds. 
Q-  It sounds like safeguarding training for JFS staff is well covered but what do we know 
about the training staff from 1440 have? 
A – The school has access to the DBS’s for all 1440 staff and JFS has agreed to train the 1440 
staff but this is our biggest vulnerability currently. Staff can do level 1 online 
safeguarding training and HC may be able to run the training as he has experience in 
safeguarding training. The School wil  also be introducing different coloured lanyards so 
staff and students are aware of visitors who need to be accompanied and who have 
clearance to visit the School unaccompanied. 
Q – How have the lanyards been received by the students? 
A – It’s been mainly positive and is common in many schools now. 
6.  SEN and Inclusion 
The committee received the fol owing reports; 
6.1  The SEN report  
6.2  2017/18 Inclusion report 
6.3  The current Inclusion register. 


Action agreed: One report sent to the Committee contained some identifying 
information by accident and all committee members agreed to delete that report 
RF was asked for an update on two students with whom the School is having issues . 
Student 1 is in year 8 and has a working age of approximately 7 years. Staff are 
struggling to meet his needs and manage his behaviour and the school believes he is in 
the wrong setting but his parent wants him to remain at JFS. He was recently excluded 
for one day. Unfortunately, his parent did not attend the re-integration meeting. An EP 
assessment has been completed and emergency review meeting with Brent LA has 
been arranged.  The student has an EHCP and was accepted because JFS was the school 
named on the statement and the school cannot refuse at that point. The only way to 
move the student without parental support is via a permanent exclusion and JFS has to 
explore all other options first. 
Student 2 is receiving a bespoke one to one programme in an effort to develop a 
relationship with the student. There is no additional funding for this and there is an 
impact on other students when so much of the Pastoral team’s time is taken up on one 
student.  The school needs to go through the processes in the Behaviour policy step by 
step in terms of any fixed term exclusions, increasing the time period if escalation is 
required and using the Right Track alternative provision when the student is out of 
school. This is unpopular with parents as the provision is further away in Brent. 
7.  Behaviour – report presented to the Committee. 
RF reported that behaviour is discussed regularly by SLT. The number of behaviour 
issues are declining because teachers are working hard to develop better relationships 
with students and are dealing with issues at the time they arise rather than referring to 
the behaviour team. Teachers who are struggling are much more open to asking for 
support. Jason Bookatz is helping to support staff, doing observations and training. 
Marcia Jones is running the internal exclusion room and is using her mentoring 
experience. The on-call system is working well. Distribution of behaviour points are 
being monitored to see which staff are giving out the most positive and negative points. 
Q- How has the mobile phone policy impacted on behaviour? 
A – It has had a positive impact in the classroom and there are very few issues with 
mobile phones now. Phones are rarely being seen outside of class either. Parents have 
been very supportive of the policy. 
Q – What’s happening with the Rewards Scheme? 
A – Rewards should be as immediate and low cost as possible and available to as many 
students as possible. The scheme has been reviewed introducing ‘Light and Honour’ 
awards for highest achievement points per year group and ‘Students of the month’ for 


each department. Students wil  have their achievements recognised via letters home, 
certificates and SLT postcards home as well. There are plans to run parties for 
achievement for whole cohorts and develop more awards for non-academic 
achievements including volunteering, progress, contributions to the school. 
Q – Is it still the case that internal exclusions are mainly SEN K students and is there 
training for teachers who find it difficult to make reasonable adjustments? 
A – No teacher can send a student to internal exclusion now, it has to be a decision by 
the Head of department. The school recognised the need for a measure of judgement 
from teachers. Teachers need to have read the SEN register for children in their classes. 
SEN training is going on in departmental meetings to support teachers to build 
relationships with these students. This is an area of weakness in the school and it is 
being addressed. The next step is to be able to evidence that teachers have read the 
SEN register and are aware of needs of students in their classes. Information is being 
gathered about teachers’ training needs and improvements are showing already. 
Q- Is it possible to have a focus on SEN K students in CSWAB this year with regards to 
managing behaviour? 
A – Yes.  Managing differentiation comes into the Learning and Teaching programme. 
8.  Attendance 
Since the report, attendance is at 96.5% for years 7-11 and 89.4% for years 12-13 which 
is a slight improvement. Attendance in Year 13 is bringing down the 6th Form 
attendance figures. Year 13 students are missing JS and PE and they are registered in 
these classes in the afternoons so they are now ‘gated’ on those afternoons. 
Attendance letters have been sent to parents. There needs to be a 6th Form behaviour 
policy linked with attendance and then sanctions such as detentions or exclusions for 
significant non-attendance can be put in place. Currently the only sanction for non-
attendance is to not enter a student for exams. 
The target of 95% attendance for years 7-11 and above 90% for years 12 and 13, were 
agreed by the committee. 
Q- Does the 6th form need its own dedicated Attendance Officer? 
A – There is capacity among current Attendance Officers to manage 6th Form 
attendance as wel . Staff are currently focused on ensuring attendance records are 
correct. The aim is to make the system more effective and accurate. 
Q- Wil  the SIMs parent app where parents can see their child’s attendance record, 
improve attendance? 
A-  Feedback so far has been good. 


9.  Analysis of Results of National Examinations 
9.1 GCSE – report was received by the committee. 
The Progress 8 Score is 1.02. On average students gained one grade higher than 
expected for GCSE and above national expectations.  The EBAC scores were in line 
with last year and Progress 8 scores were positive for all groups but lower for SEN. 
There is no prior data for some of the SEN K group and some were non-attenders or 
were fol owing a different curriculum which is why the figures are negative. If you 
remove the non-attenders the figures move into positive progress scores. Progress 
for the SEN group does need to be improved however. 
Heads of departments can identify from the data which classes performed best, any 
groups that are underperforming use this to share best practice. The data is discussed 
with Heads of department and the Head teacher. 
  RF said she has completed most of the meetings now and has been impressed by the 
level of professionalism of Heads of Faculty and Subject leads and their analysis of the 
data, in terms of the departments’ strengths, weaknesses, plans of action and taking 
on board lessons learnt. It is possible to dril  down to individual questions on a paper, 
looking at the national average score compared to the JFS scores, identify which topics 
need development and which teachers. 
The governors wanted to thank the Heads of Faculty and their departments for al  
their hard work. 
Action agreed: Committee to draft a letter of thanks to the Heads of Faculty for the 
Headteacher to circulate. 
 Q –Last year there were concerns about the RS results with the new GCSE. How were 
the results? 
A – They were the best scores this year and made a large contribution to Progress 8 
Q- Are you expecting similar GCSE grades for the second year of the new 9-1 syllabuses 
this year? 
A- It is very hard to say but all schools are in the same situation. JFS is in the to 50 
schools for GCSE and top 100 for A’ Levels for Progress 8 but attainment is higher than 
other schools. There are only 2 schools above JFS in the rankings that 200+ in their 6th 
Q- Do you think there are undiagnosed learning difficulties with are resulting in 
negative progress of SEN K students? 
A – (Written response from GR) The school is fully aware of SEN K making poor progress 
but we don’t think there are undiagnosed learning difficulties. Some have diagnoses but 
the funding for support is limited. Many new interventions have been put in place at KS 
3 and 4 to try and identify issues and intervene earlier which hopefully wil  improve 
progress for SEN K students. RF commented that SEN K students’ progress should be 


compared with other SEN K students national y, not with the general school population. 
She said that SEN funds should not be used for SEN K students and lack of funding for 
this group is an issue. It may be an area for fundraising in future. Thresholds for funding 
and extra time in exams are so high that many SEN K students don’t meet them but do 
experience a high level of social or behavioural issues. 
Q- How do you benchmark SEN students who don’t take exams? 
A -They are benchmarked by a national average of 0, so anything above 0 is ok. 
Q – What is the school aiming for if students are taking exams? Is 0.18 good or are you 
aiming higher? 
A – The school can benchmark from early stage and so can identify a target and if the 
student reaches it you know they are doing ok. This year there are 6 SEN K students so a 
small cohort and you almost have to use them as individual case studies to learn from 
for future students and add the narrative to the scores to show progress. 
Q- Can parents fund extra support? 
A – No. There needs to be equal opportunity available to al  students and transparency 
about how resources are allocated. Parents can pay for additional support privately 
outside of school only 
9.2 A’ Level Report. 
SA reported that the School was not happy with results in a couple of places. Some 
were down to individual students and others that were nationally problematic subjects 
and the School challenged the exam board e.g. A’ Level Theatre; al  but one student had 
their exams remarked and went up a grade. The School is lacking exemplars so they are 
looking into other ways to provide support such as discussions with moderators to 
understand what is required. It would be helpful to get teachers trained as examiners at 
each key stage and it can bring significant learning into the School.  
Q- Has the positive results led to better retention of year 12 students? 
   A -234 students out of 285 moved into the 6th Form which is slightly higher than 
previous year. There are more alternative pathways available now if students don’t 
want to or can’t take A’ levels. The school is developing the range of options such as 
BTEC in applied science for those that want to continue with sciences but did not get 
the grades to study at A’ level. This doesn’t generate any capital cost to the school as 
resources are already in place. So far 12 year 11 students have shown and interest in 
the course and it may be attractive to external candidates.   
Q – Are BTECs going in to be replaced with T’levels in a couple of years? 
A – T’levels are being trial ed in some schools but it’s not certain if they wil  be 
introduced or not. The school is looking at T’Levels to check the BTEC courses offered 
are in line with them for a smooth transition. 
Q- Is JFS considering any catering courses? 
A – It’s a question of resources.  The school needs to make sure courses offered attract 


the broadest range of students and keep finances in shape.  There will always be some 
students with such specific requirements/interests that the 6th Form can’t meet them. 
Q – What are the minimum numbers to make any course viable? 
A – At KS5 less than KS4.  It can depend on the subject and teacher availability and 
impact on rest of that department. A’ Level classes at JFS tend to be large but there is a 
cost implication of splitting up into smaller groups in terms of more resources required 
but also a risk of students leaving because other 6th Form provision can offer smaller 
9.3 Student Destinations 
The previous year 13 destinations are; 
Apprenticeships – 4 
Gap year 35 
University / Higher education – 177 
Working -3 
Unknown – 5. 
9.4 In year leavers - Year 13 
Students leaving at the end of year 12 is indicative of issues relating to not getting exam 
results in early enough in year 12. There is a plan in place to hold the year 12 exams 
earlier so results will be available in the summer term and plans can be discussed and 
put in place with students before they start in year 13 so they are less likely to panic 
and feel the need to move out of JFS. 
The committee thanked Dharmesh Chauhan, Angela Fernades and Reuben for their 
reports and appreciated the speed and clarity of analysis which the committee found 
very helpful.   
10. Curriculum development 
10 .1 Curriculum plan -this has been completed by al  heads of faculty and includes 
PSHE, British Values, and JiEP. SA working on this with Gail Rosten to ensure it is in line 
with expectations of Ofsted. 
Q- Any chal enges? 
A – Mainly working out what can be afforded. The school is looking into a work skills 
programme for KS4 student who are not achieving academically and seeking advice 
from Binoh. It wil  depend on the cost, whether the school can run the programme and 
if there will be external demand as well. Clear pathways are being developed in 6th 
Form including BTECs, A’ levels, a mix of both A’ levels and BTECs and one year only 
programmes. Everyone is entitled to enter the 6th Form but conditional offers wil  be 
made for particular pathways depending on grades required for each programme. 
10.2 Teaching and learning chal enges 


 Anna Joseph is doing great job developing and implementing the Teaching and 
Learning Programme.  She is identifying training needs of every new member of staff in 
the school and monitoring the impact of the support. The anonymised learning walks 
are helpful because it makes it a departmental issue rather than individual teacher and 
develops a culture of improvement. 
Q- Can teachers who are identified as needing more support choose not to engage in 
the programme? 
A – Its moving in that direction but the staff are encouraged to take up the support. 
Most of the staff identified as needing support are taking it up. If a more directive 
approach is needed it wil  be taken up via informal performance management initially. 
Q- Is it just for teachers or also for tutors? 
A – The school is looking into this as there is some variation in quality of tutors.  The 
school is looking at who are the best people or departments for PHSE delivery for 
10.3 British values 
Sharon Kreiger reported back to SLT and the work done so far is very impressive. She is 
fol owing up a lot of leads about where there needs to be greater impact.  The school 
need to be more explicit about which content comes under British Values so students 
are aware of it and can articulate this. Other staff need to be encouraged to get 
involved to widen the impact. SK may come to a CSWAB meeting in future to report 
11. Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Development 
PSHE and British Values are now both line managed by Daniel Marcus and they are 
working closer together to ensure the right topics are being covered. 
The school has also introduced ‘Pause for Thought’ a daily 3-minute podcast presented 
by tutors, teachers and students on weekly themes often linked to current events. It 
seems to be having a positive impact. 
12. Careers education 
A careers supervisor has been appointed. Careers education is good at KS5 but requires 
improvement further down the school. The school is in conversation with Max Barney 
to see if they would be able to fund development of careers education. 
Q- Can future reports link to Gatsby 8 benchmark? 
A – yes. 
13. School surveys 
The staff survey has been completed and is very positive based on comments reviewed. 
It reflects that the school is in a very different place from a couple of years ago. 
The student survey wil  be out in a couple of weeks and the Parent/Guardian survey was 
sent out this week with 2 weeks to respond.  Responses wil  be analysed, perspectives 


wil  be triangulated and the response wil  be in the format of ‘You said, we did…’. 
Q- What is the typical number of responses from parents? 
A – Approximately 350 out of 1400 families which is a standard level of response to 
these types of surveys. 
14. A.O.B 
14.1 Caroline Bunder needs to be approved as a member of CSWAB at FGB – 
Action agreed: GF to discuss with the Clerk to the Governors. 
14.2 Staff Chanukah party wil  be on the last day of term – Governors are invited. 
14.3 New Structure and Roles 
Action agreed: RF to circulate the new structure and roles document to the Committee. 
Date of Next Meeting
:  19th February 2019 at 6.30pm. 
Signed: _______________________________________   Date: ____________________ 

Minutes of the meeting of the Curriculum and Student Welfare, Attendance and Behaviour 
held at the School on Monday, 25th February 2019 
Governors present were:  
Dr Charlotte Benjamin (chairperson) 
Ms Geraldine Finer 
Mrs Anne Shisler 
Mrs Naomi Newman 
Mrs Julia Alberga 
Ms Caroline Bunder 
Mr James Lake 
Others present were:   
Mr Simon Appleman 
Mrs Anna Joseph 
Mr Geoff Peddie. 
1.  Apologies for absence  
None received. 
2.  Minutes of Previous Meeting 12.11.18 
Minor amendments were made and the minutes were approved and signed. 
  3.  Matters Arising
 from Previous Meeting  
3.1  Item 3.3 Action:  SA to check that for safeguarding purposes it would not be necessary 
to add glass to some office doors – this has been completed. 
3.2  Item 14.1 Action: Discussion re: the appointment of Caroline Bunder to the Committee 
– completed at FGB. 
3.3  Item 9.1 Action: Committee to draft a letter of thanks to Faculty Heads re: GCSE 
results – this has been completed. 
3.4  Item 14.3 Action: Headteacher to circulate the new structure and roles document to the 
Committee – completed. Copy to be sent out again. 
  4.  Head teachers report - RF 
 RF explained that they know more about the Ofsted curriculum requirements now and can 
start to understand the four key areas. There is less focus on outcomes and more on a 
bespoke curriculum and personal development.  
  4.1 British Values update – From Sharon Kreiger (SK) 
The school is trialling the ‘Loving classroom’ which brings together PSHE and British Values. 
The Loving Classroom is based on developing a culture of respect which aligns with the 
school’s values, Jewish values and British values of respectful interaction with others. SK is 
also working with curriculum leaders to map where British values fit into al  curricula.  


Q- What is the ‘Wings of Hope Achievement Programme’? 
A – It makes students aware of educational limits in the developing world and provides an 
introduction to social action through development of skil s such as public speaking, 
fundraising and PR and teams compete to raise funds through events. The winning team 
gets to visit India for 10 days. There needs to be a strategy in JIEP and vision for social 
action to see how current programmes fit together as it is quite disjointed currently. 
4.2 Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (SMSC) update  
Written report received from Daniel Marcus (DM). 
The school has started to prepare for a Pikuach inspection and SLT is starting a self-
evaluation in JS and other areas of the curriculum. For Ofsted it falls under personal 
development and behaviour and also includes some of British Values and PSHE.  

Q- Do some areas stil  need developing or just fine-tuning? 
A – It is difficult to say without some feedback from DM. SLT is looking at the underlying 
strategy and there wil  be more of a focus on social action in JIEP.  
4.3 Curriculum update – SA 
The new Ofsted Framework looks at the 3 I’s, intent, implementation and impact.  
The curriculum booklet now has statements of intent for each subject. Subject leaders are 
working through a number of questions to be able to provide a rationale for the curriculum. 
The aim is to build resilient learning.  
Q- Is Ofsted asking schools to describe what good teaching looks like, i.e. the quality of 
A – There is an enhanced focus on subject knowledge and therefore includes a focus on the 
quality of teaching and learning within that.  
Q- Can you fit this work into the current Inset times available or does the school need 
additional time? 
A – AJ wil  explain more about the use of Inset time in her presentation but there is a CPD 
session booked for April to work on curriculum design.  
4.4 Careers education - GP 
Developing the careers education has become a priority this year and a development lead 
has been appointed. This year the aim is reach compliance and meet the benchmark 
(Gatsby have 8 different benchmarks to be met) and next year cost effectiveness wil  be 
reviewed. In the third year the school wil  apply for accreditation in careers development. The 
current provider Prospects wil  deliver the programme this year. The aim is also to work with 
some community organisations such as Work Avenue to develop the project. Careers 
provision in 6th form is good but from years 8-11 improvements are needed. The school wil  
pilot a model for years 8-10 to establish the best approach. A careers fair for years 10 and 
12 is being held at the end of March and there has been strong support from parents who 
have agreed to participate in the event. 
Funding is required to achieve this. The school is approaching key funders to see if they wil  
support development of careers education including those already involved with the school.. 
Q- Wil  funders bring someone in to develop programmes? 


A – The school wil  design what they are looking for and hopefully investors wil  fund it. 
Q- Do Prospects have a way of evidencing their success? 
A – Yes, they provide a report on outcomes. 
Q- If the school stops using Prospects in the future how wil  outcomes be measured? 
A – The school may continue to work with Prospects or a different organisation. This wil  be 
a school decision not investors. Prospects are a holding pattern until the school can 
benchmark other providers going forward. 
4.5 6th Form Destinations – written report from Dr Walton 
Retention for this year 11 to year 12 year is likely to be high. 
Q- Are any of the apprenticeship destinations, higher apprenticeships at banks or accounting 
firms this year?  
A –Anecdotally one student at Oxbridge level or just below, decided to take an 
apprenticeship in an insurance firm rather than go to university as it is a more cost-effective 
way to gain qualifications.  
4.6 Pupil Premium (PP) and CLA – GP  
Overall the statistics are in the school’s favour. There are 15 PP students currently. There is 
a spike in years 8 and 10 and the school is trying to address this by funding an assistant 
head of year for those two years. Any physical items required come through the necessities 
fund, for example laptops. Money can be used for tutoring which is effective but very costly. 
It is difficult to find tutors who wil  accept the rates the school can offer and if an agency is 
used costs increase further. It can be hard to establish the cost benefits for pupil premium. 
Q- Could the school employ an in-house tutor? 
A – This can be very difficult to timetable as the hours can be odd. In school, some staff may 
offer tutoring at lunchtime or after school but some limitations. 
Q- Are internal staff interested in tutoring during school hours? 
A -Staff generally prefer not to do this because they can get higher rates out of school. Using 
a tutoring service can increase the cost by 100%. 
4.7 KS 3 Action plan -GP 
The action plan stems from responses to the last Ofsted inspection in the School 
Improvement plan. No items can be signed off until the end of the summer term because 
they have ongoing actions going forward. The Accelerated Reading (AR) programme is up 
and running and has been reviewed. The next step is to measure outcomes. Staff can 
already see rapid progress having AR in English lessons rather than form time. The 
programme also links with Ofsted’s curriculum on reading.  
Pastoral care and behaviour are being managed by Rabbi Cohen. There is a research 
project about what works for academically high achieving students. 
The governors thanked GP for the report which they found clear and very helpful. 


Q- One of the red sections flags up issues with SEN K which is difficult to manage because 
of funding cuts. Should more money be allocated for SEN K students and what can 
governors do in collaboration with staff to give more support to SEN K students? 
A – Rabbi Cohen has raised the issue of whether the school is identifying SEN K students 
effectively and if there may be many more students who meet the criteria in terms of social 
and emotional needs. Some are already identified at primary school but some are not. 
Should the school re-define SEN K students? There are questions about how they are 
supported to access the curriculum and make progress.  
Q- So should the process be, that needs are assessed and then the support they would 
benefit from should be identified, then funding should be looked into to meet those needs?  
A – There are a few options that could be explored. Wembley High has is a good model of a 
school with a high number of SEN K students who are identified early on as likely to struggle 
in mainstream classrooms on transfer to secondary school. They have a class which 
provides continuity from primary school with a teacher who supports them with the transition. 
The teacher attends lessons with them for basic curriculum subjects such as English and 
Maths. They have this intensive input for up to 2 years. 
Another idea is to have a special needs class that transfers from one school to another each 
year to share the burden across a number of schools, this might be an option for a group of 
Jewish schools. There also needs to be better alternative provisions for students who can’t 
manage a full day of academic lessons and would benefit from support in the morning and a 
special practical/ vocational type programme in the afternoon. If money was no object a 
specialist wing could be set up and shared with other Jewish schools to meet needs. 
Q- Would parents of those children receive this idea positively? 
A – There can be resistance from parents as they fear their child is being marginalised or 
labelled but if they can see their child’s needs wil  really be met by suitable alternative 
provision you can get buy in from parents/carers. The aim would be to make JFS more 
accessible to them and get those students back into mainstream schooling. Getting funding 
for a building is manageable but getting ongoing year on year funding for staff and running 
costs is very difficult. 
Action point: Rabbi Cohen to provide a report to the committee at the next meeting 
following his talks with Gesher. 
4.8 Teaching and Learning – AJ 
There is a bespoke CPD programme at JFS including 15-minute staff forums, learning and 
development groups with a menu of options, which tie into the school improvement plan. 
There is also a large teacher training programme with approximate 20 staff and a PGCE 
training in collaboration with three other local schools. There is also an outstanding teacher 
programme which helps develop skil s and retain staff and a Reflective Teacher programme. 
This is an in-house course, with a dedicated coach for teachers needing development and 
learning walks. It provides an intense way of improving specific areas of practice and has 
been positively received so far. Since January this year there have also been formal 
observations of teaching practice. The programme provides a more developmental and 
supportive model than before. The school is exploring an Incremental coaching programme 
going forward. It wil  need to be discussed with the unions.  The first phase is to train the 
coaches and the school is looking at some different coaching models with the aim of 
launching in September. 


Q- Are the NQTs likely to stay on after training? 
A – In the main yes. Last year all the NQTs stayed expect one and the same is expected this 
year. There are approximately 11 NQTs currently, 8 or 9 on the School Direct programme 
and 3 are applying for the assessment only route as they have some experience and can 
submit a portfolio to get QTS status relatively quickly. There are also some unqualified 
teachers so the total is 20+ staff requiring mentoring.  
Q- Where are the unqualified teachers? 
A – They are probably in JS or Ivrit, or going through the assessment route. The aim is to get 
everyone qualified and unqualified teachers are given contracts on the basis that they must 
get onto a course and qualify in order to retain their contract going forward.  
Q- Can you explain what an observation entails? 
A – A team/individual watches a lesson. Al  the information goes onto Blue Sky to show 
progress for individual teachers. Further observations can be done if there is a need to follow 
up that feedback given has been implemented. 
Q- Who does the observation? 
A – It can be by a line manager and member of SLT for quality assurance. 
Q- Do teachers get to sit in on other teachers’ lessons? 
A – There is a peer support option to sit in on other lessons but there are time issues which 
means it is not taken up as widely as it could. A different model could be to make it essential 
to observe another lesson at least once every half term for example. It can be inspirational to 
observe others but not always helpful if the teacher needs to develop their own style of 
teaching. The aim is to reach a point where everyone feels comfortable being observed.  
Q- How many free periods does the average teacher have? 
A- A regular teacher has 42 lessons timetabled out of 50 in a fortnight. But it varies for some 
Q –Teachers who were considered outstanding ended up only being observed once in the 
past. Wil  this continue?  
A – The model has changed and now and everyone wil  be observed twice this year. 
Q- What are the career prospects for ‘challenging teachers’? 
A – With the right approach, the vast majority of teachers can improve themselves but it 
needs to come from them. The aim is to create an environment where there is modelling of 
reflective practice so this can be passed on to students. There needs to be a developmental 
culture that everyone buys into.  
Q- What is the proportion of challenging teachers? 
A – There are not many at JFS. There has been a recent turnover of staff and the majority 
are keen to develop and improve. It can be hard to turn around teachers who are resistant to 
development but coaching is often an effective approach to create improvement. 
Q – How do you get teachers to feel you are there to support their development rather than 
passing judgement on them?   
A – Through coaching.  The formal observations are separate from performance 
management. Coaching can help teachers visualise the improvements they want to make. 
Q – How do you performance manage if this is not linked to the observations? 
A – Performance management is based on objectives which should be linked to the school 
development plan. The content of coaching sessions remains confidential but a coach may 
be asked about the level of engagement of a teacher. 
Q- What are the costs of the coaching programme? 
A – It could be very expensive but the school is keen to invest in this as it wil  develop the 
quality of teaching and help attract and retain good staff. The school wil  approach donors for 
funding if possible.  
AJ was thanked by the governors for her presentation and also congratulated her on 
receiving her PAIJEs award recently. 


4.9 SEN report 
Written report received from Gail Roston, Head of SEN. The difficulties caused by a 
reduction in funding was noted. There were no questions.  
5.  Safeguarding and Wellbeing Update - Raynn Bruce (RB) 
  The multi-disciplinary structure is working well with a central referral system that now includes 6th 
form. The new social worker is now in post. A second counsellor has been appointed 3 days/week 
and this is being funded with some additional money from the Wohl foundation for a trial period. 
The new counsellor has a lot of experience working with teenage boys. She wil  join the MDT 
meeting and wil  decide with the existing counsel or how referrals wil  be al ocated. The DSL has 
monthly supervision off site from Norwood to provide support with challenging cases. The school 
hopes to provide similar support to Heads of year and PSOs on a less regular basis when they 
deal with challenging cases. 
  The governors extended their thanks to RB for all his hard work noting he has managed very well 
whilst stepping into a difficult role.  

6.  Behaviour Update - written report from Rabbi Cohen (HC) 
    HC is reviewing the systems and working on building effective relationships with parents. He is 
focusing on expanding the rewards system currently.  
Q-What are the next steps for Behaviour? 
A – HC wil  present to the committee in the summer term once he has had time to develop his 
ideas but he is focusing on embedding a culture for learning. He has been looking at the start of 
lessons and wil  do a learning walk next week. After this he wil  review the ending of lessons to 
ensure consistency across the school.  
Q -Were there any outcomes in response to the email sent out about behaviour out of school at 
the weekends?  
A – It identified some other challenging students. Although students are not in uniform at the 
weekends the school is still concerned about the welfare of these students. The school is 
planning a series of parenting events to support and advise parents, with the PTA.  
7. Attendance Update – SA. 
Years 7-11 are above 95% but this is a slight reduction from last year. The snow day has made 
and impact on the percentage. Year 12 has had good attendance so far but year 13 is letting the 
6th form down. 6th formers often don’t sign in even though they have been told it is their 
responsibility and poor attendance could prevent them from being entered for exams. Year 13 
students often don’t attend on Thursday afternoons when they have non exam subjects such as 
JS or PE. 
Q– Often anecdotally we know the attendance records are not always accurate so what impact is 
that having in distorting the figures? 
A – Work is being done to try and ensure the records are as accurate as possible. 
8. Attainment /Progress Update 


This item was not discussed as it was added to the agenda for this meeting in error. 
9. Policies 

9.1 Visits policy - The policy is being reviewed by SA and DM currently and an update wil  be 
discussed at the meeting next term. 
 10. Any Other Business    

10.1 School survey –the headlines are available but meetings stil  need to be held with 
students, with staff and parents to discuss the key themes and issues.   
Action point: School survey to be discussed at the next committee meeting. 
Date of next meeting: Monday 29th April 2019 at 6.30pm. 
Signed: …………………………………………………………. Date: …………………………. 


Appendix 1 Committee Meeting Action Table 
Committee Meeting Action Summary Table 
Committee: Curriculum and Student Welfare, Attendance and Behaviour. 
Meeting date: 25th February 2019 
Agenda Item 
By whom 
4.4 Matters Arising 
To circulate the new structure  RF 
and roles document to the 
Committee again. 
4.7 KS 3 Action Plan 
Rabbi Cohen to provide a 
report to the committee at 
the next meeting following 
his talks with Gesher 
10.1 AOB School 
Results of School Survey 
to be presented at the next 
committee meeting 
Minutes Finalised?    Y/N 
Date minutes sent for filing:  



Mr John Cooper  
 Mr David Davies 
Mr Richard Martyn    
Mr Andrew Moss   Mr Paul Millett 
Mr Simon Appleman
In Attendance: 
Mr Dharmesh Chauhan (Assistant Headteacher) 
Mr Jamie Peston (Director of Operations) 
Mr Graeme Pocock (Estates Manager) 
Mrs Mary Nithiy (Financial Controller) 

Dr Alan Fox 

Apologies for absence were received from Mr Mark Hurst.  

No declarations were made. 
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 19th February, 2018 were approved. 

Al  matters arising were covered later in the agenda. 

In amplification of the written report by the Estates Manager, and in response to 
questions by the following points were made:  
  •  There was nothing new to report about the Gesher School Project following 

the Private meeting between the Executive Headteacher before her departure 
and Lee Portnoi. It was clear that for its long-term future Gesher would prefer 
to work with a primary rather than a secondary school. In the interim, there 
was no cost to JFS because the project team and architect were being paid 
out of the escrow account funded by Gesher. It was agreed that the Chairman 
would make further informal enquiries. 
  •  There was nothing new to report respect of the land issues. This was not 
urgent but resolution would be required if it were decided to move to Academy 
status. There shouldn't be any difficulty in these circumstances provided that 
the Academy was United Synagogue sponsored. 
In further discussion of the operation of the PFI contract, there was a general feeling 
that on-site management of the contract was improving and that the site team was 
now trying as hard as it could to provide the service required. However, there was 
stil  a problem with the back office reporting. Progress was being made with the 
planned software upgrade but introduction might be delayed a little longer whilst the 
Schools Asset Register was prepared in the appropriate format. A further meeting 
with the contractor was due on 23rd March; the School would be represented by 
Local Partnerships and it was hoped that all outstanding matters would be resolved, 
including historic costs and also the benchmarking for soft services. 
The Committee agreed that lawyers should be instructed to seal the TPI buyout 
arrangements negotiated. However, there remained a staff related issue to be finally 
resolved in respect of the security buyout and the profit compensation rate was stil  
being debated. 
The Committee requested Mr Peston to circulate the terms to members when the 
negotiations had been completed. 
The Committee continued its discussion of the draft Register started at the previous 
meeting. The Headteacher explained that to avoid a number of manuals, the 
Register itself concentrated on strategic matters only. He was pleased to say that at 
the first review no items were flagged up as red.  
The Committee approved the Register and requested that the GB should be 
informed but copies provided only to governors who so requested. The Register 
should be updated annually and a report thereof made to the Committee. 
Mr Dharmesh Chauhan, the Assistant Headteacher with responsibility for Data, gave 
the Committee a PowerPoint briefing on the new EU regulation and the preparations 
that the School, assisted by Brent School Partnership, had made to be ready when it 
came into force on 25th May 2018. 
 The Committee noted that all the necessary actions were proceeding satisfactorily 
on time and thanked Mr Chauhan for his clear presentation. A copy of the 
PowerPoint slides was subsequently supplied to the Clerk for circulation to any 
Governor who requested. 

The Committee had seen the Accounts to end January and was provided at the 
meeting with the Accounts to end February. In discussion the following points made: 
  •  The main difference was the variance of £150,000 in the provision for unfiled 
vacancies partly due to cover being provided internally and partly because of 
lower supply charges. 
  •  Donations were lower than previously forecast because some had been 
accrued to the following financial year. 
  •  Donations from the Trusts had been restricted to £150,000, the estimated 
income from its investment together with special items agreed on a case-by-
case basis. Donations were, therefore, now in a more sustainable position. 
JFS BUDGET 2018/19 
The Director of Operations introduced the second draft of the Budget and explained 
the following changes introduced since the Committee have considered the earlier 
draft at its previous meeting: 
  •  Income received via the Local Authority for Years 7-11 was 0.5% higher than 
previously forecast. 
  •  However, funding for the Sixth Form was now a little lower and a firm figure. 
  •  The SEN funding notified was also a little lower but this was being queried. 
  •  The net result was that the budgeted income from public sources had been 
reduced by £205,000 
A number of assumptions had been made in drawing up the budget, including: 
  •  The costs of the Security Buy-out would be balanced by the benefits. 
  •  Insurance would increase slightly 
  •  Intake in Year 7 would be 300. 
The Committee noted that major uncertainties inevitably remained especially with 
regard to the effect of RPI and of staff salaries rates. It nevertheless agreed to 
recommend to the GB that the second draft budget should be approved at its 
forthcoming meeting.  

There was none 

Signed: ______________________ 
        Date: _______________________ 


Mr John Cooper  
 Mr David Davis 
Mr Mark Hurst (Items 1 – 8) 
Mr Richard Martyn   Mr Paul Millett 
Mr Simon Appleman
In Attendance: 
Mr Dharmesh Chauhan (Assistant Headteacher) (Items 1 – 9) 
Mr Jamie Peston (Director of Operations) 
Mr Graeme Pocock (Estates Manager) (Items 1 – 8) 
Mrs Mary Nithiy (Financial Controller) 
Mr Rob Leahy (Facilities Manager,1440) (Items 1 – 5 only) 

Dr Alan Fox 

Apologies for absence were received from Mr Andrew Moss.  

No declarations were made. 
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 12th March, 2018 were approved. 

Item 5 – Gesher - the Chairman reported that Gesher was now firmly settled 
in Wil esden and was no longer interested in coming onto the JFS site. 
Arrangements would be made to close the Escrow account. 
Item 5 - TPI and Security Buyout – the formalities were being completed. 
Item 8 – PFI Contract - a brief report was given on the continuing progress in 

improving the management of the contract. Compass was working more closely with 
the School to establish an accurate up-to-date asset register but, if it became 
necessary, the Committee was prepared to contemplate commissioning an external 
consultant to assist. So far as day-to-day management was concerned it was agreed 
that fault response times needed to be established and used for performance 

An oral presentation supported by printed PowerPoint slides on Cyber Crime in 
general and security measures at JFS in particular was given by Mr Leahy, who 
drew attention specifically to: 
  •  introduction of email and Internet filters 
•  daily reporting of attempts to access inappropriate websites 
•  design of ISP to provide protection against cyber threats 
•  use of the latest antivirus protection 
•  maintenance of account security, and 
•  promotion of best IT practice 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 41 – Confidential Information (not the School’s own). 

The Committee agreed that it should recommend to the GB that it should have 
delegated authority to review and approve the Policy triennial y, noting that Appendix 
1 (the Accessibility Plan) should be reviewed annual y 

In amplification of the written report by the Estates Manager and in response to 
questions by governors, the following points were made:  
An LCVAP allocation for 2018 of £195,000 was being confirmed but there were 
prospects that this could be increased to £250,000, which would al ow the shopping 
list in the report to be expanded.  
Further decisions about the Wolfson Technology Project were awaiting the arrival of 
the new Headteacher. 
The Disaster Recovery Plan should be brought up to date and referred back to the 
Committee for approval 
It was explained that Sinai had no formal interest in the JFS land and vice versa, but 
that it was a condition of the JFS planning permission that Sinai should have access 
to its site through JFS land. There was close day-to-day cooperation between the 

two security teams and Sinai pupils used the JFS sports facilities on an unofficial 
Mr Dharmesh Chauhan, the Assistant Headteacher with responsibility for Data, 
confirmed that the final preparations for the introduction on 25th May 2018 of the new 
EU regulation were wel  in hand. The new required Policies and Notices, the drafting 
of which had been assisted by Browne Jacobson and the Brent Schools 
Partnerships, would be posted on the JFS website by that date. In response to 
questions from governors, the following points were made: 
  •  The general principles and the procedures to be followed had been covered in 
training sessions with staff and would be included in inductions. 
  •  Privacy notifications would be sent to parents, staff and third-party 
  •  There would be a systematic programme of data disposal In accordance with 
the new policies.  
The Committee thanked Mr Chauhan for the reassurances given. 
The Committee considered the 2017/18 end year accounts, which appeared 
satisfactory. It was explained some elements appeared unfamiliar simply because of 
required reallocations between lines. At this stage of the process there was always 
some flexibility between accruals and allocation to reserves 
The Committee also considered the recently provided accounts to end April. In 
discussion the following points made: 
•  Inevitably there were significant uncertainties at the beginning of a financial 
year. On this occasion, this was particularly so in respect of staff costs 
because of potential changes in the structure of the SLT. 
  •  The forecasts of staff costs allowed for the uplift of 3% in teachers’ salaries 
from September onwards 
  •  The level of SEN funding had been challenged and the School was awaiting a 
•  As previously forecast the Parental Voluntary Contributions continued to rise.   
  •  The general fundraising forecast did not include any pledges that had not yet 
been fulfil ed. 
  •  However, agreement had been reached with the JNF to fund an Israel 
focused worker for four years under the auspices of JIEP. 

11.  INDICATIVE BUDGET FOR 2019/20 – 2020/21  
The Committee approved the indicative budget, which it recommended for approval 
by the GB ex-Committee in time for submission by the end of May.   ACTION CLERK 
It was reported that following a pre-audit meeting, the audit of the 2017/18 accounts 
would start on 4th June with the aim of completion in time for consideration by the 
Committee at its last meeting in the Summer Term. 
Subject to a minor amendment, the Committee approved the Policy. It agreed to 
recommend to the GB that it should be granted delegated authority to review and 
approve the Policy annually. 
14.1  Refurbishment - it was reported that the Astroturf would be refreshed during 
the summer holidays. 
14.2  Date of Next Meeting - it was agreed that it would be desirable if possible to 
change from.2nd July to avoid a clash with a prospective parents meeting. 
(NOTE: it was subsequently agreed that the next meeting would be held on 3rd July). 
Signed: ______________________ 
        Date: _______________________ 


  Mr John Cooper  
   Mr David Davis 
 Mrs Rachel Fink 
  Mr Richard Martyn  
 Mr Paul Millett 
Governor Observer:  Mr Michael Goldmeier 
In Attendance: 

Mr Jamie Peston (Director of Operations) 
Mrs Mary Nithiy (Financial Controller) 

Dr Alan Fox 

Apologies for absence were received from Mr Mark Hurst, Mr Andrew Moss and Mr 
Graeme Pocock 

No declarations were made. 
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 14th May, 2018 were approved. 

Item 4.1 – Gesher - it was confirmed that Gesher was now firmly settled in 
Wil esden and was no longer interested in coming onto the JFS site.  
Item 5 - TPI and Security Buyout – Mr Peston reported that there had been 
several meetings with the contractor and with the CST since he last reported to the 
Committee. There were two significant issues remaining. First, examination of the 

contractor's records indicated that over a period of 10 years and possibly due to the 
complicated and divided bil ing arrangements, the School might have been 
overcharged. The Contractor's reaction was awaited, but in pursuing recovery care 
should be taken not to jeopardise the settlement agreement and Mr Mil ett would 
consider this further. 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: 43 
Commercial Interests 
Item 7 - Disaster Recovery Programme - in the absence of the Estate 
Manager the Committee requested that he be invited to provide a paper outlining the 
latest position at its next meeting. 
Item 8 – PFI - the signed Settlement Agreement had been received from the 
contractor and was now awaiting signature by Brent. However, it was essential for 
the proper management of the contract over the final 10 years that there should be 
an up-to-date and accurate Asset Register. Because of its importance and the 
difficulties envisaged, the Committee had previously questioned whether it might be 
desirable to obtain the assistance of external consultants to produce the Register 
and this was currently under consideration by the School.  
The Committee considered the written report provided by the Estates Manager. In 
discussion there was agreement that, although there had been improvement over 
the past year, the day-to-day management of the site remained over bureaucratic, 
slow and generally unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, the School’s legal powers for 
enforcing proper commercial standards position were weak.  
It was noted that the LCVAP allocation for 2018/19 had now been increased to 
£250,000 and that the report provided a list of potential projects adding up to this 
sum. Whilst indicating the School’s preferred priorities, the Estate Manager was 
requested to provide possible options for further Committee consideration at its next 
Mr Goldmeier said that he was concerned about the difficulties that might arise at the 
end of the PFI contract in 10 years time. The contract did not require the building to 
be restored to its original state but simply to be maintained in the interim and this 
could leave JFS with a large bil  to bring the site up to standard. He wondered, 
therefore, whether it might be prudent to plan to create a reserve for this purpose.  
The Clerk reminded the Committee that a PFI Working Party established by the GB 
to explore some of the financial implications of the contract produced a final report in 
December 2013. This report had been updated in 2015 and again in 2017. The 

Committee requested that the Working Party should be reconstituted to provide a 
further report before the end of 2018 with special concentration on the end of the 
contract and recommendations for related actions in the interim. 
The Committee noted from the report provided by Mr Dharmesh Chauhan, the 
Assistant Headteacher with responsibility for GDPR, that there had been one breach 
of confidentiality since the regulation came into effect and that appropriate action had 
been taken. Briefing of staff on the general principles and the procedures to be 
followed would be undertaken whenever necessary and would be included 
automatically in the induction programme for all new staff. 
The Committee considered the end May Management Accounts, which, although 
very early in the year, indicated a satisfactory position. In response to questions from 
governors and in discussion, the following points were made: 
  •  The Year to Date surplus was better than budgeted for. 
  •  A part reforecast had been undertaken and would be completed in good time 
before the next meeting of the Committee. An advance copy would be sent to 
the Chairman as soon as available. 
  •  Income for the Sixth Form was higher than expected but an explanation would 
not be available until October. 
  •  The forecast for Non-voluntary contribution funding received by the Trust had 
risen and the bulk of the anticipated donations had already been received. 
  •  Travel in the new minibuses would save other transport costs but these 
savings might be taken up by the costs of travel to more events.  
•  At the time of the approval of the budget RPI of 4% had been assumed and 
the current figure of 3.6% meant that payments to 1440 would be marginally 
lower. Part of the saving, however, would be taken up by the need to continue 
paying for the shomer until the additional catering in the pod started in 
In further discussion, Mr Goldmeier said that he had raised at the GB meeting on 4th 
June the issue of the reliability of the income incorporated in the three-year budget; 
he was grateful for the opportunity to attend this meeting of the Committee to 
investigate the matter further. In the interim, however, the Director of Operations had 
provided him information that gave greater assurance that the budget was soundly 
based on rational assumptions.  
It was clear that the only way of increasing income was through grants made by the 
Trust that collected parental voluntary contributions and other donations. The Trust 
had taken steps to improve the collection procedures and documentation, but the 
eventual outcome remained uncertain. 

Mr Peston pointed out that the PVC collection target had increased from 55% of the 
theoretical maximum 69% in 2020/21, which he felt was quite achievable. Equally, 
the assumption that had been made that the 17% of donations gift aided in 2017/18 
would rise to 21% in 2020/21 was equally practicable. 
In further discussion, It was pointed out that the level of parental contribution 
requested was lower than by most other Jewish schools and there could be scope 
for a general increase of a few percent per annum without causing some some 
parents to stop paying. Moreover, those parents who could genuinely il  afford to pay 
anything, might be encouraged to offer their skil s and services as an alternative. 
It was felt that income might be further increased by the engagement a more 
sustained fundraising programme for the Trust. It would be very helpful if a parent or 
governor were to be found with the skil s to identify and access Charitable Trusts 
working in the education field. The key to raising very large sums would also be to 
find and motivate a group of public spirited wealthy individuals who had the access 
and influence to open doors. 
The Committee concluded that significant levels of fundraising were so important to 
the future well-being of the School that governors should be made aware of the key 
points and that the GB should be encouraged to place Fundraising as a standing 
item on the Agenda for each of its regular meetings. The Chairman was invited to 
incorporate these ideas in his report on the activities of the Committee to be given to 
the next GB meeting. 
The Committee noted the very satisfactory Audit Findings Letter leading to one 
recommendation only. It approved transmission to the Governing Body and 
recommended that authorisation should be given to sign the draft Letter of 
  Unfortunately, the Committee had received only a very short time to study the 
Accounts and members were therefore invited to send any questions of detail they 
might have as soon as possible to the Director of Operations. Subject to any major 
issues arising from this, the GB should be recommended to approve signature of the 
The Committee thanked Mrs Nithiy and her staff for the excellent work undertaken to 
achieve a very satisfactory conclusion to the Audit in very good time. 
The draft Statement was approved and endorsement should be recommended to the 
There was none 

Signed: ______________________ 
        Date: _______________________ 


  Mr John Cooper  
   Mr David Davis 
Mrs Rachel Fink (Headteacher) 
  Mr Mark Hurst  
Mr Richard Martyn    
In Attendance: 
Mr Jamie Peston (Director of Operations) 
Mrs Mary Nithiy (Financial Controller) 
Mr Graeme Pocock (Estates Manger) 

Dr Alan Fox 

Mr Andrew Moss was not present.  

No declarations of material interests were made. 
On behalf of Committee, the Chairman expressed thanks to Mr Paul Mil ett for the 
work he had done whilst a member. 

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 3rd July, 2018 were approved. 

Item 5 – Reconstitution of the PFI Working Party - the Committee confirmed 
the importance that it placed on the School keeping up-to-date with the work 
required to deal with the final 10 year period of the PFI contract and to ensure that 
the buildings wil  be in good condition at the end of this term. 

It was agreed that the Director of Operations and the Estates Manager should 
reconvene the Working Party under the chairmanship of Mr Davis. The Working 
Party should consider whether to tap further into the resources and expertise of 
Local Partnerships and possibly to recruit assistance from any parent with relevant 
expertise in the PFI area. An interim report should be made to the next meeting of 
The Committee considered the written report provided by the Estates Manager under 
a number of individual subject headings. 
It was noted that Mr Hurst had been appointed as the Security Link Governor and 
would shortly be meeting Mr Appleman and Mr Pocock to review the current state of 
affairs. The school site grant provided to JFS had been reduced by nearly a half over 
the last three years and, as reported, there was stil  not a meeting of minds with the 
CST and discussions were on going. The school had put forward the case in respect 
of the claim for overcharging for a nighttime guard and now awaits the formal 
The Committee agreed that, in the interests of limiting sensitive information on 
security matters, its concerns should normally be concentrated on the financial 
In the light of recent events, offers had been accepted from a number of CST trained 
parents to assist in patrolling the School to Kingsbury Station route at key times. 
Other parents who had not been trained were offering to assist in defraying the costs 
of additional professional patrolling. 
Disaster Recovery Programme  
Mr Pocock introduced the top level risk register, already circulated to the Committee, 
that listed the areas of concern that could adversely affect the School if not actively 
managed. It showed the risks identified and their assessed probability and impact, 
early warning indicators and the mitigating controls and actions already in place. The 
Committee agreed that this register, properly percolated down to those who would 
be responsible for actions if necessary, would obviate the need for a separate 
Disaster Recovery Plan. Rather than being made aware of the detail in each area, 
Governors would then simply need to be satisfied from time to time that the register 
was kept up to date and necessary preparatory work was in hand. 
However, the Committee noted that the procedures for dealing with incidents such 
as flood, fire, bomb threat, IT collapse and evacuation and invacuation needed to be 
formalised and advised to the committee. 
6.3   Settlement Agreement  

The agreed works and associated paperwork were largely completed but it was 
agreed that steps should be taken to ensure that its signature would not compromise 
the School’s claim for reimbursement of security costs. 
Quality of Service 
Mr Pocock reported on the problems stil  being experienced. Mr Appleman held a 
monthly meeting with the company at director level and unsatisfactory matters could 
be elevated to the Project Board that met every six months. The School had the 
impression that the company's staff on the ground were keen to do a good job but 
were not receiving the necessary support from their senior management. The 
Helpdesk reporting system was inaccurate and there was no sign of progress being 
made to provide an accurate Asset List. Discrepancies between forecast utilities 
costs and unreconciled utilities costs were causing major budgeting problems. 
Academy Status 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 43 Commercial Interests 
Capital Projects 
The Operations Director explained the changes to be made in the LCVAP scheme 
proposed by the DfE and was the subject of a paper by its Central Capital Unit that 
had been discussed at a recent PaJeS meeting. There were currently two schemes 
open to JFS to join: 
  •  the Condition Improvement Fund with bids allowed up to £4 million. However, 
the JFS building was in far too good a condition ever to be likely to qualify.  
  •  the Schools Condition Allocation scheme similar to the current arrangements 
with further options regarding allocation control. 
 The only sensible choice was to opt for the latter and then to choose between 
  •  Joining a Jewish school wide communal SCA overseen by PaJeS 
  •  Join a US/OCR group SCA overseen by the United Synagogue 
  •  Create a separate SCA group with a minimum of five schools and 3000 
The Committee approved the strong recommendation to choose the third SCA option 
and to notification of this preference to the DfE by 7th December. It authorised 
negotiations to be started with Sinai and three other schools not due to enter an 
Academy Trust. At least one governor should participate. 
The LCVAP projects funded by 2017 monies were largely complete and it had been 
confirmed that £250,000 was available for JFS in 2018. A list of suitable projects was 
currently under consideration and the Committee requested that the School’s 

recommendations should be available for its next meeting. 
Whilst the donor charity was generally favourable, as part of the School’s review 
Phase II of the Wolfson Technology project was being scaled back. The planning 
consent application was proceeding. 
6.7   Health & Safety 
Good progress was being made in working through the 37 areas for improvement 
identified during the recent Fire Risk Assessment and more than half of them were 
now complete. 
It was agreed that the Committee’s Health & Safety sub-Committee should be 
resurrected to meet at least termly to review progress and assist in management of 
related matters affecting the School. It was suggested that Mr Andrew Moss should 
be invited to act as Chairman with membership by the Estates Manager and another 
member of the School staff assisted by Compass.  
The Committee noted the Accident & Incident Report and First Aid Box update for 
the last academic year. As requested by the Committee, the Report was more 
comprehensive than in previous years but showed no need for any remedial action. 
TPI and Security Buyout  
Mr Peston explained that, since the major security overcharging claim would not be 
readily or speedily resolved, the School now felt that it would be more appropriate to 
await resolution before proceeding further with the buyout previously in 
contemplation. In the meantime, the School wished to take a more direct role in 
driving up TPI income by deploying a colleague with relevant experience, increasing 
the marketing budget and making appropriate accounting adjustments with 1440.   
The Committee approved the proposal with a review of the situation at the start of 
6.9   GDPR 
The Committee noted with approval that the recent audit of the School’s systems 
had been very satisfactory. The report noted a few areas for improvement and the 
work would be put in hand. Dharmesh Chauhan, the Assistant Headteacher with 
lead responsibility for GDPR, was to be congratulated and the Committee would 
welcome a report from him at the next meeting.  
The Committee considered the end September Management Accounts and 2018/19 
reforecast. In response to questions from governors and in discussion, the following 
points were made: 

•  The income was less than budgeted for at this stage in the year. Expenditure 
was also less, but by a smaller amount, leading to a lower surplus forecast. 
  •  There were inevitably uncertainties and risks in the forecast but the budget 
had been drawn up on a prudent basis, particularly in respect to staff costs. 
The major risk seen at the moment was the extent of staff sickness, but a 
buffer for this had been built into the sum budgeted. 
  •  There was also risk in respect of student numbers. They were currently 40 
higher than last year but the income forecast had been based on a further 10 
on the roll. 
  •  Income was particularly sensitive to the size of the Sixth Form and it was 
being made clear to potential recruits that there were a variety of alternative 
pathways available if GCSE grades were lower than expected. 
  •  The figures shown in line I13 relating to donations including from the Trust 
could be misleading and required careful interpretation. Unless and until 
advised otherwise, it would be better in future if the assumption were made 
that the Trust would simply donate during the year the sum agreed at the 
start. Any detailed accounting for Voluntary Contributions should be shown 
only in separate accounts maintained by the Trust. 
  •  The sum shown as outstanding for roof repairs referred to a joint venture 
outside the PFI contract. 
  •  A very substantial decrease in photocopying costs had been achieved as an 
economy measure, but it was now clear that this was causing functional 
difficulties and some easement had been be introduced. 
The Committee thanked the Financial Controller and her staff for the prompt 
production of the Management Accounts. 

The Committee considered a paper circulated by the Director of Operations 
discussing the strategy to be adopted for future JFS fundraising. Ideally, fundraising 
should follow and be shaped by the determination of needs and an understanding of 
the priorities by potential donors. This would be more effective in the long term rather 
than attempting to raise money in individual activities in isolation. It would be helpful 
if parents and others could be made to understand the extent to which the School 
had additional facilities because of generous donations and what was needed for the 
future to continuously improve. Individual fundraising events, such as the Gala 
Dinner, would then be seen as an integral part of an overall strategy. 
Unfortunately, a person suitably qualified and wil ing to take charge of this work had 
not yet been identified and suggestions made by individual governors should now be 
followed up.  


Subject to amendments to reduce certain levels of delegation to members of the SLT 
and the updating of the Governor’s Register of Interests and the Committee's Terms 
of Reference, the draft Handbook was approved and GB endorsement sought. 
Bursaries for Trips - the bursary application process was to be amended to simplify 
the detail required from those on the lowest income scales while stil  requiring 
greater demonstration of need at higher levels. Instead of grants, it would be 
possible to make repayable interest-free loans, where appropriate 
Signed: ______________________ 
        Date: _______________________ 


Mr John Cooper  
Mr Mark Hurst  
Mr Richard Martyn    
Mrs Rachel Fink (Headteacher)  (by telephone) 
In Attendance: 

Mr Jamie Peston (Director of Operations) 
Mrs Mary Nithiy (Financial Controller) 
Mr Graeme Pocock (Estates Manger) (Items 1 - 8) 

Dr Alan Fox 

Apologies were received from Mr David Davis and Mr Andrew Moss.  

No declarations of material interests were made. 
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 29th October, 2018 were approved. 

Item 6.5 – Land Issues - the previously envisaged further meeting with the 
United Synagogue on the land ownership issue that prevented any possibility of 
Academy Status had, in the event, not been arranged. This left uncomfortable 
uncertainty about the School’s position when the PFI contract expired, and the 
Committee was were anxious that the matter should be resolved in good time. It 
requested that the PFI Working Party, recently reconstituted under the chairmanship 
of Mr Davis, should make recommendations in addition to its continuing work to deal 
with the final 10 year period of the PFI contract and to ensure that the buildings 
would be in good condition at the expiry date. 

The Committee considered the written report provided by the Estates Manager under 
a number of individual subject headings. 
Security - Mr Hurst reported that he had recently attended a liaison meeting 
with the CST at which the possibility had been contemplated that the School might 
receive additional funding up to the previously imposed cap. It might also be possible 
to apply for further one-off funding for individual security projects. 
The Committee agreed that arrangements should be made for the Liaison Meetings 
to be put back onto a regular schedule.  
A response was stil  awaited from KSSL/Compass about the School’s case for 
refunding of overcharging for a nighttime guard.   
Reports on the invacuation and evacuation programmes, both of which had been 
successfully dril ed had been provided to the Chairman, who asked that they should 
be circulated to the Committee for consideration at its next meeting.   
Settlement Agreement - Mr Pocock reported that the Independent Third Party 
had now confirmed completion of the Remedial Works Deed. Signed copies of the 
Settlement Agreement had now been returned to the School. The signature on 
behalf of the Governing Body had been earlier performed by Paul Mil ett, a governor 
who had subsequently left the GB but at the time had full delegated authority from 
the GB. The Committee confirmed that, if required to remove any doubt, it could also 
be signed by Mr Cooper. 
Roof - VAT issues having been resolved, the separate roof repair fund 
settlement was also complete. 
Quality of Service - Mr Pocock reported on the problems stil  being 
experienced, mainly due to poor quality staff. Discrepancies between forecast 
utilities costs and unreconciled utilities costs were causing major budgeting 
Asset List - There was no sign of any progress on the provision of inaccurate 
Asset List and pressure was being kept up at regular meetings. 
Analysis of the bills was in progress and it appeared likely that the School had been 
overcharged by 1440. 
Fire Risks - A number of members had been unable to access full progress 
report , which should therefore be recirculated. In the meantime, Mr Pocock reported 
that 45% of the recommended risk reduction measures had been completed. 
Capital Projects - The Committee thanked Mr Pocock for providing the more 

detailed schedule of the LCVAP projects for 2018/19.  
Mr Peston confirmed that the School’s preference for a separate Schools Condition 
Allocation group had been notified to the DfE. He had been organising preliminary 
meetings between the schools concerned. 
A line having been drawn by the Settlement Agreement at March 2018, the 
Committee agreed that further thought should be given to the rundown to the end of 
the PFI agreement. Confirmation should be sought that funding was stil  available for 
assistance from Local Partnerships and then an exploratory meeting arranged. 
The PFI agreement provided for a quinquennial benchmarking exercise that would 
next be undertaken in 2022. However the Committee considered that it would also 
be useful for the School, to the extent that it was possible and meaningful, to conduct 
an informal annual comparison of elements of its running costs with other similar 
schools. This could be used to inform the construction of the Annual Budget 

The Committee considered the end October Management Accounts. In response to 
questions from governors and in discussion, the following points were made: 
  •  Broadly speaking, income and expenditure were in line with the budget.  
•  The staffing budget had been drawn up on a very conservative basis and this 
allowed any surplus in the provision to be applied to unexpected overspend in 
other areas, such as utilities. 
•  Cash flow was continuously monitored but there was always a sufficient buffer 
to cope with the timing differences between income and expenditure. The 
possibility of calling forward donation income provided a further buffer. 
•   As previously agreed, the figures shown in line I13 represented the amount of 
donations pledged by the Trusts. How those funds were collected was a 
matter for the Trustees.  
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 43 Commercial Interests 
•  Expenditure on examination fees was usually underestimated. This was due 
to the budgetary provision being based on the previous year’s experience. 
This year individual fees had been increased and additional uncertainty 
introduced by the changes in the examination structure. 

•  As previously reported, it had been calculated that SEN grants were too low 
and it could now be confirmed that additional sums would be received this 
year, some backdated. 
The Committee thanked the Financial Controller and her staff for the prompt 
production of the Management Accounts. 

It was intended shortly to invite a suitably qualified person to take charge of the work 
of realising the very significant fundraising potential, possibly one of the candidates 
in the recent parent governor election.  
11.1 - Security of Service Provision - concern was expressed about a possible 
disruption to the School should the service provider experience major financial 
problems in the current difficult financial climate.  
11.2 - Meeting Arrangements - it was agreed that, in principle, the Committee would 
be prepared in future to start the second meeting in each term at 7 PM to follow 
immediately upon meetings of the Trustees. 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 43 Commercial Information 
Signed: ______________________ 
        Date: _______________________ 

Minutes of the Finance and Premises Committee Meeting 
at 8.00 pm on Wednesday, 13th February 2019. 
Those present were: 
      Mr John Cooper (JC) 
      Mr Richard Martyn (RM) 
Mr David Davis (DD) 
Mrs Rachel Fink (RF) 
Mr Andrew Moss (AM) 
Mr Dan Green (DG) 
Mr Mark Hurst (MH) 
      Mr Jamie Peston (JP). 
Apologies were received from Mary Nithiy.  
Dan Green, who had recently become a governor, was welcomed to the meeting.  
There were none. 
The draft minutes of the meeting held on 17th December 2018 were approved subject to 
one amendment by JP. 
Item 7 – Annual benchmarking of running costs with other similar schools – this hadn’t 
been started yet but was planned for the future. 
The Committee considered the Report from the Estates Manager and noted the following 
Item 1 Security – There may have been an overcharge for the night-time guard. Graeme 
Pocock was addressing this with Compass. 
Item 3 Text here has been redacted 


Exemption: Section 43  Commercial Interests 
There was an ongoing issue regarding the role of the helpdesk in logging issues with 
Compass. There had been disagreement as to whether all or just some issues should be 
logged via the helpdesk, but at a recent meeting a wil ingness was shown to address the 
issues and some areas of miscommunication were identified. 
Overall, engagement with the PFI has improved but it remains to be seen if efficiency 
would improve.  
There were no major risks in relation to health and safety and a way had been found to 
store gases in the science block in a safe and cost-efficient way. Some progress has 
been made with repairs to the gym floor, but this was an ongoing issue. 
The testing of invacuation and evacuation procedures is proceeding satisfactorily. 
6. LCVAP  
JC said that Alan Tibber was moving forward on behalf of the five schools in the 
consortium to apply for funding for capital projects which, from 2020/21, wil  come 
directly from government. The consortium had received government approval. Hopefully, 
funding for each school would be allocated on the basis of pupil numbers but it was 
unclear currently what sum was being considered. 
7. PFI  
The Committee considered the report from DD on progress with the working party and 
assistance from Local Partnerships. 
DD and JP were planning to meet Rosie Pearson of Local Partnerships in connection 
with planning for the end of the PFI. RF was encouraged to speak to a potential donor 
about funding this service. 
Q- What is the PFI working party aiming to achieve?  
A – The aim is to get the School back in 10 years’ time in a fit state and have a strategy 
in place to ensure everything that is the responsibility of the PFI contractor is paid for by 
the end of the contract. Once the PFI ends, the School wil  be responsible for managing 
the building and paying a facilities management company. Although the School wil  no 
longer need to service the debt, currently 70% of the costs are covered by the 
government and this wil  end with the end of the PFI so the School wil  need to cover 
MH reported that the Security and CST Liaison Committee wil  meet at least twice a year 
with the CST to review security. The CST can provide checklists to help set the agenda 
and ensure relevant areas specific to JFS are being reviewed. The School can also 
apply to CST for grants for specific security projects. The next meeting wil  be in May. 
The Committee reviewed the updating report presented at FGB and link governor’s 
report from AM. There were no questions. 


MN and JP were thanked for presenting the December 2018 accounts. The new forecast 
was slightly over budget, but the year was reasonably on target. JP said the main 
variance related to staffing. Whilst there was some long-term sickness, figures had been 
fairly stable and less than previous years. In the forecast, the provision for utilities had 
increased significantly but hopefully in future there wouldn’t be such a long lag time 
between forecasting and receiving the utility bil s from Compass. 
The budget for recruitment costs (EO 8) had been reduced because hopefully the 
number of permanent staff would increase. There was a fixed cost for the TES 
subscription where most jobs were advertised. SLT jobs were normally advertised 
elsewhere but the School was not anticipating recruiting in this area. 
Less income would be used in the current year but could accrue for the following year. 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 43  Commercial Interests 

Q – Is there any unusual expenditure this year? 
Yes, there is extra expenditure on legal fees for advice for the Governing Body of 
approximately £12k. This was not budgeted for but was a one-off and was under-
written by the Trust. 
Q (I01) - A positive variance was being forecast in the October accounts due to 
"allocation' which had now reduced to zero. What was it and why has it gone - or is it part 
of the I02 positive variance?  
A-Yes, it is part of I02 positive variance. 
Q (I06) -What is the Teachers Pay grant and why was it unbudgeted?  
It is an additional grant from the government to make up the shortfall from 
September pay increases. It had been hoped for but not certain enough to be 
built into the budget.  
Q (I08)- How much TPI is in the forecast?  
A - £33k showing no increase on the previous year for 2019/20. The higher figure was 
due to the recharge of most of Shomer fees to Caterlink.  
I13 - Do I recall correctly that we agreed that the GCT line would not show a variance as 
the Trust has to pay us what was agreed at the start of the year i.e. the budgeted 
A -Yes, unless they don’t have the income in which case we agreed they would write to 
us and tell us they have to reduce the grant – we believe such a letter may be 
forthcoming so have prepared accordingly. 
JP presented the draft budget and PowerPoint presentation. 
There would be a decrease in income in real terms of approximately 1% from the Local 
Authority for Years 7-11. Brent wil  benchmark everything again to funding two years ago 
in relation to increases and decreases. Last year they added a £2m top up for schools, 
which was the equivalent of a 2% increase. Sixth Form income was based exclusively on 
the number of students. Next year the 6th Form should be full so funding wil  be higher 
compared to the last couple of years when student numbers had dropped. However, 
there was a lag time between students starting 6th Form and receipt of the funding. 


Fortunately, with the new funding formula Brent schools wil  be better off with a 1% 
There was a small increase from last year in SEN income has but this was money that 
was owed from last year. There has been a reduction in Statemented Students with 
statements, so funding had decreased.  
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 43   Commercial Interests 
There was a 3% increase in forecast personnel expenditure. Teachers had just had a 
salary increase and there would be a further 3% increase next year. There was a 
government grant to cover this increase for one year. Salary increases are starting to 
rise to catch up following years of pay freeze. 
Q - At the last FGB meeting the point was made that the budget must be produced in line 
with the SIP. Can you provide reassurance on that general point?  
A – Yes. The plan aimed at improving KS3, teaching and learning and mental wellbeing 
and having a balanced budget. The School had funded an assistant head of year for 
Years 7 and 8 to focus on these areas as well as improving behaviour. Additional 
pastoral staff wil  contribute towards improved mental wellbeing. 
Q(I08) - How much TPI is in the budget?  
A – for Y1 no increase 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 43  Commercial Interests 
Q (E08) - Is the big drop in recruitment costs realistic?  
      A - Yes because we have a much lower turnover. As always, that could change.  
Q - There is a 6% increase to cover spine point increases and teachers’ pensions. But 
the budget was only showing an increase of 6% for teaching salaries, which is 3% for 
salaries and 3% for spinal drift (promotions). 
A – The issue is the phasing of salary increases. Teaching staff increases are in April 
and spinal drift in September and for non-teaching staff it is in September. Pensions for 
teaching staff wil  be lower until August and then wil  increase to 8% in September. The 
bare figures don’t look like enough of an increase but there were three new 
appointments last week at a lower pay rate than was forecast in the budget and one 
appointment today that was at a higher salary rate than anticipated. 
Q - Are you anticipating staffing levels to remain the same this year? 
A – Yes but numbers have increased since September.  
Q-Have the pension contribution increases been correctly budgeted for? 
A – Yes. 
Q - The amount forecast for the reunion fundraising event to raise is £75k. Is there 
enough time to organise an event that wil  raise that much? 
A - Hannah has taken over managing the voluntary contributions, so Tamar is now able 
to focus on fundraising and is aware of the target. 


Q - Next year is showing a fall of £13k in the capitation budget despite there being more 
students, how does this work? 
A - Capitation relates to subject specific resources for Heads of Department to spend on 
extras they need. Whole school funded items such as paper has not reduced. More 
funds have been made available for technology and computing. 
Q- Why have administrative costs (E22) increased by 17%? 
A -The cost of telephone and broadband has increased and this wil  be discussed with 
BT; the School may change systems. There has been an increase of £10k to put on 
fundraising events. The budget for community liaison has gone up to £30k to get the JFS 
name out there. This budget had been cut in previous years. 
Next steps 
Discussions regarding fundraising and voluntary contribution levels wil  continue outside 
of the meeting and the recruitment section wil  be updated. Then the budget wil  be 
approved at the next committee meeting before being presented to FGB. 
Decision: The draft budget was approved at this point subject to decisions due to be 
made regarding fundraising. 
The Committee considered a report by the Director of Operations. 
A parent of the school met with DG, JC, Tamar, RF and JP to discuss fundraising 
strategy. He then wrote a report for the school. The GB considered that a tendering 
process would be necessary if a consultant were going to be appointed to develop the 
fundraising strategy. The parent produced the report free of charge but if any further 
work would be in a paid capacity. 
There was a discussion regarding the ‘pre-funding stage’ mentioned in the report where 
the ethos, aims and objectives of the strategy needed to be decided and the selling 
points of the School identified possibly through a survey or workshop with governors, 
trustees and maybe the SLT, before agreeing the fundraising strategy. However, it was 
agreed that the one-year time frame suggested in the report was too long. 
The Committee considered that the perception of the School needed to be changed to a 
charity needing support, as opposed to a state school funded by government with 
voluntary contributions. The School needed to identify its unique selling points and 
promote the idea that investing in JFS was investing in the future of Anglo-Jewry. This 
could be attractive to donors with no direct connection to the School as well as families 
with students in the School or alumni. Large donors and trusts often focus on reducing 
assimilation and promoting a strong Jewish identity. 
Q – Would it be the fundraising manager’s job to decide the strategy? 
A - Just recruiting a professional fundraiser wouldn’t help at the moment. The School 
needed the right trustees to be in place to be the face of fundraising, to make contacts 
and to bring in potential donors. However, the GB did not currently include governors 
with sufficient experience and understanding of what needed to be done, so someone 
needs to be brought in quickly to advise. JF and RF had identified three lay people who 
had experience in fundraising who have connections with the School. 


Action agreed: 
The Committee agreed that: 
the existing trustees should be recommended to bring in new blood  
RF should develop a vision document to circulate to governors for comment prior to the 
development of a scoping document either for an away day or to guide a fundraising 
Timeframe: 3 weeks’ time (week before next meeting and 2 weeks before FGB). 
13. GDPR  
The report from Dharmesh Chauhan was received by the Committee. Brent provided the 
school’s data protection officer (DPO)) and this has been quite helpful. There had been 
one GDPR complaint and the DPO found JFS had followed the correct procedures. 
Because JFS was a beacon school for GDPR it was planned to continue with the Brent 
DPO and for Dharmesh to go to other schools to teach about GDPR.  AM had made a 
GDPR visit and found everything was in order. 
The Audit Engagement letter was agreed and JC authorised to sign it. 
It was agreed that: 
the next meeting should be moved from 11th March, to 18th March at 7pm following the 
Trust meeting at 5.30pm. 
the 13th May meeting should remain at 6.30pm. 
the meeting scheduled for 1st July should be moved to 8th July, to start at 7pm after the 
Trust meeting. 
Signed: ______________________________________   Date: _______________ 


Minutes of the Finance and Premises Committee Meeting 
at 7.00 pm on Wednesday, 18th March 2019. 
  Those present were: 
Mr John Cooper 
 Mr Richard Martyn 
Mr David Davis 
Mrs Rachel Fink 
Mr Andrew Moss 
Mr Dan Green 
Mr Mark Hurst 
Dr A M Fox 
Mrs Geraldine Fainer 
  In attendance: 
Mr Jamie Peston 
  Apologies were received from Mary Nithiy and Graeme Pocock 
  There were none. 
  The draft minutes of the meeting held on 13th February were approved subject to 
three amendments, including a correction of the figure given in Section 10 for 
additional legal fees for advice to the GB to £12k. 
  4.1 - Item 5 – it was agreed that the annual running costs benchmarking should 
take place during the Autumn Term. 
  4.2 - Item 6 – it was reported that the new LCVAP consortium would be meeting 
in the following week to agree the appropriate method for distributing funds 
between the participating schools. 

Mr Pocock had been unable to attend but had circulated his Estates Manager 
Report a few hours prior to the meeting. The Committee requested that, in future, 
it should have longer to read his Report before meetings. 
  The Committee discussed the Report and noted the following points: 
  Text here has been redacted  
Exemption: Section 31 Confidential Information 
  5.1 - Item 1.5/1.6 - Night-time Guarding - Compass had repudiated the claim for 
the refund of an overcharge for the night-time guard and the matter would not be 
resolved easily. The Chairman would respond to Mr Pocock’s request for 
governor assistance with the School’s case. 
  5.2 - Item 2.1 - Settlement Agreement – in the absence of Mr Pocock it was 
believed that the refund calculations had been completed. 
  5.3 - Item 5.1 - Helpdesk - in the absence of Mr Pocock it was not known whether 
there had been any improvement. 
  5.4 - Item 5.4 - Damage - to reduce incidents of deliberate vandalism in the 
toilets, consideration was being given to installing glass doors at the toilet 
entrances and to employ CCTV cameras. 
  5.5 - Item 7.2 - Health & Safety - a report was awaited from Compass into the 
recent incident when a heavy magnet fell from an external door hitting a student. 
  5.6 - Item 7.4 – Evacuation - consideration of ways in which the Evacuation Plan 
could be improved and in particular by reducing the time lost due to false alarms 
was stil  in progress and would be tested in due course. 
  6.  PFI 
  Mr Davis said that the meeting with Rosie Pearson of Local Partnerships in 
connection with planning for the end of the PFI had been arranged. 
  It was reported that the Home Secretary had announced an increase to £14 
mil ion in the government grant for Jewish community security, but because a 
wider range of buildings and organisation was now being covered, the amount 
allocated to JFS would not necessarily increase 

The Committee thanked Mrs Nithiy in her absence for the report on the accounts 
to end February. In discussion, the following points were noted: 
•  since the end December accounts had been provided there had been a 
presentational reallocation of the cost of educational support staff 
employed on short-term contracts or provided on a supply basis. Because 
their use in this way was planned it was now considered more appropriate 
to post the costs in the mainstream staff heading. 
•  The submission of utilities costs from the PFI contractor that had been 
running about 18 months late was now becoming prompter. The School 
specified the utilities supplier but had little or no control over the quantities 
consumed, so there would be a continuing forecasting difficulty. 
•  Incidence of long-term sickness had reduced in the current year, but a 
saving would not necessarily be carried forward into the following year, 
both because of the inherent unpredictability and because it was known 
that a number of members of staff would be taking maternity leave. 
  In conclusion, noted that at this time of the year the outturn forecast should be 
very accurate and that the satisfactory anticipated surplus for 2018/19 of £27,790 
could be taken forward to the next financial year. 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 43  Commercial Interests 

  Mr Peston presented a final version of the draft budget, as amended following the 
detailed discussion at the previous Committee meeting and in accordance with 
this latest change and in further discussion of detailed elements in the budget 
and in response to questions from governors the following points were made: 
•  The significant increase in "Other Government Grants" represented the 
refund of rates previously improperly charged. 
•  Provision had been made for a security grant but no advice had yet 
been received on CST intentions. 
•  There had been a small reduction in the forecast DfE Unitary Charge 
Reclaim which was linked to RPI in February. 

•  The provision for staff salaries included the significant addition required for 
higher employer pension contributions. It was not clear how much of this 
might be offset by a corresponding initial Government contribution. 
•  The lower provision for agency supply SEN staff simply represented the 
reclassification of the expenditure discussed earlier. 
  The Committee: 
  agreed to postpone final approval of the increase in rate of PVC until further 
information became available during the Summer Term 
  approved the final draft budget for recommendation to the GB in accordance with 
a similarly updated PowerPoint presentation. 
  The Committee was advised that the DCT trustees had agreed on the necessity 
of bringing in new blood as a prerequisite to enhanced fundraising for the future 
and that work was continuing to identify suitable persons. 
  The Headteacher said that she had started to sketch out the content of a Vision 
Document intended, following approval by the GB, to form the basis for 
fundraising planning. To attract donors this needed to specify, in terms likely to 
resonate with different ranges of individuals, the areas to which additional funds 
would be applied and she was likely to recommend: 
•  educational excellence 
•  enhanced Jewish identity 
•  positive well-being. 
  Overall, the message would be:” if you want Anglo-Jewry to have a strong future 
you need to help to provide assistance for the educational efforts of our largest 
and oldest Jewish secondary school. 
  The Committee agreed that further efforts were required to identify suitable 
persons in the parent body (and the grandparent body) to lead and to assist 
fundraising and to identify the community’s lay leaders of the future. 
  There was none. 

Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body (GB) 
held at 7.45PM on Tuesday 10th April 2018  
Note: the meeting was preceded at 6.30 p.m. by a training session 
for Governors conducted by Dr Chris Ray. 

Ms Geraldine Fainer  

Mr Simon Appleman 
Rabbi Daniel Epstein 
Mr John Cooper 
Dr Charlotte Benjamin 
Mr Michael Goldmeier 
Mrs Anne Shisler 
Mrs Julia Alberga*   
Mr Richard Martyn   
Mr Andrew Moss 
Mr David Davis 
Mr Mark Hurst 
Mr James Lake 
until 20.37. 
Apologies were received and accepted from Mr Paul Millet, Mrs Naomi 
Newman (attended training only). Apologies were also received from Mr 
Daniel Marcus and Rabbi Dr Rafi Zarum.  

Rabbi Epstein reminded the GB that he is an employee of the United 
The minutes of the meeting held on 26th March 2018 were confirmed. 
4.       MEMBERSHIP 
Mrs Anne Shisler was congratulated on her re-appointment as a Foundation 
Governor for a further three-year term. 


A parental complaint recently sent to OFSTED, the local authority, parents’ 
MP, Norwood and an organisation that promotes children’s educational 
welfare did not meet the threshold for LADO intervention.  
Text here has been redacted 

Exemption: Section 40   Personal Data  
The GB noted that some School policies had been reviewed and re-
written by Dr Chris Ray in order to assist the SLT and offload work from them.  
The GB considered drafts of the following policies: 
Accessibility policy 
A section had been added regarding access to public exams. The current 
accessibility plan is Appendix 1 and as an appendix it can be updated as 
required without having to review the whole policy. The policy is to be 
reviewed every 3 years and the accessibility plan to be reviewed annually 
by the premises manager.  
It was agreed that review dates wil  be added and a sentence including 
involvement of the SEN governor as well as the Finance and Premises 
committee in completing the audit.  
Subject to these changes the policy was approved. 
(iii)  Anti-bullying policy 
SA suggested the policy extended to staff and not just pupils and had 
drafted an extra section to that effect. The policy could then provide an 
alternative to the Whistle Blowing policy. The policy was approved with 
SA’s additions and two typos being amended (SA to action) and will be 
reviewed every 2 years.  
(iv)  Safeguarding Policy 

The policy had been updated by Chris Ray with links to current legislation 
and statutory guidance. Chris highlighted that some of the names of the 
“team” conflated safeguarding and pastoral and only those suitably trained 
in safeguarding should be on the safeguarding team.  
There was a discussion regarding the need to add direct email addresses 
and telephone contact details of the safeguarding team. It was queried 
whether it was appropriate to give out the mobile telephone numbers or 
private emails of the safeguarding link governor or the Chair of Governors.  

It was agreed that the Chairman should check with Brent Council if 24/7 
telephone access to governors is required and how this should be 
[ AFTER NOTE John Galligan from Brent said no need to give out private 
numbers and emails of governors but advisable for staff to have direct 
numbers and individual emails specific to safeguarding eg DSL@jfs etc; 
DeputyDSL@jfs etc] 
The safeguarding policy was approved subject to the above changes. 
It was also agreed that the updated safeguarding policy should be flagged 
in the School newsletter to alert parents/guardians. It should also be 
placed on school website.  
Complaints Procedure 
There was discussion whether to include a section suggested by Mr 
Appleman relating to blocking vexatious and/or persistent complaints, 
which he said was not unusual for this clause to be added to complaints 
procedures. Mr Goldmeier said the issue was discussed at recent Brent 
training on complaints. It was decided to retain the section in the 
There was a discussion about whether the number of different stage 
complaints should be made publicly available. It was decided that 
information would be made available to governors as part of the Head 
Teacher’s report in order to understand the types of issues and trends. 
That information would be accessible on FOI requests. 
The Complaints Procedure, with Mr Appleman’s additions, was approved. 
(vi)  Home School Agreement 
Review of this agreement put over until the next meeting on June 4 so that 
the incoming Headteacher could have input prior to approval. 
 (vii)  Whistle-blowing policy 
The Whistle-Blowing policy was approved and it was noted that, as part of 
the Safeguarding suite, the review period should be in line with the annual 
review of other policies in the suite. 
It was noted since the policy was last circulated by email to staff in January 
2017 a large number of new staff had joined the School. Mr Appleman 
confirmed that all recently reviewed and updated policies wil  be circulated 
to all staff. 
(viii)  Allegations of Abuse against Staff Policy 

Mr Appleman had added operational guidance to the policy. Some 
language inconsistencies (“child” in some parts and “students” in others) 
remained to be amended and subject to those changes the policy was 
approved for biennial review.   
  Mr Goldmeier agreed to assist with the elimination of language 
(ix)  Critical Incident Policy  
The minor amendments requested at the meeting on 26th March were 
It was also agreed that  Dr Benjamin would send Mr Appleman wording for 
additional point concerning analysis whether a critical incident was one-off or 
whether likely to be recurrent, necessitating changes to operating systems in 
the School. 
6.3  The GB noted that the following policies had also been reviewed and 
revised by Dr Chris Ray but not yet considered: 
 •  Admissions Policy 2017-2018  
•  Admissions Policy 2018-2019  
•  Educational Visits Policy Spring 2016 to Spring 2019  
•  Equality Objectives 2017-2018 April 2018  
•  E-Safety Policy 2017-20  
•  Grievance Procedure  
•  Health & Safety Policy Summer 2017 - 2020  
•  Internet and School Network Policy April 2018  
•  JFS Teaching and Learning Policy  
•  Relationship Education Policy 2017-19  
•  Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Policy  
•  Medical Policy 
The GB noted that the following policies would be reviewed when the 
new Headteacher took up her post. 
  •  Behaviour  
•  Capability 
•  Staff disciplinary. 
The GB noted that the Leave of Absence Policy due for review by the 
Pay & Personnel Committee and by the GB in the Summer Term was not yet 
In further discussion concerning policies generally the following points 
were made by governors: 

•  The policies needed to be living documents that are understood by all 
staff who have to implement them on the ground 
•  Governors need to be reassured that policies are being implemented 
•  An induction checklist that is signed by new members of staff would be 
a way of ensuring they have received and understood core policies and 
•  Case examples of the application of policy can be helpful to ‘bring the 
policies alive’ when reviewing policies for governors who may not work 
in education 
•  The JFS policy webpage needed to be updated with the new policies.  
•  The SEND offer on the website needed to be updated. 
The GB considered a paper by the Acting Headteacher and the Deputy 
Headteacher Jewish Life & learning. Mr Appleman thanked Mr Marcus (in 
absentia) for producing the first part of the document within the JS department. 
Much of the content reflected the information on the JFS website on British 
values and links to the curriculum although this might not be completely up to 
date. The School’s strengths in this area had been noted by Ofsted 
particularly in the Sixth Form with its active politics society. The Headgirl/boy 
team was very keen to be involved in diversity issues as well. 
Nr Appleman had attended a meeting with the Chief Rabbi on British Values 
and found him to be very aware of and open to the issues facing Jewish 
schools. However, the Office of the Chief Rabbi is working on how to 
articulate its position on gender and sexuality. There was also the inherent 
tension in providing sufficient time to include both JS at a high level and 
teaching about other faiths. 

The following report and minutes were noted: 
the Committee Termly Report  
the draft minutes of meeting held on 29th January 2018. 
It was reported that the second round of offers had been dispatched on 29th 
March. The School was speaking to Brent about introducing its own bespoke 
rounds 3 and 4. 
The following report and minutes were noted; 
the Committee Termly Report  
Draft minutes of meeting held on 5th February 2018. 

The following report and minutes were noted; 
the Committee Termly Report  
the minutes of the meeting held on 19th February 2018 
the draft minutes of the meeting held on 12thMarch 2018 
The GB also noted that the Committee had approved the Risk Register (a 
copy was available on request) and proposed to review it annually.  
A question was asked about achievability of the draft budgets for 2019/20 and 
The draft minutes of meeting held on 5th March 2018 were noted.  
The GB noted written reports from Link Governors as follows: 
Safeguarding - Charlotte Benjamin   
Attendance and Behaviour - Geraldine Fainer 
Security - Mark Hurst 
Health & Safety - Andrew Moss 
SEN – Anne Shisler 
In addition a verbal training report was given by Mr Lake, who asked 
governors to check a written record of training that was circulated and 
reminded them that they should inform him of future training for record 
In discussion of the reports the following points were made: 
Safeguarding – Dr Benjamin was asked whether additional support with 
safeguarding responsibilities would be helpful at this time in light of issues 
raised in the training earlier in the evening. She said as the team was new to 
the role she would first like a few weeks to meet with the safeguarding team 
and take stock to identify the priorities; offers of support would then be most 
welcome. There would be a Safeguarding Peer Audit with Brent on 25th April 
that should provide useful feedback. 
Behaviour – Mr Appleman said that he was aware of some behaviour issues 
and would be making recommendations to tackle these issues to Rachel Fink 
when she joined the school. The behaviour policy was not always being 
followed consistently and some areas needed revision. Efforts also required to 
improve staff student relationships. JFS had subscribed to Right Track, which 
could provide alternative interventions to exclusions. Mr Appleman also 
requested to be noted that JFS continued to receive positive feedback about 
its students’ behaviour. 

Security – the GB was informed that CST funding for this year was slightly 
less than was budgeted for. The amount was being queried in parallel with 
some invoicing issues. 

Mr Appleman confirmed that that the safeguarding posters in the School with 
out of date information would be updated and changed the following day to 
reflect the names of the current safeguarding team. 
Signed: ______________________________     Dated: _______________ 

Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body (GB) 
held at Monday 4th June 2018  
Note: the meeting was preceded at 6.15 p.m. by an Office 365 
training session for Governors conducted by Mr David Wragg. 

Ms Geraldine Fainer  

Dr Charlotte Benjamin  
Mr John Cooper 
Mrs Rachel Fink 
Mr Michael Goldmeier 
Mrs Anne Shisler  Mrs Julia Alberga    
Mr Richard Martyn   
Mr Paul Millet  
Mr David Davis 
Mr Mark Hurst 
Mr James Lake 
Associate Member 
          Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum 
SLT  Mr Simon Appleman          Mr Jamie Peston      Mr David Wragg  
Clerk:                     Dr Alan Fox   

Apologies were received and accepted from Rabbi Daniel Epstein and Mr 
Andrew Moss.  

There were none. 
The minutes of the meeting held on 10th April 2018 were confirmed as 
4.       MEMBERSHIP 
The GB noted that the current term of office of Dr Charlotte Benjamin as a 

Parent Governor would end on 5th July 2018, but that she had been 
appointed as a Foundation Governor for a further three-year term from that 
date. An election would be held shortly to fil  the vacancy for a Parent 
In discussion, the GB acknowledged that the appointment of Foundation 
Governors was entirely for decision by the United Synagogue, which had a 
very legitimate interest in the maintenance of its ethos in all schools for which 
it was the Foundation Body. Governors hoped that nevertheless in making its 
selection the US would take account of the desirability of maintaining a spread 
of age, background, experience and skil s across the entire GB and were sure 
that it would wish to note any suggestions that current governors wished to 
5.1 – Item 6(i i) Safeguarding Policy – it was reported that the updated policy 
had been flagged up to parents and placed on School website. 

The Chairman introduced her summary written report and, on behalf of the 
whole GB offered sincere thanks to Simon Appleman who had been holding 
the fort as Acting Headteacher. She also welcomed Mrs Rachel Fink who had 
taken up post as Headteacher earlier in the day.  
Introducing the report she had provided whilst still Headteacher designate, 
Mrs Fink said that she wished to add her thanks to Simon Appleman for his 
interim leadership during a difficult period and, since her selection, for 
involving her with important developments as far as had been practicable. 
Mrs Fink and advised governors that were to be a number of departures from 
the SLT at the end of the Term, namely Talia Thoret and Sheri Berg, both of 
whom would be retiring, and two Assistant Headteachers, Anthony Flack and 
Andy de Angelis, both of whom had been appointed Deputy Headteachers in 
schools closer to their homes. In the previous week, she had sat in on 
interviews for replacements and two internal candidates had been selected as 
Assistant Headteachers, as had Dr Walton who was moving over from 
Hasmonean Boys School. These changes in personnel provided an 
opportunity that she would be taking for some rebalancing of SLT 
Mrs Fink said that before her arrival she had, of course, attended a couple of 
GB meetings as an observer and had also met the SLT both collectively and 
individual y. Earlier in the day she had addressed all members of staff and 
arrangements were being made for meetings with parents over the coming 
weeks. More than a hundred parents had already signed up or two of these 
meetings and consideration was being given to arranging for a short video clip 
of key sections of her address to be placed on the website. 

In discussion and in response to questions, the following points were made: 
  •  In normal circumstances it was unhealthy for members of staff to 
approach governors directly with any issues they might have and Mrs 
Fink had reminded them of the appropriate protocols. She requested 
that governors should refer any approaches made to them back to the 
School, except where urgent safeguarding matters were concerned. 
  •  The whole SLT would not normally be expected to attend GB meetings 
and the Headteacher would arrange for attendance by those 
concerned with the business of each meeting. 
  •  Similarly, parents should be discouraged from raising grievances 
directly with governors if they had not previously followed the wel -
established procedures for raising and resolving matters with School 
staff. Governors’ Surgeries had ceased some time earlier and there 
were no plans to reinstate them. 
  •  Visits to the School by individual governors in a structured way would 
continue to be encouraged. The Headteacher proposed to this indicate 
where the School might find this most useful, but it was expected that 
Link Governors would be seen at least once a term. 
  •  In addition, all Governors would be sent a diary of events at which their 
presence would be welcomed and this would help informing a closer 
staff/governor relationship. 
  •  The Improvement Programme flowed naturaly from the School’s Self 
Evaluation and would, of course, take account of views expressed by 
the GB during the process. Part of the purpose of its presentation to 
the GB would be to establish the extent to which governors could assist 
with particular elements. 
Mr Appleman drew attention to the key points in the termly report drawn up 
whilst he was stil  in an Acting capacity. In discussion and in response to 
questions from governors the following points were made: 
  •  Some pupils who were leaving during the year had applied to return to 
the roll in September. 
  •  There were currently 308 acceptances for the Year 7 entry in 
September and a waiting-list that was small but judged to be genuine. 
It was likely that actual entry would be marginally over 300. 
  •  It was likely that places would be available in Jewish secondary 
schools for more or less all of those seeking them, which cast doubt on 
the viability of plans to open another school. A Local Authority would 

not agree to new schools unless the promoters could demonstrate that 
there would be a continuing demand for places. 
  •  The last term had been overshadowed by the tragic suicide. A great 
deal of support for students and staff had been provided both from 
internal resources and from outside. Whilst there were always lessons 
to learn and plans needed to be constantly reviewed and updated, it 
was believed that the School had done everything reasonably possible 
both before and after the event. 
  •  Having passed the resignation deadline of 31st May, it was now known 
that 11 permanent staff would be leaving, four on retirement. In 
addition, it was not intended to retain a few teachers currently working 
on one-year contracts. This turnover was much lower than the previous 
year and the School should be entering the next academic year in a 
much more stable position and carrying only two vacancies which it 
was expected would be fil ed. 
  •  The School was in the process of being assessed for highest level of 
the SSAT Framework for Excellence in Education quality mark. 
Concluding, Mr Appleman said that the recent external reports and complaints, 
whether justified or not, had caused immense emotional stress. He hoped that 
these issues had been managed reasonably to the satisfaction of the 
Governing Body during the interim period. He ended (as he had started ion 
April 2016) by thanking the Governing Body for its trust and support and by 
committing to working with Mrs Fink, with whom he looked forward to working 
closely for the benefit of the whole School. 
The Governing Body expressed its appreciation to Mr Appleman for 
everything that he had done during the period of his leadership and looked 
forward to a continuation of its close relationship with him. 
Mr Appleman said that, as requested by the GB, he had reduced the size of 
the latest version of the SEF. He drew attention to the areas for improvement 
it identified and the overall judgement that effectiveness was Good and 
improving, with the Sixth Form remaining as Outstanding. The one area of 
comparative weakness was Behaviour, for which there were plans moving 
The GB approved the Chairman's proposal that it should hold two regular 
meetings in the Summer Term (thus legitimising the de facto position). 
The GB also decided that the two-year-old experiment of managing without a 
Jewish Studies Committee and replacing it with a priority position on the 
agenda at each of its regular meetings had not proved satisfactorily. The 
Clerk was invited to formulate proposals for a Committee structure for 

2018/19 including a JS Committee, and to make recommendations for Terms 
of Reference and membership for consideration at its next meeting. 

The GB noted with regret that the Deputy Headteacher (Jewish Life & 
Learning) was currently unwell and unable therefore to attend to provide his 
report. It sent its best wishes for a speedy recovery. 

The GB approved the schedule of policies and review arrangements prepared 
by Mr Appleman. It agreed that, except for policies that statutorily required full 
GB approval and any others it specially designated, Committees should be 
delegated full powers of review and approval, simply reporting to the GB when 
this had been done.  
It was further agreed that any policies that had not been reviewed by the 
intended review date would be considered to stil  be current. 
The GB approved the text of the updated Home School Agreement as 
reviewed by the CSWAB Committee.  
14.   FINANCE 
In the context of a paper provided by Mr Martyn, the GB considered the 
viability of the second and third years of the Budget it had recently approved, 
and, in particular, the extent to which funding provided by the Trust via 
Parental Voluntary Contributions and various fundraising events could be 
relied on. In discussion the following points were made: 
  •  The budget was based on the prediction of an additional 65 students 
next year and thereafter and that total income was heavily dependent 
on pupil numbers. 
  •  The projected increase in income from voluntary contributions was 
based on the more effective collection processes that had been put in 
place and initially experience with its operation. 
  •  The Fundraising Dinner had been aimed at large donors and was 
probably not repeatable on an annual basis in the same form. It was 
important that thought should be given to a sustainable fundraising 
programme incorporating more projects. 
The Finance & Premises Committee was requested to consider these issues 
in more detail and to provide advice for the GB on the reasons for shortfalls in 
2019/20 and 2020/21 between budgeted expenditure and regular income and 
also an indication of the strategies to be employed to provide confidence that 

the gap could be fil ed sustainably by donations. 

Mr Lake requested governors to inform him of training as it was undertaken so 
that an up-to-date record could be maintained. He agreed that together with 
the Chairman he would provide an analysis of areas where there were 
currently training deficiencies. 
The GB thanked the SENDCo for her 2017/18 report on Inclusion including 
SEN/EAL/vulnerable students and requested the Clerk to place it on the 
agenda for discussion at its next meeting. 
Signed: ______________________________     Dated: _______________ 

Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body (GB) 
held at 6.30 pm on Monday 16th July 2018  
Ms Geraldine Fainer  

Mrs Julia Alberga    
Dr Charlotte Benjamin  
Mr John Cooper     
Mr David Davis  
Rabbi Daniel Epstein  
Mrs Rachel Fink        
Mr Michael Goldmeier 
Mr Mark Hurst  
Mr James Lake          
Mr Richard Martyn   
Mr Paul Millett  
Mr Andrew Moss      
Mrs Naomi Newman             Mrs Anne Shisler   
Associate Member             Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum 
Mr Simon Appleman          Mr Jamie Peston      Mr David Wragg  
Clerk:                      Dr Alan Fox   

No apologies were received.  

Mrs Alberga advised the GB that she worked for the Jewish Leadership Council 
conducting research in mental health. 
The minutes of the meeting held on 4th June 2018 were confirmed.  
4.       MEMBERSHIP 
The GB noted that the term of office of Dr Charlotte Benjamin as a 
Parent Governor ended on 5th July 2018 and that she had been appointed as a 
Foundation Governor for a further three-year term from that date.  

 The GB noted that the ballot to fil  the Parent Governor vacancy and 
had resulted in the election of Mrs Caroline Bunder for a three year term of 
office starting on 16th July. 
To GB appointed Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum as an Associate Member 
for 2108/19 and as a member of the CSWAB and Jewish Studies Committees. 
There were none. 

The Chairman said that she had not needed to use her emergency powers 
since the last meeting. However, she wanted to mention that she had spoken 
on the telephone to Mr Adrian Lyons, an HMI conducting research and who 
had provided some unofficial but enlightening insights on the current JFS 
Teaching and Learning Standards.  
Mrs Fink introduced her report outlining some of her findings she had made 
since taking up post at half term and the work she had undertaken during this 
Expanding on the Chairman's comments about the research visit by Mr Lyons 
and a postgraduate student, Mrs Fink explained that he has spent a day at JFS 
and had met the Heads of a number of Departments and two groups of 
students of varying abilities. Mr Lyons’ feedback about Teaching & Learning 
had been very useful and indicated once again that, whilst there were pockets 
of excellence, some staff continued to have problems in clarifying their 
expectations both for themselves and for pupils. As a result many pupils didn't 
understand properly what was required of them or what progress they were 
making. The Inspector had expressed surprise at the academic results being 
achieved at JFS, given the shortcomings he found. Mrs Fink confirmed that her 
major focus for the next term would be Teaching & Learning and that she trying 
to establish the best ways of building on the very good examples already set by 
some members of staff. 
Mrs Fink said that she had significant concerns about the existing Behaviour 
Policy and had undertaken some major re-drafting, the outcome of which had 
been approved by Stone King. There had been some consultation with 
students. While she apologised for the late circulation of the draft to governors, 
she was anxious to obtain the GB approval of the revised policy so that it could 
be implemented on the return to School in September.  
A detailed explanation of the changes in the Behaviour Policy had been 
provided in her written Report but Mrs Fink added that at the moment 
behaviour management was over complex and focused on particular incidents 
rather than on their effect on teaching and learning. The new system was 
aimed at rewarding good behaviour earlier and encouraging staff to 

concentrate less on sanctions and more on elimination of the causes of poor 
behaviour, particularly where pupils had known educational and behavioural 
needs. Some staff were using the Behaviour Room and other sanctions as a 
crutch instead of establishing how to prevent similar incidents in the future. 
Whilst appreciating the desirability of training staff and introduction the new 
policy in September, some Governors expressed concern that they had been 
given insufficient time to consider the terms of the new policy with the 
Headteacher. The GB approved the policy in principle subject to resolution of 
any questions or comments sent to the Headteacher within the following seven 
[AFTERNOTE: The Chairman sent comments on the form of the policy on 19th 
The Headteacher explained that she had taken responsibility for Personal 
Development and Well-Being pending the appointment of a Deputy 
Headteacher in January. She assessed that there were a number of talented 
individuals working in pastoral care but that across the board practice was 
inconsistent. Al  the JFS staff she had encountered worked with due regard for 
safeguarding procedures but improvement was necessary in the style of 
communication with parents and in the efforts to finding education solutions for 
supporting students with behavioural difficulties. 
Mrs Fink expressed her gratitude to Mr Simon Appleman for the expert 
assistance and information he had provided during her first few weeks to 
ensure a smooth handover. In the coming term he would oversee the 
remaining recommendations from the 2016 Ofsted Report and would work with 
her to develop the new SEF and SDP. The Governing Body expressed its 
appreciation to Mr Appleman for everything that he had done during the period 
of his leadership for his assistance with the transition. 
  •  In further discussion following points were made: 
  •  There was an indication that the new tone of newsletters was being well 
received by parents. 
  •  Parents needed to be encouraged to praise staff where this was due as 
well as to complain when problems arose. 
  •  Governors had a continuing responsibility for staff Well-Being. In recent 
times there had been differences between the GB and the SLT and, 
without overstepping the boundary of interfering in operational matters. 
many governors wished to assist further with the improvement of staff 
morale, The Headteacher said that she would be happy to make a 
number of suggestions for further governor activity in the School. 
Pending these, it was strongly recommended that if convenient 
governors should attend the first INSET session of the new academic 
year at 8.00 am on 3rd September, giving governors the opportunity to 

mingle and meet staff at the light breakfast which would be available at 
the start of the day.  
The GB considered the Annual Inclusion Report prepared by Gail Roston, the 
SENDCo, which provided a statistical analysis by year group of pupils of 
varying degrees of vulnerability. The SEN team was now receiving reports from 
SIMS to help them with assessments of the impact of their interventions on 
pupils’ outcomes.  
It was clear that staff need to be encouraged further to use each student’s ECH 
Plan to work out how best to assist them. As a general principle, vulnerable 
pupils’ work should be marked first and care taken with the provision of 
The GB thanked the SENDCo for her full and informative report and for her 
painstaking work for the pupils throughout the past year. 
Governing Body received a report from Mrs Julia Alberga on the Jewish 
Community Well-Being Project set up to address the mental health issues 
affecting Jewish children and young people. JFS would be one of the pilot 
schools in the project and as the project leader Mrs Alberga would be working 
very closely with the Headteacher. To maximise the benefits of this project, 
which was being largely funded by the WOHL Foundation, progress needed to 
be carefully monitored and evaluated and it was hoped that this would allow it 
to be rolled out to all schools during the next academic year.  
BUDGET 2019/21 
Mr Cooper presented the paper requested by the GB at its previous meeting 
containing Finance & Premises Committee’s updated assessment of the 
potential shortfalls between expenditure and public income and the strategies 
to be employed to fil  the gap over the next three years. Mr Cooper said that the 
Committee recommended that an updated assessment should be a standing 
item on the agenda for the second GB meeting of each term. 
Mr Goldmeier said that he had been grateful for the opportunity to attend the 
last Committee meeting as an observer. The comprehensive paper provided 
following that meeting showed that JFS over the next few years faced 
considerable financial challenges which, if not met, would translate directly into 
educational challenges. Much more non-public income would be required and it 
was no longer possible to fil  the gap by calling on the capital of the Trusts. This 
degree of fundraising required would not happen by itself and could only be 
achieved if the GB took positive steps. 
The Governing Body agreed that a search should be made amongst parents or 
stakeholders for an experienced person to take charge of fundraising strategy 
and organisation, assisted by a separate fundraising committee. Governors 

were invited to consider whether any of their personal contacts might have the 
skil  and time and to notify Andrew Moss and Jamie Peston. 

Mr Cooper reported that the Finance & Premises Committee had thoroughly 
examined the Accounts to end March 2018 against the background of the Audit 
by Littlejohn LLP. It was pleasing to be able to report that there was a clean 
audit report, the credit for which must go to the Mr Peston and the Finance 
The GB approved and authorized signature of:  
•  the Audit Findings Letter (incorporating the Letter of Management            
•  the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2017/18.   
•  the Statement of Internal Control.  
In view of the significant work during the term on many of the policies and the 
changes of approval authority agreed, the GB postponed review of the updated 
schedule being prepared by Mr Appleman until its next meeting.  
12.1    The Governing Body approved the Terms of Reference for all 
Committees as proposed by the Clerk, subject to: 
  •  amendment of the ToR of the Pay & Personnel Committee as discussed 
at the meeting of the Committee a few days earlier 
  •  amendment of the ToR of the CSWAB Committee to reflect priorities. 
 12.2    The GB approved the membership of Committees for 2018/19 as 
listed in the paper circulated by the Clerk.  

The GB approved the 2019/20 Calendar as proposed by Mr Appleman 
following ful  staff consultation. 

Mr Appleman provided a list of proposed dates and governors were invited to 
send comments as soon as possible after the meeting so that a final draft could 
be circulated for approval.  
Responding to a question from Mr Goldmeier, Mr Hurst said that there were 
currently 300 acceptances for Year 7 in September, with a further 28 pupils 
with Certificates of Religious Practice on the waiting list. It was difficult to 
assess the reality of this figure because of the almost certain some overlap of 
acceptances and waiting lists with other Schools that remained to be resolved. 
However, there was an informal understanding between Jewish Schools that all 
possible efforts would be made to find a place for those qualified and wanting a 
The GB noted the draft minutes of meeting of the Committee held on 4th May 

The GB noted: 
17.1    the Committee’s Termly Report  
17.2    the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14thMay 2018  
17.3    the draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3rd July 
The GB noted: 
18.1   the Committee’s Termly Report  
 the draft minutes of meeting of the Committee held on 4th July  
The GB noted the following reports from link Governors: 
•  Safeguarding  
•  Attendance and Behaviour  
•  Security  
•  Training and Training Analysis  
•  Pupil Premium  
•  Health & Safety (oral) 
•  SEN  

•  GDPR (oral) 
In discussion the following points were made: 
  •  A meeting had been arranged to confirm, mainly in relation to building 
related risks, that the Risk Register was being kept up to date by 
  •  The Link Governor was satisfied that Mr Dharmesh Chauhan, the SLT 
lead, had GDPR properly operating and under control. 
  •  The Governor Training Record was inaccurate and Governors were 
requested to send necessary amendments to Mr Lake as soon as 
  •  It was probable that, even after updating, the training record would 
reveal some skil s and knowledge deficiencies within the GB. In 
conjunction with the Headteacher, Mr Lake was requested make 
recommendations about further training to individual governors. 
20.1  School Website – Mr Wragg advised Governors that the School 
website was unlikely to available for the next few days whilst some serious 
technical issues were being resolved. 
20.2  Bereavement Policy – during the holidays the Headteacher and Mr 
Appleman would examine whether the policy should be incorporated within 
the Well-Being Policy. 
20.3  Valete – The Chairman said that a substantial generous donation had 
been made by a Governor to fund the presentation of Gift Vouchers to some 
longstanding senior members of staff who were retiring or who had been 
promoted to more senior posts in other schools. Any other governor who 
wished to be associated should contact the Chairman as soon as possible.   
Signed: ______________________________     Dated: _______________ 


Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body (GB) 
held at 6.30 pm on Monday 17th September 2018  
Ms Geraldine Fainer  

Mrs Julia Alberga    
Dr Charlotte Benjamin  
Ms Caroline Bunder      
Mr John Cooper  
Mr David Davis  
Mrs Rachel Fink            
Mr Michael Goldmeier  
Mr Mark Hurst  
Mr James Lake             
Mr Richard Martyn     
Mr Andrew Moss       
Mrs Naomi Newman    
Mrs Anne Shisler 
Associate Member             Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum 
SLT:  Mr Simon Appleman 
                      Dr Alan Fox   

Apologies were received from Rabbi Daniel Epstein.  

There were none. 
Parent Governor - The Governing Body welcomed Ms Caroline Bunder 
recently elected as a Parent Governor.  
Foundation Governors - The Governing Body noted the resignation of Mr 
Paul Millett as a Foundation Governor with effect from 16th September, 2018 and 
offered its thanks for the work he had done for the School.  

Only one nomination having been received for each position, the Clerk declared 
Ms Geraldine Fainer elected as Chairman and Mr Michael Goldmeier and Mr 
Andrew Moss elected as Vice-Chairmen. 
The minutes of the meeting held on 16th July 2018 were confirmed.  
6.1 – Item 7 - Behaviour Policy – the Chairman had submitted comments and 
these were being incorporated in a final version approved by the GB. 
6.2 – Item 10 – Fundraising – governors considered a number of individuals 
recommended as possible members of a fundraising committee and where 
judged appropriate authorised initial approaches 
6.3 – Item 14 – 2018 -19 Dates - as a result of comments received from 
Governors, the inaugural meeting of the Jewish Studies Committee had been 
brought forward. The Clerk would circulate an updated comprehensive list of GB 
and Committee meeting dates for the academic year.  
6.4 – Item 19 – Governor Training - it was agreed that Mr Lake should recirculate 
the training record to be checked by all governors. 
6.5 – Item 20.2 – Bereavement Policy – it was agreed that a report on the 
consideration by the Headteacher and Mr Appleman of the appropriate place for 
a school Well Being Policy should be postponed until the following meeting. 
6.6 – Item 20.3 – Valete – the Chairman said that she had received a number of 
expressions of appreciation for the presentations made to departing members of 
staff and expressed thanks to Mr Goldmeier for his facilitation of this. 
The Chairman said that she had not needed to use her emergency powers since 
the last meeting.  
Mrs Fink introduced her written report supported by initial analyses of the GCSE 
and A-level results. In response to questions by governors and in general 
discussion the following points were made:  
  •  Overall a good standard had been maintained in the public examinations 
and collectively results have been outstanding. Mrs Fink wished to thank 
Mr Appleman and the remainder of the staff for this achievement. 

  •  Progress 8 figures would not be available until November but the early 
indications were that they would be higher than last year in all areas and 
for all groups despite changes in syl abus and marking schemes. 
  •  The assessment indicated that JFS was in the top 10% of providers for A-
levels nationally and in the top 10% for teaching that improves students 
  •  Whilst above the national average, Business and Drama results had been 
disappointing and would be looked at in greater detail to try to establish 
where problems had arisen and what might be done about it.  
  •  Whilst the results gained by SEN pupils remained lower than the main 
cohort the differences were narrowing, particularly if those unable to take 
examinations were removed from the figures. Very few Year 13’s had not 
obtained their first or second university choices. Al  those who wished to 
go to university and did not propose to resit examinations had been 
assisted to find places through clearing within 24 hours. 
  •  There was not much to be gained in trying to establish the reasons for the 
differences in overall male and female examination attainment. Digging 
deeper into the results in individual subjects would be of greater interest 
and potentially greater benefit, as would be the introduction of more 
vocational courses at Key Stage 4 
  •  Considerable careers guidance was provided for Sixth Form pupils but it 
might additionally be helpful to invite parents working in particular fields 
and professions and recent JFS students to provide briefings. 
  •  It would also be helpful for pupils to be coached in interviewing techniques. 
In further discussion, the Headteacher confirmed that, whilst the numbers 
inevitably fluctuated, there were currently just over 2000 pupils on the School roll. 
Year 7 was full but with no applicants remaining on the waiting list. It was agreed 
that the Admissions Committee should give further consideration to the number of 
places to be offered for the first tranche for entry in September 2019, consulting 
Brent as necessary. 
With the departure of Mr David Wragg, the opportunity was being taken of 
considering whether a further deputy headteacher recruitment would be 
necessary or whether his responsibilities could be redistributed amongst the 
remaining members of the SLT. In the meantime, at the closing date some 30 
applications had been received for the post of Deputy Headteacher - Wellbeing. 
After sifting, the intention was to invite four applicants to the School on 8th 
October to undertake a variety of tasks and meet members of the SLT. Although 
a courtesy and not a requirement for the process, a Brent representative to 
participate but was not available  
Two candidates would be invited back for the following day for final selection by a 
panel consisting of Ms Fainer, Rabbi Epstein, Mrs Newman and Mr Moss 
together with the Headteacher. The GB approved these arrangements and 

agreed that the panel’s recommendation should immediately be circulated to all 
governors by email, requesting approval or otherwise by the end of that afternoon. 
The GB adjourned for 20 minutes for governors to consider individually their own 
assessments of the state of leadership and management. These were provided to 
the Headteacher to inform the preparation of proposals for Key Improvement 
Themes for 2018/19 for the Governing Body and to ensure that governors 
received the information they needed to facilitate systematic and constructive 
challenge, focusing on important strategic activity and not on operational detail. 
The Headteacher said that both staff and their unions had been consulted on the 
draft Absence Management and draft Leave of Absence Policy. The Chairman 
reminded governors that although the texts had received the benefit of scrutiny by 
the School’s solicitors had reviewed the texts, it nevertheless remained the 
responsibility of governors to satisfy themselves in detail prior to giving approval. 
Governors having confirmed their satisfaction accordingly, the GB approved 
these policies.  
In response to question by governors, the Headteacher said that she would be 
examining all relevant school policies to establish whether they met fully the 
safeguarding guidance recently issued by the Chief Rabbi concerning the 
inclusion of pupils who were part of the LGBTQ community. 
Noting that it had agreed at its previous meeting that, where statutorily permitted, 
Committees would in future normally be delegated full powers to approve as well 
as review policies, the GB requested that the updated Policy list and 2018/19 
Review Plan be further annotated to show where full delegations applied. 
Governors were requested to advise Mr Appleman and the Clerk by the end of 
September of any policies where they would prefer this delegation not to apply. 
The GB approved the draft Terms of Reference for the CSWAB Committee. 
Following earlier correspondence, Governors were invited to advise the Chairman 
as soon as possible after the meeting of any particular preferences for 
appointment as link governors. 
The Headteacher would circulate a template for Link Governors indicating in each 
area the aspects that would be of particular interest to Ofsted Inspectors. 

Governors were reminded of the importance placed by Ofsted on proper training 
and requested to ensure that any courses attended were notified promptly to Mr 
Governors were invited to advise the Chairman if they were prepared to attend 
for a period during the prospective parents evening on 11th October. 
Signed: ______________________________     Dated: _______________ 


Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body (GB) 
held at 6.30 pm on Monday 17th December 2018 
Ms Geraldine Fainer  

Dr Charlotte Benjamin  
Ms Caroline Bunder      Mr John Cooper     
Mr David Davis  
Rabbi Daniel Epstein    Mrs Rachel Fink                  
Mr Michael Goldmeier  
Mr James Lake             Mr Richard Martyn 
Mr Andrew Moss         
Mrs Naomi Newman     Mrs Anne Shisler 
Associate Member             Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum 
Clerk:                      Dr Alan Fox   

Apologies were received from Mrs Julia Alberga, Mr Dan Green and Mr Mark 

There were none. 
Parent Governor - The GB noted the election of Mr Dan Green as a 
Parent Governor for a three-year term of office with effect from 11th December 
2018 and looked forward to welcoming him at its next meeting. 
Local Authority Governor - The GB ratified the nomination by the London 
Borough of Brent of Mr Richard Martyn as the LA Governor for a further three-
year term from 14th December 2018.  
Congratulations  - the GB offered its congratulations to Dr Charlotte 
Benjamin on her appointment as Chairman of the Barnet Clinical Commissioning 

Group and to Rabbi Raphael Zarum on the award by OFSTED of an Outstanding 
rating following inspection of the LSJS teacher training programme. 
The minutes of the meeting held on 17th September 2018 were confirmed.  
Item 9 - Behaviour Policy – al  governors who wished had submitted 
Item 10 – Fundraising – a meeting had been arranged with potential 
recruits to take charge of fundraising activities. 
Item 19 – Training - the governor training record was distributed and 
members were invited to notify Mr Lake of any errors or omissions. 
  5.4   Item 19 – Training -  recommendations for further training were being 
formulated, including for OFSTED and Pikuach inspections. 
The Chairman said that she had no items to report at this meeting. 

Mrs Fink introduced her written report and in response to questions by governors 
about the recent opinion surveys the following points were made:  
  •  the report showed comparisons with the corresponding surveys in 2016 
and 2017 in those areas where the same question had been asked. 
  •  368 parents had responded to the survey. Although this represented a low 
percentage of the theoretical maximum, it was nevertheless more than in 
the previous year and provided a statistically significant sample. 
  •  The response rate of staff and students was better than that of parents. 
Further consideration would be given to arranging more meetings with 
parents on particular topics. 
•  The staff responses were very positive and more so than those of students 
and parents. It was normal for staff to appreciate changes for the good or 
the bad earlier than other survey groups.  
Governors were particularly pleased to see the massive improvement in staff 
morale and congratulated the School in providing the outcome of the surveys 
quickly whilst they were stil  fresh. 
In further discussion of the Headteacher’s Report the fol owing points were made: 

•  Mr David Davis had agreed to take on responsibility for the future of the 
PFI contract and preparations for its completion in 10 years time. There 
were a number of highly technical issues and the possibility of seeking 
further assistance from Local Partnerships was being explored. 
  •  The Headteacher’s Report showed the structure of the SLT from January 
2019 at the point when the new Deputy Headteacher (Safeguarding, 
Behaviour & Well-being) would take up post. Mr Wragg having left, the 
structure of the SLT was now that of 3 deputies (Jewish Life and Learning, 
Teaching and Learning & Curriculum and Safeguarding, Behaviour & 
Wellbeing). If experience showed that the SLT was overloaded, it was 
more likely that a further Assistant Headteacher would be recruited rather 
than another Deputy  
  •  Full communication and the building of bridges were some of the keys to 
the improvement in staff morale and the Headteacher met all Deputy 
Headteachers at least weekly. 
  •  The survey had shown a much more positive staff perception caused by 
the hard work by the SLT to reflect on their interactions with staff.  
  •  The Associate Senior Leader posts shown in the structure table were 
being used to give middle ranking staff a one-year taste of leadership. It 
was understood that this appointment was normally for one year only and 
that the occupancy would be rotated to give others a similar opportunity. 
To give Governors an indication of the scale of activity, the Report showed the 
number of external meetings and the events in which the Headteacher had 
participated in the term and listed a small sample of student events. 

Chief Rabbi’s Guidance for the Wellbeing of LGBT+ Pupils - the 
Headteacher reported that she had examined all relevant school policies and 
could confirm their consistency in basic terms with the Guidance recently issued. 
She was proposing to re-examine them during the holidays to see whether, with 
minor amendments, it would be possible to make some of the messages more 
Wellbeing Policy - the introduction of a whole school Wellbeing Policy 
had been postponed until the arrival of the new Deputy Headteacher. 
Policies General - discussion of the latest policy schedule and decisions 
on those policies that the GB wished to retain for final approval was postponed 
until the January meeting when Mr Appleman could be present. 
P & P Policies - Mr Goldmeier explained that the proposed terms of two 
policies had been considered by the Pay & Personnel Committee at its recent 
meeting. However, the Committee had been inquorate and so, before a decision 

could be formalised, it would be necessary for another member to give 
agreement, which had not yet been done. The policies would then come to the 
GB for approval, unless in the meantime, the Committee was given full delegated 
authority as at paragraph 8.3 above. 
The draft Grievance Policy had been sent for staff consultation and could not 
therefore yet be approved. 
The GB considered a self-assessment form kindly provided by Mrs Julia Alberga 
and agreed that it would in principle be useful to complete something along these 
lines to permit a better assessment of governor views and capabilities and, in 
particular, to establish where more information and training might be required. It 
was felt that could only usefully respond as individuals and agreed that the 
questions should be reformulated accordingly and then turned into a Survey 
Monkey questionnaire. 
Pay & Personal Committee - Mr Goldmeier explained the amendments 
considered by the Committee required to reflect the proper procedure for the 
setting of targets for the Headteacher and for the annual appraisal process. The 
GB approved the revised Terms of Reference.   
Mr Goldmeier added that the process had recently been completed. Whilst it was 
not practical for the entire GB to be involved in detail, two of the target setters 
were governors and therefore aware what the GB was looking for. The targets 
that had recently been set for Mrs Fink were aspirational for the next few years 
and were tied into the School Improvement Plan 
Committee Membership - the GB appointed Mrs Caroline Bunder as a 
member of the CSWAB Committee and the Pay & Personnel Committee. 
10.3   Committee Chairmanship - The GB appointed Mr Richard Martyn as 
Chairman of the Pay & Personnel Committee. 
The GB noted the written summary of the Committee’s Activities supported by 
the draft minutes of its meeting held on 12th November.  
The Headteacher drew attention to her recorded concern about the pre-arrival 
meetings held with all Year 7 students and their parents and the consistency 
across the team conducting them of content. Some information was collated 
incorrectly and not shared effectively. In future, although it created a substantial 
workload, she proposed that interviewers be restricted to the members of the SLT 
and the Associate Senior Leaders.  
Mrs Shisler requested that her view that the Admissions Officer was amazing 
should be recorded in the minutes.  

Dr Benjamin introduced the draft minutes of the Committee meeting held on 12th 
November 2018 and referred in particular to the following matters that had been 
  •  It had been confirmed that, if a student's overall grade were raised after 
remarking, a refund of the appeal fee would be made. 
  •  The numbers of pupils on the safeguarding list was currently low because 
it was early in the academic year. There had been clarification of the 
process to be used by members of staff for reporting safeguarding issues.  
  •  There were insufficient funds to cope properly with all vulnerable students 
and the Committee had asked for an estimate of the shortfall to be 
prepared so that it could be considered by the GB against other priorities. 
•  As a safeguarding measure, posters obscuring the viewing panes in 
classroom doors had been removed. 
  •  Steps were being taken to promulgate more widely best practice in 
identifying early those students with potential behavioural problems and 
developing strategies, short of sanctions, for dealing with matters before 
they became critical.  
  •  SEN training was in process in departmental meetings. There were many 
mainstream adjustments could be made but weren’t at the moment. 
In discussion of behavioural matters, the following points were made: 
  •  The new behaviour policy had now been fully implemented and the 
number of issues was declining because teachers were working hard to 
develop better relationships with students.  
•  It was, however, clear that the policy needed strengthening in respect of 
rewards that should be more immediate, low-cost and available to as many 
students as possible. 
  •  More support was being given and the staff experiencing problems were 
more open to receiving it. 
•  The new mobile phone policy had achieved a positive impact in 
classrooms and had been well supported by parents. 
  •  Internal exclusions were not the same as the old Room 17 process. 
Referral decisions could only be made by senior staff and this sanction 
was restricted only to the most challenging students. Space and resources 
were limited and the opportunity was taken for providing individual 
mentoring that was followed up a few weeks later. Very few students 

  •  There was a certain amount of low-level disruption concentrated in Year 8 
but fewer than 10 pupils were responsible for most of it. Attempts were 
made to engage the parents concerned but unfortunately they were not 
always cooperative. 
  •  Use was being made of referrals to the Brent Right Track Centre but this 
was unpopular with parents, some of this whom refused to send their 
children there. 
In discussion of attendance the following points were made: 
  •  A target of 95% attendance for years 7–11 had been agreed by the 
  •  Attendance for Years 12-13 was slightly improved at 89.4% and a target of 
90% had been set. 
  •  Attendance in Year 13 was lower than in Year 12 and, in particular, a 
number of pupils were regularly missing JS and PE. Attendance letters 
were being sent to parents. 
  •  Absence due to visits to universities or seminaries and yeshivas were 
recorded as Educational Visits  
•  The Behaviour Policy applied to the Sixth Form and its sanctions. e.g. 
detentions, could be imposed for a poor Year 13 attendance record. 
Ultimately the School could decline to enter a student for examinations.  
The GB noted the Committee’s Termly Report and the draft minutes of its 
meeting held on 29th October 2018.  
The GB approved the draft of the Finance Handbook as recommended by the 
Committee and also its proposal that approval of future versions be delegated to 
the Committee. 
Rabbi Zarum gave an oral report in amplification of the draft minutes of the 
inaugural meeting the Committee on 22nd October. He explained that Mr Daniel 
Marcus, the Deputy Headteacher (Jewish Life & Learning) had advised the 
Committee of the various current plans, achievement and challenges of JS at 
JFS, including staffing, unification of the JiEP & JS Departments, funding from 
partnerships, and various programme and curriculum development updates. A 
strategic plan for Jewish Life in the school was also in development. 
In consideration of the policies for which the JS Committee had responsibility, the 
GB decided that the Sex & Relationships Education Policy should be reviewed at 
a joint meeting with the CSWAB Committee. Responsibility for the final approval 

of the Kashrut Policy and the Jewish Life & Learning Policy (including Collective 
Worship) was delegated in full to the JS Committee. 
The GB noted the draft minutes of the Committee’s inquorate meeting held on 
26th November 2018. 
General - the GB considered the experience to date with the enhanced 
Link Governor arrangements that had been in operation for the Autumn term. The 
scheme was judged to have been very successful in improving amongst 
governors collectively knowledge of the School and its activities. It was confirmed 
that use of the template circulated for individual reports was not obligatory and 
simply provided a standard format that governors could employ if appropriate in 
the particular field.  
16.2   Wellbeing & Mental Health – Mrs Newman, the Link Governor, said that 
she had met staff and had received a range of suggestions for promoting the well 
being of staff that she had included in paragraph 4 of her report. From her 
canvassing their appeared to be a range of views amongst governors about these 
possible initiatives. 
The Chairman made the further suggestion that a number of Governors might 
come in to School to make breakfast or tea for staff once a term.  
The Headteacher said that the listed suggestions all came from information 
gleaned about activities undertaken at other schools; the suitability of each at JFS 
was of course for consideration.  
PHSE – in discussion of the Report the value of preparing students for 
the financial practicalities in their working life by providing an understanding of 
matters such as the tax system and mortgages was stressed. 
Governor Training - it was requested that once the training record had 
been updated, should be examined to establish whether any important areas 
were being missed across the GB. 
Other Link Governor Reports - the GB took note of all of the other reports 
provided by Link Governors and it was agreed that, based on preliminary 
experience there would be some minor adjustment in responsibilities for the 
Spring Term including the appointment of Mr John Cooper as Link Governor for 
Effectiveness 16 - 19. 

It was reported that some governors were continuing to have problems accessing 
JFS internet facilities. The Headteacher said that the problem might be with the 
requirement to change personal passwords at least once every two months and 
that this was being examined. 

There was none. 
Signed: ______________________________     Dated: _______________ 


Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body (GB) 
held at 6.30 pm on Monday 21st January 2019  
Acting Chairman:   
Mr Andrew Moss       

Mrs Julia Alberga    
Dr Charlotte Benjamin  
Ms Caroline Bunder      
Mr John Cooper  
Mr David Davis  
Mrs Rachel Fink                        
Mr Michael Goldmeier  
Mr Dan Green  
Mr Mark Hurst  
Mr Richard Martyn   
Mrs Naomi Newman          Mrs Anne Shisler 
Associate Member:            Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum 
In attendance: 
 Rabbi Howard Cohen (Deputy Headteacher 
(Safeguarding, Behaviour & Wellbeing)) 
Dr Alan Fox   

Apologies were received from Ms Geraldine Fainer and Mr James Lake.  
Rabbi Daniel Epstein was also not present.  

Mrs Alberga declared that she was paid employee of the JLC with whom 
the School had a contractual relationship.  
The GB noted with approval the Clerk’s statement that all Governors 
properly had an interest in its business and, provided any private interests that 
might impinge were noted in the annual declarations, it was only necessary for 
further oral declarations to be made prior to any particular discussion if a 
reasonable observer might have a perception that there could be a conflict or 

The GB welcomed Mr Dan Green who had been elected as a Parent 
Governor for a three year term of office with effect from 11th December, 2018. 
The GB also welcomed Rabbi Howard Cohen, newly appointed Deputy 
Headteacher (Safeguarding, Behaviour & Wellbeing). 
The minutes of the meeting held on 17th December 2018 were confirmed.  
Item 7 - PFI – Mr Davis reported that he was meeting representatives of 
the PFI contractor to run over those matters that would be of importance in the 
run-up to the end of the PFI contract in 10 years time particularly in respect of 
repairs and renovations. He would also be meeting the Local Partnerships 
organisation to explore the extent to which it would be able to assist the School 
with expert advice over this period. 
Item 17 – School Email  - a number of governors and the Clerk had 
reported continuing problems using the JFS Internet facility and it was agreed 
that further advice and assistance should be sought from the School’s IT 

There was nothing to report at this meeting. 

Mrs Fink distributed a document summarising the progress that was being made 
against five SIP objectives. She said that whilst OFSTED had commented very 
favourably on the School's achievements at Key Stages 4 and 5, the inspectors 
had been less impressed by Key Stage 3. One of her main immediate objectives 
was to strengthen all aspects of Key Stage 3 education and organisation.  
Together with the staff concerned, close attention was being paid to setting 
standards of behaviour for learning both in and out of class and the provision of 
an improved and stretching academic experience for Year 7 students. An 
updated plan, covering success criteria and deadlines and the impact of 
intervention programmes would be shared in detail with governors at the CSWAB 
Mrs Fink was also concentrating more on the development of consistent excellent 
Teaching & Learning across the School. In her view, more needed to be done to 
ensure greater consistency of practice in all faculties and in classroom 
observations and their feedback. Governors were particularly pleased to see the 
major improvement in staff morale in recent months.  
There would always be some turnover in staff, and indeed promotion to more 
senior posts outside, might be regarded as a sign of JFS success in developing 
and encouraging junior teachers. In the meantime, Mrs Fink was taking a closer 

interest in teacher recruitment to ensure that JFS would employ only high quality 
staff. Together with Anna Joseph, the Assistant Headteacher for Teaching & 
Learning, she would be attending the recruitment fair the following week at the 
Institute of Education. 
In discussion and in response to questions from Governors, the following points 
were made:  
Attractive for academic achievement as many initiatives were, a close eye 
needed to be kept on the effect on the School budget. A review would shortly 
take place of all staff salaries as part of the planning for 2019/20. 
Concern was expressed about the lack of synchronisation between JFS and 
other Jewish schools over holiday periods, which caused childcare problems for 
parents with children both at JFS and Jewish primary schools. Further problems 
were created for non-Jewish staff because the JFS holidays did not coincide with 
the holidays of mainstream non-Jewish schools. 
The Headteacher said that there were always going to be some difficulties 
because of the requirement, as a maintained school, to have 190 school days in 
an academic year but as a Jewish school to avoid all of the Yomin Tovim. There 
were particular problems when Rosh Hashanah fell on a Monday and Tuesday 
but there would be some amelioration if JFS resumed the practice at Camden of 
using the intermediate days of Succot as working schooldays. 
Whilst the most orthodox members of staff might be concerned by the proposal, 
this did not apply to the large majority of JFS pupils, some of whom would not 
have the experience of eating in a Succah unless this happened at school. 
Governors needed to weigh the needs of the majority of pupils against those of a 
minority of the staff. If this change were to be put in place in future years, care 
would have to be taken with planning the educational strategy and the provision 
of adequate physical facilities. 
The GB requested that the School should consider the matter further and 
circulate a position paper that could be discussed at its next meeting and 
subsequently used for wider consultation with parents and others. 
The Headteacher explained that governors had been invited to complete an 
online anonymous self-assessment questionnaire. Unfortunately, the 
questionnaire might not have reached all and she invited any governor who had 
not participated to have a word with her after the meeting and arrange to have 
their own assessment incorporated. 
An initial analysis had been conducted of the 11 responses so far received and 
two sets of pie charts were circulated at the meeting based on questions where at 
least one response was at the lowest level or where at least two governors 
responded "don't know". When more responses had been received, the 
Headteacher would circulate a further analysis and an executive summary of the 

outcome. This should inform the establishment of priority areas for further 
governor training, including an in-house training session during the Summer Term.  
The Headteacher introduced a report containing a brief history of the JFS Israel 
Residential Scheme that had been running for many decades and a summary of 
a major formal review undertaken in 2016, including interviews with more than 
500 former participants and parents. The review had confirmed that the Kibbutz 
Lavi programme had provided an extremely positive experience for the 
overwhelming majority of its participants. However, it also found some evidence 
to suggest that the 12 week programme had more of an impact than the current 
nine week equivalent. 
Based on this report and the main recommendation to review's the provision of 
secular education and the price and the length of the scheme, outline tenders had 
been invited for the 2019/20 scheme of a minimum of 12 weeks for a group of 
between 40 to 60 students with the cost limited to $7200. Four responses had 
been received.  
Of the tenders, the School’s preferred option was that received from the 
Alexander Muss High School in Israel (AMHSI). The main reasons for this 
preference were that AMHSI was mainly a school and prioritised teaching and 
learning and had much experience delivering residential programs of this nature. 
The School was located centrally and had the best facilities for both living and 
learning.  The staff included a number of British Olim who were qualified teachers 
with UK classroom experience and finally the tender was at the best price for the 
longest scheme. 
Mrs Fink said that Jamie Peston (Director of Operations) would be in Israel from 
3rd to 5th February to carry out due diligence and to conduct a risk assessment 
of this option. In addition, the School would produce a paper setting out the 
educational rationale and a time/cost analysis. It was hoped that a final decision 
could be taken at the beginning of March so that detailed arrangements could be 
agreed in time for launch meetings in April. 
In response to questions from governors and in further discussion, the following 
points were made: 
  •  Whilst this was not a criticism of the current Lavi nine-week scheme that 
cost £7000 per head, the new proposal was cheaper and longer and had 
educational advantages.  
•  It would be open to more students - up to 60 – and could certainly not be 
regarded in any way as cutting back. 
  •  The research showed that twelve weeks had more impact on the 
subsequent Jewish lives of its participants when compared to the nine-
week programme. Whilst the students would be away from home for a 
longer period, this would probably have a smaller impact on them than on 

their parents. 
  •  There had been past criticism that some students found that educational 
reintegration at JFS had been difficult and insufficient help being provided 
by teaching staff, who tended to be unsympathetic. Assistance should be 
made readily available for those who needed and requested it. 
  •  Even though the proposed new scheme was cheaper, it would stil be this 
unaffordable for the majority of parents and the limited bursary 
arrangements were insufficient to change the position. However, the 
longer residential scheme was a flagship programme for JFS and had 
provided great benefit for generations of students. It was regrettable that it 
could not be extended to a larger number but there was also the shorter 
Taste of Israel programme that attracted nearly 200 students a year. 
  •  Input should be obtained from Rabbi Epstein on the relevant elements of 
the proposed AMHSI programme. 
•  As soon as the risk assessment was available it should be shown to Dr 
Benjamin and Mrs Shisler to look at the safeguarding aspects. 
Summarising the discussion, the Chairman said that advice from Daniel Marcus 
and an outline of the GB discussions should be provided to Jamie Peston to 
inform his further discussions in Israel. The proposal was to use a new provider 
abroad for the equivalent of complete term and the GB had a heavy responsibility 
for making sure that it had the best chance of success. Whilst a final decision on 
the new scheme was essentially an operational matter, the GB would therefore 
wish to have the opportunity to see and comment on the proposed further 
analysis and risk assessment, no later than its next meeting on 25th March and 
prior to any final decision by the Headteacher. 
10.1    The GB approved the terms of the following policies, as recommended by 
the Pay & Personnel Committee: 
10.1.1    Harassment Policy 
10.1.2    Staff Equal Opportunities & Diversity Policy 
10.1.3    Grievance Policy 
10 .1.4   Discipline Policy 
10.1.5    Capability Policy 
10.2    As recommended by the Headteacher, the GB also approved the minor 
amendments to the following previously approved policies to ensure consistency 
with the guidance issued by the Chief Rabbi on the Well-being of LGBT+ Pupils: 
10.2.2   Code of Conduct for Staff 
10.2.3   Equal Opportunities Policy & Equality Objectives 
10.2.4   Sex and Relationship Education Policy 
10.2.5   E-Safety Policy 
10.3      The GB also considered the revised terms of the Safeguarding & Child 

Protection Policy & Procedures document and requested that it should be 
amended to separate out more distinctly the respective responsibilities of the 
School and the PFI contractor, making it clear that the former should have an 
oversight of the vetting and training of contractors’ staff and visitors. 
10.4    The GB approved the updated Policy Schedule with review dates, subject 
to reservation to the GB itself of final approval to the terms of the following 
policies (following detailed consideration by the appropriate committees): 
10.4.1   Admissions  
10.4.2   Curriculum  
10.4.3   Governors’ Expenses  
10.4.4   Kashrut  
This full delegation of the remaining policies would be reviewed from time to time. 
The GB considered an outline fundraising scoping document produced on a 
voluntary basis by a parent. He took the view that professional assistance would 
be required to set a major programme and to train staff on a gradually reducing 
basis until sufficient in-house capability had been created.  
In discussion, it was agreed that one of the problems in the past had been that 
the School did not really perceive itself to be a charity and that, therefore, the 
Community did not see JFS as a charity that it was important to support. Work 
was needed to change these perceptions and make JFS saleable in this highly 
competitive field. 
It was also agreed that external professional assistance was necessary to plan, 
research and create the necessary infrastructure and that significant funds would 
be required to prime the process in this way. Some work has already been  
carried out on a pro bono basis and given the scale of the work it would be 
unreasonable to expect him to continue on this basis for the next year or so. The 
likley level of funding required a proper tender process. 
The GB requested that with assistance, in particular from Mr Dan Green and the 
parent, if he were prepared to give more pro bono time to the project, the School 
should carry out an initial cost/benefit analysis and prepare proposals for a tender 
process. This should be considered by the Finance & Premises Committee 
before being put to the Governing Body for a final decision.  

The GB appointed Mr Dan Green to be a member of the Finance & Premises 

In Mr Lake’s absence, governors agreed that Governor Training should be placed 
high on the GB Agenda for its next meeting.  
Admissions – the Headteacher reported that 350 first tranche offers had 
been made for places in Year 7 for entry in September 2019. She estimated that 
the eventual uptake would be 310 students. 
The deadline for acceptance of offers of places in the Sixth Form was the end of 
the week.  
‘A’ Level Achievements – the Headteacher said that the JFS results were 
in the top 1% of comprehensive schools in the country. 
13.3    University Places – The Headteacher reported that only 12 Year 13 
students had not yet received an offer for entry in the coming Autumn Term. 
However, many had multiple offers from which to choose. Unusually four students 
had offers of places for medicine at Oxford but only five places had been offered 
to the 14 Cambridge applicants. The School was seeking feedback on this low 
result. Interestingly a large number of places had been offered by both 
Birmingham and Nottingham Universities. 
14.4   Holocaust Memorial Day – The Headteacher reported that a high profile 
speaker would be addressing various assemblies during the week after HMD and 
that each form would have at least one Holocaust related session. 
14.5   Communications – the current format and content of the Headteacher’s 
weekly newsletter to parents had attracted much approval and consideration was 
requested whether the same concept might be used to strengthen the 
relationship between parents and governors.    
14.6   Quiz Evening  - 7th April - Governors were requested to let Mrs Fink know 
as soon as possible if they would be attending the forthcoming fundraising 
Signed: ______________________________     Dated: _______________ 



Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body (GB) 
held at 6.30 pm on Monday 25th March 2019  
Ms Geraldine Fainer 

Mrs Julia Alberga    
Dr Charlotte Benjamin  
Ms Caroline Bunder      
Mr John Cooper  
Mr David Davis  
Mrs Rachel Fink                        
Mr Michael Goldmeier  
Mr Dan Green           
Mr James Lake  
Mr Richard Martyn   
Mr Andrew Moss      
Mrs Naomi Newman          
Mrs Anne Shisler 
Associate Member:
            Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum 
In attendance: 
 Mr Simon Appleman (Deputy Headteacher) 
Dr Alan Fox   

Apologies were received from Rabbi Daniel Epstein and Mr Mark Hurst.  

  There were none 
The minutes of the meeting held on 21st January 2019 were confirmed.  
 item 5.1 - PFI – it was reported that Mr Cooper had attended a meeting with the 
contractor in place of Mr Davis which became very detailed. There would be a 
further meeting, now arranged for 9th April, at which Mr Davies would be 
accompanied by Mr Appleman. 

The Chairman said that a primary school had recently been downgraded by 
OFSTED from "Outstanding" to "Inadequate". She noted that this was despite the 
recording of above-average attainment by pupils, a rating of good in all categories 
in all but leadership and management and moreover that the pupils felt safe and 
behaved well. 
This should provide a reminder that JFS could be inspected at any time between 
now and November 2020 and that a poor result in any single aspect of an 
inspection could lead to downgrading, notwithstanding excel ent achievements 
Mrs Fink introduced her Spring Term report under a number of headings. 
At the time of the meeting, 271 places for entry to Year 7 in September 2019 had 
been taken up and a further 29 places would be offered very shortly. At the 
moment there were 70 on the waiting list, although these might well be on waiting 
lists for other schools as well.   
Efforts to improve attendance were continuing. A new attendance policy had 
been drafted and an "end of year" projected attendance for individual students 
was being implemented. Initiatives were also being introduced to improve Sixth 
Form attendance, which had always been a particular problem. One problem was 
the support given by parents to absence prior to the public examinations.  
Governor Training  
Governors suggested that there were a significant number of gaps in the records 
entered into the table provided by Mr Lake. It was agreed that the establishment 
of an accurate database should enable the identification of any significant gaps 
and the way to fil  them. It was agreed that the Headteacher would recirculate the 
table and invite governors to correct errors.  
The Headteacher said that it was important that new governors should have a 
proper induction and that all governors should have up-to-date safeguarding 
training. There were many excel ent training courses available both in-house and 
available online and also provided by Brent. It was noted that, not only was 
training important in its own right, but OFSTED inspectors would certainly be 
examining whether the Governing Body had sufficient expertise in key topics to 
act as a critical friend. 
The GB requested that the Clerk should resume responsibility, previously 
transferred to the Headteacher, for ensuring that all new governors received a 
basic pack of key documents and met key personnel as early as possible. 

School Day Timings   
A number of possible adjustments in the School day had been discussed in some 
detail at the last CSWAB Committee meeting and were stil  under discussion by 
the SLT. In making such a change there were a number of considerations to bear 
in mind, including: 
•  the provision of opportunity to incorporate incremental coaching for all 
teachers, part of the strategy to enable rapid improvement in teaching 
and learning;  
•  the impact on punctuality to class of 5 minute changeovers;  
•  the impact of 60 minute lessons on student focus and behaviour (noting 
that there were fewer behavioural issues during winter months when 
lessons were only 45 minutes long); 
•  increasing numbers of students with ADD/ADHD; 
•  the potential benefits of an afternoon registration including the provision 
of additional pastoral support and mincha opportunities in the lower 
Although there was as yet no SLT final consensus, there was focus on an early 
finish at 3.00 pm on Wednesdays with all students dismissed no later than 
3.15pm. This would be achieved by reducing tutor time by 10 minutes, reducing 
lunchtime by 10 minutes and reducing Period 4 and Period 5 each by 5 minutes. 
This would then provide the time between 3.15 and 4.15 pm for staff incremental 
coaching to be introduced. In addition, maintenance of the Friday winter timetable 
for the entire school year would enable additional CPD for staff during the 
summer term. 
Although there was no formal requirement, there should be consultation with both 
staff and parents about major changes of this kind, which might well not be 
attractive to many parents. In explaining what was intended the educational 
benefits would have to be carefully explained. To ameliorate any problems that 
an early finish might cause for some parents, a homework club could be 
organised and it would be necessary to arrange for late buses.  
In further discussion, it was confirmed that the loss in actual learning time would 
be only 10 minutes per week. Staff would not be going home early on the weeks 
when they were not coaching or being coached, but would be expected to use the 
time to improve their subject knowledge. Fifteen staff coaches were being trained 
for the new role, for which each would have a timetable allocation equivalent to 
one teaching period for fortnight. The notional resource penalty across the board 
would be half a teacher per annum. It was anticipated that OFSTED would be 
very happy with the incremental staff development proposals, replacing the 
current inspection philosopy. 
The GB gave its approval in principle on the changes in Wednesday timetables to 
come into effect in September, subject to the outcome of the planned consultation. 
However, the GB did not accept at this time the additional proposal to maintain 
the Friday winter timetable across the entire school year (which would provide 
additional time for staff continuing professional development). 

New Israel Residential Scheme  
  The Headteacher reported the that the recent tender had secured a new Israel 
Residential Programme for Year 9 JFS students, hosted by the Alexander Muss 
High School in Israel (AMHSI). Due diligence had been undertaken and a risk 
assessment made. Rabbi Epstein had informed the Office of the Chief Rabbi of 
the changes to the programme. 
In response to questions from governors and in further discussion the following 
points were made: 
  •  Mr Goldmeier was satisfied with the financial status of the new contractor; 
residual questions relating to cover had been put to the insurers. 
  •  AMHSI was working closely with the School on safeguarding and Mr 
Raynn Bruce would give training to its entire staff. 
  •  The Dean of Secular Studies at AMHSI would be visiting JFS shortly for 
the launch and would spend two days with staff discussing the curriculum 
content to be covered during this scheme. In addition, during the visit 
Charlotte Benjamin as the lead safeguarding governor would be speaking 
to the Dean about appropriate procedures. Mrs Ann Shisler was not 
available at that time. 
  •  Consideration was stil being given to enhancements to the Jewish Studies 
curriculum to take greater advantage than previously of living in Israel to 
enhance education in Judaism and Ivrit. Support was being arranged from 
Tribe educators who now live in Israel both in terms of Jewish Studies 
delivery and “in-house” Shabbatot programming. In addition, hosted 
Shabbatot would be arranged in specific communities. 
  •  Together with a bespoke brochure, a video had been made to enhance the 
launch of the new programme in the following week. There would be a 
concentration in the application process on the reasons why pupils wished 
to participate and what they expected to get out of it. 
Other Matters 
In response to further questions from governors about the Headteacher’s Report, 
the following points were made: 
•  The only BTEC course that had really taken off at JFS so far had been 
Business Studies at KS4, but staff were attempting now to establish 
which Year 9 pupils might be better suited to follow and would benefit 
more from a BTEC rather than a more academic GCSE course.  
•  To make BTEC's more attractive required a cultural shift to overcome the 
obstacle of parents who were unrealistic about their children's capabilities. 
Funding would be needed for additional help to deal effectively with 
pupils with significant behavioural issues and those with other needs not 

sufficiently acute to attract LA additional funding. The Headteacher 
estimated that to start on a small scale with, say, two more teachers 
would cost annual y up to £80,000. This might be a suitable project for 
focussed alumni fundraising. 
  •  A review of the English Department by Mr Appleman had just been 
completed. There were some areas where improvements could be 
introduced and a time bound action plan was being implemented and 
reviewed weekly. 
  •  Attracting sufficient attendance for the morning service remained a 
problem that would be exacerbated when the Year 13 study leave started. 
The principal purpose was to provide a religious morning prayer 
experience for pupils and consideration of how to make it more attractive 
and serve as an additional educational experience was required. It might 
be that the service should start a little later and be made shorter in length. 
BUDGET 2019/20 
Mr Cooper summarised the principal features of the draft Budget for 2018/19, as 
recommended by the Finance & Premises Committee (and circulated as a final 
revise version earlier in the day). It was supported by an explanatory PowerPoint 
presentation provided in advance. 
The Chairman drew attention to the critical role in fil ing the annual gap between 
income and expenditure in the School Budget played by donations from the 
Development Charitable Trust. The Trustees had not felt able to accede to the 
original request for 2019/20 because of their concern about the level of income 
they could derive from Parental Voluntary Contributions (PVC) and some were 
concerned that increasing the rate per pupil might result in lower total income. 
However, it had been agreed that, after being frozen for two years, if a final 
assessment in June indicated that this was necessary, the level of contribution 
requested per pupil could rise by £10 per month. 
PVC collection efforts had been hampered by GDPR restrictions, but the 
additional resources and the improvements in methodology now being applied 
gave some confidence that sufficient funds would be raised in this way. 
In discussion of other fundraising, concern was expressed that despite months of 
discussion little firm progress was being made on the ground. It was noted that 
the Headteacher was drafting a Vision document outlining the key areas in which 
the school wished to advance and which would be used as the basis of a 
fundraising programme. As reported to the previous GB meeting, a parent had 
undertaken a pro bono scoping study, but a decision remained to be taken 
whether to proceed with a paid contract. To ensure that matters moved forward at 
a reasonable pace, it would be important also to identify and during the course of 
the Summer Term meet with a group of people, both parents and others, who 
wished to support the school materially.  
Before employing a fundraising consultant, Mr Moss preferred first to take matters 
further himself and it was agreed that he, Mrs Alberga and Mr Green would meet 

the Headteacher to flesh out a more detailed plan and report back with their 
recommendations to the next GB meeting.  
The GB approved the Budget for 2019/20 as recommended by the Finance & 
Premises Committee and the Chairman offered the thanks of governors to all 
those responsible for the work leading to this successful conclusion 
The GB approved the terms of the draft Safeguarding Policy, updated as it had 
requested with an addition covering 1440 staff in Section 13. 
The GB took note of the following reports by Link Governors: 
Attendance & Behaviour  
David Davis    
Careers Education  
Julia Alberga   
Rabbi Zarum   
Governor Training  
James Lake   
Leadership & Management     
Geraldine Fainer   
Jewish Studies and Life  
Rabbi Zarum 
Pupil Premium and Year 7    
  & Catch Up Funding  
Julia Alberga 
Mark Hurst   
Charlotte Benjamin   
Anne Shisler   
Student Outcomes 
   & Effectiveness 16-19  
John Cooper   
SMSC & British Values  
Michael Goldmeier 
Wellbeing and Mental Health   
Naomi Newman     
The GB noted that the following reports were not yet available and requested 
that they should be circulated by the end of the current term. 
Teaching Learning & Assessment Caroline Bunder 
Caroline Bunder 
Andrew Moss  
Health & Safety  
Andrew Moss  
The GB further noted that some link roles did not conveniently coincide with 
membership of the most relevant Committee and invited Mr Moss to make 
appropriate recommendations for the GB’s annual review of Committees at the 
final GB meeting of the current academic year. 

DATES FOR 2019/20 
The GB approved the proposed meeting dates for the Governing Body and its 
Committees as recommended by Mr Appleman. Any governor who, on reflection, 
perceived a potential problem was invited to advise Mr Appleman before the end 
of this term. 

12. 1  Award - The GB offered its congratulations to the School on the award by 
the Schools, Students & Teachers Network of its Framework for Exceptional 
Education kitemark.  
Thanks – Mrs Newman asked that thanks should be recorded to 
 Anna McDonald, who was responsible for staff wellbeing. 
Signed: ______________________________     Dated: _______________ 


  Rabbi Dr Raphael Zarum 
   Dr Charlotte Benjamin 
Rabbi Daniel Epstein 
   Mrs Rachel Fink   
Mrs Naomi Newman 
In Attendance: 
Mr Daniel Marcus (Deputy Headteacher Jewish Life & Learning) 

Dr Alan Fox 

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs Julian Alberga. 

The Chairman explained that two years earlier the GB had abolished the Committee 
dedicated to the specifically Jewish aspects of JFS and the education it provided. 
Instead it planned to give these topics added prominence by reserving a period for 
consideration at each GB meeting. This experiment had failed because, in the event, 
insufficient GB priority and time could be allocated. The GB had therefore recreated 
this Committee and, at its meeting in July, had approved the Terms of Reference 
circulated to all members. The Committee now needed to decide how it was going to 
proceed to fulfil its demanding remit. 
Mr Marcus said that he had some amendments to proposed to the Terms of 
Reference. He was asked to circulate a revised version for Committee consideration 
and, subject to any views expressed, it would subsequently be submitted to the GB 
for ratification. 
In discussion it was agreed that the functions of the committee should be: 
  •  to be a critical friend to the Jewish Studies (JS) Department 
•  to assist in ensuring that JS priorities and their consequential requirements for 
resources were understood by the GB 

•  to satisfy itself that the JS programme properly reflected the School ‘s overall 
strategic plan and support management in its fulfilment by listening to its 
concerns and providing practical assistance. 
Functioning in this way would enable the Committee to play a significant role in 
raising performance levels.  
The GB had allocated review responsibilities to the Jewish Studies Committee for 
three policies: 
Kashrut Policy - this policy was due for review in the current term and was 
under active consideration in the School. There was currently concern about more 
non-supervised food being brought onto the premises since pupils had been al owed 
to bring their own packed lunches.  
Text here has been redacted 

Exemption: Section 43  Commercial Interests 
Jewish Life & Learning Policy (incorporating Collective Worship) – this policy 
was due for Committee review in the Spring Term and it was proposed to incorporate 
the currently separate Collective Worship Policy. The School was planning to expand 
worship of some kind to achieve a much wider coverage. The first step was the 
introduction of the "Pause for Thought", a two-minute recorded piece by a member of 
staff or a member of the Sixth Form and available to be played under the auspices of 
Form Tutors in their classes. It would also appear shortly in everyone's outboxes. 
Not all Tutors were currently using this facility but the list was growing. The two 
minutes of quiet reflection on a topic was short enough for attention not to wander 
and some students were finding the presentations fascinating. In future prominent 
members of the community might be invited to join the list of presenters.  
A draft of the policy would be made available to the Committee in time for its January 
Sex & Relationships Education Policy - this policy was due for a review in 
Spring 2020 and would be carried out in conjunction with the CSWAB. 

Mr Marcus gave a presentation on current work and plans under various headings.  
Jewish Informal Education Programme (JIEP) - He said that the JIEP team, 
which previously operated semi-independently, was starting to work more closely 
with the JS Department. This was facilitated by the move of the JIEP Lounge next 
door to the JS staffroom and the creation of the combined Jewish Education 
Leadership Team (JELP). JS staff were becoming involved in social action. 
The informal lunchtime learning sessions were now attracting around 100 pupils and 
efforts were being made to increase this number. Governors suggested that more 

community rabbis and youth leaders and schlichim should be invited to participate as 
speakers and tutors. 
Staffing - Helped by external funding from various agencies with which JFS 
had good relationships, including UJIA, JNF and Tribe, staffing of JIEP was nearly 
complete. Compared with last year the JS Department was now stable and consisted 
of 19 full-time and part-time members. If anything, it was now slightly overstaffed but 
this could change rapidly. 
Lavi - The Headteacher and Operations Director would shortly be looking to 
see what alternative suppliers for the six week trip had to offer, before committing to 
another year with Lavi, which was safe and provided kibbutz life experience but did 
not provide the best education. Governors noted that there was prestige in being 
chosen by JFS and recommended that the JFS requirements should be made clear 
to alternative suppliers. There was concern to keep the cost down. 
Poland Trip - There would be greater emphasis on pre-preparation, both for 
staff and students. Six adults were being allocated to each coach of pupils. 
Curriculum Development – Mr Marcus reported that this work was making 
good progress and the Key Stage 3 curriculum should be finished by the end of the 
academic year, thus then covering Years 7 to 9. The new Year 7 cohort and its 
successors would, therefore, have a continuous year-by-year programme to look 
forward to. More funds, however, were needed for printing the course books. 
GCSE - Years 10 and 11 had achieved very good examination results and 
there was value in having external validation of this kind. However, there remained 
the problem that text was taught up to Year 9 and then abandoned. 
Hebrew Reading Programme - this had started wel  using the Koren Junior 
Siddur. However, this involved further cost and governors suggested consideration 
might be given to adding a Siddur to the list of items to be acquired by parents for 
incoming Year 7 pupils. 

British Values & PHSE - it was confirmed that these subjects were being 
brought under the auspices of the Deputy Headteacher Jewish Life & Learning, thus 
enabling the introduction of specifically Jewish attitudes into their teaching. 
Atmosphere - Governors confirmed that an enhanced Jewish ethos was 
detectable in the School. 
Signed: ______________________ 
        Date: _______________________ 

Personnel and Pay Committee 
Minutes of Meeting held on 5th March 2018 at 6:30 PM. 

Mr Paul Mil ett 
Members present:  
Mr John Cooper 
Mr Michael Goldmeier  
Mr. Richard Martyn  
Others present:  Mr. Simon Appleman  
Mr. Jamie Peston  
 Dr Alan Fox   
Apologies for Absence 
Apologies were received from Mrs Geraldine Fainer. 
Minutes of Previous Meeting 
The Committee approved the draft minutes of the meetings held on 20th November 
Matters Arising 
3.1      Item 2.2 - Assistant Headteacher appointments - written details of the recent 
appointments and confirmation of conformity with the Pay Policy had been provided 
to the Committee. 
Item 9 - Staff Discipline and Capability Policies - it was noted that the drafts 
policies together with comments by Stone King, were currently under review by Dr 
Chris Ray. 
The Headteacher reported that this term there would be a further review of 
restructuring. Initially, some members of staff had left rather than move into the new 
structure and some areas were only just reaching proper stability. The Central Office 
had just achieved full staffing for the first time. However, Mr Appleman’s overall 
impression was that generally the new arrangements introduced from the beginning 
of the academic year were settling down and staff feeling was broadly positive.  


There remained questions about role responsibilities in certain posts and Mr Peston 
was in discussion with the members of staff concerned to resolve these. 
Staff Morale 
In response to questions from members of the Committee, the Headteacher said 
that, whilst it was difficult to ascertain staff morale precisely while the restructuring 
was being completed, nevertheless, it was undoubtedly substantially better than a 
year agoAs well as the support staffthis was not the easiest time of the year for 
teaching staff who were under the strain of building up to the examination period and 
with the inevitable uncertainties introduced by a further change of Headteacher. 
However, it was clear that the previous intense staff negativity had dissipated. 
Continuing, Mr Appleman said that last year the School had lost at least a dozen 
members of staff who found the atmosphere such that they really didn't want to stay. 
It was interesting that three of these had now approached him to establish whether 
they could return. So far the only intimations given of staff intending to leave at the 
end of the academic year had been from those seeking promotion by applying for 
posts at a more senior level in other schools. Nevertheless, because of the 
continuing staff dissatisfaction, albeit at a much lower level, he anticipated that there 
would inevitably also be some morale related resignations effective at the end of the 
academic year. If there were to be a correlation between staff dissatisfaction and 
resignation, there should be fewer resignations than last year.  
As had previously been mentioned, teaching staff continued to suffer stress by too 
high an incidence of low-level student disruptive behaviour. But there also remained 
problems with the pressures caused by difficult and sometimes aggressive parents. 
In each year there seemed to be at least half a dozen students who together with 
their parents took up a disproportionate amount of staff time. 
Mr Appleman did not consider that there was anything he would wish governors to 
do on a day by day basis to improve staff morale, but it was quite right they should 
continue to seek information and monitor progress.  
Attitude surveys 
The Headteacher said that the data collection for the Student, Parental and Staff 
attitude surveys had all been completed last term. However, insufficient progress 
had been made in the analysis to draw any reportable conclusions, even of a 
headline nature. The problem was the lack of in-house capability to apply to this 
important task. 
Citing examples from other fields, members of the Committee enquired whether the 
analysis needed to be carried out in-house and whether it might be appropriate to 
seek a quotation to obtain assistance from, for example, the School’s auditors. 
Whilst acknowledging that the later the outcome was known, the less relevant it 
might be, Mr Appleman said that the exercise had always been conducted in-house 
and there was a certain amount of confidentiality to be considered in respect of 
named parents and members of staff. 


The Committee requested that a report on progress should be given to the 
Governing Body at its meeting later in the month including a firm timetable for 
completion. A final report would have to be available for the June meeting of the 
Governing Body but should be circulated in advance as soon as it was ready. 
School Improvement Plan (SIP) 
The Headteacher confirmed that the results of the attitude surveys would be one of 
several inputs considered during the preparation of the SIP. The Plan’s priorities 
were also heavily influenced by the outcome of consultations with middle level 
management and the SLT, who would be aware of governors’ views expressed 
during the year at the meetings of the GB and its Committees. He expected also that 
the next iteration would be heavily influenced by the views of Mrs Fink when she 
The Committee noted that it was planned for a presentation on the SIP to be given to 
the GB in the Autumn Term but requested that a senior member or members of the 
GB should also have the opportunity of sitting in on discussions at a late stage in its 
Science Technicians 
The Committee considered an email from a member of staff. 
Text here has been redacted 
Exemption: Section 40  Personal Data 
Pay Policy and the Performance Management Policy 
The Committee noted that the review of the two policies scheduled for this meeting 
and for subsequent consideration by the GB at the end of the month had been 
postponed pending advice from Dr Chris Ray. 
Performance Related Pay 
The Committee noted that, in accordance with the system for non-Teaching Staff 
approved by the Committee in June 2016, the first performance review against 
previously agreed indicators and targets intended to lead to individual pay 
recommendations would take place in September. A summary of the outcome would 
be reported to the Committee in due course.  
The Chairman asked for a private briefing on the process of performance related 
reviews for both teaching and non-teaching staff in schools in the intervening period. 
10.  Staffing and Recruitment 


The Headteacher explained that the recruitment log circulated to members 
represented a snapshot on the day it was produced and since then there had been a 
number of changes. In particular, an additional mathematics teacher had been 
recruited for September and there had been several applications for a further post. It 
looked as if Ivrit would also be better staffed in September and although there were 
stresses in various departments he was generally optimistic about staffing in 
The major problem area remained the English Department, which was currently 
being kept afloat by agency staff. This was largely the legacy of last year's events 
and Mr Appleman believed that new recruitment and the return of staff on maternity 
leave was gradually stabilizing the position. 
11.  Succession Planning  
The Headteacher confirmed that efforts were made regularly to identify probable 
future medium and senior leadership needs and to update succession plans.  
12.  Any Other Business 

There was none. 
Signed: _______________________   
Date: ______________ 


Personnel and Pay Committee 
Minutes of meeting held on 4th July 2018 at 6:30 PM. 
Members present:  
Mr. Paul Millett - Chairperson 
Mrs. Geraldine Fainer (GF) 
Mr. Michael Goldmeier (MG) 
Mr. Richard Martyn (RM) 
Mr. John Cooper (JC) 
Others present:  Mrs. Rachel Fink (RF) 
Mr. Simon Appleman (SA) 
1. Apologies for absence 
2.  Previous minutes 
3.  Matters arising not otherwise on the agenda 
3.1 Item 4 Restructuring Update 
SA reported that things are settling down. He has met with any colleagues who 
still had concerns and has worked towards removing or reducing those concerns 
where ever possible. There is a sense now of moving forward. 
Q- Update on the finance department? 
A – The team is now at full strength with two new junior appointments made and 
the department is running more effectively. 
Text here has been redacted 

Exemption: Section 40  Personal Data 

3.2 Item 5 - Staff morale – this was dealt with under item 4.3 below. 

3.3 Item 6 – Surveys 
The number analysis has been completed but SA said he is aware changes have 
occurred since the information was collected and therefore the validity of the 
findings will have reduced. The information can still be used for benchmarking. 
In terms of future surveys, there is an annual survey of students, parents and 
staff. RF said she wants the school to work towards a mental health kite mark 
which includes an audit and there may be significant overlap in survey questions 
so it may be possible to use the data collected for both purposes. 
Action agreed: RF to compare the school survey with the MH audit and see if 
there is sufficient overlap to provide data for benchmarking. 
3.4 Item 9 Performance related pay  
Action agreed: PM to meet with Jamie Peston to understand how performance 
related pay works.  
4.  Staffing 
4.1 Turnover and recruitment – RF 

A number of staff leaving are people who have come to the end of 1-year fixed 
term contracts. Two staff members are moving to the School’s Direct programme, 
a few staff are retiring, there have been a couple of promotions, some staff are 
not returning from maternity leave and only one staff member is moving to a new 
school. Looking at the reasons staff are leaving can be helpful in gauging how 
settled the staff group is. There is more movement among non-teaching staff and 
there is a risk that the pastoral team may not be fully staffed by September. They 
are only being given 1-year contracts because there is going to be a review of 
pastoral care next year, so flexibility is needed if changes are going to be made.  
Yesterday there was an induction day for new staff. 
Q- What is happening in the English department, there appears to be ongoing 

A – The English department will be fully staffed with permanent staff next term. 
The school feels the new staff being recruited t will be a good fit for the 
Q- On the school website you invite applications to a staffing ‘pool’. Do you get 
many applications? 

A.  Just a few. 
Q- How is the SLT recruitment going? 
A – There is one deputy head post to be recruited to and its unlikely anyone will 
start before January 2019. There isn’t time currently to hold interviews so they will 
be held in Sept/Oct 2018.  
Q – How are numbers compared to previous years? 
A – Short term contracts accounted for a lot of movement last year. There were 
34 staff changes last year and 14 so far this year. 
Q – Has anyone requested a governor attend their exit interview this year?  
A – No. Last year there were exceptional circumstances however if it was 
requested it would be considered. RF said that she is going to offer to complete 
the exit interviews for SLT members who are leaving because she is new and can 
be considered as more independent as she has not worked with them. 
Action agreed: RF to send PM a copy of her proposed management structure 
going forward and a description of each role. 
4.2 Absence and Cover Costs – RF  
RF said she would like this to be a standing item of this committee’s agenda. She 
said it is difficult to manage as the current systems for monitoring are not very 
effective. RF showed the committee a template of a monitoring system she has 
used before which better monitors by department, how cover is used and includes 
reasons for absence. It can also be used to look at particular time periods and 
identify patterns. Better monitoring can help anticipate any difficulties and often 
reduces the need for cover. It will take a couple of years to build sufficient data to 
compare year on year. The committee welcomed this new approach. 
Q – Does the spreadsheet feed into any software? 
A – Not yet. It will be presented at every P&P committee meeting. 
Q- Is there an issue with non-medical absences?  
A – Not many people abuse the system but the cover requirements for legitimate 
reasons are still too high. RF said that currently staff don’t need to speak to a 
manager or member of SLT to report absence and this can be changed on an 
individual basis if necessary. 
Q- Is there any benchmarking material to compare with a school of similar size? 
A – The school can explore if there is. 
  4.3 Morale and wellbeing 
This item was not discussed separately but was felt it should be standing item on 
the P&P Committee agenda. 

It was agreed that SADR and GDPR will remain with the Finance and Premises 
6.   Single Central Record 
This committee agreed this item should go to the Curriculum, Student Welfare, 
Attendance and Behaviour Committee (CSWAB). 
7.  Policies (circulated prior to the meeting) 
7.1 Staff Teaching Private Lessons  
Update: Staff cannot teach current JFS students any subject privately that is offered 
as part of the school curriculum. Any other arrangements are subject to agreement 
by the Head teacher. 
Policy approved.  
7.2 Staff Bringing Own Children into School 
Update: Permission required from the Head Teacher. 
Policy approved. 
7.3 Long Service Award 
Update: Long service award to be given after 20 years rather than 25 years as its 
very unusual to hit 20 years and rare to make it to 25 years. The award is £500 and 
a certificate. It is to mark 20 years at JFS rather than 20 years in state education. 
Policy Approved. 
7.4 Eye Care 
Update: The amounts towards the cost of glasses for DSE use remain the same. 
Policy approved. 
7.5 Pay 
It was noted that there are discrepancies between the Pay Policy and the Terms of 
Reference in relation to who completes the appraisals and sets pay for the Head 
Teacher and the Deputy Heads. One says the Chair and Vice Chair of governors, 
the other says the P&P Committee. Historically an external reviewer provided by 
Brent acted as a mediator for the Head teacher’s appraisal but Brent is no longer 
offering this service. It was felt that point 3.1.3 of the Pay Policy provided the 
discretion within the P&P Committee to decide who carries out the appraisals and 
pay review. The following actions were agreed: 
  •  The committee to include a statement to say that the Chair and Vice Chair of 
Governors and an external reviewer will carry out the Head Teacher’s 
appraisal. The Head Teacher can delegate the appraisals for the Assistant 
Head Teachers to a Deputy Head Teacher and the Head Teacher will sign it 
•  The 5th bullet point of the TOR– remove and change with the 7th bullet point to 
say ‘including annual objectives, headteacher does it on behalf of governing 

•  Points 5.1 and 5.2 of the TOR and points 3.1.1, 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 of the Pay 
Policy to be aligned. 
The Pay Policy was approved subject the changes outlined above. 
Q- Who decides the Head Teacher’s pay review? 
 A – Whoever completes the appraisal will look at how the objectives have been 
met and then make a recommendation to the P&P Committee for sign off.  
Q – How will objectives for the Head Teacher be set? 
A – As it’s a new appointment the job specification will probably be used as the 
basis for objectives. There will need to be an external person involved to devise 
objectives with the Head Teacher and the governors involved. In 
October/November the objectives will be brought to the P&P Committee for 
comment. There will also be a mid-term appraisal. 
Q -Who sets pay for the Deputy and Assistant Head Teachers?  
A – The Head Teacher signs off the appraisal and makes the pay review 
recommendation and it is signed off by the P&P committee (Pay Policy p3 3.2.3). 
Q – Is there anything in the Pay policy about termination payments ? 
A – There is no policy on this. There are sometimes settlement packages at the 
discretion of the Head Teacher but this is not referred to in the policy. 
Q- Are retention payments reducing? 
A – The retention payments are reviewed each year with performance 
7.6 Performance management policy 
Update: The most significant change is the acknowledgement of non-teaching 
staff in the policy. Some more language needs to be updated with references to 
‘teachers’ to be changed to ‘staff’. These changes will also be made to the TOR. It 
was agreed these changes do not need to come back to the committee. 
Other changes agreed: 
  •  Remove point 5.2 as it duplicates 5.1 
•  Amend policy to reflect that the governing body delegate the setting of 
objectives to the Chair and Vice Chair of Governors and the external link 
Both the Performance Management Policy and Pay Policy have been taken to the 
Unions for consultation and there were no comments. 
The Performance Management policy was approved subject to the changes 
outlined above. 
Q – Is the policy being applied thoroughly and consistently? 
A – Generally performance management is done well across the school but there 
is more work to do on quality assurance of performance management. The 
challenge for next year is how performance management works for non-teaching 
staff. The school will also be doing quality assurance on objective setting. JFS 

uses software called Blue Sky which is an online tool for recording lesson 
observations, applying for CPD and setting objectives. It can also be used for non-
teaching staff. RF said the software can be used better, alongside training in 
completing appraisals and reviews, to improve practice. Anna Joseph will be 
driving forward the work with Blue Sky. 
Q- Who can input information and who can see data on Blue Sky? 
A – Senior management and line managers can see information relating to staff 
they manage and managers and staff can input information. It is a useful source 
of data to demonstrate to Ofsted effective performance management. It can also 
provide evidence for pay increase decisions providing more accountability. 
7.7 Staff leave of absence 
7.8 Absence management 
Update: RF said the current policies are very complex and lack clarity about the 
circumstances when time off will be allowed and whether it will be paid or unpaid 
leave. RF circulated an alternative policy proforma which the committee in 
principle agreed would provide this clarity and greater transparency and equality. 
If it is adopted it will not need to be consulted on but out of courtesy it would be 
sent to the Unions for comment. 
Action agreed:
 RF to revise the policies and bring them back to the P&P 
Committee for approval. 
7.9 Capability, Discipline and Health and Attendance Policies 
It was noted that these policies are still being redrafted and will be considered at 
the next committee meeting. 
8Purpose and function of committee 
Action agreed: To include Turnover and Recruitment, Absence and Cover Costs 
and Morale and Wellbeing as standing items for future meetings.  
9. AOB 
9.1 Update on change of dress code for 6th Form students  
RF said there have been some complaints but the code has been generally 
accepted. Parents who raised concerns have been responded to. 
Signed: _____________________________ 
Date: ______________ 

Personnel and Pay Committee 
Minutes of meeting held on 26th November 2018 at 6:30 PM. 
Members present: Mr. Michael Goldmeier (MG) acting Chairman 
Mr. Richard Martyn (RM) 
Others present:  
Mrs. Rachel Fink (RF) 
Mr. Simon Appleman (SA) 
Mr. Jamie Peston (JP) 
Ms. Caroline Bunder (CB) Observer. 
1.  Apologies for Absence 
Apologies were received from John Cooper (JC) and Geraldine Fainer (GF). 
It was noted that the meeting was not quorate and agreed that all decisions 
reached would be considered by GF and JC, who would be invited to ratify them. 
2.  Previous minutes 4th July 2018 
The minutes were approved subject to a redaction in section 3.1 ‘Matters arising 
not otherwise on the agenda – Item 4 Restructure update’. 
Action agreed: Clerk to make amendments to minutes and submit changes to 
3. Matters arising not otherwise on the agenda 
a.  Item 3.4 Performance Related Pay Meeting  
This item is no longer relevant so was not discussed. 
b.  Item 4.1 Proposed Management Structure – on agenda 
RF explained the new structure. There are now 3 deputy heads (one joining in 
January 2019), 5 assistant heads and 3 associate leads. The associate leads 
programme is for one year to help develop staff by managing a project and 
taking on extra management responsibility. 


Q- Is the TLR guaranteed? 
A – No TLR 3 is on a temporary basis that needs to be reviewed annually and 
staff are aware of this.  
Q – At previous meetings there was an expectation that the number of 
Recruitment & Retention (R&R)  payments would reduce and end. Has there 
been any savings made? Expecting number of R&Rs to end – saving being 
A – No additional savings because the reduction has already been included in 
the budget. There are stil  some R&Rs but they have been used correctly to 
recruit to hard to recruit posts. 
4. Committee Membership 
There was agreement that the membership of the committee needs to be 
increased and three governors is not sufficient to cover the workload and ensure 
meetings are always quorate. 
Action agreed: A recommendation wil  be made by GF to the FGB that 
membership of the Committee should be increased. 
Q – Should a parent governor be present for discussions about staff pay, terms 
and conditions and if any individual staff circumstances are discussed? 
A – [from AF Clerk to Governors following the meeting] - There is no reason why a 
parent governor should not participate in discussions about staff pay, terms and 
conditions or if any individual staff circumstances discussed, unless there is a 
potential conflict of interest that differentiates that governor from other members of 
the Committee. 
5. Staffing  
5.1 Turnover and recruitment 
There were 26 new starters in September and the school is now fully staffed. 
There were no resignations this term. The new deputy head wil  start in January 
2019. There are 14 fixed term contracts and recruitment to those posts for 
September 2019 wil  begin in January. There are some on fixed term contracts 
who may be recruited to permanent roles. RF said that they are looking at a 
positive recruitment strategy to attract the best teachers and looking at making 
links with the Institute to find the best graduates. The recruitment section of the 
website is also going to be improved. The committee commended the school for 
taking the initiative and being proactive in recruiting the best candidates. 
5.2 Absence and Cover Costs – paper presented by JP. 
RF suggested this should be a standing agenda item going forward. JP wil  be 
reviewing the processes managing absence and arranging cover to make them 
more efficient and streamlined. Cover costs have come down but there needs to 


be a more robust analysis of the need for cover by department and focus on 
improving the quality of cover provided. In order to agree absence for training for 
example, managers need to be aware of the options for cover and who else in the 
department may be available, before making decisions rather than after. Last year 
there were two members of staff as cover supervisors. This year, this system has 
been changed with five staff members with 50% of their timetable free in order to 
be able to cover classes, which is the equivalent of 4¼ staff. This also means 
internal permanent JFS staff provide cover with knowledge of the school 
processes. There is stil  some emergency external day cover used especially for 
medium term absence so that a subject specialist cover teacher can be sourced. 
The budget is broadly on target. The more significant overspend is in relation to 
administrative/clerical staff as there are a couple of staff on maternity leave with 
long term agency cover in place. 
Q – How do you allocate cover to permanent staff and do you do it by specialism? 
A – A regular class teacher is timetabled for 42 out of 50 lessons. If for any reason 
they have a reduced number then those hours are used to provide cover by 
specialism if possible.  
Q- Can you say how many cover staff on average are in school per week? 
A – It depends if there are trips going on, then maybe 2-3, on other days possible 
no external emergency cover as we have up to 8 staff available internally to 
provide cover.  
Q- So it’s a very small number? 
A – Yes but it doesn’t mean that each student has same experience each week or 
term. The school needs to be able to track and anticipate gaps before agreeing 
leave/ timing of trips/training. 
Q – What cover is arranged if a teacher calls in sick? 
A – If it’s likely to be just a day internal cover wil  be used. If we know it is for a 
week, we would set up specialist external cover.  
Q – If staff absences are reduced, what would you do with spare capacity? 
A – Teachers can then do their own work in the spare time if no cover is required. 
5.3 Morale and wellbeing – Paper presented by RF 
The staff survey has been completed and al  responses related to staff morale 
have been included. There has been a good response which shows that staff 
have things to say and all comments were positive. Morale in the school is much 
improved and there were lovely comments about staff feeling proud to work at 
JFS, that the gap between SLT and the rest of the staff has narrowed and it feels 
like there has been a significant buy in to the new direction of the school. Issues 
raised are those raised in all schools whilst previous concerns had been specific 
to JFS at the time in the last couple of years. The Committee thanked the School 
for completing the surveys and getting the results out so quickly. 


Q – Is this the normal time to do this survey? 
A – Yes usually in November. 
Q – One of the contributory factors to the national crisis in teaching has been 
reported as issues of ‘overload’. What can school do to counter this? 
A – RF acknowledged this is an issue. JFS Staff are now working more lessons 
that were used to so when the changes came in many experienced overload. 
However, the number of lessons and size of classes is on a par with secondary 
schools national y. Locally the school need to manage this change.  Daniel 
Marcus is going to be doing a focus group with a range of staff from new less 
experienced staff to some who have been with JFS a long time to discuss morale.  
Common issues that come up relate to workload, pressures of work, pressures of 
marking, parents and student behaviour. They wil  see if there are reasonable 
adjustments that can be made to address some of these issues but there may be 
cost implications.  If retention improves and the costs of recruitment come down 
some of the savings could be directed towards improving conditions and that may 
also have a positive impact on retention. There is now a staff wellbeing group 
looking at a number of issues and support has been set up for example for yoga 
and mindfulness after school. Naomi Newman is the link governor for Well-being 
and she is completing a report reviewing ideas to identify which wil  have the 
greatest impact.  
Professional members present left the meeting for the next item. 
6  Headteacher’s Pay review 
The process for reviewing the Headteacher’s pay was discussed. The Chair and 
Vice Chair of governors and an external advisor meet with the Headteacher to set 
the objectives for the coming year. Once the objectives are set the Pay and 
Personnel Committee ratifies the reviewers’ decision but are not privy to the 
specifics of salary. The role of the committee is to satisfy itself that the process 
has been followed correctly. The process outlined in the Committee’s Terms of 
Reference (TOR) does not follow current government guidance, so the following 
reformulation was recommended: 
“To consider and approve the annual objectives set with the Headteacher by the 
Chairman and a Vice-Chairman of the Governing Body and an external advisor, to 
note the outcome of the annual review by the Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and the 
external advisor of the Headteacher’s achievements against those objectives and, 
subject to satisfying themselves as to the integrity of the process, to ratify the 
reviewers’ decision on the Headteacher’s pay and other terms and conditions of 
employment with effect from 1st September each year (to be completed by 1st 
January) .” 
Action agreed: With the approval of the GB, the Clerk to update the ToR to 
reflect the change outlined above. 
7  Staff Pay Review 


There was a discussion on the role of the Committee in relation to staff pay review 
as outlined in the ToR. The Committee interpreted this to mean that is role is to 
satisfy itself that reviewing of staff pay and terms of condition of employment is 
completed in line with the guidelines and it is not for the Committee to become 
involved in the detail of the Headteacher’s recommendations on these issues. 
RF confirmed that the correct process has been followed to review staff pay and 
terms and conditions of employment and all the bullet points in the Pay 
Progression paper had been held in mind during the process. 
JP presented the Pay Progression paper. Every line manager undertakes a 
performance review with staff and checks that objectives set in the appraisals 
have been met before they recommend a pay increment. Generally, staff go up an 
increment each year until they reach the top of their scale unless there is a 
recommendation not to. Those on the UPS (upper pay scale) may take two years 
to move up increments. There is also a review of staff on UPS 3 to check they 
have made a broader contribution to the school which is required at that pay 
scale. The deputy heads then review all the recommendations and submit them to 
the Head teacher for approval. The school is using an online system called Blue 
Sky which helps evidence a robust appraisal system for Ofsted. 
  Decision: The committee noted the pay progression report and further 
explanations provided by the Headteacher and approved staff pay review for 
September 2018. 
8  Policies 
 8.1  Work place harassment policy 
This is a standard policy that just needs amending to reflect the JFS context. 

- Where do you go to make a resolution? 
-It starts with an informal resolution with the line manager. If this is not possible 
the person can go to a member of SLT or the Head teacher and if this is not 
possible, they can go to the Chairman of Governors.  
   8.2 Staff equal opportunities and diversity policy  
This policy covers ensuring equal opportunity and avoiding discrimination and 
routes to address issues if they arise. It covers the responsibilities of staff, SLT 
and the governing body. A 3-year review period is recommended with next review 
being in Autumn 2021.  
 These two policies are non-statutory. They have not been checked by Stone King 
but have been checked against standard model policies. 
 Decision: Both policies were approved by the Committee.  


8.3  Grievance policy  
This is based on a model policy and has been seen and commented on by Chris 
Ray and Stone King. SA said he is happy to accept the Stone King 
recommendations and has a couple of questions for the Committee regarding 
some of Chris Ray’s comments.   
- 2.1 of draft policy - Issues that could cause a grievance by way of ‘oppressive or 
insulting behaviour by line mangers or senior leaders’ is covered by other bullet 
points so is not necessary. This change was approved by the Committee. 
- 2.2 ‘The procedure shall not apply to grievances relating to: a matter that is the 
subject of a collective agreement ‘unless the approach to that matter is applied in 
an inconsistent manner’. It was proposed and accepted that the second clause be 
-  2. 19 ‘If an employee raises a grievance during a disciplinary or capability 
process, a decision wil  be taken in consultation with the person raising the 
grievance as to whether it is appropriate to run both processes concurrently 
particularly where the cases are related’.  
  The committee agreed the following form or words as a replacement: ‘…taking 
into account the views of the person raising the grievance’. 
-  4.11 The following form of words was accepted by the Committee - ‘designate a 
Governor or an adviser or independent person acting on behalf of the governors 
to investigate’. 
  This policy is to be reviewed every 3 years. 
  Decision: all the recommended amendments were accepted by the Committee 
and the policy was approved subject to those amendments.  
  8.4 Staff Capability Policy 
Capability is to do with competency and performance not conduct. The original 
policy was from Stone King. It clearly lays out the 3 stages of the capability 
process, starting with informal evidence gathering through to the formal process. It 
explains the process, timeframes and documentation required. It needs the 
removal of the term ‘executive head teacher’. 
  8.5 Staff Discipline Policy 
Historically staff discipline and capability were dealt with in one policy but the 
school has been advised to create two separate policies. It has been reviewed 
and approved by Stone King. It provides a step by step guide to the process and 
defines the purpose, scope and principles in the policy and when it applies. It 


includes a number of appendices giving examples of different types of 
8.6 Health and Attendance Policy / Absence management policy 
This policy has been superseded by Absence Management policy which has been 
approved at FGB.  
The Staff capability and Staff discipline policies wil  need to go through a 
consultation process and there wil  be a meeting tomorrow to start the process.  
Decision: The Committee approved all three policies to go forward for 
Action agreed: SA to bring the policies back to the committee following the 
consultation. The deadline for consultation is 17th December so this wil  be 
concluded early in the new calendar year. 
8 . AOB 
Date of next meeting:  Monday 4th March 2019 at 6.30pm.  
Signed: ___________________________   
Date: ______________. 


Appendix 1  Committee Meeting Action Table 
Committee Meeting Action Summary Table 
Committee: Pay and Personnel Committee 
Meeting date: 26th November 2018 
Agenda Item 
By whom 
4. Committee 
To recommend to FGB 
that membership of the 
P&P committee should be 
6. Headteacher’s pay  To up date the committee  AF 
TOR to reflect the changes 
recommended by the 
8.3 Staff Capability 
Policies to be sent to the 
committee for review 
8.4 Staff Discipline 
following any changes 
made after the 
Minutes Finalised?    Yes 
Date minutes sent for filing:  


Personnel and Pay Committee 
Minutes of Meeting held on 4th March 2019 at 6:30 PM. 
  Mr Richard Martyn Chairman 
Members present: 
  Ms Caroline Bunder  
  Mr John Cooper  
  Ms Geraldine Fainer  
  Mrs Rachel Fink  
  Mr Michael Goldmeier 
In attendance: 

  Mr. Simon Appleman  
  Dr Alan Fox 
1.     Apologies for Absence 
There were none. 
2.      Committee Membership  

The Committee welcomed Ms Caroline Bunder, recently appointed as a member. 
The Committee also noted that at its meeting on 17th December the Governing Body 
had appointed Mr Richard Martyn as the Chairman of the Committee. 

Terms of Reference 
The Committee noted that at its meeting on 17th December the Governing Body had 
approved amended ToR for the Committee as recommended 

Minutes of Previous Meeting 
The draft minutes of the meeting held on 17th December 2018 were approved 
5.      Matters Arising Not Otherwise on Agenda 

5.1 – Item 6 – Headteacher’s Pay - it was noted that Mr Andrew Moss was a 
member of the Review Panel but not a member of the Committee and thus 
arrangements would be necessary to ensure that he could attend a meeting to 
satisfy the Committee that the approved process for settling the Headteacher’s Pay 
had been properly fol owed. It would be most convenient if Mr Moss were to become 
a member of the Committee. 


6.1 - Turnover and Recruitment 
The Headteacher gave the Committee an oral report on the latest staffing position. 
Changes had been relatively few with the arrival of the new Deputy Headteacher 
being the only change in January. Two new assistant Heads of Year had been 
recruited to enhance pastoral support capability, funding being available from the 
Pupil Premium grant. These appointments were temporary whilst the effectiveness 
was evaluated, but Mrs Fink judged that there was a clear need and anticipated 
making permanent appointments in due course. 
There were a number of resignations notified to take effect in at the end of the Spring 
Term and in the Summer Term, nearly all for reasons such as moving from the area 
or achieving promotion elsewhere. Recruitment for these positions was in progress 
and several new members of staff had been accepted to start in September.  
In response to questions from Governors, Mrs Fink said that no outcome had 
resulted from the January recruitment fair at the Institute of Education. However, the 
School had good contacts in a number of the major London Training Colleges and 
always advised them when vacancies became available. 
6.2 - Staff Absence and Cover  
The Headteacher introduced the report she had provided analysing the percentage 
absence of teachers in each department during the Autumn Term. Removing the 
distortions caused by long-term absences and double recording of the SLT, the 
average overall absence figure was 1.36%. In future terms Mrs Fink hoped to 
enhance such records and make them more meaningful by providing the numbers of 
teaching sessions lost as a result of the absences. 
The Headteacher had also provided an analysis of the absences by the reasons 
recorded. This was the first attempt at a table of this kind and Mrs Fink hoped that in 
future it would be significantly improved by a meaningful breakdown of the very large 
catchall category of "Other paid authorised absence". Teaching and non-teaching 
staff absences would be separated so that management could ascertain how much 
learning time was lost through staff absence. 
In response to questions from governors, Mrs Fink said that the absence levels 
seemed in line with those of other schools but would not want to comment further on 
the size to be expected from an organisation like JFS until data collection 
improvements had been effected. She agreed that training was an important and 
acceptable reason for absence, provided that it was managed to minimise loss of 
learning time and that to decline too many requests could lower morale. 
6.3 - Pay Allowances 
The Chairman said that it became evident some years ago that JFS expenditure on 
Recruitment and Retention allowances was higher than at most other schools and 
governors had asked for greater scrutiny of their application leading to an overall 
reduction. The report provided by the Headteacher was the first such report and 
showed that the number of allowances held had dropped to 30 and that expenditure 
in this category had dropped significantly. 


7.1 - Pay Policy  
The Committee had received the draft of an updated version of the Pay Policy. It 
noted that ideally the Policy should be given final approval in the Spring Term. 
However, because it was necessary to send an approved draft to staff for 
consultation, the next opportunity it would have for approval would be at the June 
The Committee then considered the draft in detail and agreed amendments covering 
both points of substance and issues of drafting. It authorised the Headteacher to 
open into consultation based on the amended draft with the local recognised unions. 
7.2 - Performance Measurement (Staff) Policy 
The Committee had also received the draft of an updated version of the Performance 
Measurement Policy and noted with approval the intention to change the emphasis 
from formal lesson observation to engagement in incremental coaching. 
The Committee then considered the draft in detail and agreed amendments covering 
both points of substance and issues of drafting. It authorised the Headteacher to 
open into consultation based on the amended draft with the local recognised unions. 
7.3 - Code of Conduct for all Employees  
The Committee noted that the Code of Conduct was stil  in preparation and wil  be 
available for scrutiny at the June Meeting.  
Any Other Business 
There was none. 
   Signed: ___________________________    Date: ______________. 


Appendix 1  Committee Meeting Action Table 
Committee Meeting Action Summary Table 
Committee: Pay and Personnel Committee 
Meeting date: 26th November 2018 
Agenda Item 
By whom 
4. Committee 
To recommend to FGB 
that membership of the 
P&P committee should be 
6. Headteacher’s pay  To up date the committee  AF 
TOR to reflect the changes 
recommended by the 
8.3 Staff Capability 
Policies to be sent to the 
committee for review 
8.4 Staff Discipline 
following any changes 
made after the 
Minutes Finalised?    Yes 
Date minutes sent for filing:  


Document Outline