Agenda item

To report on test and examination results for Haringey schools for 2022.

James Page, the Chief Executive of Haringey Education Partnership, provided an update on test and exam attainment.  The current data was the first nationally validated data that there had been since 2019.  There had been an overall reduction in attainment.  There were gaps in early years and primary, where there had not been any changes to grading or assessment.  In secondary schools, higher grades had been obtained but was reflective of a change in the baseline and performance had actually declined.  There had been an impact from Covid and the lost learning arising from it. 

Haringey’s relative performance had been very positive with improved standings compared to other London boroughs and nationally.  In early years, the percentage achieving Good Learning and Development had declined by 4% but the decline elsewhere had been higher and this had allowed Haringey to improve its position in the top quartile in London.  There was a similar picture in the percentage of children passing their Phonics test.  In Key Stage 1, the percentage reaching the expected standard for Reading, Writing and Maths was also down but not as much as elsewhere and this had enabled Haringey to almost reach the London average.  In Key Stage 2, the percentage reaching the expected level in Reading, Writing and Maths had only declined very slightly whilst elsewhere the decline was 5% in London and 6.5% nationally.  This had enabled Haringey to reach the London average for the very first time.  In the Attainment 8 measure of GCSE, Haringey had risen higher above the national average, which was especially welcome with the return of exam based assessment.  The borough had slipped below the average during the period when assessment was by teacher assessment.  In addition, the attainment gap for Black Caribbean and Turkish young people for GCSE had also reduced.  Finally, A Level results continued to be above the London average.  There had therefore been strong performance all the way from early years to post 16.  Top priorities for development were closing further the attainment gaps for Black Caribbean young people at GCSE, for Turkish and Kurdish young people at Key Stage 2 and for EAL students at both points.

In answer to a question regarding the comparatively low levels of attainment for applied general qualifications at Key Stage 5, Mr Page stated that this was probably due to a range of factors.  At post 16, more than half of young people went to providers who were out of borough and this was particularly true of those in the east of the borough.  There was also strong A Level provision in the west of the borough.  It was likely that it was a selection issue and that a comparatively large proportion those that remained came from the lower attaining cohort.  He would nevertheless check with the data. In answer to a question regarding the impact of Covid, he reported that HEP and the Council had worked with schools to bring them together during the pandemic.  This enabled them to focus on remote learning and share best practice, as well as maintain a focus on school improvement.  In addition, schools had been inclusive and had provided tutoring and support.  Support had been provided to them on a range of issues by HEP. 

The Panel noted that there had been an influx of children with EAL and, at the moment, many were struggling to make progress and asked about the support that was provided for them.  Mr Page stated that there were a number of things in place but acknowledged that more needed to be done to enable them to achieve as much as elsewhere.  Schools had been working with providers such as the Flash Academy, who assisted them with teaching and learning support and a lot of good work was done on vocabulary at Key Stage 2.  Work was being taking place to support schools to further develop parental involvement and, in particular, build a better understanding of different communities.  Consideration was being given to how support could be improved further though although it was not always easy to determine what would make a difference.

In answer to a question, Mr Page stated that the different communities that came under the “other white” category were separately tracked.  However, the DfE set the overall categories and these were not necessarily those that would be chosen locally.  The performance of traveller groups was tracked but the numbers of them were very small, as was the case nationally. He was not aware of any specific work that schools were undertaking with them, other than general inclusion work.   Data was kept on the performance of children from eastern European countries.  There were a range of outcomes but Bulgarians were not performing as well as other groups.    It was important to note that it was not possible to dictate to schools how they addressed these issues and they had developed their own systems and methods. A large proportion of children with EAL were nevertheless highly proficient in English.  Support could be provided by parents in many ways.  In particular, listening to children reading was particularly effective and this did not necessarily need to be in English.

The Panel felt that there were a lot of demands on schools.  A lot of parents of children from EAL communities struggled initially and there needed to be programmes to support them, including induction.  It was important to engage and involve them.  Children from EAL communities were particularly disadvantaged if they joined schools late in the year, especially if they were required to sit formal exams.  It was felt that more could be done to provide support for parents.  It was noted that some schools had successfully employed bilingual staff who were able to speak to children and parents in their mother tongue.  However, many children were eager to speak more English at home and schools were engaging with parents regarding this.

Mr Page emphasised that many EAL children made excellent progress.  The racial equity work that had taken place between the Council and schools in the borough had contributed to an understanding of inclusive culture and the development of systems to respond to needs.