Agenda item

The Panel received a report which informed Members of the education results in Haringey in the summer of 2024. The report was introduced by Jane Edwards, AD for Schools and Learning, as well as James Page, Chief Executive of Haringey Learning Partnership, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 61-80. Zena Brabazon, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Families was also present for this item. A summary of the key points put forward as part of the introduction is set out below:

• The results for the summer 2024 were characterised as being the best results in Haringey’s history. This extended all the way through early years to A-Levels
• Mr Page advised that it was important to recognise the incredible work being done by schools, with 98% of schools being rated good or outstanding. Nearly one-third of schools were rated outstanding by Ofsted.
• It was commented that this was partly a result of really close working between the local authority and HEP to provide support to schools. In many other authorities that support did not exist.
• It was suggested that the context was that the success had been achieved against a difficult backdrop, with schools recovering from Covid, and a disproportionate impact on the disadvantaged and racially minoritised. There was also a tightening financial envelope, with pupil numbers decreasing.
• At reception class level 74% of students achieved a good level of development, this was only 1% below the pre-Covid position and was ranked 8^th in England. Phonics screening test at Year One scores were at 84%, which was back to pre-Covid levels.
• At KS2, the combined score for reading, writing and maths had seen Haringey move from the bottom 5 in London to close to the London average, at 68%. SEND and Black Caribbean cohorts did particularly well in comparison to nationally.
• At GCSE level for attainment, the average grade was 4.8 with a national average of 4.6. Students made an average of one-third of grade progression above the national cohort.
• At A-Level the average points score had risen from 50^th nationally in 2019 to 13^th nationally in 2024
• Overall, there had been strong outcomes across the board for disadvantaged students and SEND pupils at all phases. There had been a big improvement at primary level for Black Caribbean students, and a more modest improvement at primary level for Turkish/Kurdish students.
• Mr Page advised that HEP was not yet where they wanted it to be and the hope was that Haringey could push on to the next level and that children in Haringey achieved as well as anywhere in the country.
• In recognition of areas where improvements were required, it was noted that outcomes for Black Caribbean pupils at secondary stood out and that this needed to be the number one focus going forward. Similarly, results for Turkish/Kurdish students in Early Years and primary also required improvement. Further focus on reading and writing at primary level was also required, as well as closing gaps for disadvantaged pupils.

The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

1. In response to a request for clarification, officers advised that the gap between disadvantaged students and other children was 11.5 points in Haringey, which was narrower than London at 13 points and the national average of 15 points.
2. The Panel sought assurances about the tangible improvements being made to improve outcomes for Black Caribbean secondary school children, given the historical under-performance in this area. In response, officers advised that the report focused on attainment and that outside of this there was work being done to address disproportionality of Black Caribbean children in exclusions. It was recognised that all parts of the system needed to be working towards closing that gap. HEP acknowledged that the low outcomes for Black Caribbean children had proven to be stubborn and difficult to make real improvements. HEP advised that they had tried a variety of interventions such as training, talking to secondary head and developing partnerships. It was acknowledged that there was more to be done in this area. 
3. The Panel sought assurances about what good looked like in terms of education results. In response, Mr Page advised that HEP would like to get to the top quartile, in outcomes where Haringey was already above the London average. In cases where Haringey was not at the London average, he would like to see Haringey get to the London average.
4. The Panel sought assurances around the intersection of underperforming cohorts and those with a disproportionate representation of SEND students. In response, officers advised that they collected the data and could cut it using multiple characteristics in order to identify trends, and that this would feed into the Early Year’s strategy. It was noted that head teachers tended to look at children at an individual level, rather than cohorts, to measure the progress of children individually.
5. In response to concerns raised around the gap in attainment scores for Turkish/Kurdish children, officers acknowledged that it was a complex problem and that there were no easy answers. Mr Page set out that that much greater than average improvements had been seen at primary and that at secondary level, improvements in Haringey were 0.25 grade points higher than the national average. It was acknowledged that whilst there was progress being made, there was definitely more to do. With schools, it was noted that there had been a lot of work done with parents, and around community engagement. There was also a conference being set up across Haringey and Enfield to look at the underlying issues.  Work had also been undertaken on the curriculum at KS2 to improve representation.
6. The Panel queried the reasons behind a drop off in performance when Caribbean children transitioned from primary to secondary. In response, Mr Page commented that this was a complex issue and he didn’t want to oversimplify it with generalisations. It was commented that the cohort who were doing well at KS2 had not gone through secondary school yet. and it was hoped that scores at GCSE would improve  for this cohort. In relation to the transition, it was acknowledged that there was something happening and it was speculated that this was likely to be related to support structures and not being know by their new teachers. Mr Page also highlighted cultural literacy and the overrepresentation of Black Caribbean children in suspensions.
7. The Panel sought clarification about whether home-schooled children sat under HEP. In response the Panel was advised that they did not, instead the Schools and Learning service was responsible for the registration and monitoring of those children that were electively home educated. In relation to exam results, the authority had no powers to collect data from parents. The service had established links with an exam centre for parents who home-schooled their children to use.
8. In response to a question, officers advised that HEP worked with all schools not just maintained schools.
9. The Panel sought clarification about differences in attainment and exclusions between maintained schools and academies. In response, the Panel was advised that in relation to attainment there was not a great deal of difference. In relation to exclusions, officers advised that the local authority was active in engaging on both good and bad practice, and that a case study had been developed from outstanding practice that had been implemented around attendance in one of the academies.
10. The Panel commended the progress that had been made around education results in recent years.

RESOLVED

Noted