Agenda item

To receive an update on Haringey schools attainment for the 2024/25 academic year, as well as a finance update for 2024/25 in relation to Haringey schools.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on educational attainment outcomes for children and young people in Haringey in 2024-25. The Panel also received a report which provided an update on schools’ finance. The report was introduced by James Page, Chief Executive of the Haringey Education Partnership and Jane Edwards, Director of Schools and Learning, as  set out in the agenda pack at pages 11-25. Cllr Zena Brabazon, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Families was also present for this item. By way of introduction to the education attainment report, the following was noted:

• The Panel was advised that Haringey had seen improving results in education attainment and that since 2022, the borough was chasing London, rather than national averages. Attainment levels across London were much higher that almost anywhere else.
• The score for good levels of development at Early Years was 73.5%. This was the tenth highest score nationally. Phonics was at 84%, which was above the London and national average.
• At KS2, Haringey reached the London average in reading, writing and maths at 70%. This was a major improvement on past performance. 
• Significant progress had been made in closing gaps in attainment. SEND scores were high and rising in these results. Disadvantaged Turkish and Black African students came in above the Haringey average.
• The Panel were advised that one disappointing piece of data was a regression in attainment from Black Caribbean boys at KS2, after two years of improving scores. It was suggested that a significant reason for this was because of the makeup of the cohort, being 60% boys and 40% SEND it was suggested that this was an anomaly and it was expected that results would bounce back next year.
• At GCSE, London was on average half a grade higher than the national average. Haringey was in the middle of the London and national average. Disadvantaged students performed well. SEND scores were characterised as being very high.
• Haringey had the lowest exclusion rate of secondary school pupils in the whole of London. Officers emphasised that of 32 secondary exclusions last year, 25 were successfully reintegrated within the academic year.
• The Panel was advised that outcomes for Turkish/Kurdish students at KS4 got much stronger, but they were not as good in terms of early years. As part of the racial equality group, chaired by Mr Page, a Turkish/Kurdish working group had been established which was led by a school leader. The working group would be looking at specific actions to take in order to improve performance. It was suggested that part of it related to delayed language development.

The following arose in discussion of this item:

a.    The Panel sought clarification about the interaction of scores for Turkish/Kurdish and those for EAL, and that fact that EAL scores at KS4 suggested that speaking a second language wasn’t in itself a disadvantage. In response, officers advised that they did not have the figures for the percentage of EAL that were made up of Turkish/Kurdish young people. It was acknowledged that the reasons were complex and that EAL was made up of an umbrella of different communities who had different migration experiences. It was suggested that socio-economic differences and cultural differences played a significant role.

b.    The Panel sought assurances around the lower than expected attainment for Black Caribbean boys at KS2 and what was being done to bridge the gap. In response, officers set out that the general point around it being 60% boys, was that girls did better than boys in terms of educational attainment across all of the data sets. It was emphasised that this was an anomalous result and therefore it was expected to be a one-off. Attainment for this group had increased by twelve percentage points in two years and that the current score was a regression.

c.     The Panel asked about the racial equality group and how the SEND cohort was represented at steering group meetings. In response, officers advised that the steering group did used to meet more regularly, but that the group took a decision to redefine its membership around those who were leading on areas of work. This was a decision taken by the group as a whole.

d.    A co-opted member of the Panel commented that they were concerned around who was present to represent those young people and who understood how to engage with them. Concerns were made about the role played by historical trauma and that the reasoning behind tended to be based on assumptions. In response, officers set out that the inclusion and access group made sure that every school was trauma informed, to ensure that it met the needs of any part of the cohort. Officers also highlighted the impact of language that cares had in engaging with young people in a meaningful way. This had been highlighted by Ofsted. It was suggested that the challenge was how to take this into schools. The Panel was also advised that there was a black educators network in order to recruit, retain and encourage black teachers. There was also a pan-London network to racial equality that had been set up.

*Clerk’s Note: 19:03 – Cllr Mary Mason and Cllr Lotte Collett joined the meeting at this point.*

e.    In response to a question, officers advised that disadvantaged in the context of the report meant in receipt of Pupil Premium.

f.      In response to a question, officers agreed to provide  a written response around the reasons behind the attainment gap for Turkish/Kurdish young people at KS2. The Panel felt that ascribing it to having english as a second language did not fit with the scores for EAL. (Action: Jane Edwards/James Page).

g.    In response to a question about how to lower attainment gaps, it was emphasised that what was happening in the classroom in terms of the quality of teaching and learning was the key factor. It was also set out that HEP were working closely with schools with lower levels of attainment and to ensure that intervention began in early years in order to prevent the gap from widening as children progressed through the school system.

RESOLVED

Noted