Agenda item

 

To receive a comprehensive overview of Education and Inclusion performance in Rotherham for the 2024/25 academic year with highlights where outcomes are improving and where concerted action is required It frames performance through the lens of improving life chances, tackling inequalities (disadvantage, SEND and ethnicity), and strengthening inclusion across the system.

Consideration was given to the report which provided a comprehensive overview of Education and Inclusion performance in Rotherham for the 2024/25 academic year. It built on the detailed Education Performance Outcomes briefing to present the information in a format tailored and highlighted where outcomes were improving and where concerted action was required.  It framed performance through the lens of improving life chances, tackling inequalities (disadvantage, SEND and ethnicity) and strengthened inclusion across the system.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member introduced the report and highlighted how over the past year schools, early years settings and post?16 providers have been working hard to raise standards and support every child to succeed.

 

Encouraging improvements across key areas was continuing, including attainment and attendance and the progress made by most vulnerable learners was noted.

 

This report set out the challenges that remained and highlighted the focused work already underway to ensure that all learners, regardless of background or need, could thrive and reach their full potential.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member was also pleased to be attending a meeting of the Rotherham Education Partnership, where Head Teachers from across the borough would come together to share best practice and drive further improvements in attainment.

 

The Chair invited the Service Director for Education to deliver his presentation which covered:-

 

·              Overview of:-

 

•              Educational Performance.

•              Key Successes and Challenges.?

•              Focus on Inclusion and Equity.?

•              Strategic Priorities and Collaboration?.

 

·              School Landscape and Governance.

·              School and early years inspections (end of summer term 2025).

·              Strengths.

·              Areas of Focus.

·              The Next Twelve Months.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Commission and a discussion and answer session from officers ensued with the following issues raised and clarified:-

 

-               There was continued focus on disadvantaged and SEND gaps for gypsy and Roma outcomes so were these children being tracked.

 

The performance of all children were tracked including children who were identified as having disabilities.

 

-               Detail on the Grade 4 mathematics outcome recognised that with academies this accountability sat mostly at a central level, but what specific work was being done to improve this benchmark, particularly because Grade 4 was key for pathways into apprenticeships, education, and employment. Was the gap compared with national statistics influenced by staffing vacancies, and if so, was there anything the Council could do to help address or influence that work.

 

Communication had been established with the regional Maths Hubs identified by the DfE. After meeting with the local hub lead, it became clear that while primary schools engaged strongly, secondary engagement was much lower. To address this, secondary engagement with the Maths Hubs was made a focus area for the Rotherham Education and Strategic Partnership Board, working with attending leaders to encourage increased participation.

 

Evidence from the hubs showed that schools that engaged tended to improve their performance, so strengthening this link was a priority. In addition, the Council and ROSIS already bought in specialist maths support and exploration was taking place to better align and expand these resources to increase the amount of specialist time available to Rotherham schools.

 

Regular CPD sessions at the Rockingham Centre were also run, open to all schools and focused on improving maths teaching. Overall, the strategy involved boosting CPD, strengthening partnerships with maths hub providers and co-ordinating local maths expertise. The issue was not a shortage of maths teachers, but rather levels of engagement and support.

 

-               Early years take?up in Rotherham had fluctuated since 2017–18, reaching a high of 89% but was currently sitting at 83%, which the report still described as a strong position. The national, regional, and statistical neighbour figures have all declined over the same period and were now lower than their starting point, unlike Rotherham’s. The pandemic may explain some of the variation, but what was Rotherham doing differently in early education take?up that had allowed it to maintain comparatively higher performance and the reasons behind this trend?

 

The recent slight decline in nursery place take?up was partly due to the Government widening eligibility from three year?olds to two year?olds, which had made it more challenging to recruit families, though this was a national pattern.

 

Despite this, Rotherham had benefited from a very stable and experienced Head of Service and team, who have worked effectively with private, voluntary, and school-based nursery providers to maintain strong provision. Their strong relationships, communication, and sector knowledge attracted positive attention from the DfE, with officials visiting to learn from Rotherham’s approach. At one point last year, the area was ranked sixth nationally for take?up of nursery places among disadvantaged families. Overall, this achievement was credited to experienced, trusted staff and long-standing partnerships with local nurseries.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member credited the Head of Service, who was recognised as an exceptional officer whose work had significantly strengthened early years support. For example a few years ago there were pupils in Years 10 and 11 who were disengaging from school because their needs had not been identified or met early enough. After researching other authorities, it was apparent the Council had strategies for childcare sufficiency and early years health, but no dedicated Early Years Education Strategy that picked up children’s needs at the earliest possible point.

 

The Head of Service devised a standalone Early Years Education Strategy, which had been guiding the Council’s work since. The Strategy had gained national recognition, being used by the Local Government Association as a case study and featured in First magazine.

 

The early adoption of this approach meant Rotherham was ahead of recent Government focus on the 0–5 age range. The success had also been supported by strong relationships with early years providers and the creativity and dedication of the team, particularly after the pandemic. To re-engage families who were reluctant to return to buildings, staff even visited communities dressed as Paw Patrol characters and used virtual tours to showcase settings. Overall, the work had created a much stronger, earlier system of identifying and supporting children and families.

 

-               Reference was made to RISE and the performance figures in the report. Looking at those numbers were they about small percentages of pupils in every school across Rotherham who have reached those outcomes or was the data analysed at a school?by?school level.  Perhaps by  removing a small number of underperforming schools from the dataset would mean the overall average exceeded the national average?  RISE would be focusing on the specific schools who were contributing most to lowering the overall figures.

 

Rotherham had access to exceptionally rich education data, more than many other Councils. Previously, the Council held this data internally and allowed schools to access it only if they paid a subscription. Starting from September 2025, a trial was taking place making this data freely available to all schools to support evidence?based improvement.

 

The Council was working to engage all schools using this shared data. However, independent academy trusts could be harder to involve as they have developed their own systems and operated more independently. Positive engagement efforts included the Cabinet Member writing to schools to congratulate them on strong Ofsted outcomes, which had helped build relationships.

 

The DfE had also begun recognising schools performing particularly well for pupils with disabilities, with local examples including Kimberworth and Wales Primary Schools.

 

The Council used data actively for performance discussions, modelling scenarios such as the impact of removing certain schools’ results. This helped identify where local performance sat compared to national benchmarks and where individual schools significantly influenced overall outcomes.

 

-               On the presentation slide for Strengths, there was no national average figure for the GLD SEND support, but for Rotherham it indicated it was 3% above the national average.  What was the national average figure?

 

Details of the national average figure would be provided in writing after the meeting.

 

-               Reference was made to the work on phonics in the ten schools with the lowest outcomes.  It appeared the findings and improvements from those ten would then be shared more widely with schools that were just outside that group.  For those  schools not in the bottom ten would they still be supported as it appeared this would only happen after the initial work was completed with the ten identified schools Was this correct when the work commenced in February, the arranging of a Spring Conference and then by summer the team expecting to be in a position to share and roll out what they have learned.

 

Barnsley, Sheffield and Rotherham were currently involved in the DfE project.  Local authority maintained schools were included in the group of ten, particularly those in areas of high social deprivation, so they could share and apply learning with their peers.

 

Since September, the collaboration had been strengthened across Local Authority maintained schools by developing a shared memorandum of understanding, clarifying collective and individual decision?making. The schools were now meeting termly, sharing training and expertise and offered peer support between Head Teachers.

 

In addition, a Local Authority-led school improvement partner was working with all schools to support them and share learning. Insights gained would be shared across the group. Wider learning from the project would be developed with the DfE and used for national and local rollout through training and support for schools that needed it.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member highlighted the forthcoming all member seminar planned for March to help Elected Members understand how to engage more effectively with schools in their wards through neighbourhood working. Martin Hughes and Paul Carney would be leading the session. Members were, therefore, encouraged to attend and then build active relationships with local schools.

 

Furthermore, it was particularly noted that recent DfE guidance recommended that primary schools should have a library, as some had lost dedicated reading spaces over time. Elected Members could support this through their Community Leadership Fund, capital funding, or other resources to help provide books and improve facilities.

 

Neighbourhood officers would assist Members after the seminar, which would also cover what would be involved in becoming a school governor. Overall, the aim of the seminar was to strengthen Member engagement with schools and help provide resources where needed.

 

-               Looking again at the Early Years figures there was a drop last year across the board.  It was reassuring that Rotherham’s decline was around half of elsewhere, but to what extent was this linked to the increased eligibility and how was the ongoing work to expand capacity progressing?

 

The situation was driven by several factors, including the cost of living, changes in employment patterns creating greater demand for childcare and the expanded eligibility for Early Years places. The Early Years Team was responsible for ensuring there was sufficient childcare capacity across all wards and current reports to the DfE confirmed that capacity was adequate.

 

Capacity was monitored through annual sufficiency reports and termly census returns submitted to the DfE. The team worked closely with providers to address any gaps.   This sometimes involved discussions with primary schools about offering places for younger children and with PVI providers about expanding baby and under?two provision.

 

Overall, managing sufficiency was a constant challenge and a significant ongoing area of work for the Early Years Team.

 

-               Were there sufficient placements across the borough for those eligible for the traditional two-year places that were identified as particularly benefiting from that early education?

 

An example was provided on where Coleridge Primary School in Eastwood previously had a local?authority?run nursery, but numbers fell so low that it became unviable. With upcoming changes to early education entitlements and anticipated rising demand, discussions took place with the school’s trust about taking over the provision. After some time, the nursery was successfully re?established within the primary school, creating a strong early years offer that supported children as they moved into Reception and Year 1.

 

        This was an example of the kind of negotiation and collaborative work needed to maintain sufficiency, especially during periods of change. Although there were initial concerns when the new entitlements were announced, there was now confidence that sufficient provision was in place, as reflected in the annual Childcare Sufficiency Report. However, while the Council had long reported on sufficiency, it previously lacked a dedicated Early Years Education Strategy. Given the increased Government focus on Early Years, this was now a priority area. Getting Early Years provision right was essential, as it supported children’s engagement and outcomes throughout their later schooling.

 

-               Could you elaborate more on the work involving gypsy/Roma communities.

 

        A discussion with the regional RISE lead from the DfE explored potential projects for the Yorkshire and Humber region, highlighting the significant number of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children attending Ferham Primary.   With end?of?year DfE funding available and Ferham already involved in RISE, it was agreed to develop a regional project.

 

        The academy trust was approached and agreed to support the bid, enabling partnership work between local authority leads, gypsy, Roma and traveller community representatives, and the DfE. This collaboration had now led to the organisation of a major regional conference for all local authorities in Yorkshire and Humber, to be held in Leeds (venue currently being finalised).

 

        The planned programme included a national keynote speaker, input from the DfE, and a national gypsy, Roma and traveller education lead.  Delegates would take part in workshop sessions that would feed into a position paper focused on improving school inclusivity for gypsy, Roma and traveller children and narrowing the attainment gap. Inclusion leads and parent engagement leads from Rotherham and Sheffield schools would participate, helping shape practical recommendations for more supportive and welcoming school environments.

 

-               What were the performance variation between high performing schools and those below average?

 

        Several factors influenced school performance, but one of the most significant was the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals. Recent analysis shared with secondary Head Teachers showed no meaningful correlation between GCSE outcomes and the proportion of pupils with SEND.  However, there was a strong correlation between average GCSE grades and the percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals, indicating this status was the strongest predictor of attainment.

 

        Importantly, some schools bucked this trend. Despite high levels of disadvantage, they still achieved above?average GCSE results. These schools typically demonstrated strong, stable leadership, a commitment to high?quality professional development, effective identification and intervention strategies and a strong ethos of belonging for all pupils.

 

        These schools were also particularly good at recognising and removing “invisible barriers” associated with disadvantage.  For example, avoiding practices that drew attention to poverty, being mindful of requirements like costly PE kits or access to home technology and ensuring expectations were equitable and inclusive.

 

        While free school meal eligibility was the most influential factor, effective leadership, high?quality teaching, and an inclusive school culture could significantly mitigate its impact.

 

        A programme was introduced to help schools become “attachment friendly,” recognising the importance of secure attachment between a child and a trusted adult. This approach was initially targeted where looked?after children were attending, but feedback from schools showed that the training benefited all pupils, not just those with care experience.

 

        This highlighted the value of wider trauma?informed practice and the need for whole?school cultural change to support inclusion. Some schools, even in highly deprived areas with many languages spoken, demonstrated outstanding practice proving that inclusive, attachment?aware cultures were achievable. However, teachers were under significant pressure and often supported children dealing with complex social issues. When the Government eventually published its White Paper, it would be essential that schools were given the necessary resources to continue this work and deliver the inclusive, high?quality support their pupils needed.

 

        Some of the most effective schools supported pupils by meeting basic needs and removing day?to?day barriers. This included providing free breakfast clubs, offering spare uniform at short notice, and ensuring no child was singled out due to poverty.

 

        Broader work across the borough such as improving job opportunities through the Inclusive Economy Board and addressing housing quality also played a vital role, as secure housing and stable family income gave children a better start in life.

 

        Within schools, the key drivers of success remained strong leadership, high?quality teaching and actively identifying and removing the “invisible barriers” that came with deprivation.

 

-               Housing conditions and the home environment could also directly affect a young person’s ability to study, especially in more deprived areas. From experience there were not often places young people could have space to study, so the local library became essential for education. Was it recognised that where young people did not have a quiet place to study, were there any  “homework hubs” to compensate for that gap particularly in deprived communities in say libraries.  Could the extended hours at some libraries  be used strategically to support those who needed a safe, quiet study space outside the home as there could be some links between poor housing conditions, limited study space at home, and the role of libraries as accessible, supportive learning environments.

 

This was considered a strong point. For example the library in Swinton had explored ideas like homework mentors and bringing in volunteers, but co-ordinating may be more of a challenge.

 

        Through the family hubs programme stronger links were already being built. One of the original Government requirements for family hubs was to focus on improving the home learning environment for pre-school children. This had led to a lot of joint work with libraries including rhyme time sessions and activities that promoted learning through play.

 

        This suggestion was worth exploring further, but it was about having a set of collective key messages that could be used when working with families. One of the things currently being explored was identifying four core messages that would help ensure very young children were as well prepared as possible for starting school.

 

        These messages would be shared consistently by outreach and engagement workers, those running stay-and-play sessions, baby massage and by family support workers who were having conversations with families in their homes.

 

        The focus was on promoting things like reducing screen time, increasing face?to?face interaction and highlighting the benefits of reading to children. Many working parents were not read to themselves, so reading aloud did not always come naturally. This linked well with library engagement as part of the Family Hub programme.

 

        Beyond the Hub work, the Family Health Steering Group also had health colleagues around the table.  Sharing these messages with health visitors could be reinforced during home visits so that it became a collective, consistent approach.

 

        The aim was a small set of short, punchy messages that could be used across the whole partnership, to work with families in their homes and support early school readiness. The work was still very much in progress, but for now it was being shaped and prepared to embed across the workforce and wider partnership.

 

-               Children were still within the education system that were impacted by the pandemic, the closures and the disruption so what real term impacts were being seen and how was data being interpreted based on how that impacted students.

 

There have been many reports on the potential impacts of the pandemic, but no definitive assessment. This was largely because it was impossible to draw clear comparisons between groups of children who did and did not experience lockdown. However, some impacts were very visible.

 

One of the clearest issues was that more children were starting school without being “school ready.” Schools were reporting higher numbers of children who were not toilet trained, who have delays in speech, language and communication, and who presented with emotional well?being and mental health difficulties. These trends were not unique to Rotherham they were being seen nationally.

 

More children were likely to be home educated.  Until around two years ago, permanent exclusions were increasing year on year. After significant re?engagement work and nearly £1 million invested in behaviour outreach support, the numbers have been stablished, although there was still much more work to do.

 

Academic progress was only now returning to pre?pandemic levels. Robust data showed the outcomes and it was clear the pandemic accelerated existing issues rather than creating new ones. For example, even before the pandemic, teachers were reporting children entering school without basic self?care skills, but these problems have become more widespread since.

 

To address this, investment has been put in to support hubs and direct work with families to improve school readiness. This was also why the Government’s statutory targets for a Good Level of Development have been strengthen along with the  early years workforce, and looked to invest further in early years provision. Understanding children’s early development and curriculum experience before they arrived at school were essential.

 

Until last summer, all Rotherham’s early years providers were rated Outstanding. One childminder experienced a temporary issue that affected their Ofsted judgement, but this had now been resolved, although they would not be reinspected for some time. Work would continue with all providers to ensure strong early years practice that supported children and families effectively.

 

A key part of driving improvement was understanding how the education system measured itself. Secondary schools judged progress by comparing GCSE outcomes with pupils’ SATs results at age eleven. Similarly, primary schools measured progress from age seven and through assessments like the phonics check. By strengthening early?years and Key Stage 1 outcomes, a positive ripple effect could be created throughout the entire system.

 

Ultimately, the strategy was to intervene earlier, providing targeted support in early years and primary settings so that children achieved better outcomes at every stage. This helped schools track progress more positively and ensured children were better prepared academically, socially and emotionally as they moved through their education.

 

-               There was a significant projected increase in GLD so what were the implications if the target was not met. The increase seemed quite large and was there likely to be a leap because of children not having that sort of lockdown experience.

 

The DfE had been contacted to clarify the consequences of not meeting the GLD target who confirmed that there would be no penalties for local authorities failing to reach the target up to at least 2028.

 

It was recognised that the required 9% uplift was based on aiming to move all areas towards the mid?70s nationally. This had caused frustration among high?performing authorities who already exceeded the national average as well as concern for areas like Rotherham, where the expected improvement represented a significant shift.

 

To respond to this challenge a two?strand approach was being taken:-

 

Improved Individual Child Tracking

 

·              Strengthening progress?tracking systems for individual children.

·              Working more closely with midwives and health services to align with the two?year check.

·              Securing better data from private, voluntary, and independent nursery providers.

·              Conducting research into outcomes for children who entered nursery at different ages, including those cared for at home until starting formal provision.

·              Using data systems to identify which nurseries children attended, enabling targeted support for settings where outcomes were weaker.

 

Area?Level Targeting Based on Deprivation

 

·              Collaborating with public health colleagues to analyse deprivation “heat maps”.

·              Mapping the postcodes and wards of children who did not achieve GLD to identify geographical patterns.

·              Developing plans to increase support and intervention in the most affected neighbourhoods, rather than focusing solely on individual cases across mixed?performance areas.

 

Overall, child?level insight was being combined with community?level targeting to make meaningful, data?driven improvements in early development outcomes.

 

After the pandemic, life still had not returned to “normal” for many families. What began as a cost?of?living crisis had lasted so long that it was now an ongoing, prolonged challenge. Rising inflation and everyday expenses continued to place significant pressure on households.  As a result, activities that assumed access to devices like computers or tablets could be difficult for families who were already struggling. This long?term financial strain was an important factor to keep in mind.

 

The Chair thanked officers for their support and input.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Education and Inclusion Annual Performance Report for 2024/2025 be received and the contents noted.

 

(2)  That the areas for continued focus (phonics; KS2 reading/GPS; KS4 Attainment 8 and grade 5+; disadvantage and SEND gaps; Gypsy/Roma outcomes) be noted.

 

(3)  That details of the national average figure be shared in relation to SEND Support achievement for a GLD which was 3% above.

 

(4)  That consideration be given to how homework clubs in Libraries could be encouraged.