Agenda item

To inform Members of the local educational landscape, educational achievement and the financial challenges that affect schools in the Selby and Ainsty Constituency Committee area.

Members considered the report of the Corporate Director, Children and Young Peoples Services which informed Members of the local educational landscape, educational achievement and the financial challenges which affected schools in the Selby & Ainsty constituency committee area.

Regarding the local education landscape, where are now 21 primary academies and 5 secondary academies within the Selby and Ainsty constituency area.  The academy conversion rate for primary schools was similar within the constituency area when compared to the County as a whole (41.2% compared to 39.1% in North Yorkshire.) The academy conversion rate for secondary schools was higher (83.3% compared to 67.4% in North Yorkshire).

John S Lee, Strategic Planning Officer, Education and Skills attended the meeting remotely and responded to Members questions, comments and concerns at the meeting.

The Chair, Vice-Chair and Cllr Shaw-Wright and Packham raised questions and queries on specific educational issues and the number of NEET across all ACC areas.

The Chair specifically commented on the following matters:

Page 91 of the agenda document pack – Early Years Foundation Stage profile and development levels in the Selby area, did Covid-19 affect this?  Mr Lee stated he would refer the query to his colleague Amanda Newbould for a written response post-meeting.

Paragraph 3.4 – useful to see Comparator information with all former North Yorkshire legacy district and borough Councils, can this be further broken down into local authority schools and Academies.

Paragraph 3.5 – can we track the cohort of children whose education was interrupted by Covid-19? Mr Lee responded he would follow this up with colleagues?

Page 93 – NEET – Chair commented new money available for NEET pupils, but none coming to Selby, it would be useful to understand how the criteria was assessed as to where the monies were allocated.

Paragraph 4.1 – Suspension incidents table – most common reason showing as “Skipton and Ripon” in final column, was this a mistake? Clarity sought post meeting.

Question – Is NEET provision assessed in the same way as schools by OFSTED?  Mr Lee would provide clarity post-meeting.

Page 94 (paragraph 4.3) – Pupil Support Pathways: Multiple Exclusions – comment the CAHMS provisions seem stretched.

Point 5 – SEND provision – pupils awaiting an EHCP plan – is this the total figure ? Or are there more to be added (e.g. parents who have registered for an EHCP, but he EHCP has not yet been undertaken.

Comment – Members receiving feedback from parents relating to EHCP – reporting multiple instances of poor communication from officials in the Children and Young People’s Services directorate.

Page 96 – Elective Home Education – how many of the total figure relates to parents of SEND children?

Page 99 – Level of Funding for Selby – ranked 141 out of 150, who is pursuing this inequality at NYC on Selby’s behalf?

Paragraph 7.4, Schools in Financial Difficulty – comment 8 schools currently in financial difficulty (9 last year) – are they the same schools? We need some more additional support for those schools that are having financial difficulties.

Paragraph 8.9 – Mentions local primary schools’ provision in Selby, but what about Secondary Schools? No new schools, what does it take to trigger the building of a new secondary school?  Mr Lee responded that NYC looked at both Primary and Secondary School provision though both housing and the Local Plan.  It would require an influx of a lot of new people/children to an area to trigger proposals for a new secondary school.

Cllr Packham commented on some school issue within his ward and that now that North Yorkshire had a single Unitary Council there was a need for further Education input into the Local Plan process, for example attendance at Development Plan meetings. 

Councillor Shaw-Wright commented that Early Years attainment had reduced from 2018 to 2023 across the Selby and Ainsty area, Key Stage 2 (KS2) had reduced attainment, whereas Key Stage 4 (KS4) was holding its own.

Councillor Poskitt enquired whether there was any lag in the data provided, especially in terms of EHCP’s.  She added she would forward some more questions and queries on to Mr Lee post – meeting.    

Mr Lee undertook to ascertain the information requested and respond to ACC Members post-meeting.   

(Cllr McCartney left the meeting during consideration of this item).

Resolved:-

(1) That the report be noted.; and

(2) That Mr Lee provide a written response to the ACC post-meeting on those questions raised that required input from other education colleagues.