Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member for Education and SEND

[Councillor Mrs Tina Clements, Chairman of Prosperous Overview and Scrutiny Committee, in attendance for this item.]

The Scrutiny Committee were aware of the significant impact a permanent exclusion could have on an individual and had requested detail of the potential safeguarding impacts.  Members received details of the exclusion process and the Local Authorities (LAs) role within this, including the role of the Education Inclusion Officers (EIOs).

Members heard that a key safeguarding function of the EIO’s was to arrange suitable full-time education for the excluded pupil, to being from the sixth day after the first day that permanent exclusion took place. In most cases this was provided through the pupil attending a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU). Staffordshire had six secondary PRUs, a secondary Progress Centre and one primary PRU.

Each excluded pupil was also discussed at the weekly Alternative Provision Panel (APP), where their sixth day provision was confirmed and monitored. Attendees at the APP included representatives from Youth Offending, PRU Headteacher, SEND, EIOs, education welfare and the education commissioner. The Panel challenged and reconsidered education provision if it appeared not to be meeting the needs of the pupil. Where a pupil was unable to attend a PRU, the APP would consider other alternative provision, possibly requiring the LA to commission a service. This may mean the six-day window for provision was not met. In these circumstances the EIO would work closely with the family to ensure the pupil was safeguarded.

All the commissioned providers had undergone a robust process before becoming an approved provider, which included the scrutiny of their safeguarding policy. For excluded pupils with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) the EIO would liaise closely with the SEND key worker to ensure whatever provision was put in place met their needs, until another long-term provision could be secured.

Members heard that there had been 167 students permanently excluded from Staffordshire schools (both academy and maintained) during this academic year. The EIO worked with the school to help consider alternatives to exclusion, such as a managed move to another school or a prevention placement at a PRU. Where an exclusion was made, for the first five days after the exclusion the school remained responsible for the pupil’s education, which was normally through virtual learning packages.

The Committee heard about the innovative work of the Progress Centre, working on instances where the pupil was under threat of exclusion for a one off, out of character event. The Progress Centre was a unit within another school. The pupil would spend a short, concentrated amount of time receiving education in the Unit, but quickly starts receiving part of their education within the school that hosts the Unit. This enabled the individual to retain some continuity with mainstream education and, so far, had a 90% success rate in   returning pupils to mainstream education.

The Committee discussed the role of governors in the exclusion process, understanding the importance they had in reviewing the headteachers decisions and the formal part they had in the process.

Members queried the appeal process, having concern that the process was weighted in the school’s favour and questioning why the appeal was brought by parents, with pupils not able to appeal in their own right. The legal responsibility for a child’s education lay with the parent, which was why they had the right to appeal an exclusion. The child could attend the review panel and have their voice heard, although there was a need to consider the impact this might have on the child, and whether it was in their best interests. Recent changes had made the exclusion appeals process more balanced, including where a child had a social worker, the requirement for their social worker to be included in all meetings to help give context to the child’s circumstances. EIO also worked to support the family in this process. The Review Panel’s ultimate power would be to direct the school to readmit the pupil. The school could veto this, but would receive a £4000 to £5000 fine if they did so.

The Committee queried whether PRU’s had adequate capacity, or if excluded pupils would find themselves on a waiting list before receiving their sixth day provision. In some cases there could be a slight delay, but this would be due to specific placement requirements, such as transport provision or risk assessments for a child presenting with particular needs.

PRU staff had great expertise in managing challenging behaviours. Sharing this expertise with mainstream school colleagues helped prevent exclusions, however large numbers of pupils in PRU’s meant that capacity for this preventative work would be limited.

The Committee considered differences between school structures and cultures. They heard about the successful pilot project, initially in Newcastle, which was now County wide. The pilot looked at restorative practice and relationships to support schools being more inclusive, with an example shared with the Committee of its impact and success.

The Committee queried whether Ofsted had a role in the exclusion process. The culture of a school and its behaviour was considered by Ofsted as well as its results. To achieve an outstanding judgement from Ofsted a school would need to have excellent results, behaviours and be fully inclusive.

Members queried whether the process was different for those pupils who attend Staffordshire schools but lived in neighbouring counties. In these instances the sixth day provision would be the responsibility of the LA within the county they lived rather than the county of the school they had been attending.

Members heard that no displaced or asylum-seeking children had currently come through the exclusion system. Significant resource within school supported these children, with schools welcoming them and work in place to understand their trauma.

Members asked for further detail on the following:

·         the number of permanently excluded pupils who were now being home educated;

·         the number of permanent exclusions in the last 12 months;

·         how many permanently excluded pupils took the school to appeal, and how many of these appeals were successful;

·         the split between maintained and academy schools of the number of pupils who appealed and the number of appeals that were successful;

·         numbers of permanently excluded pupils showing race, gender, SEND to help establish whether certain groups were disproportionally excluded;

·         the numbers of permanently excluded pupils who were open to early help, earliest help or with a social worker;

·         exclusion comparison figures from previous years to help identify trends;

·         exclusion comparison figures from other shire counties;

·         whether the bulk of exclusions were from particular schools and/or particular areas of the County.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member and Officer for sharing their knowledge and expertise with the Committee. The Scrutiny Committee were very encouraged by the work undertaken and the way the different circumstances were managed.

Resolved: That:

a)    the Committee’s thanks go to the Cabinet Member for Education (and SEND) and the Head of Attendance and Inclusion and his team for the work to safeguard permanently excluded pupils; and,

b)   the requested further detail listed above be forwarded to the Scrutiny Members.