Report of the Cabinet Member for Learning and Employability

The Committee considered a detailed overview of alternative education provision commissioned for Staffordshire’s vulnerable learners. This included details on: funding; permanent exclusions; pupil referral units/short stay schools; enhanced mainstream schools; the alternative provision dynamic purchasing system; the alternative provision panel; and education other than at school.  From January 2019 the Local Authority had established a weekly meeting of representatives across the Vulnerable Learning Service called the Alternative Provision Panel (APP).  Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) headteachers attend on a rotational basis and there was an open invitation to representatives from schools and academies.  The purpose of the APP was to provide a level of scrutiny and problem solving to the allocation and ongoing provision for young people who have either been permanently excluded or required alternative education provision commissioned by the Local Authority.  The APP also considered Fair Access Protocol cases and monitored and reviewed the Protocol.  The APP also ensures that appropriate checks were in place to evidence the young people were properly safeguarded and reviewed. 

 In wide-ranging discussion members expressed concern that young people were spending extended periods of time in PRUs when these should be a short-term, temporary measure with children being encouraged back into mainstream education or other appropriate provision.  It was acknowledged that this was an issue and work was being done to address this.

A member questioned whether Inclusion was better than Exclusion. The response was that in most cases it was. Early identification of special educational needs and appropriate intervention was key.  Efforts were being made to build in a more graduated response into the system. Members commented that some schools were better at managing exclusions than others and that it could be suggested that some schools were less tolerant because they were guarding their reputations.  They were informed that it would be important to tackle individual schools’ behaviour policy and change the culture in mainstream schools.     

Members also questioned whether using the funding for innovative alternative options had been investigated, for example closing the PRUs and using it to support mainstream schools.  They were informed that there were 402 schools in Staffordshire and if the resource was spread in this way there would not be a sufficient level of expertise to deploy.  Officers pointed out that this approach had been taken in Nottingham, and the levels of permanent exclusions were now growing.  Concern was expressed in relation to those cases where parents had been coerced into withdrawing children from school and home educating them.  Whilst many parents did an excellent job there were questions around some parents’ ability to provide a good education and the potential for abuse or neglect.  Members were informed that previously there had been one member of staff responsible for the EHE community but that two additional members of staff had now been recruited.  The EHE children were also picked up by the APP, who knew who they were and where they were and monitored them closely. If there was any evidence of coercive behaviour in a school this would be referred to Ofsted, whose framework was less results driven with more focus on inclusion.  A member referred to the poor performance identified in two of the PRUs and questioned what was being done to ensure that a quality service was being delivered.  Members were reassured that one of these was now under new management and the other had issues with the building which was going to be replaced.  A member commented that to achieve cultural change in a school it was important to engage school governors, who now had a raised awareness of the practice of off rolling which helped them when sitting on an exclusion panel considering the decision of a headteacher.  They asked if there was a way of involving school Governors more, perhaps by investing in training, to assist them when they were setting up policies within their schools.  The Cabinet Member responded that the role of governors and governance were areas that he was interested in developing further.  A key role of the governing body was to provide constructive challenge and it would be helpful if governors knew what questions to ask when considering exclusions, and work would be undertaken on this suggestion.

A member queried whether there was an independent appeals process in place for permanent exclusions.  It was confirmed that this was the case, although in the last academic year only four parents had taken that option.  Members were informed that this was partly the reason the APP had been set up, to be a voice for these children.  It was questioned whether children were being subject to inequalities and it was reiterated that work was being undertaken to encourage consistent behaviour policies across schools and to share good practice around governance.

In relation to primary aged children it was queried whether enough was being done in addressing complex needs with early intervention, before the transition to secondary school.  It was acknowledged that some children’s needs were not identified early enough, resulting in behavioural issues which could lead to permanent exclusion.  A lot of this work was tied in with the SEND agenda because many of these children would have unidentified special educational needs.  Identifying those children’s needs as early as possible and addressing them as soon as possible was key.  A member questioned what tools or resources were provided to primary schools to support them in this work.  They were informed that ten years ago District Inclusion Partnerships had been set up in secondary schools which were very effective, and two years ago their membership had been widened to include primary schools. This brought schools together and provided an opportunity to share information about children and the strategies they had used and provided peer support and this partnership working had proved very effective in primary schools.  Some high needs block funding had been provided to the partnerships to enable them to be innovative, often having a mentor to work across the primary schools in their district, purchase a counsellor to work with a child or some therapeutic support.  Training had been provided by Entrust on dealing with an aggressive child, who were also doing behaviour audits.  SENCO network events were also being run, there was evidence of good practice in the transitioning of children from primary to secondary schools and special schools were going into mainstream schools to offer services and support.

A member asked what the objectives were that the Cabinet Members and officers were working to.  It was confirmed that the strategy had three stages to it, to stabilise the picture, effecting change and to see placements reduced and children being in the right place so that they can get the most out of their education and lead successful lives.

In conclusion, the Chairman commented that there were interesting developments but questioned if these were marginal efforts and if they were radical enough and asked if investigations had been made to identify good practice which could be embedded in Staffordshire.  Also, should different models be explored.  The Cabinet member thanked the Committee for their challenging questions and comments, particularly around governance.  He hoped the message which members took from the meeting was one of aspiration that the children concerned to have better outcomes and better futures.

RESOLVED – That the overview of alternative education provision commissioned for Staffordshire’s vulnerable learners be noted.