Agenda item

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education and the Director for Education, Early Years and Children with Disabilities (Worcestershire Children First) had been invited to the meeting to update the Panel on developments relating to Vulnerable Learners in Worcestershire.

A Member of the Panel suggested that the number of acronyms in the report had made it difficult to read and requested that, for future reports, the number of acronyms be reduced and a glossary be included at the start of the report, if appropriate.

By way of introduction, the Cabinet Member informed the Panel that in terms of vulnerable learners there was an improving situation, although he acknowledged that there was still work to do.  The policy direction agreed by Cabinet recognised that children and young people needed to be in school to learn.  In recognising that parents had a right to elect to education their children at home, it was important that elective home education was not used as a means of ‘off rolling’ pupils.  Permanent exclusions should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were made:

·       It was confirmed that the reference to ‘timely’ access to appropriate provision referred to the range of statutory deadlines which applied to different types of vulnerable learners.  The service had developed a much-improved understanding of the children involved and the status of their vulnerabilities.  This has led to an improvement in meeting statutory deadlines.

·       The increase in the number of parents electing to educate their children at home was split equally between those who had had a positive experience of home schooling during the pandemic and had chosen to continue to educate their children at home, and those who had not returned to school as a result of covid anxiety.  Officers had made it clear to those choosing to continue to home educate that there would no longer be the same level of support from schools as had been available during lockdowns.

·       It was suggested that the reduction in the number of young people starting apprenticeships was related to fewer companies offering apprenticeships rather than reduced take up from young people.  Work was ongoing with the Skills and Investment Group Manager to promote apprenticeships in the County.

·       It was confirmed that work in the north of the County with children at risk of becoming NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) was a pilot scheme which would be followed up with a similar scheme in the south once appropriate staff had been recruited.

·       The term Children Missing Education (CME) referred to children up to Y11 who were not on a school roll.  Referrals were received via the Children’s Services Portal and the CME team would investigate each case.  Some cases were quickly resolved whereas others proved more difficult.  Officers would visit the last known address, contact the landlord if relevant and would not give up until they had found the child and established their situation.  The cases of the most vulnerable children were discussed at multi-agency ‘Missing Monday’ meetings.

·       The CME system had a significant dependency on schools telling WCF when a child had left.  Schools had a responsibility to inform WCF and staff had worked hard to develop a network of communication.  The number of notifications had increased and that should be seen as a good thing as it indicated an improved level of communication from schools.

·       It was acknowledged that the level of permanent exclusions in Worcestershire was higher than in statistical neighbours.  Work was ongoing to further understand why this was the case.  In relation to children with SEND and/or EHCPs, schools were encouraged to look at those pupils with fixed term exclusions and assess whether their needs were being met.  Schools were monitored on a monthly basis by WCF officers in order to identify trends and challenge schools when necessary.

·       In response to a Member question, the Panel was informed that schools were unlikely to permanently exclude a pupil in order to influence public data such as exam results.  Members were reminded that a permanent exclusion was a life changing experience for a pupil and was not something that a school would be proud of doing.  Also, the new Ofsted framework looked very closely at a school’s inclusion behaviour.

·       It was confirmed that Warwickshire and Staffordshire were included in Worcestershire’s statistical neighbours and officers met with colleagues in other local authorities on a regular basis to share best practice.

·       Members were informed of a project to prevent school exclusion which took a multi-agency approach and aimed to change the culture in schools so that everyone took ownership of exclusions.

·       Best practice in the primary sector was shared through outreach work by Pupil Referral Units (PRUs).  Following lockdown, the return to school in September 2020 had been challenging for some reception children and the PRUs had run virtual surgeries for schools offering behaviour management support.  The Authority also had two schools (St Augustine’s and Perryfields) which had been successful in obtaining behaviour hub status from the DfE.

·       The Exclusions and Alternative Provision Review had highlighted the need to undertake further work with statistical neighbours.  No one piece of work would achieve whole system change but rather incremental changes would lead to improvements.

·       The Panel was informed that there had been 29 permanent exclusions to date this academic year which was slightly higher than the same time last year.  It was agreed that data for 2020/21 would be shared with the Panel.

·       Members were given details of the systems schools used in relation to attendance, including taking two registers a day, first day calling (ie phoning parents if a child did not arrive at school), and notifying WCF of any absence greater than 10 days.  Where a child had a medical issue, they might be referred to the Medical Education Team.  However, the criteria for referral included the need to have consultant-led evidence, and this could mean that children were not in school but did not meet the criteria for support via the MET.  Members were reminded that the Local Authority had a responsibility to provide an education for all children.

·       In response to a question about short term ‘unofficial’ exclusions, the Panel was informed that this would be monitored through the Education Absence Monitoring Officer.

·       Worcestershire had been successful in its Preventing School Exclusions RSA (Royal Society of Arts) research and development bid.  It was agreed that Councillors Jenkins and Monk would join the Preventing Exclusions Project Group and report back to the Panel in due course.

The Panel adjourned for a ten-minute break.

The discussion resumed and the following main points were made:

·       In relation to Children Missing Education, reassurance was given that all cases were monitored on an ongoing basis.

·       The Panel noted that the majority of permanent exclusions were given for persistent disruptive behaviour.  Concern was expressed that this behaviour might mask other issues that a child was dealing with.  It was confirmed that schools would be encouraged to look into this.  The Panel was informed that the number of children being given an Education, Health and Care Plan after a permanent exclusion had significantly reduced.  It was confirmed that a child’s situation would be taken into account during the exclusions process.

·       It was agreed that more up to date data on the number of children permanently excluded who had a recognised mental health disorder would be circulated.  The Panel was reminded that, since 2018, mental health practitioners had been working in schools.  In addition, Public Health had funded additional training for schools to improve identification and support for children and young people with mental health problems.

·       It was suggested that the chart showing reasons for permanent exclusions gave a helpful insight into the lives of children and the effects on their education.

·       Members were reminded that, in Worcestershire, a contextual safeguarding model was used which included looking at external risks from, for example, peer groups, social media and the school environment.

·       GET SAFE was a multi-agency scheme for all levels of need aiming to identify and prevent risks to children and young people from criminal exploitation.  The Panel was due to receive an update at a future meeting and it was agreed that this should include input from young people who had been involved in the scheme.

·       It was suggested that some schools did not have sufficient space to remove disruptive pupils from the classroom and safely accommodate them elsewhere in the school.  It was acknowledged that finding a safe separate space would be easier in some schools than others.  Although training in behaviour management would include making the best use of the school environment, it was recognised that for some schools, the environment may be a barrier.

·       It was confirmed that, in previous years, children may have been excluded from school before a better understanding of their situation meant they were given an EHCP.  It would be surprising if a child was excluded while they were going through the EHCP process.  If the assessment process had started, a school could ask for additional support before the EHCP was formally in place.

·       A Member suggested that it was not surprising that 100% of decisions to exclude had been upheld by Governing Bodies, given that Governing Bodies were responsible for appointing Headteachers.  Members were reminded that this was the process as set out in statutory guidance, although it was acknowledged that there may be tensions and families may not always feel equipped to challenge decisions.

In conclusion, the Chairman confirmed the request for more up to date data on exclusions to be circulated to Members as it may be an issue that the Panel would wish to consider again in the future.