Agenda item

Purpose: This report provides an overview of exclusions of Children and Young People (CYP) in West Berkshire and is intended to brief members on the implications for our cohorts.

Councillor Heather Codling (Executive Portfolio Holder for Children and Family Services) presented the report on school exclusions (Agenda Item 7).

During the debate, the following points were discussed:

·       Officers confirmed that there was a link between disadvantaged learners and exclusions, and that improving outcomes depended on children being in school.

·       It was noted that there had been an increase in primary school exclusions linked to physical incidents. For secondary schools, exclusions were most often recorded under the DfE code ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’. More detail on specific behaviours was not available.

·       Meetings were held three times a year with secondary school senior leadership teams to review concerns about pupil behaviour, enabling earlier signposting and support. However, capacity constraints meant the service was reliant on schools proactively reaching out for support, and there was not enough capacity to hold equivalent meetings with primary schools.

·       It was highlighted that forthcoming SEND reforms would require schools to produce Inclusion Plans, enabling more proactive discussion and clearer expectations across schools and academies. Also, work was ongoing to establish ‘the ordinarily available provision’, intended to set a benchmark expectation for how schools could meet Equality Act duties for children with additional needs, but this should benefit all children.

·       It was highlighted that collaborative meetings were held six times per year with deputy headteachers from all secondary schools, with strong attendance - these enabled sharing of best practice and discussion of complex cases.

·       It was recognised that there was a need for co-production with secondary headteachers to ensure that the new Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the iCollege supported a reduction in exclusions. The iCollege’s “in-reach” (support and training provided in schools) was seen as a strength and would be a core component of the SLA. It was acknowledged that rising exclusions had created capacity pressures for the iCollege, and challenging conversations would be required to achieve a point of equity.

·       Officers were asked about their understanding of and responses to the root causes of exclusions, particularly in relation to SEND pupils. Officers agreed that there was a need to listen more to young people to understand their needs.

·       Members highlighted the need for data to show the percentage of excluded pupils at each school, since significant differences in the number of pupils on roll made comparisons difficult.

Action: Officers to report exclusions as a percentage pupils on roll.

·       Officers indicated that primary schools received different support to secondary schools - the PIPS Behaviour Intervention Team delivered one-to-one interventions, and support was also provided by the Autism Advisory Team. Schools were signposted to the appropriate services.

·       It was explained that the iCollege could offer up to a full timetable package, but it was important to reintegrate pupils back to their mainstream school and not to have pupils full-time in the iCollege for long.

·       Members indicated that supervised on-site provision within schools had previously reduced exclusions in at least one school. Officers supported the principle of inclusive approaches in schools and indicated that in-reach support from iCollege and other providers could support schools to develop such provision and enable quality assurance. It was cautioned that ‘internal exclusion’ should not result in arrangements that did not constitute full-time suitable education.

·       It was observed that the downward trend in exclusions appeared to coincide with COVID-19, which was an atypical period.

·       Members suggested that some children might benefit from blended or vocational provision (e.g., combining school attendance with time working on a farm). Officers stated that schools were already developing creative alternative provision packages (including farms, horse riding and drama workshops) and that these had delivered positive outcomes.

·       In response to a question about the use of alternative provision (AP) by primary schools, officers indicated that they did not have data for how usage compared with statistical neighbours, but they offered to provide this. It was acknowledged that more primary schools were using AP in West Berkshire, but an assurance framework was needed.

Action: Officers to provide details of how use of AP in primary schools compares to that in statistical neighbours.

·       It was asked what communication and support were provided to families when pupils were permanently excluded or at risk, particularly regarding the transition to iCollege. Officers stated that families were supported throughout the process. Five days after a permanent exclusion, responsibility for education transferred to the local authority, and the Exclusions Team contacted parents as soon as the local authority was notified, to explain the process and next steps. The iCollege also contacted families to arrange an initial meeting and run through plans for attendance and reintegration.

·       Members noted the rising trend in exclusions despite previous investment in Education and SEND. It was suggested that further investment would be required to tackle the issue. Councillor Codling highlighted the challenges around identifying additional funding but acknowledging the evidence and need and undertook to discuss this with the Executive.

·       Officers were asked if they were confident that the proposed measures would reduce exclusions. Officers indicated that they would have greater confidence once the SLA with iCollege had been renewed and Inclusion Plans had been developed with schools.

·       Parallels were acknowledged with the earlier discussion on attainment outcomes. Also, work on exclusions aligned well with other programmes, such as SEND and education reform, Best Start and family hubs, and Families First Partnership work.

RESOLVED:

·       To note the report and the data on exclusions.

·       To endorse the proposed strategic response to support the reduction of exclusions and the promotion of inclusion.