Minutes:
Heidi Shaw attended the meeting and made a presentation on exclusions, attendance and inclusion at Stockport schools. The presentation was based on data from an audit of files relating to exclusions.
The presentation highlighted the following issues:-
· In 2018 there were 53 exclusions overall, 49 of which were from the secondary sector and most of the excluded children were male.
· Rates of exclusion in Stockport were high. By comparison, schools in Leeds City Council area excluded only 7 pupils in 2018.
· The largest single reason for exclusion was due to persistent disruptive behaviour (55%)
· Of all the excluded children, only 23% had no vulnerability factor. There was a significant overlap of factors in the other cases. There was often a high level of agency involvement in excluded pupils’ lives prior to exclusion.
· 12 of the 53 exclusions had prior attendance highlighted as an issue.
· The number of excluded pupils receiving SEND Support was in excess of comparative authority areas.
· The audit had included levels of support provided by school and one particular trend identified was the use of internal isolation and concerns had been raised about whether this conflicted with the SEND Support Plans of the children involved.
· One factor that the data suggested was a number of missed opportunities to address pupil’s emotional health or wider factors leading to poor behaviour. Professionals involved often identify domestic violence or divorce as possible factors. There appeared to be too great a focus on behaviour and insufficient focus on underlying causes.
· Further work was planned to explore how school, SEND and social care support could be coordinated better.
Members of the Board discussed the issues highlighted by the presentation, including the following:-
· In Stockport it was relatively easy to exclude because children stayed within the system but with little support to address underlying behaviours or difficulties, nor was there much provision to prevent exclusions.
· There appeared to be capacity challenges for specialist provision and little SEND support available centrally.
· Concerns were expressed about the use of shortened timetables and the difficulties this caused when seeking to re-engage pupils with school.
· There was scope to improve transition between primary and secondary settings to better flag potential additional needs of pupils.
· The ‘managed move’ process in Stockport had generally been positive with Head teachers working well together.
· The roll out of Operation Encompass across primary schools should assist in identifying those children at greater risk of harm but also at risk of future exclusion given the correlation between domestic violence and future behavioural problems.
· The Council had received a grant from the Home Office to pilot therapeutic support for young people, and this may be a way to address some of the underlying factors for children at risk of/ having been excluded.
· The majority of the placements made by the Local Authority in independent providers were due to emotional and behavioural issues. It may be that there steps that could be taken up-stream to reduce the need for such placements.
· Communication with parents was often a challenge due to the time and resources involved, but this could have a significant impact on outcomes.
· The complexity of the situation for many pupils at risk of or having been excluded could not be overestimated, and in some cases this was made more complex by the complex need of parents.
· Given the profound consequences for a child of exclusion, and that most schools were not doing so very often, it was important to ensure there was consistency in the application of procedures and the approaches taken. It was acknowledged that each school was unique and had differing contexts, and so differing thresholds, but there was scope to share best practice, and examples of paperwork.
· The subsequent impact on the excluded pupils was questioned. It was stated that some of this was captured in the files that had been audited, particularly where they had been involved with social care, and a number of children had settled into new schools. The impact of exclusions, for which Stockport was an outlier, on partners also needed to be considered and it was suggested that there needed to be better mechanisms to track the children involved.
RESOLVED – (1) That the presentation be noted.
(2) That an update be provided to the next meeting on Domestic Abuse.