Agenda item

(a)  Peter Gray, Independent Expert and Government Adviser

(b)  Gabriella Di-Sciullio, Head of Admissions and Children Out of School  

(c)   For information: Update on national exclusions data (to follow)

(a)  Peter Gray, Independent Expert and Government Adviser

The Committee received a presentation from Peter Gray, Independent Expert and Government Adviser, on the national context of the exclusions review.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         Nationwide, a total of 7,700 pupils were permanently excluded in 2016/17. This was an increase of 1,000 over the previous year.

·         Nationwide, 382,000 pupils had received a fixed term exclusion in 2016/17, an increase of 40,000 on the previous year.

·         The number of exclusions had reduced since 2006/07, however had steadily increased since 2010/11. The government had commissioned the Timpson Review to review school exclusion practices. This was expected to conclude in late 2018. 

·         The Committee considered the reasons for the initial decrease in exclusions over the previous decade. It was advised that between 2006 and 2010 schools had greater capacity and resources to support children inside of school. There was also a broader range of subject choices at Key Stage 4 which appealed to children with non-academic interests. There was an increase in the supply of alternative provision which could be accessed without exclusion. The government also encouraged the creation of ‘behaviour and attendance partnerships’ in which schools took collective responsibility for coordinating and commissioning services for young people at risk of exclusion. These had since been disbanded or had been incorporated into other forums.

·         Although the needs of young people had increased in recent years, the rise in exclusions could not be attributed solely to an increase in need. Cuts to school budgets had resulted in reduced staffing levels and increased workloads.

·         It was advised that some schools and academies, and in particular some large multi-academy trusts, had introduced ‘zero tolerance’ behaviour policies and these schools and academies tended to have higher rates of exclusion than other schools.

·         Although Islington had retained a School Improvement function, other local authorities had not, and it was thought that this, coupled with an increase in the number of academies, had reduced partnership working between schools in some areas. Officers advised that they had developed close relationships with academies in Islington and, in general, it was thought that they were supportive of the council’s priorities for young people.

·         Local authorities received ‘High Needs Funding’ which could be spent on support services for vulnerable and challenging pupils, however this was allocated based on population as opposed to need. This meant that any increase in need had to be met from within existing resources.

·         It was suggested that the limited funding available to schools may provide a perverse incentive for schools to exclude pupils. Supporting a disengaged child to remain in mainstream education was resource intensive, whereas there was no cost to exclude a pupil.

·         It was commented that, due to the limited funding available to schools, support services must be effective and have a measurable high impact.

·         Many schools did not prioritise Personal and Social Education. It was thought that PSE provided an opportunity for young people to focus on their behaviour and develop their personal skills.

·         It was thought that providing schools with comparative data on exclusions helped to raise standards. It was also useful to share with schools how much funding was allocated to supporting the pupils they had excluded, compared to other schools. Schools did not want to be seen to be out of line with their peers.

·         Schools with strong partnership arrangements and that took collective responsibility for pupil engagement tended to have lower rates of exclusion. Some schools opted to share support services, which made them more affordable. 

·         It was commented that many schools would benefit from greater support for children with special educational needs. Nationwide, services needed to be more effective, more targeted, have an increased capacity, and pupils with special educational needs needed to be identified earlier.

·         It was thought that greater monitoring of which pupils were receiving multiple fixed period exclusions could help in targeting resources more effectively.

·         A survey had identified that many teachers did not consider ‘managing behaviour’ as a core part of their role. However, teachers did consider that they were responsible for supporting all children to engage in learning. It was essential to work positively with teachers and the Committee noted the importance of using language that teachers could relate to.

·         Some pupils struggled when transitioning from primary to secondary school. Greater support for pupils at this time may be beneficial.

·         It was important to listen to the voices of young people and respond to their needs.

·         A member asked how alternative provision could be more inclusive. In response, it was advised that exclusion and alternative provision disconnected young people from mainstream education and young people wanted a second chance to engage. It was thought that using alternative provision flexibly as part of a package to meet a young person’s needs would be a positive development.

·         A member asked how the council could challenge schools on their use of ‘zero tolerance’ behaviour policies. In response, it was advised that this needed a national solution which sought to address the perverse incentives to exclude. League tables did not reward schools for being inclusive. It was thought that local authorities should share data and the cost consequences of exclusion with schools.

·         Although the majority of excluded pupils were boys, the proportion of excluded girls had increased in recent years.

·         A member suggested that there should be a financial deterrence to exclude and school exclusions data should be published in a league table. Although this may help to reduce the number of exclusions, it was noted that this would require national policy changes.

·         It was noted that some parents supported ‘zero tolerance’ behaviour policies.

·         The Committee asked in what circumstances exclusion was necessary. In response, it was commented that drug and weapon offences were serious and it was generally accepted that exclusion was an appropriate response to such instances; however, the majority of exclusions nationally were for persistent disruptive behaviour.

·         The majority of exclusions were not unpredictable. Excluded pupils tended to have unmet needs and schools and support services needed to meet those needs more effectively and at an earlier stage.

·         It was suggested that devolving funding for alternative provision to schools would make schools accountable for the quality of provision and may result in the development of more flexible provision. However, this would reduce local authority influence over provision.

The Committee thanked Peter Gray for his attendance.

(b)  Gabriella Di-Sciullo, Head of Admissions and Children Out of School

The Committee received a presentation from Gabriella Di-Sciullo, Head of Admissions and Children Out of School, on the exclusion appeals process.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The Committee noted the exclusion and appeals process and how it had developed over time. The government was responsible for providing regulations and guidance on exclusions.

·         New regulations introduced in 2012 gave school governors greater responsibility for exclusions. Under the previous arrangements the Independent Appeals Panel was able to overturn a school’s decision to exclude. Since 2012, the Independent Review Panel can only quash a decision when public law principles are contravened. The Panel can request that governors reconsider the decision to exclude, but have no power to compel them to do so. Since the change in regulation, the number of successful appeals had reduced from 57% to 21%.

·         If a decision was quashed, the school was fined £4,000.

·         At appeal stage the Head Teacher had to provide a report explaining why the pupil had been excluded. It was advised that the quality of these reports varied. The Committee suggested that the council could share best practice on what is expected to be included in exclusion reports.

·         It was suggested that an above average number of exclusions may suggest that a school’s behaviour policy is not effective.

·         Although the council ensured that local schools had behaviour policies which complied with statutory requirements, the council did not review policies for their effectiveness. It was queried if the council could adopt a process in which a set number of exclusions triggered a review of a school’s behaviour policy. In response, officers suggested that it would be better for schools to take collective responsibility for behaviour management and develop best practice in partnership with each other.

·         It was reported that the Fair Access Protocol had some success in reintegrating pupils into mainstream education.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that no school was expected to take sole responsibility for reintegrating pupils into mainstream education. Transparency was key to the effectiveness of the Fair Access Protocol. Data on reintegration was shared with Head Teachers and every school was expected to take their fair share of pupils over time.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that governor decisions were not reported back to the Independent Review Panel. 

·         Schools would convene a committee of governors to consider exclusion matters. Parent governors should not sit on these panels.

·         It was suggested that not all governors were confident in dealing with exclusion issues and many would always choose to support a Head Teacher’s decision. It was suggested that more could be done to develop the skills of governors.

·         It was suggested that governors and parents should have a greater role in developing school behaviour policies.

The Committee thanked Gabriella Di-Sciullo for her attendance.

(c)   Update on national exclusions data

Candy Holder, Head of Pupil Services, provided a data update. The following main points were noted in the discussion.

·         Although Islington had higher rates of both fixed term and permanent exclusion than its statistical neighbours and the Inner London and England averages, it was noted that one primary school/academy was excluding far more pupils than others and this had a considerable negative effect on the borough’s ranking. Officers advised that they had met with the Head and Chair of Governors to seek to address this, and reiterated that it would not be an effective use of resources to develop a new a ‘whole-borough’ approach.

·         It was advised that the council was not able to sanction schools for excluding pupils. A member suggested that it may be possible to incentivise schools to reduce their exclusion rate.

The Committee thanked Candy Holder for her attendance.