Agenda item

Gabby Grodentz, Head of Alternative Provision, and Mark Taylor, Director of Learning and Schools, made a presentation to the Committee, copy interleaved, about Alternative Provision in Islington. The Committee also considered an introductory report and a draft Scrutiny Initiation Document. 

A discussion was had during which the following main points were made:

·         The Committee noted the context of Alternative Provision in the borough. Alternative Provision was for pupils in Years 10 and 11 who were unable to receive a suitable education in a traditional school setting due to exclusion, illness, behavioural issues, or other reasons.

·         Islington currently had 105 pupils in Alternative Provision who attended various settings across North London. Of these, at least 90 had previously received some form of targeted intervention from local agencies. Wraparound support was provided alongside Alternative Provision to support pupils. It was noted that those in Alternative Provision were often vulnerable, had been excluded from school, or were young offenders.

·         Officers explained that the Council had improved the quality of its data in recent years. Since 2010 the Council had recorded the outcomes of those leaving Alternative Provision, which helped to evaluate the effectiveness of services. 

·         Due to an increased focus on finding further education or training for those leaving Alternative Provision at the end of Year 11, the number of young people leaving Alternative Provision classified as NEET by November had reduced year on year. However, it was noted that the number classified as NEET increased during Year 12 each year as pupils dropped off their courses. It was speculated that this was due to the pupils no longer receiving wraparound support alongside their studies.

·         There were no more than 12 pupils to each Alternative Provision class and each pupil was required to opt for 25 hours of education each week. Pupils were only able to opt for fewer than 25 hours of education in exceptional circumstances, such as medical reasons.

·         Although pupils were required to receive 25 hours of education each week, it was noted that poor attendance was commonplace and as a result the majority did not receive the full 25 hours. The national expectation for attendance was 95%, however only 12.9% of pupils in Alternative Provision achieved this level in Islington. Officers commented that for some pupils, attendance of between 50-80% was considered an achievement given their historic level of absence. It was explained that these pupils did not necessarily truant and their absence may be caused by other factors, such as domestic violence or bereavement.

·         A member commented on the benefits of counselling for vulnerable young people.

·         Officers advised of recent improvements to quality assurance processes. It was explained that many local authorities in North London used the same providers and as a result providers previously received three or four inspections each year. This was considered to be onerous and disruptive, and as a result North London boroughs had agreed to a single quality assurance framework which required one inspection each year, the results of which were shared electronically.

·         All providers used by the Council were rated either ‘Good’ or ‘Requires Improvement’. The Council did not continue to use providers rated as inadequate.

·         It was noted that Islington appeared to have a greater number of Alternative Provision referrals compared to other North London boroughs, however there were differences in how data was collected which meant that the data from other authorities was not considered accurate. Neighbouring boroughs had a large number of academies which referred to providers directly and as a result the local authorities had no exact data on the number of young people in Alternative Provision. It was confirmed that the two academies in Islington did provide information on how many pupils were referred to Alternative Provision and therefore the figure of 105 pupils was accurate.

·         The borough had 105 pupils in Alternative Provision for 2015/16, which was the lowest number on record, with the highest number being 215. Islington no longer placed pupils in Year 9 in Alternative Provision and instead sought other support for the small number of pupils who would otherwise have been referred.

·         The Committee noted the demographics of those on Alternative Provision. There was a gender gap, with the number of boys being more than double the number of girls for each of the past four years. There was a disproportionate number of White British and Black Caribbean pupils in Alternative Provision, with 60% of the cohort being White British, compared to 21.7% of the mainstream cohort, and 20% being Black Caribbean, compared to 6.7% of the mainstream cohort.

·         Officers spoke of their concerns regarding the attainment of pupils in Alternative Provision. In particular, performance in English and Maths was historically poor, however was slowly improving. It was explained that the majority of pupils worked towards Functional Skills qualifications as opposed to GCSEs. A ‘Level 1’ qualification was equivalent to D-G at GCSE, and a ‘Level 2’ was equivalent to A*-C at GCSE. Although officers were hopeful of an increase in attainment following a decrease in the previous year, it was only expected for 35.7% of pupils to achieve a Level 1 or higher in both English and Maths.

·         The Committee noted that the Council could receive up to £7,703 of external funding per pupil, subject to certain eligibility criteria. The cost of providing Alternative Provision varied between £4,000 and £14,000 per pupil, and therefore achieving value for money was very important.

·         The Council had recently appointed an Education Welfare Officer who was tasked with improving attendance. The Council was also in the process of appointing an IFIT worker to work in the three highest-referring schools with the families of Year 9s at risk of being referred to Alternative Provision.

·         Officers provided two case studies to highlight the differing experiences and outcomes of young people in Alternative Provision. One young male was referred to Alternative Provision, after initially engaging he suddenly stopped and his attendance dropped to 30%. It was discovered that a gang had taken him to a house outside of London where he was left by himself and forced to sell drugs. Once he was re-integrated into Alternative Provision his attendance improved to 82%, he received 3 A*s at GCSE and won a scholarship to a high-ranking boarding school, where he was studying for four AS levels. This positive outcome was in contrast to another young male who was achieving above average results at Key Stage 3, however insisted that he did not want to sit GCSEs and preferred vocational education outside of school. He entered Alternative Provision; however had behavioural difficulties and his attendance rate decreased. His parents had difficulties setting boundaries at home, however refused support from the local authority. He developed a cannabis habit and left Alternative Provision classified as NEET. Officers considered that further work with the pupil in Year 9 could have significantly improved his outcomes.

·         Officers suggested that the Committee could focus on how to reduce referrals to Alternative Provision, how to reduce the number of pupils in Alternative Provision, how to raise the number of pupils sitting Level 2 qualifications, and how to best support the most vulnerable pupils.

·         Following a query, it was advised that aside from Functional Skills, pupils also studied for BTEC qualifications and other vocational courses. Many girls were studying hair and beauty or childcare. It was advised that a detailed analysis of courses would be presented to a future meeting. 

·         The Committee raised some concern with the lack of providers offering Science and ICT; only one provider offered science and only two offered ICT. It was commented that these subjects required specialist equipment and experienced teachers who may not be available to providers.

·         It was confirmed that many of the children in Alternative Provision were from single parent families.

·         It was queried how the Council monitored attendance when pupils were attending courses across North London. It was advised that electronic registers were used and only the Council was able to authorise absence.

·         The Executive Member for Children and Families commented on the disproportionate number of White British pupils in Alternative Provision and advised of Camden Council’s ‘White British Achievement Project’.

·         It was queried why the IFIT worker would be working with pupils in Year 9, as greater benefit may be gained from taking an ‘early intervention’ approach of targeting pupils at a younger age. It was advised that the impact of the IFIT work would be evaluated and, if successful, could be carried out from Year 7 onwards.

·         It was suggested that some schools in the borough had very low referral rates and best practice could be learned from these schools. Although Islington schools had varying demographic profiles, this was not considered to be a significant factor in the numbers of young people being referred to Alternative Provision.

·         A member of the public queried if the Council had analysed the risk of local authority schools becoming academies. It was advised that the Council was not aware of any schools in the borough currently contemplating becoming academies. However, it was noted that the Government permitted providers of Alternative Provision to register as academies and free schools and it was expected that providers would face pressure to convert in future.

·         It was agreed that the SID be amended to include an objective to consider the attendance of those in Alternative Provision.

·         It was agreed that the SID be amended to include an objective to evaluate the range of Alternative Provision available.

·         It was agreed that the SID be amended to make reference to the demand for therapeutic interventions among pupils in Alternative Provision.

·         It was agreed to consider witness evidence relating to Camden’s White British Achievement Project.

·         The Committee considered that a visit to a local provider of Alternative Provision would be more useful than a visit to a ‘good practice’ local authority.

·         The Committee agreed that it was important to consider evidence from a range of secondary schools and academies.

The Committee thanked the officers for their attendance.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the report be noted;

2)    That the Scrutiny Initiation Document be agreed, subject to the following amendments:

a)    Objective 3 be amended to include reference to the attendance of those in Alternative Provision;

b)    Objective 5 be amended to make reference to the range of Alternative Provision available;

c)    ‘Scope’ be amended to make reference to the demand for therapeutic interventions;

d)    ‘Witness evidence’ be amended to specify that the Committee is to consider evidence from a range of secondary schools;

e)    ‘Witness Evidence’ be amended to make reference to Camden’s White British Achievement Project;

f)     ‘Visits’ be amended to read ‘A local provider of alternative provision, such as New River College’.