Agenda item

The Committee received witness evidence from Sarah Bealey of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School on pupil outcomes and accountability and the policies and practices of schools.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The view of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School was that the quality and range of alternative provision had improved in recent years. There were a greater number of options available, although it was noted that some of those were further outside of the borough.

·         The Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School was acutely aware of their accountability for pupils on alternative provision and had an active role in monitoring pupil progress and the quality of providers.

·         The school was keen to work with providers to improve the quality of their teaching. It was explained that some providers provided quality vocational courses however found teaching a core English and Maths curriculum to be challenging. Providers had been invited into the school to observe lessons. The school considered such partnership working to be very important.

·         The school considered alternative provision to be good value. Although alternative provision was only used as a last resort, the school appreciated that for a minority of pupils who struggled with mainstream education it was essential.

·         The average pupil referred to alternative provision from the school was white British and had a multitude of issues. The smaller, more nurturing environment available in alternative provision was praised. It was commented that schools did not have the resources or capacity to provide this environment and without alternative provision there would likely be an increase in exclusions. 

·         Whilst it was recognised that not all pupils achieved positive outcomes, it was commented that alternative provision was central to improving the outcomes for some pupils. An example of a former Elizabeth Garrett Anderson pupil progressing from alternative provision to university was given.

·         The experience of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School was that alternative provision was most effective for pupils at risk of exclusion, those who were disengaged from education, who were not attending school regularly, or were from dysfunctional families. It was commented that these pupils often benefitted from engagement with Early Help services.

·         A worry was expressed that a number of pupils entering alternative provision had been mid-phase admissions to schools. It was commented that moving schools during GCSE studies was often difficult for pupils and additional support was needed to make such transfers work.

·         The school considered the academic quality of providers to be very important. Although pupils on alternative provision often required additional educational support, some pupils had strong academic abilities and the potential to attend university. It was important to challenge pupils to ensure that they were able to re-engage with education later in life.

·         It was queried if pupils admitted to schools mid-phase or through the Fair Access Protocol were placed on alternative provision as a method of easing the burden on schools to integrate potentially difficult pupils. In response, it was advised that this was not the case at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School. The council’s alternative provision service challenged schools on referrals and schools were required to evidence what they had done to keep pupils in mainstream education. Given the difficulties often faced by pupils on alternative provision, referrals to IFIT or Families First were usually made before a referral to alternative provision.

·         Officers advised that some Year 11 pupils admitted to schools mid-phase in the past had been referred to alternative provision. It was suggested that pupils who had been working to a different GCSE syllabus previously were not likely to pass their GCSEs if admitted late in the academic year. 

·         It was commented that the Secure in Education Board had strong safeguarding mechanisms and an independent chair. Schools receiving pupils though the Board were expected to do everything possible to keep the pupil in mainstream education and an automatic referral to alternative provision would not be acceptable in most cases.

·         Officers advised that the alternative provision team maintained a good working relationship with the two academy schools in the borough, although one did limit the providers they would use.

·         The Committee noted concerns about ‘school hopping’ pupils. It was explained that some pupils moved schools and between local authority areas to avoid exclusion and family intervention. Sometimes these pupils had come from challenging backgrounds but this was not immediately apparent to schools and local agencies. It was suggested that better outcomes could be achieved if schools were more honest with each other when transferring pupils.

·         The Committee queried how alternative provision could be considered good value when outcomes were often poor. In response, it was advised that alternative provision was used as a last resort when a school had tried everything to re-engage the pupil in education. Often the relationship between the school and pupil had broken down. Whilst it was recognised that outcomes were often poor, alternative provision gave these pupils a chance to succeed that they would not have otherwise.

·         It was suggested that the successes of schools and alternative provision providers should be assessed differently. Although pupils in alternative provision were not as likely to achieve strong academic outcomes, re-integration into the education system could be considered a success for some pupils, regardless of their academic performance. Given the personal difficulties that alternative provision pupils often faced, significant improvements in attendance were often considered a success.

·         Following a question about the proportion of BME pupils on alternative provision, it was advised that the vast majority from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School were from white British backgrounds. It was advised that the school was working with pupils to raise aspirations and instil positive work ethics. The school had organised mother and daughter university visits and held literacy and numeracy classes for parents.

·         The Committee queried if the school had experienced any problems with providers in the past. It was commented that some providers did not have high enough aspirations for their pupils; however, schools were able to raise such concerns with the council. There were instances of the council ceasing to place pupils with providers that did not meet expected standards.

·         It was queried if providers had access to counsellors to help pupils with behavioural and emotional needs. In response, it was advised that this varied depending on the provider; however the council and schools sought to place pupils with providers that were appropriate for their needs. Pupils in need of such support would be placed at a provider with a nurturing environment; it was commented that one such Elizabeth Garrett Anderson pupil had been placed at Hackney City Farm and achieved good outcomes. However, some pupils preferred college-style education and were placed with providers that could provide this setting.

·         The Committee queried what the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School would do to support pupils currently sent to alternative provision if it had greater capacity and resources. In response, it was advised that the school would teach these pupils in smaller classes and regularly take them out of school for educational activities.

·         A member of the public commented on the council’s intention to reduce the number of pupils placed in alternative provision and queried the possible impact of schools having to retain pupils that would otherwise be referred to alternative provision. In response, it was stated that Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School referred few pupils to alternative provision so there would only be a limited impact.

·         In response to a question from a member of the public, it was advised that providers became responsible for pupil premium funding, however they had to justify any spend before monies were transferred. It was reported that some providers had spent the funding on activities for their pupils, whereas others had spent the funding on technology such as laptops.

·         Following a query from a member of the public, it was advised that alternative provision pupils had a wide range of vulnerabilities and providers were required to follow the national curriculum for core subjects.

·         The Committee queried why the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School had a low number of referrals in comparison to other schools. In response, it was advised that the school had a “never give up” attitude and cared deeply for all of its pupils. The school sought to be as creative and flexible as possible when dealing with difficult pupils and, where possible, would tailor the curriculum to their interests and needs to keep them engaged. Examples were given of pupils doing a different activity one afternoon a week, or coming in late on certain mornings and finishing later in the day. Some pupils were permitted to drop a school subject and focus on social skills instead. The school sought to foster a culture where every pupil felt valued and cared for; it was suggested that this made pupils want to attend school and developed pupils’ belief that they could succeed. 

The Committee thanked Sarah Bealey for her attendance.