Agenda item

(a)  Scrutiny Initiation Document

The Committee reviewed the scrutiny initiation document set out in the agenda pack. At the previous meeting the Committee had expressed its intention for the review to cover both exclusion and persistent absence, however following discussion with senior officers, the Chair had suggested that the review focus on exclusion matters only.

The Committee was advised that both exclusion and persistent absence were sizable topics, and it would not be feasible to review the two distinct issues in sufficient detail within the time available. It was thought that a review of exclusion could have a greater impact than a review of persistent absence, as the Committee could scrutinise the processes and actions of schools and support services; whereas persistent absence was often the result of complex factors which it was more difficult for the Committee to directly influence. It was suggested that the Committee could review attendance data on a regular basis through the quarterly performance update.

The Committee agreed the scrutiny initiation document, subject to two additions to the scope of the review.

RESOLVED:

That the Scrutiny Initiation Document be approved, subject to the following additions to the scope of the review:

·         If pupils eligible for free school meals or with special educational needs are more likely to be excluded than the remainder of the cohort

·         If there are any common factors among pupils who are excluded and those who are persistently absent.

(b)  Introductory Presentation

Candy Holder, Head of Pupil Services, presented to the Committee on the legal framework for exclusions, exclusion processes, and data on the number of exclusions locally and nationally, characteristics of excluded pupils, and the reasons for exclusion.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The most frequent reason for either fixed term or permanent exclusion was ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’. All schools had a disruptive behaviour policy, however if some schools had an unusually high number of exclusions, it was suggested that the policy was either ineffective or not being implemented successfully.

·         Boys were more likely to be excluded than girls, however, Islington had a much higher proportion of excluded girls (44%) than the England average (23%).

·         A disproportionately high number of black minority ethnic pupils had been excluded in Islington, compared to the overall cohort. The Committee expressed concern at this, and was keen to explore why this may be, and how this could be addressed.

·         It was advised that Statutory Guidance would be circulated to members of the Committee. Officers summarised key aspects of the guidance, including that schools should avoid excluding pupils with an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). It was noted that Islington excluded fewer pupils with an EHCP compared to the England average.

·         Schools were able to exclude pupils for incidents that happened outside of school.

·         Islington Council maintained records of the reasons why pupils had been excluded. The ‘other’ category was reserved for pupils who had been excluded for a weapon-related incident.

·         Officers were concerned by national reports that some schools made use of unofficial or illegal exclusions; however, the council was not aware of Islington schools engaging in this practice. It was advised that any report of an illegal exclusion would be taken very seriously.

·         Although there was no formal mechanism for local authorities to challenge individual decisions to exclude, the Council did engage with head teachers on exclusion issues and challenge their practices where appropriate.

·         There was a presumption that a local authority representative would be invited to exclusion meetings of the Board of Governors at maintained schools. The council had good working relationships with local academies and was invited to relevant exclusion meetings at academies also.

·         If excluding for ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’, decision-makers would typically be presented with a behaviour log and details of interventions attempted. 

·         If a child was permanently excluded, then the council had a duty to find them a place, either in another mainstream school or the pupil referral unit. Excluded pupils were usually referred to the New River College pupil referral unit. The council aimed to find a place for excluded pupils within six days.

·         The Committee queried if the council had a mechanism to ensure that school behaviour policies were robust and being implemented successfully. In response, it was advised that the council did not audit school behaviour policies in this manner. Policies were reviewed by the council annually, however this was to check that they complied with legislative requirements, rather than assessing their effectiveness.

·         Pupils referred to the pupil referral unit received full time education, 25 hours a week. 

·         The Committee reviewed exclusions data up for 2015/16, which was the most recent available. It was advised that data for 2016/17 would be available shortly.

·         Officers advised Islington had a particularly high rate of primary exclusion, and a higher than average rate of secondary exclusion. It was commented that secondary exclusions had increased nationwide in recent years, however local data suggested that Islington’s secondary fixed period exclusion rate had continued to increase between 2015/16 and 2017/18.

·         A member highlighted that the increase in exclusions in Islington had coincided with the changes to education introduced by the coalition government in the early 2010s. Although officers noted that this was accurate, it was emphasised that Islington had a higher exclusion rate than other boroughs.  

·         In response to a question, it was advised that 75% of pupils in Islington primary schools progressed to secondary schools in the borough.

·         Officers advised that the significant increase in excluded girls in 2015/16 was partially attributable to a specific cohort of young women on the cusp of gang involvement.

·         It was commented that sometimes exclusions would temporarily increase following the appointment of a new head teacher, as the head teacher would want to enforce discipline.

·         Officers highlighted that there was no particular trend in academies, faith schools, or community schools being more prone to exclusion than other types of school.

·         The Committee reviewed anonymised exclusions data and queried if the Committee could “name and shame” those schools which exclude most frequently. In response, officers advised that school-specific exclusions data was not published in the public domain, and agreement from schools would be needed to publish the data. Whilst there was a need to hold schools to account on their exclusion practices, it was suggested that a collaborative approach would be more likely to achieve positive outcomes.

·         Although exclusion often had a detrimental impact on young people and their families, it was commented that parents of other children sometimes welcomed exclusion, as it minimised disruption and other issues impacting on their children.

·         The law requires that pupils serving a fixed term exclusion must stay at home. The Committee noted that this was particularly problematic for working parents. It was suggested that the law was intended to make exclusion inconvenient for parents, so that they would seek to address their child’s behaviour. The Committee discussed if this was a fair approach and expressed concern at the effect this could have on families.

·         If a young person had received fixed period exclusions for more than 45 days in a single school year then they would be automatically permanently excluded. This was a legal requirement. Although it was not common for a young person to be permanently excluded for this reason, officers advised that there had been two recent cases in Islington. 

The Committee thanked officers for their attendance.