Agenda item

a)    New River College Ofsted Report
 

b)    Concluding Discussion

a)    New River College Ofsted Report

The Committee noted the report and was pleased that the pupil referral unit had been rated ‘Good’ by Ofsted.

b)    Concluding Discussion

Candy Holder, Head of Pupil Services, introduced the paper and summarised the evidence received during the review. The Committee discussed the evidence received and shared their thoughts on possible conclusions of the review.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The most common reason for exclusion was persistent disruptive behaviour.

·         Disadvantaged pupils, pupils with special educational needs, and BAME pupils were more likely to be excluded.

·         The Committee noted the important role that governors play in the exclusion process and in shaping a school’s ethos and behaviour policy. It was suggested that further work was needed to empower school governors to act on exclusion issues. 

·         It was queried if school behaviour policies were able to adequately address persistent disruptive behaviour. The Committee had not reviewed school behaviour policies as it was not responsible for scrutinising the activities of individual schools, however it was suggested that a peer review of behaviour policies and how they are implemented could be useful for some schools. The council could support the development of attendance and behaviour partnerships in which schools are able to share learning and best practice.

·         It was suggested that increased transparency around the costs of exclusion, both financial and personal, could be useful to head teachers, governors, and parents.

·         The Committee commented on the difficulty of targeting CAMHS and other interventions commissioned by the local authority when the service was delivered on a traded basis. Further work may be needed to engage with schools on the benefits of such services.

·         It was commented that the significant variation in the exclusion rates of the borough’s schools was a fairness and equalities issue; pupils living in one area of the borough were far more likely to be excluded than those in other areas.

·         The London Borough of Hackney had adopted a good practice guide titled ‘no need to exclude’ which sought to focus schools on the alternatives to exclusion. It was suggested that adopting similar guidance with clear messages around reducing exclusion could be useful.

·         It was commented that the pressure to achieve high levels of attainment, and the cost of keeping disruptive pupils in mainstream school, could be ‘perverse incentives’ to exclude in some instances. It was commented that this was a national issue which could not be solved at borough-level, however it might be appropriate to lobby central government on this issue. Officers commented that the Timpson Review had been asked to examine this particular issue.

·         It was commented that zero tolerance behaviour policies tended to result in pupils being punished through exclusion. However, members commented that exclusion was not an effective form of punishment.

·         Only 2% of head teachers nationally felt that they had sufficient resources for pupils with special educational needs.

·         It was suggested that school league tables incentivised schools to compete rather than work in collaboration.

·         It was commented that childhood was becoming increasingly difficult for disadvantaged young people; particularly those with multiple complex needs, and those who lived in poverty.

·         It was queried if there was a correlation between a school’s rate of exclusion and if the school used the New River College outreach service. In response, officers advised that there was no strong correlation; some high excluding schools used the outreach service. Members requested further information on this.

·         It was queried if cuts to CAMHS had reduced young people’s access to mental health support services. In response, it was advised that CAMHS was oversubscribed, however 25% of those referred to CAMHS failed to attend their first meeting and a further 25% attended their first meeting and then disengaged from the service. Officers commented that this was because CAMHS was not the right service for their needs. The national CAMHS transformation programme was seeking to review the range mental health support available to young people outside of traditional CAMHS services; this would result in a broader offer of mental health support, which would better support young people and help to improve access to existing CAMHS services. However, a member commented that young people with multiple complex needs may find it challenging to engage with mental health services.

·         It was commented that some young people needed to be supported in accessing mental health services; there was a stigma associated with accessing such services.  

·         A member suggested that the Committee’s report should explain how exclusion from school impacted on children, parents and the local authority. It was suggested that information on the financial loss to the local authority should be presented to the Schools Forum and other teacher and governor forums as appropriate.

·         A member commented on the impact that exclusion can have on the local community; excluded pupils may place additional pressures on voluntary sector organisations working to support the young person and their family.   

·         It was suggested that the Committee’s report should highlight areas of good practice, encourage schools to collaborate and suggest practical alternatives to exclusion to governing bodies and head teachers.

·         It was suggested that a ‘good practice guide’ should be produced for schools, governors and parents, setting out the local authority’s expectations in regards to the exclusions process.

·         Members commented that pupil referral units such as New River College are perceived negatively in the community. Whilst pupil referral units can be challenging environments, it was thought that further work was needed to highlight the achievements of New River College and minimise the stigma associated with pupil referral units. 

·         A member reflected on the Committee’s focus group with parents and visit to New River College, commenting that young people and parents felt let down by the system, and requested an update on some of the issues that members had heard about. Officers provided updates in response to the request.

·         It was suggested that school behaviour policies and practices needed to be transparent to both pupils and parents. Young people needed clarity in regards to how their behaviour would be monitored and how records of their behaviour may be used.

·         The Committee requested a summary of the mechanisms the Council could use to influence schools; including incentives and methods of holding them to account. 

·         It was suggested that the council could develop an Islington Charter for Inclusion, a statement of intent that would set out the rights of young people in relation to their inclusion in education. This could be developed with New River College pupils and the Youth Council.

·         A member commented on the difficulties faced by pupils with autism and ADHD. It was suggested that schools could do more to support these young people, as behavioural issues could be a symptom of their needs.

·         It was commented that the Committee’s report should focus on preventing exclusion; the impact of exclusion; and supporting excluded pupils, including through challenging the stigma associated with exclusion. It was thought that teachers and school staff needed support in implementing new behaviour management practices.

·         It was suggested that all school governors should receive training on their role in shaping a school’s ethos and culture and on exclusion issues, including their role at an exclusion panel meeting.   A member commented that he had been a governor at three schools and that such issues were not openly discussed by governing bodies.

·         A member suggested that increasing the diversity of teachers and school governors would ensure that they better reflected the borough’s young people.

·         A member of the public asked how many fixed term exclusions had been overturned by school governors. In response, it was advised that school governors were unable to challenge fixed term exclusions of up to five days. Governors were able to challenge fixed term exclusions of over five days and were required to consider fixed term exclusions of 16 days or more, but officers did not have data on how many fixed term exclusions had been overturned by governors.

·         The Committee noted the difficulty that residents may have in engaging with schools if English is not their first language.

·         Following a question, it was advised that the council did recoup some costs of permanent exclusion from schools.

·         The Committee noted the positive impact that adopting trauma informed practices had on some schools. Some schools had reported that the techniques had been very helpful in understanding the behaviour of their pupils. Following the pilot, one school had appointed a counsellor to work with children, families and staff; it was reported that this was very successful in improving the relationship between families and the school. It was suggested that the Committee may wish to promote the implementation of trauma informed practices as a method of preventing exclusion.  

It was advised that the Committee would consider draft recommendations at its next meeting.