Agenda item

8.1

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, People Services, containing a detailed overview and analysis of Sheffield school exclusion statistics for primary, secondary and special schools.  The report also provided an analysis of officers’ understanding of the factors that contributed to exclusions, together with details of the exclusion appeals process. 

8.2

The report was supported by a presentation by Emma Beal, Service Manager, Alternative Provision, and also in attendance for this item was Tim Bowman, Head of Inclusion and Targeted Services.

8.3

Emma Beal provided a background and context in terms of the information provided, and reported on the key aspects of the provision developments with regard to service integration, as part of the Council’s work to reduce exclusions.  Ms Beal referred to statistics with regard to both fixed-term and permanent exclusion rates, and reported on the exclusion appeals process, the next steps and future work with regard to reducing the number of exclusions.

8.4

Members of the Committee raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·             The reason as to why exclusions were recorded differently by schools was because they had different exclusion policies. Some supported the pupils in school, rather than issuing formal fixed-term exclusions, and some used alternative provision as opposed to permanent exclusion. It was accepted that the statistics may appear confusing, but it was not likely, given the different recording mechanisms, that they could be simplified in any way.  Despite this, it was believed that the statistics represented a clear and accurate picture in terms of exclusions in Sheffield, which officers considered were clearer than in other local authority areas.

·             Fixed-term exclusion data was provided by schools on a voluntary basis, whereas there was a requirement for schools to share permanent exclusion data.  There was a reluctance in terms of showing the data by locality in light of the potential risks of the children being identified due to the small numbers involved. 

·             Budget cuts had impacted on this area of work, particularly making it difficult for schools to fund alternative provision for excluded children.  A considerable level of funding was allocated to education provision for a large cohort of children at the Sheffield Inclusion Centre, and it had been identified that there was a need to reduce this cohort, and integrate them back into schools.  It was proving to be unsustainable to run both systems together, and an early help system was needed to stop problems later on. 

·             There were instances when excluded pupils were referred to Pupil Inclusion Centres, where some pupils were offered additional support in terms of reading and writing on the basis that, due to their behavioural issues, and consequent periods out of school, a number of them had fallen behind in term of these core skills. 

·             There was a requirement on all schools in the City to accept a child who had received a fixed-term exclusion back into school.  There were no details of any pupils not being accepted back in Sheffield. 

·             There were slightly different arrangements in terms of the exclusion appeals process with regard to academies on the basis of such establishments having a Board of Directors rather than a Governing Body.

·             It was accepted that the City’s performance in terms of fixed term exclusions in the primary sector was not good enough, and significant work was being undertaken in this sector to improve this, which had resulted in some level of improvement.  School representatives met regularly, where they would discuss details of individual cases in order to see how, and where, lessons could be learnt.  In addition to this, the primary integration protocol, which ensured pupils who were ready to be reintegrated back into mainstream school do so in a timely and supported manner, had been introduced this year.  Also, specific provision had been made for those children deemed to be at specific risk of exclusion.  Whilst the Authority was seeing the benefits of this combined work, in terms of improved performance regarding permanent exclusions, progress was yet to be made in terms of fixed-term exclusions.

·             Detailed analysis of some of the cultural and behavioural challenges and a period of focussed work had resulted in a reduction in the number of exclusions of Roma children.  However, it was acknowledged that more work was required in terms of reducing the number of pupils from the Roma, and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities in general, being excluded as such pupils were still disproportionately represented in the statistics.  It was accepted that there was a specific need to look in more detail at the high rate of fixed-term exclusions of pupils from BME communities, which would involve working very closely with the schools. 

·             The number of cases which proceeded to formal appeal was small, and they tended to focus on issues of process, rather than the reason for the exclusion.

·             Whilst the Local Authority would always try and learn from examples of best practice, including looking at how private schools dealt with the issue of poor pupil behaviour, this was not generally possible as, realistically, there wasn’t a comparative cohort in the private sector. 

·             In the light of the request now made by Councillor Mohammad Maroof, efforts would be made to look at whether the data with regard to the excluded pupils of Pakistani origin could be further broken down into sub-categories. 

·             The successful reintegration to mainstream of pupils from the  Sheffield Inclusion Centre required improvement, and it was hoped that additional work and resources into this area would help to improve performance, both in the primary and secondary sectors.  It was accepted that some pupils were in the Centre for too long, and that re-integration rates could be better. 

8.5

A further question was raised by a member of the Committee, relating to the demonstration on 9^th September, 2017, protesting about the Council’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) services, and the following response was provided:-

·             12% of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) had a completed Education, Health and Care Plan within the 20 week statutory limit between January and December 2016.  This had increased from 3% in 2015, with nearly three times as many new plans completed.  Officers acknowledged that performance in this area was not good enough, and were working hard to improve these figures. As part of this work, individual cases, where particular problems had been highlighted, would be reviewed, and officers had promised to meet regularly with the children’s parents to review their cases.  The main reason for the lower than expected performance in respect of the Care Plans was due to workload issues in connection with the requirement to transfer 2,500 statements into Care Plans.

8.6

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the information reported as part of the presentation and the responses to the questions raised; and

(b)      requests:-

(i)          the Policy and Improvement Officer to circulate the report considered at its meeting held on 19^th September 2016,  which contained detailed information on the delivery of Education, Health and Care Plans, to all Members of the Committee;

(ii)         that regular briefing notes containing information on a breakdown of the pupil exclusion rates in terms of electoral Wards, and further in terms of ethnicity, be provided to Members;

(iii)        a further report on Special Educational Needs (SEN) and autism be included on its Work Programme 2017/18; and

          (iv)    that a further report be submitted to the Committee on the outcome of the review of alternative provision for excluded pupils, with a specific request that a broad range of stakeholders be engaged as part of the review, including voluntary/community sector organisations and all elected Members.