Agenda item

This report sets out the response to a Member item raised by Councillor Osborne relating to exclusions in Medway schools.

As the next meeting of this Committee is not scheduled until 8 December 2015, the Chairman has accepted this item as urgent to enable timely discussion on this issue following recent media coverage.  The report could not be despatched with the agenda as officers needed time to prepare the report, which was requested by Councillor Osborne on Wednesday 9 September 2015

Discussion:

Councillor Osborne introduced his Member Item to the Committee, explaining that this followed a Freedom of Information request which demonstrated a rise in exclusions across all key stages and a television documentary which, nationally, suggested a correlation between high exclusion rates and poor performance in SATs.

The Interim Head of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Inclusion confirmed that both fixed period and permanent exclusions had risen since 2009 and added that unvalidated data for 2014-15 demonstrated an improved performance:

·           In 2013-14 – there were 16 primary permanent exclusions in Medway

In 2014-15 – there were 9 primary permanent exclusions in Medway

·           In 2013-14 – there were 62 secondary permanent exclusions in Medway

In 2014-15 – there were 32 secondary permanent exclusions in Medway

It was explained that there had been a rise in exclusion rates nationally and some of this was potentially due to the increase in academies and could also be related to reductions in funding resulting in Local Authorities providing less support on early interventions unless schools opted to buy in these services.

Officers explained the action being taken, which included the setting up of a multi-agency Early Help Panel and the development of a Schools Support Group which would operate as a weekly clinic for schools to obtain advice, support and discuss concerns and issues about pupil behaviour.

Members then raised a number of points and questions including:

·           Exclusion rates and OFSTED inspections – in response to a question about whether OFSTED consider a school’s use and rates of exclusions during an inspection, officers confirmed that because inspections of schools were carried out over two days only, exclusion rates and data was not always investigated during an inspection.

·           Reporting of fixed period exclusions to Members – in response to a question about whether fixed period exclusion data would be reported to Members in addition to the data relating to permanently excluded children, which is reported to Members on a quarterly basis, officers confirmed that this Committee would be receiving a very detailed report in March about all aspects of school performance, including exclusion data and this would be in the public arena and enable Members to challenge this data.

·           Recording of data – in response to a question raised about whether the increase from 2009 also related to an improved recording of all types of exclusion, officers responded that there was some variance between authorities about what was recorded as a fixed period exclusion and Medway was particularly robust in its recording of all exclusions.  Equally, different schools managed respite for pupils with behaviour difficulties in different ways.  Therefore clear comparisons are less easy than the attainment results which are fully standardised.

·           Schools Support Group Clinic – in response to a question about how well this would be attended by academies, officers confirmed that academy schools had fully used the predecessor panel and were expected to embrace this new group also.  It was added that where there was deep concern about exclusions at a school and engagement with the school was not successful then concerns would be raised with the Regional Schools Commissioner, who the Director and relevant Assistant Director met with regularly.

·           Managed moves – in response to a question about whether these were still being carried out, officers confirmed that these continued to happen. Exclusions were very much final resorts as they did not result in a good outcome for the excluded child.  Managed moves enabled a dialogue between schools to understand the needs of the child and what support was needed to be put in place and to give the pupil a fresh start.

·           Governing Bodies – a comment was made about the key role of governing bodies in exclusion and that an effective governing body should take responsibility of exclusions very seriously.  When considering the proposed exclusion of a child, it was important to be clear about what actually happened, whether procedures were correctly followed and whether the sanction was appropriate.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.