PAPER C
POLICY COMMISSION BLUE PAPER
|
RESPONSIBLE BODY Policy Commission for Children and School Results |
|
|
ENQUIRY NAME School Exclusion Centre |
REFERENCE NUMBER C03/05 |
|
BACKGROUND TO ENQUIRY This
item is on the Commission's agenda following the Administration’s election
promise to investigate the provision of a School Exclusion Centre. To
produce costed options to Cabinet on the provision of an Exclusion Centre or
alternative facilities to enable Headteachers to remove pupils with
significantly challenging and disruptive behaviour from mainstream school
provision for the benefit of the disruptive pupil and other pupils in the
school. |
|
|
PURPOSE OF ENQUIRY AND PROPOSED OUTCOME To
look at the cost effectiveness of establishing an Exclusion Centre against
alternative provision or development of policy, including that which is
already in place for supporting pupils with significantly challenging and
disruptive behaviour. |
|
|
C CONSULTATION ·
Stakeholder meeting with the Cabinet member for Children held on 8 June
2005. ·
Advertisement in the IW County Press. ·
Report to the Policy Commission for Children and School Results on 7
September 2005. ·
Results of Governor Questionnaire undertaken by the IW Governors
Association in conjunction with the Overview and Scrutiny Team in October
2005. ·
Consultation process in conjunction with the draft SEN Strategy from 5
December 2005 to 13 January 2006. ·
Results of consultation and draft recommendations reported to the
Policy Commission for Children and School Results on 1 February 2006 leading
to the commissioning of this Blue Paper. To further support their
understanding and the process of consultation Members of the
Commission also visited a privately operated activity and training centre at
Bouldnor operated by Sol Ecole (Education) Ltd. This is a special training
centre located at Fort Bouldnor, Main Road, Bouldnor, Yarmouth. It is a former MOD outdoor training
facility and has accommodation for up to 16 people. Sol Ecole (Education) Ltd
is a not for profit company and currently undertakes activities for several
London authorities mainly for young people experiencing problems in attending
mainstream schools and also Looked After Children. The facility has
Independent School Status. |
|
|
ISSUES IDENTIFIED 1.
Background to behaviour issues 1.1 All
behaviour is a complex interaction between the individual, others and the
environment. Within a school setting
this relationship is complicated further by a child's access to the
curriculum, its delivery and the overall quality of teaching and the learning
environment. Whilst it is recognised
that some children and young people bring some very specific difficulties to
the learning situation, the way in which these difficulties are met in school
can have a significant impact to the success or failure of the individual
both socially, academically and in later life. Schools, which are able to make adaptations to successfully
meet the needs of the individual, rather than relying solely upon the
individual having to adapt to the school environment, are likely to be
successful in the standards achieved for all, and the provision of an
inclusive philosophy. This, in turn,
can help the building of constructive relationships with adults and peers and
facilitate positive identification with the wider community for the individual both as a young person and
into adulthood. 1.2 OFSTED behaviour survey of 2005 identified, “The behaviour
of the very large majority of pupils and students remains satisfactory or
better. Most schools and other settings are successful at managing behaviour
and creating an environment in which learners feel valued, cared for and
safe.” This statement is well reflected in the position for Isle of Wight
schools. The Annual Performance Assessment (APA) dataset (May 2005) indicates
pupils’ attitudes at primary to be very good (42%); good (33%); (25%)
satisfactory and at middle and high to be very good (25%); good (50%);
satisfactory (25%). Subsequent OFSTED Section 5 inspections of Island
schools, from September 2005 to date, have further supported this position,
with the behaviour and attitude of pupils being good or better in 50% and
satisfactory in 50%. Both nationally
and locally The most common form of unsatisfactory behaviour is persistent,
low level disruption of lessons, which is wearing for staff and interrupts
learning. All evidence and research indicates that this situation is best
rectified by consistent routine and behaviour strategies, in schools, and the
delivery of interesting lessons, which provide learning access to all. 2. The
National context 2.1 The
behaviour of pupils at school is not isolated from the rest of society. The
Government has established a number of mechanisms in order to attempt to curb
what is perceived to be unruly antisocial behaviour within society and within
schools. It has introduced compulsory parenting orders in an attempt to make
parents aware of their responsibilities as well as providing them with
support and training; acceptable behaviour contracts in order to limit behavioural
excesses and anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) sanctioned by the courts.
In order to limit crime and reduce offending ‘tagging’ has been introduced
alongside referral orders administered through referral panels and the
introduction of youth intensive support projects (YISPs), which are linked to
Youth offending teams to promote early intervention with those youngsters
most likely to engage in criminal activity. Appropriate use of these measures
is a full part of the Isle of Wight Council's strategy in promoting
citizenship and a safer community. 2.2 Nationally
(OFSTED 2005), incidents of verbal and physical abuse of peers and, less
frequently staff, by a small proportion of pupils are a problem in most
schools. Acts of extreme violence are rare; they are mostly directed towards
other pupils rather than staff. Incidents of poor behaviour tend to increase
with age, particularly from year 6 onwards. Poor behaviour in primary schools
is principally associated with children who are ill prepared socially and
emotionally within the 4-6 year age group. For the Island the pattern of the
most challenging behaviour is very similar to that nationally. However, poor
behaviour in primary schools is much reduced to that nationally but there is
a significant rise in the incidence of the most challenging behaviour and
exclusion within middle schools. 2.3 In terms of
exclusions from school, the most common reason nationally, for both fixed
term and permanent exclusions, is persistent disruptive behaviour, which
accounts for approximately 20%.
Assaults against pupils accounted for 14% of permanent exclusions and
16% of fixed term exclusions, whilst assaults against staff accounted for 12%
and 5% respectively. 2.4 There is
also evidence nationally that creating more specialist non-mainstream
provision increases the dependence upon such provision, by reducing tolerance
and expectations, and this does not reduce reliance on independent provision.
Use of specialist provision also has to be considered against a backdrop of
legislation, which promotes more inclusive educational practice much of which
is enshrined in legislation (Education Act 2002) Disability Discrimination
legislation. 2.5 In the late
1990’s because of Government concern about rising numbers of pupils
permanently excluded from schools and the causal link with increasing crime
figures and anti-social behaviour amongst juveniles, a range of measures to
maintain pupils in mainstream education were introduced. DfES targeted
resources at those Local Authorities (LAs) where it was perceived the
difficulties were of greatest concern and, at the same time imposed tighter
regimes on schools and LAs with regard to exclusion from school and the
provision from the LA for those excluded. Whilst there has been some
relaxation of this approach, for schools, the focus remains to inclusion,
with an expectation that the LA will be able to return excluded pupils to
mainstream provision within one year.
3.
The Local Context 3.1 The APA of 2005 recognised, as did the
LA OFSTED inspection of 2003, that the LA strategies and range of support
services for behaviour were satisfactory. The link to specialist services for
children and young people with learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD)
was recognised as showing good progress and highly satisfactory. However, a question was raised over the
time some young people spend in specialist exclusion provision before
re-integration to mainstream education. 3.2 The
LA has, in consultation with schools and other partners, established an
effective range of provision to provide support for pupils with emotional,
social and behavioural difficulties (ESBD). This support currently exist as
follows: ·
Specialist pupil referral units (PRUs) - Thompson House for primary
4-11 age range and Clatterford for secondary 11-18 age range ·
Specialist vocational skills workshop type provision (WISE), which
provides opportunity for individual practical skill accreditation. ·
LA Behaviour Support Service, which provides support and advice to
schools and maintains close links with the School Improvement Service in
developing solutions and strategies for low-level disruption through the use
of social and emotional aspects of learning (SEAL). ·
LA Educational Psychology Service provides strategic and individual
caseload support to schools, the PRUs and families. ·
The Intensive Support Service developed by the Children's Services
Directorate with Health partners to reduce ‘off Island’ placements and
support youngsters returning to the Island from mainland residential
schools. 3.3
Nationally, there is little agreement on what constitutes challenging
behaviour since this perception is often relative to previous experience and
is conditioned by the context in which the behaviour occurs and by the
observers' expectations. This is reflected in local experiences where
children who are perceived as a major disruption or challenge in one school
can transfer to another school and be seen in a completely different light;
integrating into the school with relative ease and achieving well. Some of
these difficulties clearly relate to research findings nationally which
identify the following as highly significant factors in managing potential
difficult behaviour: ·
Consistency of approach and routine by all staff. ·
Strong leadership providing clear direction and support to staff in
order to maintain a positive ethos, where each child is valued and respected
and where they can learn, when necessary, to manage and improve their
behaviour. ·
A thorough induction programme for staff re-iterating the necessity for
consistency and routine. ·
Regular training focused to classroom practice and an understanding of
child development. ·
Effective information systems to monitor behaviour and to take
appropriate action. 3.4 The National Curriculum
is not the constraint, providing school leadership recognises the
responsibility to provide learning opportunities, which are accessible and
capture the interest of all children. Schools where behaviour difficulties
are minimized have a positive ethos and known routine; pupils are respected
and valued; social skills are developed and lessons give access to
interesting and appropriate tasks. 3.5 Within the local
context exclusion rates, particularly permanent exclusions from school have
remained consistently low over the last 4 years. This is attributable to the
hard work and dedication of school staff and officers of the authority
working in partnership to provide creative solutions to difficult problems.
This local success is recognized nationally through the DfES ‘good practice’
website. 3.6 Whilst fixed term
exclusions from schools have risen consistently year on year and are highest
in the middle phase, there has been a focus to working with schools to review
the use of exclusion as an early disciplinary measure or where those pupils
being excluded are ‘looked after’ (in care) of the LA. Exclusions are
currently reported to elected members though the quarterly performance
monitoring review process. The use of exclusion is a matter for the headteacher
of a school, however, there is national guidance and legislation, which has
to be adhered to when exercising this sanction (DfES circular 10/99; 11/99). 4. Background to the specific enquiry 4.1 Consultation, which is set out at the beginning of this paper, has occurred in respect of this enquiry since June 2005. Specific consultation with headteachers and chairs of governors; Rural Community Council; Primary Care Trust and the Health Care Trust occurred in the period September 2005 to January 2006. In addition the information and consultation forms were published on the Council's EduWight website and an advertisement placed in the County Press drawing the public’s attention to the consultation. 4.2 In response to this consultation 24 returns were received and a detailed analysis of respondents' views was presented to the Commission in February 2006. Overall views on the range of options proposed, as originally considered by the Commission in September 2005, are extremely varied. 4.3 Developing a specialist school provision for children and young people with ESBD is not supported, by the majority of respondents, with 61% of respondents expressing disagreement with such a proposal. Headteacher respondents, in all phases of school, are more opposed to this development than any other group. Further analysis of the consultation returns indicates a majority view for expansion of, and addition to current provision. 4.4 Key strands of service development have been identified as a result of the consultation:
§ provide a dedicated centre for pupils with medically related difficulties. If premises could be found to accommodate such a centre this would have the advantage of freeing up capacity within the PRUs for pupils who are challenging in their behaviour; § extend the work of WISE, which provides flexible practical and vocational skill options for young people; § develop cluster based resource centres to provide a more localised service to a family of schools and supplement the work of the PRUs and WISE; § enhance the LA support of behaviour strategy training and development in all schools 4.5 Through developing these key
strands of provision a graduated response to the needs of children and young
people with ESBD needs can be developed, which whilst providing specialist
provision to the most challenging does not compromise the LAs responsibility
to support an inclusive approach to learning and achievement. Details of this
tiered strategy and range of current provision is given in Appendix 1 of this
paper. |
|
|
5. Current provision and expenditure Current provision is funded through the schools' budget block, retained
by the LA, in agreement with schools, to maintain central service provision.
This is set out fully within the Children's Services Budget Statement
(section 52) and amounts to: Pupil Referral Units £420,546 (net) Behaviour Support Services £
213,595 (net) Education out of school £
137, 435 (net) (2005/6 figures) In addition to this, individual schools receive funding via their
school's budget to provide support for a range of pupils special educational
needs which includes those pupils with ESBD, this amounts to: Primary schools £959,517 Middle schools £772,847 High schools £677,538 Total £2,409,902 Centrally retained SEN funding allocated on an individual pupil basis £2,194,516 Centrally retained funding independent special schools £1,835,177 Funding for the Educational Psychology Service and Education Welfare
Service is through the LA budget block (£450,773 and £369,555 [net]
respectively). 6. Options for Consideration In developing a special school for pupils with ESBD on the Island the
above factors need to be taken into consideration. Option 1 - Build a special
Schools Exclusion Centre The optimum size for a school of this type is between 40–60 pupils. The
DfES consider that all age schools are not appropriate provision because of
the potential diverse age range and negative impact older pupils may have
over their younger counterparts. There is no guarantee that pupils will not
be permanently excluded from such a school, which will still require the LA
to provide at least 25-hour provision per week to fulfil its statutory duty
to each child. The capital costs in respect of a 40 place facility will require
expenditure of £1.7 million. A 60 place facility will require expenditure of
£2.5 million. This does not include the purchase cost of any land for the
Centre's site. Revenue costs for staffing and infrastructure are a minimum £700,000
(40 places) and £1.1 million (60 places) per annum (school element only). If a residential unit (20 places) were required the additional capital
cost would be a minimum of £3.2 million. For a residential unit revenue costs remain to be determined and will
vary considerably upon the needs of individual children. Currently the
average per annum residential mainland placement for ESBD is £100,000 plus
per child. Option 2 – Extend the work of the Pupil Referral Units
(PRUs) To extend the work of the current PRUs through providing a dedicated
centre for those pupils who experience medical difficulties, (currently
supported through Thompson House PRU) therefore, creating more capacity to
respond to the needs of children aged 5 - 11, with the potential to, over
time, reduce the need in older children.
Capital costs £800,000. Revenue costs based upon a 20 place facility £200,000 per annum. Option 3 - Maintain existing systems only To maintain the existing systems: Pupil Referral Units £420,546 (net) Behaviour Support Services £
213,595 (net) Education out of school £
137, 435 (net) (2005/6 figures) Additional costs related to pay awards and inflation annually within
budget. Option 4 – Maintain existing PRU’s, extend WISE and enhance
behaviour support Maintain the existing PRUs and extend the work of WISE by developing a
satellite centre in Sandown (this work is already partially underway from
current budget). Provide one additional consultant for the development of in school
behaviour strategies to remove low-level disruption. Maintenance of current PRUs £420,546 (net - in
budget) Additional capital costs to that already in budget through the use of
an existing building £130,000. Additional revenue costs £135,000 per annum. Option 5 – Develop cluster based facilities Develop a three year strategy to provide a behaviour resource centre in
each of the five school cluster groups. This is one of the preferred models
from the consultation and has the advantage of ensuring that pupils remain
the responsibility of schools within the cluster. It focuses attention on
eventual re-integration to mainstream, enabling the LA to demonstrate an
inclusive strategy. The same concerns with regard to the age range of pupils
apply as in option 1. Revenue costs for a 10 place facility £98,000 per annum per cluster. Total £490,000 annually after 3 years. Capital costs. This would be dependent upon the physical space
available within the host school; If additional space were required this
could be covered by the installation of a portable building at a capital cost
of £150,000 per cluster. Total maximum estimate of £750,000 over 3
years. Option 6 – combination of maintaining existing facilities but
developing additional cluster facilities A combination of option 5 and option 3 was the overall most preferred
model from consultation. Over three years this would both extend provision
and provide a more local and flexible support service for schools and young
people. As all costs for option 3 are contained within current budget any
additional costs would be as option 5. |
|
|
The
Commission however, based on the evidence received, endorses in addition to
the existing provision, the development of: §
a dedicated Education Centre for pupils with
medically related difficulties; §
the extension of WISE facilities; §
the three year development of cluster based
resource centres for pupils who are excluded or at risk of exclusion and those
with significant social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. The
Commission would be willing to formulate appropriate policies and strategies
for approval by the Cabinet Member leading to such implementation. |
|
|
Prepared by Cllr Melanie Swan - Commissioner and Mr Rob Faulkner - Head of Pupil Services (until February 2006) and Mr Keith Simmonds - Head of Learning Effectiveness |
|
APPENDIX 1
.