Hampshire County Council

Item 10

Children and Young People Select Committee

Review of Hampshire's approach to identifying, promoting and supporting strategies to tackle key factors leading to and arising from school exclusions.

23 April 2008

Table of contents

Foreword 3

Commonly used acronyms 4

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 15

Terms of Reference 15

Method and approach 16

Findings of the review:

Conclusions & Recommendations:

References 51

Appendices:

For further information about this report, please contact:

Emma Gordon, Scrutiny Officer

Tel: 01962 847567

emma.gordon@hants.gov.uk

Hampshire's approach to identifying, promoting and supporting strategies to tackle key factors leading to and arising from school exclusions

Report of the Review Group

23 April 2008

Foreword by Cllr Anna McNair Scott

Chairman, Exclusions Scrutiny Review Group

The seriousness of issues surrounding exclusion was brought forcibly home to the review group by the tragic experience of two members of the public who had lost their grandson as the result of an accident while he was excluded from school. We realise that exclusion is at best a poor solution for very difficult problems, but the evidence we received made it clear that it is a necessary last resort. However, we heard much that made it clear that more could be done to prevent exclusions by earlier intervention and improved communication, and to provide better resources to manage them.

We realised from the outset that inviting evidence from all 530 Hampshire schools would have made our task impossible, so, having taken advice from Children's Services, we wrote to a cross section of schools of all kinds and stages as well as a range of other stakeholders and the written evidence was the result of the responses we received. Some of this was followed up in live sessions, and we are most grateful for the time given by our witnesses, and the quality and frankness of their evidence.

I am most grateful for the time, enthusiasm and perseverance of the members of the review group - their questions and perceptions made the most of the evidence we received. I would also like to pay tribute to the scrutiny officers for the thoroughness of their research and the accuracy and impartiality of their reporting, and the members of the review group join me in thanking them for their contribution.

Hampshire's approach to identifying, promoting and supporting strategies to tackle key factors leading to and arising from school exclusions

Report of the Review Group

Commonly used acronyms

BST

Behaviour Support Team

CAF

Common Assessment Framework

CAMHS

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

CYP

Children and Young People

DfES

Department for Education and Skills

DP

Data Protection

DSG

Dedicated Schools Grant

EIP

Education Inclusion Partnership

EIS

Education Inclusion Service

EOTAS

Education Other Than At School

FASST

Family and School Support Team

FOI

Freedom of Information

HCC

Hampshire County Council

KS1-4

Key Stages 1-4

OfSTED

Office for Standards in Education

PPP

Positive Parenting Programme

PRU

Pupil Referral Unit

SEN

Special Educational Need

SIMS

Schools Information Management System

SSP

Safer School Partnership

YISP

Youth Inclusion and Support Panel

YJB

Youth Justice Board

YOT

Youth Offending Team

Hampshire's approach to identifying, promoting and supporting strategies to tackle key factors leading to and arising from school exclusions

Report of the Review Group

Executive Summary

1. Background

1.1 The Children and Young People Select Committee identified the topic of school exclusions for in-depth scrutiny in February 2007. The decision to undertake this review was taken against the background of various key developments, nationally and locally, but most specifically in anticipation of upcoming requirements in September 2007 for schools and local authorities to provide full-time education from the sixth day of fixed-term and permanent exclusions. The new `6 day rule' would replace the previous 15 day arrangements.

2. Scope of the review

2.1 Members chose to focus on four broad areas of interest within the overarching context of the new requirements relating to the prevention and management of exclusions:

2.2 The key findings of the review are presented under the headings above in sections 5-13 of the full report.

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

3.1 Overall, Hampshire performs well in the prevention and management of exclusions and behaviour in schools is good in the majority of schools. The commitment from agencies involved in supporting pupils who are excluded or at risk of exclusion is also evident. However, renewed emphasis on preventing exclusion, coupled with the new six day requirement, means that existing challenges could be exacerbated. Whilst most stakeholders believe that issues will be manageable under current arrangements, there is a desire to see a better joining up of support to pupils and their families.

3.2 Inconsistency of provision of support services for pupils and their families across the County arises as a clear issue in the evidence received from stakeholders and underpins many of the review group's recommendations. The review group acknowledges the rapidly changing climate surrounding services for the prevention and management of exclusions and the fact that improved partnership working is a major - and complex - issue for many services delivered by local government, and therefore appreciates that time is needed for new ways of working to embed.

3.3 Prevention, rather than cure, is another key issue arising from the evidence. Early intervention and prevention of exclusion across all age-groups appears vital in order to manage behaviour and exclusion effectively.

3.4 Finally, the review has highlighted the complexities in preventing and managing exclusions. In such a complex environment, the review group has acknowledged that the Executive Member and other partners will have to bear in mind the importance of value for money in consideration of any recommendations made by the review group.

4. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Facilities and Resources

4.1 Members noted the uneven spread and overall lack of accommodation for excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion as an important issue to consider in the light of new requirements. Encouraging schools and local authorities to work together to establish predictions of future need for this kind of resource is deemed prudent so as to be able to best anticipate the type, and location, of provision likely to be required. Particular consideration needs to be made of the needs of children in care, in order to respond to the `one day' requirement for full-time education and ensure stability in these young people's lives through availability of local provided services.

4.2 In addressing the lack of accommodation around the County, Members also recognised the advantages of clusters of schools working together to share accommodation locally. Evidence shows that there is currently resistance in some parts of the County to this type of approach. However, the evidence also showed that schools are not always aware of the full range of services for preventing and managing exclusions in their area and this could be a barrier to effective partnership working.

4.3 The provision of Behaviour Support across the County is varied, with very different levels of support and accommodation being available in each area. Some excellent practice exists at the New Forest Behaviour Support Team, which is highly regarded amongst most stakeholders. The NFBST is distinctive for having its own accommodation from which to operate which allows it respond promptly to pupils at risk of exclusion, providing appropriate part-time support off the school site whilst keeping the pupil on roll at school at their normal school.

4.4 Finally, Members of the review group concluded that support to excluded pupils or those at risk of exclusion was best provided and coordinated from within an educational setting, with partner agencies inputting as required.

4.5 In relation to facilities and resources, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

5. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Coordination of partnerships

5.1 Members felt it very important that the coordination and management of the various services supporting the prevention and management of exclusions is improved. The current `patchiness' of provision and lack of clarity regarding services available in an area contribute to the difficulties in managing support to pupils and parents at present.

5.2 The need to establish a single point of contact with which all stakeholders can liaise is also key to the provision of timely and effective support to pupils and their families. The evidence points to the advantages of having a single point of contact which has a predominantly educational focus, but is able to coordinate a full range of support in conjunction with partners around the needs of a pupil.

5.3 The recent split in management arrangements for Behaviour Support Teams and the Education Inclusion Service seems contrary to the interests of joining services up more effectively and creating a streamlined range of support around the needs of a pupil.

5.4 Members also observed the importance of identifying `trigger points' which highlight the need for certain types of intervention with pupils at risk of exclusion and their families. Ensuring that the right type and level of support is subsequently provided is also important (so as to avoid issues such as inappropriate referrals to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services).

5.5 Members are concerned that there is currently insufficient awareness of the particular needs of children in care across most services supporting excluded and at risk pupils.

5.6 The Common Assessment Framework stands to be of benefit for the coordination of partnerships, but most stakeholders concur that the lead agency in any CAF would most usefully be a representative from an organisation with an educational focus. How the CAF will facilitate better partnership working in future is therefore of great interest to Members.

5.7 In relation to the coordination of partnerships, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

6. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Information and IT

6.1 A much greater focus on the type and quality of information being shared between partners, and for what purpose, would assist in the effective prevention and management of exclusions.

6.2 Members also noted that a clearer map of multi-agency resources in the form of shared directories of services in an area would be of assistance to stakeholders.

6.3 Whilst work is underway to integrate the Schools' Information Management System (SIMs) and the Education and Inclusion Service's IT systems, this work does not currently appear to be given adequate priority given its importance to the effective prevention and management of exclusions. Members also noted that many stakeholders would benefit from easier access to information held in the schools SIMs system.

6.4 Members were concerned at the reluctance amongst some stakeholders to share information with each other due to unfounded concern over restrictions in Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation.

6.5 In relation to partnership information and IT, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

7. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Initiatives for preventing exclusions

7.1 With exclusion being a measure of last resort and in the light of new pressures to find full-time sixth day education, the prevention of exclusion is vital, although a zero exclusion policy was not considered feasible by Members at this time.

7.2 Perhaps the most important factor in preventing exclusions cited in the evidence was intervention at the earliest possible stage. The importance of providing relevant support to pupils identified as being at risk of exclusion - including those with undiagnosed special educational needs, mental health problems and substance misuse issues - is uppermost. Some good practice exists in the County, but more could be done to make support more consistent from all service providers.

7.3 Issues relating to the timely provision of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, and the availability of these services in different parts of the County were of particular concern to Members. Inappropriate referrals to CAMHS, resulting from a lack of understanding amongst stakeholders of the full range of services available, were also highlighted as a key point to address.

7.4 The prevention of exclusions is crucial for the stability of children in care. The need to raise awareness of the needs of children in care in this respect was a clear message in the evidence received from stakeholders.

7.5 Once again, the challenges posed by the lack of accommodation for pupils at risk of exclusion and provide them with services such as short term respite, or support for special educational needs, whilst keeping the pupil on roll at school, was raised in the evidence. A lack of awareness of the availability of local provision for preventing exclusion is also a key issue arising from the evidence. These issues are addressed by recommendations 1 and 3 above.

7.6 Members were hopeful for the future of Education Inclusion Partnerships as facilitators of multi-agency early intervention. It was acknowledged that these partnerships will take another two years or so to realise their full potential, but Members were satisfied with progress being made.

7.7 The need for schools to realise the importance of their involvement in multi-agency work in the prevention of exclusions was evident to Members. A greater engagement on joint training initiatives with HCC officers on topics such as exclusion protocols and the requirements of new legislation would be beneficial in order to improve consistency of approach across the County in the prevention of exclusions.

7.8 Members noted the importance of appropriate curriculum provision for excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion. The evidence showed that joint working between schools and partner agencies needed to be improved in most parts of the County in order to provide access to relevant education for all children without the need to travel long distances.

7.9 The importance of providing pupils with relevant support for as long as necessary to facilitate return to school was also highlighted. The Family and School Support Team (FASST), Woodlands in Havant and the New Forest Clifford Centre were singled out for their ability to provide this `longitudinal' support to pupils, which is considered highly effective. New Locality Teams in each area of Hampshire use the FASST model to provide support to pupils, which represents a positive development in this area.

7.10 In relation to initiatives for preventing exclusions, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

8. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Partnerships with the Police and Youth Offending Team

8.1 Safer Schools Partnerships were shown to be highly effective in tackling the risk factors for exclusion. Where these partnerships have been put in place in Hampshire, they have proved successful. However, Members noted that there is still a low level of understanding of SSPs amongst schools and other partners.

8.2 Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) have helped to address the lack of joining up between Police, Youth Offending Teams (YOT) and other agencies in addressing the risk factors relating to both crime and exclusions, although further engagement from schools on these panels could make them more effective.

8.3 Capacity issues in the YOT were noted by Members, although evidence also showed that certain adjustments in the YOT's current ways of working would have a positive impact on partnership working, such as improvements in the timeliness of information sharing and consideration of the YOT holding meetings with pupils in school rather than outside of school.

8.4 Members noted that CAMHS' capacity issues means it is unable to respond within timescales set by the criminal justice system, therefore making partnership working with the YOT difficult.

8.5 In relation to partnerships with the Police and Youth Offending Team, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

9. Conclusions and recommendations relating to equality of access to support and services at all stages of school life

9.1 A key finding of the review was the importance of very early and `longitudinal' intervention with pupils at risk of exclusion. This fact necessitates robust mechanisms for intervention at primary level or earlier which are able to continue as long as is required - even across the primary-secondary divide - to ensure a pupil's timely return to school. Members therefore noted that improved primary level interventions and support at primary-secondary transition phase are vital to the effective prevention and management of exclusions.

9.2 The varied provision of Behaviour Support across Hampshire does not allow for equal access to primary level interventions and support at transition phase. However, the New Forest Behaviour Support Team is recognised by most stakeholders as a `gold standard' for early intervention, longitudinal support, and support at primary-secondary transition phase.

9.3 FAAST has proved successful in facilitating early intervention and access to specialist services in the parts of the County where it operates.

9.4 The timely and thorough transfer of data relating to a pupil's academic achievement and emotional, social and behavioural factors at the primary-secondary transition phase has proven to be a powerful tool in combating exclusion and facilitating highly effective partnership working. The New Forest BST's Common Transfer Pro-Forma has proved its worth in this respect. The review group was not informed of any other similar mechanisms elsewhere in the County.

9.5 Good results have been produced where primary and secondary schools work together locally to facilitate transition. Where work is supported by Behaviour Support which extends into the secondary sector, this is deemed very effective. The New Forest BST's ability to support pupils continuously between ages 4-13 is considered by all stakeholders to provide optimum support to excluded and at risk pupils.

9.6 Members also felt that the Havant BST's work with pre-school pupils was an excellent model for ensuring early intervention with at risk pupils and their families.

9.7 Finally, the new split management arrangements for BSTs and Education Centres was highlighted as being a barrier for effective work around transition from primary to secondary school. This issue is addressed in recommendation 6 above.

9.8 In relation to equality of access to support and services at all stages of school life, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

10. Conclusions and recommendations relating to working with parents

10.1 New responsibilities for parents relating to their children's behaviour and exclusion are potentially bewildering and can lead to serious repercussions which need to be better understood by parents and support agencies. Members noted that, whilst it is extremely difficult to enforce parental responsibility, much can be done to ensure that parents better understand their duties and become more willing to engage in initiatives to combat poor behaviour and exclusion.

10.2 Early engagement with parents is considered vital. Finding ways to encourage parents to engage at an early stage continues to be a challenge, although the presence of a single `third party' (non-school or social care) point of contact has been seen to be successful in the form of the Clifford Centre in the New Forest. Recommendation 5 above, which highlights the benefits of greater central coordination of all services supporting excluded and at risk pupils, addresses this point.

10.3 Parenting programmes such as the Positive Parenting Programme (PPP) have proved extremely successful where they have been introduced, although there is still some concern that central coordination, and geographical equality of access, to these programmes across the County needs to be improved.

10.4 Members were concerned at references to the practice of informal exclusion. This kind of practice is not in the interests of securing the best outcomes for at risk pupils and their families, or in the interests of effective partnership working and is illegal.

10.5 In relation to working with parents, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

11. Conclusions and recommendations relating to transportation

11.1 The evidence received by the review group shows that transportation is an issue that will require ongoing monitoring in the light of new requirements relating to exclusions. However, Members noted that the key issue impacting on transportation for excluded and at risk pupils is the sparse provision of alternative education resource, meaning that pupils currently have to travel long distances to receive appropriate tuition. In parts of the County where provision is available and well-coordinated, transport is not seen to be such a major issue.

11.2 The evidence also indicates that consideration of transportation issues needs to be made at the earliest opportunity when arranging support for at risk or excluded pupils. Transport is often discussed after all other factors, and can therefore become the key stumbling block for stakeholders when coordinating support.

11.3 In relation to working with parents, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

Hampshire's approach to identifying, promoting and supporting strategies to tackle key factors leading to and arising from school exclusions

Report of the Review Group

1. Introduction

1.1 The Children and Young People Select Committee identified the topic of school exclusions for in-depth scrutiny in February 2007. The decision to undertake this review was taken against the background of various key developments, nationally and locally, but most specifically in anticipation of upcoming requirements in September 2007 for schools and local authorities to provide full-time education from the sixth day of fixed-term and permanent exclusions. The new `6 day rule' would replace the previous 15 day arrangements.

1.2 Whilst the review group was particularly interested to investigate the general impact of the new requirements on the prevention and management of exclusions on Hampshire County Council (HCC) and its partners, Members also wished to focus more specific attention on the following areas during the course of the review:

1.3 At the outset of the review, Members were mindful of a major restructuring of the HCC Children Services Department which would lead to changes in the roles and responsibilities of several key stakeholders during the course of the review. At the time of publishing this report, elements of this restructuring are still taking place and Members have therefore acknowledged that, in the rapidly changing climate, some observations and recommendations in this report may pre-empt planned developments.

2. Terms of Reference

2.1 The review group identified the following as desired outcomes of the review:

2.2 After an initial period of investigation, the review group refined its scope to focus on the following key headline areas. These topics became the central themes for inviting evidence from stakeholders:

3. Method and approach

3.1 A small sub-committee (the `review group') of Members from the Children and Young People Select Committee was assembled under the Chairmanship of Cllr Anna McNair Scott. The full group membership was as follows:

3.2 Following a period of desk research, covering national and local policy and practice relating to the prevention and management of school exclusions, the review group invited written evidence from selected stakeholders in June 2007. Using the information provided by stakeholders as a guide, the review group then invited a smaller pool of witnesses to provide further oral evidence to the group at `select committee' style sessions between September and December 2007. During the oral evidence sessions, the Chairman successfully trialled new approaches to scrutiny by inviting witnesses to give evidence as a `panel' in conversation with each other. In addition to the written and oral evidence collected, a small group of Members also visited the New Forest Behaviour Support Team at the Clifford Centre, in order to gain first hand experience of the successful techniques and processes being employed to achieve zero primary permanent exclusions in the last six years in Area 6.

3.3 The Chairman is grateful to all stakeholders who took the time to contribute so helpfully to the review. Particular mention should go to those members of the public who engaged with the process and provided valuable insights into the issues for parents and young people in Hampshire relating to this topic. The Chairman would also like to thank Sheila Pape, David Jones and John Dawson - the non-Member representatives of the review group - for assisting with this piece of work.

4. Findings of the Review - Introduction and background

Hampshire context

4.1 Hampshire County Council describes exclusion as `one of the strategies available to schools for managing the behaviour of pupils, [...] appropriately used as a way of giving clear messages to the pupil involved and the whole school community, that certain kinds of behaviour are unacceptable.' 1

4.2 The review group recognises that disruptive behaviour is cited by teaching staff nationwide as a major challenge. HCC generally performs well with regard to exclusions and behaviour, as the snapshot from the 2006 Annual Performance Assessment (below) indicates. However, there is still room for improvement in certain areas and the challenges posed by new guidance on exclusions require a renewed focus on this area:

4.3 Hampshire's 2005-6 data on school exclusions showed a 2.4% increase in permanent exclusions (from 162 in 2004/05 to 166). This was almost entirely accounted for by the significant rise in secondary permanent exclusions in two areas of the county: Area 1 (from 22 to 36, a rise of 61%) and Area 7 (from 24 to 33, a rise of 37% )2. Apart from a small overall rise in Area 4 all other areas either reduced or maintained levels of permanent exclusion. In Area 6 - Totton, New Forest, Hythe and Fawley - the total number of permanent exclusions was only 5 which was the lowest Area total since these records were established.

4.4 In the same year, primary exclusions fell again, from 12 to 8. Four of the seven Areas had no primary exclusions at all. Considering that Hampshire has a primary phase school population of more than 100,000 children, these are very small figures indeed. Special school exclusions stayed at the previous year's very low rate of 2.

4.5 After 6 years of successive rises, fixed-term exclusions also reduced, both in actual numbers of exclusions (from 12,152 to 11,823 a reduction of 2.8%) and in numbers of days lost (from 40,533 to 38,198 a reduction of 5.8%).

4.6 There is some cause for concern that the number of children in care permanently excluded rose from 10 in 2004/05 to 13 in 2005/6.

4.7 Full data on Hampshire school exclusions is at Annexe A.

National context

4.8 According to the former Department for Education and Skills (DfES), permanent exclusions reached a peak of 12,700 nationally in 1996-7 - a threefold increase from the mid 1990s.3 The importance of reducing exclusions was highlighted at this time due to the impact not only on the children involved, but also pupils' families and the wider community.

4.9 Whilst reducing the number of overall exclusions is important, Government policy now places the greatest priority on ensuring excluded pupils get a full time education. Early intervention, prevention and management of exclusions is now at the top of the agenda, although it is widely recognised that the issues relating to exclusions are complex and multi-layered and a school's size, nature and funding will impact on how these issues are approached. Increased partnership working and collaboration between schools, local authorities, parents and other relevant organisations and agencies is greatly encouraged.

4.10 The DfES maintains that excluded young people are more likely to get involved in crime, with nearly two thirds of school age young offenders who are sentenced in court having a record of exclusion or truancy.4

4.11 Legislation and guidance relating to school exclusions has been updated several times over the past few years. It is therefore important to note that any agencies involved in delivering the exclusions agenda require time to respond effectively to new ways of working as the legislative landscape changes. A key development to note as part of this review is the new requirement from September 2007 whereby schools need to arrange full-time education for pupils excluded for a fixed period from the sixth day of an exclusion and local authorities likewise from the sixth day of a permanent exclusion (as opposed to 15 days previously).

4.12 The cost of six day provision from September 2007 to March 2008 was estimated at £9.3 million nationally. Local authorities were expected to meet these new costs from the 5% increase in their Dedicated Schools Grant per pupil for 2007-8. £16 million is to be included in the DSG for 2008-9 and beyond. The division of the £9.3 million for 2007-8 was broken down into £5.8 million for schools for fixed period exclusions and £3.5 million for local authorities for permanent exclusion. The government made an assumption that provision for permanently excluded pupils would already be in place to a reasonable extent (to comply with the previous 16 day requirements), hence the lower amount of support to local authorities. Whilst this funding is not ring-fenced, the government has provided guidelines to assist local authorities in setting the total amount of DSG to be spent on achieving the new 6 day requirements. In Hampshire, the amount for September 2007 to March 2008 is £214k.

5. Findings of the Review - Partnership working - Introduction

5.1 The evidence shows that some excellent practice exists amongst Hampshire partners in the prevention and management of exclusions and stakeholders' commitment to keep pupils in school as far as possible was evident at the oral evidence sessions. The 2007 Hampshire Joint Area Review of Children's Services paints a positive picture of the way in which the County Council, Hampshire schools and other agencies work together to promote inclusive education and keep exclusion figures low overall. That said, stakeholders were conscious of the challenges the posed by the new legal requirements on schools and local authorities reducing the time allowed to arrange full-time education for excluded pupils from 15 days to 6.

5.2 National and local policy places a strong emphasis on ensuring early intervention and prevention of exclusions, and this was borne out in the evidence received from stakeholders. Without strong partnership working, most initiatives for the prevention and management of exclusions would not be effective - from shared approaches to behaviour management and curriculum planning to identifying children with complex special needs.

5.3 National research also indicates that excluded children are more likely to get involved in crime and so partnerships addressing the possible link between these issues are a key focus of this review.

5.4 Nearly two thirds of school age young offenders who are sentenced in court have a record of exclusion or truancy. Whilst the Youth Justice Board has not identified any conclusive link between exclusions and offending, the Hampshire Youth Offending Team (YOT) maintains that a link between school exclusions and crime can be proven in Hampshire and there was a clear view from stakeholders working in the crime and antisocial behaviour fields that early intervention by these partners can indeed assist with levels of exclusion in school, as well as truancy rates. Work undertaken by the Fareham Community Safety Partnership's Antisocial Behaviour Officer with 25 young people on Acceptable Behaviour Contracts showed that 56% of those young people had been excluded or had truanted. Basingstoke and Deane's Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership submitted Home Office data showing that 44% of children permanently excluded had no recorded offences prior to exclusion but had a record of offending afterwards. Moreover, there appears to be no doubt that several risk factors for youth offending stem from the education system: detachment from education, low attainment, unsuitable curriculum, lack of appropriate disciplinary policy and practice, poor parental relationships with schools, experience of local authority care.5 For the purposes of this review, therefore, the link between crime and exclusions is addressed under the same umbrella as all other partnerships assisting in the prevention and management of exclusions, as the risk factors for offending appear to be similar to some of those identified for pupils at risk of exclusion.

5.5 Issues relating to various aspects of partnership working are dealt with in sections 6-10 of this report.

6. Findings of the Review - Partnership working - Facilities and resources for partners in preventing and managing exclusions

6.1 Guidance from the former DfES states that schools must provide full-time education by day 6 of a fixed period exclusion. This provision must be away from the excluding school's site unless that school hosts a provision which is shared with at least one other school. This requirement puts pressure on resources to accommodate excluded pupils and increases the need for schools to work together in local partnerships to improve behaviour (and prevent exclusion), manage the pattern and volume of exclusions and share resources effectively. Recent national data shows that the average fixed term exclusion lasts only 3.6 days. Only 15% of exclusions are over the 5 day threshold which will trigger the need for full-time education.6 It is important that schools and local authorities use local exclusion data to run their own predictions of need in their area and make consideration of the resource required to support this need.

6.2 For children in care, the new requirements state that alternative education provision must be provided from day 1 of an exclusion to avoid a break in the child's education. Evidence from HCC's Team for Children in Care indicates that, given the mixed success nationally in implementing the 6-day requirement so far, the 1-day requirement will almost certainly be difficult to achieve.

6.3 Government guidance encourages clusters of schools to invest in, and share, an off-site facility for sixth day full time education provision. This facility can be something that already exists - such as a pupil referral unit or youth centre - or a new facility. This provision can be run by a private company, a charity or the local authority, but needs to be in a central location that can be easily accessed. 7

6.4 Most stakeholders cited a lack of facilities and resources as the most important issue to address in the light of the new requirements for six day provision. Inadequate capacity at the county's Education Centres (pupil referral units) and within the Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) service - both physical capacity and appropriate staffing resource - was raised time and again in the written evidence received by the review group. Indeed, evidence from the Inclusion Service itself was clear in stating that the provision of full time education for all excluded pupils was impossible as accommodation does not currently exist. Hampshire's position when compared with other local authorities does not compare favourably in this respect.

6.5 The HCC Inclusion Policy makes clear that, whilst funding arrangements and limits on resources make it difficult to respond to all needs that arise, further work could be done within current resources to provide streamlined referral routes, internet-based guidance, `signposting' on where to get help, community-based multi-professional teams, extended schools and shared databases. The local authority therefore recognises the need to use resources as efficiently as possible and has already taken some steps to address this - for example with the roll-out of extended schools. Most stakeholders acknowledged the financial constraints on developing initiatives for preventing and managing exclusions, but many concurred that much more could be done to improve knowledge of procedures, available services and referral routes amongst partners in Hampshire to make interventions more effective. The importance of clarity in this area is backed up by government guidance which states that `Local Authorities can help schools by making available to them a list of local, quality assured, external providers they can use, with relevant information such as the types of provision and costs.'8 This is particularly important in the interests of preventing exclusions as there is much alternative education provision available which can be used in the short-term whilst keeping pupils on-roll at their own school.

6.6 Prior to the introduction of new 6 day requirements in September 2007, the Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) service provided for children who had been excluded for more than 15 days on fixed term exclusions and pupils normally received between 5 and 15 hours per week of home or centre-based tuition. Providing full-time education on the sixth day of an exclusion could therefore pose problems. Evidence suggests that some parts of the County may struggle more than others to provide placements at Education Centres, with Gosport finding the lack of resources problematic under current arrangements and Andover schools being unable to access preventative placements at the local Education Centre over the past couple of years due to a lack of capacity. Evidence from the Youth Justice Board (as put forward by the YOT), finds that only 35-45% of young people in the youth justice system on any given day are in receipt of full-time education, training or employment. One of the reasons for this they cite is lack of space at Education Centres and lack of support and specialist help for young people with identified Special Educational Needs (SEN).

6.7 The current capacity to support sixth day provision and provide support to pupils at risk of exclusion varies enormously across Hampshire, both in terms of accommodation and the types of intervention available (see Annexe B for a map of current provision). As a general rule, Behaviour Support Teams operate at primary level, mainly providing outreach support to teachers in schools. However, in some areas - most notably in Area 6 (New Forest) - behaviour support is a much expanded service. There, the BST provides both outreach to schools and support from its own premises at the Clifford Centre for excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion. The New Forest BST is therefore able to fulfil the role of the `shared facility' for excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion described in paragraph 6.2 above. This team is unique in Hampshire in having its own premises from which to operate, although in Area 1 (Basingstoke) the Broadoaks Education Support Centre is able to provide primary intervention on its own premises. Broadoaks is, however, separate from the BST and describes itself as being `the next level up from a BST and different from a BST in that it is able to provide in-house educational support'. As has been demonstrated, this comparison does not hold for the New Forest BST which can provide in-house support, with a core focus on education (see paragraph 7.6 for details). Again, this helps to demonstrate the mixed picture of support across Hampshire.

6.8 Whilst Broadoaks Education Centre operates at primary level, most Education Centres (or Pupil Referral Units) in Hampshire are targeted at secondary level support for pupils at risk of exclusion or those excluded. In certain parts of the county, this provision is well-established - Havant and Basingstoke for example - and stakeholders were confident that the new 6 day requirements would be entirely manageable with current resources. However, these same stakeholders acknowledged that this is not the case in the rest of the county. It is clear that the provision and management of support to excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion at primary and secondary level across Hampshire is not consistent.

6.9 For children in care the question of accommodation for pupils who are excluded or at risk of exclusion is even more challenging. In the interests of maintaining stability in these young people's lives, the debate as to whether to place an excluded pupil in provision near to school or near to home is ongoing. If there were a greater and more consistent spread of provision in Hampshire, stability could be more easily achieved for this group of young people. For those children deemed at risk of exclusion, having recourse to local provision which can provide respite and educational support at short notice is important. Evidence from the HCC Team for Children in Care showed that relying on ad hoc provision where resources allow creates instability in the usual school routine.

6.10 There was general consensus amongst stakeholders that excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion are best catered for in an educational setting as all too often the reasons for exclusion are related to educational factors, such as the pupil not being able to read.

6.11 In addressing the issue of resources, several stakeholders started to offer possible solutions. The YOT favoured in-school provision for excluded pupils (where a space is set aside on the school site for the pupil to stay during the period of exclusion). They claim that this technique has proved very successful in some areas, although some schools suggested it may send the wrong message to excluded pupils and their parents by allowing the pupil back to school as usual.

6.12 School partnerships have been set-up in some areas to encourage schools to share facilities: Court Moor school for example has already entered into discussions with other schools in its area to find collaborative solutions to the challenge of finding alternative provision. Court Moor has found that, whilst head teachers are willing to support others, there has been some reluctance from governing bodies to host excluded children. Court Moor acknowledges that, in order for local school cluster partnerships to work effectively, clear protocols on the `sharing' of excluded pupils are needed. However, having discussed possible protocols and governance at length, few solutions have been found and it has become clear that the issue is extremely difficult to manage locally. Many schools responding to the review recognised the need to work collaboratively, but some mentioned that this would require increased trust and participation to be effective. There was also some concern that, in providing provision in-school for excluded pupils, there was a risk that resources could be taken away from pupils who need it most, such as those with special educational needs.

6.13 Where school clusters have worked well - in Trosnant Junior School's partnership for example - schools are able to help each other prevent exclusions and have improved information sharing with each other, particularly around emotional, social and behavioural issues.

6.14 To address resource issues around providing work for excluded pupils, John Hanson School has compiled a `work bank' - a pool of work for pupils to complete while on exclusion (for Year 7 upwards). The work bank was being trialled in early 2007 and was due to be used across the Andover Behaviour Partnership from September 2007.

6.15 Some stakeholders also felt that greater innovation around IT learning networks and virtual learning could be of benefit in providing alternative educational provision, although there were also concerns that this form of alternative education was particularly difficult to supervise. This is a view backed up by government guidance on the matter.9

7. Findings of the Review - Partnership working - Coordination of partnerships

7.1 Stakeholder responses indicated a strong desire to see better coordination and strategic management of the various agencies and organisations involved in the prevention and management of exclusions. Most stakeholders wished to see the appointment of a lead agency or single point of contact for schools to approach in the event of an exclusion or when a pupil has been identified as being at risk of exclusion. Some schools claimed that too much responsibility is left with schools to coordinate support to challenging students and that, without strong leadership for partnerships, intervention can feel `peripheral' to students and is not effective.

7.2 There was optimism from some stakeholders that some of the additional Dedicated Schools Grant (described in section 4.12 of this report) will be spent on helping to facilitate a better dialogue between schools and local authorities, therefore improving the management of excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion.

7.3 In its various plans and strategies, Hampshire County Council acknowledges its lead role in coordinating initiatives for the prevention and management of exclusions. The HCC Inclusion Policy states that the County Council will promote inclusion by developing ethos, resources, partnerships, staff training and ways of learning and teaching so that individual needs can be met. HCC's Behaviour Support Policy is also clear that a key objective is to encourage schools to work as a community (where a child is not educated by one school, it becomes the responsibility of another). This involves shared polices and practices on the management of pupils, transitions between schools, training opportunities and the organisation of managed moves. The Inclusion Policy states that the County Council will take the lead role in encouraging special schools to promote partnership working with mainstream schools, to include consultancy, outreach and training. Furthermore, there is a commitment to research how all mainstream schools could be responsible for providing or brokering education for all children in their community.

7.4 Section 6 of this report outlines some of the difficulties in coordinating support in Hampshire, mainly due to the varying arrangements for support and provision across the county. However, as a general rule, Behaviour Support Teams (now managed by the Children and Families directorate at HCC) take the lead for the multi-agency approach to behaviour issues, and the Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) service (managed by the Education and Inclusion service) has as a key commitment that it will be the first point of contact for schools when they identify pupils at risk of exclusion and to then broker outreach to schools i.e. through BSTs.

7.5 Stakeholder responses seem to indicate that there is a case for requesting further clarification of these roles as many schools are still unaware of the range of provision available to them and the pathways for accessing them. Many stakeholders - including schools, education centres, behaviour support teams and CAMHS - also questioned the split management arrangements for BSTs and Education Centres, particularly given the fact that behaviour and exclusion are so deeply intertwined. Stakeholders feel that this separation makes it much more difficult to coordinate initiatives to prevent and manage exclusions. Indeed, Eastleigh has recently experienced its first primary exclusion in many years, and this has been taken as an indication of the system not being sufficiently joined up to prevent cases falling through the gaps. Several Education Centre Managers expressed concern that, whilst the Education and Inclusion Service has responsibility for exclusions in its area, it no longer has control over the deployment of BSTs, therefore making it impossible for Education Centres to respond to primary age pupils identified as being at risk of exclusion.

7.6 Interestingly, the New Forest BST has developed a model through which it takes the lead on coordinating multi-agency support for behaviour issues as well as providing the full range of support to excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion, whilst keeping the continuing education of pupils at its core. The New Forest BST finds that schools, voluntary and community groups and support agencies and services such as CAMHS alike see the BST as the lead agency to coordinate a full range of educational, emotional and social support around pupils at risk or excluded. Their success in adopting this role depends on effective sharing of information and relationship building with all partners. The BST also attributes its success in achieving zero primary exclusions in the past six years to its concentration on educational issues. Evidence to the review showed that most stakeholders concur that the lead agency for exclusions or interventions for pupils at risk should have an educational focus. This view was reinforced by HCC's Team for Children in Care who observed that many young people entering the care system already have educational problems. Early intervention with children on the edge of care should therefore necessarily include school-based factors as a major element.

7.7 The identification of common `trigger points' or `early warning systems' for intervention were mentioned by several stakeholders as being important to the effective prevention of exclusions. The New Forest BST has attempted to address one of the EOTAS aims of providing a `coherent and transparent set of triggers for differentiated levels of support and intervention'  by establishing a hierarchy of levels of support (levels 1-7) available to schools (see Annexe C for details). They have a good network of partner contacts so can refer cases to the right agency at the right level. This approach helps to work around perceptions from many stakeholders that social care thresholds for intervention are too high or that CAMHS is inaccessible or that there is too much fragmentation of initiatives to combat exclusions. CAMHS itself has recognised the effectiveness of the New Forest BST model, with particular reference to the importance of their preventative work at primary school level. In other parts of the county, the Family and Schools Support Team (FASST) has helped in a similar way to the New Forest BST. However, other areas of the county are not currently able to provide this model of support for various reasons. The Havant BST suggests that the general lack of knowledge of the work of BSTs leads to much duplication of effort and occasionally experts being involved in cases unnecessarily. This creates confusion for schools, parents and officers alike. The need for more central coordination is very clear in this respect. Indeed, some schools have taken it upon themselves to employ staff to navigate the multi-agency landscape and find the most appropriate level of support for pupils. Crookhorn College of Technology for example has a wide range of non-teaching staff in-house such as an Education Welfare Officer, a Careers Coordinator and an SEN manager. However this level of staffing is not the norm across the county's schools.

7.8 In the interests of creating more joined-up ways of working, the review group noted the specific need to increase awareness of children in care across all services supporting excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusions. Evidence from HCC's Team for Children in Care emphasised the need for all partners - particularly Locality Teams and Behaviour Support Teams - to be more in tune with the particular needs of this group of young people. A 2007-8 review of the Team for Children in Care hopes to address some of these issues.

7.9 The introduction of School Improvement Partners - officers who act as the main channel for local authority communication with schools about school improvement - under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 may assist with the coordination of current partnerships. Several School Improvement Partners are in role in Hampshire, but there was little evidence acknowledging their impact from stakeholders. Several references were made, however, to the impact that the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) will have for partnerships.

7.10 Most respondents felt that the CAF would be helpful in better coordinating partnership working, although there was caution in some quarters that it would need careful planning in order to be effective. It was considered vital that the lead agency on any CAF needs the authority and means to be able to hold other agencies to account for delivery. Many stakeholders felt that, for matters relating to behaviour at school and exclusion, an education-related organisation would be best placed to lead on any CAF (school, education centre or behaviour support team for example) in order not to give parents the impression that schools were `off-loading' problems elsewhere. Evidence from the Youth Offending Team showed that it was difficult for the YOT to become the lead agency for the CAF since the courts determine when intervention by the YOT should cease, therefore posing problems if the YOT is lead agency in a matter. The YOT currently does not use the CAF, but instead uses a risk assessment tool called ASSET. The priorities for intervention by the YOT are therefore different to those of other agencies using the CAF. Schools sometimes find it difficult to rationalise the fact that a pupil they perceive to be `high risk' is not regarded in the same way by the YOT. In future, the YOT will need to use the CAF, but legislative requirements on YOTs will make the transition difficult at times.

7.11 Evidence from Hampshire Constabulary showed how the Constabulary's School Engagement Policy has proved invaluable in helping other partners understand what help is available to schools in the prevention of exclusions - from short term targeted intervention to full Safer Schools Partnerships. The Policy has also clarified the use of Youth At Risk forms to ensure that information on pupils perceived to be at risk of exclusion is shared with schools in a timely manner.

8. Findings of the Review - Partnership working - Information and IT

8.1 To quote the Forest Education Centre, `the 6 day rule is not a problem as long as information is in place and shared effectively'.

8.2 All stakeholders felt that shared systems for exchanging data and information should be a priority in the prevention and management of exclusions, with a particular focus on using information to assist in the early identification of pupils at risk of exclusion. DfES guidance also places a heavy emphasis on getting local administrative and information transfer systems in place to facilitate the effective implementation of school behaviour policies.

8.3 The EOTAS service has a strategic aim to `establish electronic information management systems to enable pupils at risk of exclusion to be identified early and tracked so that support and intervention can be evaluated and improved...' and `build a much clearer map of multi-agency resources and response mechanisms'. However, there is general acknowledgement within the EOTAS service that much more could be done to deliver this aim.

8.4 In the written evidence, Hampshire Connexions particularly highlighted the lack of data currently available from schools which hinders timely intervention. Education Centres were concerned at their lack of access to school and health data and in particular the Schools' Information Management System (SIMs). This is currently a barrier to early intervention as Education Centres have to wait for schools to provide them with SIMs information in order to identify pupils at risk of exclusion. Concern was also expressed by Inclusion Managers that, whilst work is underway on developing interfaces between the school SIMS system and the Education Inclusion Service systems, budget restrictions mean that this IT development is not being given the priority it needs. The Inclusion Service depends entirely on the exchange of good quality data with partners and therefore sees this as a high risk to the effective prevention and management of exclusions. Some stakeholders also referred to difficulties in using HCC's directories of services. The Hantsfish directory in particular was singled out as being `impenetrable' for finding details of services available for the prevention and management of exclusions in an area.

8.5 Concern was expressed by Hampshire Constabulary at the fact that many stakeholders are unduly concerned about the risks and legal restrictions on data sharing between agencies. Data legislation such as the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act contains measures to enable the sharing of information so as to prevent crime and reduce risks. There is therefore much that could be done to boost partnership intelligence in the interests of preventing exclusions.

8.6 The Youth Offending Team highlighted as particularly difficult the issue of sharing information with schools during school holidays. As the courts will not wait for the end of the school holidays to sentence a pupil, the opportunity to liaise with the school is lost.

8.7 The New Forest BST's extensive liaison with statutory agencies is based on effective information sharing and developing strong links with personnel within agencies. They also work closely with non-statutory agencies (including the voluntary sector) and have compiled a directory of services supporting education in the New Forest to aid schools' and parents' understanding of the range of services available to them and how they can be accessed.

9. Findings of the Review - Partnership working - initiatives for preventing exclusions

9.1 DfES guidance makes it very clear that exclusion should be a last resort and that schools and local authorities should have a range of strategies in place to address the bad behaviour that leads to exclusions. As established in section 6 of this report, the issue of resources to support excluded pupils is challenging, so preventing exclusions is the best way of avoiding these issues. All stakeholders are supportive of this, although there is a tendency for schools to advocate exclusion in extreme cases whilst Youth Justice Board evidence (from the YOT) advocates a total avoidance of exclusion. Most stakeholders concurred that a vital tool in preventing exclusion is to ensure that a pupil remains in an educational setting and is provided with an appropriate curriculum.

9.2 The review group was made aware of several local authority areas which had adopted a policy of zero exclusion in their schools. They also received evidence from two members of the public which laid out a strong case for the total avoidance of exclusion. This evidence showed the damage caused by taking a pupil out of the supervision and discipline of the school environment and relying on parents (most of whom work full time) to take on this responsibility. The risk of an excluded pupil taking their bad behaviour onto the streets and possibly becoming involved in crime or accidents was deemed good reason to avoid all exclusions unless these can be carried out under the auspices of the education system itself. Whilst the review group felt that these arguments for zero exclusion were strong and valid, the group also considered evidence from Hampshire Constabulary which highlighted the effect that a zero exclusion policy can have on the victims of poor behaviour in schools and on the capacity of teachers to cope with extremely challenging behaviour in normal classroom settings which stressed the need to keep exclusion as an option of last resort. Evidence from HCC's Team for Children in Care also showed that a zero exclusion policy would be virtually impossible to adhere to. The commitment to avoid exclusion as far as possible was made clear by all stakeholders however.

9.3 Steering clear of exclusion is considered particularly important for children in care as changes of school can contribute to the instability of these young people's lives which can prove to be damaging to them in many ways - indeed, evidence from Hampshire's Care Council states precisely this: that the children would rather be kept in school than be sent elsewhere. Under new legal requirements, children in care will need to be provided with a full-time education from day one of an exclusion in order to avoid a break in their education. This legislation is intended to be a positive step in support of these children's stability, but consideration needs to be made of how this provision will be actually be delivered. Hampshire County Council's annual data on school exclusions showed an increase in the number of children in care being permanently excluded between 2004/5-2005/6, and the importance of addressing this trend has been highlighted in the recent Evaluation of the Hampshire Children and Young People's Plan 200710. New powers for local authorities under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 in directing the admission of children in care to the most suitable school could be of assistance in ensuring stability of schooling and preventing exclusions, although the HCC Inclusion Policy highlights the need to better understand the real needs of children in care as a priority.

9.4 Hampshire's Team for Children in Care is already undertaking work to address these issues. For example, strategies have been put in place to fulfil requirements to monitor exclusions of children in care - this is being done through mechanisms such as Education Improvement Partnerships. Better tracking arrangements are already in place, and work is being undertaken with carers and children's homes to support the education of children in care more effectively. Furthermore, Inclusion Managers are taking responsibility for placing children in care into the schools best suited to their needs.

9.5 The written evidence showed that several stakeholders were concerned that the new `6-day rule' could result in more permanent exclusions as schools may find it easier to make pupils the responsibility of the local authority rather than have to arrange 6th day provision. Stakeholders concurred that, if greater emphasis were put on providing alternative provision for pupils at risk of exclusion - such as the `respite' services offered by Broadoaks Education Support Centre - this issue would not be of such concern. Tools such as Dual Registration have proved effective in Havant in keeping pupils on roll whilst supporting their needs and avoiding exclusion. Interventions - both inreach and outreach - by behaviour support teams have also proved invaluable.

9.6 There were mixed responses from stakeholders as to the current state of partnership working around the prevention of exclusions. Many stakeholders commented on the fact that, whilst interesting and helpful to some degree, multi-agency meetings did not prevent exclusions taking place - one school referred to these partnerships as `box ticking' exercises. Several respondents commented that the role of Education Inclusion Partnerships, for example, needed to be reinforced, with greater involvement from the Education Inclusion Service (although it should be noted that EIPs are still in their infancy in Hampshire and are expected to take three years to realise their aim of having no permanent exclusions in Hampshire11). There were also several comments to the effect that schools were often reluctant to engage with outside agencies - and indeed with each other.

9.7 Engaging partners in joint training and collaborative initiatives on matters relating to the prevention and management of exclusions to encourage a consistency of approach between schools was advocated by several stakeholders. A key aim of the HCC Inclusion Policy is to increase the amount of collaborative professional development undertaken by County Council staff, so the training need has been acknowledged. Stakeholders, however, found that this training was patchy, with, for example, Broadoaks Education Centre commenting that knowledge of exclusion-related protocol is highly variable amongst partners i.e. use of parenting orders and contracts, managed move protocols and Hard to Place Pupil Panels. Court Moor school found that the lack of consistency in school behaviour policies was a barrier to effective partnership working, suggesting that more collaboration in this area could be beneficial.

9.8 Finding common approaches to curriculum planning for excluded pupils was also cited several times as requiring improvement. DfES guidance states that schools and full-time education providers need to have good links over the curriculum, particularly for KS3/4 children, to help facilitate reintegration of excluded pupils. HCC's Behaviour Support Policy states that HCC will work with schools to develop and share appropriate curriculum approaches in order to identify and address any learning needs which have led to pupils' behavioural, social and emotional development difficulties. In the recent Hampshire Joint Area Review, credit was given to the good progress being made under the 14-19 strategy in improving school performance through the early identification of risk and planned intervention, with specific mention of pilot projects developing flexible curricula centred around young people's needs. These were said to be generating `marked improvements in behaviour and motivation'.

9.9 The importance of continuing work in this area was reinforced by the YOT whose major criticism of the government's new sixth day requirement was the emphasis being given to outputs (achieving the six day requirement), rather than outcomes (providing appropriate education to meet the needs of excluded pupils). Court Moor school felt that Hard to Place Panels also needed to give greater priority to finding schools with appropriate curricula and environments for a pupil's needs before other factors such as distance from home to school.

9.10 Stakeholders felt that training from the Local Education Authority (LEA) generally needs to be increased and greater collaboration between schools must be encouraged. That said, even in areas where protocols have been put in place, collaboration is not always achieved: Noadswood School's Inclusion Panel is considered to be a success but, with some schools in the area not participating, Noadswood commented that the LEA will need to take a role in deciding to place pupils in non-participating schools should the panel consider this the best action to take.

9.11 Effective multi-agency working focusing on very early intervention with pupils and their families was cited by most stakeholders as being in need of attention. Some examples of good practice in multi-agency early intervention were highlighted in the written evidence, with the Family and School Support Team (FASST) being given much credit by all those in receipt of its services. FASST operates in Havant and Gosport and uses a proven multi-agency model for reducing school exclusions. New Locality Teams which are being rolled out across Hampshire use the same underlying principles for their interventions. FASST was given particular mention for the `longitudinal support' it offers to pupils. This is a theme recurring in many responses: that agencies sometimes cease intervention and support work too soon, leaving the school and pupils to struggle. Some stakeholders referred to support from Social Services as being inadequate in this respect. However, the work of EOTAS in Area 1 was considered to have been beneficial and much of this success has been attributed to the fact that programmes are delivered on a longer-term basis. Both Woodlands Education Centre in Havant and the New Forest BST are also committed to ensuring that as much support as required is provided to pupils: neither organisation sets time constraints on its interventions and both persist with pupils until they are fully ready to return to school.

9.12 Whilst not alluded to in much detail in the written evidence from stakeholders, good progress has been made in the Hampshire Local Area Agreement's flagship `12 Schools Project'. The purpose of this multi-agency project is to improve the life chances of pupils in a number of targeted primary and junior schools by taking a holistic approach to the factors which affect pupils' development.  The project is based on the premise that a child who is struggling to achieve academically may well be disadvantaged in other ways - for health, safety, economic deprivation or social reasons - which cause a barrier to full engagement within the classroom. Park View Junior is one of the participating schools which has already achieved a reduction in internal and external exclusions and improved behaviour as a result of the project.12

9.13 Continuing the theme of very early intervention, a lack of appropriate and timely preventative intervention for pupils with SEN, mental health problems and substance abuse was an issue raised many times in the written evidence. The Advisory Centre for Education submission made the point that children with SEN and disabilities are over-represented in national exclusion figures and that more needs to be done to take these children's needs into account. The inherent complexities of assessing and issuing statements for SEN led to some stakeholders expressing concern about the length of time taken to secure statements. Data on performance in issuing final statements against the 26 week statutory deadline will be available shortly in response to a new national performance indicator introduced for 2008/9. However, Hampshire's performance against the existing 18 week statutory deadline for issuing proposed statements is 97.4% excluding external delays, and 93.5% overall.13 Regardless of performance against prescribed timescales, government guidance states that close working with CAMHS in assessing pupils' needs and the provision of appropriate education should be undertaken whether or not the child has a statement of SEN.14

9.14 Stakeholder responses highlighted early intervention as vital, as the new `6-day' requirement will not permit effective engagement with relevant agencies and parents. Good practice exists in the County Portage Service which identifies children at a very early stage and provides individually tailored support from professionals to allow each child the best possible chance to reach their potential. However, the HCC Inclusion Policy points out that much more could be done to achieve equitable and transparent funding for early intervention across a range of providers.

9.15 Understaffed and inaccessible agencies unable to provide sustained support pose problems: Behaviour Support Teams, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), Educational Psychologists and agencies offering interventions for substance misuse were cited as lacking. CAMHS in particular was singled out by several schools as being virtually impossible to engage and it is interesting to note that the recent Joint Area Review in Hampshire found that CAMHS provision across the county was `variable'. The HCC Inclusion Policy states that the development of CAMHS is key in helping to plan for children and young people with emotional difficulties - for example through the Framework for Enhanced Individual Pastoral Support.

9.16 Criticisms of the CAMHS service included a perception of them having a `two strikes and you're out' attitude to appointments leading to pupils slipping through the net. The Youth Offending Team also found that CAMHS was unable to respond in adequate timescales to have effective input.

9.17 In providing oral evidence to the review, CAMHS was keen to point out the reasons for stakeholders perceptions of their services being inaccessible. Firstly that the incidence of mental health problems is growing much faster than CAMHS teams' capacity, despite recent growth in this area; secondly - and most importantly - that many referrals to CAMHS are inappropriate. There is particular concern that a lack of understanding of the different tiers of intervention provided by CAMHS (see Annexe D for details) results in too many referrals being made directly to Tier 3 services where they ought to be referred at lower levels. CAMHS believes there is no appropriate filter in place at present to prevent this happening. Only in Areas 1 and 2 of the county are there clear triggers for Tier 1 and 2 referral (when a young person becomes known to two agencies) and this system appears to work. In the rest of the county, no such system exists. With such high volumes of referrals to Tier 3 services alone, CAMHS struggles to provide long-term support as it needs to maintain a regular turnover of clients in order to manage waiting lists. The problem of inappropriate referrals also increases the risk of resources being deployed ineffectively. The size of CAMHS teams (particularly at Tier 3) varies across the county. This is due in part to government rules regarding the growth of teams by a set percentage: the `gearing' effect of this percentage increase means that some teams have grown significantly compared with others and are therefore better able to manage the volume of referrals in their area.

9.18 Despite the advent of Locality Teams and work on rationalising services, CAMHS still feels that there is a long way to go to create a clear continuum of services which partners understand and use - therefore avoiding inappropriate referrals and duplication in the system.

10. Findings of the Review - Partnership working - Partnerships with the Police and Youth Offending Team

10.1 Evidence from Hampshire Constabulary and the Youth Offending Team pointed to Safer School Partnerships (SSPs) as being a highly effective initiative in preventing school exclusions and truancy. Work with HCC Children's Services (Extended Schools) to introduce Safer Schools Partnerships has been undertaken at Bridgemary School in Gosport and further SSPs are being rolled out in Farnborough, Andover and Havant. The SSP at Bridgemary School has already assisted in reducing truancy figures. SSPs are supported by DfES, Home Office, Youth Justice Board, Association of Chief Education Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers and their main aims are to:

10.2 Hampshire schools which have benefited from SSPs find the approach very effective. Experiences of SSPs from around the country show that they are highly effective in tackling truancy, improving school attainment and behaviour, and developing a culture of mutual respect and trust. Whilst there is much support for further rolling out of SSPs in Hampshire, it often depends on an area's ability to recruit the right Police officer to lead the partnership. This recruitment has proved problematic in some areas, despite local support for setting up the partnership. Added to this, many schools are not aware of the availability of SSPs and the differing levels of support they can provide - from short-term targeted intervention for, for example, a pupil on transition from primary to secondary school, to a full SSP.

10.3 SSPs rely on good information, intelligence and strong analysis of this information to be effective. The sharing of this information between relevant agencies is vital to the success of the partnership. Evidence from Hampshire Constabulary also stressed the importance of full and frank transmission of data between agencies (including between schools and the Police) at Year 6 to facilitate transition to secondary school.

10.4 SSPs are also in a strong position to develop Restorative Justice in schools - a process which gives victims the opportunity to tell offenders the real impact of their crime, get answers to their questions and receive an apology. However, Restorative Justice needs time to be effective: Court Moor school pointed out that longer term fixed period exclusions can be helpful for this, so the anticipated increase in 5 day fixed period exclusions (to avoid having to arrange sixth day education) will be a barrier to developing effective practices in schools. Police and Youth Offending Teams have seen good results from applying Restorative Justice in Children's Homes and believe that the model could be used more widely in schools. YOT trials of Restorative Justice in north Hampshire schools are progressing well, but slowly at present.

10.5 Evidence from the Youth Offending Team also indicated that improved links between schools and Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) would be of great benefit. YISPs are multi-agency forums which aim to spot children aged 8-13 who are considered to be at risk of getting involved in crime in the future and YISPs now exist in all parts of Hampshire. Broadoaks School has found YISPS highly successful in preventing the escalation of issues to the YOT and in engaging parents effectively. YISPs not only provide multi-agency early intervention - an approach which evidence in this report would support - but also address capacity issues for the YOT in dealing with the volume of young offenders that could result in the absence of this early intervention.

10.6 Capacity issues in the YOT were raised by many stakeholders, including the YOT itself which highlighted the high ratio of young people to YOT workers across the County. The YOT currently works with approximately 2,500 young people per year, of which around 50% are of statutory school age. At any one time, the YOT can have 400-500 cases to manage. The YOT acknowledged criticisms that it could improve communication with Education Centres and prioritise liaison with a young person's education provider when YOT intervention commences, but was keen to demonstrate its good practice in notifying schools when pupils are given final orders and in sharing data on young people who have received orders since July 2007 with the EOTAS service. One stakeholder commented that it would be helpful for the YOT to meet with young people in school rather than after school, to ensure links with the education provider and encourage attendance at school.

10.7 Evidence from the YOT was very supportive of putting educational factors at the centre of any approach to the prevention and management of exclusions. A key point raised was that the current focus on outputs - ensuring full-time education on the sixth day of an exclusion - was rather less important than the positive outcomes achieved through providing the most suitable education for a particular young person. The importance of appropriate curriculum and access to a range of support around a young person is therefore uppermost.

10.8 In addressing the importance of retaining a range of appropriate support around young people at risk of exclusion or excluded, the YOT highlighted difficulties in working with CAMHS. The pace of the workings of the criminal justice system is sometimes too fast to allow for effective CAMHS response. This situation was not deemed to be in the interests of either justice or the young people themselves.

11. Findings of the Review - Equality of access to support and services at different stages of school life

11.1 A key message in the written evidence from stakeholders was the need to review the differing approaches to the prevention and management of primary and secondary exclusions.

11.2 Paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 of this report describe the inconsistent pattern of provision and intervention at primary and secondary level across the county. There are also differences in the level of support given by Behaviour Support Teams to children, families and schools due to the historical development of each team and the local management arrangements.

School Support

Family Support

Individual Support

Area 1

40%

40%

20%

Area 2

35%

20%

45%

Area 3

60%

20%

20%

Area 4

50%

30%

20%

Area 5

50%

15%

35%

Area 6

50%

10%

40%

Area 7

38 %

36 %

26 %

11.3 Hampshire's data on school exclusions shows the majority of exclusions in the secondary sector, with fixed period secondary exclusions showing a small rise in 2006. Primary exclusions continue to be very low. This seems to indicate that the prevention and management of exclusions at primary level is very effective. However, submissions by some stakeholders claim that the low level of primary exclusion is due to the fact that issues at primary level are merely `subdued', rather than resolved. Some stakeholders felt that appropriate interventions for primary level pupils were not easily available, therefore leading schools to hold on to children through thick and thin, resulting in even greater problems at later stages of school life.

11.4 Other stakeholders felt that primary schools may lack awareness of the provision and support available to them. For example, Broadoaks Education Support Centre in Basingstoke questioned why some schools never engage with their services: indeed at a recent coffee morning to which all primary schools in the area received an invitation, turn-out was extremely low.

11.5 A third perspective on this issue voiced by some stakeholders was that the support available to primary schools is seen as a `sticking plaster' for children's needs as support agencies are too stretched to provide appropriate intervention. As one primary school asserted: `a couple of hours a week with an unknown teacher will not meet the needs of any child, let alone one with significant difficulties'. Primary schools consider it vital to respond immediately whenever need is identified, and so options such as in-house provision at all schools, along with easy access to specialist provision out of school if appropriate were deemed important in the evidence.

11.6 Once again, the CAMHS service was cited by several stakeholders in the primary sector as being difficult to access and waiting times for some Behaviour Support Teams' intervention (4-6 weeks quoted by some stakeholders, along with high volumes of paperwork to accompany any referrals) were also quoted as being problematic.

11.7 In areas where the Family and School Support Team (FASST) initiative is operating, stakeholders found early intervention and access to specialist services at the primary level very good. Moreover, whilst not referred to in much detail in stakeholder responses, a recent impact evaluation of the Local Area Agreement `12 Schools Project' has shown success in primary schools where a holistic multi-agency approach towards supporting the full range of pupils' needs in school has been applied.

11.8 The transition period from primary to secondary school was cited by many stakeholders as an important focus for increased support to pupils at risk of exclusion and their families. For example, the Basingstoke and Deane Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership submission contains Home Office data showing a dramatic increase in recorded youth offences between the age-groups of 11-12 and 12-13, therefore indicating a risk zone for offending at primary-secondary transition phase.

11.9 Some evidence pointed to the fact that some pupils receiving support in primary phase are not necessarily brought to the attention of the relevant agencies in the secondary support functions. Some BSTs are already adding value to the secondary sector through their Year 6-7 transition work, but some stakeholders do not seem to be realising this benefit as yet. Transition is a key focus of the New Forest Behaviour Support Team which, in addition to the transition work at KS1-2 and KS2-3 undertaken by all BSTs, continues to work with secondary schools for the whole of Year 7. The Forest Education Centre finds this consistency of support across the transition period for pupils with recurring behavioural/exclusion issues to be vital.

11.10 The New Forest BST's work includes half-termly year 6-7 transition meetings with schools at which partners share information about children vulnerable at transition phase. These meetings are backed up by subsequent meetings with secondary SEN Coordinators, educational psychologists, and voluntary and community sector organisations in order to monitor progress throughout Year 7. Information about these pupils is captured on a `Common Transfer Pro-Forma' (see example at Annexe E) and then monitored through to Year 7. The partners involved in this process find it to be an invaluable tool and secondary SENCOs are provided with an excellent base from which to support new Year 7 pupils arriving in their schools. These transition forms are used to log details of any areas likely to impact on the child's education such as any family factors, key areas of concern, pupil's strengths and interests (to assist with curriculum planning), details of strategies found to be successful in helping the pupil in and out of the classroom and information about any engagement already undertaken with key agencies such as CAMHS.

11.11 In some areas, schools are already working together to facilitate transition - Trosnant Junior School and its feeder secondary school for example, which work together to arrange early transition. Several stakeholders wondered if, by extending the remit of the BSTs into the secondary sector, better outcomes could be achieved in managing behaviour and preventing exclusions. Several stakeholders who were aware of the work on primary-secondary transition being undertaken by the New Forest BST felt that this was an enviable model which would be of great benefit if rolled out across Hampshire. Evidence from Hampshire's Inclusion Managers showed that the New Forest BST's ability to support pupils continuously from ages 4-13 provides optimum support to pupils, particularly around transition.

11.12 The importance of greatly increased support at transition phase was backed up by Hampshire Constabulary which felt that the full and frank transmission of data at primary-secondary transition should ideally commence at Year 6 to be effective. Trosnant School felt that more radical thinking around transition was needed, with consideration of transition being made earlier or later in school life, depending on an individual pupil's needs. Trosnant has employed a transition worker to support pupils from Year 5 onwards.

11.13 Once again, comment was made on the impact of new management arrangements for BSTs and Education Centres. Woodlands Education Centre has found that the introduction of Locality Teams has led to a loss of support from the BST making it impossible for Education Centres to respond to primary age pupils identified as being at risk of exclusion. Under new government requirements, there is an expectation that all maintained secondary schools, Academies and Pupil Referral Units (Education Centres) will work in partnership in their local area to improve behaviour and tackle persistent absence. These partnerships can include primary and middle schools - this presents opportunities for sharing information and best practice across the primary-secondary divide. Indeed, one stakeholder commented on the fact that, given the low level of primary exclusions in Hampshire, primary schools are often unfamiliar with the process of exclusion and lack clear guidelines and advice to ensure best practice is adhered to. The importance of schools collaborating in cross-school interventions has been underlined by several stakeholders. For the local authority, better joint working between the BSTs and the Education Inclusion Service across key stages was considered important to support schools in this.

11.14 Several stakeholders felt that further Behaviour Support engagement at pre-school level would be valuable. The Havant BST currently provides this support and considers it vital in preventing future behaviour-related issues. For very early years education, all teams work with Portage Plus to facilitate the transition from pre-school to school for children identified as needing support.

11.15 Hampshire Constabulary is also able to offer support at transition stage at the request of schools under school-Police protocols.

12. Findings of the Review - Working with Parents

12.1 In the written evidence, the relationship between schools, LEAs and parents/carers was cited as a key area requiring attention in the prevention and management of exclusions. New Government requirements place the same emphasis on this relationship and stress the need to strike a balance between parents' responsibility to supervise their child and schools' responsibility to continue to educate the pupil while excluded.

12.2 Under previous arrangements for exclusions, parents and carers were implicitly responsible for their child during any period of exclusion, but there was no specific penalty for failure to supervise their child. This changed radically in September 2007 and parents need to be aware of their new statutory responsibilities and supported accordingly. The requirements state that schools must inform parents of their responsibility to ensure that their child is not present in a public place in school hours during the first five days of any fixed period exclusion and should be working in partnership to improve behaviour and tackle persistent absence and have in place simple, effective referral process to ensure that as well as notifying parents, off-site providers have as much notice and information about the pupil as possible.

12.3 Some stakeholders expressed the view that some pupils and their parents/carers do not cooperate with the terms of an exclusion and that it is very difficult to enforce. However, under new Government legislation, parents face fixed penalty notices if their child is found in a public place in school hours without reasonable justification during the first five days of an exclusion and Parenting Orders and Contracts have been given extended powers under the Education and Inspections Act, allowing them to be used more widely to ensure that parents take responsibility for their children's behaviour at school - both before and after exclusion. Despite legislation, the YOT is doubtful that it will be possible to fully enforce parental responsibility, particularly where older children are involved.

12.4 In the light of this greater focus on parents, some stakeholders expressed concern at the pressure parents will face in the first five days of an exclusion and questioned how they would be supported by relevant agencies and partners in this new duty. There was also particular concern that some parents may feel at fault or `blamed' for the behaviour of their child and that this can be particularly damaging in situations where a child has an undiagnosed Special Educational Need.

12.5 Recent research undertaken by Hampshire's Education Psychology Service shows that early engagement with parents is vital in preventing exclusion.

12.6 The Hampshire Local Area Agreement and the Children and Young People Plan have key focuses on parent development. Whilst performance indicators in these plans are focused on outputs - such as the number of parents accessing parenting programmes15 - Children's Services are aware that more need to be done to measure the outcomes of parents attending these programmes.

12.7 Improving access to development programmes for parents and carers across Hampshire is a key aim in the HCC Inclusion Policy and Hampshire County Council has a Parent Development Team which trains, supports and advises facilitators of parenting programmes across the county. Current programmes include the pathfinder Positive Parenting Programme (PPP) which aims to provide early intervention for parents with children of all ages. This pilot is due to end at the end of March 2008, by which time 100 staff will be trained in PPP. There is much evidence nationally to show the success of PPP. Several other parenting programmes also exist in Hampshire although HCC is aware that it needs to be better at monitoring the impact and outcomes of these programmes and increasing awareness of their availability amongst schools.

12.8 More central coordination of parenting support is also felt to be important, in order to reduce duplication and provide a central point to which other agencies can refer. The Parent Development Team also feels that better tracking of pupils' social, emotional and behavioural development is required in order to target support effectively.

12.9 Evidence from Court Moor School referred to studies being undertaken at the school which show that support to parents at all stages of school life - not only at certain key points - would be highly beneficial. The Parent Development Team acknowledged this and also pointed out the fact that it was currently difficult to provide parenting programmes in all parts of the county.

12.10 Hampshire has tracked the success of the Parent Support Advisers pilot in Kent. This pilot will finish in August 2008 and results to date indicate very positive outcomes, mainly due to the fact that PSAs operate well below the normal thresholds for agency intervention.

12.11 The Parent Development Team also favoured the use of Family Group Conferences and felt that these conferences should be offered to all parents liable to prosecution as a result of their child's behaviour. However, due to budget restraints on FGCs, it is not currently possible to offer this service to all parents.

12.12 Stakeholders attached great importance to the need to identify and engage with at-risk pupils and families at a very early stage - long before any consideration of exclusion takes place, and with an increased focus on primary intervention. This becomes even more vital with the new 6-day rule under which parents/carers are required to take responsibility for excluded pupils in their first five days of an exclusion, whether fixed-term or permanent. It will be difficult for effective multi-agency work to take place with parents in a timely manner in such short timescales, therefore highlighting the need for relationships to have been already put in place. As mentioned in section 10.5 of this report, Youth Intervention Support Programmes (YISPs) are considered by many stakeholders to be highly effective in ensuring early multi-agency engagement with parents in this respect.

12.13 For children in care, the new requirements state that alternative education provision must be provided from Day 1 of an exclusion to avoid a break in the child's education, therefore making the responsibility for carers much less than that for parents. However, given the current difficulties in arranging alternative educational provision within tight timescales, careful monitoring will be required to ensure that these arrangements work as intended. Evidence from HCC's Team for Children in Care showed that excluded children in care often have parents with a history of not engaging with the school system. It is therefore vital to make good links between home and school and intervene as early as possible for all children in care deemed at risk of exclusion.

12.14 Some stakeholders emphasized the key role played by Social Services in engaging with parents as they are often the first link between parents and the local authority in identifying families failing to cope or in crisis. Some concern has been expressed that parents do not feel the need to cooperate with schools in the same way that they do with Social Services. Therefore it is considered important that Social Services engages early in any situation when a child is deemed `at risk of exclusion', and that information is shared with other relevant agencies as a priority. Conversely, evidence gathered on the Review Group's visit to the New Forest Behaviour Support Team showed that a strong educational focus in dealing with children at risk of exclusion/already excluded was highly successful. The New Forest BST can prove that, in their caseload, approximately 75% of cases require no intervention from Social Services. Many other stakeholders, including the Team for Children in Care, believe this educational focus to be vital. Interestingly, Blackfield Junior School finds that having the Clifford Centre is invaluable as parents are able to engage with it as a non-judgemental `third party'. Blackfield believes that the model is much more likely to encourage parents to engage in any initiative to prevent or manage exclusions.

12.15 Several respondents alluded to the potential problem of `informal exclusions'. Whilst little detail was provided by stakeholders on this topic, it recurred as a theme in many responses and initial investigations suggest that poor school-parent communication can be one of the reasons for these exclusions taking place. `Informal' or `unofficial' exclusions are illegal regardless of whether they are done with the agreement of parents or carers:

12.16 Schools providing evidence to the review were adamant that informal exclusion was not used as a technique for managing behaviour in schools, although one school acknowledged that, in very extreme cases where a pupil is a serious threat to the safety of himself or others, sending the pupil home to `cool-off' until the following day is the only option available. However, evidence from the Youth Offending Team showed that informal exclusion is a key issue requiring attention in some Hampshire schools. The YOT referred to instances in which a head teacher comes to an arrangement with parents whereby the pupil no longer attends school. The pupil therefore does not appear in exclusion figures and consequently falls off all agencies' radars for the purposes of monitoring, support and intervention. `Early study leave' was cited as a reason for a pupil not to attend school from March onwards and the YOT views this as a worrying example of informal exclusion.

12.17 On a final note, some stakeholders stressed the need to support parents when meeting with professionals (such as educational psychologists), as many parents feel intimidated by these encounters. The Joint Area Review of Hampshire's services for children and young people also highlighted this need - in particular for parents of children with complex needs.

13. Findings of the Review - Transportation

13.1 Many stakeholders highlighted transportation as being a major hurdle to the effective implementation of the new `6-day' requirement. As one stakeholder commented:

13.2 However it is interesting to note that certain stakeholders did not perceive transport to be a problem as long as the process of arranging it was properly managed. The New Forest BST for example found that being `creative' in getting excluded pupils back to school prevented the need to enter into complicated discussions around home-school transport.

13.3 Evidence from the officer in charge of home-school transport at HCC showed that there was no evidence as at December 2007 of there being any additional pressure on the service with the new 6 day requirement. However, close monitoring of the situation by Inclusion Managers would be taking place throughout the year to build a picture of ongoing need. Predictions are that the new sixth day requirements will affect the home-school transport service but that the changes will be manageable. It was also stressed that HCC meets its statutory duties for home-school transport which means that there are no fundamental failings in the current system.

13.4 Government guidance makes reference to the potential transportation issues under the new requirements - particularly in rural areas. The guidance acknowledges that it can be impractical and expensive to arrange additional transport to take excluded pupils to a resource in another part of the county. In addressing this issue, guidance makes it clear that schools need to be aware of all types of alternative provision available to them in their area so as to enable them to select provision which is both suitable and practical. The need to have a clear picture of services available to prevent and manage exclusions in an area is therefore reinforced once again.

13.5 The view of HCC's home-school transport service was that pressures on transport for excluded pupils arise due to lack of appropriate accommodation for excluded pupils in Hampshire, so excluded pupils often have to travel long distances to their alternative provision. Investing in additional education provision throughout the county would seem to be a more efficient use of money than spending the same sums on home-school transport.

13.6 The home-school transport service also expressed frustration at the fact that transport is often the final consideration in deciding where best to place an excluded pupil. The costs and logistics of transportation need to be considered at the earliest opportunity in order to avoid issues later down the line. This consideration should preferably take place when a pupil is identified as being at risk of exclusion and not only once excluded as is often the case. It was seen to be helpful for school clusters to agree joint protocols on the management of excluded pupils, to include transportation as a key factor.

13.7 HCC has contracts, strict tendering rules and financial limits which need to be adhered to in providing home-school transport. Whilst the service aims to be as flexible as possible, it is not always possible to accommodate all demands. HCC is considering the use of call-off contracts in the north of the county in order to further increase flexibility in the service.

13.8 Members were interested to know whether the separation of home-school transport in Children's Services and other transport services in the Environment Department led to a lack of joined up working. Members were reassured that, whilst better information sharing could be achieved (such as through linked databases), the separation of the two teams did not create any problems at present.

14. Conclusions and Recommendations - introduction

14.1 Overall, Hampshire performs well in the prevention and management of exclusions and behaviour in schools is good in the majority of schools. The commitment from agencies involved in supporting pupils who are excluded or at risk of exclusion is also evident. However, a renewed emphasis on preventing exclusion, coupled with the new six day requirement (to provide full-time education on the sixth day of any exclusion), existing challenges could be exacerbated. Whilst most stakeholders believe that issues will be manageable under current arrangements, there is a desire to see a better joining up of support to pupils and their families.

14.2 Inconsistency in provision of support services for pupils and their families across the County arises as a clear issue in the evidence received from stakeholders and underpins many of the review group's recommendations. The review group acknowledges the rapidly changing climate surrounding services for the prevention and management of exclusions and the fact that improved partnership working is a major - and complex - issue for many services delivered by local government, and therefore appreciates that time is needed for new ways of working to embed.

14.3 Prevention, rather than cure, is another key issue arising from the evidence. Early intervention and prevention of exclusion across all age-groups appears vital in order to manage behaviour and exclusion effectively.

14.4 Finally, the review has highlighted the complexities in preventing and managing exclusions. In such a complex environment, the review group has acknowledged that the Executive Member and other partners will have to bear in mind the importance of value for money in consideration of any recommendations made by the review group.

15. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Facilities and Resources

15.1 Members noted the uneven spread and overall lack of accommodation for excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion as an important issue to consider in the light of new requirements. Encouraging schools and local authorities to work together to establish predictions of future need for this kind of resource is deemed prudent so as to be able to best anticipate the type, and location, of provision likely to be required. Particular consideration needs to be made of the needs of children in care, in order to respond to the `one day' requirement for full-time education and ensure stability in these young people's lives through availability of local provided services.

15.2 In addressing the lack of accommodation around the County, Members also recognised the advantages of clusters of schools working together to share accommodation locally. Evidence shows that there is currently resistance in some parts of the County to this type of approach. However, the evidence also showed that schools are not always aware of the full range of services for preventing and managing exclusions in their area and this could be a barrier to effective partnership working.

15.3 The provision of Behaviour Support across the County is varied, with very different levels of support and accommodation being available in each area. Some excellent practice exists at the New Forest Behaviour Support Team, which is highly regarded amongst most stakeholders. The NFBST is distinctive for having its own accommodation from which to operate which allows it respond promptly to pupils at risk of exclusion, providing appropriate part time support off the school site whilst keeping the pupil on roll at their normal school.

15.4 Finally, Members of the review group concluded that support to excluded pupils or those at risk of exclusion was best provided and coordinated from within an educational setting, with partner agencies inputting as required.

15.5 In relation to facilities and resources, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

16. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Coordination of partnerships

16.1 Members felt it very important that the coordination and management of the various services supporting the prevention and management of exclusions is improved. The current `patchiness' of provision and lack of clarity regarding services available in an area contribute to the difficulties in managing support to pupils and parents at present.

16.2 The need to establish a single point of contact with which all stakeholders can liaise is also key to the provision of timely and effective support to pupils and their families. The evidence points to the advantages of having a single point of contact which has a predominantly educational focus, but is able to coordinate a full range of support in conjunction with partners around the needs of a pupil.

16.3 The recent split in management arrangements for Behaviour Support Teams and the Education Inclusion Service seems contrary to the interests of joining services up more effectively and creating a streamlined range of support around the needs of a pupil.

16.4 Members also observed the importance of identifying `trigger points' which highlight the need for certain types of intervention with pupils at risk of exclusion and their families. Ensuring that the right type and level of support is subsequently provided is also important (so as to avoid issues such as inappropriate referrals to CAMHS).

16.5 Members are concerned that there is currently insufficient awareness of the particular needs of children in care across most services supporting excluded and at risk pupils.

16.6 The Common Assessment Framework stands to be of benefit for the coordination of partnerships, but most stakeholders concur that the lead agency in any CAF would most usefully be a representative from an organisation with an educational focus. How the CAF will facilitate better partnership working in future is therefore of great interest to Members.

16.7 In relation to the coordination of partnerships, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

17. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Information and IT

17.1 A much greater focus on the type and quality of information being shared between partners, and for what purpose, would assist in the effective prevention and management of exclusions.

17.2 Members also noted that a clearer map of multi-agency resources in the form of shared directories of services in an area would be of assistance to stakeholders.

17.3 Whilst work is underway to integrate the schools SIMs system and the Education and Inclusion Service's IT systems, this work does not currently appear to be given adequate priority given its importance to the effective prevention and management of exclusions. Members also noted that many stakeholders would benefit from easier access to information held in the schools SIMs system.

17.4 Members were concerned at the reluctance amongst some stakeholders to share information with each other due to unfounded concern over restrictions in Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation.

17.5 In relation to partnership information and IT, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

18. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Initiatives for preventing exclusions

18.1 With exclusion being a measure of last resort and in the light of new pressures to find full-time sixth day education, the prevention of exclusion is vital, although a zero exclusion policy was not considered feasible by Members at this time.

18.2 Perhaps the most important factor in preventing exclusions cited in the evidence was intervention at the earliest possible stage. The importance of providing relevant support to pupils identified as being at risk of exclusion - including those with undiagnosed special educational needs, mental health problems and substance misuse issues - is uppermost. Some good practice exists in the County, but more could be done to make support more consistent from all service providers.

18.3 Issues relating to the timely provision of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, and the availability of these services in different parts of the County were of particular concern to Members. Inappropriate referrals to CAMHS, resulting from a lack of understanding amongst stakeholders of the full range of services available, were also highlighted as a key point to address.

18.4 The prevention of exclusions is crucial for the stability of children in care. The need to raise awareness of the needs of children in care in this respect was a clear message in the evidence received from stakeholders.

18.5 Once again, the challenges posed by the lack of accommodation for pupils at risk of exclusion and provide them with services such as short term respite, or support for special educational needs, whilst keeping the pupil on roll at school, was raised in the evidence. A lack of awareness of the availability of local provision for preventing exclusion is also a key issue arising from the evidence. These issues are addressed by recommendations 1 and 3 above.

18.6 Members were hopeful for the future of Education Inclusion Partnerships as facilitators of multi-agency early intervention. It was acknowledged that these partnerships will take another two years or so to realise their full potential, but Members were satisfied with progress being made.

18.7 The need for schools to realise the importance of their involvement in multi-agency work in the prevention of exclusions was evident to Members. A greater engagement on joint training initiatives with HCC officers on topics such as exclusion protocols and the requirements of new legislation would be beneficial in order to improve consistency of approach across the County in the prevention of exclusions.

18.8 Members noted the importance of appropriate curriculum provision for excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion. The evidence showed that joint working between schools and partner agencies needed to be improved in most parts of the County in order to provide access to relevant education for all children without the need to travel long distances.

18.9 The importance of providing pupils with relevant support for as long as necessary to facilitate return to school was also highlighted. The Family and School Support Team (FASST), Woodlands in Havant and the New Forest Clifford Centre were singled out for their ability to provide this `longitudinal' support to pupils, which is considered highly effective. The FASST model is the basis for the development of Locality Teams in each part of Hampshire, which therefore represents a positive advance in support to pupils.

18.10 In relation to initiatives for preventing exclusions, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

19. Conclusions and recommendations relating to partnerships: Partnerships with the Police and Youth Offending Team

19.1 Safer Schools Partnerships were shown to be highly effective in tackling the risk factors for exclusion. Where these partnerships have been put in place in Hampshire, they have proved successful. However, Members noted that there is still a low level of understanding of SSPs amongst schools and other partners.

19.2 Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) have helped to address the lack of joining up between Police, Youth Offending Teams and other agencies in addressing the risk factors relating to both crime and exclusions, although further engagement from schools on these panels could make them more effective.

19.3 Capacity issues in the Youth Offending Team were noted by Members, although evidence also showed that certain adjustments in the YOT's current ways of working would have a positive impact on partnership working, such as improvements in the timeliness of information sharing and consideration of the YOT holding meetings with pupils in school rather than outside of school.

19.4 Members noted that CAMHS' capacity issues means it is unable to respond within timescales set by the criminal justice system, therefore making partnership working with the Youth Offending Team difficult.

19.5 In relation to partnerships with the Police and Youth Offending Team, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

20. Conclusions and recommendations relating to equality of access to support and services at all stages of school life

20.1 A key finding of the review was the importance of very early and `longitudinal' intervention with pupils at risk of exclusion. This fact necessitates robust mechanisms for intervention at primary level or earlier which are able to continue as long as is required - even across the primary-secondary divide - to ensure a pupil's timely return to school. Members therefore noted that improved primary level interventions and support at primary-secondary transition phase are vital to the effective prevention and management of exclusions.

20.2 The varied provision of Behaviour Support across Hampshire does not allow for equal access to primary level interventions and support at transition phase. However, the New Forest Behaviour Support Team is recognised by most stakeholders as a `gold standard' for early intervention, longitudinal support, and support at primary-secondary transition phase.

20.3 FAAST has proved successful in facilitating early intervention and access to specialist services in the parts of the County where it operates.

20.4 The timely and thorough transfer of data relating to a pupil's academic achievement and emotional, social and behavioural factors at the primary-secondary transition phase has proven to be a powerful tool in combating exclusion and facilitating highly effective partnership working. The New Forest Behaviour Support Team's Common Transfer Pro-Forma has proved its worth in this respect. The review group was not informed of any other similar mechanisms elsewhere in the County.

20.5 Good results have been produced where primary and secondary schools work together locally to facilitate transition. Where work is supported by Behaviour Support which extends into the secondary sector, this is deemed very effective. The New Forest Behaviour Support Team's ability to support pupils continuously between ages 7-15 is considered by all stakeholders to provide optimum support to excluded and at risk pupils.

20.6 Members also felt that the Havant Behaviour Support Team's work with pre-school pupils was an excellent model for ensuring early intervention with at risk pupils and their families.

20.7 Finally, the new split management arrangements for Behaviour Support Teams and Education Centres was highlighted as being a barrier for effective work around transition from primary to secondary school. This issue is addressed in recommendation 6 above.

20.8 In relation to equality of access to support and services at all stages of school life, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

21. Conclusions and recommendations relating to working with parents

21.1 New responsibilities for parents relating to their children's behaviour and exclusion are potentially bewildering and can lead to serious repercussions which need to be better understood by parents and support agencies. Members noted that, whilst it is extremely difficult to enforce parental responsibility, much can be done to ensure that parents better understand their duties and become more willing to engage in initiatives to combat poor behaviour and exclusion.

21.2 Early engagement with parents is considered vital. Finding ways to encourage parents to engage at an early stage continues to be a challenge, although the presence of a single `third party' (non-school or social care) point of contact has been seen to be successful in the form of the Clifford Centre in the New Forest. Recommendation 5 above, which highlights the benefits of greater central coordination of all services supporting excluded and at risk pupils, addresses this point.

21.3 Parenting programmes such as the Positive Parenting Programme (PPP) have proved extremely successful where they have been introduced, although there is still some concern that central coordination, and geographical equality of access, to these programmes across the County needs to be improved.

21.4 Members were concerned at references to the practice of informal exclusion. This kind of practice is not in the interests of securing the best outcomes for at risk pupils and their families, or in the interests of effective partnership working and is against the law.

21.5 In relation to working with parents, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

22. Conclusions and recommendations relating to transportation

22.1 The evidence received by the review group shows that transportation is an issue that will require ongoing monitoring in the light of new requirements relating to exclusions. However, Members noted that the key issue impacting on transportation for excluded and at risk pupils is the sparse provision of alternative education resource, meaning that pupils currently have to travel long distances to receive appropriate tuition. In parts of the County where provision is available and well-coordinated, transport is not seen to be such a major issue.

22.2 The evidence also indicates that consideration of transportation issues needs to be made at the earliest opportunity when arranging support for at risk or excluded pupils. Transport is often discussed after all other factors, and can therefore become the key stumbling block for stakeholders when coordinating support.

22.3 In relation to working with parents, it is therefore recommended that the Executive Members for Children's Services, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, consider how the following can be taken forward, and advise the CYP Select Committee of relevant timescales for undertaking any associated actions:

Scrutiny Review of School Exclusions

References

Hampshire County Council Policies and strategies

National Policy and Guidance

Other publications

Permanent exclusions overview since 1999

County Statistics

Areas 1 to 7

Years

Area 1

Area

2

Area 3

Area 4

Area

5

Area

6

Area

7

Total Areas

1 - 7

1999/2000

Primary

9

6

2

2

1

5

5

30

Secondary

33

23

20

17

19

17

19

148

Special

4

1

1

1

0

0

5

12

Total

46

30

23

20

20

22

29

190

2000/2001

Primary

5

4

2

2

1

0

3

17

Secondary

37

11

19

20

14

8

20

129

Special

0

0

1

0

2

0

4

7

Total

42

15

22

22

17

8

27

153

2001/2002

Primary

6

5

9

4

2

2

2

30

Secondary

37

27

24

40

23

17

19

187

Special

3

4

1

0

1

1

3

13

Total

46

36

34

44

26

20

24

230

2002/2003

Primary

5

4

1

5

3

0

6

24

Secondary

49

38

22

41

21

14

16

201

Special

1

4

0

1

0

0

2

8

Total

55

46

23

47

24

14

24

233

2003/2004

Primary

5

4

2

0

3

0

2

16

Secondary

44

45

27

23

16

18

21

194

Special

4

1

0

2 *

2

1

2

12

Total

53

50

29

25

21

19

25

222

2004/2005

Primary

5

3

0

2

0

0

2

12

Secondary

22

39

18

13

25

7

24

148

Special

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

Total

27

43

18

15

25

7

27

162

2005/2006

Primary

4

3

1

0

0

0

0

8

Secondary

36

29

17

17

20

4

33

156

Special

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

Total

40

32

18

17

20

5

34

166

* One pupil in a Primary Unit.

The Petersfield School is included for the first time in the Area 3 (2003/2004) figures.

This data is produced using relevant dates of exclusion only.

Fixed Term Exclusions Overview since 1999

County Statistics

Areas 1 - 7

Years

Areas 1 - 2

Areas 3 - 4

Areas 5 - 7

Total

Areas 1 - 7

No. of

FTEs

No. of

days lost

No. of

FTEs

No. of

days lost

No. of

FTEs

No. of

days lost

No. of

FTEs

No. of

days lost

1999/

2000

Primary

181

807

221

701

194

800

596

2308

Secondary

1464

5103

1689

5787.5

1342

5152.5

4495

16043

Special

83

412

49

176

200

916.5

332

1504.5

Total

1728

6322

1959

6664.5

1736

6869

5423

19855.5

2000/

2001

Primary

332

1175.5

373

1456.5

226

990.5

931

3622.5

Secondary

2050

7515

1754

6892.5

1912

8226

5716

22633.5

Special

67

340.5

64

270

195

821.5

326

1432

Total

2449

9031

2191

8619

2333

10038

6973

27688

2001/

2002

Primary

296

1106

424

1304.5

294

1047

1014

3457.5

Secondary

2419

9073

2281

9529.5

2188

8860

6888

27462.5

Special

75

376.5

65

364

219

649

359

1389.5

Total

2790

10555.5

2770

11198

2701

10556

8261

32309.5

2002/

2003

Primary

298

1137

528

1671.5

313

1141

1139

3949.5

Secondary

3067

11631

2517

9815

2752

10449

8336

31895

Special

148

685.5

115

545

207

659

470

1889.5

Total

3513

13453.5

3160

12031.5

3272

12249

9945

37734

2003/

2004

Primary

374

1205

560

1642.5

301

1053

1235

3900.5

Secondary

3283

12043.5

2690

10016.5

2906

10023

8879

32083

Special

127

479.5

110

297.5

163

336

400

1113

Total

3784

13728

3360

11956.5

3370

11412

10514

37096.5

2004/

2005

Primary

474

1410.5

459

1365

376

1139

1309

3914.5

Secondary

3854

13143

3374

11153

3335

11384

10563

35680

Special

17

68.5

109

503.5

154

367

280

939

Total

4345

14622

3942

13021.5

3865

12890

12152

40533.5

2005/

2006

Primary

484

1383.5

595

1442.5

387

1096

1466

3922

Secondary

3435

10753

3288

11333.5

3224

10952

9947

33038.5

Special

16

63

179

586.5

215

588

410

1237.5

Total

3935

12199.5

4062

13362.5

3826

12636

11823

38198

NB

FTE figures include former PRUs, current Education Centres;

The Petersfield School now shows in the 2003/2004 Areas 3/4 figures and onwards.

Permanent Exclusions with relevant dates

by year group 2005/2006

County Statistics: Areas 1 - 7

Sector

Year Group

No. of PEs

Areas

1 & 2

% in Yr Gr. Of total

Areas

1 & 2

No. of PEs

Areas

3 & 4

% in Yr Gr. Of total

Areas

3 & 4

No. of PEs

Areas

5 - 7

% in Yr Gr. Of total

Areas

5 - 7

Total no. PEs Areas

1 - 7

% in Year Group of total

Areas 1-7

Primary

1

0

0%

0

0%

2

1

14%

1

12.5%

3

1

14%

1

12.5%

4

3

43%

3

37.5%

5

1

14%

1

12.5%

6

1

14%

1

100%

2

25%

Primary Total

7

100%

1

100%

0

0%

8

100%

Secondary

7

6

9%

2

6%

7

12%

15

10%

8

6

9%

6

18%

7

12%

19

12%

9

16

25%

10

29%

13

23%

39

25%

10

29

45%

10

29%

21

37%

60

38%

11

8

12%

6

18%

9

16%

23

15%

Secondary Total

65

100%

34

100%

57

100%

156

100%

Special

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

50%

1

50%

9

1

50%

1

50%

10

11

Special Total

0

0%

0

0%

2

100%

2

100%

Reasons for exclusion

County Statistics Areas 1 - 7 2005/2006

Fixed Term Exclusions

Primary

Secondary

Special

Total

% of Total

Area

1-2

Area

3-4

Area

5-7

Area

1-2

Area

3-4

Area

5-7

Area

1-2

Area

3-4

Area

5-7

Areas

1 - 7

Areas

1 - 7

Number of exclusions

484

595

387

3438

3288

3224

16

179

215

11826

100%

Physical assault against pupil

118

163

109

625

639

663

2

37

43

2399

20%

Physical assault against adult

64

52

70

140

72

79

4

27

33

541

4.5%

Sexual misconduct

5

4

2

35

31

31

1

0

4

113

1%

Damage

14

14

21

74

74

133

2

26

34

392

3%

Bullying

2

12

2

54

62

46

0

21

16

215

2%

Drugs & Alcohol

1

1

1

76

139

159

0

0

13

390

3%

Racist abuse

1

2

3

23

50

31

0

3

2

115

1%

Theft

6

1

8

91

85

91

0

1

7

290

2%

Other

11

3

9

213

52

127

0

0

4

419

3.5%

Persistent disruptive behaviour

166

191

141

989

1186

1077

2

34

45

3831

32%

Verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against pupil

31

31

38

163

114

169

2

10

5

563

5%

Verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against adult

65

121

87

955

784

1095

3

20

58

3188

27%

NB Secondary figures include the Education Centres, and Areas 5-7 have given more than one reason which accounts for the percentages adding up to well over 100%.

Permanent Exclusions (relevant date criteria)

Primary

Secondary

Special

Total

% of Total

Area

1-2

Area

3-4

Area

5-7

Area

1-2

Area

3-4

Area

5-7

Area

1-2

Area

3-4

Area

5-7

Areas

1 - 7

Areas

1 - 7

Number of exclusions

7

1

0

65

34

57

0

0

2

166

100%

Physical assault against pupil

1

0

0

16

9

12

0

0

1

39

23%

Physical assault against adult

2

1

0

7

3

0

0

0

1

14

8%

Sexual misconduct

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

1%

Damage

0

0

0

1

1

5

0

0

0

7

4%

Bullying

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1%

Drugs

0

0

0

3

0

3

0

0

0

6

4%

Racist abuse

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

Theft

0

0

0

1

2

1

0

0

0

4

2%

Other

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

1%

Persistent disruptive behaviour

3

0

0

24

7

32

0

0

0

66

40%

Verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against pupil

0

0

0

1

3

7

0

0

0

11

7%

Verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against adult

1

0

0

9

9

20

0

0

0

39

23%

NB Areas 5-7 have given more than one reason for PEs and FTEs, which accounts for the percentages adding up to well over 100%.

Permanent Exclusions with Relevant Dates by Gender Ethnicity, Public Care and SEN Areas 1 - 7

County Statistics 2005/2006

Primary

Secondary

Special

Total

Total

Area 1-2

Area 3-4

Area 5-7

Area 1-2

Area 3-4

Area 5-7

Area 1-2

Area 3-4

Area 5-7

Area 1-2

Area 3-4

Area 5-7

Areas 1 - 7

No. Perm Exclusions

7

1

0

65

34

57

0

0

2

72

35

59

166

Gender

Male

6

1

0

49

24

46

0

0

2

55

25

48

128

Female

1

0

0

16

10

11

0

0

0

17

10

11

38

No. In Public Care

0

0

0

4

3

6

0

0

0

4

3

6

13

Traveller

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ethnic Background

White

British

7

1

0

59

34

57

0

0

2

66

35

59

160

Irish

Traveller of Irish heritage

Gypsy/Roma

Any other White background

Mixed

White & Black Caribbean

2

2

0

0

2

White & Black African

White & Asian

Any other mixed background

Asian/

Indian

Asian

Pakistani

British

Bangladeshi

Any other Asian background

Black

Caribbean

2

2

0

0

2

or

African

Black British

Any other background

Chinese

Any other ethnic background

Withheld

2

2

0

0

2

School Action (2)

0

0

0

14

4

8

0

0

0

14

4

8

26

School Action + (3)

5

0

0

18

17

39

0

0

0

23

17

39

79

Statutory Assessment (4)

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

4

Statement (5)

0

0

0

2

2

3

0

0

2

2

2

5

9

Permanent exclusions with Relevant Dates

during academic year 2005/2006

Provision post exclusion

COUNTY STATISTICS

Details of admissions to other schools, other areas, other LEAs or EOTAS provision

Admitted to:

Areas 1 - 2

Areas 3 - 4

Areas 5 - 7

Total Areas 1-7

Hampshire County Council (HCC) special school or special unit

1

2

0

3

Local mainstream school

4

1

2

7

Another HCC area school

Another HCC local education office

EOTAS unit

37 *

26 *

# 39 *

# 102 *

Another Area Ed. Centre

2

0

0

2

Unresolved and home or group tuition

22

4

# 12 *

# 38 *

Did not turn up for interview - referred to EWS

0

0

1 *

1

On probation/dual roll

Summer leavers

5 *

6 *

11 *

22 *

Summer leavers not offered provision

Another County Council

5

2

5

12

Another County Council special school

Left the UK

1

0

0

1

Secure unit

Independent special school

Independent mainstream school

TOTAL

72

35

59

166

Admission to local area mainstream school September 2006

Admission to local area special school

September 2006

0

0

3 #

3 #

Admission to independent special school

September 2006

0

0

1 #

1 #

* Summer leavers - starred boxes show where they were receiving EOTAS/other provision or none.

# Receiving/awaiting EOTAS until place secured.

Permanent exclusions 2005/2006 reinstated by

Governors or Independent Appeal Committee

County Statistics

Primary

Secondary

Special

Total

Areas 1-2

Areas 3-4

Areas 5-7

Areas 1-2

Areas 3-4

Areas 5-7

Areas 1-2

Areas 3-4

Areas 5-7

Areas 1 - 7

Overturned or mitigated by GPDC*

1

2

0

0

3

0

0

1

0

7

Withdrawn by HT before or at GPDC meeting

1

0

0

0

10

2

0

1

1

15

No. IAC^ hearings

0

0

0

9

3

1

0

0

0

13

Parents withdrew request

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Reinstatements by IAC

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Overturned by IAC but not reinstated

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

5

Upheld by IAC

0

0

0

3

3

1

0

0

0

7

Fixed term exclusions over 15 days during 2005/2006

COUNTY STATISTICS

Sector

Areas 1 - 2

Areas 3 - 4

Areas 5 - 7

Total Areas 1-7

Block 16+

Acc 16+

*No. FTE

Block 16+

Acc 16+

*No. FTE

Block 16+

Acc 16+

*No. FTE

Block 16+

Acc 16+

*No. FTE

Primary

4

20

484

4

4

595

2

12

387

10

36

1466

Secondary

21

155

3435

65

53

3288

22

152

3323

108

360

10046

Special

0

1

16

5

0

179

4

7

215

9

8

410

Total

25

176

3935

74

57

4062

28

171

3925

127

404

11922

* Number of FTEs include the blocks, the accumulateds, the 1-15 days and the PRUs.

NB

Once a pupil has reached 16+ days accumulated in any one term then this is counted as one "accumulated"; any further odd days that term making more accumulateds are not counted in this number exercise, but of course schools are still required to hold another Governors' Pupil Discipline Committee meeting.

Blocks include pupils reinstated from a PE where a FTE was specified.

1 Exclusions: what you need to know. Full Guidance for Parents. HCC website

2 Area 1 covers Basingstoke, Fleet, Hook and Yateley; Area 7 covers Romsey, Chandlers Ford, Andover and Stockbridge

3 DfES, Exclusions & Alternative Provision Website

4 Ibid

5 Youth Justice Board, Barriers to engagement in education, training and employment. 2006

6 Providing Full-Time Education from the Sixth Day of any Fixed Period Exclusion. Implementation and Good Practice Guidance for Schools, including PRUs. Revised April 2007

7 ibid

8 ibid

9 ibid

10 `The children in our Care Project Group, chaired by the Director of Children's Services will take forward a programme of work [of which one of the planned outcomes will be] a reduction in exclusions of children and young people in our care through working with schools and colleges'. Hampshire Children and Young People Plan Evaluation, March 2007

11 Hampshire Children and Young People Plan Evaluation, March 2007

12 Hampshire Local Area Agreement, Flagship Initiative 1, Impact summary, summer 2007.

13 Audit Commission Best Value Performance Indicator relating to percentage of proposed statements of SEN prepared within 18 weeks of the start of the process. HCC performance for 2006/7 was 97.4% for BVPI 43a (4th quartile for county council performance) and 93.5% for BVPI 43b (2nd quartile for county council performance).

14 Providing Full-Time Education from the Sixth Day of any Fixed Period Exclusion. Implementation and Good Practice Guidance for Schools, including PRUs. Revised April 2007

15 Hampshire Local Area Agreement, Priority 5, A2 - Better Parenting