Archived decisions

Contact: Jack Cawthra: Education Officer (EOTAS) tel: 01962 846537

1. Summary

1.1 This report is part of the ongoing monitoring and reporting of permanent exclusions in Hampshire schools and sets out the full year statistics for the 2000/2001 academic year.

1.2 The report also considers the financial impact of full-time provision for excluded pupils. From September 2002, all Local Education Authorities will have a statutory duty to make full-time education provision (i.e. approximately 25 hours per week) for permanently excluded pupils. In Hampshire, the impact of this legislation will be that there will be a need for additional accommodation and additional staffing at qualified teacher, learning support assistant and lunchtime supervisor levels. These issues are considered in more detail in section 6.

2. Permanent exclusions

2.1 The view of central government has been that levels of permanent exclusions from schools have been unacceptably high and in 1997 a national target was set to reduce the number of school exclusions by 33% by September 2002.

2.2 Hampshire, historically, had one of the highest levels of exclusions amongst comparator LEAs and reducing exclusions has been a key corporate priority for the council.

2.3 The County Council, through its Education Development Plan (EDP), set a target of reducing permanent exclusions by 42% by 2002.

2.4 The table below sets out the exclusion rate, per 1000 pupils, and maximum number of exclusions which form the County Council's targets for permanent exclusions.

3. Recent and potential changes to guidance and legislation

3.1 The then Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) in a letter dated 24 January 2001, (attached at appendix 1) informed Independent Appeal Panels that they could now continue to hear appeals against permanent exclusion even where parents/carers were not seeking the re-instatement of their child (i.e. where the appeal was on the basis of "clearing the child's name" and having the exclusion removed from his/her educational record).

3.2 In a letter dated 8 June 2001, (attached at appendix 2) the DfEE informed Local Education Authorities that Independent Appeal Panels could adjourn appeal hearings if they considered that it would not be appropriate for them to continue (where, for example an excluded pupil also faced criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident that led to the pupil's exclusion).

3.3 It is not anticipated that either of these changes to guidance will have a significant effect on the number of, or outcomes from, Independent Appeal Panel hearings.

3.4 In a press release dated 4 May 2001 DfEE reported a fall of nearly 2000 in the number of pupils excluded from school in 1999/2000. The then Secretary of State (David Blunkett) announced that the focus now would be on further improvements in provision for excluded pupils and in providing in-school units and that no new exclusion targets would be set.

3.5 The White Paper "Schools Achieving Success" (September 2001) makes reference (section 3.35) to tackling disruption and promoting good behaviour, to supporting early intervention and the continued expansion of in-school Learning Support Units to tackle disaffection and poor behaviour within schools. The County Council has supported six Hampshire secondary schools in their bids for funding to establish LSUs. A list of these schools can be found at appendix 3. The County Council will continue to provide advice and guidance to schools in any future bidding rounds.

3.6 The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is also consulting, separately, on Exclusion Appeal Panels, as advised at the October meeting of the Policy Review Committee. For ease of reference, a copy of the consultation paper is attached at appendix 4. The October meeting noted that an outcome of the consultation process could be that Panels would consist of a majority of members with "direct experience of classroom management" (e.g. serving or former headteachers, members of senior management teams and senior classroom teachers). There is no reason to believe that panel members with such backgrounds would be any more or less objective in hearing appeals and it is not anticipated that such a change would significantly affect the decisions of Independent Appeal Panels.

4. Funding changes

4.1 Government funding (Pupil Retention Grant) of £1.222m was made available to secondary schools in Hampshire for the 2000-2001 financial year in order to combat disaffection, to retain pupils in school and to reduce levels of unauthorised absence. £270,000 of this funding was money which had previously been allocated, by Standards Fund, to the County Council to support work with disaffected pupils in schools. Pupil Retention Grant for 2001-02 totals £1.362m.

4.2 Funding was distributed by formula, which had previously been agreed following extensive consultation with schools. Schools were required to submit action plans identifying how they would use their allocations within the expenditure guidelines. Allocations, per school, ranged from £4,200 to £54,200.

5. Exclusion statistics

5.1 The number of children excluded, permanently, from Hampshire schools over the past twelve months has shown another significant fall. The table below shows the overall numbers at the end of the 2000/01 academic year, broken down by Education Department Areas, (a map of Areas is attached at appendix 5) and compares them to the four preceding years. Included in brackets are the % reductions on the previous year. The table and statistics at appendix 6 and 6a give a more detailed picture for the 2000/01 academic year and a comparison against the previous year.

Table 1. Numbers of Pupils Permanently Excluded

5.2 In addition some pupils were directed back into schools either by governors' Pupil Discipline Committees (PDC) or Independent Appeal Panels (IAP) and are not, therefore included in the figures above. The table below gives the figures for the 2000/2001 academic year. Figures for the 1990-2000 academic year are shown in brackets.

Table 2. Numbers of Pupils Redirected

5.3 The continued fall in the level of permanent exclusions is clear evidence of the hard work of schools in addressing issues of behaviour and disaffection. In continuing to reduce exclusions school staff and governing bodies have been supported by County Council services such as the Education Other than at School Service, the Education Welfare Service, the Education Psychology Service, the Youth Service and the Behavioural Intervention Service.

5.4 Other services such as the Parent Partnership Service, the Conciliation Service and the Family Group Conferencing Service, whilst not directly concerned with reducing exclusions have, nevertheless, provided important advice and support to schools and parents and made a significant contribution to the reduction referred to above.

5.5 Whilst permanent exclusions rates across all phases have reduced, it is particularly gratifying to see significant reductions at Key Stage 1 (56% i.e. from 9 to 4); Key Stage 2 (36% i.e. from 22 to 14) and from special schools (50% i.e. from 12 to 6).

5.6 In reaching a figure of 152 permanent exclusions schools and the County Council have achieved the target figure twelve months in advance of the target date. Such a reduction has only been achieved by schools and the County Council committing significant levels of resource to support disaffected and disruptive young people.

5.7 In supporting the reduction in exclusions County Council services have placed a much greater emphasis on preventative, pro-active work which has, generally, been provided to schools at no cost. The costs of this work have been offset, however, by the reduction in funding required to support excluded pupils, as these numbers have fallen. Should, however, exclusion levels begin to rise again this would have the effect of diverting funding away from preventative work affecting, adversely, the County Council's ability to support pupils at risk of exclusion. The need for LEAs to make full-time provision for excluded pupils, from September 2002 will also impact on funding and this is discussed in more detail in section 6.

5.8 The decision of DfES to no longer set targets for exclusions and the suggestion in the White Paper that it will be easier for schools to exclude mean that it is difficult to predict future exclusion figures. Whilst, therefore, the County Council will continue to support schools in this work it should be recognised that further reductions in numbers of permanent exclusions could be difficult to achieve.

5.9 It will continue to be necessary for schools and the County Council to have a shared understanding of how best to meet the needs of disaffected children and young people, particularly those with challenging behaviours, and how these can be supported. County Council services, including those referred to earlier, will continue to work with schools, offering support and advice on preventative and reintegration work in order to assist them to combat disaffection and to continue to develop their behaviour management strategies.

6. Financial implications of full-time provision

6.1 From September 2002 all permanently excluded pupils will be entitled to full-time provision. (i.e. approximately 25 hours per week). Although some pupils currently receive full-time provision, the current average is 14.5 hours per week. In order to meet the County Council's statutory responsibility to make full time provision it is anticipated that an additional eight class groupings of pupils will be required, across the county.

6.2 This will require;

Capital

i) Eight additional teaching spaces. These could be achieved via internal adaptions to existing buildings, new build or through the provision of temporary buildings. This provision has been identified as one of a number of priorities for future block capital allocations from DfES to address those priorities identified through Asset Management Plans.

Staffing

ii) Eight fte qualified teaching staff;

Seven fte Learning Support Assistants;

Ten fte Lunchtime Supervisors;

The cost, including oncosts will be £219,000 for the period September 2002 - April 2003. Full year costs are anticipated at £377,200. These costs will have to be considered alongside other priorities in setting the 2002/3 budget.

Other costs

iii) Resource funding for each classroom £300 p.a. x 7 = £2,100.

Recommendations:

That Members of the Education Policy Review Committee advise the Executive Member for Education on the following:

1. That schools and County Council Support Services be thanked for their hard work and co-operative approaches in further reducing the number of exclusions.

2. That permanent exclusion statistics continue to be monitored and to be reported to the Education Policy Review Committee.

3. That the current policy on the development and support of effective strategies to further reduce permanent exclusions be endorsed whilst acknowledging that DfES changes will further reduce the County Council's ability to influence, directly, the process of permanent exclusion.

4. That the financial implications of full-time provision be included in the list of improvements to be considered from the 2002/3 budget.

Background papers:

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers. The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

1. Department for Education and Employment:

i) Circular 10/99: Social Inclusion: Pupil Support July 1999

ii) Circular 11/99: Social Inclusion: the LEA role July 1999

in Pupil support

2. Audit Commission

i) Missing Out: LEA management of school October 1999

attendance and exclusion

APPENDIX 6a

Permanent Exclusions for the Academic Year 1999 - 2000

TABLE A: Permanent Exclusions by Area/Year Groups

TABLE B: Permanent Exclusions by Area/phase and as a percentage of school population (Summer Term 2000)

KEY: 1 = No of exclusions for Area/phase

2 = School population for Area/phase

3 = Permanent Exclusions as % of Area/phase school population.

Overall % of permanent exclusions 0.101%

Rate of Permanent Exclusions per 1,000 pupils: 1.01

APPENDIX 6

Permanent Exclusions for the Academic Year 2000 - 2001

TABLE A: Permanent Exclusions by Area/Year Groups:

TABLE B: Permanent Exclusions by Area/Phase and as a percentage of school population (Summer term 2002)

KEY: A = No. of exclusions for Area/phase

B = School population for Area/phase

C = Permanent Exclusions as % of Area/phase school population

Overall % of permanent exclusions = 0.086%

Rate of permanent exclusions for 1,000 pupils = 0.86

APPENDIX 3

Hampshire Secondary Schools - Learning Support Units

School Agreed Level of Funding

2000/2001 2001/2002

1. John Hunt of Everest Community School, Basingstoke £41,000 £192,443

2. Oak Farm Community School, Farnborough £31,919 £134,443

3. Staunton Park Community School, Havant £38,000 £172,443

4. Neville Lovett Community School, Fareham - £38,084

5. Priestlands School, Lymington - £25,467

6. Winton School, Andover - £31,739