Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council Education Policy Review Committee 19 November 2002 The Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) Service and School Exclusions 2001 - 02 Report of the County Education Officer |
Item |
Contact: Jack Cawthra, Education Officer (EOTAS) ext 6537
1. Summary
1.1 This paper reports on the current situation regarding the restructuring of the EOTAS service and updates members on the ongoing monitoring and reporting of permanent exclusions from mainstream and special schools in Hampshire. The report sets out the full year statistics for the 2001/2002 academic year.
1.2 The report also considers the impact of the rise in permanent exclusions on the ability of the LEA to meet the requirement to make full-time provision available to all permanently excluded pupils from September 2002.
2. EOTAS restructuring September 2001 - 2002
2.1 The restructuring of the EOTAS service has been driven by a number of imperatives: the need to make full-time provision for permanently excluded pupils from September 2002; the desire to move from an essentially re-active to a more pro-active service with a greater emphasis on preventative work; the need to make better and more effective provision for pupils out of school; the desire to improve levels of re-integration; the need to make better and more effective use of resources and the need to improve accommodation to support all of the above agendas.
2.2 Consultations on the restructuring process were held with EOTAS staff and professional association representatives and were reported on, regularly, to headteacher representative groups.
2.3 The main changes to the staffing structure were at the operational management level. A structure chart is provided at appendix 1 and the changes are explained in more detail in sections 3.1 - 3.4.
2.4 The main changes to accommodation involved the establishment of EOTAS Education Centres to replace the previous pattern of Pupil Referral Units (catering mainly for KS3 and KS4 permanently excluded or emotionally vulnerable pupils) and Grouped Tuition Centres (catering mainly for KS1 and KS2 pupils). These changes are explained in more detail in sections 4.1 - 4.5.
3. Staffing
3.1 Appointments to the new structure began in January 2002 with the appointments of Education Centre Managers and the County Behaviour Support Team Manager (effective from 1 April 2002). This was followed in May and July, 2002 with appointments of Teaching Team and Behaviour Support Team Leaders (with effect from 1 September 2002). All three rounds of appointments were internally ring-fenced.
Outstanding posts were advertised nationally in September and interviews took place on 22 and 23 October 2002.
3.2 Appointments to posts of responsibility (e.g. responsibility for English, Maths Science etc) in individual Education Centres will take place during the second half of the autumn term. This will be done on a centre by centre basis, following a process agreed with professional association representatives.
3.3 EOTAS staff working in the Exclusions Teams in each local office have been unaffected by the restructuring, as have EOTAS teachers working in hospital sites or on individual, 1-to-1 provision (home tuition) who will continue to work in the same way as hitherto.
3.4 It is planned that the re-structuring of EOTAS staff will be achieved within existing budget limits.
3.5 In April 2002 the Behaviour Support Service (which had previously been part of the Hampshire Education Psychology Service) was incorporated into the EOTAS service. Behaviour Support Teams have been established in Basingstoke and Farnborough (from core education budget funding), in Fareham (from funding provided via Hampshire County Council resources) and in Andover (from Standards Fund monies). Behaviour Support Team Leaders have been appointed in Dibden and Eastleigh with a brief to develop existing embryonic teams in those areas but the appointment of additional team members (as well as the appointment of a Behaviour Support Team Leader and team members in Waterlooville) will be dependent on identifying appropriate funding. The cost of a full team is approximately £195,000 pa.
4. EOTAS accommodation
4.1 EOTAS accommodation had developed over the past 6-8 years in a needs-driven fashion and resulted in a poorly co-ordinated pattern of Pupil Referral Units and Grouped Tuition Centres across the county. Much of the accommodation was of unsatisfactory quality and did not allow for the implementation and delivery of a high-quality curriculum.
4.2 In seeking to place greater emphasis on preventative and re-integration work, as well as continuing to improve provision for those pupils out of school, an accommodation model of an Education Centre was developed based on a single site provision catering for all key stages (i.e. 1-4) and all client groups (i.e. permanently excluded and emotionally vulnerable). The Education Centre will be the work base for the Teaching and Behaviour Support Teams as well as the resource and professional base for remote workers such as hospital tutors and home tutors.
4.3 The establishment of Education Centres will allow Education Centre Managers to co-ordinate and deploy resources (human, material and financial) to best effect.
4.4 Preparations for establishing Education Centres began in 2000 with the development of the former Woodlands Primary School, Waterlooville, to the Woodlands Education Centre. A list of developments (with costings) is shown below;
Name |
Opening date |
Cost |
Woodlands Education * Centre, Waterlooville |
Autumn 2001 |
£176,000 |
Quayside Education Centre, Gosport |
Spring 2002 |
£160,000 |
Forest Education Centre, Dibden |
Spring 2002 |
£353,000 |
Linden Education Centre, Farnborough |
Autumn 2002 |
£445,000 |
* destroyed in an arson attack in June 2002 and currently re-established on the same site in temporary accommodation. Discussions are taking place with Havant Borough Council regarding a new site for the rebuilding of the Woodlands Education Centre in permanent accommodation.
Work is due to take place at the Ashwood Education Centre, Basingstoke (approx £50,000) to increase the capacity of the building and application is being made to place a temporary classroom on the site. These provisions will relieve the pressure on places brought about by the requirement to offer full-time education to excluded pupils and the rise in permanent exclusions. They will also allow the temporary (2 days per week) use of the Austen Unit site, in Basingstoke, by permanently excluded pupils to cease by the beginning of the spring term 2003. Significant work will need to be done at the former Tankerville Special School site, Eastleigh in order to fully establish an Education Centre for the Winchester/Eastleigh/Hedge End areas. This work has not yet been costed. Additional accommodation will also need to be found for the Andover Education Centre which is sited in the Cricklade College complex, Andover (and which does not allow for further expansion) to meet the needs of permanently excluded and emotionally vulnerable pupils across all Key Stages. This is likely to be met via the identification of surplus accommodation in the primary sector which will allow for the establishment of Key Stage 1 and 2 provision in the Andover area. All of these issues are regularly monitored and reviewed as part of the Department's strategic planning for EOTAS accommodation.
4.5 Education Centres were established (and formally registered with the Department for Education and Skills) in September 2002. A list of centres is attached at appendix 2. In those areas where it has not been possible to establish single-site provision, Education Centres will continue to operate on a "virtual" basis (i.e. being managed from a main site but operating on two or more sites). These are; Ashwood Centre, Basingstoke; Linden Centre, Farnborough; Bridge Centre, Eastleigh and Andover Centre, Andover.
5. Permanent Exclusions
5.1 Hampshire has reduced permanent exclusions, year-on-year, from a high of 364 in 1996/97 to a low of 152 in 2000/01. This represents an overall reduction of 58%.
5.2 Permanent exclusions, nationally, fell by 33% during the period 1997/98 to 1999/00. (During the same period exclusions in Hampshire fell by 47%). In May 2001 the then Secretary of State announced that government targets for reductions (i.e. 33%) had been met and that no more targets would be set. Nationally, exclusions rose by some 11% in 2000/01 (compared to the previous year's figure) whilst in Hampshire they continued to fall by a further 14% (i.e. from 177 to 152).
5.3 Central government changes to legislation and statutory guidance to schools, governors and members of Independent Appeal Panels, since August 2000, were widely predicted to lead to a rise in exclusions and this appears to have been borne out by national and local statistics.
5.4 In the 2001/02 academic year permanent exclusions in Hampshire rose by 50% (compared to 2000/01). The table below shows overall figures for the 2001/02 academic year, broken down by Education Department Areas, and compares them to the five preceding years. The table and statistics at appendices 3 and 3a give a more detailed picture for the 2001/02 academic year and a comparison against the previous year.
This rise is higher than that experienced nationally and may have been exacerbated by the previous significant reductions and local recruitment and retention of staff issues.
Table 1. Numbers of Pupils Permanently Excluded
Areas |
1996/97 |
1997/98 |
1998/99 |
1999/00 |
2000/01 |
2001/02 |
Overall % reduction 1996 - 2002 |
1 & 2 |
123 |
114 (-8%) |
86 (-25%) |
63 (-26%) |
57 (-10%) |
82 (+44%) |
- 34% |
3 & 4 |
121 |
97 (-20%) |
56 (-43%) |
43 (-23%) |
44 (+2%) |
78 (+77%) |
- 36% |
5, 6 & 7 |
120 |
120 (0%) |
80 (-34%) |
71 (-11%) |
51 (-28%) |
71 (+39%) |
- 41% |
Totals |
364 |
331 (-9%) |
222 (-33%) |
177 (-20%) |
152 (-14%) |
229 (+51%) |
- 37% |
NB: Areas 1 & 2: Basingstoke, Farnborough, Aldershot and East Hants; Areas 3 & 4: Havant, Waterlooville and Hayling Island; Areas 5, 6 and 7: Andover, Romsey, Winchester, Eastleigh, New Forest and Waterside.
5.5 In addition, some pupils were directed back into schools either by governors' Pupil Discipline Committees (PDCs) or by Independent Appeal Panels (IAPs) and are not included in the figures for permanent exclusions. Table 2 shows the figures for the 2001/02 academic with the figures for the previous year shown in brackets.
Table 2. Numbers of Pupils Redirected
Areas |
Redirected by PDCs |
Referred to IAPs |
Redirected by IAPs |
1 & 2 |
6 (3) |
7 (4) |
3 (1) |
3 & 4 |
3 (7) |
6 (4) |
1 (2) |
5, 6 & 7 |
1 (0) |
4 (3) |
1 (2) |
Totals |
10 (10) |
17 (11) |
5 (5) |
5.6 Looked-after children
It is a requirement of the County Council's Quality Protects programme as well as DfES guidance on the education of young people in public care that statistics regarding permanent exclusions and "looked after" children are recorded and monitored.
5.7 Of those children permanently excluded in 2001-02 the following were "looked-after".
Year |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
Total |
Areas 1&2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
3&4 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
5,6 &7 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
15 |
The number of looked-after children of statutory school age in Hampshire (833) represents approximately 0.48% of all pupils of statutory school age (173,105). The number of looked-after children permanently excluded (15) represents 6.5% of all permanent exclusions (229). This is a significantly higher representation than the county average for permanent exclusions.
5.8 This is an issue which will be addressed by all Branches within the Education Department in consultation and liaison with other County Council Services. In April 2002 a new appointment was made, within the Inclusion Branch, of an Education Officer (Social Inclusion). Part of the brief of that officer is to support the education of Looked After Children.
Actions to address this situation include, at a senior officer level, the creation of a multi-agency group focussing on Corporate Action Planning for Looked After Children (CAPLAC); the Children Looked After Support Panel (CLASP), which seeks to identify and to resolve issues which prevent Looked After Children accessing their educational entitlement and the development, from January 2003, of a new multi-disciplinary corporate team to support looked after young people in education. The work of the team will be guided by a three year development plan focusing on the following areas.
Joint working at all organisational levels.
Accurate and shared data to inform development and practice.
Direction support to the education of looked after young people.
Advocacy and support for looked after young people and their carers.
Training and support for designated teachers and others.
Celebrating successes.
Promoting the participation of looked after young people in services for them.
Additionally from January 2003, in partnership with the National Literacy Association, an innovative 3 year literacy project is being targeted at children in four children's homes in Hampshire.
6. Full-time provision
6.1 From 1 September 2002 LEAs have had to make arrangements for all permanently excluded pupils to receive full-time provision. This does not have to be via full-time attendance at an Education Centre but can be met by mixed packages of, for example, Education Centre attendance, attendance at Further/Higher Education Colleges, Work Training placements and distanced learning (i.e. on-line education programmes accessed via lap-top computers).
6.2 Based on earlier falls in permanent exclusions Hampshire drew up a robust plan for full-time provision which was submitted to DfES in April 2000 and approved by them in August 2000. This plan envisaged having at least 150 full-time places available in September 2002.
6.3 The actual number of full-time places available on 1 September 2002 was 154 but the rise in permanent exclusions meant that, at the beginning of the autumn term 2002 there were 197 permanently excluded pupils on the roll of EOTAS. The cost to the County Council of maintaining a full-time place for a child out of school is approximately £8,500 p.a. This is, to some extent, offset by the recoupment by the LEA of £3,000 from devolved Pupil Retention Grant funding for each permanent exclusion from a secondary school. High levels of exclusion, however, will inevitably result in funding being diverted from preventative work to meet the cost of in-centre provision. The higher levels of exclusions in September 2002 will, in a full year require the LEA to meet additional provision costs in excess of £200,000. This additional cost will be met, in part, by increased levels of PRG recoupment but any shortfall will have to be absorbed at the cost of ongoing preventative work.
6.4 The EOTAS service has recruited support from the Youth Service, Careers Service and the HIAS Work Related Learning team to make interim provision, for the shortfall in places, until new buildings projects (principally at The Linden Education Centre, Farnborough and The Ashwood Education Centre, Basingstoke) are completed in October/November 2002. These should increase capacity to approximately 194 places. Initial estimates put the cost of this additional support at approximately £50,000. The service has also committed approximately £85,000 to purchase on-line education provision.
6.5 Representations were made to DfES confirming that Hampshire County Council would meet the requirement for full-time provision, by the end of September 2002, for those pupils on the roll of EOTAS at the beginning of the autumn term but that if permanent exclusions continue to rise it will be unlikely that the full-time position can be sustained. This is similar to views being expressed in other LEAs.
7. Conclusion
7.1 The rise in permanent exclusions in Hampshire whilst part of a national trend, gives cause for concern. Inclusion branch staff are meeting with headteachers across the county to discuss ways forward. Should exclusions remain at the 2001/02 level, or rise even further, this will have significant implications for staffing levels and accommodation provision.
7.2 Data analysis will be used to identify those schools/areas with the greatest rise in exclusions and discussions will take place with individual and groups of headteachers so that EOTAS preventative resources can be focussed most effectively. It should be noted, however, that if exclusions continue to rise then the commitment to full-time provision will impact on the ability of EOTAS to undertake preventative work. This is a matter for concern as the preventative work offers a better long-term solution.
7.3 Liaison and discussion with other LEAs will take place so that good practice and effective strategies to reduce exclusions can be shared.
7.4 Work with other County Council services such as the Hampshire Education Psychology Service, Education Welfare Service and Special Educational Needs Service will continue along with further work with the Youth Service and Connexions Service in order to provide effective behaviour management support to schools to prevent permanent exclusion.
8. Recommendations
i) that members of the Education Policy Review Committee be advised to note the report.
ii) that the EOTAS service continues to work pro-actively with schools and other services and agencies to provide effective behaviour management support and advice.
iii) that any resource implications identified in or as a result of this report be subject to consideration as part of the 2003/04 Education Department budget strategy.
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
Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) Service, September 2002
Outline Staffing Structure
Education Officer (EOTAS)
(County Office)
Fleet Local Office Havant Local Office Winchester Local Office County Behaviour
Head of Service (Pupils) Head of Service (Pupils) Head of Service (Pupils) Support Teams Co-ordinator
(County Office)
Ashwood Education Linden Education Woodlands Education Quayside Education Bridge Education Forest Education Andover Education
Centre, Basingstoke Centre, F'borough Centre, Waterlooville Centre, Gosport Centre, Eastleigh Centre, Dibden Centre, Andover
Education Centre Education Centre Education Centre Education Centre Education Centre Education Centre Education Centre
Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager
Teaching Team Behaviour Support
Leader Team Leader As for Ashwood Education Centre
Teaching Team Behaviour Support Team
Staff Staff
(in-centre provision (outreach, in-school support for
for excluded and unwell unwell pupils and pupils at risk
pupils) of exclusion)
Appendix 3
Permanent Exclusions for the academic year 2001 - 2002
Table A: Permanent Exclusions by Area/Year Group
Area |
YR |
Y1 |
Y2 |
Y3 |
Y4 |
Y5 |
Y6 |
Y7 |
Y8 |
Y9 |
Y10 |
Y11 |
Total |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
10 |
12 |
7 |
3 |
45 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
8 |
11 |
3 |
36 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
7 |
8 |
3 |
34 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
13 |
17 |
1 |
44 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
11 |
4 |
27 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
3 |
20 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
1 |
20 |
Totals |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
10 |
12 |
6 |
17 |
37 |
57 |
67 |
18 |
229 |
Table B: Permanent Exclusions by Area/Phase and as a percentage of school population (Summer Term 2002)
Area |
Primary |
Secondary |
Special | ||||||
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
C | |
1 |
6 |
18,250 |
0.03% |
36 |
12,329 |
0.29% |
3 |
338 |
0.89% |
2 |
5 |
14,391 |
0.03% |
27 |
8,670 |
0.30% |
4 |
323 |
1.24% |
3 |
9 |
11,946 |
0.07% |
24 |
8,780 |
0.27% |
1 |
344 |
0.29% |
4 |
4 |
15,696 |
0.02% |
40 |
10,796 |
0.37% |
0 |
431 |
0.00% |
5 |
2 |
14,700 |
0.01% |
23 |
10,771 |
0.21% |
2 |
291 |
0.69% |
6 |
2 |
12,850 |
0.01% |
17 |
9,209 |
0.18% |
1 |
221 |
0.45% |
7 |
2 |
13,245 |
0.01% |
20 |
9,235 |
0.22% |
1 |
289 |
0.35% |
Totals |
30 |
101,078 |
0.03% |
187 |
69,790 |
0.27% |
12 |
2237 |
0.54% |
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 = 0.132%
Rate of permanent exclusions per 1,000 pupils = 1.32
Appendix 3a
Permanent Exclusions for the Academic Year 2000 - 2001
TABLE A: Permanent Exclusions by Area/Year Groups:
|
YR |
Y1 |
Y2 |
Y3 |
Y4 |
Y5 |
Y6 |
Y7 |
Y8 |
Y9 |
Y10 |
Y11 |
Total |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
10 |
14 |
4 |
42 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
15 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
8 |
7 |
1 |
22 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
9 |
2 |
22 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
17 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
8 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
26 |
Totals |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
8 |
24 |
39 |
46 |
17 |
152 |
TABLE B: Permanent Exclusions by Area/Phase and as a percentage of school population (Summer term 2001)
|
Primary |
|
Special | ||||||
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
C |
A |
B |
C | |
1 |
5 |
18,441 |
0.03% |
37 |
12,562 |
0.29% |
0 |
342 |
0.00% |
2 |
4 |
14,828 |
0.03% |
11 |
8,606 |
0.12% |
0 |
325 |
0.00% |
3 |
2 |
12,103 |
0.02% |
19 |
9,109 |
0.20% |
1 |
316 |
0.32% |
4 |
2 |
15,985 |
0.01% |
20 |
11,014 |
0.18% |
0 |
432 |
0.00% |
5 |
1 |
14,906 |
0.01% |
14 |
10,501 |
0.13% |
2 |
310 |
0.65% |
6 |
0 |
13,075 |
0.00% |
8 |
9,673 |
0.08% |
0 |
223 |
0.00% |
7 |
3 |
13,494 |
0.02% |
20 |
9,151 |
0.22% |
3 |
289 |
1.04% |
Totals |
17 |
102,832 |
0.02% |
129 |
70,616 |
0.18% |
6 |
2237 |
0.27% |
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