Archived decisions

Appendix 1

Behaviour Support - proposals for future developments

Background

During the past few months, secondary head teachers and officers have been discussing the future development of behaviour support in Hampshire. Officers have met with Secondary Head Teachers' Executive, full conference and area meetings and Secondary Head Teachers' Inclusion Standing Committee. There appears to be a consensus that change, maybe even radical change, is necessary. There is general agreement that despite all concerned putting in an enormous amount of effort, we still haven't yet "got it right" and that more of the same - more exclusions, more discipline panels, more conflict and more permanent placements in education centres or EBD schools - does not provide an economically, educationally or morally sustainable solution. Jointly and in partnership, we have to find a better way.

At the area meetings there was broad support for the principles but Heads wanted more details. This paper aims to provide those details but this is not a full, final version, because ideas still need to be exchanged and developed. If we are to be successful, we need to consult more fully, discuss more widely and secure the ownership and support of head teachers, governors, staff, teacher unions and elected members in this sensitive area of service.

The key ideas are set out below.

Integrated services

The intention is to create fully integrated teams of people working on behaviour support - each serving the needs of a local group of schools with strong and clear involvement of headteachers. Each integrated team will have a manager who will be able to deploy the time of all the team, although the professional leadership of team members is likely to lie outside the team. Initially, the services involved will be those directly managed within Hampshire's education service:

      - Education Welfare Service

      - Education Psychology Service

      - Behaviour Support Team

      - Youth Service

      - Education Centres

      - Special Schools

Listening to the comments already made by Heads, we think that the decision as to the number of teams that we establish should be governed by four principles.

    1. Teams need to be viable in terms of size and range of specialism.

    2. Each team should be as local as possible so that the support team and the group of schools have the best chance to establish close working relationships.

    3. Some teams will be larger than the minimum - reflecting the needs of local schools and their communities.

    4. The establishment of these teams should fit into broader plans for integrated `full service' teams that will be required when the proposals set out in `Every Child Matters' become law.

Movement towards `full service' teams is likely to be incremental but, in time, we intend to broaden the local teams to include those managed by Social Services and those managed by agencies outside the County Council - the Youth Offending Team, Connexions Service, Post 16 Colleges, Voluntary providers and the the County Council.se managed bystabl, at the same time, being as local asa possible so that the support team and the gHealth Service, for example - so as to provide a wide range of services, including behaviour support, at the local level but within one team. There will be management issues to discuss with these other agencies.

One-stop shop / single point of contact

Bureaucracy needs to be kept to the very minimum, using a single, common, referral system.

Schools / Heads can waste time deciding which support service is best placed to help in a particular instance and then trying to access that help. It is proposed that a "one-stop-shop" or "single point of contact" should be established in each of the new behaviour support teams. Schools would then have a named contact and that colleague would be responsible for co-ordinating all appropriate contacts and support.

Flexibility - statements / exclusions

At present, the LEA generally requires a young person to be excluded before help can be made available from EOTAS, and for a statutory assessment to be carried out and a statement issued, before EBD school support and advice can be accessed. There is strong reasoning for this, in as much as both requirements act as "gate keepers" to a limited resource. However, the effect is that exclusions and statements both rise and our support tends to be reactive to crisis situations, rather than be targeted on preventative, pro-active early intervention.

It is proposed that in order to gain support and advice for a particular pupil, the requirements for exclusions and statutory assessments / statements will be relaxed, but this can only be achieved if all schools work in partnership with the LEA and head teachers work closely together at a local level.

Intensive / appropriate support for schools

It is the intention of the LEA to make things considerably better for pupils and their schools than they are at present. Officers cannot and would not wish to remove the right of schools to exclude pupils. However, we can provide better options for heads and governors. This can be achieved by providing the support that schools need to maintain placement and/or making alternative provision easier to access at an earlier stage.

Greater headteacher involvement

The involvement and ownership of the developing behavioural support service by head teachers is essential. Heads know the issues, the pressures and, most importantly, the support that is required to provide an appropriate education for young people. Discussions show that there are issues of head teacher workload to be addressed, but account also needs to be taken of the time saved through easier / quicker access to support for challenging pupils. Once the approach is agreed, details of systems and people to be involved can be worked out to address workload issues.

      - re-integration panels

      in the event of an exclusion, heads are well placed to identify the most appropriate future placement for a pupil; they know their schools, their staffing and their year groups. Supported by officers, they are therefore best placed to manage their area's provision. Re-integration panels already established across parts of the county are proving to be most successful.

      - area management committees

      at present, the LEA is often unable to provide the behaviour support it would wish to help schools meet the needs of their most challenging pupils. Once a pupil has been excluded, schools often feel unable to provide the support they would wish to the LEA in meeting its statutory responsibilities. Caught somewhere in the middle are some of the county's most vulnerable and damaged young people. Neither the LEA nor schools are able to address this issue alone. However, in partnership, through the local management and oversight of the provision - jointly provided by heads and officers - a much better service can be provided. It will take time and it will take determination, but we know that the alternative process we have at present struggles to meet needs.

    - financial delegation

      there are a number of differing views about who would be best placed to manage and organise resources for behaviour support. Should resourcing systems be kept as they are? Should they be devolved or delegated to individual schools? Should they be devolved to groups of schools? Should some resources be devolved or delegated and some retained centrally? There are no easy solutions, but the debate ought to take place.

Time-scale

Each year, there is a window of opportunity when Year 11 pupils leave Education Centres and staff within those centres are more available to provide preventative support to mainstream schools. It is a very small window and one that has to be accessed with real belief and determination by all concerned if we are to prevent an even higher number of pupils being excluded by this time next year. It is unlikely that structural / management changes necessary for the new system to be fully implemented will be in place by September 2004. However, we can make considerable progress towards our joint aims in the time available and a full launch date of January 2005 should be possible, with progressive implementation over the ensuing period.

Additional issues for discussion

The above are just some of the most important issues for discussion. Over the coming weeks / months a number of others are likely to need further work and discussion:

      - the DfES designation of Education Centres as schools

      - the consequent loss of DfES resource if that status were not maintained ?

      - the present primary phase focus of Behaviour Support Team staff

      - the structure best suited to providing the most effective service

      - the development of ICT direct inter-active learning provision

Andrew Seber, John Clarke, Robin Thomas: February 2004.