Archived decisions

Children and Young People Policy Review Committee.

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

Analysis of written evidence from key stakeholders and suggested lines of enquiry

Preparation for stakeholders.

11 September 2007

1. Introduction

This report draws together evidence submitted by stakeholders for the current review of school exclusions and identifies some of the key themes arising from information gathered to date as a result of this exercise.

1.1 The request for written evidence from stakeholders achieved a 40% response rate, with 41% of the schools and Education Centres approached by the Review Group making a submission. Members have noted the major restructuring of the Council's Children Services Department at the time of inviting evidence, which has led to changes in the roles and responsibilities of several key stakeholders during the course of the review to date.

1.2 The evidence shows that some excellent practice exists in Hampshire in the prevention and management of exclusions. The recent Joint Area Review of Children's Services paints a positive picture of the way in which the Council, Hampshire schools and other agencies work together to promote inclusive education and keep exclusion figures low overall. That said, stakeholders are conscious of the challenges new legal requirements will pose whereby schools will 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). The implications of these new requirements and the consequent impact on current ways of working across all partners needs to be clearly understood.

1.3 Stakeholder evidence clearly points to three broad issues to be considered by Members as part of this review within the overarching context of the new legal requirements:

· Effective partnerships (Section 2 of this report)

· Equality of provision: primary-secondary (Section 3 of this report)

· Working with parents (Section 4 of this report)

1.4 A more specific theme arising from the written evidence - which can be dealt with independently of other topics - was that of transportation (Section 5 of this report).

2. Effective partnership working

2.1.1 National and local policy places a strong emphasis on ensuring early intervention and prevention of exclusions, and this has been 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.

2.1.2 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 have become a key focus of this review.

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 maintains that a link between school exclusions and crime can be proven in Hampshire and there was a strong sense 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 care¹. For the purposes of this Review, therefore, the link between crime and exclusions will be dealt with under the same umbrella as all other partnerships assisting in the prevention and management of exclusions, as these risk factors for offending appear to be similar to some of those identified for pupils at risk of exclusion.

2.1.3 Issues relating to various aspects of partnership working are dealt with in sections 2.2-2.6 of this report.

2.2 Facilities and resources for partners in preventing and managing exclusions

2.2.1 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 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. 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.

2.2.2 The EOTAS service currently provides for children who have been excluded for more than 15 days on fixed term exclusions and pupils normally get between 5 and 15 hours per week of home or centre-based tuition. Providing full-time education could 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 Youth Offending Team), 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).

2.2.3 In addressing the issue of resources, several stakeholders started to offer possible solutions. The Youth Offending Team favours 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). The YOT claims 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.

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 headteachers are willing to support others, there has been some reluctance from governing bodies to host excluded children, so these partnerships may require further consideration. Many schools responding to the Review recognised the need to work collaboratively with other schools, but some mentioned that this would require increased trust and participation to work effectively.

2.2.3 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 is currently being trialled and will be used across the Andover Behaviour Partnership in September 2007.

2.2.4 Some stakeholders also felt that greater innovation around IT learning networks and virtual learning could be of benefit in providing alternative educational provision.

Points for further consideration

Resources and facilities: the review group will ask stakeholders further questions relating to the information in section 2.2

2.3 Coordination of partnerships

2.3.1 Stakeholder responses indicated a strong desire to see better coordination 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.

2.3.2 In its various plans and strategies, Hampshire County Council clearly acknowledges its lead role in coordinating initiatives for the prevention and management of exclusions. The HCC Inclusion Policy states that the 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 states 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 also states that the 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.

2.3.3 Behaviour Support Teams take the lead for the multi-agency approach to behaviour issues and the Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) service (managed by Inclusion Teams) 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 Behaviour Support Teams. Stakeholder responses seem to indicate that there may be a case for requesting further clarification of these roles however.

2.3.4 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 Behaviour Support Team 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. The BST points out, however, that triggers may not be consistent across all schools `for a variety of reasons'.

2.3.5 The importance of coordinating effective information sharing between relevant partners came high on most stakeholders' agendas and it seems there is much more that could be done on this front. DfES guidance states that the effective implementation of school behaviour policies relies on local administrative arrangements and the efficient transfer of information between schools and local authorities. Hampshire Connexions in particular highlighted the lack of data currently available from schools which hinders timely intervention.

2.3.6 The introduction of School Improvement Partners - officers which 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 in the written responses from stakeholders. Several references were made, however, to the impact that the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) will have for partnerships. Most respondents felt that the CAF would be helpful, although there was caution in some quarters that it would need careful planning in order for Behaviour Support Teams' work to continue to be effective.

Points for further consideration

Coordination of partnerships: the review group will ask stakeholders further questions relating to the information in section 2.3

2.4 Partnership Information and IT

2.4.1 All stakeholders felt that shared systems for sharing 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.

2.4.2 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'. There is general acknowledgement that much more could be done to deliver this aim.

2.4.3 The New Forest Behaviour Support Team liaises extensively with statutory agencies which is based on sharing information and developing strong links with personnel within agencies. The New Forest BST also works closely with non-statutory agencies (including the voluntary sector) and has 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.

Points for further consideration

Partnership information and IT: the review group will ask stakeholders further questions relating to the information in section 2.4

2.5 Partnerships: initiatives for preventing exclusions

2.5.1 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. 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 Youth Offending Team) advocates a total avoidance of exclusion.

2.5.2 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 2007². 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 to meet their needs 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.

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.

2.5.3 Many stakeholders were concerned that the new `6-day rule' could result in many more permanent exclusions as schools may find it easier to make pupils the responsibility of the local authority rather than have to arrange 6^th day provision. The implications of this could have considerable impact on partners.

2.5.4 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 (EIPs), 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 Hampshire³). There were also several comments to the effect that schools were often reluctant to engage with outside agencies - and indeed with each other.

2.5.5 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 claiming 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. 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 and that the curriculum will 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 which were said to be generating `marked improvements in behaviour and motivation'.

2.5.6 Stakeholders felt that training from the 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.

2.5.7 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. 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 not being totally effective 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.

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 - health, safety, economic deprivation, socially - 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.⁴

2.5.8 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.

Understaffed and inaccessible agencies which are unable to provide sustained support appear to be problematic, with the Behaviour Support Teams, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), Educational Psychologists and intervention for substance misuse cited by many 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.

2.5.9 Stakeholder responses highlighted early intervention as vital, as the new `6-day' requirement will not permit for 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 funding and transparent funding for early intervention across a range of providers: the current Special Educational Needs (SEN) Statutory Assessment Process is time consuming and expensive - Broadoaks Education Centre's experience is of SEN assessments taking up to 6 months for example.

Points for further consideration

Partnerships: initiatives for preventing exclusions: the review group will ask stakeholders further questions relating to the information in section 2.5

2.6 Partnerships with the Police and Youth Offending Team

2.6.1 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. 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:

· Reduce the prevalence of crime and victimisation amongst young people and reduce the number of incidents and crimes in schools and their wider communities

· Provide a safe and secure school community which enhances the learning environment

· Ensure that young people remain in education, actively learning and achieving their full potential

· Engage young people, challenge unacceptable behaviour and develop a respect for themselves and the community.

2.6.2 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.

2.6.3 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.

2.6.4 Evidence from the Youth Offending Team also indicated that improved links between schools and Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) would be of benefit.

Points for further consideration:

Partnerships with the Police and Youth Offending Team: the review group will ask stakeholders further questions relating to the information in section 2.6

3. Equality of access to support and services at different stages of school life

3.1 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.

Currently, support to pupils at primary level is provided by Behaviour Support Teams, which work in close collaboration with, and under the general management of, Education Centre managers providing secondary level support across the county. The exception is Area 1 (Basingstoke, Fleet, Hook and Yateley) where Primary provision operates under separate management from the Education Centre.

3.1.1 There are 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.

3.2 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.

3.2.1 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.

3.2.2 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.

3.2.3 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.

3.2.4 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.

3.3 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.

3.3.1 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. The importance of building good relationships between Behaviour Support Teams and secondary schools has therefore been brought to the fore. Behaviour Support Teams 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 Behaviour Support Teams, also undertakes KS6-7 support work therefore helping to identify those children who will face problems transferring to secondary school. 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 Behaviour Support Teams into the secondary sector, better outcomes could be achieved in managing behaviour and preventing exclusions.

3.3.2 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.

3.3.3 Some good practice on the transfer from primary-secondary was submitted by the New Forest Behaviour Support Team and the SENCO Forum. In this example, officers use transition forms 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. These logs accompany the child on their transition to secondary school.

3.3.4 Under the new 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 Behaviour Support Teams and the Education Inclusion Service across key stages was considered important to support schools in this.

3.3.5 Finally, some stakeholders suggested that the identification of need and support requirements needs to be more uniform across Hampshire. Some stakeholders acknowledged that the Common Assessment Framework would be helpful in this respect.

Points for further consideration:

Equality of access to support and services at different stages of school life: the review group will ask stakeholders further questions relating to the information in section 3

4. Working with Parents

4.1 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.

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 assists parents and carers develop skills in managing challenging behaviour.

4.2 Under current arrangements for exclusions, parents and carers are implicitly responsible for their child during any period of exclusion, but there is no specific penalty for failure to supervise their child. From September 2007, this will change radically 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.

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.

4.2.1 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.

4.3 Stakeholders awarded 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.

4.3.1 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, it will be interesting to see how these arrangements are put in place.

4.4 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 which are not coping or are 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 and that, in their caseload, approximately 75% of cases required no intervention from Social Services. Training and development for parents was highlighted by many stakeholders as being vital, although there seems to be varying resource across the county to provide for this.

4.5 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:

`Where a pupil is sent home for disciplinary reasons for part of a school day, some head teachers have viewed this as a 'cooling off' period, and have not taken action to exclude the pupil formally. There is no basis in law for this. The relevant regulations do not state a minimum length of exclusion. If pupils are sent home in response to a breach of discipline, even for short periods of time, this must be formally recorded as an exclusion.' Improving behaviour and attendance: guidance on exclusion from schools and Pupil Referral Units, Teachernet.

4.6 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.

Points for further consideration:

Working with parents: the review group will ask stakeholders further questions relating to the information in section 4

5. Transportation

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

`Some pupils travel a long way from their mainstream school. Some children are particularly vulnerable and cannot take public transport, so rely on taxis. HCC has a non-moveable policy of dealing with transport changes and set-ups within a 10-day deadline. This often causes huge problems, especially when there is heavy Social Services involvement e.g. child protection issues, foster care placements. Recently HCC stated that their policy of 10 days would not be changed to support 6^th day provision. This will make it impossible for us to adhere to statutory requirements.'

Initial investigations show that this issue is particularly complex and that further enquiries should be made to gain a full picture of the situation.

Points for further consideration:

Transportation:

1) KEY QUESTION: How will school transportation policies respond to the new requirements for excluded pupils?