Archived decisions

1.

APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Pamela Peskett.

2.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should, normally at the time of the debate, declare their interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed.

3.

CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

The Chairman welcomed those in attendance and in particular thanked the witnesses for their time and contribution to the Review Group.

The Chairman advised that the Children and Young People Select Committee identified the topic of school exclusions for an in-depth scrutiny review in February 2007. The Review Group would seek evidence to:

· Identify areas for improvement in Hampshire policies and practices on the prevention and management of exclusions

· Identify ways in which the County Council can work more effectively with partners in the prevention and management of exclusions

· Help to prepare Hampshire for the forthcoming changes in the law surrounding exclusions in September 2007

4.

DEPUTATIONS

The Review Group received a deputation from Mr Frank Jones, who as a grandparent had personal experience of the effect of exclusions on a family unit. He asked the Review Group to take into account the effects on families and put forward that the Local Education Authority should strive to achieve zero exclusions as that was in the best interests of the child and family.

5.

ORAL EVIDENCE

The Review Group received oral evidence from the following witnesses:-

· Terry Rath - Children's Services (particular focus on transport)

· Rachel Walker - Children's Services (Team for Children in Care)

· Janet Feat - Children's Services (Parent Development Team)

· Hilary Hickmore (CAMHS)

· Stephen Mellor/David Retter/Colin Diaper (with Gerry

Price as Area Director Support) - Children's Services (Inclusion)

The evidence given covered a range of issues including effective partnerships, equality of provision and working with parents. Specific reference was made to:

Resources and Facilities

Collaborative solutions between partners etc were considered vital if the challenges were to be met. There was a suggestion that the Strategic Property Review may help to identify suitable property to accommodate excluded pupils and hence meet the new requirements.

Co-ordinaton of Partnerships

Locality Team structure generally welcomed which along with Common Area Assessment (CAF) would impact positively on the co-ordination of partnerships. There was some discussion about perceived lack of clear district management. Regard was also given to the importance of the relationship between Behaviour Support and locality teams in the way that they can improve outcomes for Children in Care (CiC). Regular dialogue between schools, the Local Education Authority (LEA) and social workers was also considered important in the context of CiC. Particular emphasis should be placed on "preventative measures". Discussion also centred on the placement of excluded CiC who were given priority and the role of CLASPS (County Placement Panels).

There was deliberation about the "knitting" together of agencies to provide an holistic approach to the problems presented by exclusions.

Partnership Information and IT

The problems associated with information sharing were raised. It was noted that protocols were being drawn up between the NHS and various agencies. It was also noted that the Education Inclusion Service had recently purchased a new IT system which would dovetail with schools and have a flagging system.

Partnerships: initiatives for preventing exclusions

Concerns were raised about early identification of pupils with SEN, mental health problems and disabilities. The merits of an holistic approach, taking into account all needs of a child were considered paramount. Discussion also touched on the "Managed Moves Programme" operated for CiC.

Engagement of parents was considered paramount in helping to reduce the number of exclusions, the following initiatives were highlighted:

· Positive Parenting Programme (triple P) - this will be rolled out with the Children's Centres

· Confident Parents:Confident Kids Programme

· Home to School Link workers

· Family Link Workers

The role of Family Group Conferences was also touched on and the "Parent Support Adviser" pilot being undertaken at Kent was also discussed. It was anticipated that the outcomes from the pilot would be available in March 2008

Highlights from the "Excluded Pupils Project" initiated in December 2005 to explore educational history of excluded pupils was also discussed and it was agreed that a copy of the report would be forwarded to the Review Group for further consideration.

CAMHS had been identified by several schools as being difficult to access and the recent Joint Area Review (JAR) found that provision across the County was variable. It was considered that the development of CAMHS was key to helping to plan for children and young people with emotional difficulties.

In response to concerns raised about accessing specialist services such as CAMHS, the Review Group were advised that the incidence of mental health need had grown considerably in the last decade and had impacted on service delivery. It was also considered that inappropriate referrals impacted on service delivery. A document was circulated outlining the 4 tier referral system. It was put forward that it was custom and practice to refer most children and young people directly to tier 3 when in fact tiers 1 and 2 may be more appropriate. Clear protocols and movements between tiers would go some way in achieving this desired outcome.

There was also discussion about the help and support available to children and young people in school and the role of link officers.

Working with Parents and Carers

The support and engagement of parents/carers along with early intervention were considered important in helping to reduce the number of exclusions. There was also discussion about CiC and the fact that the majority have inadequate "pre-care" history and explained to an extent the correlation between the length of time in care and exclusions.

Transportation

Many stakeholders had highlighted transportation as a major hurdle to the effective implementation of the new "6 day" requirement and the Review Group asked Terry Rath, Head of Management Services with specific responsibility for school transport policy a number of questions to gain a fuller understanding of this complex area.

The new 6 day rule had not yet impacted on transportation provision but the service was aware of the potential impact and had canvassed Inclusion Managers accordingly.

It was explained that transportation for excluded children was a periphery issue compared with educational provision. It was strongly suggested that at the point of exclusion (or even before) when discussions take place about placements that discussions also centre on transportation issues. In effect transport must be part and parcel of the placement package and not just something to consider at a later stage. Some of the delays in putting into place appropriate transport were attributed to tendering arrangements. However it was anticipated that flexible contract arrangements being piloted in the north east of the County may alleviate time delays.

There was also discussion about expenditure and the policy for home to school transport. It was noted that exceptions to the policy can be made in the interests of the child.

There was also discussion about bringing the operational side of school transport under the Children's Service directorate. It was considered that the Environment directorate were best placed to undertake operational activity.

The oral evidence giving session also covered other general matters concerning healthy living lifestyles, possible links between social deprivation and exclusions, alternatives to exclusion and priorities given to CiC .

Members questioned the witnesses based on their written and oral submissions, copies of the written evidence appear in the Minute Book. The session was recorded and is stored securely as part of the public record.