Agenda item
Pupil Movement (19.05)
To review the report on all pupil movement in Hackney 2022/23.
Minutes:
4.1 Following the completion of the review of the Outcome of School Exclusions' in December 2021, the Commission recommended that all pupil movement data is submitted annually to the Commission. This helps the Commission to retain oversight of why pupils may be moving to or from mainstream education in Hackney, their characteristics and their subsequent education destination.
4.2 Further to the investigation by the Commission into the ‘off-rolling of pupils from local mainstream schools in 2019/20, this report also helps to identify those schools where there is above average pupil movement at years 10 and 11 and the challenge provided by the local authority to those schools.
Questions from the Commission
4.3 Children with SEND make up a significant proportion of this cohort of young people missing from education. What assurance do officers have that the final education destinations of children missing education (CME) are appropriate for their needs? Are officers confident that all EHCP annual reviews are taking place?
§ CME who have SEND are generally those with an EHCP or on SEND support. Children with an EHCP are closely monitored as this system requires an annual review of their education, so the service generally is able to maintain contact with parents and to suggest alternative education settings. Children with SEND who are CME are supported under the universal offer for schools.
§ It was also noted that there were experienced teachers within the CME team of HE who could provide expert advice on the inclusive adaptations that schools may be able to provide to support children with SEND to attend.
§ Annual reviews are delegated to educational settings to undertake under the oversight of the SEND team.
4.4 Is there any data on how long children are generally missing from education? How many of those children missing from education are long term cases? Is there any correlation with the SEND status of children and long term missing from education? Is there any data or assurance that these children have up to date EHCP plans?
§ The authority maintains a substantial data set on CME as it is statutorily required to report on this area of education. There are two CME data sets; those children within the Charedi community and standard dataset which covers all other children. For the latter, 96% of children are placed in alternative educational settings within the statutory timeframe. Of the remainder, most of these relate to transfers overseas which whilst assurance has been provided by the school, there is no corroborated data or evidence to support this. A small number of these cases relate to the team's investigations to verify the existence of children in relation to benefits assessments.
§ The Head of SEND reported that it is a duty for the LA to undertake annual assessments of EHCP, but this is delegated to schools and settings (and overseen by the LA). When a child is not in school, this duty falls back to LA. As there are over 3,700 children with an EHCP annual reviews are a significant undertaking, but new software has been developed to assist assessments on the quality of annual reviews undertaken and other trends.
4.5 The Children Missing Education team is supporting in excess of over 1,100 children. How many staff (whole time equivalents) are part of this team? What are the key areas of support to children and families? What are the pressures within this team?
§ The CMT team sits within the pupils out of school team, but there were lots of interdependencies and collaborative working within this team. There were 2 full-time officers in the CME team and a senior lead for CME who oversees the work. One of the officers works with the Charedi community and the other works with the standard CME cohort. There is also the Elective Home Education team of 2 workers, one of which is a qualified teacher and the other post is currently vacant. There is also an attendance team made up of 7 officers (managed by an ex-head of a primary school) to support children who are on-roll and making sure they are taking advantage of the education available. Officers are from a range of disciplines covering teaching, youth work, social care and other related educational areas.
4.6 If there are two officers for children missing education, one of which focuses on the 1,100 children from the Charedi community, what scope is there for this officer to undertake any welfare assessments or enquiries for CME to ensure that they are receiving a good education?
§ Although there is one officer leading on CME in the Charedi community they are supported by the wider team of officers. Officers will visit families to check on elective home education arrangements, and in most if not all instances. If arrangements are unacceptable, Officers will continue to visit parents to check on progress and to ascertain if they are ready to engage.
§ There is the scope and capacity to undertake welfare checks for standard CME cohort and there is a statutory timeline which the service works within. In many cases, the circumstances are quite straightforward and the council can complete these obligations efficiently.
§ The DoE noted that whilst more resources would always be welcome the performance and coverage of this service is annually reported to Ofsted and has not been found to be wanting.
4.7 The LA has a statutory duty to provide some form of educational provision once a child has missed 15 days of school. What proportion of children who are missing school are being supported through this process and what form of support are they being provided with?
§ This relates to Section 19 Duties, and this can be provided in a number of ways including PRU, AP or on-site provision in the school itself.
§ Children who have been off school for 15 days or more due to a medical condition are supported by the Medical Needs Education Service which is made up of experienced teachers. Teaching is generally provided on a one-to-one basis in the home in liaison with the clinical team with the aim of moving children back on to full time education as quickly as possible (wherever possible). For CME the focus is always to get children back on roll at an educational setting with their peers and to enable them to receive full-time education. Children who are permanently excluded from school are provided with education on the 6th day by the local pupil referral unit.
4.8 (From Hackney Youth Parliament) There are many excluded children who are being kept under the radar who are being kept within detention centres or other separate facilities within their own school away from the main student body. There also needed to be further work to assess the correlation between the neuro-diverse children and those experiencing difficulties in relation to exclusion or other forms of out of classroom sanction.
§ The Chair noted that the Commission’s review had highlighted this exact point, noting that many children who were excluded from school were diagnosed with some form of SEND after their exclusion.
§ The AP officer noted that a new AP strategy was being developed which would focus on how local provision can help to respond to unmet needs of children, especially those children with SEND, neuro-diversity or mental health concerns. There was a growing concern around ‘emotionally based school avoidance’ (EBSA) and the strategy would also help local schools to respond to this.
4.9 What contact does the Children Missing Education team have with parents of Charedi boys to assure them that they are receiving an appropriate education? What information do we have on SEND support for children from the Charedi community and any annual checks that might be undertaken?
§ DoE reported that is a serious issue and there are termly strategic meetings between HE and the Charedi community, in particular with Interlink. These meetings cover a wide range of health, social care and educational issues including SEND support and provision. There is an ongoing dialogue to support those UES to become independent schools and therefore fall within the regulatory framework.
§ In terms of the CME and the Charedi community there is no data on their SEND needs despite the efforts of officers to engage parents. It is however a very complicated area of work and there are barriers to working as regulatory oversight is limited as these settings are not schools and are outside the regulatory framework. The LA continues to work creatively to engage and involve the Charedi community to ensure that there is a line of sight with these children. The DoE noted that the Schools Bill, which would have brought additional regulation of UES, was cancelled in the last parliamentary session.
The Chair noted that the Commission would be revisiting this subject in more detail at the January 2024 meeting.
4.10 a) The report notes that all schools with a pupil movement between years 10 and 11 above the local average (5%) are challenged by School Improvement Partners (SIP). Can officers set out how schools are challenged? Is there a case by case review? Is there a review of local policy (e.g. school moves, exclusions)? How have schools responded to challenge?
b) Children moving education settings between years 10 and 11 can impact on their educational attainment as well as being very personally unsettling for them and their families, yet the report shows that the proportion of children moving at this time has risen from 3% to 5% over the past two years. From the challenge provided to schools, what does the LA know about the underlying reasons for this increase in pupil movement? How is the authority working with schools to reduce pupil movement at this critical juncture in their education?
§ It was confirmed that those schools with 5% or above pupil movement were visited by SIP and challenge was provided on a case by case basis. Whilst it may not always be in the best interests of children that they are moved at this time, historically, schools have been able to provide a valid reason why these children have been moved. In many instances, this is at the request of parents.
(Follow up)The Chair noted that this was often the account given by schools, but there was no work done to verify these reasons with parents themselves, who often had a very different perspective. In the context that there were 6 schools who were above the threshold (5%) and one where the move rate was 15%, is the authority satisfied that there is sufficient challenge to local schools and that children are being moved in their best interests? Are there any other reasons which might be behind these rising figures?
§ On the school admissions side it is clear that there are often complex family needs which may be behind a school move, whatever stage that takes place. In many cases, the parent is seeking to remove their child from a difficult situation. There was a belief among the SIP that schools were not misrepresenting the reasons as to why children might be moving.
§ The DoE cited an example where another head teacher had noted a rise in the number of children being moved to their school, and requested that HE investigate. The DoE, alongside the SIP, visited the school in question and concluded that there were genuine reasons for moving children. The LA was administering the system as best as it could within the legislative framework.
(Follow up) The Chair highlighted that given the evident disproportionalities in the school move data, there should be clearer ambitions for the children and families affected. The Chair emphasised that there had to be more challenge to address the system which is creating these inequalities in relation to race, gender and SEND status.
(Follow Up) The Vice Chair questioned whether schools were all made aware of these patterns of movement as this affects all schools within the local educational system. Whilst schools may have their own governance arrangements, being part of the same local educational systems requires greater consistency in the way that school moves are managed.
§ It was noted that there has been much work to help schools become more inclusive, particularly work around the local Inclusion Charter.
§ The outcomes of the admissions panel are shared with local schools and the individual deliberations are shared with the destination school (including advice from related professionals). The Fair Access Panel is chaired by an independent chair who oversees this process to ensure the best outcome for local children.
§ Officers understood the frustration at the lack of progress in this sphere, but noted that this was a complex system in which there were a number of moving parts including AP reform, resetting the Fair Access Panel and the duties of the school and the LA in terms of admissions. The LA fully understood the local narrative and what needs to be done and where children were being failed. It was noted that a pilot MDT system was being trialled in 9 schools in the north of the borough to identify how children with persistent behavioural issues could be better supported through a whole systems approach.
4.11 The report noted that 68% of children leaving education in Hackney took up a place at a school outside Hackney. Is there any data on how well these children perform? Is there any tracking of such students?
§ It was acknowledged that whilst that it would be positive if this tracking of pupils could take place, there is no statutory duty to do so, and therefore there is no data on this. If there was capacity and the budget to do so, then this would be something that the HE would like to do.
(Follow up) The Commission noted that in many cases the outcomes for children who were moved were poor, and that if tracking data was available, this could be shared with parents and other stakeholders to inform decision making. There was a view that this data was available locally (e.g. in our schools, in our housing service and social care office), but there were questions as to how effectively this might be collated and shared.
(Follow up) The Commission also noted that in a number of instances, families had little control over the reason why their child was being moved, as increasingly families were required to move for housing and other welfare issues. Is there any data on this?
§ Officers confirmed that here is no tracking of data on children leaving the borough.
§ DoE noted that a secondary heads working group had been commissioned to look at school estates and falling school rolls to ascertain why children might be leaving the borough which will hopefully improve understanding of this issue.
(Follow up) The Commission noted the importance of local data collection and sharing this appropriately across departments to inform decision making.
(Follow up) A lot of the data around CME and moving school appears to be anecdotal. Are there any other authorities which appear to have good data collection systems which capture this data in a more systematic way? If so, what can we learn from them and import within local provision?
§ At a recent meeting of London Directors (of Education) it was made clear that there was no authority across London which was collecting this data, but Hackney would be looking to start collecting this data. In terms of best practice, if the Commission has evidence on areas where it thinks local provision can be improved in terms of data collection, then this would be welcomed.
(Follow up) Is there a dashboard which brings all this data together? It would help the Commission to have oversight of the data and also help to assess if there are any gaps? Further data on the children in this cohort would be welcome especially in relation to age, ethnicity, gender, SEND status and their location. The Commission would also welcome further longitudinal data on this to help assess whether presenting issues are ongoing and for comparative purposes, how Hackney data compares with other boroughs. For example, the report makes reference to Black Congolese children, when for consistency and coherence, it should be referred to as Black African.
§ The authority has over 340 statutory duties in relation to education, and whilst officers would welcome the creation of a singular dashboard covering these services, it is not possible to do this given the breadth provision. The authority would always want more data to inform decision making but the needs of the children are now more complex spanning much wider information datasets and there has to be limitations on what can be accessed and analysed.
4.12 On page 18 of the report it notes that all schools regard removal from the register as a potential safeguarding issue. Was this a general view or the view of schools in relation to individual cases? What are the review and follow up processes in respect of removal from the register?
§ This is in regard to an individual child assessment, and this could be for the school to refer them to Multidisciplinary Safeguarding Hub (MASH) or some other professional. The focus would be on assessing the specific needs of the child in question.
4.13 The number of children being electively home educated (EHE) continues to rise, and there are now over 300 children who are educated at home (excluding Charedi children). Can officers explain what is driving this increase in the number of children being electively home educated? How do the number of children being electively home educated in Hackney compare to other boroughs? What happens when a child has an EHCP or SEND statement and is transferring to elective home education?
§ Since the pandemic it is apparent that more parents are choosing to EHE their children, in Hackney and elsewhere. Whilst there has been some stabilisation, figures are on an upward trend. There are also in-year variations with higher rates of children in EHE in September term than other terms, as often parents have not obtained their preferred school option and prefer to EHE until a more suitable option becomes available. There were lots of drivers for the increase in children in EHE, the main one being that their parents felt that their needs were not being met in school.
§ 29 of the 304 children in EHE have an EHCP and in this context, officers would work with the SEND team to ensure that they are receiving a suitable education and their needs are being met.
(Follow up) The Chair noted that if there are a growing number of parents who are taking their children out of school to EHE because they feel that schools are not meeting their needs, then this is an inclusion issue for the authority.
§ The DoE noted that Hackney is not an outlier, and that all local authorities were experiencing similar increases in the number of children being EHE. It was noted that there was a crisis in many parts of the health care service where there were delays in children getting the mental health or other health support that they needed. Whilst waiting times were comparably better in Hackney than in many other authorities, it was recognised that this was still problematic for many children and their families.
§ The authority is not legally obliged to record why children enter into EHE. The school usually notifies the authority that a child is being EHE and the parent has to confirm this and that they were not pressured into doing so and never offered as an alternative to exclusion. Once a referral has been received, a safe and well check is undertaken (which is prioritised according to need). An education suitability check is also carried out by a qualified teacher to assess their needs, and this is undertaken with a social worker if the child is in receipt of statutory care.
4.14 The main in-year movement of children with EHCP is from mainstream school setting to another mainstream school setting (accounting for 55% of all movement). Are different schools differently equipped to meet the needs of children with SEND?
§ There can be many reasons why children with SEND move from one mainstream school to another, this could be parents moving school in Hackney or parents moving into the borough. All schools are required to follow the SEND code of practice and provide the basics of SEND support, but clearly some schools do this better than others. This is monitored by the SEND team.
§ The SEND team does have the data on the proportion of (55%) of children with an EHCP which are new to the borough or moving to another local school which can better meet their needs. This can be supplied at a later date.
Action: HE to provide data on the proportion of children with an EHCP who move from one mainstream school to another who are a) moving to another Hackney School to obtain a better educational offer and b) who are new to the borough.
4.15 The Chair thanked officers for attending and closed this item with a request that a meeting with HE takes place ahead to scope this item before this is confirmed in the work programme for next year so that it can add value to the work of the officers in this field.
Action: The Commission to meet with officers to scope out the pupil movement item ahead of confirmation within the 2024/25 work programme.
4.16 The DoE noted that any lobbying of the DfE and central government that the Commission could undertake in relation to EHE would be welcomed by Hackney Education. The Chair agreed that it would consider this approach.
Supporting documents:
-
Item 4 (Coversheet) Pupil Movement, item 4.
PDF 47 KB -
Scrutiny Report - Pupil Movement 2022-23 - Google Docs, item 4.
PDF 781 KB