Agenda item

·         Education Welfare Service Manager, School Effectiveness Service, Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate, to report. 

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Service Manager, Education Welfare Service, and the Children Missing Education Officer (School Effectiveness Service, Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate) that outlined the current work being undertaken in the Borough regarding Children Missing Education (CME).

The Improving Lives Select Commission considered the issue of Children Missing from Education at the meeting held on 12^th June, 2013 (Minute No. 7 refers).

A brief overview included: -

·         All children of compulsory school age who were not on a school roll and who were not receiving a suitable education otherwise than being at school (including Elective Home Education, privately or alternative provision) would be classed as ‘CME’;

·         Section 436A of the Education Act required all local authorities to make arrangements to enable them to establish the identities of children residing in the area who were not receiving a suitable education;

·         It did not include children who were registered at a school but who were not attending regularly;

·         The CME duty complimented and reinforced duties that existed for schools and the Education Welfare Service to monitor poor attendance;

·         Maintained and academy schools were required to make regular absence returns to the Education Welfare Service where attendance of individual pupils gave cause for concern.

The submitted report outlined the previous structure of the CME team when there was only one Officer working in the area.  It outlined the streamlined service, improved partnership working with a range of agencies and information sharing pathways had been put in place, in addition to improved IT capacity for tracking, recording and reporting to enable de-registering where appropriate.

·         An appropriate escalation system was in place;

·         The Education Welfare central management team and the CME Officer were co-located in the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) based in Riverside House;

·         Termly up-dates were being provided to the CYPS Directorate Leadership Team and the Lead Member for Children and Young People;

·         The creation of the Fair Access Admission Panel had increased awareness amongst headteachers of the CME picture across the Borough;

·         A temporary increase of staff members from the Integrated Youth Support Service and the School Effectiveness Service had been arranged to focus on the processing, tracking and investigation of CME.  One permanent monitoring post and temporary business support had been brokered, funded from the Education Welfare Service and the School Admissions Service;

·         Home visits were undertaken over the summer holiday, 2014.  By the end of August, 2014, 565 referrals had been followed up;

·         The Services was more able to identify vulnerable groups.

Data: -

The Education Welfare Service Manager reported on the numbers of cases that had been dealt with over the two previous school years: -

2012/2013: -

·         Opened 973 new investigations;

·         Closed 726.

2013/2014: -

·         Opened 1,211 new investigations;

·         Closed 1,413. 

As at 12^th September, 2014, there were 468 current, open active CME referrals. 

Staff and service capacity remained an ongoing issue.  The CYPS Directorate Leadership Team had accepted a plan to extend the capacity of the CME function on a temporary basis. 

Risks and uncertainties included the temporary nature of European Structural Funding for an EU Migrant Education Engagement Officer, which had ceased in July, 2014.  This work had been covered by the wider Education Welfare Service but capacity was limited to sustain this approach. 

Discussion ensued and the following issues were raised: -

·         What evidence was accepted to remove children from a register when they no longer lived in the area?  Did it have to be beyond reasonable doubt, for example?

o   It had to be believed that the child had left the area as far as possible.  The Service worked with other local authorities and border agencies to determine whether a child/ren had left the area;

·         What did the ‘open analysis’ stage cover?

o   When a child/ren did not take up their reception place, risks were acted upon quickly and an Education Welfare Officer was assigned to the case and external and internal agencies were contacted, including housing and benefits agencies, to determine whether the family had moved within Rotherham or left the Borough all together.  

·         As of 12^th September, 468 children were classed as CME. 

o   The data could be broken down further to provide a baseline.

·         Were there any children that the Service did not know where they were at all?

o   Yes, 348 children were not registered with any school.

·         Were there any common threads when a child was classed as CME?

o   Yes, location – the majority of cases were based within central Rotherham.

·         Were comparisons with regional and national performance available?

o   Rotherham’s numbers were broadly in-line with regional neighbours from liaison meetings that took place.  National figures were not produced by the DfE;

·         Were holidays taken in term time affecting the CME number?

o   Work was ongoing with schools to try to keep children on roll when an end-date to the holiday was known.  Fixed-penalty notices were applied for unauthorised holidays but children would be kept on roll where possible to ensure they were tracked.  Where there was unauthorised holiday taken and a child failed to return children were being de-registered.

·         Can ethnicity data for CME be accessed?

o   Yes it could be, but it had not been included in the submitted report;

·         What work was being undertaken with children who were home educated?

o   The Local Authority had recently launched a policy regarding expectations around Rotherham’s Elective Home Educated children.  Children who were officially home educated were not included in the CME figures.  

Resolved: -  (1) That the report be received and its content noted. 

(2) That the impact of the additional staffing resources to the Children Missing Education agenda be noted. 

(3)  That the Improving Lives Select Commission continue to receive regular updates relating to CME issues.