Agenda item

Ann Clegg, Acting Head Inclusion Support Service and June Williams, Principal Education Officer submitted statistical information on fixed period and permanent exclusions from September 2001 to the present time.

The information gave a breakdown of categories and outlined some of the work taking place within schools within the Safer Schools Partnership.

There had been no permanent exclusions for the past two years due to incidences of drugs.

The Scrutiny Panel raised issues on the content of the information and asked for a school by school breakdown in order to compare how individual schools in similar circumstances responded to fixed term and permanent exclusions.  In addition, it would be helpful to the scrutiny role to consider trends and compare statistics with other Authorities. Anecdotally, it appears that some schools exclude large numbers compared to other schools in similar circumstances.

Some schools appear to exclude large numbers compared to other schools who had no exclusions.

The Acting Executive Director explained that a decision to exclude was a Head Teacher’s based on individual school policies, each case being dealt with on an individual basis.  The LEA worked in partnership with schools and gave advice to ensure consistency.  A great deal of emphasis had been given in Rotherham to anti-bullying measures and there was a high level of consistency across Rotherham schools.  Detailed information was shared across schools which allowed them to draw comparisons.

Ann Clegg reported feedback from DfES who felt the exclusion record in Rotherham was good.  There was a significant reduction in exclusions and days lost through fixed exclusions in comparing September 2003 -May 2004 and September 2004-May 2005.  A great deal of work had been done by Schools/Head Teachers/School Services to bring about this reduction.  There were no exclusions in Primary Schools which was very pleasing.  Ann Clegg believed there would always be variances but felt that the overall work over the last two years was proving beneficial.

A question was raised regarding who was responsible for excluded pupils and other inclusive strategies to segregate and teach children away from mainstream classes.

Ann Clegg reported that DfES guidance was very clear on the education of excluded pupils.  For a pupil excluded for less than fifteen days, the school was responsible for providing work to be done at home and marked by school.  In cases of exclusions beyond fifteen days, schools remain responsible but supported by LEA central services to provide a programme of education.  Some schools were using a seclusion approach, rather than employing fixed term exclusions in the first instance.  This involves a pupil working in isolation, but on the school campus, and may include work on anger management and coping in a mainstream classroom.  One school had reduced their fixed term exclusions through use of such a technique.

June Williams outlined her role in relation to the exclusion of pupils and informed the meeting that schools were very much guided by DfES legislation.  In cases of non-conformity it was her role to point this out at the exclusion hearing.

One member pointed out that permanent exclusion was the last resort for some pupils exhibiting very challenging behaviour.  In addition, despite the Government’s view to look at special measures, a substantial proportion of temporary exclusions were believed to be SEN and Looked After Children.

Ann Clegg explained that there had been no permanent exclusions of children in public care last year and only one this year.  Reference was made to recent DfES guidance for dealing with the possible exclusion of SEN pupils which had had a marked impact.  The new guidance to schools to address bullying should help schools.

The meeting agreed the need for a uniformed Code of Practice on ways of dealing with the various forms of anti-social behaviour.

Resolved:-  (1) That further anonymised statistical information on fixed term and permanent exclusions be provided to the present members of this Scrutiny Panel and to the Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel.

(2)  That this information give the number of pupils excluded, the number of days and trends in secondary schools.