Agenda item

For the Sub-Committee to receive a presentation and update on Exclusions and Suspensions in Croydon. This item was deferred from the last meeting on the 28 February 2023.

The Sub-Committee considered a paper set out on pages 17 to 26 of the agenda, which provided an update on Exclusions and Suspensions in Croydon. This item was deferred from the last meeting on the 28 February 2023. The Director of Education introduced the item and went through the presentation slides.

Members asked whether officers attended Exclusion Panels for academy schools, and heard from the Head of Access to Education that parents were provided the contact details of the Council Exclusions Lead in the statutory exclusions letter, and could invite them should they wish; academies were not obligated to inform the Council of the details of Exclusion Panels. The Director of Education explained that the Council has a statutory duty to provide education to excluded students and so would be aware of these pupils, if they have not been informed, after the Panel had taken place, or earlier in some cases. The Sub-Committee asked if academies had their own Pupil Referral Units and heard that this was not the case.

The Sub-Committee asked about challenge where patterns of disproportionality with exclusions were identified, and what training opportunities were provided to Head Teachers. The Head of Access to Education explained that there were training opportunities available, but these were at the discretion of Head Teacher to attend. Representatives from every school in Croydon had attended a training session on ‘Adultification’ in the 2021/22 academic year; this had been followed by other ongoing training sessions for which the Council held attendance logs. Academies held their own training and reported these sessions to the Council. The Head of Access to Education explained that the Council did undertake Section 11 statutory audits of safeguarding which included scrutiny of the training schools were providing. Members asked if training had been effective in reducing disproportionality for black children and the Head of Access to Education explained that it was effective on an individual basis and that strong challenge was being made on the basis of race, which would be reflected in this year’s exclusions figure. The Head of Access to Education acknowledged that systemic change would take a much longer time to embed.

Members asked about the independent review of exclusions decisions and the Director of Education explained that every permanent exclusion went through an independent review panel that was usually convened by the school’s governing body. The Sub-Committee asked about Croydon’s adoption of a ‘Public Health’ approach to crime, and whether there was a correlation between exclusions and youth crime. The Director of Education explained that there was a known link that had been identified through the Vulnerable Adolescents Review. Members heard that sometimes young people ‘self-exclude’ by taking a decision not to attend school and that this could impact on their outcomes. Members heard that Saffron Valley Collegiate, the Council’s Pupil Referral Unit (PRU), have been involved in the AP ‘taskforce’ project and that pupils within the PRU were receiving support that extended beyond their education and incorporated a ‘trauma informed’ approach.

The Vice-Chair asked about scenarios where exclusions would or would not be challenged by the Council. The Head of Access to Education explained that there was always an initial challenge and conversation with a Head Teacher from the Exclusions Lead, followed by scrutiny of the exclusions paperwork. Members heard that the Council would investigate whether there had been a lack of effort or intervention with the child prior to the exclusion, and if there was any evidence of discrimination or unfair treatment. The only circumstances where the Council would not challenge is when the paperwork and evidence for the Exclusion were ‘watertight’, but this was extremely rare. The Vice-Chair asked how confident officers were that the advice and support being provided to parents by schools was good and relevant. The Director of Education responded that the Council worked closely with Head Teachers, and that they were confident that Head Teachers had a strong understanding of the exclusions process and their statutory responsibilities.

The Sub-Committee asked about the target number for exclusions in the borough, acknowledging that exclusions could be a positive journey for some students and the right decision for a school to have made. The Director of Education explained that early intervention was always preferred, but those being identified as being at risk of permanent exclusion were discussed and alternative pathways were always considered to ensure interventions were taking place as early as possible. Members heard ideally no students would be excluded, but it was recognised that this was a power that sat with Head Teachers to be used where appropriate for the students, schools and staff. The Director of Education explained that regularly reviewing exclusions data was important to identify disproportionality in the way students were being excluded in schools. Members asked if it was ever possible for exclusions to be reversed because incorrect processes had been followed, and heard that this was the case but that many conversations were had leading up to an exclusion, including at the Fair Access Panel. The Sub-Committee asked about more in depth breakdowns of exclusions data and heard that this was contained in the Education Standards report received annually by the Sub-Committee. The Head of Access to Education explained that three primary school students had been permanently excluded in the current academic year, and 27 secondary school students.

Members asked about disproportionality with regards to children with Special Educational Needs (SEN), and whether there was best practice in regards to reducing disproportionality for Black Caribbean students. The Director of Education explained that children with Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP) were not excluded from schools, and that any concerns were picked up in the annual review process. Members heard the reducing disproportionality for Black Caribbean students was a priority and that work with Head Teachers was ongoing, but that the Local Authorities’ power here was limited. The Education Partnership would have representatives from all schools and would set priorities across Croydon; the Director of Education would be suggesting that inclusion and the reduction of disproportionality be a priority for the Partnership. The Head of Access to Education explained that where serious concerns around disproportionality were identified, the Council could intervene under safeguarding legislation; this had happened a few times in the last year and had resulted in visits from the Director for Education and members of the Exclusions Team to conduct in depth reviews of the school’s practices.

The Sub-Committee asked if the Council had any Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) around reducing disproportionality in exclusions, and heard that this was the case and that reductions were being seen. The Corporate Director of Children, Young People & Education explained that the Council could influence schools through the Partnership and other work, and was able to have a positive impact in this way given the large number of academy schools in Croydon; however, it was acknowledged that there was always more that could be done. The Cabinet Member for Children & Young People commented on the positive step being taken in establishing the Education Partnership, which would work to achieve shared priorities for all schools in Croydon.

The Vice-Chair asked about the increase in primary exclusions and the Head of Access to Education explained that there two trends that had been acknowledged. The first was increased numbers of children in nursery with complex needs, SEN and EHCP applications; this was impacting on the ability of schools to meet the needs of some very young children coming into schools. The second was children who had missed significant amounts of nursery and reception schooling during the pandemic. Long wait times for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and the complex diagnosis pathway for Autism and ADHD was also acknowledged as a contributing factor. The Director for Education explained that Croydon Locality SEND support was providing funding into primary and secondary schools to support early interventions for students; this would be rolled out to Early Years settings in the near future to pick up on the needs of children at an earlier stage.

The Sub-Committee asked about the statutory requirement to capture internal exclusions and whether the Council would hold this data; the Director of Education explained that schools would report this to their governing bodies. Members heard that the Schools White and Green papers had been focussed on attendance and that conversations would take place through the Education Partnership to decide exactly what data is required. The Director of Education commented that it was important to consider capacity in regards to this data, as it was not just about information capture, but about the resultant action and follow up that would be needed.

Members asked if there was data on how successful ‘managed moves’ were and whether there were ever multiple managed moves for the same child. The Director of Education explained that multiple managed moves had been stopped, as if it had not been successful initially it was unlikely to be successful a second time; instead, additional support was provided to these children. It was acknowledged that managed moves could take place outside of the Fair Access process, which the Council would not be aware of.

The Director of Education explained that it was difficult to put a figure on the number of successful managed moves as not all of this data was collected, and it was likely easier to find data on where a move had not been successful as these children may come back into the Fair Access process. In response to questions, the Director of Education explained that where a managed move broke down, this could lead to a permanent exclusion; it was explained that successful ‘managed moves’ required a strong level of understanding and support, and that processes were always under review. The Director of Education stated that they would discuss with the Head of Access to Education a way to provide some data from the Fair Access Panel to the Sub-Committee in an appropriate format.

Members commented on the need for school governors to be trained and aware of best practice to ensure they were best able to scrutinise the decisions of Head Teachers. The Director of Education agreed and explained that the Council did provide training to governing bodies and that the best training did include examples of best practice. It was agreed that it would be a good idea to have experienced chairs of governing bodies talk at these training events and that this would be something considered in the future.

The Chair asked about the availability of soft data on exclusions for the current academic year. The Director of Education explained that they needed to be careful on this to ensure children were not identifiable and that incorrect data was not provided. The Vice-Chair asked about the impact in the change in name from ‘fixed term exclusions’ to ‘suspensions’, and heard that this had been limited but was still seriously considered in the context of inclusion. The Director of Education explained there was an expectation that schools kept good data on this and that the Council and Ofsted monitored suspensions. Members and the Director of Education highlighted that all cases needed to be considered on the basis of the individual children concerned.

Conclusions

The Sub-Committee concluded that training on exclusions for governors to support head teachers in making different decisions was vital in reducing the number of exclusions and disproportionality amongst the children affected.

The Sub-Committee concluded that a future work programme item should be added to talk to Head Teachers at schools that were examples of best practice in their exclusions processes.