Agenda item

Report ED18029

The Schools’ Forum considered a report proposing that the development of Inclusion Outreach Services for Primary Schools for a two year period. Primary school permanent exclusions in Bromley had tripled in number since 2012 whilst the national trend was one of reducing numbers. In 2016/17 a total of 84 pupils were permanently excluded (compared to 46 in 2012). Of these, 17 were primary school pupils (compared to 5 in 2012). It was noted by the Head of Access and Inclusion that most neighbouring boroughs had low numbers of permanent exclusions of primary school children, most with none.

Previous decisions to reduce the Council run support services and instead re-distribute funding to schools had led to a greatly diminished ability to support schools from the centre. This was particularly acute where schools were supporting children who had additional learning needs or complex social and familial circumstances but did not meet the thresholds either for a statutory Education Health and Care Plan or for social care support. These children did not have the infrastructure of entitlement but without intervention, ran the risk of developing needs that would one day reach the required thresholds. The re-distribution of funding between schools was intended to give each school an individual allocation with which to procure their own support services. The Inclusion Support Advisory Teaching (ISAT) Team supported schools at a strategic level with systems development, training and advice. There was no capacity within the team (which comprised three posts) to support individual children. 

What was being proposed was to pump-prime a specialist Inclusion Outreach Service to primary schools in order to support them with their most challenging children, as a pilot for 2 years. The funding would be split over either two or three financial years. It was hoped that the value and impact of the pilot will be demonstrated and it was the intention that schools each contributed to the project in year three to make it self-funding. Effectively, it would provide the foundation for collectively funded Outreach Services.

A member enquired as to why neighbouring boroughs had much lower exclusion numbers. The Head of Access and Inclusion responded that some neighbouring boroughs had central support services in place, while at LBB no one had been in her post for the previous four years. Bromley had also seen a significant change in demographic whereas boroughs such as Croydon, for example, had not had the demographic shift that Bromley had experienced, and were therefore better equipped to deal with families that had lived in the borough for a number of years and may have been previously known to the central service.

In response to a question, the Head of Access and Inclusion advised members that exclusions were not always random and that some schools had higher rates of exclusion than others. These were often schools located within areas where the community faced a number of social challenges including low income and health issues. SEN students accounted for 75% of the cases, but tended to be students with underlying needs that had not been identified.

A member asked what the capacity for the service was in terms of number of pupils, and the criteria if the service became overwhelmed. The Head of Access and Inclusion highlighted that the service was overwhelmed currently, but that level of detail had not yet been finalised. There was a need to be flexible and work with the ISAT team to exceed what would normally be expected. Capacity would depend on the individual needs of the child, but could be up to 30 children at any one time. An individual package would be created for each child, with support being offered for two or three days a week.

In response to a question, the Head of Access and Inclusion advised members that the service would have tight performance requirements and a continuous review process. A review would take place at the end of the first year, as if the service was to continue into a third year, the procurement process would need to begin mid-way through the year two.

Members enquired as to what consultation had taken place with the primary schools regarding the service. The Head of Access and Inclusion noted that visibility was an issue, and that they did not want to compromise the services that schools were already buying in, but needed to ensure that the entitlement was offered. The Head of Access and Inclusion had attended the Primary Heads Forum and the Schools Partnership Board to present the service and had found the response to be generally supportive. A further presentation would be made at the next Primary Heads Forum to provide more details of the service.

Members raised concerns regarding the viability of the service continuing for a third year if not all schools agreed to pay. The Head of Access and Inclusion understood the concern which highlighted the importance of the review process. Some members felt that it was unfair if the cost was not spread borough-wide and suggested schools could agree and sign up before the service was implemented. The Head of Access and Inclusion said there was a need for an advisory board, consisting of Primary Headteachers and Finance Support which would create ownership and oversight.

A discussion took place and members agreed to support the development and commissioning of an Outreach Service for Bromley Primary Schools for two years in principle, but raised concerns regarding its sustainability. A request was made for Secondary School Headteachers to provide the Schools’ Forum with information on their permanent exclusions including numbers of students, if any money was recouped and if so, what the money was used for. The Head of ECHS Finance agreed to report back at the next meeting.

RESOLVED: that the development and commissioning of an Outreach Service for Bromley Primary Schools for two years, in order to prevent the permanent exclusion of pupils be supported in principle.