Minutes:
Exclusions
Ian Dixon and Debbie Smith presented the Safeguarding Education Annual Report
The number of permanent exclusions in Bracknell Forest remained below the national average; 6 in 2016/17 with no identifiable trend. All permanent exclusions during the year had been from secondary schools.
During 2016-17, one permanent exclusion had proceeded to an Independent Review Panel under government exclusion guidance. The panel had quashed the exclusion decision and directed the school to reconsider. Officers had found the process to be effective.
Although there had been a national increase in the rate of exclusions, the data demonstrated the rate of increase in Bracknell Forest had slowed. It was thought that Early Intervention work may have aided this.
It was clarified that there were no Pupil Referral Units for primary school children, as the Local Authority offered additional financial contributions to keep children in mainstream education at this age.
The Local Authority was represented at all maintained Governor Disciplinary Committee (GDC) meetings, and to academy GDC meetings on invitation.
The Fair Access Panel was effective and 50/50 moves were to other mainstream schools/PRU. The LSCB requested figures for temporary moves to the Pupil Referral Unit and the amount of time spent at the PRU in future reports, although it was noted that the number was low. (Action: Ian Dixon)
Safeguarding
All schools complete annual reports on their safeguarding arrangements, and had developed a template to reflect their requirements. Most schools were using the NSPCC self-assessment tool, and including their own action plan as this was not required by the NSPCC tool.
The Board noted the Ofsted safeguarding complaint procedure, whereby the Local Authority is notified of any complaint with safeguarding concerns, regardless of the nature of the issue. Officers remained confident that there were no wider systemic issues, and commented that Ofsted were informed of the actions taken in regard to these notifications.
Significant levels of training were identified which is provided to schools and the Designated Safeguarding Leads (DSL) group met for three hour meetings on a termly basis, and had looked at safeguarding audits, the role of the LADO, and permanency amongst other issues. Attendance was reported to be good, DSLs are well engaged and the group included a number of independent school representatives.
The Board thanked Ian and Debbie for the report, and suggested that fixed term exclusions may be an area of focus for the Learning and Improvement Subgroup to see the impact of exclusions on a family, and the reasons for exclusions.
Children Missing Education (CME) and Children vulnerable to Missing Education
Ian Dixon presented the CME and Children vulnerable to Missing Education report.
It was noted that the Local Authority had a statutory duty to identify children missing in education i.e. not on a school roll or EHE, and in addition to the legislation maintains a list of those vulnerable to be missing in education. Any child missing for 10 consecutive days without reason, and any child missing for 20 consecutive days but on school roll regardless of reason was considered missing in education. It was noted that lots of the children marked as missing in education were families who moved without notifying the Local Authority. All children who applied to a Bracknell Forest school and didn’t arrive needed to be investigated.
The report clearly sets out the procedures which are followed and the respective roles and responsibilities If the destination of a child was not identified within 30 days of missing notification, the case would be referred to the MASH.
The Board was informed that the Children Missing in Education Officer had been integrated into the EWO post.
The Children Missing in Education function had been inspected in the SIF single inspection framework last year, and schools had responded well and fully comply with the guidance.
Elective Home Education (EHE)
Ian Dixon presented the Elective Home Education report.
The numbers of elective home educated children continued to rise both nationally and locally. The Local Authority had the statutory duty to ensure every child receives a good education, however there was no definition of a ‘good’ education. About half of home educating parents provided the Local Authority with a timetable of planned work for the child.
Although the Local Authority could ask parents the reasons for home education, there was no obligation to give an answer. It was noted that some parents did not inform the Local Authority of their plans to home educate, as this was not a legal requirement.
Annual visits to each home educating household were attempted, and the visiting officer would try to see the child alone. If safeguarding concerns arose from a visit and the child could not be seen alone, the MASH would be informed. Staffing to facilitate these visits remained a challenge.
The Board noted with concern the lack of mechanisms to check the safety of home educated children, although the policies and partnerships were as effective as possible.
The government was under pressure from Ofsted and other national bodies to improve the guidance to allow the Local Authority sufficient powers to ensure the safety of home educated children.
The LSCB thanked Ian for his update and recognised the considerable challenges around the issue. Arising from discussion, the following points were noted:
The LSCB received the report and noted the continued potential risks posed to electively home educated pupils. It was noted that DfE have committed to producing updated guidance in the next few months.
Ian and colleagues were thanked for the helpful, clear and detailed reports presented to the LSCB.