Agenda item

The Committee considered the report of the Interim Corporate Director Children and Young People’s Services that advised Members on the management of exclusions in County Durham (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

The Strategic Lead Education Durham presented the report and advised Members that the figures for 2016/17 showed that more children had been excluded in year 11 than the previous year. He also advised Members that the local authority were keeping a close watch on any patterns of exclusions as a result of the Progress 8 outcome measure and would continue to work with the behaviour panels to counteract.

However, this was a national problem and that there will be a national review of PRUs as many are failing according to recent Ofsted Inspections. If managed the pupil could be moved to another school before the need for expulsion. Expulsion damages a child’s life chances and behaviour panels considered alternative solutions.

Mr Kinch asked if the Committee could be provided with the figures every 6 months rather than yearly, if numbers were increasing.

Councillor Gunn indicated that some Head Teachers had brought to her attention the lack of some schools taking on excluded pupils. Behaviour panels were a good innovation and teachers in schools are adept at dealing with challenging behaviour but some schools did not want to take challenging pupils and you can’t force a school to take on an excluded pupil.

The Strategic Lead Education Durham responded that they could put some pressure on maintained schools but this was not the case with academies. Some schools were taking excluded pupils but at a cost. Other schools had refused to take on excluded pupils, which is a problem but the service would continue to lobby schools. The service were having conversations with the Department for Education (DfE) in relation to the contradictory demand on schools in relation to progress 8 and attainment 8. The most challenging children make progress but to expect them to do this over eight subject areas is difficult.

Councillor Hall suggested that it was a difficult subject area and suggested that schools such as Elemore Hall were life savers for some mainstream schools. Councillor Potts added that Windlestone School was in her area and parents specifically value the school and endorse how the school has helped their children.

Councillor Stradling indicated that this could be a future topic for scrutiny. The Chairman advised that it could be included in the work programme.

Councillor Hart referred to some pupils disappearing from school in the run up to GCSE’s due to the impact on GCSE results. The Strategic Lead Education Durham responded that schools would indicate that this was not the reason for exclusion. This was a fundamental issue and was damaging to pupils who had been at the school for four years and then faced the prospect of a different school. Academies have a school commissioner and it was up to the local authority to invoke his sense of responsibility.

Councillor Gunn confirmed that it was an academy that had raised the issues and one who was taking on excluded pupils. She did not want to see children excluded but some children had challenging behaviour and could put teachers into difficult situations, which meant that they could not teach the child.

In response to questions from Members, the Strategic Lead Education Durham advised that he would provide the most recent statistics to Members prior to the next meeting and clarified that there were no permanent exclusions in primary schools.

Councillor Hart indicated that the Committee needed to consider the wider relationship of academies and maintained schools and suggested this was added to the work programme.

Resolved: That the contents of the report be noted and that the Strategic Lead for Education provide the committee with an update to a future meeting.