Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services which provided a summary of Leicestershire children who were missing out on education and the work taking place to support them.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 13’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following comments were raised:

i)             During April 2018 – March 2019, 901 children were reported as pupils missing out on education from Leicestershire schools.  At 1 March 2019, 34 children were missing education (CME) – this meant that they were not registered pupils at a school and were not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school.  The local authority had a duty to establish the identities of these children, and was also responsible for the children who were on the roll of a school but had not attended for over 15 days.  Schools were responsible for those who had not attended for less than 15 days or where court proceedings were being pursued; this figure was at 119 in Leicestershire.

ii)            An overview was given of the developments that had taken place over the last year to increase the capacity to support vulnerable learners in Leicestershire.  A member commented that the developments could be combined into a more comprehensive strategy to show, for example, the setting of targets, partnership working, and challenge for other providers.  It was confirmed that the work outlined in the report formed the Inclusion Strategy, an ambition of which was to set out the aims and work being undertaken to manage inclusion in schools, and it was the intention to present the work being undertaken around inclusion to the Committee at its meeting in November.  A range of work had been pulled together to form an Inclusion Service, and a big part of this was partnership work.  The service was already working with schools to ensure that children were remaining in education where possible.  In relation to alternative provision, strong partnerships were in place, for example with the Secondary Education and Inclusion Partnerships, and a number of alternative provisions were used.  Within the department, particularly for children with SEN, it was only possible to commission provision through registered schools and the majority of providers offered provision that it was not possible for the local authority to directly commission or fund.  Partnership working was encouraged with behaviour partnerships and schools to support students.  In terms of the impact of work being undertaken around outcomes for children, it was intention to present this to a future meeting of the Committee.

iii)           In response to a query around managing exclusions, the local authority had an arrangement with secondary schools whereby funds were passported out to secondary schools, which were divided into secondary partnerships.  This was a bespoke arrangement with the aim of avoiding permanent exclusions through targeted initiatives where possible.  It was the intention to create a similar geographical arrangement in primary schools.  Proactive intervention had been developed for all schools, and more recently, support for governance in schools had been put in place to ensure that governing bodies understood the possible consequences if there was a permanent exclusion.  Further details would be presented in the report to the Committee at its meeting in November.

iv)           Concern was raised by a member that some children were missing education due to them being unable to travel to the school where they were on roll.  However, these children were not categorised as missing education as they were on roll at a school.  It was acknowledged that there areas in Leicestershire where there were pressures with local school places, but this would need to be the subject of a separate report.

v)            There were difficulties in establishing the number of electively home educated children receiving a good education as the data was reported by schools and there were no direct legal requirements for local authorities.  It was confirmed that the data was broken down by key stage; this would be shared with the Committee.  Within Leicestershire, DfE guidance was followed in that informal enquiries would be made that included a request to see the child, but the parent was under no legal obligation to agree to this simply to satisfy the local authority as to the suitability of home education.  However, where there was a refusal to allow a visit to the home, this would become a safeguarding issue.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the report be noted;

b)    That the Committee receives an update on developments within Leicestershire at its meeting on 5 November 2019.