Agenda Item No: 7(m)

Wolverhampton City Council OPEN EXECUTIVE DECISION ITEM (AMBER)

Cabinet / Cabinet Panel CABINET Date 27 JULY 2005

Portfolio(s) CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Originating Service Group(s) LIFELONG LEARNING - EDUCATION

Contact Officer(s) B A KEIL Telephone Number(s) 5925

Title HARD TO PLACE PUPILS PROTOCOL KEY DECISION YES / NO IN FORWARD PLAN YES / NO

Recommendation

That Members of the Cabinet:

(i) note the requirement to have a Hard to Place Pupils Protocol in place by September 2005;

(ii) note the consultation which has already taken place;

(iii) approve the Protocol for implementation in the LEA from September 2005.

Schedule of Background Papers

None

Hard to Place Pupil Protcol – Draft [July 04 05] 1 HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL (DRAFT)

1.0 Background

1.1 The DfES issued the Circular, Guidance on Hard To Place Pupils (LEA/0316/2004) in November 2004 requiring two areas for action. These were:

i) that the local Admissions Forum develop a protocol on the admission of hard to place pupils; ii) that work be undertaken on delegating or devolving funding to groups of schools to enable them to take responsibility for managing difficult pupils and making alternative provision where necessary.

1.2 The first of these elements has been undertaken and the draft Protocol is attached at Appendix 1 for the Cabinet's consideration.

1.3 The second required action is part of a much larger piece of work which is underway and the elements of this are detailed in Appendix 2.

1.4 As the Hard To Place Pupils Protocol is intended to relate to the placement of secondary pupils in the first instance, the deliberations and consultations have been held with secondary colleagues and teacher associations, though when this was presented to the SIP Board and Schools' Forum, primary headteachers expressed an interest in considering this as an option once it had been introduced to the secondary sector.

1.5 The Secondary Heads Group at their meeting on 12 May 2005 approved this as a basis for work in progress, recognising that there will be elements which may well require amendment, at a later stage.

2.6 Discussions with officers at the DfES, leading on this development, have indicated that they are more than happy with the progress which Wolverhampton has made to date and are willing to accept that there will be an element of experimentation with the Protocol in its early stages.

3.0 Commentary on the Protocol

3.1 The introduction to the Protocol shows that Wolverhampton, given its experience with the Secondary Social Inclusion and Advisory Placement Panel (SSIAPP), is well placed to take on board such an approach.

3.2 This Protocol needs to be seen in the broader panoply of strategies, support and provision available in the City, since it was recognised early on that the LEA is not seeking to impose youngsters on schools where clearly such a placement would be to the benefit of neither.

Hard to Place Pupil Protcol – Draft [July 04 05] 2 3.3 During the consultation meetings which took place with groups of headteachers outside the formal Secondary Headteachers' meeting, considerable discussion centred on the principles and it is worth expanding on some of these points.

3.4 In the main the principles have been transferred directly from the guidance document sent out by the DfES but Members of the Cabinet may be interested to note that Principle 4.1 was inserted with the support of Secondary Headteachers as one that ought to override all our thinking in dealing with young people who may have problems over accessing or collaborating in education.

3.5 Principle 4.4 is at the heart of this Protocol, in that it is intended that schools which previously would not have been expected to admit students on the basis of having their rolls full will no longer be able to do this. Principle 4.6 reinforces much of the work which has already been taken on board by SSIAPP in that through the Headteacher and Officer Panel there is a genuine interest in ensuring that schools are not placed into further difficulty because of particular requests for placement.

3.6 Principle 4.7 was the one which caused most early debate and officers of the Local Education Authority spoke to DfES officials about this matter, to be advised that as the Director of Children and Young People is the head of the admitting Authority for the LEA's own schools, the DfES would not expect to direct him or her to admit pupils. For those schools which are Foundation or Voluntary Aided, then the Director of Children and Young People has had the power to direct since 1998 and this is contained in Sections 96 and 97 of the Schools Standard and Framework Act.

3.7 Principles 4.8 and 4.9 stress the need for timeliness in the admission of young people who are without education. Finally, 4.12 deals with the question of religious affiliation. Members will see that this cannot be used to prevent the placement of hard to place pupils.

3.8 Members will be aware that such a protocol will only work if there is a genuine commitment to honest, collaborative working and this came out often in discussions with headteacher colleagues.

3.9 Although the guidance offers help on defining hard to place pupils, the reality is that these young people do not readily fall into defined categories, rather they identify themselves because mainstream schools remain concerned at their ability to meet the students' needs.

3.10 Wolverhampton has over recent years expanded its alternative provision though this is constantly under pressure. If additional provision is required then it goes without saying that there must be resources to match this and this will form part of the discussion which needs to take place beyond this Protocol.

Hard to Place Pupil Protcol – Draft [July 04 05] 3 4.0 Financial Implications

4.1 Whilst there are no financial implications in approving the Protocol, clearly the movement of youngsters from one school to another, particularly where over subscription is an issue, will have financial implications for all schools concerned.

5.0 Equal Opportunities Implications

5.1 The report has implications for the Equal Opportunities Policy, since it concerns the educational entitlement of young people who might otherwise become disengaged from the education process.

6.0 Environmental Implications

6.1 The report has implications for this policy in so far as young people not engaged in education can be a source of concern to local communities and their environment.

Hard to Place Pupil Protcol – Draft [July 04 05] 4 Appendix 1 Hard to place pupils Wolverhampton Secondary School Protocol

1.0 Introduction

1.1 In a letter to all LEAs in November 2004 the DfES declared the expectation that “Admission Forums will agree protocols for fairer sharing of hard-to-place pupils.” Furthermore, that “If any Forum fails to agree protocols on a voluntary basis the Secretary of State will consider whether to take out legislation requiring them to do so, with the ability to impose a protocol if agreement cannot be reached”. Clearly the introduction of a protocol is non-negotiable

1.2 The attached draft has been developed following meetings with representatives of • WSAF, Wolverhampton Schools Admissions Forum • WSHP, Wolverhampton Secondary Headteachers Partnership • SSIAPP, Secondary Social Inclusion & Advisory Placement Panel and LEA Officers in the form of an ad hoc Steering Group.

1.3 The imperative from DfES is to develop such a protocol for introduction in September 2005. Wolverhampton is well positioned for the development as it can build on the proven good practice in the Secondary Social Inclusion and Advisory Placement Panel, which relies upon the good collaborative working from all secondary schools. (The operation of SSIAPP is attached as APPENDIX A) . 1.4 Also, according to the advice “A firm voluntary agreement is needed from all parties” and “particularly where there is significant traffic of pupils across LEA borders protocols are needed with neighbouring LEAs, to set out processes and responsibilities for meeting the costs of preventative work.” This will require subsequent work sharing the protocols with neighbouring LEAs.

1.5 It is essential that all schools share a collective responsibility for all pupils in Wolverhampton and that there is a shared ownership of provision. Management of provision and access to it must go hand in hand.

1.6 The protocol will be part of an extended strategy where all schools in partnership with the LEA extend their contribution to a range of provisions and options that are appropriate to the needs of all students and have the confidence of Headteachers and Officers alike. Thus providing a continuum of provision which addresses all levels of need and is regularly reviewed.

Hard to Place Pupil Protcol – Draft [July 04 05] 5 2.0 The Agreement

2.1 Context of the Wolverhampton Protocol The Steering Group met and agreed to a two-tier approach in which the Protocol (which must be in place for September 2005) is developed in parallel with a longer term Strategy Plan for Partnership Management of Extended Alternative Provision. The latter requires budgetary provision in April 2006 for implementation in September 2006.

2.2 To be approved by: Wolverhampton Secondary Headteachers Partnership Wolverhampton Schools Admissions Forum School Improvement Partnership Board Lifelong Learning Cabinet

2.3 The Protocol Covers Specifically: The movement of all pupils designated “Hard-to-place” to and between all community, voluntary aided and foundation schools and Academies serving the city but it must be seen in the context of the current overall mid-term transfer arrangements.

2.4 Agreement Aims: The protocol is designed to – • Ensure that the real needs of vulnerable young people (especially those who are not on the roll of any school) are appropriately identified and fully addressed. • Reduce the time that hard to place pupils spend out of school or out of suitable educational provision. • Ensure that all schools share in the admission of pupils with challenging educational needs and have a shared approach to the outward movement of pupils. • Be fair, transparent and have the confidence of the whole partnership of schools.

3.0 Scope

3.1 The protocol will apply to all admissions of hard-to-place pupils and be sensitive to balancing the needs of the pupil and the school.

3.2 Potentially hard-to-place pupils are those for whom there is evidence that their needs may be met in a mainstream context but that the pupil’s behaviour, emotional or social background make it unlikely that the mainstream school could meet their needs without some additional support.

3.3 There is a balance to be struck between finding a place quickly, say in an under subscribed school or one facing challenging circumstances, and finding a place that is appropriate for the child.

3.4 It is important that no school should be asked to take on excessive numbers of pupils who have been excluded or become disengaged from other schools for whatever reason.

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05

4.0 Secondary School Protocol for Hard to Place Pupils: Main Principles: The protocol will ensure that:

4.1 All young people have an entitlement to education and that if for whatever reason this is not possible within a mainstream setting, it is the responsibility of the LEA working in partnership with its schools to ensure timely alternative provision is made.

4.2 All schools would take part, even if they are responsible for their own admissions. There will be enhanced admission limits, “ring-fenced” for hard- to-place pupils.

4.3 Schools will continue to admit pupils under the normal admission arrangements.

4.4 For hard-to-place pupils, schools will not be able to refuse admission on the grounds of over-subscription.

4.5 The “enhanced places” will be reserved for hard-to-place pupils who will be given priority for those places over any others on any waiting list or appeal procedures.

4.6 The LEA will take account of any genuine exceptional concerns about the difficulty of specific admissions, especially if a mainstream place may not be appropriate.

4.7 If a school is identified as the one to admit a child and refuses to do so, the LEA can refer the matter to the DfES (for Community) or direct the school if it is Foundation or V.A.

4.8 Schools must respond within 10 working days to requests for admission so that the admission of the pupil is not delayed.

4.9 Schools must not insist on an appeal being heard before admitting a child under this protocol.

4.10 If the protocol identifies a school as the one to admit a child the school may not refuse to admit solely because the pupil has previously been denied a place at that school at appeal.

4.11 Wherever possible, parents’ views will be considered but will not override the protocol if the preferred school is unable to take the pupil.

4.12 Wherever possible, pupils with a religious affiliation will be matched to a suitable school, but this will not override the protocol if the school is unable to take the pupil, or if the pupil identified for the school does not have that affiliation.

4.13 The current school should offer support to the receiving school during the admission process

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05

5.0 Partnership Commitment

5.1 Pre-exclusion and/or pre-transfer safeguards • All schools within the partnership agree to ensure that all possible support steps have been undertaken for a pupil subject to several fixed term exclusions and/or at risk of permanent exclusion. • A behaviour support plan should be in place at ‘school action plus’ involving appropriate support strategies including area team involvement before a school seeks to access other alternatives. • Access to a ‘managed transfers’ procedure will only be available if such procedures have been adhered to.

5.2 Enhanced Places • In order to ensure that there is a “fairer sharing out of hard to place pupils”, (as stated in the DfES guidance), all schools will agree to provide two places in each year group, over and above the normal admission limit, specifically reserved for, and only to be filled by, designated hard-to-place pupils. If admission to a particular year group presents particular difficulties for a receiving school, additional places may be offered in another year group subject to agreement by all parties

5.3 Partnership exchange of Information • The partnership is committed to regular exchange of data via SSIAPP. • Collective data showing the flow of pupils in and out of all schools by year group and the distribution of hard-to-place pupils will be published on a monthly basis. • In terms of provision of individual pupil documentation, schools will provide each other with prompt and accurate information and complete the “supplementary Information Sheet” for pupils deemed to need an Action Planning Meeting.

5.4 Attendance at HTP Placement Action Planning Meetings • If the pupil currently attends a Wolverhampton school, the headteacher or senior member of staff will attend the pre-admission planning meeting at the new school.

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05 6.0 Operation: Role of Secondary Social Inclusion and Advisory Placement Panel

6.1 The identification of hard-to-place pupils will be a part of the role of SSIAPP. The level of casework activity for an individual pupil should indicate the likelihood of that pupil proving hard-to-place.

6.2 The panel will decide, on the available evidence, whether the pupil is likely to be able to sustain a place in a mainstream school with appropriate support.

6.3 SSIAPP will recommend the placement of pupils designated hard-to-place (according to the principles agreed by the partnership and within the limits agreed by each school.)

6.4 If possible, parental choice will be considered and followed as for normal transfers.

6.5 If such a specific school move cannot be made (even within the enhanced limits) the panel will make the most appropriate alternative offer available.

7.0 Classification of Pupils as Hard to Place: Identification of Need

7.1 The panel will initially assess (based on previous experience and casework) the likelihood of a particular student being “hard-to-place”. It is clear, however, that in some cases of transfer from outside the city, initial assessment evidence is often insufficient.

7.2 Typical indicators are likely to include one or more of the following (although the list is not exhaustive or prescriptive). • Permanently excluded pupils • Pupils currently in Pupil Referral Units or other full time alternative provision. • Those who have been out of school for a term or more, often because they have been withdrawn by a parent. • Those from unsupportive family backgrounds • Pupils with a history of violent or aggressive behaviour and/or those whose presence may put other pupils or staff at risk

7.3 Inclusion in one or more of these categories need not necessarily mean that a pupil is hard-to-place but will make it more likely. The SEN code of practice should enable the identification of needs and assessment evidence should indicate whether a mainstream place could be sustained OR alternative provision is required.

7.4 The panel will maintain a flexible approach to the “hard-to-place” designation and in particular may need to re-consider the designation after an attempt to secure a normal transfer has not resulted in admission (usually for reasons, which were not apparent when the panel first considered the placement.)

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05 7.5 Additional Categories • There are also a number of categories, which though not by definition hard-to-place, can prove difficult in a minority of cases. These include Looked after Children with special difficulties and those living in Hostels and Havens. SSIAPP always considers such case as priorities. • Late arrivals into Year 11 create acute curriculum issues for schools and the Strategy Paper will endeavour to develop routes for the 14-16 group within the overall 14-19 strategy. Creative development of appropriate provision could also involve the Virtual Workspace.

7.6 Pupils with Statements of Educational Need These are outside the protocol and will continue to be placed according to separate arrangements.

7.7 Alternative Provisions Panels for KS3 and KS4 Two panels already exist to plan appropriate educational provision for pupils whose needs cannot currently be met in a mainstream school.

8.0 Conclusions

• It is in the interest of all Wolverhampton schools, and all the pupils therein; that a sound partnership agreement exists to provide for the mainstream needs of all pupils for whom it is appropriate and to manage collectively the provision for those whose needs cannot readily be met from within mainstream.

July 2005

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05 CASE STUDY APPENDIX A

WOLVERHAMPTON SECONDARY PHASE

SOCIAL INCLUSION & ADVISORY PLACEMENT PANEL

CONCEPT

Building on the work of the Wolverhampton EiC Partnership, a city wide advisory group was established in the summer of 2002 to oversee admissions across the secondary phase. All eighteen secondary schools, comprising eleven Community, three Foundation and four Voluntary –Aided schools, cooperate within a common framework where all admissions and transfers are dealt with by an advisory panel operating within the constraints of admissions legislation and the admissions criteria of each admitting authority.

SCHOOLS INVOLVED

Aldersley High School Colton Hills Community School Coppice Performing Arts School Deansfield High School Heath Park High School Highfields Science Specialist School Moreton Community School Our Lady and St Chad Catholic School Parkfield High School High School St Edmund's Catholic School S. Peter's Collegiate Church of School The Kings Church of England School The Wednesfield High School Wolverhampton Girls High School

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05

ACTIVITY

The panel was established to help address the following issues - • casual mobility • difficult to place youngsters • appropriate management of transfers • placement of new arrivals / asylum seekers.

Membership of the panel includes head teacher representatives and LEA officers from the Access and Inclusion Directorate, including Admissions and Transfers, the Educational Psychological Service and the Education Welfare Service.

The panel uses a common application form, designed to provide information to • meet legal requirements in respect parental preference and request for transfer • assess the application against published criteria for Community schools (a supporting evidence form is used for Voluntary Aided schools and one Foundation school requires a test of academic ability) • monitor the number of transfers between and to LEA schools and the timescales within which they are met • identify underlying reasons for transfer and provide sufficient detail of challenges a pupil may pose.

The operations of the panel ensure that • all transfer requests are date-logged on the common form by LEA Admissions and Transfers • the LEA database is used to acquire any available school history • preferred schools are logged in preference order and home-school distances calculated • the number on roll (as notified monthly by each school) is compared with admission limits • pupil places are available.

CO-ORDINATION

• The interests of schools are represented on the panel by one representative each from Foundation and Voluntary-Aided schools plus three head teachers from Community schools, with at least one representing under-subscribed schools. • The panel is chaired by a former Wolverhampton Secondary head teacher acting as a part-time Social Inclusion Consultant funded by contributions from all secondary schools. • The panel meets every five weeks to consider all applications. • A sub-group (consisting of the Chair, one head teacher and a representative from Admissions and Transfers) is mandated to discuss ‘urgent’ cases between monthly meetings. • Where possible parental preference is met, with panel recommendations being made to the admitting authority. In the case of Voluntary Aided and Foundation schools, admissions criteria are assessed and used to inform the panel’s recommendation.

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05 • Alternatively, Admissions and Transfers writes to advise the parent that the preference cannot be met, explaining their right of appeal and / or where the child does not have a place at a local school offering a place at an alternative school. • A copy letter is sent to the school advising of the allocation / recommendation and a date by which the child be admitted. • The panel gives consideration to cases where a child may be difficult to place in a mainstream school and occasionally refers the case to an alternative provision panel or recommends an action planning meeting to assess first hand the needs of the individual case. • A ‘supplementary information’ form is used in cases where the current head teacher considers such an action planning meeting may be required prior to the new admission.

OUTCOMES

The panel deals with an average of 80 cases per month from an LEA secondary school population of around 17,500. About 20 cases are ongoing at any one time and may require a ‘conflict resolution’ meeting with all interested parties including representatives of current and proposed school.

The panel has • reduced casual mobility by requesting parents to think again about the disadvantages of mid-term transfers • increased trust in school-to-school transfers • provided a more equitable distribution of transfers (within legal constraints) • laid the foundation for a future protocol for ‘Hard to Place Pupils’.

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05 Appendix 2

WORK IN PROGRESS

1.0 Future Strategy and Funding Issues

1.1 The second piece of action required in the DfES guidance on the Hard to Place Pupils was about developing provision for pupils who may be at risk of disengagement. A headteacher/officer group will be looking at this.

1.2 Clearly a major consideration will be around the resourcing of any additional provision and where these resources are to be located. In addition, there is the question of what funding does or does not follow pupils once they move.

2.0 Mobility Factors

2.1 Further work is needed on the effects of an excessive amount of movement of pupils into a school, mid year. In particular, there is the question of how additional students can be supported, given that under subscribed schools will have planned staffing around their original budget allocation.

2.2 The DfES guidance supported a points allocation system for determining the order in which schools were asked to take pupils but more work needs to be done on this.

HARD TO PLACE PUPIL PROTOCOL[DRAFT] July 4 05