PEX Scoring Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Paper 7 Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping Report This document has been commissioned by the Suffolk County Council (SCC) SEND Programme Board as a result of the high level of permanent exclusions (PEX) in 2019/2020 in schools in Suffolk. It has been prepared by an independent third party and provides recommendations on the scope and method of the Deep Dive to explore PEX in Suffolk. Contents page(s) 1. Part A – introduction 2 2. Part B – review of PEX data 3 – 9 3. Part C – scoping meetings 10 – 11 4. Part D – key lines of enquiry 12 - 15 5. Part E – project outline 16 – 18 6. Part F – initial outline plan 19 – 20 7. annex A – list of scoping meetings 21 8. glossary 22 V2.1 11/08/2020 Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping Report PART A Introduction a) The number of permanent exclusions (PEX) in the current academic year are a cause for concern. b) 132 PEX were started in the first two terms of the 2019/20 academic year (until the Covid-19 closure of schools on 23/3/20). Some of these were overturned on appeal. c) There were 56 PEX upheld during the same period in the 2018/19 academic year. This means that PEX in Suffolk have more than doubled between 2018/19 and 2019/20. d) The 132 PEX this year relate to 129 pupils. Three pupils have been permanently excluded by more than one provider. V2.1 11/08/2020 Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping Report PART B ■ The statements below relate to a review of the LA’s PEX data from 1/9/19 to 31/3/20. ■ Statements in bold and italics, below, give commentary on, or pose questions about, the factual information provided. 1. ALL PUPILS a) 132 PEX started, relating to 129 pupils b) 15 PEX are awaiting meetings and are not yet confirmed c) 3 pupils (2.3%) have been PEX by more than one provider d) 1 pupil is a looked after child (NB: pupil was not excluded from a Suffolk school but is now the responsibility of Suffolk LA) e) three-quarters of PEX were of male pupils f) a quarter of PEX were of BAME pupils – this is higher than the proportion of BAME pupils across all Suffolk schools (16.6%) g) The number of BAME pupils who are PEX is disproportionately high. h) three-quarters of PEX were of pupils in secondary schools i) a fifth of PEX were of pupils with an EHCP j) half of PEX were of pupils with an identified SEND k) one third of PEX were of pupils eligible for PPG – this is higher than the proportion of pupils who are eligible for PPG across all Suffolk schools (22%) l) The number of PPG pupils who are PEX is disproportionately high. m) SEND data is incomplete: i. 14 PEX do not have an entry in the ‘SEN stage when excluded’ column ii. SEND need is not specified for 32 PEX where pupil is identified as having a SEND n) White English boys with SEND are the most likely pupils to be PEX from Suffolk schools. o) reasons for PEX: V2.1 11/08/2020 Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping Report reasons for PEX - all pupils 60 DIS - persistent disruptive behaviour PAA - physical assault against an adult 50 PAP - physical assault against a pupil SEX - sexual misconduct DAR - drug and alcohol related 40 VAA - verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against an adult DAM - damage BUL - bullying 30 RAA - racist abuse VAP - verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against a pupil OTH - other (non-specified) reasons 20 10 0 DIS PAA PAP SEX DAR VAA DAM BUL RAA VAP OTH p) By far the most common reason for a pupil to be PEX was persistent disruptive behaviour, the reason given in almost half of cases. Is there a difference in the threshold at which one headteacher decides to PEX compared with another? Is there a level playing field in terms of the likelihood of a pupil being PEX in different schools? Are pupils at risk of PEX advantaged, or disadvantaged, by the school they attend? 2. GIRLS a) 32 PEX were of girls, 24% of the total b) all PEX, except one, were of secondary-aged pupils c) over fourth-fifths White English d) no pupils had an EHCP e) nearly four-fifths were identified as having no SEND at the time that they were excluded f) The proportion of PEX girls who had an identified SEND when they were excluded is well below that of boys. None of these pupils had an EHCP. Is this an accurate reflection of these pupils? Is SEND less V2.1 11/08/2020 Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping Report likely to be considered or followed up when girls display challenging behaviour? g) reasons for PEX: reasons for PEX - girls 70 DIS - persistent disruptive behaviour 60 PAA - physical assault against an adult PAP - physical assault against a pupil SEX - sexual misconduct 50 DAR - drug and alcohol related VAA - verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against an adult 40 DAM - damage BUL - bullying RAA - racist abuse 30 VAP - verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against a pupil OTH - other (non-specified) reasons 20 10 0 DIS PAA PAP SEX DAR VAA DAM BUL RAA VAP OTH 3. BOYS a) 100 PEX were of boys b) 34 PEX of primary-aged pupils, 66 of secondary-aged pupils c) Primary-aged PEX pupils are ten times more likely to be boys than girls. Why is this? d) three-quarters White English e) no looked-after children f) 14 pupils had an EHCP g) almost two-thirds of PEX had an identified SEND h) Boys who are PEX are disproportionately more likely to have an identified SEND, and to have an EHCP, than girls. Is this an accurate reflection of the needs of all pupils? V2.1 11/08/2020 Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping Report i) reasons for PEX – see below j) Girls are more likely to be PEX for persistent disruptive behaviour than boys. Boys are more likely to be PEX for a single, one-off incident than girls. Why is this? k) Persistent disruptive behaviour is by far the most likely reason for either gender to be PEX. What prompts a headteacher to move from FTE to PEX in these cases? reasons for PEX - boys and girls 70 DIS - persistent disruptive behaviour PAA - physical assault against an adult 60 PAP - physical assault against a pupil SEX - sexual misconduct 50 DAR - drug and alcohol related VAA - verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against an adult DAM - damage 40 BUL - bullying RAA - racist abuse VAP - verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against a pupil 30 OTH - other (non-specified) reasons 20 10 0 DIS PAA PAP SEX DAR VAA DAM BUL RAA VAP OTH girls boys 4. SECONDARY SCHOOLS a) Suffolk has 46 secondary schools – 36 of these PEX at least one pupil in the first two terms of this academic year b) 42/46 PEX at least one pupil in the last two years c) four schools have not PEX a single pupil in the last two years: Bury St Edmunds County Upper School, Debenham High School, Hadleigh High School and Thomas Mills High School V2.1 11/08/2020 Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping Report d) PEX national average for secondary schools1 is 0.2% – in a school with 1,000 on roll, this equates to two PEX per year e) 19 schools, some with a much lower NOR, have PEX far more pupils than is typical across the country f) two schools have PEX more than ten pupils in the last two years: ■ Ormiston Denes Academy (16 pupils), and ■ Felixstowe Academy (12 pupils) g) six of the nine pupils PEX from Ormiston Denes this year were PEX for persistent disruptive behaviour, one for physical assault against a pupil and two for other (unspecified) reasons – three of the nine pupils were girls h) all of the seven pupils PEX from Felixstowe Academy this year were PEX for persistent disruptive behaviour – three of the seven were girls i) 17 school have PEX at least five but fewer than ten pupils in the last two years: ■ Farlingaye High School (5 pupils) ■ Mildenhall College Academy (5) ■ Pakefield High School (5) ■ Stowupland High School (5) ■ Benjamin Britten Academy (6) ■ Castle Manor Academy (6) ■ East Point Academy (6) ■ Sybil Andrews Academy (6) ■ Copleston High School (7) ■ Ipswich Academy (7) ■ Ormiston Endeavour Academy (7) ■ SET Beccles (7) ■ SET Saxmundham (7) ■ Westbourne Academy (7) ■ Chantry Academy (8) 1 Permanent and fixed period exclusions in England: 2017 to 2018, Department for Education, published 25 July 2019. V2.1 11/08/2020 Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping Report ■ Samuel Ward Academy (8) ■ Thurston Community College (8) j) all four of the non-excluding schools have a lower proportion of pupils eligible for FSM2 than the national average of 14.1% in secondary schools3 k) Ormiston Denes has a far higher proportion of pupils eligible for FSM than the national average (37.6%) – Felixstowe’s FSM is similar to the national average (14.1%) l) Persistent disruptive behaviour is the most likely reason for a pupil to be PEX from a secondary school. Just over half of all PEX this academic year were for this reason. Around a tenth of PEX in secondary schools were for physical assault against an adult or child. A similar proportion were drug and alcohol related. m) Why are PEX high in some schools, while others do not PEX at all? n) Why are so many pupils PEX for persistent disruptive behaviour? What are pupils’ educational journeys like before they reach this point? What strategies have schools used to try to prevent PEX? o) To what extent do the contextual features of schools, including FSM, correlate with the level of PEX? 5.