Paper 7 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 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 , , and

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 (16 pupils), and ■ 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 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: ■ (5 pupils) ■ Mildenhall College Academy (5) ■ (5) ■ (5) ■ (6) ■ (6) ■ (6) ■ Sybil Andrews Academy (6) ■ (7) ■ Academy (7) ■ Ormiston Endeavour Academy (7) ■ SET Beccles (7) ■ SET Saxmundham (7) ■ (7) ■ (8)

1 Permanent and fixed period exclusions in : 2017 to 2018, Department for Education, published 25 July 2019.

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

■ (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. PRIMARY SCHOOLS a) Suffolk has 254 primary schools – 29 of these PEX at least one pupil in the first two terms of this academic year b) four schools PEX more than one pupil during these two terms: ■ Forest Academy (2 pupils) ■ Westwood Primary School (2) ■ The Willows Primary School (2) ■ Hillside Primary School (4)

2 Source: Get information about schools (GIAS) 3 Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2019, Department for Education, published 27 June 2019

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report c) PEX national average for primary schools4 is 0.03% – this is the equivalent of a single pupil in six two-form-entry primary schools (over 2500 pupils) d) every primary school that PEX was above the national average e) the four schools that PEX more than one child were well above the national average: Forest (0.5%), Westwood (0.8%), The Willows (0.6%), Hillside (0.65%) f) Westwood and The Willows have a far greater proportion of pupils eligible for FSM, 37.3% and 30.7% respectively, than the national average (15.8%) g) Hillside (17.2%) and Forest (12.4%) have proportions of FSM that are similar to the national average h) PEX in primary schools is far less likely to be for persistent disruptive behaviour than in secondary schools. A third of primary PEX were for persistent disruptive behaviour, half were for physical assault against an adult or a child.

6. CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUPS (CCGs) a) Suffolk LA works with three NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs): Ipswich and East Suffolk, West Suffolk, and Great Yarmouth and Waveney. Representatives of the CCGs sit on the Suffolk SEND Programme Board, the group that commissioned this document. b) Ipswich and East Suffolk serves around 490,000 people. Great Yarmouth and Waveney, and West Suffolk, are about half this size, service populations of around 217,000 and 230,000 respectively5. c) The number of PEX from each CCG is proportionate to the size of population each CCG serves. That is, around half of PEX were of pupils living in Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG’s catchment area, a quarter were of pupils living in Great Yarmouth and Waveney, and a further quarter were of pupils living in West Suffolk.

4 Permanent and fixed period exclusions in England: 2017 to 2018, Department for Education, published 25 July 2019. 5 Mid-2018:SAPE21DT5, Office for National Statistics, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/data sets/clinicalcommissioninggroupmidyearpopulationestimates

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report d) The reasons why pupils were PEX is also similar, proportionately, across the three CCGs. The exception to this is drug and alcohol related PEX. These were far higher in Ipswich and East Suffolk than elsewhere. Eight of the ten drug and alcohol related PEX were of pupils living in the Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG catchment. e) Why were there so many more drug and alcohol related exclusions in the Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG area than elsewhere?

7. PUPILS KNOWN TO CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE a) Just over a third of pupils who were PEX from Suffolk schools during this period were, or have been, a ‘child in need’ during the last year6. b) Three of the pupils who were PEX are the subject of current child protection plans7. c) Where a child is subject to a child protection plan, they are known to be suffering, or to be likely to suffer, significant harm. It is of concern that three pupils have been PEX when this is known to be the case.

6 Under S17 of the Children Act 1989. 7 Under S47 of the Children Act 1989.

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

PART C

Scoping meetings a) Telephone meetings were held with eight groups of people, both within and outside the local authority (see annex A). b) Attendees at each telephone meeting were asked the same questions: i. Tell me about your professional interest in PEX. ii. What is/are your greatest concern/s about PEX in Suffolk? iii. Are there any areas/issues around PEX that you would particularly like this project to look at? iv. What involvement would you like to/are you able to have with the project? v. What would you like this project to deliver? vi. Is there anything else you think I should know as part of this scoping exercise? c) All groups of people expressed great concern about PEX and a strong drive to improve it. Everyone involved in the meetings said that they were happy to be involved in the ongoing project and, where appropriate, to allow the people they line manage to be involved. d) There was a great deal of overlap in the content of the meetings with different groups. There were a number of shared concerns/questions/issues that came out of these meetings. e) PUPILS – Attendees expressed great concern about the long-term impact of PEX on individual pupils: ■ emotional impact in terms of rejection and its effect on self-esteem ■ increased likelihood of offending ■ increased risk of going into care ■ poorer academic outcomes f) INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS – All schools in the LA are likely to describe themselves as inclusive. Attendees expressed concern about the apparent contradiction between this and the very high number of PEX. ■ Is there a shared understanding of what an ‘inclusive school’ is?

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

■ Does calling itself an inclusive school mean that a provider is less likely to PEX? ■ How do schools reconcile saying they are inclusive with excluding pupils? ■ How does the ethos and culture of a school impact pupils, both positively and negatively? g) SEND ■ How well, and how early, are pupils’ SEND identified? ■ Where challenging behaviour is the main concern, does assessment seek to find the primary cause of that behaviour, such as specific learning difficulties? ■ Do EHCPs meet pupils’ needs well enough? Do they contain strong enough strategies to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of PEX? ■ Are pupils’ ACEs known and taken into account? h) FAMILIES ■ Is there enough support for families where a child has been PEX? ■ Is the strain placed on vulnerable families by PEX fully understood? ■ Do families know their rights well enough? ■ How prevalent are ‘back-door’ PEX arrangements such as long-term part- time timetables and encouraged EHE? Do parents accept these arrangements because they do not know their (and their child’s) rights well enough? i) CAPACITY – Attendees expressed concern about the length of time that pupils spend in PRUs after PEX. They are also concerned about the difficulties in securing a new school place for individuals after PEX, with some schools refusing to take pupils despite having space to do so. ■ Is there sufficient high-quality provision in the LA to meet individual pupils’ needs? ■ Are schools supported well enough to enable them to keep pupils in school? j) ACADEMIES and MATS ■ Is there a difference in how academies work with the LA compared with LA schools? ■ Do different MATs have different approaches and attitudes to PEX?

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

■ Is it easier and more acceptable to PEX in some MATs than others? ■ Does the LA challenge academies effectively?

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

PART D

Key lines of enquiry a) To ensure that the project is well-focused, it will be important to have clear lines of enquiry. These should be drawn from both the PEX data and the scoping meetings held with key stakeholders. b) See Part C for issues and questions arising from scoping meetings. c) Questions and comments arising from the review of PEX data: i. The number of BAME pupils who are PEX is disproportionately high. ii. The number of PPG pupils who are PEX is disproportionately high. iii. White English boys with SEND are the most likely pupils to be PEX from Suffolk schools. iv. 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? v. 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 likely to be considered or followed up when girls display challenging behaviour? vi. Primary-aged PEX pupils are ten times more likely to be boys than girls. Why is this? vii. 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? viii. 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? Persistent disruptive behaviour is by far the greatest reason for either gender to be PEX? What prompts a headteacher to move from FTE to PEX in these cases?

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

ix. Why are PEX high in some schools, while others do not PEX at all? Why are so many pupils PEX for persistent disruptive behaviour? What are pupils’ educational journey like before they reach this point? What strategies have schools tried to prevent PEX? x. 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. xi. PEX in primary schools is far less likely to be for persistent disruptive behaviour than in secondary schools. A third of primary PEX were for persistent disruptive behaviour, half were for physical assault against an adult or a child. xii. To what extent do the contextual features of schools, including FSM, correlate with the level of PEX? xiii. Why were there so many more drug and alcohol related exclusions in the Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG area than elsewhere? xiv. Where a child is subject to a child protection plan, they are known to be suffering, or to be likely to suffer, significant harm. It is of concern that three pupils have been PEX when this is known to be the case.

d) Taking all this in account, it is suggested that the project should be focused on PEX related to persistent disruptive behaviour, with the following five key lines of enquiry:

1. inclusiveness of schools ■ Probably without exception, if schools were asked whether they consider themselves to be ‘an inclusive school’, the answer would be ‘yes’. This appears to be at odds with the high rate of PEX. ■ There is no standard definition of what it means to be ‘an inclusive school’. This is interpreted differently in different schools.

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

■ Does the ethos and culture of some schools mean that pupils with challenging behaviour are far more likely to be successful there than elsewhere? ■ Does inclusive practice apply equally to pupils who present challenging behaviour as it does to all other groups of children? ■ Is there a difference between how individual schools think of themselves, in terms of inclusiveness, and how this manifests itself in practice? ■ Would it be helpful to have an ‘inclusive schools charter’, for schools to sign up to, in order to ‘level the playing field’ between schools. That is, schools would sign up to a standard definition and set of expectations that all ‘inclusive schools’ in the local authority agree to follow. 2. SEND journey ■ Attendees at scoping meetings expressed a range of concerns about PEX and SEND. ■ One concern is that half of pupils who were PEX had an identified SEND. How well are SEND pupils’ needs being met if this is the case? ■ Another concern is the effectiveness of assessment and identification of need. If a pupil presents challenging behaviour, is this seen as the pupil’s primary or only SEND? ■ How well do schools and other professionals look for the cause of pupils’ challenging behaviour beyond SEMH? How well, and how early, are these needs addressed? ■ Is there a good enough understanding of ACEs across the local authority? Are these considered when assessing pupils’ needs? ■ Do EHCPs meet pupils’ needs well enough? Do they contain strong enough strategies to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of PEX? 3. pupils and their families ■ It is widely accepted that PEX has a detrimental impact on pupils’ mental health and on their life chances. ■ It is also known that PEX puts additional strain on families, sometimes pushing them to breaking point. Children and young

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

people who have been PEX have a greater likelihood of being taken into care than those who remain in school. ■ What measures are in place to support pupils who have been PEX, in terms of their mental health? How effective are these measures? ■ What support is available to parents of pupils that have been PEX? How effective is this support? ■ Is the additional strain placed on already-vulnerable, often disadvantaged, families properly understood? How well or otherwise are such families supported by health and social care services? ■ Are there additional or different risks for BAME pupils and families? How well are these understood and addressed? ■ How prevalent are ‘back-door’ PEX arrangements such as long- term part-time timetables and encouraged EHE? Do parents accept these arrangements because they do not know their (and their child’s) rights well enough? ■ What measures are in place to prevent the PEX of pupils who are the subject of child protection plans? Why are these measures not always effective? ■ Why were there so many more drug and alcohol related exclusions in the Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG area than elsewhere? 4. capacity and availability of high-quality provision ■ Almost all of the secondary schools in Suffolk have PEX at least one pupil in the last two years. Most have PEX more than one pupil. ■ Where PEX is for persistent disruptive behaviour, does this reflect a weakness in the quality of the provision? Alternatively, does this reflect a weakness in the quality of support provided to the school? ■ For children who exhibit the most severely challenging behaviour, is there sufficiently high-quality additional provision available to schools, from the local authority, in order from them to avoid PEX while protecting other pupils and maintaining good order?

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

■ What is the quality of provision like for pupils who have been PEX? Is there sufficient high-quality specialist provision, where this is appropriate? How quickly are pupils found an alternative mainstream placement after PEX? 5. academies and MATs ■ Are there differences between LA schools and academies, in terms of how they approach PEX? Are academies more likely to PEX than LA schools? ■ Is there are difference in the way academies that are part of a MAT approach PEX? Are academies in MATs more likely to PEX than other schools? ■ Does the LA have a sufficiently strong influence on reducing PEX in Suffolk schools? ■ Does the LA have as much influence, about reducing PEX, in academies as it does in other schools LA schools? ■ Do MATs and the LA work effectively together to reduce PEX.

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

PART E

Project outline

introduction a) The project has three distinct phases: preparation, enquiry and delivery. b) This document forms part of the preparation phase. This phase is concerned with setting up the project and ensuring that everything is ready for the next phase to run smoothly. c) A dedicated leader should be appointed to lead the enquiry phase of the project. Ideally, this should be someone who is independent of both the local authority and the schools themselves. The person appointed should be a senior leader with extensive knowledge of school leadership and the ability to lead the project forensically. The appointed person must also have sufficient credibility to inspire the confidence of all stakeholders. d) The enquiry phase of the project is intended to run from 17/8/20 to 31/12/20. The project leader should be appointed as soon as possible. e) The delivery phase is intended to run from 1/1/21 until the end of the academic year. A suitably senior leader from Suffolk County Council should be appointed to lead this phase.

pupil sampling a) PEX affects pupils, the children who are excluded, more than anyone else. It is key, therefore, that this project has pupils at its centre. For this reason, the main project activity in the enquiry phase will be undertaken through pupil sampling. b) Fifteen pupils will be selected, representing just over 10% of the 2019/20 PEX. Pupils will be selected carefully to ensure that different groups of pupils, including BAME, disadvantage, and boys and girls, are proportionately represented. c) The pupils for the sample group will be selected from those who were PEX for persistent disruptive behaviour. Where pupils were PEX for other reasons, these are single, one-off events. The learning gained from this project is likely

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

to be far greater if it is focused on how pupils’ challenging behaviour is managed in the longer term. d) Permission will need to be secured, from both pupils and their parents, before each selected pupil is included in the sample group. e) For each pupil in the sample group, the following activities will be carried out: i. establish pupil’s ‘journey’ from birth to PEX ii. meeting/phone call – pupil iii. meeting/phone call – parent(s)/carer(s) iv. meeting/phone call – headteacher – excluding school v. meeting/phone call – SENCO – excluding school vi. meeting/phone call – CEO of MAT (where appropriate) – excluding school vii. meeting/phone call – governors/trustees – excluding school viii. meeting/phone call – current educational provision ix. meeting/phone call(s) – other involved professionals (health, social care, youth justice, probation, police) x. review of pupil’s assessment records xi. review of documentation relating to pupil’s PEX xii. review of excluding school’s website – ethos and values statement, behaviour policy, exclusions policy, SEND policy. f) The findings from each pupil sampling exercise will be collated and analysed to look for similarities and trends. These will be used as a starting point for establishing the project’s key areas for improvement. g) To ensure consistency, the meetings/phone calls will take a structured interview approach. That is, each meeting will have a pre-determined list of questions that will be asked in all cases. h) For example, the meetings with the headteacher and the SENCO of the excluding school could include the following: i. Tell me about Pupil A’s journey from joining your school to PEX. ii. What caused you to make the decision to PEX Pupil A, rather than give a fixed-term exclusion, on the final occasion? iii. Do you know the likely reason(s) for Pupil A’s challenging behaviour?

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

iv. What steps have you taken to find the cause of Pupil A’s challenging behaviour? v. Has Pupil A got a SEND? If so, what is/are they? vi. Has Pupil A had a formal SEND assessment? If not, why not? If they have, what was the outcome? vii. How does your approach to exclusions work? Who does what? Are you, as the headteacher, directly involved? Do you make the decision to exclude yourself or do you ‘rubber stamp’ a decision that has been made by other senior leaders? viii. Do you have any pupils that attend alternative provision (AP)? If so, how many? What proportion of the week do they spend at AP? Does their time at AP, combined with pupils’ time in school, amount to full-time provision? Was AP considered for Pupil A?

other activities in the enquiry phase i) Other activities will also be appropriate, in addition to pupil sampling. It will be important to speak with the headteachers and SENCOs of the four schools who have not PEX any pupils for the past two years. This could be indicative of strongly inclusive practice or it could indicate unacceptable practice, in terms of illegal exclusions and long-term part-time timetables. j) Questions to ask the headteachers and SENCOs of schools that have had no PEX in the last two years could include the following: i. Why has the school had no PEX in the last two years? ii. Have you considered PEX? What has stopped you from doing so? iii. How many fixed-term exclusions have you had this year? How many pupils have had multiple fixed-term exclusions? iv. What is your approach to pupils who present behavioural challenges? v. Do you seek to find the cause of pupils’ challenging behaviour? If so, how do you do this? If not, why not? vi. Do you have any pupils on part-time timetables? If so, how long have they been on these and what is the timescale for moving pupils back to full-time attendance?

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

vii. Do you have any pupils attending AP? How many? What proportion of the week do they spend at AP? Does AP and school attendance amount to full-time provision? viii. What is the quality of AP like? How do you know? ix. What involvement do you have with challenging behaviour? x. Are there any circumstances in which you would PEX?

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

PART F

Initial outline plan

phase 1 phase 2 phase 3

preparation enquiry delivery

17/7/20 ■ draft scoping document to be shared with LA 21/7/20 ■ draft scoping document to be discussed at board meeting w/c 20/7/20 ■ selection of pupils for sample group ■ permission letters sent to parents and pupils ■ introductory letters sent to headteachers of excluding schools including request for documents (once permission obtained from pupils and parents) w/c 27/7/20 ■ school summer holidays ■ make amendments to scoping document, as required ■ write project action plan with dates, deadlines, milestones and monitoring activity ■ respond to questions and queries from parents and schools ■ review of school websites w/c 3/8/20 ■ school summer holidays ■ review of school websites ■ finalise scoping document and action plan ■ respond to questions and queries from parents and schools ■ follow-up on school and parental permission requests w/c 10/8/20 ■ school summer holidays ■ review of school websites ■ respond to questions and queries from parents and schools ■ follow-up on school and parental permission requests ■ handover from phase 1 lead to phase 2 lead w/c 17/8/20 ■ school summer holidays ■ meetings/phone calls – pupils ■ meetings/phone calls – parent(s)/carer(s) ■ review of school websites ■ review of pupil documentation

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report w/c 24/8/20 ■ school summer holidays ■ meetings/phone calls – pupils ■ meetings/phone calls – parent(s)/carer(s) ■ review of school websites ■ review of pupil documentation start of term ■ meetings/phone calls – headteachers of excluding schools to October ½ ■ meetings/phone calls – CEOs of MATs term holiday ■ meetings/phone calls – governors/trustees of excluding schools ■ meetings/phone calls – SENCOs ■ meetings/phone calls – other involved professionals ■ meetings/phone calls – current educational provision ■ review of pupil documentation October half- ■ review of actions taken to date term holiday ■ review/adapt plan going forward second ½ ■ collect remaining evidence for pupil sample term ■ meetings/phone calls – non-excluding schools ■ analysis and recommendations in the form of a full written report ■ handover from phase 2 lead to phase 3 lead spring term ■ consider phase 2 recommendations and make initial delivery 2021 recommendations ■ pilot initial delivery recommendations ■ develop secondary recommendations summer term ■ review initial recommendations 2021 ■ pilot secondary recommendations ■ begin to scope decisions for ongoing changes to practice August 2021 ■ review project as a whole ■ write final project report ■ finalise decisions for ongoing changes to practice

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

ANNEX A

List of scoping meetings Meetings were held with groups of people, both within and outside the local authority, representing different aspects of services concerned with PEX. 1 EDUCATION – Adrian ORR (Assistant Director Education) and Julia GRANGER (Leader for Standards and Excellent) 2 VULNERABLE CHILDREN’S EDUCATION – Fran ALEXANDER (Lead for Vulnerable Children within Education), Sally SWANN (Lead for Elective Home Education) and Matthew COOKE (Virtual School Head) 3 SOCIAL CARE – Walter McCULLOCH (Assistant Director Social Care and Youth Justice), Belinda CLABBURN (Youth Justice) 4 EARLY HELP – Julia HAIG (Early Help Lead) and Clare Besley (Early Help Manager, and Waveney) 5 PARENT SUPPORT – Anne HUMPHRYS (Parent Carer Forum Co-Chair) 6 HEALTH – Stuart RICHARDSON (COO Mental Health Trust), Mark SHENTON (Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Chair and GP) and Lisa NOBES (Director of Nursing) 7 SPECIALIST EDUCATION SERVICES – Maria HOUGH (Inclusion Consultant), Izzy CONNELL (Headteacher, Specialist Services) and Sally BLACKMAN (Head of Outreach) and Claire DARWIN (Principal Psychologist) 8 INCLUSION CASEWORK FOR EXCLUDED CHILDREN – Stacy BELL (Manager for Quality Assurance within Casework Teams), Jamie MILLS (Provider Development Manager), Hannah FISK (SEND Quality Development Officer) and Paula FUGE (Casework Team Manager)

V2.1 11/08/2020

Suffolk Permanent Exclusions Deep Dive Scoping

Report

GLOSSARY

ACE(s) adverse childhood experience(s) ASD autism spectrum disorder BAME Black, Asian and minority ethnic EHCP education, health and care plan EHE elective home education FSM (pupils eligible for) free school meals FTE fixed-term exclusions LA local authority (‘the council’) MAT multi-academy trust MLD moderate learning difficulty NEET (school leaver(s)) not in education, employment or training NOR number (of pupils) on roll PEX permanent exclusion or permanently excluded [according to context] PPG pupil premium grant SEMH social, emotional and mental health (needs) SENCO special educational needs coordinator SEND special educational needs and/or disabilities

V2.1 11/08/2020