Schools take on duty to provide services for excluded children

The number of permanent exclusions has almost halved in the past decade – a trend the government wants to see accelerated.

A Department for Education pilot scheme to transfer funding for excluded pupils from local authorities to around 300 schools has been in the pipeline for more than a year, but this September heralds the first academic term in which schools will truly test their new duties.

In Leeds, one of the 11 councils taking part, the local authority is building on existing work to devolve funding for excluded pupils to schools in the area. Six years ago, around 200 children a year were being excluded; three years ago the number had dropped to around 60, and in the last academic year, it dropped to 22 for a total of 109,000 school-age children.

Innovative provision
Alun Rees, head of Leeds Virtual College for Vulnerable Children at Leeds City Council, says that devolving funding to schools has allowed them to commission or create innovative provision as an alternative to permanent exclusion.

In total, around £9m will have been devolved to schools in Leeds by September 2014. One partnership of schools in the city is already running its own pupil referral unit – with alternative provision for about 60 children.

“There is no question that giving schools some of the resources has helped them provide alternatives that are positive for children,” Rees says. “In the past, it was too easy to permanently exclude a child and they became someone else’s problem.
“By linking funding to the child, you retain a connection and a sense of direct accountability in schools.”

Leeds is also investing more money in prevention – working with primary-age pupils at the point when they begin to show behaviour problems. This includes earlier assessments of pupils’ needs, short-term “behaviour modification” programmes and extra support in lessons.

“We are trying to respond to a pattern of exclusion prior to permanent exclusion,” Rees says. “Six or seven years ago, a school might put an offer of support on the table and if the pupil didn’t engage, they could find their way on the path to permanent exclusion. That’s not the case now.”

Providers of alternative provision are hopeful that devolving funding for excluded pupils to schools will lead to an increase in demand for their services.

The Lighthouse Group charity runs several education centres, where small groups of young people receive intensive ?support to tackle the behavioural and social issues that have caused them difficulties at school.

Paul Chenery, supporter development manager at The Lighthouse Group, says its model, which provides three members of staff for groups of eight or nine young people, can be seen as expensive by local authorities.

However, 96 per cent of young people who attend its centres either return to mainstream school, or go on to further training or employment.

“If there is just one person at the local authority who decides on provision, it can be quite tough because they have the sole decision on where children go,” he says. “If you have individual schools or groups of schools taking the decision, it is a bit more of a democracy.”

But Chenery admits that giving schools responsibility for alternative education may mean that the charity needs to change the way it works – to provide more early intervention support, as opposed to activities for young people who have already been permanently excluded.

One issue that schools will have to tackle is the fact that the number of pupils needing alternative education services will vary over time. Malcolm Trobe, policy director at the Association of School and College Leaders, says the ad hoc nature of behaviour issues means there will be peaks in demand for alternative provision.

Funding formula
“If the financial responsibility for looking after children comes to the school and they have to find and pay for provision, the big question hangs around how much it will cost and whether the funding they get meets the need,” he says.

“In theory it can work, but the worry for us is that schools simply won’t be able to afford alternative provision and will be virtually compelled to hang on to students when they may not be able to meet their needs. It depends on the individual school, its circumstances and how many children they are taking in at risk of exclusion. Getting a funding formula to represent that balancing act is going to be difficult.”

Under the existing trials, due to run until 2014, participating local authorities decide the most appropriate financial arrangements for excluded pupils in discussion with their schools.

“We are hoping this set-up will be tested thoroughly, because there has been a tendency in the past of assuming things are successful and just starting to roll them out,” Trobe says. “We want it to be a genuine trial to see what the positives and downsides are, so that adjustments can be made.”