Agenda item

Purpose of the Report: To outline the current Surrey Alternative Learning Provision (SALP) offer and how it is utilised by Surrey County Council and partners, with a particular focus on our work in reducing exclusions, to provide context of this vulnerable group and the range of services offered, including coverage of provision, length of time children utilise them for and whether the provision is being used to best improve children’s outcomes.

Witnesses:

Mary Burguieres, Continuous Improvement & Change Strategic Lead
Anne Halliday, Assistant Head Teacher (Inclusion)
Paul Jackson, Headteacher of North West Surrey Short Stay School
Sarah Stokes, Head Teacher of Dormansland Primary School
Mark Heath, Principle Lead for Inclusion

Mary Lewis, Cabinet Member for All Age Learning

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. Officers explained that the service worked with some of the most vulnerable children in the County. It was also noted that issues facing schools regarding permanent exclusions were under intense scrutiny in national and local government and that this issue was timely and linked to reviews undertaken elsewhere. It was also noted that the Surrey High Sherriff had undertaken significant work on this issue and that this had helped analyse the effect that permanent exclusion had on the child.
   
   
2. Members questioned the inspection and regulation of alternative education provision providers. The Headteacher noted that Short Stay Schools are inspected under the same regulatory framework and inspection rules as mainstream schools. It was stressed that there was a need to demonstrate progress with students, and that Ofsted did not only focus on results, as would be more the case in a mainstream school, and considered the progress of children to determine success.
   
   
3. Officers noted that children in alternative provision were monitored by both the school that commissioned the alternative provision and by the local authority to ensure that their outcomes were monitored.
   
   
4. Officers noted that frameworks were in place to determine how network funding could be utilised to commission alternative education provision. It was noted, however, that this framework was designed in 2011 and was in need of refreshing.
   
   
5. Members questioned how Short Stay Schools measured the progress of children. The Head of the Short Stay School noted that exam results were a difficult quantative analysis to utilise for children in alternative provision, due to the different levels of qualification and behavioural models of children in this environment. It was explained that progress was measured in terms of behavioural improvements and other non-attainment based measures. The Head of the Mainstream School noted that there was a need to monitor a child’s outcome and work closely with the Short Stay School to ensure improvement.
   
   
6. Members noted that, as a result of increases in numbers of children with behaviour issues, there was a potential for more exclusions from mainstream school. Members questioned whether there was enough provision available to help support these children, capacity to take the demand, and if anything was being undertaken to reduce demand. Officers noted that the plans for SEND Transformation included the option to increase capacity of specialist places by approximately 350. It was stressed however, that there was a risk in increasing numbers of Short Stay School places, noting that increased numbers could potentially encourage greater utilisation of these places.
   
   
7. Officers stressed that they would be working with schools and Special Educational Needs Co-Ordinators (SENCOs) in schools to help improve the capability of schools to be inclusive as possible.
   
   
8. The Head of the Mainstream School suggested that it could be explored whether the service could create a delivery model that was between permanent exclusion and inclusion in mainstream schools that would help with inclusion and reduce pressure of alternative provision. It was suggested that support to set this up and maintain it could provide mainstream schools the opportunity to be proactive and flexible in their approach and prevent children from being permanently excluded.
   
   
9. Members stressed that there needed to be more work undertaken to support early intervention in Key Stage One to ensure that there are better supported and are able to be integrated into a mainstream setting from as young as possible.
   
   
10. Members congratulated all of Surrey’s Short Stay Schools for their good work and noted that they were all rated as Good or Outstanding by Ofsted.
    
    
11. Members questioned the rates of re-integration into mainstream schools from Short Stay Schools. The Head of the Short Stay School noted that there was a 75% reintegration rate in the south west of the County. Members asked whether reintegration rates could be better measured in future and provide evidence of reintegration to parents going through this process to reassure that there is a potential for reintegration to reduce distress. Officers noted that there was research underway to allow for the better tracking of reintegration.
    
    

Recommendations:

1. That the Cabinet Member ensures that the service carefully considers the Primary Sector and Early Intervention as part of its SEND Transformation Programme and;
   
   
2. That the Cabinet Member it is mindful of the impact on children and that it considers how best to work with partners, and that this is reported as part of the Transformation Programme Update in Spring 2019.