Agenda item

To explore how many children of statutory school age are not registered at school or suitably electively home educated, the range of reasons and the impact.

Witnesses:

• Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong
  ?Learning
• Rachael Wardell, Executive Director for Children, Families and
  ?Learning
• Julia Katherine, Director for Education and Lifelong Learning
• Sandra Morrison, Assistant Director for Inclusion and Additional
  ?Needs – SE
• Kelly Lancashire, Education & Inclusion Service Manager – SE

Key points made in the discussion:

1. A Member asked how Surrey compares with others in this area. The Assistant Director said Surrey had a lower than national number of children missing education, of severely absent children and of permanent exclusions, although the latter was rising nationwide. The number of children accessing Alternative Provision commissioned by the Council (0.18%) was slightly higher than the national average (0.12%). The Assistant Director said they would request comparative data from neighbouring regions in the Southeast regional group.

2. A Member questioned how many of the 2,783 Surrey students who were severely absent (i.e. missing 50% or more of school time) had additional needs, and how many were on the waiting list for MindWorks. 723 had an EHCP (26%) and 429 had SEN support (15%). The Service Manager recognised these children were more vulnerable to exploitation and said they were closely monitored. Persistent absence comes under the category of neglect and would trigger an assessment and potential referrals. Being at school is seen as a protective factor and there may be safeguarding concerns when a child is not in school. Attendance is considered a multi-agency responsibility and education meet with police, health and social care every halfterm.

3. The Assistant Director said that more parents had chosen to educate at home since the pandemic. Asked about reasons for this trend, the Committee heard this was primarily due to dissatisfaction with the school or not getting the family’s preferred placement. Of the 2,185 Surrey young people who were electively home educated, 146 had an EHCP (7%) and 602 had SEN support (28%).

4. A Member asked for reasons for the 87 children missing education in Surrey, the primary reasons given were that elective home education had been deemed unsuitable; or children with an EHCP had moved into the county and a suitable place not found, with AP yet to be put in place. There was one instance of a child waiting over 500 days for a school place, though the average wait time was about six weeks. Pupils moving into the county were tracked to ensure they register for school within 28 days; if not, the Inclusion Service would intervene.

5. A Member said they were concerned about children receiving too few hours of education and asked that a future report on Alternative Provision (AP) detailed how many young people were receiving less than the 15-hour minimum a week set by the Department for Education, currently 173 in Surrey. Some children were seriously medically unwell, and some were too anxious to spend more than an hour at school each day. Increased student anxiety since Covid had led schools to offer flexible teaching approaches. Case workers were actively working to build their package where possible.

6. A Member asked about the impact of missing significant amounts of school on children and if these effects could be recovered from if they returned to school. The Assistant Director said that while some children benefited from online learning or tutoring, it was well documented that missing school could lead to problems such as risky behaviour. For the future report on AP it was proposed to look into the destinations of Year 11s who had been severely absent.

7. A Member asked about the impact of a new Child Not in School (CNIS) Manager installed in February 2023. The Committee was told there was now consistent practice across the county, and improved oversight of data which allowed for better tracking and dialogues about student needs.

8. A Member asked about the timeline for a register of home-educated children. The Executive Director said this would be welcomed and had been part of the Education Bill that was not taken forward under the previous government.

Resolved:

The Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee recommends:

1.    Surrey County Council (SCC) establishes and delivers a clear and coherent policy in respect of its role in monitoring children not in school and driving increased attendance, and identifies standards of best practice, including Key Performance Indicators for Surrey – by March 2025.

2.    SCC should take a leadership role and work with the various parties involved to drive the implementation of these standards and improved performance in Surrey.

3.    SCC should deliver an investigation on the impact of outcomes/life chances for children who are not in school, including those (a) severely absent from school and (b) electively home educated – by comparison with their peers.

4.    Children with SEND should be clearly identified in the severely absent cohort, and, by March 2025, an action plan to remedy their high prevalence should be developed and ready for delivery.

Actions/requests for further information:

• Assistant Director - Inclusion & Additional Needs, SE: To ask statistical and geographical neighbours for (a) data relating to each category of absence identified in the table on page 208 of the report and (b) how many of their CYP severely absent from school have (i) SEN support and (ii) and EHCP.

• Assistant Director - Inclusion & Additional Needs, SE: To provide data on how many (a) CYP severely absent from school and (b) electively home educated CYP are on the MindWorks waiting list, and how these figures compare with regional neighbours.

• Assistant Director - Inclusion & Additional Needs, SE: To provide a breakdown of how many of those severely absent children and young people who have an EHCP, how many are in a special school versus a mainstream school.