Return to Agenda

ITEM BV10 - Supplement

BEST VALUE COMMITTEE – 11 SEPTEMBER 2002

BEST VALUE REVIEW (SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON CHILDREN IN PUBLIC CARE) BEHAVIOUR, ATTENDANCE AND EXCLUSIONS

Report by Director for Strategy

1. The Executive considered the Best Value Review Report on Behaviour, Attendance and Exclusions at its meeting on 8 January 2002 and resolved as follows:-

1. to note with concern the increase in the number of children in the care of this authority permanently excluded from school and the number of children in care without a school place;
2. in view both of the detrimental effect of absence from school on the life chances of the children concerned, and of the knock-on consequences for foster carers and the children’s residential homes of children out of school, to ask the Best Value review team to reconvene to consider these issues in more depth, and to report to with an action plan for implementation in September 2002;
3. ask officers to ensure that appropriate stakeholders are consulted for the purpose of (c) above, and that these consultees include children in care, representative foster carers and the managers of the authority’s children’s residential homes.

2. The Best Value Review team with additional members from the Children in Public Care team (CIPC) has reconvened to undertake this additional work and develop the action plan requested. The CIPC steering group has also given consideration to the scope and issues arising from the report.

Evidence Gathered

Background

3. There are approximately 400 children of school age in care at any point in time. About 370 of those have been in long term care (over one year on Sept 30^th).
4. Distribution in schools depends largely on the location of foster carers. There are very few in the south of the county, with concentrations in Oxford City and Banbury. No primary schools have more than four pupils in public care, only seven secondary schools have more than four, two of those having eight. As might be expected with the high level of special educational needs of many these children, eight of the special schools have four or more children with the highest concentration in the EBD schools, with 12 in the primary school and 14 in the secondary school.
5. There are three possible types of care arrangement; ‘accommodated’; under an Interim Care Order or under a Full Care Order.

• Children accommodated are in care with the agreement of the parents and they maintain sole parental responsibility, children accommodated may be living with relatives, foster carers or in a residential children’s home.
• Under an Interim Care Order the courts will agree to Social Services sharing parental responsibility with the birth parents for a specified period of time so they can exercise more control over decisions made on behalf of the child. The child may live with relatives, foster carers or in a residential children’s home but they may also return to live with their parents under the supervision of social services.
• Under a Full care Order the same conditions as above apply but the order will continue until rescinded through the courts or the child reaches the age of 18.

6. Links between social services and education are improving through a variety of initiatives and systems. A joint steering group of senior managers from Education and Social Services meets quarterly to oversee the strategy planning, to monitor progress in service delivery and targets and to oversee the joint budget arrangement. The diagram at Appendix 1 shows the current management framework. This group undertakes some of the Corporate Parenting responsibility for the council. The work of the Steering group would be further enhanced with the addition of a health representative and plans are in place to do this.

Budget for the Service

7. There is a joint budget between Education and Social Services. For 2002/3 this is £146,500 which provides for the core staffing, travel and resources for

1.0 fte Development Officer

0.5 fte Educational Psychologist

2.8 fte Project Coordinator and staff for Connect and Connect Up literacy programme

0.5 fte Administration

8. The work is further supported by education standards funds of £94,700 for 2002/3. This is targeted on:-

• 0.5 fte Behaviour outreach teacher support
• 1.0 fte PEP coordinator
• short term funding and support for schools in implementing Personal Education Plans
• IT training for foster carers and implementing the computers to foster carers programme jointly with Social Services
• ongoing training for designated teachers
• targeted support to individual pupils eg Year 11 extra tuition

9. Every school has a designated teacher for children in care, social workers have this list and work with designated teachers in the development of the Personal Education Plan for all pupils in public care. This is improving the liaison between schools and social workers for individual pupils and resulting in better more detailed planning for the child and greater awareness of the needs of the child from a joint perspective.
10. There is a monthly panel meeting of senior staff in social services and education to monitor the needs of children without school places or who are not accessing their education provision. This meeting acts as a focus for identifying issues at a strategic level.
11. There is a continuing programme of joint training for social workers, foster carers and designated teachers and other education professionals that is also helping to improve dialogue between the two services.
12. The Development Officer for the REACH UP team (Raising Educational Achievement for children in public care) meets regularly with a group of representatives from the different social services teams to discuss issues and individual cases.
13. The REACH UP team (development officer and educational psychologist) are available for consultation on procedures and individual cases for social workers, foster carers and education staff.
14. Ongoing consultation with social services, foster carers and schools and associated education staff has been carried out through the training sessions, at team meetings and at foster carers support group meetings. Consultation with young people is through their Personal Education Plan on an individual level. On a more general level a group of care leavers have received consultation training and will be working with young people on a wider network in the future.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers

15. An increasing number of unaccompanied minors have been arriving in Oxfordshire over the course of the last academic year. These young people come into the care of the council and require supported admission to school and intensive English language support to enable them to access the curriculum.
16. The CIPC steering group and the joint working group for unaccompanied minors are monitoring the impact on schools and services and undertaking some joint work to ensure greater coordination of support for these young people.

• invite a representative from health to join the CIPC Steering Group
• ensure resources are targeted towards support needs identified through Personal Education Plans
• continue training and support for designated teachers, social workers/foster carers and parents
• continue to consult young people to enable them to contribute to planning and developing services
• undertake joint work to ensure effective education provision for unaccompanied minors in care to the council

17. Three young people (boys) who have had a period of public care during the period have been permanently excluded during the academic year compared to 10 last year. However, one of the three was excluded whilst not in public care but had had a period of care during the academic year. Of the three who were excluded one is attending the PRU full time on the Year 10 programme and one has been reintegrated to a new mainstream schools and the third’s placement is in planning for September 2002.
18. There have been 105 incidences of fixed term exclusion compared with 121 last year, involving 46 pupils (involving 33 boys and 13 girls) (58 last year), resulting in 506 days lost to schooling (average 4.8 days compared to 4.7 last year). There is no evident pattern to the incidences of exclusion. The distribution across the age range mirrors that of fixed exclusions across the whole LEA with the majority of pupils excluded being in years 8, 9, 10.

Exclusions of Children in Public Care
Academic Year	Permanent	Fixed Term Instances	No of pupils	Total no of days
98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02	5 7 10 3	59 51 121 105	37 35 58 46	N/A 271 av 4.6 566 av 4.7 506 av 4.8

Factors Contributing to Exclusion from School

19. Any young person that is taken in to care comes with a history of upheaval and distress so it is not possible to find exact causal relationships between care and exclusion that can be neatly identified to provide a ‘solution’. Some young people come in and out of care quickly. They may be taken in to care as a reaction from parents to an exclusion at school or the exclusion may result from the young person’s upset as they are taken into care for other reasons. However, improved joint working between social services and education and the provision of some additional resources through the standards fund has helped to reduce the number of exclusions. Also from January 2002 the Rapid Response to Exclusion programme was extended to all children in public care across the county and this has contributed to this reduction. Together with the rapid deployment of the discrete CIPC team, the problem solving approach of Rapid Response in clarifying the programme of support for the child has been very beneficial.
20. For the last five years pupils in care excluded from school either permanently or for a fixed term have been offered support through the Connect project. Pupils are able to attend Connect full time when they are excluded either permanently or for a fixed term and are then either reintegrated back into their school or planning for a new school takes place depending on circumstances. Connect is intended as short term provision to meet the needs of pupils and offer support to carers. This project has helped to identify some of the issues underlying the exclusion and to help the pupil return to school. From September 2002 the work of the Connect project will be delivered through the Pupil Referral and Integration Service to give a more comprehensive service across the county.

Attendance

21. Attendance of children in care in most schools is good. The Reach Up team are developing better links with the Education Social Work Service to ensure that the service is made aware of those schools with CIPC on roll.
22. The designated teachers in schools have an overview of the attendance for their pupils and will flag up attendance issues to the service who will then be in a position to prioritise support for those cases.
23. Where attendance is particularly poor this mainly occurs in cases of children with highly complex needs and effective information exchange and consistent approaches between foster homes, staff in children’s homes and schools is necessary.

• continue to implement the Rapid Response to exclusions programme and provide access to provision for Children in Care in the new PRU service as necessary.
• work with foster carers, staff in children’s homes and schools to strengthen the home school links to improve attendance.
• work with schools and to reduce the number of fixed term exclusions and time lost from them.
• provide reintegration support for pupils who are excluded.
• target additional resources to children at risk of exclusion
• improve levels of attendance of children in care through effective liaison between designated teachers and the ESW service to prioritise action for pupils identified with poor attendance.

24. The LEA is required to provide full time education for children in Care within 20 days as specified in the DfES guidance (2000).
25. There have been twelve pupils in this academic year who have not been found a school place within the specified 20 days. These pupils now have places, have left care or school, or have places identified for September 2002. These pupils are monitored by the monthly pupils in care panel and this system appears to have helped to reduce the number of pupils without a school place quite significantly. This panel also monitors pupils with school places who are not accessing their provision and 24 pupils so far identified have been absent from school for more than 25 days (as reported to the DOH in the social services OC2 return). These young people all have complex social and educational needs, and provision needs to be planned and monitored on a very individual basis. However, improving data collection and analysis and the work of the ‘panel’ are helping to identify some areas where a more focussed and systems based approach can be taken in the future.

Implications of Changes of Placements

26. The LEA’s policy for admission to school has been subject to a wide consultation and from September 2003 the policy has been amended to ensure that CIPC have the highest priority for admission if the school is oversubscribed.
27. When a child in care requires admission to a new school, depending on the areas of need identified in the Personal Education plan, some support to help the pupil transfer and settle in to the school can be made available eg some extra teaching assistant support for a short period.
28. The CIPC steering group is monitoring the potential impact of transport costs that are incurred when a change in home placement occurs. In order to minimise the impact of change the pupil continues to attend his/her current school. Under the current policy, education funds the transport costs for the first four weeks and then social services for two weeks. Beyond this period a change of school would normally be the expected next step, providing the new home placement is likely to be long term. However many factors may influence the ability for longer term planning and it may be felt to be in the pupils’ best interest and stability if the school placement can be sustained for a longer period particularly if the pupil is about to undertake public examinations. This has transport cost implications which the current policy does not cater for.
29. Some analysis has been undertaken over the academic year 2001/2 to identify the education transport costs for CIPC.

No of Children	Term	Costs
20	Autumn	£9,401
16	Spring	£5,491
16	Summer	£9,189

30. However no detail has been recorded on the circumstances and numbers of changes of school placements. The CIPC steering group will propose that more detailed monitoring of individual cases be undertaken over the next academic year and if necessary, bring a report on the implications arising.

• ensure that where possible pupils have access to a school place within the specified 20 days
• officers to monitor the impact of changes of educational and home placements

32. Data for care leavers achieving at least one GCSE at 41% for May 2002 showed an improvement over the figure of 32% for May 2001 but is still short of the government target of 50% for 2001/2. Compared to other authorities this places Oxfordshire with the 79% of authorities that need to improve to meet that target, but at the upper end of the range of those authorities. It should be remembered that the numbers are so low that a variation of one or two pupils can make a great difference. The GCSE results for year 11 pupils last year achieving five A*-C grades at 15% increased by 100% i.e. from 2 to 4 pupils. The results for 2001/2 are not yet available.
33. A range of initiatives has been put into place to address the raising of achievement of children in care. The Reach Up team, for example, has provided targeted educational psychology time to work with teachers and social workers to ensure that every child in care has a Personal Education Plan (PEP) and that it is reviewed regularly. Particular attention has been focussed on those pupils in Year 6 who will be transferring to a new secondary school in September 2002.
34. Pupils in the Year 11 cohort have received additional study and teaching support in the preparation for GCSEs. This programme will continue with those in the current Year 10 already identified who will be Year 11 pupils in September 2002.
35. An effective Personal Education Plan is one of the key tools to help address the learning needs of Children in Care and a need has been identified for a PEP coordinator to strengthen the resources in the Reach Up team. This will contribute to the targets of reviewing all PEPs within the timescales laid down in the DfES guidance. Improved data collection will provide better analysis of performance to enable better targeting of resources according to need and particularly the 20% of pupils most likely to underachieve pupils. The CIPC database to track pupils has been in development during the last academic year and is nearing implementation.
36. Targets have been set in Priority 4 in the Education Development Plan to raise the achievement of children in Public Care:-

• increase the percentage of children leaving care achieving 5 GCSE A* to C from 2% to 15% and 1 GCSE A* to G from 31% to 80% by 2004.

37. Further, more challenging targets have been identified in the local authority submission for a Public Service Agreement (PSA) and if successful, the aim is to increase the target of 5 GCSEs by 5% and the targets of 1 GCSE by 20% with the help of additional resources.
38. In addition the service has set targets to increase the attainment of pupils in Key Stages 2 and 3:

Target	2001	2003
% of year 11 pupils achieving 1 or more GCSE at A*-C	44	75
% of year 11 pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs at A*-G	15	15%
% of young people leaving care with 1 or more GCSE at A*-G	32%	75%
% of young people leaving care with 5 or more GCSEs at A*-C (by the age of 21)	2%	15%

• develop improved tracking and data collection and analysis of attainment of CIPC
• ensure that all CIPC have a Personal Education Plan to help them achieve their potential and that it is monitored and reviewed
• target additional study support to Children in Public Care in Year 11 and those who are at risk of underachievement in Key Stages 2 and 3 through the Personal Education Plans
• ensure good links with Social Services leaving care team and Connexions service to ensure good transition planning and continuity of care and advice

Joint Management Arrangements and Development Work 1. Invite a representative from health to join the CIPC Steering Group. Ensure resources are targeted towards support needs identified through Personal Education Plans. Continue training and support for designated teachers, social workers/foster carers and parents. 4. Continue to consult young people to enable them to contribute to planning and developing services. 5. Undertake joint work to ensure effective education provision for unaccompanied minors in care to the council. Exclusions and Attendance of Children in Public Care 6. Continue to implement the Rapid Response to exclusions programme and provide access to provision for Children in Care in the new PRU service as necessary. 7. Work with foster carers, staff in children’s homes and schools to strengthen the home school links to improve attendance. 8. Work with schools and to reduce the number of fixed term exclusions and time lost from them. 9. Provide reintegration support for pupils who are excluded. 10. Target additional resources to children at risk of exclusion. 11. Improve levels of attendance of children in care through effective liaison between designated teachers and the ESW service to prioritise actions for pupils identified with poor attendance. Admission to School within 20 days 12. Ensure that where possible pupils have access to a school place within the specified 20 days. 13. Officers to monitor the impact of changes of educational and home placements. Achievement of Children in Public Care Develop improved tracking and data collection and analysis of attainment of CIPC. 15. Ensure that all CIPC have a Personal Education Plan to help them achieve their potential and that it is monitored and reviewed. 16. Target additional study support to Children in Public Care in Year 11 and those who are at risk of underachievement in Key Stages 2 and 3 through the Personal Education Plans. 17. Ensure good links with Social Services leaving care team and Connexions service to ensure good transition planning and continuity of care and advice.

Action 6	Implement a comprehensive action plan to support Children in Public Care who are at risk of exclusion and underachievement.
Description	Strengthen the support for Children in Public Care in relation to raising achievement, reducing exclusions and improving attendance.
Objective	to enhance practical support for Children in Public Care to ensure that they can maximise their learning opportunities and fulfil their potential.
Proposed service improvement target(s)	Reduction in permanent exclusions of Children in Public Care from 3 to 0 by 2004. Reduction in permanent exclusions in time lost through fixed term exclusions from 506 days (2002) to 300 days by 2004. Increase the attendance of CIPC through improved multi-agency support and better recording and data. Improve the educational achievement of CIPC at GCSE and Key Stages 2 and 3. Provide access to a school place for CIPC within 20 days of their care placement.
Issues to consider – areas that will affected by implementation:
Implementation plan to achieve improvement targets
Implementation plan manager Senior Education Officer (Social Inclusion)
Task		Costs £, time, other	Responsibility	Timescale
1. Invite a representative from health to join the CIPC Steering Group.		Existing resources	Senior Education Officer	October 2002
2. Ensure resources are targeted onwards support needs identified through Personal Education Plans.		Existing resources plus standards funds 10,000	Development Officer CIPC	September 2002
3. Continue training and support for designated teachers, social workers/foster carers and parents.		Existing resources plus standards funds £2,500	Development Officer CIPC	September 2002 and ongoing
4. Continue to consult young people to enable them to contribute to planning and developing services.		Existing resources	Development Officer CIPC	September 2002 and ongoing
5. Undertake joint work to ensure effective education provision for unaccompanied minors in care to the council.		To be costed	Senior Education Officer	October 2002
6. Continue to implement the Rapid Response to exclusions programme and provide access to provision for Children in Care in the new PRU service as necessary.		50,000 standards funds	Education Officer Behaviour	September 2002
7. Work with foster carers, staff in children’s homes and schools to strengthen the home school links to improve attendance.		Existing resources	Development Officer CIPC	September 2002 and ongoing
8. Work with schools and to reduce the number of fixed term exclusions and time lost from them.		Existing resources	Education Officer Behaviour	September 2002 and ongoing
9. Provide reintegration support for pupils who are excluded.		Existing PRU resources	Education Officer Behaviour	September 2002
10. Target additional resources to children at risk of exclusion.		Standards funds and PRU resources	Development Officer CIPC	October 2002
11. Improve levels of attendance of children in care through effective liaison between designated teachers and the ESW service to prioritise actions for pupils identified with poor attendance.		Existing resources	Principal ESW	January 2003
12. Ensure that where possible pupils have access to a school place within the specified 20 days.		Existing resources	Development Officer CIPC	September 2002 and ongoing
13. Officers to monitor the impact of changes of educational and home placements.		Existing resources	Senior Education Officer	April 2003
14. Develop improved tracking and data collection and analysis of attainment of CIPC.		Existing resources	Development Officer CIPC	December 2002
15. Ensure that all CIPC have a Personal Education Plan to help them achieve their potential and that it is monitored and reviewed.		Standards Funds £23,000	Development Officer CIPC	September 2002 and ongoing
16. Target additional study support to Children in Public Care in Year 11 and those who are at risk of underachievement in Key Stages 2 and 3 through the Personal Education Plans.		Standards Funds 10,000	Development Officer CIPC	September 2002
17. Ensure good links with Social Services leaving care team and Connexions service to ensure good transition planning and continuity of care and advice.		Existing Resources	Development Officer CIPC	October 2002
Proposed monitoring arrangements and indicators of progress Progress towards targets will be monitored through the joint children in Public Care Steering Group. The Senior Education Officer will be responsible to report on progress in termly reports on the Education Development Plan. Exclusions and attendance are reported to the EBD monitoring and Advisory Group and to the Council’s Scrutiny Committee.
Risk assessment Insufficient resources may delay progress in implementing the plan and may be dependent on continuation of external grant funding (Standards Fund) beyond April 2003.

STEPHEN CAPALDI
Director for Strategy

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Sandra Bingham, Senior Education Officer (Social Inclusion) Tel: (01865 816217)

September 2002

Return to TOP