The Reintegration of Children Absent, Excluded or Missing from School

174 Pages·2007·1.06 MB·English

R
ESEARCH
The Reintegration of Children Absent,
Excluded or Missing from School
GHK Consulting, Holden McAllister Partnership and
IPSOS Public Affairs
Research Report RR598
ResearchReport
No598
The Reintegration of Children Absent,
Excluded or Missing from School
GHK Consulting, Holden McAllister Partnership and
IPSOS Public Affairs
The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for
EducationandSkills.
©GHKConsultingLtd2004
ISBN1844783642
CONTENTS
LISTOFACRONYMS..........................................................................................................................3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................5
VOLUME1:MAINREPORT..............................................................................................................10
1 INTRODUCTIONANDCONTEXT..............................................................................................11
1.1 Study AimsandObjectives.......................................................................................................11
1.2 Coverage–ReintegrationandPupilGroups..........................................................................11
1.3 Methodology..............................................................................................................................12
1.4 StudyContext............................................................................................................................15
1.5 ReportStructure........................................................................................................................16
2 NATIONALOVERVIEW–FINDINGSFROMTHELEASURVEY..........................................17
2.1 CoverageofDifferentGroups byReintegration Approaches.................................................18
2.2 PoliciesandProcedures...........................................................................................................19
2.3 FundingReintegration...............................................................................................................20
2.4 MonitoringReintegrationPerformance....................................................................................21
2.5 ReintegrationApproaches........................................................................................................25
2.6 ReintegrationApproachesby PupilGroup..............................................................................25
2.7 Barriers toReintegrationandPotential Solutions...................................................................36
3 REINTEGRATIONINDETAIL–SUMMARYCASE STUDYFINDINGS................................39
3.1 CaseStudy Approachand theCaseStudy LEAs...................................................................39
3.2 Barriers to EffectiveReintegration...........................................................................................41
3.3 SummaryFindingsby PupilGroup..........................................................................................42
4 KEYSUCCESSFACTORSANDGOOD PRACTICEEXAMPLES........................................51
4.1 Environmental Key Success Factors.......................................................................................51
4.2 PracticalKey SuccessFactors.................................................................................................59
5 CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................65
5.1 Conclusions...............................................................................................................................65
5.2 Recommendations....................................................................................................................70
VOLUME2:REINTEGRATIONINDETAIL– PUPILGROUP SUMMARIES...............................74
6 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................76
7 PERMANENTLY EXCLUDEDPUPILS......................................................................................79
8 LONGTERMTRUANTS.............................................................................................................96
9 PUPILSNOTATTENDINGSCHOOL......................................................................................107
10 PUPILSWITHMOBILITYISSUES........................................................................................133
ANNEXI–LEAPOSTAL SURVEYQUESTIONNAIRE...............................................................162
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BEST BehaviourandEducationSupportTeam
BIP BehaviourImprovement Programme
CAMHS ChildandAdolescentMentalHealth Services
DfES DepartmentforEducationandSkills
EMAS Ethnic Minority AchievementService
EMAG Ethnic Minority AchievementGrant
EMTAG Ethnic Minority andTravellerAchievementGrant
EMTAS Ethnic Minority andTravellerAchievement Service
EOTAS EducationOtherThanAtSchool
EWO EducationWelfareOfficer
EWS EducationWelfare Service
IEP IndividualEducationPlan
LAC LookedAfterChildren
LEA LocalEducation Authority
NASS NationalAsylumSupportService
NSPCC NationalSociety for PreventionofCruelty toChildren
PEP Personal Education Plan
PRS PupilReferral Service
PSA Public SectorAgreement
PRU PupilReferralUnit
RIO ReintegrationOfficer
RSO ReintegrationSupportOfficer
SEN SpecialEducationalNeeds
SENCO SpecialEducationalNeeds Coordinator
3
SSC StudentSupportCentre
TES TravellerEducationService
VCG VulnerableChildrenGrant
YOT YouthOffendingTeam
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Introduction
This report presents the findings of a 14 month study undertaken by GHK, the Holden
McAllister Partnership and IPSOS Public Affairs examining current and best practice in
the reintegration of different pupil groups into the mainstream school setting. The
specific objectives of the study included: determining the reintegration strategies and
approaches beingusedand how they differ according tothe circumstances ofabsence
and between Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and schools; examining and
identifying the elements that determine successful reintegration; and make
recommendations for best practice in reintegration at all levels and for different groups
ofchildren.
Reintegration was defined for the purposes of the study as the efforts made by LEAs,
schools and other partners to return pupils who are absent, excluded or otherwise
missing from mainstream education provision. The study encompassed a series of
pupil groups,namely:
ß Permanently excludedpupils.
ß Pupilswithpersistentunauthorisedabsences.
ß Pupils not attending school, due to medical needs, caring responsibilities
(including school age parents) and extended absences (such as term-time
holidays).
ß Pupils with mobility issues, including: Gypsy/Traveller children, children in local
authoritycare,andasylumseekerandrefugeechildren.
The pupil groups had a range of different reintegration needs, including requiring a
change of education delivery, support to maintain their place in school, help to catch-
upafterinterruptions intheireducation,supportaftera changeincircumstances and to
secure a place in school or to access education for the first time (and being more a
case of integration rather than reintegration). In practice, children absent from school
will rarely have a single set of issues and needs, and many will experience a
combination of problems which cause absence from school, or which make absence
morelikely.
The study methodology featured a combination of quantitative and qualitative
approaches, including a postal survey of all 150 English LEAs (featuring responses
from 87 LEAs) and case study fieldwork with 14 LEAs, schools, reintegration partners
andpupils.
2 NationalOverview–FindingsfromtheLEA Survey
Chapter 2 describes the findings from the postal survey of LEAs, which although
subject to adegreeof bothunderand over-reporting provideda pictureofreintegration
practiceswithdifferentpupilgroups atthenationallevel.
5
The survey sought to identify the extent to which LEAs had developed specific,
formalisedapproaches to the reintegration of pupils across thedifferentpupil groups.
Theresults suggestedthat:
ß Over 90% of LEAs had formalised approaches for the reintegration of
permanently excluded pupils, pupils with medical needs and children in local
authoritycare.
ß Between 60 and 80% of LEAs had approaches for Gypsy/Traveller children,
pupils with persistent unauthorised absences and asylum seeker and refugee
children.
ß Formalised approaches for children with caring responsibilities and those taking
extended authorised absences were less frequently described (by 57% and
below40%respectively).
LEAs also varied in terms of the number of pupil groups for whom formalised
approaches were in place. While the majority of LEAs had approaches for between
seven and nine of the pupil groups, the number of formal approaches increased with
thesizeoftheindividualLEA.
LEAs reported funding reintegration activities froma range ofsources,with different
combinations of funding being used with different pupil groups. Across all pupil
groups, mainstream LEA funding was most commonly used (by 97% of LEAs),
followed by the Vulnerable Children Grant (82%) and other Standards Fund monies
(74%). Over half of the LEAs also described using a range of other resources to
support their efforts, including the Children’s Fund, Quality Protects monies,
NeighbourhoodRenewalFundandtheEuropeanSocialFund.
Over three quarters of the LEAs responding to the survey described monitoring the
effectiveness of reintegration approaches in their areas, using indicators including
reintegration and attendance rates, attainment levels and a series of more qualitative
variables. However, fewer than half provided data on the numbers of pupils
reintegrated and the success of activities, with variable coverage by the different pupil
groups. Where information was provided considerable differences in performance
were identified both between and within the different pupil groups – in terms of the
numbers of pupils considered appropriate for reintegration and the share for whom
reintegration was attempted. Although the data did not allow any firm conclusions to
be drawn, success rates appeared highest for pupils reintegrated following permanent
exclusion, absence due to medical needs or after periods of extended authorised
absences. Here there were between 75% and 82% of cases where reintegration was
successful,accordingtotheLEAs’owndefinitions.
The reintegration approaches described by the LEAs gave an indication of the range
of the different components and interventions used with the different pupil groups. In
reintegration activities across all pupil groups, LEAs most commonly described using
off-site centres/Pupil Referral Units, on-site centres in schools, home tuition services,
externally provided services and mentoring/buddying approaches (each reported by
over 80% of LEAs). The LEAs also described the use of multi-agency groups and
headteacher and other panels for referral and reintegration planning, while the use of
personal education plans and flexible timetabling/curriculum approaches were
widespread(usedinover90%ofcases).
6
It was clear that LEAs routinely involve individuals from a range of disciplines in their
reintegration activities, including social service professionals, youth workers,
educational psychologists and Connexions advisers. In addition, teams with specific
responsibilities for certain target groups, such as looked after children,
Gypsy/Travellers and asylum seeker and refugee pupils, were also involved in
reintegrationactivities aswellasprovidingotherservicesforthesegroups.
3 Reintegration inDetail–CaseStudyFindings
The case studies allowed reintegration practice to be examined in greater detail, and
included interviews with LEAs, schools, other reintegration partners, pupils and
parents/carers in 14 local authority areas. The case studies identified a series of
commonbarrierstoreintegration,whichweregroupedas follows:
ß School-based barriers – including some schools’ reluctance to accept pupils,
limited awareness of reintegrating pupils and their needs, insufficient school
resources to support reintegration, negative aspects of the school environment
itself and the lack of alternative options and inflexibility within the national
curriculum.
ß Contact and communication barriers – including a lack of clarity on the roles
and responsibilities of individuals and agencies, ineffective communications
between key agencies (including limited information on a child’s
background/needs)andalackofcontinuity ofcontact.
ß External barriers – including a lack of support from parents or carers,
ineffective assessment processes, poorly planned/timed reintegration and
limited access to external services – notably for pupils with multiple needs that
cannotbewhollyaddressedwithintheschool/LEAsetting.
Detailed descriptions of the approaches followed with the different pupil groups are
provided in Volume 2 of this report, and Chapter 3 provides a summary of the main
findings and key components of the approaches followed. A series of important
generic components of reintegration approaches were identified, such as effective
planning, awareness raising, multi-agency approaches and dedicated staff and key
workers, a series of more specific elements were considered as core or effective
approaches fordifferentpupilgroups. Theseincluded:
ß For permanently excluded pupils – panels for decision making, securing
school places and commitment, key worker involvement, the use of
interim/alternative provision, phased reintegration and managed
moves/negotiatedtransfers.
ß For pupils with persistent unauthorised absences – approaches for
identifying unauthorised absences, follow-up and diagnostic procedures,
flexibility in the curriculum and timetable and the use of combined approaches
andstrategies.
ß Forpupilsnotattendingschooldueto:
- Medical needs – school commitment and maintained contact with teachers
and peers, parent/carer involvement and flexible/phased reintegration
approaches.
7
- Caring responsibilities – including specialist reintegration officers, clear
responsibilities andprocedures,andtheinvolvementofparents/carers.
- Taking extended authorised absences – specific policies on extended
absences, contracts and sanctions, providing work to be completed during
timeawayandcommunication/awarenessraisingamongstlocalcommunities.
ß Forpupilswith mobility issues,withkey components fordifferentpupilgroups
including:
- Gypsy/Traveller children – ensuring access to education, involving
mainstreamteachers andsupportduringperiods oftransition.
- Children in local authority care – identification and tracking systems, specific
support for education, multi-agency working and inter-authority co-ordination,
minimisingschoolmoves andschools admissionprocesses.
- Asylum seekers and refugees – securing school places, providing
interim/alternative provision, availability of appropriate support, targeting
resourcestoneeds andawarenessraisingandsupportforteachers.
4 KeySuccessFactorsandGoodPractice
Chapter 4 describes a series of key success factors that were found to contribute to
effective reintegration practices, and which formed the underpinning principles for
effective reintegration practice. While specific factors were identified for each pupil
group, the more generic elements that applied across the groups were divided into
‘environmental’and‘practical’factors:
ß Environmental factors referred to the context and conditions necessary for
effectivereintegrationpracticetodevelop. Theseincluded:
- For LEAs and schools: inclusive school and LEA cultures, the commitment to
responding to and meeting pupil needs and ensuring the availability of
appropriatesupportservices(includingstaff).
- For reintegration partners: effective collaborative approaches, ensuring
responsibilities are shared and understood and involving parents/carers and
pupils inplanningandmonitoringreintegration.
ß Practical factors referred to the actual content and setting of specific
approachesandinterventions,andincluded:
- Effectiveandinformedplanningandconsultation
- Effectiveinformationcollectionandmonitoring
- Equitableapproaches tosecuringschoolplaces
- Keepingpupils onrollas faraspossible
- Rapidandindividually tailoredresponses
- Keyworker/singlecontactpoints.
8
A series of good practice examples were also identified, on the basis of what LEAs
and their partners considered had worked well for them and verified as far as possible
inthewidercasestudy interviews.
5 ConclusionsandRecommendations
The final Chapter of the report presents the study conclusions, with a series of
recommendations being provided for the Department for Education and Skills, LEAs
andschools.
The conclusions consolidate the findings from the different stages of the study, and
stress the range and potential complexity of the needs of reintegrating pupils and so
the importance of flexible and individually tailored responses to meet their needs. No
single approach emerged as a ‘blueprint’ for reintegration, with LEAs using a plethora
of approaches and interventions, drawing on a wide range of resources and working in
multi-agencyframeworkswithavariety oflocalpartners.
Clearly pupils from different groups will pose different challenges, although variations
in schools’ willingness to accept returning pupils from certain groups were identified.
Pupils with poor education or behavioural records were viewed less positively by some
schools, while asylum seekers and refugees, pupils returning from extended
authorised absences and those with medical needs (with the exception of ongoing
mentalhealthneeds)wereconsidered theeasiest toreturn.
The limited availability of data on the size of the pupil groups and the performance of
the reintegration approaches followed meant that conclusions on the adequacy of
coverage could not be drawn. However, the data suggested there were considerable
differences between pupil groups in terms of the share of children considered
appropriateforreintegrationandforwhomreintegrationwasattempted.
Finally, the overriding conclusion at the more strategic level is that effective
reintegrationis dependant on establishing an environmentwherea cultureofinclusion,
commitment to serving the needs of all pupils and availability of appropriate resources
(bothfinancialandstaffexpertise)areinplace.
9