Bristol Fixed Term Exclusion City is in the Bottom Quartile in the Country
Bristol People Scrutiny Commission – Fixed Term Exclusions and Bristol Hospital Education Service
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Send) was firmly on the agenda of Bristol People Scrutiny Commission on Thursday 27 February this week. It’s been a busy month for People Scrutiny. The Commission not only held an Extraordinary meeting on 03 February in response to the Ofsted and CQC Send Inspection that was published in November. Only an hour after that meeting finished, a Send Evidence Day took place, which brought in three panels of experts to discuss the Send crisis in Bristol. The experts talked about their various specialisms around Send and contributed to findings and recommendations to go to Cabinet on Tuesday 03 March 2020.
Lurking deep on the agenda for the meeting was a summary report concerning Hospital Education and Fixed Term Exclusions (FTE) in Bristol. The recommendation for the report was an ‘update’ on data for the usage of the Bristol Hospital Education Service (BHES) and FTE ‘for information only’.
BHES is a local authority Pupil Referral Unit (PRU), which provides provision for children and young people who are too ill to attend their main school. They would typically remain on roll at their usual school whilst receiving alternative provision through the service.
It would be easy to assume that BHES is just for children in hospital or those who have a health condition that makes attending their usual on roll or mainstream provision impossible. But as with Send, the real answer to whom the service provides an education is much more complex.
The school is registered as Ofsted outstanding. Its headteacher is Jim Bowyer, although for the Management Committee Summary of relevant business & pecuniary interests 2019, he forgot to mention he is also the Chair of Governors at Bristol academy Cotham School. He is not only the chair, but nominated by Bristol City Council as the Local Authority Governor.
According to the Department for Education Statutory Guidance in 2014: “Local authority governors are nominated by the local authority but appointed by the governing body. The local authority can nominate any eligible person as a local authority governor, but it is for the governing body to decide whether their nominee has the skills to contribute to the effective governance and success of the school and meets any other eligibility criteria they have set. Local authorities should therefore make every effort to understand the governing body’s requirements and identify and nominate suitable candidates.”
For the sake of transparency, it would perhaps have been best to mention his Chair of Governor position considering BHES is paid £25 by on roll schools for every day a student attends, as well as having the option to have their Pupil Premium transferred to the service.
In a Freedom of Information request made to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) by a Bristol resident concerned about Cotham School fencing off curtilage land at Stoke Lodge, a letter from Jim Bowyer dated 08 February 2019 was included in the response. In it he mentions that BHES does not charge schools for the service it provides for the students, with neither Cotham School nor BHES making any financial gain from its service. He also writes that schools cannot make referrals to BHES.
He wrote: ‘I am employed by Bristol City Council in the post of Head Teacher of Bristol Hospital Education Service (BHES) & The Meriton, both of these are locally managed Pupil Referral Units with responsibilities fully delegated to their management committees, both provide education to students who are unable to access mainstream schools.
‘Students on the roll of Cotham School are educated at BHES when they meet the criteria for referral. BHES does not take referrals from schools, BHES only takes referrals from health professionals. BHES does not charge schools for the service it provides to students. There is no financial gain to BHES or Cotham from any work carried out by BHES with students on the roll of Cotham School.
‘BHES has not received an exceptional number of referrals from health professionals for students on the roll of Cotham school in the past 10yrs. All referrals to BHES are assessed by a panel of staff, they are not accepted or rejected by myself or any other individual member of staff. The Meriton provides support to young parents to help them maintain their place in school or college. The service is provided to the young parents not to schools, there is no charge for the service provided.’
However, a document we have been given as part of a Subject Access Request, clearly shows that head teachers are invoiced for the daily cost of using BHES and must agree to pay it before the service takes a child on. The one below is even an invoice for Cotham School.
Whilst the amount of £25 per child per day and Pupil Premium is not siphoning off big funds from one school to another, schools are charged and connections between Cotham School and BHES should be more transparent.
The red boxes hides staff contact details I have redacted from the original email, with the black boxes the redaction the document originally came with.
And when it comes to ‘BHES does not take referrals from schools,’ it certainly does from Cotham School.
For my own transparency, I would note that in the academic year 2018/19, my own child would be in the statistics for BHES after being pushed out of education by his secondary school – Cotham School – due to unmet Send needs.
Education from the service can be provided in different ways. Some pupils will attend a base on Falkland Road in Montpelier, others may have one-to-one tuition in their home, some will have tuition during their time in hospital.
The report notes that ‘many’ pupils join the service ‘late in their secondary education’ remaining there until they leave at the end of Year 11. If this service was simply for unwell children, perhaps there would be a more even spread across age groups.
Information provided for the report by BHES, showed that 355 pupils attended the provision or had provision made for them during the academic year 2018/19. A total of 336 children were Bristol residents with 19 children coming from neighbouring local authorities.
The cohort for 2018/19 shows a huge jump in numbers for students at both Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4.
The report goes on to say that the number of students enrolled at the school has increased every year since 2009. Classes showed a 05 per cent increase on the previous year’s figures and a 159 per cent rise over the last 6 years.
From the start of the year 2018/19 through to the July, the number of those being taught on a one-to-one provision increased by 12 per cent on the previous year with a total 69 per cent rise since 2009.
The rise in the number of children and young people being educated through BHES is indicative of a soaring need for Alternative Provision (AP) in Bristol.
AP issues is something we often write about at Chopsy Bristol. There are no official statistics for off rolling in Bristol. The rise in the need for AP for Send children is likely to be where off rolling statistics can be found.
BHES provides education for children who are too unwell to attend their on roll school. This includes children with school related anxiety, often connected to conditions such as autism, who stop attending due to not having their needs met deliberately or otherwise by the on roll school.
An additional problem in Bristol is a shortfall of special school places for autistic children which was predicted some eight years’ ago.
In 2012, Bristol City Council talked of a growing child population which would include Send children. It was noted there was a particular lack of specialist autism provision in the East Central area of the city.
But moving ahead to a 2019 report, this issue has still not been solved, with Send places in East Central remaining a problem, one that’s set to continue through to 2026.
It’s clear that alongside the rise in need for hospital education, alternative provision and the rising numbers of secondary school exclusions, the lack of school place planning for the predicted population bulge of Send children coming through education with no suitable school places is another facet of the Bristol Send crisis seen in the number of school exclusions.
Fixed-Term Exclusions (FTE) also figured in the report alongside BHES. Whilst the number of exclusions are rising across the country, Bristol remains in the lowest quartile for the number of FTEs issued, at 141 of 152 local authorities according to DfE 2017/18 data.
This chart from the report shows that the number of permanent exclusions have reduced for secondary and special schools, but the number of FTEs has increased dramatically.
In the following academic years, the number of FTEs in Bristol continued to rise:
2012/13 – 2,311 FTEs
2013/14 – 2,822 FTEs
2014/15 – 3,274 FTEs
2015/16 – 4,080 FTEs
2016/17 – 4966 FTEs
2017/18 – 5,179 FTEs
The data given to the DfE for each FTE during 2017/18 from all Bristol state-funded primary, secondary and special schools is in the chart below.
Persistent disruptive behaviour and ‘other’ were the most common reasons given for issuing a FTE in Bristol. Department for Education Guide to Exclusion Statistics 2019, states that ‘The categories should cover the main reasons for exclusions and the “other” category should be used sparingly.’ In Bristol it is not.
Broken down by school stage, in 2017/18, there were 1,027 FTEs in state-funded primary schools, 3,819 in state funded secondary schools and 333 in special schools. The steep rise in secondary FTEs will have links to the increase in ‘late in their secondary education’ admissions noted by BHES statistics in the report.
At this point, it’s worth remembering that in the Ofsted and CQC Send Inspection of Bristol 2019, concerns about the effectiveness of the local area clearly stated ‘the lack of accountability of leaders at all levels, including school leaders’. And, ‘the inconsistencies in the timeliness and effectiveness of the local area’s arrangements for the identification and assessment of children and young people with SEND’. Meaning children not having their Send adequately identified and supported in primary education were falling off a Send cliff edge in secondary school as well as school leaders who are not being held accountable for Send issues.
The rise in FTE comes into the wider context of Bristol Send issues with related large budget cuts to the High Needs Block attempted by Bristol City Council which were legally ruled unlawful in 2018.
In 2017, the Inclusion Reference Group – now called Inclusion in Education Group, was asked by Bristol Schools Forum in January 2017, to review options for mitigation on the High Needs Block. The expectation of the group was to look at budgets ‘to help make decisions about where further reductions would be best made to bring the High Needs Budget into line with minimum impact’. Savings measures and mitigations amounting to £4.9m were found.
But by August 2018, Bristol City Council was successfully taken to court by Send parents for cuts to the High Needs Block budget coming in at over £5M.
By April 2019, Former Interim Director of Education in Bristol, Alan Stubbersfield, told Bristol Schools Forum that Bristol had the highest spend on AP outside of London.
It was not just the spend on AP which was causing consternation. At Bristol Schools Forum on Tuesday 06 November 2019, Trading with Schools Manager Ali Mannering brought an update on figures for children who were being electively home educated in the city. During April 2018-19, 518 Bristol children were known to have been electively home educated at some point.
A report published by Ofsted in 2019 – Exploring moving to home education in secondary schools – stated that it had been having concerns for some time about schools off rolling pupils.
The report noted: ‘More children with additional needs are now being educated at home. Growing evidence suggests that, overall, a disproportionate number of children who are removed from the school roll of a secondary school and do not move to another setting have special educational needs, are from disadvantaged backgrounds or are known to social care services, or have a combination of these characteristics.’
The number of children having elective home education was ‘concerning’ to some Bristol School Forum members. The current Director of Education and Skills, Alison Hurley, told forum that it was a ‘wide and complex area’ that would be included in the wider strategy for education.
In October 2019, Bristol was also named as one in a list of LAs and Multi-Academy Trusts (MAT) with the highest rates of unexplained pupil exits from schools and nationally, the words off rolling was finally coming-to-the-fore and the city was being named.
The findings in a report from The Education Policy Institute (EPI) which was sponsored by the National Education Union (NEU) found that in Bristol, over a 14 term period – which included the year 2017 – 19 permanent exclusions took place at 18 LA schools. It also found 295 unaccountable ‘unexplained’ school moves and Bristol contained at least one single school with more than 30 exits.
Clearly, Bristol as an LA won’t be able to collect accurate data on off rolling and unlawful exclusion – the sending of a child home without going through legal channels – because no school is going to admit breaking education and equality laws. But the concerning rise in AP in Bristol is a significant indicator in the number of children being forced out of education by their on roll schools.
At the People Scrutiny Commission which received the report, Councillor Ruth Pickersgill asked: “The fixed term exclusions, when we get more information can we have some real clarity around BAME exclusions and Send exclusions and where those are happening and why that’s happening?”
BAME data was something asked at public forum earlier in the meeting by Nura Aabe from Autism Independence. She asked ‘How is data recorded on the BAME, Send population currently?’
The response Nura was given included: ‘We receive BAME data for each individual, direct from the child’s school or setting… Data relating specifically to BAME is also outlined, including research to understand more about BAME, Send population; how many are accessing children’s services and the support they are getting in order to develop culturally competent framework and increase early intervention.’
Councillor Tim Kent asked: “Is the rise in the number of fixed-term exclusions a direct result of bringing down the number permanent exclusions?
Alison Hurley said it wasn’t as ‘clear cut’ as that replying: “We can’t find the evidence to show there’s an actual link between the two so that was exactly where I went.”
Anna Keen agreed with the analysis saying: “It may come back showing that, my feeling has always been not, from when we did the work reducing PEX (Permanent exclusion) as it wasn’t, it’s quite a sort of step change in the way children were helped as a result of that.”
Councillor Tim Rippington asked “Is there data on how many children are suffering multiple fixed-term exclusions?”
Hurley replied that they did have that data saying: “There’s a huge amount that we’ve put into this which is why I’m quite keen that it’s a report that I present and actually unpack rather than it being something that is just for information.”
Comment
Fixed Term Exclusions is a real problem for Send children in Bristol. When the report for Bristol Hospital Education and Fixed Term Exclusions appeared on the meeting agenda, it was something I wanted to comment on because my family had personal experience of it and it continues to be a distressing issue for many others in the city.
I submitted a statement about my own son’s experience with unlawful exclusion and FTE. I chose not to name the school in the statement, however, the statement proved controversial enough that People Scrutiny Commission approached the school and gave them the right to reply. Their statement was read out during public forum by the chair.
I don’t have an issue with this because the school continues to maintain that they do not recognise my version of events despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence to back up my truth.
Sometimes, when you are looking into a problem with something, all roads lead back to the same place. This has certainly been the case here, with the Bristol Hospital Education Service, FTE, increasing AP need and Cotham School being intrinsically linked. Certainly for my family.
Below is the statement I submitted to People Scrutiny Commission, the responding statement from Cotham School and the statement presentation I read out during public forum:
Statement for People Scrutiny Fixed Term Exclusions – Summary Report Jen Smith
Bristol remains in the lowest quartile nationally at 141 out of 152 local authorities, for Fixed Term Exclusions (FTE). It’s easy to look at that statistic and be appalled, but there are young victims of educational failure behind every single number on the chart.
My son was given a fixed term exclusion last November. He has not been back since. I have not had any contact from school since Thursday 28 November 2019 after a meeting with the head. My son has had no education since and there is nothing currently planned.
He missed 75 per cent of year 7 due to the same school discriminating against his disability, but for year 8, I had mistakenly put my trust in the school believing that with lawfully protected EHCP they would do their jobs properly.
The exclusion followed two unlawful exclusions where I was phoned by school to collect him during the day. A third incident involved me picking him up early after he was harassed by school staff on his immediate arrival, resulting in an autistic meltdown and being put in Separated Learning at 9.30am which then caused further escalating upset. I removed him from the school that day for his own safety.
My son’s EHCP which has been really well put together by our caseworker on the Bristol SEN team. There is a full range of specified and quantified Section F provision although the head of the school refers to them as “my requirements”.
A range of professionals contributed to the plan which had water tight information about how to deal with his autism in school, how to communicate and a whole back up plan to help avoid school based anxiety so my son did not become at risk of school avoidance.
It would later transpire that the school hadn’t even bothered to print out the 5 point How Am I Feeling scale to help him communicate – the simplest adjustment at zero cost to them. They never called in the Bristol Autism Team to help them even though they were unlawfully sending him home due to his autism. The BAT team came in on his very last day after I liaised with the SEN caseworker, but by this point, the school had deeply traumatised my child.
The FTE my son was given was because of violence. This came after escalating anxiety caused by the school losing a vital disability aid my child needs to access his day. At one point he phoned me from school on his mobile and I could hear a member of the inclusion staff goading my child by repeating “you’ve broken the rules” over and over again until I heard him scream and throw things.
Over the last two academic years, the school could not have made it clearer that they did not want to follow the advice of professionals. They did not want to follow the Section F provision. They would rather unlawfully send my child home than call in the Bristol Autism Team. And considering they have done nothing to provide my child with an education since last November due to his disability they are committing disability discrimination.
Bristol City Council is complicit in allowing this to happen by not appropriately challenging schools who are forcing Send children out and are using unlawful and fixed term exclusions as a way of bypassing the legal responsibility they have to provide children with an inclusive and accessible education.
Statement by Cotham School in Response to my Statement
The school was not aware of this statement until three o’clock today. The school does not recognise the version of events in this statement.
For the protection of students’ privacy and for statutory laws designed to protect children we can’t and don’t comment on individual students and their families. In cases involving children who are registered on the Special Educational Needs Register, the school works tirelessly with families and professionals to provide support and meet the child’s educational needs. This has and does involve working in close and collaborative partnership with alternative provision providers including hospital ed, services and Bristol City Council
Through strong partnership and working practices all professionals always work together. Strategies are reviewed at regular case reviews which always include young people and families.
The presentation I made to People Scrutiny Commission in the meeting
Bristol remains in the lowest quartile nationally at 141 out of 152 local authorities, for Fixed Term Exclusions (FTE). I’ve briefly addressed our own personal experiences of Fixed Term Exclusions and unlawful exclusions at my son’s school in my statement.
But we’re not the only family who are struggling with issues surrounding FTEs or unlawful exclusion. I asked on a Bristol Send Facebook page if anyone else was having issues concerning FTEs and/or unlawful exclusions.
The responses were at times shocking and upsetting. Experiences came from across all key stages, but children as young as Year 1 with known Send being excluded is astonishing. Parents also told of special schools excluding for Send, appeals over FTEs being won, lots of reduced timetables and plenty of “mum please come and collect now” stories.
School exclusion for Send in Bristol is tied into the five priority areas Bristol City Council needs to address in its Written Statement of Action. Holding school leaders to account is a key one.
Only a headteacher can issue an FTE but an FTE should not be issued for behaviour that is the direct result of disability and/or a school’s failure to provide the correct support. Doing so is disability discrimination.
But the FTE statistics you have here this evening is only half a story. It does not include unlawful exclusion which so many Send children and young people in Bristol are experiencing.
Parents or carers who receive phone calls asking them to collect their children from school because there has been a serious incident, they are having a meltdown or are not coping are having their child unlawfully excluded. Again, this is likely to amount to discrimination on the grounds of disability.
The Hospital Education Service which is also in this report is used as an AP dumping ground for Send children. This and the rising cost of AP provision in Bristol is where you will find the off rolling statistics for the city.
I know I am politically very vocal about Send but that is as a result of being driven to breaking point by it. When you think Send things in your life can’t possibly get any worse, they ramp up another level. It’s like playing Donkey Kong but the barrels are faster, the flames are higher and the Gorilla is impossible to beat.
Bristol City Council is complicit in allowing both FTEs and unlawful exclusion by not appropriately challenging schools who are forcing Send children out and are using unlawful and fixed term exclusions as a way of bypassing the legal responsibility they have to provide children with an inclusive and accessible education.
More from Chopsy Baby
Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/chopsybaby/
Follow us on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/chopsybristol
Like us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/chopsybristol
Home http://www.chopsybaby.com