How to help improve the Educational Achievement of Children Looked After

AGENDA ITEM 9
How to help improve the
Educational Achievement of
Children Looked After
Elected Members Project
May 2005 – July 2006
Councillor Shirley Marshall
Councillor Jackie Norman
Councillor Brian Price
Councillor Judith Price
Councillor David Morris
You are a Corporate Parent
if the work you do or your performance
impacts in any way on the lives of the
Children or Young People
in the care of Bristol City Council
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contents
Page
Project Overview
3
Project Activities
3
Project Findings
5
Recommendations
7
Appendices
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Suggested areas of conversation with Designated Teachers
Designated Teachers Questionnaire - Tabulation of Responses
Notes and comments from visits to Designated Teachers
Social Workers Comments
Notes on pupil with complex needs not attending school
Meeting with Children Looked After
Assessment of Personal Education Plans
Attendance
Comparison of Non-Attendance
Achieving Good Attendance
Attainment
PM’s Social Exclusion Unit (Education of CLA)
11
12
20
23
24
26
28
30
31
33
35
40
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank:
Samantha Flowers, Mark Pender, Linda James, Pauline Cole,
Pippa John, Elspeth Loades, Emily Hodder-Williams, Charlie Beaton and
Tim Storey for their help.
The designated teachers, social workers and carers for their
contributions.
A very special thank you to the five young people who, by giving us their
thoughts, gave a real sense of meaning to our work.
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Project Overview
This project sits within the corporate plan to improve the educational
attainment of children looked after by Bristol City Council. It aims to
increase the Corporate Parent’s awareness of the experiences of those
children in the care of the local authority with regard to their educational
achievement in order to inform service planning in the future and to lead
to improved outcomes.
Six members from across the three political parties undertook to track
the experience and outcomes of six young people over a period of 7
months. This was a fact finding rather than casework approach and this
report contains the final findings of this group1.
The project involved pupils who have been continually looked after for a
period of 12 months and are in year R (Reception) to Year 11. Children
and young people in “stranger care” (i.e. not placed with parents or
family members) were selected to ensure a balance as follows:
-
of each of Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4
children and young people attending school Out of Bristol.
children and young people living in residential care
The project consisted of:
- Ongoing research of issues pertaining to the education of children
looked after.
- Visits to the young person’s education placement to talk to the
Designated Teacher for Children Looked After (See Appendix 1,
Suggested General Areas of Conversation with Designated
Teachers).
- Ongoing tracking, monitoring and assessment of placement changes,
attendance, attainment and Personal Education Plans (PEPs)
- Group meeting with young people
- Report dissemination
1
An interim report was presented by Shirley Marshall to Children’s Services Scrutiny on March 6 2006
3
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Project Activities
Due to circumstances beyond our control two councillors were unable to
complete the project reducing the children included from 36 to 24.
The comments made and the conclusions reached in this report by the
authors are based on information obtained from:
-
visits to schools and 4 questionnaires completed and returned by
a Designated Teacher (the answers are summarised at Appendix
2).
-
prompted comments by teachers (Appendix 3)
-
prompted comments by social workers (Appendix 4)
-
phone call to one school and an interview with the carer because a
pupil with complex needs effectively was not attending the school
(Appendix 5)
Elected Members met with 5 young people at the Council House on
Friday 2 June for consultation on their views and experiences. The event
was facilitated by an organisation called VOICE and was deemed to be a
success, enjoyed by the young people and members. A bullet point list
of the collated views and opinions of the young people can be found at
Appendix 6.
The Personal Education Plan’s (PEP’s) obtained from the Education of
Children Looked After Service (ECLAS), Social Workers and Teachers
were compared and assessed (summary at Appendix 7).
Elected Members were supplied with attendance data from ECLAS. A
sample is summarised at Appendix 8 with results of further work shown
at Appendix 9, Comparison of Non-Attendance, and Appendix 10,
Achieving Good Attendance.
Some work has been done regarding the effect of placement stabi lity,
or the lack of it, on attainment through the Key Stages. We found that
during the past three years, one young person has had eleven
placement changes, another young person six placements and two
others have had five social workers in the same period, with one of these
four young people seemingly progressing well. You will understand,
4
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
given the importance of tracking individual students through the various
key stages, why we consider this work to be ongoing.
The outturn for the attainment performance indicators for CLA over the
past three years is shown in Appendix 11. The other indicators are those
highlighted in the Social Exclusion Units report on Education of Children
Looked After published in September 2003. A synopsis of the report is in
Appendix 12.
Project Findings
1.
The majority of designated teachers were welcoming and clearly
wanted the best for the children looked after in their school. It was
found that several of the designated teachers regarded this role as a
very small part of their job, and did not have detailed knowledge of
the children looked after within their school. Responsibility was
therefore shared with other teachers (heads of year etc.) and it was
not always clear who was responsible for what. There was no
designated teacher at two of the out of authority schools visited.
2.
There were many examples of the relationship between social
workers and designated teachers working well, although there were
some examples of a perceived breakdown in communication.
3.
It was found that some confusion existed around what support was
available for children looked after and how to access it. One school
was unaware of current support available for children looked after
leaving school.
4.
ECLAS was generally held in high regard by schools. One Bristol
school commented that it was very easy to arrange additional
funding for an out of authority child who attended the school, whilst
ECLAS did not always have the resources to respond immediately to
requests for support.
5.
It was found that there could be confusion between the roles of the
SEN Governor and Children Looked After Governor and some
schools had chosen to combine these roles; other schools did not
have any Governor designated for the children in our care. We were
surprised to find that schools being governed by an Interim
Executive Board made no provision for children in our care, this
obviously calls for more vigilance.
5
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.
Member’s visits to schools highlighted low participation rates in Out
of School Hours Learning (OSHL). During the consultation, young
people reported that they wanted to be more involved in OSHL and
that current funding and transport arrangements can be prohibitive to
participation.
7.
When the young people attending the consultation event were asked
“ what would they like the Council (aka, the Corporate Parent) to do”,
they responded:
-
let them see their parents more
provide more training for teachers
provide more activities for after school paid for social services
provide music options paid for
see that there is someone to talk to and listen when you need
One of their comments was that we should let the children and
young people in our care know who their local councillors are.
8.
Young people reported that they were not involved in personal
education planning (PEPs) and that this was a process that was
“done to them”. Four young people who came to the consultation
reported that they had never seen a PEP.
9.
There were a number of issues around the completion, recording
and availability of PEPs, these are a crucial joint planning tool for
children looked after. Many of the PEPs that were reviewed were
not up to date, not correctly filled in, and had crucial information
missing. Target setting was variable and often not related to
academic attainment and transitional arrangements were not
adequately planned for (Appendix 7).
10. Bullying remains a key issue for children looked after with one young
person reporting that she deliberately got into trouble in order to be
separated from peers in unstructured times.
11. Young people reported that getting to school on time was difficult;
particularly where taxis were involved and long journeys to school
were necessary. This could lead to disruption for the young person’s
school day and punishment for lateness.
6
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. The attendance of children looked after included in the study gave
no cause for concern (Appendix 8).
However, the research
undertaken indicated that 20.2% of children looked after by Bristol
City Council missed over 25 days school last year (2004/2005),
(Appendix 9). The result of the follow up investigation undertaken by
ECLAS into the 8% achieved by Sandwell is shown in Appendix 10.
Recommendations
1. In relation to PEPs:
1.1
PEP meetings need to be more ‘child-centred’ with the social
worker spending time with the young person beforehand so that
both are clear about what the young person wants to say.
Particular attention needs to be given to asking about issues of
bullying and any transport difficulties that need to be addressed
in the meeting.
1.2
There should be a greater priority within the Authority to ensure
that targets for the completion of Personal Education Plans are
achieved. Robust systems need to be established to ensure
that the 20 days initial PEP, and 3 and 6 monthly reviews are
conducted i.e. clarity needed in respect of who organises the
PEP meeting, how the completion of PEPs and their quality
assurance is monitored. Consideration should be given to
establishing a dedicated clerical post to facilitate PEP meetings.
1.3
Ensure that PEPs are distributed in a timely fashion to the
appropriate adults in the child’s life to improve communication
and support for the young person.
1.4
Schools should be supported in the target setting of PEPs to
highlight educational attainment and promote high expectations.
1.5
Targets set for children and young people in PEPs must be
reviewed and evidence recorded that actions are taken.
1.6
PEPs need to be completed in line with Government
recommendations when planning for school changes/transfer
issues.
7
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.7
A review of the PEP’s format and content is needed with
particular attention being given to the young person having the
opportunity to write or dictate what they think about the process
and their needs. There is evidence of other authorities doing
some of this better.
1.8
Children looked after should be supported and encouraged to
be involved in Out of School Hours Learning opportunities (see
next recommendation).
2. In relation to Out of School Hours (OSHL) Learning:
2.1
A greater emphasis to OSHL should be given in the PEP
meetings supported by foster carers, social workers and
teachers.
2.2
Corporate Parents should set up a system to monitor
participation rates of children looked after in OSHL in order to
establish a baseline and set targets for improvement.
2.3
The Children Looked After Strategy Group should give
consideration to implementing the continYou project, “Taking
Part: making out-of-school-hours learning happen for children in
care”for the next financial year.
2.4
Work to prioritise the inclusion of Children Looked After in the
work of supplementary schools should be included in the remit
of the Supplementary Schools Coordinator.
2.5
All those providing a service to Children Looked After outside
school e.g. Youth Service, YOT, Leisure, Health and others
should bear in mind the young people expressed a need for
someone to listen to them, the challenge being for us to make
good use of the information obtained.
3. In relation to the role of the Designated Teacher:
3.1
Promote training for designated Children Looked After teachers
with the aim that 100 per cent of our schools have a trained
teacher in situ.
8
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2
Produce a job description for designated teachers of Children
Looked After to aid clarity to the role and responsibilities. This
should include responsibility for knowing who in the school the
young person feels comfortable with when talking about their
concerns.
3.3
The Director of Children and Young People’s Services to
consider asking Headteachers to safeguard time for designated
teachers to carry out their role effectively and to highlight the
importance of having a policy in place to promote and support
education for Children Looked After.
3.4
Ask Finance to undertake a piece of work to present to the
Schools’ Forum to introduce an additional element into the
formula funding allocation for numbers of children looked after
on roll.
4. In relation to Corporate Parenting:
4.1
The Council to consider establishing a Corporate Parent Group
composed of elected members and senior officers from across
the Council to better monitor and assess the outcomes for, and
services to, children looked after by the Local Authority.
4.2
Ask Strategic Leads for Children Looked After to look at issues
for attendance and attainment for young people placed in
kinship care with an action to improve outcomes.
4.3
Put in place measures to implement the recommendation from
the Social Exclusion Unit Report “if a child does not have a
school place, local authorities should make immediate
alternative arrangements to provide full-time education”.
4.4
Obtain an external view on the efficacy of current arrangements
in supporting the education of children looked after e.g.
undertake self assessment using the Audit Commission toolkit
“Educational Achievement of Children in Care”.
4.5
Improve joint planning arrangements to ensure that children
and young people placed out of authority have an education
placement found prior to moving unless for some reason not in
the child’s or young persons best interest.
9
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.6
Strengthen existing systems to improve the attendance rates of
Children Looked After in Bristol schools.
4.7
Support for children should be equal regardless of placement in
or out of authority and be awarded on a case-by-case basis.
Members to consider adopting this as a principle and look into
financial implications.
4.8 Update the internet and intranet resources so that those with
Corporate Parenting responsibilities can easily access up-todate information on what support is available for the education
for Children Looked After (both pre and post-16) and how to
access it.
5. In relation to Governors:
5.1
Governing Bodies need to be reminded of the need for separate
roles for SEN and Children Looked After named governors.
5.2
Survey to be made of Bristol Schools (at least) to identify the
Governors responsible for the CLA in their schools, the result to
be listed on the Education Intranet with the Designated
Teachers.
6. In relation to attendance:
6.1
The conclusion reached with regard to improving attendance
(Appendix 10) was tighter systems and liaison. The detail
should be considered with the aim of trying out some initiatives
to see if they work in Bristol. This should be done in
conjunction with a review of the outcomes achieved by
implementing the recommendations of the Inclusion and
Exclusion Select Committees.
7. In relation to report dissemination:
7.1
A version of this report should be produced for dissemination to
young people, schools, Corporate Parents, and all
professionals involved with Children Looked After.
10
Elected Members Report
Education of Children Looked After Project
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.2
The findings of the consultation with young people should be
presented to the Children Looked After Strategy Group.
11
Appendix 1
Suggested General Areas of Conversation with the Designated Teacher
-
their role is and how they find it
-
Have they had training?
-
What support they get for their role and who from?
-
Relationships with social workers, carers, LEA with regard to the
young people
-
Does the school have a policy regarding promoting and supporting
the education of children looked after?
-
General issues that children and young people face in school
-
Is there a lead governor for children looked after in the school and
if so, how do you liaise?
-
Does the school nurse have a specific role for children looked
after?
Specific Questions about looked after Young Person
How is young person doing in school?
- Prior attainment (value added)?
- Attendance
- out of school hours learning involvement, including teams/school
trips
- PEP
- what additional support being put in by (a) school (b) others
- who comes to parents’evening
- what impacts on young person’s learning?
12
Appendix 2
Designated Teacher Questionnaire
Number of Secondary Schools: 10
Number of Primary Schools: 9
Total number of responses analysed: 19
Primary (9)
A.
What is their role?
Monitoring
Secondary (10)
Total (19)
4
44%
3
30%
7
37%
individuals
4
44%
3
30%
7
37%
Monitor PEPs
2
22%
2
11%
Other:
5
55%
9
47%
Performance
Support for
4
40%
Comment: Most ‘other’ responses relate to liaison / co-ordination work
12
Primary (9)
B.
Have they had training?
In School
Secondary (10)
Total (19)
1
10%
1
5%
5
50%
8
42%
1
5%
From ECLAS
3
33%
National:
1
11%
Other (SENCO)
5
55%
2
20%
7
37%
None:
1
11%
2
20%
3
16%
13
Primary (9)
C. Do they get support for their
role?
Secondary (10)
Total (19)
Headteacher:
3
33%
1
10%
4
21%
ECLAS:
5
55%
5
50%
10
52%
Governor:
1
11%
1
5%
2
22%
5
26%
2
22%
2
11%
Other (Heads of
Year/LEA)
None:
3
30%
Comment: High level of non response to this question
Teachers in out of authority schools responses suggest they get
support from similar sources as those in Bristol schools.
D. What sort of support do they
get?
Time to do the job:
2
20%
2
11%
3
30%
5
26%
Practical ideas:
1
10%
1
5%
Other (mentors):
2
20%
2
11%
3
30%
3
16%
Information:
No response
2
7
22%
77%
14
Primary (9)
E. What other relationships do
they have with regard to the
young person?
F. What is the quality of
relationships (expressed as
an average of responses)?
Secondary (10)
Total (19)
Social workers:
7
77%
6
60%
13
68%
Carers:
7
77%
9
90%
16
84%
LEA:
5
55%
8
80%
13
68%
Social workers:
Good
Carers:
Good
LEA:
Ok
Comment: The responses to this question varied enormously, particularly in
respect of Social Workers - the above merely reflects an average
response for each group.
G. Does the school have a
policy for children looked
after?
Yes:
6
66%
6
60%
12
63%
No:
2
22%
4
40%
6
32%
Other (Don’t know):
1
11%
1
5%
In Progress:
15
Primary (9)
H. What general issues does the
young person or child face in
school?
Behind with work:
Secondary (10)
Total (19)
1
11%
2
20%
3
16%
Behaviour difficulties:
2
22%
3
30%
5
26%
Other:
3
33%
4
40%
7
37%
No response:
4
44%
3
30%
7
37%
Time out of School:
Comment: ‘Other’ responses include lack of confidence / low self esteem,
isolation and disruptive friendship groups. High level of non
response to this question.
I. Is there a named governor
for children looked after?
Yes:
6
66%
4
40%
10
52%
3
33%
5
50%
8
42%
1
10%
1
5%
In Progress:
No:
Don’t Know
16
Primary (9)
J. How do you and they liaise?
Secondary (10)
Total (19)
Regular meetings:
4
44%
2
20%
6
32%
ad-hoc basis:
2
22%
1
10%
3
16%
1
10%
1
5%
5
50%
8
42%
no liaison:
Other:
No response:
3
33%
Comment: High level of non response to this question
K. Does the school nurse have a
specific role for children
looked after?
L. Attainment Issues?
M. Attendance Issues?
Yes:
2
22%
2
20%
4
21%
No:
6
66%
8
80%
14
74%
Don’t Know:
1
11%
1
5%
Yes:
3
33%
5
50%
8
42%
No:
4
44%
4
40%
8
42%
No response
2
22%
2
11%
Yes:
No:
9
100%
2
20%
2
11%
8
80%
17
89%
17
Primary (9)
N. Involvement in out of School
Hours Learning?
P. Additional Support available
in school?
Total (19)
School team(s) :
School trips:
3
33%
2
20%
5
26%
After school club(s):
4
44%
3
30%
7
37%
Other:
1
11%
4
40%
5
26%
response
5
55%
3
30%
8
42%
In last 6 months:
4
44%
5
50%
9
47%
More than 6 months
1
11%
2
20%
3
16%
Not available:
3
33%
2
20%
5
26%
Other / Not known:
1
11%
1
10%
2
11%
Catch up:
3
33%
2
20%
5
26%
Learning mentor:
1
11%
3
30%
4
21%
SENCO:
1
10%
1
5%
Other:
2
20%
2
11%
3
30%
7
39%
Don’t Know / No
O. PEP?
Secondary (10)
No response:
4
44%
18
Primary (9)
Q. Other support available?
Catch up:
Secondary (10)
Total (19)
1
10%
1
5%
4
40%
4
21%
3
30%
12
63%
1
5%
Behavior support:
Attendance support:
Other (Connexions):
No response:
9
100%
Comment: Very high level of non response to this question
R. Who attends parent’s
evening?
Birth parent:
1
11%
Carer:
8
89%
8
80%
16
84%
Don’t know:
2
20%
2
11%
Instability:
1
10%
1
5%
2
20%
4
21%
4
40%
4
21%
2
20%
9
47%
Social worker:
S. What impacts on this young
person’s learning?
Emotional issues:
2
22%
time out of school:
other:
Don’t Know / No
Response
7
77%
19
Primary (9)
T. How does the child get to
school?
with peers?
Total (19)
Makes own way:
2
22%
7
70%
9
47%
with Carer:
2
22%
2
20%
4
21%
Taxi:
1
11%
1
5%
response
4
44%
1
10%
5
26%
No problems:
4
44%
7
70%
11
58%
Some problems:
2
22%
1
10%
3
16%
1
10%
1
5%
Don’t Know / No
U. How does the child get on
Secondary (10)
Lots of problems:
20
Appendix 3
Notes and Comments from
Visits to Designated Teachers
The following are some of the things said by Designated teachers
when asked for their comments.
“There is a need for clarity on who has access to child. Suggest
that when register received from ECLAS should show acceptable
contacts.”
“Child not funded as far as I know”
Has seen Education Psychiatrist
Maybe went to (Particular Primary School).
Letter sent to SENCO – ECLAS but no Contact.
No request received for SAT’s (results).
Meeting arranged on day teacher does not work.
“I feel generally the Looked After Children Service is poorly
supported by designated social workers”
“I think ECLAS is very good”
“The people who have had dealings with the Child Looked after,
Social Service’s, the Care Home, Connexions, Education Welfare,
need to follow through on Initial Assessment, Current Assessment,
PARIS and the LAC Review.”
“In some instances the aim is to keep the young person alive and
then balance attainment against their health and safety”
“I’m a teacher not a Social Worker”
“Staff should be given training regarding attachment disorder”
“Need to encourage youngsters to express own feelings and name
emotions”
“Need support for Foster Carers with regard to handling first parent
relationships”
21
-
Input to meetings; may use EBD coordinator to stand in for
Designated Teacher.
-
PEP planning and meetings not linke d to School.
-
Was aware that PEP is scheduled but unable to get details
from Social Services.
“We need access to information with regard to checking safety of
child released to person calling at school to collect”
-
Questions the stability of education wit h change of Foster
Carers.
-
Believes no Transport for CLA since Jan 2005
-
DT felt from past experience with Looked After Children that
the most effective work done through multi -agency teams
and that the Individual Education Plan for the group the child
was in was more helpful that the Personal Education Plan.
-
DT saw role as being responsible for checking that PEP’s
were done because this was the only way of getting the
necessary help for children.
-
The LEA seemed to take a while to discover which looked
after children were at the school from outside Bristol.
-
Looked After Children issues were discussed at the SEN and
Curriculum governors sub committee.
-
DT didn’t have a copy of the PEP because the Social Worker
had taken it away.
-
Extra support identified by a PEP can take as long as six
months to be put in place for a Bristol child in contrast to
immediate authorisation over the telephone for 1 to 1 support
with invoice at end of term for a child the responsibility of an
authority out of Bristol.
-
The DT and Class Teacher were grateful that someone was
visiting the school and asking these questions.
22
-
DT not aware of any member of the IEB having a brief for
CLA or Special Needs.
-
DT thought school nurse should have specific role for CLA
and thought links with heal th are poor but acknowledged how
helpful the CAHM’s worker is.
-
School had still not received SATs results from previous
school nearly a year after the transfer.
-
DT felt the pupil would be very vulnerable without the support
of friends and staff within the structured life of the school.
The School would make sure that Connexions were involved
and hope they would see that something suitable for the
pupil would be in place.
-
The DT didn’t know whether Connexions prioritised CLA but
thought they should.
-
DT thought special attention to CLA matters should be paid
when schools were having difficulties.
-
DT said that contact with Social workers, Carers and the LEA
with respect to specific children is delegated to the CLA’s
Key worker (such as head of year) or Speci fic SEN teacher
as appropriate.
-
The school’s feeling that the number of units allocated to a
statement for a pupil were inadequate asked for a review,
this resulted in a 51% increase.
Soon after this an
assessment was done by another authority that result ed in a
240% increase on the original assessment.
-
DT felt it would be helpful if there were a link between
Bristol’s ECLAS and the equivalent organisation in the
Authorities in which our children are being educated, this to
try and make sure that our child ren are not disadvantaged.
-
DT questioned the reason why a learning mentor had not
been sought for a sibling who she thought would have
benefit from having one.
23
-
DT’s Local Authority’s Looked After Children are lent laptops
in years10/11 to improve their cha nces in GCSE attainment
and thought it possible that our young person might have got
better grades with one.
-
The DT mentioned the extra support given, by fostering
agencies, to those Looked After Children at the school who
are in private foster placements .
-
A Head of Year said that although Bristol fill out PEP’s the
Local Authority does not.
-
Head of Year also mentioned the time when the School and
Young Person preferred a college course leading to a
modern apprenticeship rather than continuing with GCSE’s,
whereas the LA’s representative insisted on continuing with
the GCSE. The Head of Year felt this had been a political
decision and worried for the young person.
24
Appendix 4
Social Workers comments
-
SW has not contacted teacher but has contacted Learning
Support Assistant.
-
Carer has the contact with the Designated Teacher.
-
SW will be contacting school next week to arrange about
PEP.
-
Contact made in school with Head of Year and Teacher.
-
Generally have difficulty with availability of someone in
schools.
-
YP’s case has been referred to CAMH’s who have asked
Catch Point (organisation which has as one of its specialties
working with adopted families and foster carers) for a written
assessment of YP and recommendations.
-
When asked for clarification regarding Pastoral E P, SW
mentioned IEP Profile.
-
Seem not familiar with ‘designated teacher’referring to ‘Head
of School’and ‘SENCO with school’
-
Believes should not be SW’s job to fill out PEP as teacher in
school has a better idea of what is required for education.
-
Will do PEP soon.
25
Appendix 5
Example of Young Person with complex needs who in
effect is not attending school
Social Workers perspective
This young person not guilty of breaking windows but guilty of not
going to school, attended about 20 days in the last two years.
Social Worker believes that a young person getting suspended
then excluded is more likely to get support from various agencies
than someone who, through no fault of their own, has not attended
school for long periods (need to look at education history prior to
becoming known to Social Services).
Head of Year kept young person on school roll through difficult
times.
Other Authority decides against giving young person a place in
PRU whilst awaiting Bristol’s response to claim that PRU type
service is required .
Young person changing residential children’s homes (need to
check if this recorded as placement change)
Social Worker and ECLAS trying to get an early place at College
(query Connexions involvement).
Social Worker believes not enough provision for gir ls, boys only,
mentioned Redcross St, The Park, Gateway (Boys) St Werburgs
and Special Residential Schools.
Social Worker believes that although it is important that PEP’s are
done and kept up to date it is even more important that they are
implemented, monitored and the outcomes assessed.
Carers perspective
Young peron determined not to go to school and will use any
excuse/reason, usually concerns with health, not to go.
26
Carer makes strenuous attempts to get young person to go to
school, eventually tak ing the young person to school, but cannot
ensure that they do not leave at the first opportunity.
Eventually a Looked After Child Review is set up followed by a
number of meetings for the young person, Carer, Education
Welfare Officer and the Social Work er to discuss and agree what
practical measures can be put in place. Still the young person will
not attend school.
Carer asks school about a PRU meeting. PRU, and reducing time
required to be spent at school, considered as a way forward.
If the young person is of an age the Connexions Service or the
Care and After team maybe asked to see if some alternative
education or training would be more appropriate e.g. College.
Young person attends Hospital Education Service. This service
teaches pupils who ar e expected to be in hospital for more than
four days or have complex medical health needs, providing
education consistent with the national curriculum.
27
Appendix 6
Young Person’s thoughts on what affects
their learning
Top 3 things you would like Councillors to take away from
today:
-
let them see parents more (if appropriate)
more training for teachers
more activities for after school paid for social services
music options paid for
someone to talk to and listen when you need it in school
Your Space (write anything you want)
-
teacher to talk to
-
embarrassing when social worker comes into school
-
time out to talk to someone (sometimes no one there)
-
help in lessons is annoying – say something
-
how to be kind to children and not shout at them
-
more games to keep you healthy
-
life skills and socialising day to help you make friends and to make you
feel safer
-
being listened to and having someone to talk to
-
more PE
-
Parent’s Evening – tag for name put label of foster carer on – shouldn’t
happen
-
exclusion room when you get in troub le
-
wrong to get excluded for silly things (especially when exams coming
up)
Teachers (Do you know what a designated teacher is?)
-
don’t know how to deal with emotional problems
exclude you when you have an “off day”
just want to talk to someone
Who do you go to for advice on problems?
28
-
animals
carers
social worker
Getting help in school (What help should you get? What help
shouldn’t you get?)
-
don’t like it
they keep on at you
say some stuff over and over again
police liaison – never in and not helpful
Bullying (What can schools do about it? Do you get picked
on for being in care?)
-
could do better at being bullied
more training for teachers
too many fights – just tell them off
listen to people being bullied
not trained s taff to deal with it – fighting
School Transport (How do you get to school? What are the
good and bad things?)
-
taxis always late
traffic on Portway
forgot to pick up a few times
taxis late to school many times (10.30am)
get put on report and detention for being late when taxi doesn’t tur n up
disrupts your day when transport late
Talking to the Council (How can we encourage more young
people to talk?)
-
know who your councillor is – advertise who you are
After School Stuff (What do you do? What would you like to
do?)
-
football
-
should be free for after school
-
athletics
-
art club
29
-
cheerleading (£120 for outfit)
-
trampolining (£2.50 - £4.00 per week)
-
more PE and more active stuff
-
social services paid for trip to France
-
more money for activities from social services – important for
socialising and building confidence
Personal Education Plans (What do you think?)
-
don’t ask what you want – get told
have never seen plan (x 4 young people)
want to be more involved
30
Appendix 7
Assessment of Personal Education Plans
An assessment of the PEP’s collected together for 12 of the young
people showed there were issues around the completion,
recording and availability of PEP’s. Many of the PEP’s were not up
to date, not correctly filled in and had crucial information missing.
Target setting was variable and often not related to academic
attainment and transitional arrangements were not adequately
planned for.
This is evidenced by:
1. There being a better than evens chance that the adults involved
with the Young Person did not have the same issue of PEP to
work with.
2. 6 of the 17 different PEP’s did not have the Plan Number
identified therefore breaking the audit trail and continuity.
Continuity is necessary if only to give the appropriate
acknowledgement when the objectives of the previous plan had
been reached.
3. 2 did not have the date of the PEP meeting filled in.
4. 7 did not include the date of the LAC Review associated with
the PEP. The Policy and Procedural Guidence for raising the
Education Achievment of Children Looked After. Section 4b (v)
states: “PEP meetings to be held two weeks before next LAC
Review”. Only one of the PEP’s have PEP date and LAC
review date consistent with this requirement. The others
followed a pattern of the LAC Review being four to six months
after the PEP.
5. Examples of most recent assessment:
-
3 completely blank @ KS/YG 3/9, 2/9, -/8. The last of
these indicated that an IEP is in place but did not attach a
copy.
-
KS/YG 4/9 “Seen last (year 6) SATS tests. Results with
mother”
-
KS/YG 2/3 “No results as yet”
31
-
KS/YG 1/1 “Not Applicable”
KS/YG 3/8 “See most recent school reports” reports not
attached.
6. Examples of: Young Persons Targets before next PEP
- “Complete Homework”
- “Achieve calm and time out during classes to enable YP to
work effectively.
- “Continue to work to Targets set in No.2” This in PEP that
had blank ‘Most recent assessment’and no Plan Number.
- “Sit quietly on carpet and work in YP’s group and listen to
adults at play -time”.
- “Keep quiet in silent reading. Put up hand, not interrupt when
I’m talking to others in the group”.
- “See IEP attached” (IEP not attached).
- “Improve ability to manage and organise tasks
independently. Develop strategies for anger management
and handling conflict”
- “To have a successful transition to Secondary School. For
all professionals to be involved and suppo rtive.”
Three of the young people had a statement of SEN.
None had been subject to Fixed Term Exclusions.
One YP is recorded as SSENA.
Only six of the PEP’s received were signed by the Social Worker
and four signed by the Young Person.
There is a need to make clear the significance and difference
between ‘Individual Pupil Targets’ & ‘Young person targets to
be achieved before the next plan” both appear as a requirement
on the PEP form.
32
We wonder whether the child or young person can
understand the language used at meetings if it is the same as
the written record.
33
Appendix 8
Attendance (from attendance records) of Young
People in projects sample.
Pupil Sec/Prim
Possible
days
%
Attended
Date
From
Date
To
A
Primary
154
98.38*
02/08/04
03/06/05
A
Primary
65
100
01/08/05
16/12/05
B
Secondary
155
99.35*
02/08/04
03/06/05
B
Secondary
64
99.2*
01/08/05
16/12/05
C
Secondary
95
100
09/12/04
03/06/05
C
Secondary
42
(26 not
required
to attend
6
01/8/05
16/12/05
D
Primary
153
80.39*
02/8/04
03/06/05
D
Primary
67
98.51*
01/8/05
16/12/05
E
Primary
F
Secondary
156
99.68*
02/8/04
03/06/05
F
Secondary
67
98.51*
01/8/05
16/12/05
G
Primary
156
98.08*
02/8/04
03/06/05
G
Primary
88.3
Remarks
Change of
School
Educated
Off site
Absence of
32% is
Authorised
83.7%
from
PEP
May04
NB. * All absences were authorised
34
Appendix 9
Attendance of Children Looked After 2004 – 05
The following data refers to children continually looked after for a period of
one year from 30 th Sept 2004 to 30 th Sept 2005.
Analysis
General
Missing 25 days schooling or more.
A total of 71 pupils missed between 25 days to a whole year during this
period.
Primary
7
10%
Yr 7
6
8%
Boys
Girls
Yr 8
7
10%
37
34
Yr 9
12
17%
Yr 10
21
29%
Yr 11
18
25%
53%
47%
Secondary Data
64 pupils missed 25 days or more
Bristol
Mainstream
Bristol
special
Bristol
Alt
provision
OOA
mainstream
OOA
special
OOA Alt
provision
No
school
Psychiatric
care
25
35%
10
14%
6
8%
10
14%
2
3%
7
10%
3
4%
1
1%
In general the vast majority of pupils missing 25 days or more were of
secondary school age. Over 50% of these were in Bristol provision.
Actions being taken to address attendance issues:
1. 17 (24%) were affected by placement moves
The ECLAS Children’s Officer now sits on the Access to Resources Panel
in order to put in place systems to reduce the number of placement moves
without education in place.
2. 7 (10%) over 10 days medical includes 1 at the Meriton and 2 at special
schools.
Medical codes for absence are due to change so that we will be able to
ascertain whether this absence is due to illness or medical appointments
and take action as necessary.
3. 13 (18%) were affected by exclusion
35
The Behaviour Support Service receive weekly data on children looked
after and fixed term exclusion and take appropria te action with Bristol
schools.
Sometimes in order to avoid permanent exclusion it is necessary to have a
longer fixed term exclusion period to create support packages.
Headteachers and designated teachers are working with ECLAS on this.
4. 7 (10%) had periods of family holiday in term time
This matter is being followed up with foster carers to remind them of the
need to avoid family holidays in term time.
5. 11 (15%) had periods of ‘authorised or other authorised circumstances’
24 (34%) had periods shown a s ‘unauthorised absence’
The DfES Behaviour and Attendance Consultant is working with Bristol
secondary school attendance officers monitoring, challenging and
supporting them to put in place systems to improve children looked after
attendance.
The Primary Education Welfare Officers monitor primary absence and take
similar action to that above.
Comparative data
Over 25 days absence 2004 - 2005
Bristol
cohort
351
Leeds
cohort
841
Derby
cohort
231
Bradford
cohort
464
Sandwell
cohort
305
Calderdale
cohort
132
Newcastle
cohort
262
Salford
cohort
360
Trafford
cohort
119
20.2%
16%
12.2%
18%
8%
9.85%
15%
24%
20%
Pauline Cole, Achievement Co -ordinator in ECLAS has compared our data
with statistical neighbours and is currently contacting Sa ndwell for information
regarding what procedures they have in place to enable them to achieve 8%.
The attendance of children looked after is an increasingly high priority for
officers and is reported to the Attendance Change Team led by Pauline
Marsden.
A group of officers will be meeting to discuss further actions necessary on
Wed 8 th March.
S:\mcdowall\other\attendance of cla.doc
36
Appendix 10
Sandwell Visit - 6th April 2006
Main reasons for success: Tight systems and liaison.
EWS report to LACE as soon as cla reach 10 days (EWS in all
Sandwell schools)
Long term absence group where any young person with 20 days
continuous absence is reported and registered – triggers response
from Pupil engagement team.
Also guarantees funding for
alternative provision. Head ed by Extended schools lead officer.
There are two brokerage officers, one for children in school and
one for children not in school. This applies to all cla regardless of
home authority.
OOA - about 40 in high tariff special provision where attendance
not an issue.
Rest with agency carers and in general in
mainstream education. Some IFPs have own education base but
will only count this as education if of a sound base. New Horizons
use NTAS to integrate into school or provide tuition.
Majority of OOA are under 5
Social workers work for, either, Advice, Assessment and Referral
team, Child Protection or Long term Looked After Team. At any
one time approx 2/3 of lac with long term looked after team.
AA&R team contact LACE as soon as it looks as thou gh a child
may become accommodated, before they are passed to long term
lac team. This allows discussion re school, transport etc.
The whole of the long term looked after team meet monthly and
LACE have 30 minute slot – they raise outstanding PEPs, thei r
initiatives, absence patterns etc.
What else do they do differently?
There is a Corporate Parenting Board. This consists of Deputy
Chief Exec, Director Children’s Services, Director of Housing,
Director of Leisure, Representative from Voluntary se ctor, 1
elected member with responsibility for vulnerable children and
representative from Health. This group meets monthly. Not only
feels corporate parenting taken seriously but has also helped place
cla on modern apprenticeships within authority. LAC E provides
37
quarterly report and other agencies have to report as well. Also
receives reports from LAC via group where there is a full time
participation officer who recruits and pays cla .
All schools receive 25% of AWPU (about £600 -£700) for every cla
including those placed by other authorities. This is paid termly and
obviously stops the term after yp leaves. Monitoring of this is an
issue and LACE have not been able to undertake this but does
give weight when arguing for additional support in school or for dt
to be released for training.
Central SEN funding given to school for cla including those looked
after by other authorities – this is not statementing money but
funding agreed by SEN team based on need. This follows the
child even OOA.
New contracts with foster carers includes agreement not to take
holidays in term time and also to attend at least 3 training sessions
a year. Kinship care is an issue in Sandwell around attendance
and achievement.
38
Appendix 11
Young People Looked After by Local Authority
Attainment and Attendance.
% YP leaving Care with at least 1 GCSE grade A* - G (cohort)
LA
02-03
Outturn
03-04
Outturn
04 –05
Outturn
Bristol
40 (50)
43.2 (35)
52.1 (50)
Banes
85 (15)
66.7 (10)
- (10)
North Somerset
57 (15)
- (5)
- (10)
South Glos
55 (20)
40 (15)
73.3 (15)
Ofsted Statistical Neighbours
Bolton
55 (20)
37.5 (15)
44.4 (20)
Derby
39 (35)
58.8 (35)
62.1 (30)
Kirklees
47 (30)
36.8 (20)
41.2 (15)
Southampton
69 (30)
64.5 (30)
60 (20)
Walsall
50 (30)
52 (25)
53.3 (30)
Bury
36 (20)
61.9 (20)
56.3 (15)
Enfield
54 (40)
51.6 (30)
84.2 (20)
Leeds
50 (90)
65.3 (100)
64.4 (100)
Stockton
71 (15)
60 (15)
72.7 (10)
Wirral
53 (30)
52.5 (40)
65.1 (45)
% YP leaving Care aged 16+ with at least 5 GCSE’s A*-C
(cohort)
LA
02-03
Outturn
03-04
Outturn
04 –05
Outturn
Bristol
- (50)
0 (35)
- (50)
Banes
- (15)
0 (10)
- (10)
North Somerset
0 (15)
0 (5)
- (10)
South Glos
- (20)
0 (15)
- (15)
Ofsted Statistical Neighbours
Bolton
- (20)
- (15)
- (20)
Derby
- (35)
- (35)
- (30)
Kirklees
- (30)
- (20)
- (15)
39
Southampton
0 (30)
- (30)
0 (20)
Walsall
- (30)
- (25)
- (30)
Bury
- (20)
- (20)
- (15)
Enfield
- (40)
- (30)
- (20)
Leeds
- (90)
- (100)
13.9 (100)
Stockton
- (15)
0 (15)
- (10)
Wirral
- (30)
15 (40)
- (45)
% YP looked after aged 16 in Education, Training or
Employment aged 19 (cohort)
LA
02-03
Outturn
03-04
Outturn
04 –05
Outturn
Bristol
41 (30)
89.2 (35)
81.3 (50)
Banes
55 (5)
66.7 (10)
- (10)
North Somerset
67 (10)
0 (5)
- (10)
South Glos
64 (10)
80 (15)
60 (15)
Ofsted Statistical Neighbours
Bolton
60 (10)
50 (15)
50 (20)
Derby
71 (20)
61.8 (35)
86.2 (30)
Kirklees
62 (25)
78.9 (20)
58.8 (15)
Southampton
69 (20)
80.6 (30)
60 (20)
Walsall
46 (10)
56 (25)
70 (30)
Bury
62 (10)
81 (20)
75 (15)
Enfield
37 (10)
68.4 (20)
Leeds
47 (35)
77.2 (100)
Stockton
- (- )
64.5 (30)
67.3
(100)
73.3 (15)
Wirral
42 (10)
52.5 (40)
69.8 (45)
54.5 (10)
PAF C24 % of CLA who missed 25 or more days Schooling in
previous year (cohort)
LA
02-03
Outturn
03-04
Outturn
04 –05
Outturn
Bristol
18.8 (330)
19.4 (310)
20.2 (350)
40
Banes
13.3 (85)
9 (80)
10 (70)
North Somerset
8 (85)
- (85)
9.9 (80)
South Glos
0 (75)
7.7 (90)
18.4 (85)
Ofsted Statistical Neighbours
Bolton
16.9 (170)
16.9 (170)
14.9 (210)
Derby
11.9 (255)
13.6 (235)
12.1 (230)
Kirklees
18.8 (145)
19.7 (145)
14.7 (155)
Southampton
23.8 (200)
14.1 (200)
7.9 (225)
Walsall
11.8 (285)
9.1 (295)
8 (290)
Bury
4.4 (160)
4.6 (150)
15 (160)
Enfield
8.8 (170)
9.5 (170)
10.6 (160)
Leeds
18.7 (855)
16 (855)
14.8 (825)
Stockton
11.5 (115)
6.1 (100)
14 (100)
Wirral
16.3 (305)
16.3 (400)
13.8 (425)
% of schooling lost in local authority through unauthorised
absence (cohort) Primary ALL CHILDREN
LA
02-03
Outturn
03-04
Outturn
04 –05
Outturn
Bristol
0.93
0.89
0.90
Banes
0.32
0.32
0.28
North Somerset
0.31
0.26
0.28
South Glos
0.27
0.21
0.24
Ofsted Statistical Neighbours
Bolton
0.33
0.33
0.37
Derby
0.61
0.60
0.67
Kirklees
0.41
0.40
0.35
Southampton
0.60
0.66
0.75
Walsall
0.47
0.40
0.39
Bury
0.28
0.25
0.21
Enfield
1.11
0.81
0.75
Leeds
0.43
0.39
0.39
Stockton
0.21
0.22
0.29
Wirral
0.41
0.30
0.27
41
% of schooling lost in local authority through unauthorised
absence (cohort) Secondary ALL CHILDREN
LA
02-03
Outturn
03-04
Outturn
04 –05
Outturn
Bristol
2.05
2.23
2.52
Banes
0.83
0.83
0.95
North Somerset
1.13
1.03
0.79
South Glos
1.25
1.09
0.90
Ofsted Statistical Neighbours
Bolton
1.14
1.37
1.85
Derby
1.25
1.71
1.79
Kirklees
1.19
1.09
1.06
Southampton
1.18
1.19
1.87
Walsall
0.86
1.09
1.14
Bury
0.70
0.49
0.50
Enfield
1.85
1.49
1.85
Leeds
1.92
2.00
1.89
Stockton
0.72
0.87
0.78
Wirral
0.54
0.61
0.54
The Number of Children permanently excluded from school
(cohort) ALL CHILDREN
LA
02-03
Outturn
03-04
Outturn
04 –05
Outturn
Bristol
70
50
50
% of
school
population
0.11
Banes
20
40
40
0.16
North Somerset
20
20
20
0.06
South Glos
50
60
70
0.17
Ofsted Statistical Neighbours
Bolton
70
50
60
0.14
Derby
100
100
90
0.22
Kirklees
40
50
60
0.10
42
Southampton
20
20
30
0.11
Walsall
40
40
30
0.05
Bury
50
50
30
0.12
Enfield
60
80
60
0.12
Leeds
150
180
120
0.11
Stockton
20
20
20
0.07
Wirral
50
60
60
0.12
43
Appendix 12
PM’s Social Exclusion Unit Report
on Education of Children Looked After
Quote from Albert Einstein
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we
used when we created them”
In March 2001, at the Prime Minister's request, a Children in Care
project was initiated to provide ‘A Better Education for Children
in Care’. One aim being to build on the success of Quality
Protects, as well as identify barriers to change using findings
based on widespread consultation with children and adults,
including the use of 'area studies'. It was concluded that poor
attainment leads to poor outcomes in later life.
Failure in care:
- contributes to crime, poor health outcomes, unemployment and
poor skills
- increases pressure on other key public services
- is intergenerational
There were positive messages from young people …
-
96% said they thought education was important “so you can
get a job when you’re big
-
93% said they thought they were treated the same, or better,
by teachers “Teachers are kinder to me just because I'm in
care”
-
41% said they liked 'learning' aspects of school
-
22% liked social aspects
-
8% liked “everything”“I love doing Shakespeare - it's brilliant”
And some worrying ones ...
1. 24% are out of mainstream school/college “I would love to know
everything about education but the social services won't help.
44
Since I have been under their care I haven't been to a proper
school. I lived at a school type thing when I was 12 and they put
me in a class with 8 year olds doing 8 year olds work”
2. 38% have moved school twice or more because of a change of
care placement “I don't know but I've moved a lot of times”
3. 40% have been excluded “Bad behaviour and out of school and
wagging classes”
Key Issues:
1. Improve Stability;
2. Reduce time out of school or other learning environments;
3. More help with education if children get behind;
4. Proactive support for education from primary carers;
5. Action to identif y and meet emotional, mental and physical
health needs
Some progress …
-
Raised awareness of children's needs
-
Improved outcomes for some children
-
Innovative practice
-
Joint training for designated teachers, social workers and
carers
-
Help for carers to suppor t education: books, ICT equipment,
library tickets
-
Additional funding ('bursaries') for children's support needs in
school
And some obstacles …
-
Attitudes
45
-
Capacity - people, skills, leadership
Resources
Practice
Structures
The new target:
Improve life chances by substantially narrowing the gap
between the educational attainment and participation
of children in care and that of their peers by 2006.
Success Criteria:
This target will have been achieved, if by 2006:
-
outcomes for 11 year olds in English and Maths are at least
60% as good as those of their peers.
-
the proportion who become disengaged from education is
reduced,
-
15% of young people in care achieve qualifications
equivalent to five GCSEs graded A*-C
Anything else you'd like to tell us?
“(School) has helped me go on with life and if it was not for
school I wouldn't cope at all”
“I would like to be in full time education. At the moment I
am receiving no form of education”
“I am very happy at school”
“Teachers need to stop assuming that people in care are
worse than everyone else. They should try and
understand our situation and maybe go on a course for
more information”.
Main Research Findings
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Education should be valued, encouraged and supported
Stability in home circumstances, especially at e xam times
Full information on degree and university places
Encouraging out of hours learning
Extra support for overseas students
46
Towards a Shared Understanding?
SAT Standard Attainment Tests are taken at the end of Key Stage
1,2 and 3 (i.e. at Year 2,6, and 9):
- National average at Key Stage 1 is Level 2*
- National average at Key Stage 2 is Level 4*
- National average at Key Stage 3 is Level 5*
*(These are targets for looked after children)
Special Educational Needs Code of Practice
Special Needs are covered by a national Code of Practice which
sets out clearly what schools should do. Carers, social workers
and other relevant people should be involved at all stages, and
whatever plans are made to support the child should be reviewed
regularly, at agreed dates .
The Code of Practice has been recently revised and the following
is a brief outline:
-
Any identified child should be catered for in whole class
planning
*
This should include specific targets
If that child needs further help the school will then proceed a s
follows:
School Action
-
The SENCO and the class teacher, together with the social
worker and parents/carers decide what is needed to help the
child progress.
-
LEA support services can be called on for advice
-
IEPs will be written
For Statutory Assessment
-
school should be able to provide evidence regarding:
47
-
the school's action through the above processes
IEPs
records of regular reviews and the outcomes
a Personal Education Plan
health and medical history
National Curriculum Levels
attainments in literacy an d numeracy
educational assessments
other assessments e.g. Educational Psychologist's/medical
views of parent/carers and child
involvement of other professionals
IEP Individual Education Plan
SMART targets
Also IBP individual behavioural plans
PEP Personal Education Plan
PEX Permanent Exclusion
Permanent Exclusion
-
The carer or social worker must be informed, in writing, of
the reason for permanent exclusion by the following day.
-
The first point of contact for communication from the school
will have been id entified on the child's Personal Education
Plan.
-
It is recommended that you appeal against both fixed term
and permanent exclusions unless there is clear grounds for
not doing so.
Please Note
-
These formal procedures are the only way a child can be
excluded.
-
The carers or social worker should not be asked to 'keep the
child at home for a few days' or advised to find a new school.
-
It is recommended that you appeal all fixed term and
permanent exclusions unless there are very clear reasons
not to do so.
Admissions
48
-
“Some or our schools don't do children in care”(SEU Report,
page 26)
-
School Admissions Code of Practice states that looked after
children should be given priority admission to schools
Personal Education Plans
-
Every child and young person in pub lic care should have a
PEP which ensures access to services and support;
contributes to stability; minimises disruption and broken
schooling; signals particular and special needs; establishes
clear goals and acts as a record of progress and
achievement. Joint Dfes/Doh guidance 5.17
The importance of PEPs have been highlighted in the following
documents:
-
National Care Standards
-
Social Exclusion Unit Report
-
Green Paper: Every Child Matters
-
New Fostering Services Regulations
-
Joint DfEE/DoH Guidance
-
National Foundation for Educational Research - Education
Protects
-
New IRO guidance
PEP’s should …
-
be a process, not a form filling exercise
-
encourage joint working
-
be an integral part of the care plan
-
be reviewed concurrently with the care plan
49
-
Social workers are responsible for initiating a PEP in
partnership with the child or young person, designated
teacher, parent and/or family member, carer and any other
person that may be relevant
Education Protects Toolkit Recommendations from NFER
-
There must be more focus on the quality of PEPs
-
Managers should monitor the use of PEPs as part of regular
supervision
-
There should be good planning for all transitions
-
Social workers should seek specialist advice regarding
education
-
Enough resources so that actions from PEPs ca n be
implemented effectively
-
Training in the use of PEPs should be available for social
workers
-
There needs to be a system for monitoring that all children in
public care have a PEP
-
There could be a database of sources of support
-
There should be a system t o ensure that a school can meet
the needs of the individual child
Good Practice in Supporting Education Multi Agency Task
Purpose:
-
To work in multi agency council teams
-
To look at current practice
-
To incorporate good practice and recent research into
practice
-
To agree joint authorities
50
“It takes a whole village to bring up a child”.
(African proverb)
51