Decision details

Jonathan Hewitt, Head of Quality and Continuous Improvement and Audrey Swan, Headteacher for Children Looked After presented the report which described the current offer for Lancashire Children and Young People placed in alternative provision and a number of developments being implemented. It set out the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) offer for both primary and secondary pupils and the main functions of the Alternative Provision Team. It also summarised the outcomes, key areas for development and actions.

It explained that the local authority is also working to improve the assessment process to help identify pupils' needs consistently in a timely way and review the intervention offer in the primary phase to include early response and assessment.

During the course of the discussion members asked that data be provided to help them understand the trends and the pressures facing the service. Officers undertook to provide data for the last 3-5 years set against national figures, broken down by gender, and indicating whether the pupil was subject to a short-term or permanent exclusion, or whether they were attending the PRU for some other reason.

The Committee was assured that schools were reluctant to permanently exclude pupils and Alternative Provision was intended to support them in this.

One member raised concern about the transition from primary to secondary school and suggested that there should be improved continuity.

It was felt that the term 'Pupil Referral Unit' was unhelpful. It was explained that as PRUs are schools in their own right, many of them in Lancashire had changed their name, referring to themselves as schools rather than PRUs.

It was confirmed that there was much emphasis on providing Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) to young people in Alternative Provision; there was recognition that this cohort of young people were at risk of developing other issues and/or becoming NEET. There was much intensive work ongoing around IAG and officers undertook to provide further information to the Committee about this work also.

The Committee was assured that many systems and safeguards had been put in place to ensure that young people, not on a school roll, were carefully tracked to ensure that they were receiving 25 hours education or the equivalent on a one-to-one basis, unless this was not possible for medical/emotional reasons. Providers were asked to explain reasons and say what plans were in place to increase time for those young people not in receipt of 25 hours education per week.

The Committee was assured that factors outside school were relevant and it was important that background factors, such as family situation, were known. There was a partnership approach and PRUs work closely with the family and external services.  

It was noted that one PRU in Lancashire had recently received an Ofsted rating of 'inadequate' and this had been highlighted through a Motion at the July Full Council meeting. Details of the support provided to all schools in the event of such a rating were provided to the Committee and officers undertook to provide to the Chair and Deputy Chair the specific arrangements in place for the particular PRU in question.

Resolved: That,

  i.  Officers be thanked for the report and their attendance at the meeting;

  ii.  That the further information requested, as referred to above, be circulated to the Committee; and

  iii.  A further report be brought back to the Committee when considered appropriate.