The report of the Strategic Director of Children’s Services (Document “L”) presents an overview of the education outcomes for children in care during the academic year 2020/21 as required by statutory guidance.

Recommended -

That Corporate Parenting Panel give consideration to the report and approve the Virtual School Priorities for 2021/22 outlined in the report.

(Jonathan Cooper – 01274 436401)

The report of the Strategic Director of Children’s Services (Document “L”) presents an overview of the education outcomes for children in care during the academic year 2020/21 as required by statutory guidance.

The agenda paper (Annual Report of the Virtual School on promoting the education of children in care) was taken as read.  Head/VS explained that the annual report covered the academic year 2020-21, which included the period from January 2022 to March 2022 when schools had been closed due to Covid.  The data in the report included only children who had been in care for twelve months at 31 March 2022: this ensured that it was comparable with DfE data reporting.  Because the priorities identified in the agenda paper were based on the 2020-21 annual report, a number were already underway.

Due to the cancellation of SATs in 2021, the report did not include the usual information on outcomes for primary school children.   The data presented for primary aged children was therefore based on teacher predictive assessment.  80% of children in care had been making expected progress: this was an improvement on the previous year, but below the target of 100%. 

GCSE outcomes for Bradford children in care were broadly in line with the national average for children in care.  Bradford results for GCSE G4 English and Maths had improved, though Head/VS urged caution in making year-on-year comparisons due to the significant variation that could exist between cohorts: the 2021 Year 11 cohort had included a high proportion of SEND students who had performed strongly.

As schools had emerged from Covid lockdowns, the Virtual School had closely monitored attendance, including the use of modified timetables and alternative provision.  A continued reduction had been seen in the number of children in care who were suspended, excluded or out of education for ten or more days at a time.  There had been no permanent exclusions of children in care.

Although attendance was comparable with the national average for children in care, this was clearly an area for improvement both locally and nationally.  The number of children in care who were Persistently Absent[1] was better than the national average: Bradford was in the top 50% of local authorities in that respect.

There had been a reduction in the number of Year 11 pupils who did Not make the transition into Education, Employment or Training (NEET).  Improvement was needed in the number of young people who had a Personal Education Plan (PEP).

Referring to the second priority for improvement shown in the agenda paper (“Work closely with schools to ensure those children with unidentified SEND needs requiring support, are rapidly identified and assessed through the graduated approach to supporting needs.”), the Panel asked whether academy schools were willing to engage with the Virtual School.  Head/VS confirmed that they were: the Virtual School expected, and received, the same level of support from academies as from maintained schools. 

Head/VS undertook to check and amend a numerical error, highlighted by a Panel member, in the section of the agenda paper headed “Context of the Virtual School”.

ACTION: Head of Virtual School

Noting that outcomes for children in care in Bradford were significantly higher than those in out of area schools, the Panel asked whether this was because children educated at out of area schools tended to be those with specialist needs.  Head/VS agreed that this was part of the reason but said that it also reflected the nature of the individual cohorts.  The Virtual School did not distinguish between young people who were educated in Bradford as opposed to out of area schools, though it did need to increase its capacity to support out of area pupils, including by developing knowledge of the key contacts in other local authorities.

Replying to questions, Head/VS confirmed that 50% of Pupil Premium Plus funding was received by the school and 50% retained by the Virtual School.  Schools were asked to allocate their 50% of the funding in the pupil’s Personal Education Plan.  If they required more funding to meet the needs of the pupil, they could request that the Virtual School provide that funding from the 50% retained funding.

The Panel probed the reasons for, and action taken to address, the issue of compliance with the requirement for young people in care to have a Personal Education Plan (PEP).  The following points were made in response to the Panel’s questions:

a)    The PEP served two purposes: to account for the expenditure of the school’s share of the Pupil Premium Plus funding for the pupil; and to sure that all partners understood and agreed the actions in the Plan.

b)    The rate of compliance appeared to be affected by a systems issue that meant that, although the appropriate meetings were being held, they were not being recorded.  DD/SC undertook to address this with the Virtual School.

ACTION: BC/DDSC

c)    Responsibility for recording meetings on the system rested with the social worker.

d)    The Virtual School was considering how to support social workers with the process, to ensure that the information provided by schools was ready to put on the system.  Steps taken included switching responsibility for finalising the PEPs from the social work manager to the Virtual School: the Virtual School could ensure that the PEP included all the required information.  If a PEP was incomplete and had not yet been signed off by the Virtual School, it would show on the system as not having been put in place.

e)    If further work were required on the PEP, the Virtual School would ask:

o   the school if the missing details related to the use of the Pupil Premium Plus funding; or

o   the social worker if the details related to the Child’s Voice.

f)     The PEP format had also been changed to clarify which sections should be completed by whom.

g)    Each child should have a PEP review at least every six months, though good practice was to review them termly.  The social worker would hold a statutory meeting with the school, and the Virtual School met the school termly to review the child’s progress.  85% of PEPs were reviewed within six months.

Replying to questions, Head/VS confirmed that the recent changes had led to an improvement in the quality of PEPs, but not yet in compliance due to the systems issue at point (b).

The Panel welcomed the increase in the number of PEPs rated as ‘good’ or better from 24% to 46.8% and asked whether the remaining 53.2% were mostly heading towards ‘good’ or were significantly ‘inadequate’.  Head/VS reminded the panel that the report covered the period to July 2021 and did not therefore reflect all the recent improvements to the process, some of which had been implemented since January 2022.  The Virtual School judged the quality of PEPs using the same gradings as Ofsted and would not allow a PEP to be recorded on the system if it was judged to be ‘inadequate: such reports were followed up with the school and/or the social worker as described at point (e). 

Among the 53.2% of PEPs that could thus be regarded as ‘requires improvement’ at July 2021, the Panel asked whether there was any common theme or reason.  Head/VS explained that PEPs that were judged as ‘requires improvement’ tended either to have soft targets, as opposed to the SMART[2] targets that were requested; or to lack specific information about the allocation of Pupil Premium Plus funding.

The Panel was aware of concerns on the part of children’s homes that some schools to which looked after children with additional needs were allocated sent them home, or would only allow them to attend school for an hour a day after other pupils had left for the day.  This was clearly a matter for concern: these children were on roll, but were not receiving the education or socialisation that they needed; they emerged from care with additional needs that might have been ameliorated with proper education.  Asked how many children were in this position, Head/VS said that the Virtual School monitored pupils who were on partial or modified timetables to ensure that this was time-limited and in the best interests of the child.  Schools required the permission of the parent or carer – in the case of looked after children, the social worker – to implement a partial or modified timetable.  The Virtual School had asked schools to ensure that they received this permission, and stipulated that the partial or modified timetable must be in place for as short a time as possible and in the best interest of the child.  The Virtual School continued to be vigilant.

Panel members were concerned that, if the decision to agree a request from the school for a modified or partial timetable rested with the social worker, the child’s care home risked being caught in the middle: feedback from a number of care homes indicated that they felt strongly that their children needed to be in school.  Asked how the views of the children’s home were taken into consideration, DD/SC said that the social worker would be expected to work with the home to agree the appropriate response to a school’s request for a restricted timetable.  If that were not happening, he would expect the home to contact him or AD/SRCP.  The Panel welcomed this route for frustrated care home managers.

Asked what action could be taken if a school was adamant that a child should attend on a restricted timetable, Head/VS said that the Virtual School devoted considerable time to negotiating with schools.  If schools did not notify them of the completion of a restricted timetable, the Virtual School reminded them by means of weekly e-mails that the purpose of a restricted timetable was to facilitate full reintegration.  This was followed up through the attendance, safeguarding and school recruitment teams.  There was, however, a risk that the school would exclude the pupil.

The Panel remained concerned that there was a gap where children were put on restricted timetables against the clear view of their care home manager that they needed to be in school.  This could lead to the breakdown of placements and loss of education and socialisation for the child.  Real, effective monitoring of PEPs was essential.   BC/SRCP said that, while there remained more work to be done, the monitoring of PEPs had been much improved through:

·         tightening of the arrangements for monitoring compliance;

·         Virtual School action to address the quality of PEPs; and

·         substantial investment in the system to increased capacity and make it fit for purpose and user friendly for social workers.

Replying to questions, BC/SRCP confirmed that the Regulation 44 inspector and all concerned with the child received a copy of the PEP.

Asked about next steps for addressing this issue, BC/ADS said that it would depend on which schools the children in question attended: not all schools had looked after pupils.  Asked whether there were schools that did not notify the completion of restricted timetables, BC/ADS said that, if schools did not notify them, they would not know.  Asked how Children’s Services could not know of looked after children, BC/ADS clarified that it was the completion of modified timetables that were not necessarily notified, rather than the existence of looked after children. 

Panel members knew that there were looked after children on modified timetables: this was a real issue and Children’s Services needed to know about these children.  Head/VS said that the Virtual School knew which looked after children were on restricted timetables and monitored them carefully, though he could not speak for children who had a social worker but were not in care.  For looked after children, the Virtual School, as well as the care home, would be part of the conversation with the school about any proposal for a partial or modified timetable.  The school could not implement a modified timetable without the agreement of the social worker, though they could suspend the child.  The challenge for the social worker in such cases was to assess whether it was better to insist on a full timetable and risk the child being suspended, or to accept a partial timetable.  There was sometimes no route back for a looked after child who had been suspended.  Such children were often on a partial timetable because they were waiting for another process to be completed, such as an application for an EHCP[3]: schools could often not afford to provide the necessary support for a child with additional needs until the funding associated with an EHCP became available.  The Virtual School tried to support such cases through the retained element of the Pupil Premium Plus funding.

The Panel asked that DD/SC address with AD/SRPC the issue of looked after children being placed or kept on restricted timetables against the advice of the child’s care home.  Although the Panel’s particular concern was with looked after children, it was part of a wider issue that followed on from lack of Early Help support.

ACTION: DD/SC