Agenda item

The Committee was provided with an overview of access to education in the Borough by the Interim Chief Education Officer who outlined the changing landscape in the provision of education. He emphasised that a sea change was currently underway which would see the number of students in the Borough rise by roughly 6,000, an increasing proportion of students with Special Educational Needs and a major new schools programme being undertaken. It was noted that the Council faced many major challenges in accommodating these changes. One of these was continuing to ensure that the Borough’s vulnerable children and young people were able to access high-quality education.

Witnesses

To assist Members with the review Pauline Nixon, Senior Manager for Access and Inclusion, Deborah Bell, Service Manager for Behaviour, Attendance and SEN and Dan Kennedy, Performance and Intelligence Manager were present to provide information to the Committee.

A summary of the evidence provided by the witnesses is set out below.

Context

Given the significant changes to education provision caused by national policy changes and the expected rise in primary school aged children in the Borough, the Council faced major challenges in adapting its education services during this period.

In the next years the Borough would see an estimated 6,600 extra pupils in need of school places. The Council had acknowledged this as a major challenge for the future and had committed £150m to the schools programme to begin to address this demand. Over and above this investment, there would need to be an additional 3,000 places provided over the next ten years to accommodate expected growth. Much of the growth was expected to be in the south of the Borough with some areas having had a 20% population growth in recent years.

A significant portion of the Borough’s schools were currently either full or close to full. In the past, schools had worked with a 5-10% flex in numbers but, due to recent growth, this was now not possible. In some areas of the Borough this lack of flexibility was already proving to be problematic.

Statistics

Witnesses provided the Committee with a presentation on the current situation and forecasted developments. Statistics and key points from the presentation are set out below:

1. In October 2012, the number of pupils on-roll at primary schools was 24,362.
2. There had been a 20% increase in the amount of children missing education and a 20% increase in those electing to home educate.
3. There had been a 12% rise in children with English as a second language.
4. The Borough has seen 8 years of improvement in its education provision as highlighted in the Education Standards and Quality Report.
5. Foundation and Key Stage 1, 2 and 4 results were improving.
6. The Borough’s Ofsted inspections compared well with the national picture.
7. 91 of 92 schools were deemed at least “satisfactory”, with 70 being judged as “Good” or better.
8. There was expected be an 18% increase in demand for primary school places nationally between 2012 and 2020. Hillingdon had seen this growth slightly earlier than other London boroughs, although comparable growth was expected throughout London.
9. Since 2007 there has been a significant increase in children on-roll at schools in the Borough due to:

§         A rising birth rate,

§         An increase in people migrating into the Borough,

§         A reduction in people migrating out of the Borough, and

§         A significant increase in housing due to the area being in commuting distance of Central London.

In-Year Admissions

It was noted that it was already a challenge to secure school places in some areas of the Borough outside of the usual admissions process. Between September 2012 and February 2013, 99 children were considered by the In-Year Fair Access Panel (IYFAP) two-thirds of which were of primary school age and one-third of secondary school age. Some of these pupils had needed to be educated outside the traditional school setting and given alterative provision. This included children and young people being educated in Colleges, the Brookfield facility, Hillingdon Tuition Centre and through apprenticeships.

Witnesses reminded Members that the Brookfield Adult Education Centre was currently being used to provide pupils with an education as they waited to get another school place. Brookfield was established as a temporary measure for children who were nearing 20 school days without a school place. However, it had now been running for over a year due to demand.

An IYFAP agreement was in place which meant that an in-year school place would not be sought for those pupils who were in Year 11 as it was almost impossible to find them a place. These pupils were instead dealt with by the 14-19 Team. Those in this Group were seen to be extremely vulnerable.

It was agreed that the number of Year 11s trying to get a school place in-year would be circulated to Members by officers.

Discussion

Members raised concerns about the use of the Brookfield Adult Learning Centre for educating vulnerable children. In particular, discussion took place around safeguarding children at the Centre. It was noted that the facility had been built for use by adults and not children.

Officers noted that Brookfield was not intended to be a long-term solution and that pupils should be staying there for only a very short period of time. The staff-student ratio was also very generous with a full-time teacher and a teaching assistant for a maximum of 17 pupils. However, it was noted that safeguarding was a consideration especially when pupils, for a variety of reasons, remained at Brookfield for longer periods of time and when pupils as young as 11 were referred there.

Members asked about the number of pupils who were being off-rolled by Academies.

Officers advised that it was not possible to give an exact number for the amount of pupils who were being off-rolled but noted that, anecdotally, there was a rise in this practice. However, those schools which were no longer under the local authority were not required to report their attendance details to the Council. This meant that pupils could be off-rolling by a school without a challenge from the Local Authority. Whenever the Council was aware of a case of off-rolling it challenged schools all the way to the Secretary of State. Officers emphasised that this was not a local problem and that off-rolling was a national issue.

It was noted that the Council found out that children had been off-rolled only when an application for a new school place was received, through a Police report or through health services. In some cases, the Council did not find out at all.

Members requested for a total number of pupils passing through Brookfield over a year. Officers noted that this would be circulated to Members.

Officers advised that future plans for the service included a children’s pathway review, a major review of children’s centres, a re-evaluation of the provision of education at Brookfield and scoping whether new schools could provide good sites for educating vulnerable children.