Agenda item

Consideration was given to the report of the Corporate Director of Education, the Head of School Improvement and Inclusion and the Strategic Education Improvement Manager which was presented to provide Members with an overview of those schools that have been inspected in the period, including those schools that have presented as a cause for concern, their progress and the work delivered or currently underway to continue to support them to improve.

The Corporate Director of Education spoke to the report and highlighted the main points contained therein.

The Chair enquired regarding the turnaround at the River Centre for students to get back into mainstream schooling.  The Corporate Director of Education said the River Centre was a 64 place school with 40 turnaround places and 24 permanent places and one of the considerations that needed to be developed and strengthened was the work undertaken around the 40 turnaround places.  There were concerns that learners were not being placed back into mainstream settings with the support they needed and this was a consideration linked to the pre-warning notice letter.  He added that a Service Agreement was being developed.  It would be a tripartite partnership arrangement between the Local Authority, the River Centre and the receiving school and he felt that the school needed to demonstrate more of a collaboration approach with partners in terms of working towards the return of learners back into mainstream settings and this was a priority piece of work to take forward.

A Member commented that it was quite concerning that the River Centre had gone from Amber to Yellow and was now in the position of a warning notice.  He referred to para 4.1.2.3 school pupil capacity and admission arrangements for learners and said there had been an on-going issue with administrative paperwork i.e. on some occasions the correct paperwork had not been forwarded to the River Centre for them to be aware of potential problems and also when pupils returned to mainstream settings the paperwork had not followed and enquired if these issues had been addressed.

The Corporate Director of Education felt that the categorisation of the River Centre previously as a Yellow school was a historic reflection on the status of the performance at the school and this categorisation was questionable.  The Governing Body had been strengthened with three LA appointed Governors supporting the work of the Governing Body.   Admission arrangements featured as part of the pre-warning notice letter and he felt more engagement from the school was needed, they were not currently engaging in the Additional Learning Needs Panel arrangements.  The administrative paperwork was being produced but he felt that the school needed to participate at ALN Panel when learners were being discussed for potential placement within the River Centre and again this was part of the pre-warning notice letter and that needed to be resolved with the school.

The Head of School Improvement and Inclusion had been in discussions with the Headteacher to identify and resolve any ongoing issues and felt it was important that a member of the senior leadership team was involved in all the discussions so they were aware of pupils that were potentially going to be placed at the River Centre.  From September, the service was looking to resume dual placements where pupils were placed in the River Centre for four days a week and then back in their original school for one day a week and this would be part of supporting those young people to be able to go back into mainstream schooling. 

The Principal Challenge Advisors pointed out that from the perspective of categorisation, the school’s admission arrangements were not part of that discussion and so the EAS were unable to make any judgements in relation to admission arrangements as part of the categorisation discussion.  There were aspects of leadership of the school during the pandemic, where there was less clarity around the school’s provision for learners.  She also pointed out that the school was not under an official warning notice but had received a pre-warning notice letter from the Corporate Director of Education.  There were now strong plans in place to support the school and move it forward.

The Member again referred to the administrative paperwork as it was important that the correct paperwork was administered with the pupil’s records so that the school was aware of potential issues before the pupil attended the school.  He felt that this issue needed to be improved in order to help pupils go back into mainstream education.

The Chair said this had been a problem for a number of years and had hoped that it was improving and that meetings were held to discuss children attending the school.  He felt it was especially important for out of county placements going to the River Centre so that the school had all the correct information regarding that pupil. 

The Head of School Improvement and Inclusion confirmed that meetings were held to discuss the information regarding a child attending the River Centre but unfortunately members of the River Centre staff were not always present and that was an issue they were trying to resolve as that was the opportunity to share the paperwork and discuss any issues.  On some occasions the statutory paperwork was provided but the River Centre had requested additional paperwork and this could lead to GDPR issues which they were trying to resolve so that from September there would be no further issues.

The Chair suggested that a further report on the River Centre regarding the numbers of learners that go back into mainstream education be prepared. The Corporate Director of Education said that he would ensure that the Improving School reports that were presented to Committee would contain narrative that outlined the progress that was being made around the ‘revolving door’ turnaround arrangements at the River Centre.

The Committee AGREED to recommend that the report be accepted and endorse Option 2; namely that the report as provided be accepted.