News

Education Select Committee inquiry into alternative provision: submission from SCHOOLS NorthEast

Background

• Set up by schools for schools, SCHOOLS NorthEast is the first and only school-led regional network in the UK. We are the representative voice for the 1,250 schools across the North East of England.
• We are charity governed by 11 serving Head Teacher Trustees with an Advisory Board comprised of 26 school leaders at Primary and Secondary phases across the 12 local authority areas in the North East, which includes independent schools and special schools.
• Concerns about alternative provision have been consistently raised by our board members; we therefore welcome the launch of this inquiry and are keen that the voice of North East schools is heard in this debate. We would be very happy to contribute further in any way the Committee would find useful.
• This submission was informed by a consultation with our Board members and Trustees, conducted via a mixed quantitative and qualitative survey.

Introduction

• The Advisory Board of SCHOOLS NorthEast has repeatedly raised concerns with Alternative Provision of education over a sustained period.
• While providers of mainstream education in the region have enormous empathy with providers of alternative provision, there has been growing concerns about the efficacy of provision in the face of rapidly growing demand for this service. This includes serious concerns about under-resourcing.
• There is a lack of consistency in the system with children subjected to a postcode lottery of provision. Outcomes for pupils in alternative provision are consistently poor, both in terms of re-entering mainstream education and in educational attainment.
• By way of illustration, not a single school leader we consulted agreed that there are appropriate progression routes back into mainstream education for children in external alternative provision.
• Likewise, in 10 of the North East’s 12 local authority areas not a single pupil in alternative provision achieved a C grade in Maths or English GCSE in 2015/16.
• We have set out our four key areas of concern under the headings below.

Capacity

• Four North East local authorities were amongst the top 20 recording the highest increases in permanent exclusions across England from 2015/16 to 2016/17. In Redcar and Cleveland, permanent exclusions rose by 214% and in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 209%.
• We have grave concerns about lack of capacity in existing alternative provision to deal with these soaring increases. Changing attitudes to pupil exclusion, which are discussed in more detail below, are driving alternative provision to breaking point, with many providers at or exceeding their original capacity.
• Our survey highlighted particular concerns about capacity in age-specific provision. Not a single respondent agreed that there is adequate age-specific provision, with one headteacher commenting that external alternative provision for primary age children in their local authority area is non-existent

Funding

• Affordability is a significant concern. In the North East, funding on a per pupil basis is lower than the national average, impacting on the ability of schools to access alternative provision. Two thirds of schools leaders we consulted said they were concerned or very concerned about the financial impact of alternative provision on their schools.
• As one respondent to our survey pointed out, the cost of placing a pupil in alternative provision is often vastly out of kilter with per pupil funding – as much as £10,000/pupil different over an academic year – received by the school. As a result, financially, school leaders face budgetary pressures if they opt for alternative provision or effectively removing the cost via permanent exclusion. As school budgets shrink in real terms, our concern is that the latter option will become increasingly inevitable for some schools, resulting in increased pressure on an overstretched service.
• If the Government is serious about addressing the significant problems in alternative provision, it cannot shy away from addressing the issue of funding.

Structures

• The system appears to function when schools in a local authority area work well together as a collaborative team, but can break down when these relationships change, for instance when an external MAT enters the area. In some cases this can lead to an alarming increase in the number of permanent exclusions, putting enormous strain on AP in the area.
• We are concerned that the fragmentation and intensification of competition in the school system has perversely ‘incentivised’ schools to exclude pupils on the grounds of their attainment. This leads to a classic “prisoner’s dilemma”, whereby the self-interest of one leads to worse outcomes for pupils as a whole.

Accountability

• If the direction of travel is toward a ‘diverse’ school system structured around national or regional chains, who is to plan provision and be the custodian of the common good?
• Accountability measures as they are currently constructed give no incentive for inclusivity (for example, by having on-site AP to facilitate a quick turn-around) and often provide a perverse incentive to exclude students, exacerbating the capacity problems mentioned above.
• There is concern in some quarters at the significant change in numbers of pupils on roll from Years 10 to 11. It has been voiced nationally and within the region, that off-rolling to boost examination outcomes, and subsequent uplifts in Progress 8, is also driving pressure on the system.
• To provide a disincentive to unethical exclusions, a fairer approach would be for schools to bear responsibility for a pupil’s outcomes in proportion to the length of time spent at their educational institution. So, for example, if a pupil was at a school for five sixths of their secondary education before being excluded, the five sixths of that result should be reflected in the excluding school’s KS4 outcome measure.

Concluding comments

• There is a vital role for alternative provision. However, the system has failed to keep pace with changes to the school system, whether that be in terms of structural change, funding, attitudes to exclusions, or performance measures.
• We applaud the Committee for looking into this area and urge the Government to undertake a comprehensive review of alternative provision as soon as possible.