The press release issued by the Department for Education on 26 April 2012.

The press release issued by the Department for Education on 18 April 2012.

Hundreds of school support staff are to get degree-level and specialist training in helping children with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), under a new £500,000 programme set out today by Children’s Minister Sarah Teather.

The annual SEN support scholarship programme will provide up to £2,000 each to boost the skills of talented teaching assistants and school staff who work with children with SEND. The scholarship cash will fund staff through rigorous, specialist courses and qualifications.

‘Support and aspiration’ the SEN green paper published in March last year, set out major reforms to develop the expertise and expert knowledge of the wider school workforce – so the most vulnerable children have their needs identified early and get the specialist help they need.

The green paper pointed to evidence that in many schools, pupils with SEND were left to be supported ‘almost exclusively’ by teaching assistants – risking children becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the class and classroom teachers.

It said the best schools proved that highly-skilled support staff could be crucial in raising standards – if they were trained, supported, deployed and managed effectively – and it proposed a national scholarship scheme to send a clear message that high-level professional development should the norm throughout a support staff career.

Children’s Minister Sarah Teather said:

This is about getting the best from all school staff. These scholarships identify and train talented professionals, with the potential to develop their specialist knowledge further and pursue a teaching career in the future if they want.

We know that support staff can make a real difference to the achievement of pupils with SEN and disabilities. They are never a substitute for a qualified teacher – but we know that when used effectively, they are vital to giving the most vulnerable pupils the support they need to get the most out of school.

These pupils need more, not less, time with the schools’ best teachers. Our green paper sets out a clear reform programme to raise the quality of SEN education and support across the board.

The scholarship programme will fund 50% of the total course costs – up to a ceiling of £2,000 each.

There will be a competitive application process, open to support staff who hold A level or equivalent qualifications or hold higher level teaching assistant (HLTA) status. It will fund staff to take a wider range of degree-level equivalent qualifications and specialist diplomas in specific impairments such as in dyslexia or autism.

Applications will open on 30 April and close on 17 May, with the first scholarships awarded later this year.

This new fund for support staff scholarships is in addition to the national scholarship fund for teachers which opens its second round this month.

The minister also today confirmed funding in the academic year 2012 to 2013 to train 1,000 new special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) through the master’s-level National Award for SEN Coordination – on top of almost 9000 training places funded to date since September 2009.

This year the scheme has also been extended to include qualified teachers working in pupil referral units, to support improved SEN provision, following the government’s behaviour expert Charlie Taylor’s recent review into the quality of alternative provision.

SENCOs are teachers with specialist qualifications who play a lead role in a particular school on planning and delivering provision for pupils with additional needs.

SENCOs work with senior leaders and other teachers to:

• identify pupils in need of more help
• advise on the most effective provision
• liaise with outside specialist agencies
• oversee the delivery of targeted help for pupils with SEN

The press release issued by the Department for Education on 16 April 2012.

• Publishing reception absence data to help schools intervene earlier.
• Overhaul of fine system for school absence to make it more effective.
• Strengthening of the rules around term-time holidays
• Extension of Charlie Taylor’s appointment as government adviser. Charlie Taylor, the government’s expert adviser on behaviour, today called for a crackdown on primary school absence to make sure it is not a problem later on in life.

Latest figures show that almost 400,000 pupils miss 15% of schooling a year – the equivalent of having a month off school.

Evidence shows that as children move up through the school system from primary school onwards, the number of children who are persistently absent grows – most significantly in the final years of secondary school.

By the time children have reached their mid-teens it becomes more difficult for parents and schools to get them to attend. Much of the work these children miss when they are off school is never made up, leaving them at a considerable disadvantage for the remainder of their school career. The majority of children whose parents are taken to court for poor attendance are in Years 10 and 11, but by this time it is often too late to solve the attendance problems.

Currently there is no nationally collected data on children’s attendance in nursery and reception, as school is not mandatory at this age. This means schools are not held to account for pupils’ attendance until they reach the age of five. Many schools do not take measures to improve attendance until their pupils reach statutory school age, but for some children this is already too late.

Children with low attendance in the early years are also more likely to come from the poorest backgrounds. These children are likely to start school already behind their peers, particularly in their acquisition of language and their social development.

Charlie Taylor has called for:

• the government to publish data on attendance in reception along with local and national averages and this is considered when Ofsted inspects
• primary schools analyse their data on attendance and quickly pick up on children who are developing a pattern of absence
• primary schools focussing on supporting parents in nursery and reception who are failing to get their children to school.

Having worked in some of London’s toughest schools, Charlie Taylor was commissioned by Education Secretary Michael Gove to look at the issue of school attendance in the wake of the summer riots last year.

Publishing his independent review – ‘Improving attendance at school’ – he said:

School attendance has been steadily improving in the last few years, but there were still 54 million days of school missed last year.

Schools are aware of the consequences of poor attendance on their pupils’ attainment. Some schools go to great lengths to tackle attendance issues, and to see the absence rates decreasing is very promising. But more work needs to be done to reduce the number of pupils who are still persistently absent.

The earlier schools address poor attendance patterns, the less likely it is that they will become a long term issue. The best primary schools realise this and take a rigorous approach to poor attendance from the very start of school life.

There is also clear evidence of a link between poor attendance at school and low levels of achievement. Of pupils who miss between 10% and 20% of school, only 35% achieve 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C including English and maths. But 73% of pupils who attend 95% of school achieve this.

The government has already taken action to improve school attendance. Last year, the government lowered the threshold at which children are defined as persistently absent to 15% or more of school time, so that schools could step in to tackle absence sooner – before the problem really takes hold. Previously, children who missed 20% of school were considered persistent absentees.

The main recommendations from the independent review, which the government has accepted, include:

• Making data on attendance in reception classes available along with local and national averages – this fits with the government’s policy of giving as much information as possible about school performance.
• Publishing national statistics on attendance for the whole year not just up until half term in the summer, as is currently the case. The exception to this would be for Year 11.
• Asking Ofsted to set specific, timed targets for improving attendance in schools where it is low.
• Encouraging all primary schools to analyse their data on attendance so that they can quickly pick up on children who are developing a pattern of absence including in nursery and reception.
• Whilst there should be no outright ban on term-time holidays and with headteachers having the discretion, the government should toughen up the rules. If children are taken away for a two week holiday every year and have an average number of days off for sickness and appointments, then by the time they leave at 16 they will have missed an entire year of their schooling.

The government will in due course amend the Pupil Registration Regulations to make clear that schools should only give permission where there are exceptional circumstances. The latest figures show that term-time holidays remain a major reason for absence.

Parental sanctions for school absence

One of the last resorts for schools to deal with absence problems is to issue fines to parents. Currently if a headteacher decides to impose a fine, the parent has 28 days to pay a fine of £50; if they fail then it is doubled. After 42 days if the parent has not paid then the local authority has to withdraw the penalty notice, with the only further option being for local authorities to prosecute parents for the offence.

More than 32,600 penalty notices for school absence were issued to parents last year, and more than 127,000 have been issued since introduction in 2004. However, around half went unpaid or were withdrawn.

Whilst independent research shows that over three-quarters (79%) of local authorities said that penalty notices were ‘very successful’ or ‘fairly successful’ in improving school attendance, local authorities feel court action is often a long-winded process that achieves very little.

In 2010, out of 9,147 parents found guilty by the courts, only 6,591 received a fine or a more serious sanction. The average fine imposed by the court was £165. Education Welfare Officers report that, within certain groups of parents, the word has spread that prosecution for poor attendance is a muddled process in which there is a good chance of getting off without sanction.

Fines for school absence were introduced by the previous government in 2004 and the levels of the fines have not been revised since then. In comparison to other offences, the fines for school absence are relatively low:

• Parking fines range from £80 to £130 and if paid within 14 days it is reduced by 50%.
• Speeding fines are £60 if paid within 28 days plus three points added to your driving licence, after which it doubles to £120 and registered in court as a fine.
• Littering, graffiti and flyposting offences attract fines up to £80, reduced if paid within a certain timeframe.

Charlie Taylor has recommended a toughening up of the system by increasing the fines. The government has accepted this recommendation and from September 2012, headteachers will be able to impose a fine of £60 (a £10 increase) on parents whom they consider are allowing their child to miss too much school without a valid reason. If they fail to pay within 28 days it will double to £120 (a £20 increase), to be paid within 42 days.

Charlie Taylor has also recommended that once the fine has doubled, the money should be recovered automatically from child benefit. Parents who do not receive child benefit and fail to pay fines would have the money recovered through county courts.

Charlie Taylor said:

We know that some parents simply allow their children to miss lessons and then refuse to pay the fine. It means the penalty has no effect, and children continue to lose vital days of education they can never recover.

Recouping the fines through child benefit, along with other changes to the overall system, will strengthen and simplify the system. It would give head teachers the backing they need in getting parents to play their part.

The government will consider this recommendation further and work with other government departments to explore ways to make the payment of penalty notices swift and certain.

Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove, responding to the report, said:

We must do everything to improve school attendance so that all children benefit from good teaching. Successive governments have focussed overwhelmingly on tackling truancy amongst older children. We now need a fundamental change in approach.

Improving the attendance of younger children at primary school will reduce the number who develop truancy problems when they are older.

We must also equip schools to tackle the minority of parents who do not heed that message. Sanctions are most likely to work if their effect is immediate and if they are simple to administer. I agree that the current penalty notice scheme should be simplified. I will work with my colleagues in the Government to explore ways to make the payment of penalty notices swift and certain.

Extension of Charlie Taylor’s appointment

The Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, has also today extended the appointment of Charlie Taylor as the Government expert adviser on behaviour for a further year.

The press release issued by the Department for Education on 13 April 2012.

Headteachers today welcomed a government consultation on how school funding can be made fairer.

It seeks the views of parents, teachers, schools, unions and local authorities about the current system, and asks whether a new system would result in a fairer outcome for schools.

The consultation launched today is the first part of a two-stage process. Taking into account these views, further proposals will be published for consultation later this year.

As it stands, the school funding system creates large variations in how much money similar schools in different parts of the country receive. Funding is based on historic calculations – some dating back to at least 2005 – that bear little resemblance to the needs of schools and their pupils today.

For example:

• Similar primary schools’ funding can vary by as much as £1,300 per pupil. Similar secondary schools’ funding can vary by as much as £1,800 per pupil. In a secondary school of 1,000 pupils, that is a difference of around £1.8 million. This could pay for around 40 extra teachers.
• In one local authority, a school with 43% of its pupils eligible for free school meals received £3,367 per pupil. In another local authority, a school with only 10% of its pupils eligible for free school meals received £4,032 per pupil. This is a difference of £655 per pupil.
• The system cannot respond to changes in the types of children living in certain areas. In Peterborough, for example, the number of children who speak English as an additional language has risen by 60% since 2005. This significant change will not have been reflected properly in the funding system.

Ministers believe this is unfair, which is why the government is consulting on whether we should try to make school funding fairer.

Ideally a new funding system for all schools would:

• distribute money in a fair and logical way, with schools in similar circumstances and with similar intakes of pupils receiving similar levels of funding
• provide transparent, additional funding to support deprived pupils, with the pupil premium being the first step to creating a fairer funding system
• be clear and easy for parents, schools and the public to understand
• support a diverse range of school provision, including academies and free schools.

More than £35 billion of revenue is spent on schools each year. It is crucial that the funding system provides good value for money and that resources are distributed fairly.

The consultation asks questions including:

• Do you agree with the case for reforming the system?
• Do you agree with the aim of ensuring that all deprived pupils get the same level of funding no matter where they live?
• What is the right balance between simplicity and complexity?

Schools Minister Lord Hill said:

Headteachers tell us that the current funding system is unfair and illogical. In some cases it means a child living in one part of the country can be funded up to £1,800 more than a child with similar needs living elsewhere. Having a fairer system is not just right in principle. It would enable parents to see more clearly how schools are doing with the funding they receive.

Addressing the disparities and inequalities within our school system is a top priority for the coalition government. For standards to improve, all pupils must get the support they are entitled to. This consultation is the first step to ensuring fairer funding for all.

Brian Lightman, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said:

ASCL has long argued for a reform of the funding system and the development of a new funding system. We are therefore very pleased to see that the government is launching this consultation.

What we have known for some time, and was obvious following the department’s release of financial data on schools in January, is that the current funding method is inequitable and indefensible. Funding between similar secondary schools can vary by up to £1,000 per pupil; this situation surely cannot be allowed to continue. A continuation of the current ‘spend plus’ methodology would actually increase the level of unfairness in school funding, making this review absolutely essential.

Implementation of a change of this magnitude will need to be very carefully planned and we welcome the opportunity to contribute to this consultation.

Russell Hobby, General Secretary of the NAHT, said:

The time is right for a debate on a new funding system. The significant differences in funding between schools of the same size and intake cannot be justified and the current system is far too complicated. Funding must be consistent across schools if accountability is to be fair. We are under no illusions about the challenge and risk, especially in times of financial constraint, but it is a conversation worth having.

The early framework for consultation asks many of the right questions and suggests some workable principles. As an association, we endorse the need to recognise the differing characteristics of pupils and for simplicity and transparency. School leaders must be able to plan over the long term.

We need to think carefully about how we protect small schools that are so clearly valued by their communities, how we avoid turbulence and how we manage any transition.

These are the early days of a very long run process and we welcome the commitment to a genuine dialogue from first principles.

The government is also consulting on potential options for funding academies next year, as an immediate step towards making the funding system simpler. This consultation will run for 6 weeks.

At present, academy funding replicates the funding that other schools in the local authority receive. But this system was designed for a much smaller number of academies. As more schools choose to convert, the current system is becoming increasingly clumsy and needs to change. 629 academies are now open, compared to 203 in May 2010.

The current academy funding system has a number of flaws:

• Like maintained schools, academies receive opaque funding allocations
• The system is complex and lacks transparency
• Replication of funding is labour-intensive and bureaucratic. The Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA), the body that administers academy funding, estimates that an average replication model takes 3 to 5 days to build but may take up to 3 weeks to verify
• The system for calculating the Local Authority Central Services Equivalent Grant is extremely complicated and does not deliver funding that is transparent

The Government is consulting on three different options for funding Academies in the school year 2012 to 2013.

David Wootton, Chair of the Independent Academies Association, said:

We in the academy movement are committed to a funding formula that is fair for all schools and all children. The present system is innately unfair and has for a long time disadvantaged many youngsters. The funding system has not kept up with the pace of change or indeed changes in localities.

A new funding system has the potential to create a fairer and simpler way of funding schools. This consultation offers everyone the chance to explore and consider in some detail the opportunities and challenges in moving from the current highly complex arrangements to a simpler, transparent system.

The intention to consult on the benefits of a new funding system was set out in the Schools white paper.

The press release issued by the Department for Education on 13 April 2012.

New rules published today will put an end to excluded pupils winning the right to come back to school against the headteacher’s wishes.

Coming into force from this September, the new regulations will apply to maintained schools, academies and pupil referral units. The changes were legislated through the 2011 Education Act.

Currently when a headteacher excludes a child from school, the school can be forced by an appeals panel to re-admit that child. This can lead to a disruptive child continuing to damage their own education as well as that of others – as well as undermining the headteacher’s authority.

Under the new system, headteachers will have the power to exclude a child as long as the decision is legal, reasonable and fair. If the new review panels believe this has not been the case, they will be able to require schools to revisit their decision. They will not be able to force the school to take back the child.

Supporting schools to promote good behaviour is vital to enabling all pupils to achieve their full potential, regardless of their circumstances.

Schools Minister Nick Gibb said:

Raising standards of behaviour in schools is a key priority of the government. It is a vital building block in the government’s objective of raising academic achievement and closing the attainment gap between those from poorer and wealthier backgrounds.

Restoring the authority of teachers and headteachers is an important part of the objective of raising standards of behaviour in schools. When head teachers decide that they have no choice but to expel a persistently disruptive or uncooperative pupil that decision must not be undermined by an appeal process which can result in the pupil returning to the school against the wishes of the school and its leadership.

These new rules preserve the right to have a decision to expel a child reviewed by an independent panel but take away the power to force the return of the pupil to the school.

The new independent review panels will provide a fair and accessible process for considering exclusion decisions in a way that takes account of the impact that poor behaviour can have on the education and welfare of other pupils.

The new exclusions system will also provide additional safeguards for pupils with special educational needs (SEN), in particular through the introduction of the role of SEN experts to advise independent review panels.

In addition, in all cases where schools stand by the decision to exclude following a direction by the review panel to reconsider its decision, schools would have to provide a payment of £4,000 towards the cost of alternative provision for the excluded child.

Ultimately, the government’s intention is to reduce the need for exclusion by supporting schools to manage behaviour and intervene earlier to address any underlying causes. The government is currently trialling a new approach in a number of local authorities with around 300 secondary schools, where schools retain responsibility for permanently excluded pupils and work in partnership to secure better outcomes for pupils at risk of exclusion.

In the academic year 2009 to 2010 there were 5,740 permanent exclusions and 331,380 fixed period exclusions in England. In the same period, 510 appeals against permanent exclusions were heard in the academic year 2009 to 2010. Of these, 110 appeals were determined in favour of the parent, and reinstatement of the pupil was directed in 30 cases.