To note the contents of the report.

Suzanne Parrott, AfC Virtual School Headteacher, presented the annual report for the AfC Virtual School. Particular successes were outlined, such as Attainment 8 scores which were higher than the looked after national average and attendance, which was lower than the national average for looked after children.

Councillor Sharpe thanked Suzanne Parrott for the report and asked for an explanation on how students were placed into schools and whether students were moved between schools. Councillor Sharpe asked for further clarity on the statistics included within the report, and stated that it seemed as though the children in virtual schools were attaining almost as well as any other child at their school.

Suzanne Parrott clarified that students at the virtual school were taught in mainstream schools, so had two headteachers. The role of the virtual school was to work with a range of professionals to keep the child in their mainstream school, but children would be moved if there was a risk to their safety. If a child needed to be moved, the nearest good or outstanding school closest to their home would be identified and the school would be contacted in order to ascertain whether the environment would be a good fit for the child.

Suzanne Parrott stated that the statistics on attendance and attainment were taken from many different schools. The gap had been closed between children in the virtual school and children who were not, but there would always be children who had been out of school for a couple of years due to personal circumstances which would affect their education.

Councillor Sharpe asked about the impact of the Covid pandemic on the activities of the virtual school, and the impact on the children in terms of lack of education.

Suzanne Parrott stated that there was an organisation that phoned schools every day to ensure that the young person was in school, but this was taken away due to the pandemic. Children with a vulnerability were still able to go into school, which meant that many students in virtual schools could still attend their mainstream school. The virtual school kept a record of whether their education or placement was at risk and monitored the child’s progress often. The results in the Virtual School Report were after a year of the pandemic and showed good outcomes despite the challenges posed by the lack of schooling. However, there were concerns over attendance figures which were worse in 2022 than during the pandemic partly due to poor mental health.

Councillor Story thanked Suzanne Parrott for her presentation and asked whether the figure of 93 looked-after children within RBWM was correct. Councillor Story asked for clarity on what was meant by the term special school.

Suzanne Parrott confirmed that this figure, which encompassed all school-age children, would have been correct at the time of the publication of the report on 31 July 2021. Special schools were those who had specialist facilities and provisions in order to accommodate young people with special educational needs or disabilities.

Councillor Story asked for further explanation on what was meant by alternative provisions and asked about the students who were stated to be in schools within the borough which required improvement.

Suzanne Parrott stated that this was used to mean many different forms of education including forest schools or home-schooling. Alternative provisions were usually short-term arrangements, as the goal was always to have children in full-time education. With regards to the students in schools requiring improvement, they were likely to still be in the same schools with additional support being provided to the school. Risk assessments were required for these schools. Stability was a key factor for children in virtual schools, so a risk assessment would usually be put in place to support them within the current environment. In the current year, no children had been placed in schools requiring improvement.

Kevin McDaniel stated that 95% of schools within the borough were either good or outstanding, with 5% requiring improvement or worse. If given the choice, children would be placed in a good or outstanding school. When it came to children in schools which required improvement, Kevin McDaniel stated that children gained more from staying in a stable environment within their friendships than being moved to a new environment.

Councillor Carole Da Costa asked how the attachment in schools programme could be extended to all schools within the borough.

Suzanne Parrott responded that the programme was offered to schools starting in 2021 with 42 schools on the programme in the first year, largely through partnering with educational psychologists within the schools. The programme is delivered to school governors and teachers, and then the teachers deliver it to the parent body. The programme is then delivered through PSHE lessons in schools. Well over 80 schools had signed up to receive this training, and Suzanne Parrott welcomed the further advertisement of the programme.

Councillor Tisi asked about the impact of coming into care earlier on the impact on later educational outcomes and asked about the reasoning behind the extension of the virtual school to cover children in need and children on protection plans. Councillor Tisi asked about the challenges that this may pose when the children are dealing with challenges at home.

Suzanne Parrott explained that the extension of the Virtual School had been underway for a number of years and was an effort to intervene earlier on in a child’s life in an effort to keep them out of care. Applying a multi-agency approach would build communication links in order to facilitate this goal. Providing training and support to social workers would be a greater benefit of this programme and would be largely similar to the ongoing work but including agencies which were not currently involved in the process.

Furthermore, the Virtual School had been working on gathering attendance and exclusion information at the request of the Department for Education. The Attachment Aware Schools award addressed both issues by lowering exclusion and improving attendance. A new assistant headteacher had been recruited along with a lead teacher with a specialism in trauma-informed practice.

Councillor Tisi asked whether the lack of permanent exclusions was a result of Virtual School policy or a testament to the work of the School.

Suzanne Parrott stated that none of the Virtual School students had been permanently excluded from any of the mainstream schools they were educated in, which represented a culture shift away from permanent exclusions.

Mark Jervis, Co-Optee, asked how the referral process for Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) worked in the Virtual School environment, and whether the Virtual School had the resources to manage the process.

Suzanne Parrott explained that it was the social work team who would refer children to CAMHS, but the Virtual School introduced the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for schools. This worked out how many difficulties a young person was dealing with and looked at reducing these difficulties over time. There was a system in place where the questionnaires were uploaded alongside the foster carer’s view of the young person as well as the young person’s own perception of themselves. This triangulation enabled a more-well rounded approach to the mental wellbeing of the young person. The school had also invested heavily in education psychologists to support the young people in the Virtual School.

Lin Ferguson, Director of Children Social Care and Early Help, stated that sometimes children needed earlier intervention than CAMHS, and the borough was developing a rang of initiatives for young people. For example, mental health workers were in 14 schools within the borough, a ‘getting help’ service was in place to help children with emerging mental health issues and there were esteem groups in place to help children with low self-esteem. These were aimed at helping children who did not need the full support of CAMHS.

Councillor Del Campo thanked Suzanne Parrott for the report and presentation and stated that she felt inspired after reading. Councillor Del Campo referred to a case study within the report which explained difficulties with filling out forms and asked how this could be avoided in the future.

Suzanne Parrott stated that the Department for Education sent through resources for the previously looked after post as this was needed and was a benefit as this was aimed at providing help. There was a funding chasm with EHCPs and SEN, so decisions with regards to who could be funding were very tough to make.

Kevin McDaniel added that it was not within the borough but stated that policies were different in each area, and a process needed to be followed in order to gather the right information to make effective decisions.

Councillor Del Campo asked if there was a particular risk with regards to resourcing.

Suzanne Parrott explained that the Virtual School had about 9 different funding streams that were agreed and didn’t feel that resources would be a particular concern.

Councillor Knowles stated that children had amazing emotional resilience and it was important to remind everyone that some remarkable outcomes could be achieved. To that end, Councillor Knowles asked for success stories of pupils who were at the Virtual School.

Suzanne Parrott echoed Councillor Knowles’s sentiments and stated that the pupils were an asset to any school or organisation. Suzanne Parrott described one student who would be studying Medicine at Oxford, another who had completed a teaching degree, and another who was a dentist.

Councillor Clark welcomed the report and asked why the Attainment 8 numbers were slightly lower for Key Stage 5 students in the borough.

Suzanne Parrott replied that the Virtual College was in its infancy and the changes that would be seen in a year were limited but hoped to see ongoing improvement.

The panel noted the report.