Agenda item

To inform the Corporate Parenting Committee of the work undertaken by Brent Virtual School (BVS) and the school results for Looked After Children in the 2023-24 academic year. The delay in presenting the report is due to the need for exam results to be ratified.

Michaela Richards (Headteacher, Brent Virtual School) introduced the report, which provided the Brent Virtual School (BVS) annual report outlining the activity and impact of BVS during the academic year 2023-24 in monitoring and supporting looked after children to achieve the best possible educational outcomes. In introducing the report, she highlighted that attendance had seen a 2% increase across primary cohorts in the last academic year and a 5% increase in the secondary cohort. She added that the monitoring of school attendance was well joined up with a strong relationship built with schools to do that. There had been a decrease in the number of Fixed Term Exclusions (FTE) in the last academic year at 20 compared to 27 the previous year, which she highlighted as a positive downward trajectory, and there had been no permanent exclusions for looked after children. Where there were issues in schools that risked permanent exclusion, the BVS worked with the school to come up with creative ways to ensure that student stayed on the roll of the school, such as through a mixture of alternative provision and mainstream settings. She advised members that Key Stage 2 results had been good across all measures and an increase on the previous year. In comparison to looked after children nationally, Brent had seen a 20% increase in some of the Key Stage 2 figures. It was added that the cohort was small which could skew the figures, as seen in the Key Stage 4 figures where a few children with poorer results affected the overall attainment percentage. The Statistical First Release (SFR) cohort, which BVS reported on where they had been in care for at least one year, was 30% larger than the previous year, and when looking at the number of young people achieving at least 5 good passes this was a lot higher than it had been in the previous 4 years. In terms of enrichment, some of the activities involved ice skating, bowling, and visiting the Chessington Safari. Some Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASCs) were taking part in a cooking course called My Little Chef. She advised the Committee that the BVS continued to diversify and expand the activities on offer and worked closely with the John Lyon’s Charity with 3 other local authorities to do that.

The Chair thanked officers for the updates and then invited comments and questions from Committee members with the following raised:

The Committee asked how long looked after children should expect to wait for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). They heard that there was now a SEND Advisory Officer role within the BVS as the issue was not around the length of time to get an EHCP, but where Brent had young people with an EHCP not living in Brent, as there could be challenges getting those into an appropriate school. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People and Schools, Brent Council) added that there was different national legislation governing responsibility for children in care and responsibility for children with SEND. The responsibility for looked after children was with their home authority, so regardless of where a Brent child was placed the Council retained responsibility, but when a child was placed with SEND then they became the responsibility of the local authority in which they were placed, which caused issues with co-operation. This had been flagged nationally with the DfE who had announced there would be some guidance coming on this, and lobbying activity focused on campaigning for the same process for SEND children as for looked after children.

In response to what support a young person received to know whether they needed an EHCP and to provide evidence of that need, Michaela Richards explained that the child’s social worker, foster carer and BVS SEND Advisory Officer would work together to do that and schools were supportive of that process. An Educational Psychologist working specifically with looked after children meant EHCP assessments could be fast-tracked.

Noting the decrease in the number of 5 passes including in English and Maths, the Committee asked whether achievement had worsened specifically in those subjects. Michaela Richards advised that when she had reviewed those figures she had found there were only 1-2 differences who achieved the pass grade the previous year and not the reporting year, and when that happened within a cohort of only 10-20 children that could drastically affect the figures. She did not believe there was a specific issue with those subjects and that the figures depended on the cohort. There were some cohorts where children had recently came into care and had behavioural challenges they were prone to and attendance issues and it was best to see how they were doing a few years down the line. She added that some of those figures may also reflect the individual school’s attainment, and underperforming pupils were always given the option to resit.

In relation to the positive attendance record, the Committee commended the Council and schools on achieving this. Michaela Richards attributed the positive work to the good relationship the BVS had with schools, particularly within Brent, which enabled the BVS to capture when those children’s attendance may be about to drop by looking at those in the 90-95% attendance range to combat poor attendance early.

Noting the aim to get more young people into education, employment and training, the Committee asked what plans were in place to increase those figures. Michaela Richards responded that the BVS was working closely with the LAC and Permanency Team around the opportunities available for young people. She highlighted the importance of having a diverse offer for Brent’s young people. Kelli Eboji (Head of LAC and Permanency, Brent Council) added that there was a fine balance needed, and the Council worked with partners such as John Lewis, the NHS, and other apprenticeship schemes to offer that. She acknowledged that there was a need to be communicating those offers well to young people to ensure they had equal access to that knowledge and opportunity. There was also thought to be a generational shift in the way young people viewed work and what they wanted to achieve through work, so there was a need to be flexible. It was felt that with Community Development moving into the Children and Young People Department this would also help join things up to increase possible routes to jobs and skills working with community partners. 

The Committee asked how Pupil Premium Plus differed from Pupil Premium. They were advised that Pupil Premium was available for any person, whether looked after or not, if they were eligible for Free School Meals. Pupil Premium Plus was for looked after children and previously looked after children specifically. For a looked after child that came to the local authority, the Council could send a certain amount of money to the school to support with activities in school or something the child needed academically, and if the school needed more the Council could provide that. The Council had sent more than £3k where there was evidence the school was using it appropriately and could show how it was supporting the child. For example, it could be used for extra tuition, enrichment activities or residential trips, and schools could be creative in what they used that for, although it must link to the young person’s education. The child’s Personal Education Plan was then reviewed yearly to check whether the Pupil Premium Plus was being spent in a beneficial way. The child, teacher, social worker, carer and BVS created those PEPs, and young people were invited to attend those reviews where they could ask what the Pupil Premium was being spent on. Where BVS could see that the school had not been spending the money on the young person then the money would not be sent. Remaining funding that was not distributed was then used to fund additional BVS activities.

As no further issues were raised, the Committee resolved to note the report.