News article |

Provision for pupils receiving education other than at school needs better co-ordination

Share this page

Provision for pupils at risk of exclusion or disengagement is most effective where local authorities, schools and pupil referral units (PRUs) work together to meet the needs of these pupils so they remain in full-time education.

Estyn’s report ‘Education Other Than At School: a good practice survey’ focuses on good practice in PRUs, schools and local authorities. This includes early identification of pupils at risk of disengagement and prompt intervention. The PRUs visited as part of the survey provide mainly for pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, mental health, anxiety or attendance issues.

Meilyr Rowlands, Chief Inspector, says:

“Although we have seen good practice in PRUs, all stakeholders still need to do more to make sure there are effective strategies in place to help vulnerable pupils both in and outside school settings.

“Education provision across the PRU sector is inconsistent, but the examples of good practice in today’s report from PRUs, schools and local authorities can be used to help improve outcomes for pupils.”

Staff in most of the PRUs visited as part of this survey access the professional development opportunities available to their mainstream school colleagues. This enables them to keep up-to-date with important developments, for example curriculum changes and the Literacy and Numeracy Framework. However, where PRU staff do not have these opportunities, they feel isolated and unsupported. Across the regional consortia, there are no consistent arrangements to involve PRUs in support and challenge activities.

In the best cases, the PRU is a centre for excellence for educating pupils with challenging behaviour. In these cases, local authorities use the expertise of PRU staff to provide support for individual pupils in mainstream schools as well as advice and training for mainstream staff.

At key stages 3 and 4, the range of subjects offered in PRUs varies considerably. The range of options and an element of choice are important factors in engaging pupils who have previously lost interest in education. On their own, PRUs are unlikely to be able to provide as many options as schools. To increase the range of options available, a few PRUs liaise well with other providers. In a few cases, local authorities work together to extend the curriculum opportunities for PRU pupils.

Local authorities need to adopt a strategic approach in relation to pupils receiving education other than at school. An example of good practice was found in Ceredigion where the local authority carried out a comprehensive review of provision for pupils with challenging behaviour. This resulted in the development of a continuum of provision, including school-based intervention, a centrally employed behaviour support service and PRU provision. Since the review six years ago, there have been no permanent exclusions in schools and the number of fixed-term exclusions of six days or more has reduced significantly. Attendance in secondary schools in Ceredigion has been the highest in Wales for the last four years

The report recommends that schools, PRUs and local authorities work together to deliver an agreed strategy to support all vulnerable pupils, identify pupils who are at risk of disengagement and intervene appropriately. Local authorities should ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the role of EOTAS, appoint PRU staff with appropriate expertise and ensure that all PRU staff undergo appropriate training and development. Finally, the Welsh Government should provide guidance on the role of PRU provision and consider introducing a national professional qualification for teachers in charge of PRUs.
-ENDS-

Notes to Editors:

About the report

The findings in this report draw on visits to local authorities, primary and secondary schools and PRUs. In these visits, HMI:

  • met with relevant members of staff and, where appropriate, groups of pupils
  • reviewed LA, school and PRU documentation

Additional evidence was drawn from:

  • Welsh Government statistics relating to EOTAS and exclusions
  • Estyn inspection reports from LAs, schools and PRUs

The report contains case studies on

  • Fitzalan High School (Cardiff)
  • Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Plasmawr (Cardiff)
  • Ceredigion Council
  • Penrhos Avenue Alternative Education Service (Conwy)
  • Pen Afan Primary (Neath Port Talbot)
  • Upper Afan federation (Neath Port Talbot)
  • Bridge Achievement Centre (Newport) (x2)
  • Newport City Council
  • Newport High School (Newport)
  • Tai Education Centre (Rhondda Cynon Taff)
  • Clase Primary School (Swansea)
  • Torfaen Pupil Referral Unit (Torfaen)
  • Woodlands Community Primary School (Torfaen)
  • Holton Primary School (Vale of Glamorgan)
  • Wrexham Pupil Referral Service (Wrexham)
  • North Wales Adolescent Service (North Wales NHS)