[senco-forum] statemented children and SENCO involvement

I don't think a readmission meeting is the same as a

I didn't mean to suggest that you were confusing the re-admission meeting with a PSP.  What I meant was that I see them as two different things.
  And while I agree that PSPs should be used much more widely than 'at the point of possible exclusion', I think that we risk letting some things get in the way of the main businees of a school which is teaching classes of pupils.  As a class teacher, I need to be in class.  Sometimes I need to be in a meeting instead in which case I set a cover lesson.  I could go to a meeting every day, sometimes two.  I don't if I can help it as I feel I also need to teach.

  Amanda

"webmaster at aylesburyvale-sec.bucks.sch.uk" <webmaster at aylesburyvale-sec.bucks.sch.uk> wrote:

From: Amanda 

> I don't think a readmission meeting is the same as a
> PSP.

Erm... I never said it was. Some schools though (mistakenly)
choose to combine the reintegration meeting with the PSP. As
I suggested in my post this is a bad idea.

> knows why they were excluded in the first place. Our
> school rules are all about thinks like 'respect' and
> 'responsibility for own learning' so we need to make sure
> that pupils know why we had had to exclude them and which
> rule they broke.
> PSPs are about making that process formal - the PSP is
> often the last step before considering permenent exclusion

Actually a PSP can be much more than this. Many schools only
use PSP with students in danger of being PXed (permanently
excluded). However schools could and should use PSPs much
more widely.

When regular and frequent reviews of progress show that
little progress has been made with school based strategies a
PSP should be developed involving other educational services
and/or outside agencies.

It is recommended that the pupils should participate in the
planning of the PSP.
DfES guidance states that:
‘ A PSP must always be developed if a pupil has had two or
more fixed term exclusions adding up to more than fifteen
days in any one term or is exhibiting behaviour which may
lead to a permanent exclusion eventually.’

A PSP must also be developed if there are other reasons
which mean that the pupil is at risk of failure at school
through disaffection. For example:
• persistent bullying
• continued drug or substance abuse
• racial/sexual harassment
• persistent truanting
• severe behaviour problems
• school refusal

In addition it is also a good strategy to develop a PSP for
children and young people who may be at risk if their needs
are not being met by other strategies, particularly if they
are vulnerable to social exclusion e.g.

• pregnant schoolgirls/teenage mothers
• refugees
• travellers
• pupils with chronic health problems
• pupils in transition from one stage to another
• children and young people from families under stress
• young offenders
• young carers

However (as you suggest) many schools see the PSP simply as
a means of formalising agreements/discussions made at
reintegration meetings.

Schools are also (naturally) keen to have evidence they can
present should there be an independent appeal if a child is
PXed. PSPs are great evidence for showing that the school
has done everything it can.

But PSPs have the potential to be a very useful tool for
delivering much wider pastoral support than just for those
children who are in danger of being PXed. It is rare that
schools spend the amount of time and energy required on the
PSP process on students other than those in danger of PX.
When you look at the list above this is a great shame.

Better get off my soapbox now!

Mark

--
Mark Norwood
www.avssc.org
"The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail"
Stephen Fry

======================================================================= This email has been sent from the Bucks LEA. If you have
cause for complaint regarding the content of this email please contact
abuse at bucksgfl.org.uk
=======================================================================

Amanda
Secondary SENCO
Cornwall