North Yorkshire Council
Executive
16th December 2025
Primary Exclusion and Day 6 Provision
Report of the Corporate Director, Children and Young People’s Service
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide information obtained through consultation and to seek the approval of the Executive Committee to proceed with proposals to lower the age range of the maintained Pupil Referral Units in North Yorkshire.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The council has a duty to keep education provision for children with SEN under review. Whilst not all children excluded from school have SEN many do and the nature of the education provision is therefore considered under this duty. Delivering on the proposals within this paper will provide additional support to mainstream settings and are designed to provide a preventative offer where capacity allows. The focus on preventative work aligns to the council’s ambition and view that children should not be permanently excluded from school and for children and young people to thrive within inclusive mainstream schools. Viewed in isolation, this proposal will assist the council in better meeting its statutory duties however, as part of ongoing transformation work it will further strengthen the local provision offer alongside inclusive mainstream schools, Targeted Mainstream Provisions, Special Schools and PRUs.
2.2 The Local Authority are responsible for arranging suitable and (normally) full time education for children of compulsory school age who, because of exclusion, illness or other reasons, would not receive a suitable education without such provision under Section 19 of the Education Act (1996).
2.3 In recent years there has been a significant rise in the number of children of primary age that have been excluded from school. This has posed a significant challenge to the council to arrange education provision within 6 days of the exclusion that is suitable and full time. This issue was set out in more detail in the earlier report to the Executive Member on 14th August 2025 and is included for reference in appendix A.
2.6 The model proposed, to arrange education via Pupil Referral Units / Alternative Provision Academies, has been identified as it builds upon existing infrastructure within North Yorkshire and could provide an equitable and suitable offer for children across the county whilst meeting the council’s duty to arrange provision.
2.7 In order to deliver this provision for primary aged children, maintained Pupil Referral Units will need to expand their age range to accommodate pupils from age 5. This includes Sunbeck PRU (Northallerton PRU), Craven PRU and The Rubicon Centre (Selby PRU). During the consultation period the council engaged with leaders from Scarborough PRU and Springwell Harrogate despite neither provision being the subject of this proposal. Scarborough PRU has a designation that includes the lower age range meaning there is no requirement to make further changes and Springwell Harrogate is an Academy Alternative Provision which would need to conduct its own consultation processes and seek approval direct from the Department for Education.
3.0 THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE
3.1 Since 2021/22 permanent exclusions of primary aged children has increased from 5 children to 25 in 2024/25. This is in line with regional and national trends but presents a large rural authority such as North Yorkshire with additional challenges in arranging suitable education for relatively small numbers of children across a vast geographical area.
3.2 Following an options appraisal, approval was granted by the Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills to undertake consultation on lowering the age range of maintained Pupil Referral Units across North Yorkshire to accommodate primary aged children from 5 years old.
3.3 Lowering the age range of existing PRU’s will enable the council to work with PRU leaders and management committees to develop a delivery model that could begin implementation from September 2026 for primary aged children at risk of exclusion.
3.4 Consultation was undertaken between 22nd September and 7th November 2025. Themes within the feedback have been set out in section 4. However, in general terms the response was largely positive on the issue of providing such support for primary aged pupils.
3.6 The proposal of extending the age range of existing PRUs is aligned to arrangements in many other local authority areas. It is a recognised model for the consistent delivery of education for children excluded from school that satisfies the council duties to arrange suitable provision for those children affected.
4.0 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES
4.1 Consultation was approved by the Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills on 10th September 2025.
4.2 A period of consultation took place between 22nd September and 7th November 2025. This was conducted through public engagement sessions with parents, carers and professionals. This included school staff and council staff who were interested in the proposals. In addition, a web page was created and a survey by which views were gathered. The council also received three submissions outside of the survey.
4.3 Whilst the feedback was largely in support of lowering the age range there was a significant volume of comments and responses to the survey questions which were related to stakeholders’ views about the delivery model and the general issues within the wider education and SEND system. Whilst these views are not strictly relevant to the decision to lower the age range of maintained PRUs, they are useful in helping to shape the support offer should approval be given to proceed.
4.4 There were 254 responses to the survey and of those 32% were parents/carers, 52% were education professionals, 4% social care professionals, 4% health professionals and 7% chose ‘other’.
4.5 79% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed when asked if making primary provision was needed. 62% agreed or strongly agreed that Pupil Referral Units were best placed to deliver this provision. A further 14% neither agreed or disagreed with that.
Response
There were a significant number of responses to the survey, and this provides confidence that there is general support for the proposal to lower the age range of LA maintained PRUs. The high percentage of respondents who agreed that this provision is needed, coupled with 62% agreeing that PRUs are best placed to deliver the provision, supports the council’s proposal.
4.6 80% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that if places were commissioned at PRUs by the council that they should be used to provide preventative support when capacity allowed. The feedback from survey responses reflected that stakeholders consulted felt the proposal would be a positive addition to the education provision for children at risk of exclusion.
4.7 148 respondents also provided free text responses. General themes in those comments included:
· Preference for a focus on preventative support
· A need for more support for mainstream settings
· Delivery models being trauma-informed
· Resource challenges in the system
· Wider system issues
Response
Should approval be given for the age range to be lowered at maintained PRUs the council will use the feedback provided to shape implementation. Delivering on the proposals will provide additional support to mainstream settings and will be designed to provide a preventative offer where capacity allows. It is noted that many stakeholders shared concerns about wider SEND system issues and resource challenges and whilst this proposal will not resolve those it will provide further support to children who may be at risk of exclusion.
5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The financial implications for this proposed model are set out below. The funding used would be via the High Needs Block funding allocated to the local authority to make arrangements for children with SEND.
5.2 The delivery of the proposed model relies upon either the redirection of High Needs Funding from the existing commitments or the allocation of new funding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs of New Proposal |
£ |
|
|
|
30 places @ £19,180 |
575,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Income from prevention £25 x 10 places x 190 days |
(47,500) |
|
|
|
Income AWPU 20 places x £3,847 |
(76,940) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Costs of proposed service |
450,960 |
|
|
6.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 The Council has a statutory duty pursuant to section 19 Education Act 1996 to make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.
6.2 The Council also has a duty to keep under review any special educational provision pursuant to section 27 Children & Families Act 2014. This duty also has a consultation duty.
7.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
7.1 See attached Appendix B
8.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
8.1 See attached Appendix C
9.0 HUMAN RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
9.1 Alongside the public consultation, a separate paper will be presented that outlines the HR implications of the changed approach and this will proposing potential options.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 The proposal to lower the age range of PRUs has largely been responded to positively during the consultation period. Given the duties upon the local authority to arrange education for children excluded from school, the growing numbers of children who have been excluded and the need to provide an equitable offer across the county the council should approve the change of age range.
11.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1 The recommendation is based upon the rising demand across the county for this type of provision, the need for the council to have a long-term sustainable arrangement in place for primary aged children excluded from school and the legal implications should the council not have an arrangement in places that satisfies the duties placed upon it.
|
12.0 |
RECOMMENDATION
|
|
|
It is recommended that the Executive Committee gives approval for the age range of Sunbeck PRU (Northallerton), Craven PRU (Skipton) and The Rubicon Centre (Selby) to be lowered to 5-16 at a suitable date aligned to implementation plans.
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix A-Executive Member Report 10th Sept 2025
Appendix B-Equalities Impact Assessment Screening Tool
Appendix C-Climate Impact Assessment Screening Tool
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
Peter Thorpe
Corporate Director – CYPS
County Hall
Northallerton
Report Author – Chris Reynolds
Presenter of Report – Chris Reynolds Head of SEND Strategic Planning and Resources
Note: Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT IF ANY REPORTS / APPENDICES INCLUDE SIGNATURES THESE MUST BE REMOVED / DELETED PRIOR TO SENDING REPORTS / APPENDICES TO DEMOCRATIC SERVICES. Appendices should include an Equality Impact Assessment and a Climate Impact Assessment where appropriate