To what extent and in what respects is the need for schools to be `sensitive' to risks which can potentially be identified by children and young people missing education an `issue' locally?

(if documentation not provided before the visit) Are there agreed local protocols covering vulnerable children and young people who `miss education' (and are they `drawn together in one place')?

Have all the local schools and PRUs responsible for providing education (i.e. including independent schools, academies and the like) agreed to comply with the protocols?

Are any local authority providers of education to children and young people of statutory school age outside schools and PRUs (e.g. home tuition services not managed as part of a PRU) fully aware of their responsibility to comply?

What guidance and/or training has been provided to `key players' within schools, PRUs and other relevant provision on the protocols and other related issues (e.g. forced marriage, child trafficking etc.)?

What were the processes involved in establishing the role of each agency (and in particular schools) in identifying and responding to risk?

What monitoring and evaluation is undertaken of schools' activities in such respects?

How well are schools, PRUs and other relevant providers fulfilling their responsibilities?

How are notifications from parents made direct to the local authority (e.g. of an intention to educate their child at home from now on) dealt with? How well are those responsible for assessing and reassessing the provision made by parents `tied in' to the local arrangements (for example do they check for any concerns before making home visits and feed back observations where appropriate)?

Are those responsible within the local authority for arranging alternative educational provision (PRU placement, home tuition etc.) suitably `tied in' to the local arrangements (for example do they check for any concerns when deciding on the nature of provision and the urgency in setting it up)?

Are the existing referral routes and information sharing arrangements between agencies proving to be `fit for purpose'?

Are all the agencies involved giving suitable priority to such work, including deploying sufficient staff with the right skills and knowledge to both identification and follow-up tasks?

Is there any continuing debate/concern about the `thresholds' for the involvement of the more specialist agencies (the local authority's social care service and the police in particular when very high risks are involved)?

Is the operation of agreed procedures reviewed on a regular basis and by whom?

Has there been a need to revise procedures and/or practices over the last few years - and, if so, how and why?

Are there any factors which hinder local agencies in carrying out initial investigations in response to referrals from schools - e.g. the existence of independent schools, academies which do not contribute information on pupils on roll to a central database?

Are there any other comments they wish to make - e.g. on arrangements nationally and/or internationally for following up individual pupil concerns?