Archived decisions
AT A MEETING of the CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE of the HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at The Castle, Winchester on 6 March 2007
Chairman
p Councillor Mrs C.A. Leversha
Vice-Chairman
p Councillor Mrs Anna McNair-Scott
Councillors:
p F. Allgood a C. Bailey p D. Blampied p Mrs E.M. Byrom p B.D. Dash p P. Edgar a K. Evans p Mrs J.K. Frankum |
p K. Gill a Mrs K. Heron p G.M. Hockley p R.J. Kimber p Mrs P.G. Peskett p S.H. Read p J.K. West p S. Wheale |
Co-opted Members
p David Mayer
a Tony Blackshaw
a Ursula Topp.
Officers
John Coughlan - Director of Children's Services
Pam Robinson - Children's Services Department
Eric Smith - Children's Services Department
Chris Lloyd - Children's Services Department
Joanna Wardle - Children's Services Department
Emma Gordon - Chief Executive's Department
Louise Read - Chief Executive's Department
Catherine Stephens - Chief Executive's Department
Karen Widdowson - Chief Executive's Department
Also in attendance:
Executive Member for Children's Services - Councillor Mrs. Felicity Hindson
Executive Member for Education - Councillor David Kirk
140. |
APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Councillor Mrs C. Bailey, Mrs. K. Heron, and K. Evans and Co-opted Members; Tony Blackshaw and Ursula Topp. |
|
141. |
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should, normally at the time of the debate, declare their interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed. |
|
142. |
CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS No communications were received under this item. |
|
143. |
DEPUTATIONS No deputations were received under this item. |
|
144. |
REVIEW OF EDUCATION PROVISION FOR DEAF AND HEARING IMPAIRED CHILDREN The Committee considered the decision of the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services following the call in procedure exercised in accordance with the Constitution. The following documents were used as the basis for discussion at the meeting: · The amended decision sheet detailing the decisions reached by the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services on 15 February 2007. · The original report prepared by the Director of Children's Services dated 15 February 2007. · The draft Minute of the Committee meeting held on 13 February 2007 relating to this item. The Chairman welcomed those in attendance and outlined the purpose of the call in meeting. The Chairman also took the opportunity to thank officers for their time and commitment associated with this review and acknowledged the difficult decisions to be made. A note of thanks was also relayed to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services for her decision to go out for a further consultation period as a result of the concerns of Members. Members were also reminded to maintain a strategic view of matters and not dwell too heavily on local issues. The key point for discussion was whether current proposals for education provision would achieve the five agreed criteria for the development of resourced provision: 1) provision which will be able to offer both auditory/oral and signed modes of communication; 2) viability of numbers to maintain security of staffing and, wherever possible, a pupil peer group; 3) geographical spread and accessibility; 4) continuity between primary and secondary link schools; 5) provision of outreach to children and young people in other schools and settings. Members were asked to identify areas that required further clarification which would help them decide whether the proposals supported the five criteria as set out above. The Chairman also advised the Committee that the Monitoring Officer had deemed the Executive Member decision to be in line with the policy framework and as such the call in would not prevent the decision being actioned. The aim of the meeting was to decide whether the Committee would like to undertake any further work on the topic and define what form this would take. Furthermore, it was explained that the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services Decision Day would take place on 13 July 2007. This would give the opportunity for Members to undertake some work prior to this decision and report back to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services. The Director of Children's Services addressed the Committee and commenced with providing the information requested by the Chairman on the matters set out in Appendix 1 to these minutes. The Committee debated in detail the following criteria and the main points are summarised below: Viability of numbers to maintain security of staffing and wherever possible, a pupil peer group · Evidence is required to support the claim that viable pupil numbers are a good indicator of a school being able to provide outreach · Evidence is required to prove the flexibility provided by the model of three groups of linked resourced schools · Influence of parental choice on the proposals · Importance of the overall quality of school, not just deaf and hearing impaired support Geographical Spread and accessibility · Lack of consistency with the policy on accessibility in the School Places Plan · Issues with increased travel for not only the children but for parents and outreach teachers · The impact of the introduction of Children's Centres and the subsequent impact on resources · Data on waiting times before and after school required as evidence · Questions over validity of housing growth/forecast techniques employed Continuity between primary and secondary linked schools · The travel implications for primary and secondary aged children · Increased length of journeys for more children · Importance of consistency and continuity in the early years · The case for maintaining provision in the primary sector where there are linked pre-schools Provision of outreach to children and young people in other schools and settings · The likelihood of longer journeys may result in more parents choosing to send their child to a more local school. · Questions over how quality of teaching will be evaluated · Details of organisation of outreach. Councillor Kemp Gee addressed the Committee and outlined his strategic concerns about the proposals. In particular, reference was made to the consultation process, the County Council's Disability Discrimination Scheme and the Children and Young People's Plan. The Executive Member for Education also addressed the Committee and outlined his personal experience of support for a hearing impaired child in a mainstream school. The Executive Lead Member for Children's Services also addressed the Committee and explained how she had reached the decision taken on 15 February 2007, emphasising that she understood the concerns expressed by Members and had listened carefully to the points made. The Committee were advised that the possibility of operating four resourced provisions had been investigated but she had concluded that three pyramids was the most sustainable option. The Executive Member had also taken on board the point regarding provision at Medstead Primary School and had amended her decision to ensure that appropriate support would be offered up to, and after August 2008 as part of the transition process for the implementation of the changes outlined in connection with primary schools linked to Henry Beaufort School in Winchester. In conclusion, the proposals to establish three pyramids of provision to serve the South Centre and North of the County would ensure a good geographical spread and accessibility as well as continuity of provision for children between primary and secondary schools. Furthermore, under the proposals provision would be integrated enabling resourced provision at schools to offer a wider range of communication modes. A majority of Members concluded that they did not agree with the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services decisions and resolved to undertake some scrutiny work to look into areas which were considered to require further clarification. The topics put forward for possible scrutiny included: · How will the model of resourced provision and outreach work in practice, taking into account fluctuations in pupil location and numbers. Have models of service delivery based on these variables been compared · To establish whether there is any importance in providing linked nursery and primary education for children with deafness or hearing impairment. · Transportation issues arising from current proposals in the north of the County. · An examination of how the quality of teaching for children with deafness or hearing impairment might be affected by current proposals. It was explained that the findings of the scrutiny group would be communicated to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services prior to her decision day on 13 July 2007. |
APPENDIX 1
a) Cost of maintained and non-maintained provisions:
The cost of HCC maintained resourced provision is derived from the Agreed Place Number (APN) and the funding formula value for each type of provision. The funding formula values are (2006/2007):
HI (Nursery / Infant) £13,373
HI (Junior) £11,240
HI (Secondary) £10,602
Total Communication (Primary) £21,517
Signing (Secondary) £24,899
The current (September 2006 - March 2007) APN for each school was set out in Appendix 3 of Annexe 1 in the report to Executive Member of 15 February.
Twenty-two children currently attend non-maintained schools, mainly in five schools. Fees charged by independent and non-maintained schools may vary according to the needs of individual children but for these children they are mostly in the range £28,000 - £35,000 p.a. These are predominantly secondary age pupils; most are boarders.
b) LAA themes : improving life chances of children and young people
The proposal to move our resourced provision to offering `mixed modes' is based firmly on the objective of better meeting individual children's needs. As I set out in para. 2.5 of the February 2007 report, it is likely that no one communication mode will support deaf/HI children's needs throughout their entire school life. Children's needs change over time and resourced provision which is able to offer a range of communication modes will enable the provision to respond quickly to changes in a child's needs, without requiring a change of school placement. Resourced provision offering mixed modes can be more flexible and adaptable in meeting individual needs.
The proposed consolidation of provision into fewer, linked schools is intended to secure sustainable resourced provision into the future, in the context of declining pupil numbers in HI resourced provision, where pupils have supportive peer groups and staffing with the range of skills and expertise to offer the required range of communication modes.
c) Providing more outreach provision
The proposed reduction in the number of resourced provisions is not predicated on providing more outreach provision. At the request of headteachers of resourced schools and teachers in charge (TiC) of HI resourced provision, a working group (including headteachers and teachers in charge) has drawn up a policy for the delivery of outreach to deaf/HI pupils. As noted in Annexe 5, para. 29 of the February 2007 report, there are currently two forms of outreach: from signing provision into auditory/oral resourced provision (e.g. The Westgate School providing outreach into Henry Beaufort School), and from resourced provision (auditory/oral and signing) into other mainstream schools (e.g. The Westgate to St Faiths and St Peters Primary schools and Park View Junior to Overton Primary schools).
Although the need for the former type of outreach will decline as all resourced provision can offer the full range of communication modes, we anticipate that there will be a continuing call on outreach from resourced schools to other mainstream schools, as parents continue to exercise their preference for their deaf/HI child to attend a local school, rather than travelling to a resourced school.
In order to be able to service this expected, continuing demand, we have stated that we want all resourced provision to be willing, and have the capacity, to offer outreach support in the future.
This principle was overwhelmingly supported in the consultation.
d) Population forecasts
The figures I have relied on in the report are those included in the County Council's School Places Plan 2006. Although this does not give a specific figure for live births, I understand that our Environment Department forecasts for the SE Plan predict age cohorts of approximately 18,000 p.a., for Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth. Your figure for Basingstoke is, therefore, consistent with this forecast.
e) SOP, October 2005
Section A9 comprises an extract from the County Council's SEN Policy published in April 2005. I believe that the proposal to consolidate resourced provision is consistent with and supported by the full SEN Policy which states (inter alia):
Principle: the diversity of children's needs should be recognised and met through a range of flexible, responsive and varied provision, allowing parents to express preferences.
Aims and objectives: 3.2 (k) ensuring that special schools and resourced provision in mainstream schools continue to develop quality education for children with the most severe and complex needs and a more flexible role in making provision and providing support services to children and staff in other settings.
3.4 (q) developing, monitoring and systematically reviewing existing maintained provision to achieve the best possible match between needs and resources.
Objective e states: providing electing members with the information they need to develop, monitor and review provision for children with SEN.
I believe that the process of seeking Executive Member approval (in December 2005) to consult on education provision for deaf and HI children, subsequent reports (October 2006 and February 2007) and the circulation of the November 2006 consultation document to all County Councillors have provided members with extensive information on the issues and views surrounding the proposals to develop and consolidate our resourced provision.
f) Speech and language therapy (SaLT)
I would expect that all children attending resourced provision would be monitored, or would at some stage, especially in the early years, have been assessed and/or monitored, by the SaLT Service. It has to be noted, however, that the policy and provision of SaLT varies across the PCTs and Healthcare Trusts; the nature and level of involvement of the SaLT Service may be different in different parts of the County.
g) Deaf Services
Yes: Deaf Services have received copies of the consultation documents. Representatives from Social Care, including Sensory Services, are members of the County Deaf and HI Advisory Group through which the proposal to move to mixed mode provision was generated.
h) Linked primary and secondary schools
Para. 5.3 of the February 2007 report states:
"Parents exercise their right to express a preference for a school which they wish their children to attend, and other factors may outweigh any perceived benefit from remaining within the same wider peer group. However, the right of parents to express a preference regarding the type of school or the actual school for a child does not negate the principle that the opportunity should be given to pupils to remain within a familiar peer group of both deaf/HI and hearing peers."
The principles of parental preference and of having the opportunity to remain within a familiar peer group are not mutually exclusive.
The destinations of Year 6 leavers in the years 2002 - 2006 are listed on the attached (which incorporates the figures set out in my memorandum to you of 29 January).
i) Benchmark Authorities
I provided information derived from responses from six comparator local authorities, in my previous memorandum. We have received information from others, which is consistent with my earlier notes.
Outreach (your e-mail of 2 March):
I am not aware of any outreach provision requested by the SEN Service or STA Service, other than the cases noted in Annexe 5, para. 30. During the autumn term 2006, The Westgate School also provided teacher of the deaf (ToD) time into a special school in Southampton (to support a Hampshire child) but this arrangement has not continued this term. Advice may, of course, be sought from a ToD in resourced provision by other staff in the school or by other schools on an informal basis.
I should, of course, be happy to look into the particular cases you mention in your e-mail if you would like to let me have more details of the schools, staff or pupils involved.
Transport
I note that you have heard directly from Terry Rath in relation to your enquiry about the wait times for a particular post-16 student.
Capital Costs
The Strategic Planning Section has e-mailed you the figures (which I also attach) for capital spending (Schools Access Initiative). Changes to the figures quoted in Annexe 5, para. 11, have been made in respect of Cove Secondary School (the figure in the report included associated works in the school funded from other sources); Manor Infant School (which was omitted); and Park View Infant School (where only the figure for 2006/2007 was included).