Children's Services Management Team sponsor:

Pam Robinson - Deputy Director of Children's Services: telephone 01962 847991; email: [email protected]

Contact: Eric Smith - Education Officer SEN: telephone 01962 846245; email: [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 Consultations took place in 2006 on key issues relating to the County Council's provision for deaf and hearing impaired (HI) children. Reports on the outcomes of these consultations were made to Executive Member for Children's Services in October 2006 and February 2007. The Executive Member agreed, at the latter meeting, that statutory consultations should take place on the proposed closure of resourced provision at five schools and the opening of a new resourced provision in Winchester.

1.2 The Children & Young People's Policy Review Committee (now Children & Young People's Select Committee) did not agree with the Executive Member's decisions. The Committee called in this item for discussion in March 2007 when they resolved to undertake some scrutiny work on aspects of the proposals.

1.3 In accordance with County Council's rules, when the views of a Policy Review Committee, following call-in, differ from or are critical of an Executive decision, the facts were reported to the next Council meeting. At its meeting in May 2007, Council requested the Executive Member to review the decisions taken on 15 February.

1.4 At his decision day on 17 July, the Executive Member agreed to undertake this review following consideration of the report of the Deaf and HI Scrutiny Review Group. The Select Committee has now received the findings of this Group and has made recommendations to the Executive Member. This report notes the findings of the Scrutiny Review Group and the views of Dr Steve Powers of Birmingham University whom they invited to act as an expert witness.

1.5 Five criteria were adopted for the review of resourced provision during the consultations and decision making processes. These criteria have been broadly supported and endorsed by the Select Committee and Scrutiny Review Group. Dr Powers is reported by the Group as having supported the pyramid model of provision and the underlying communication strategy as being a desirable model for Hampshire. The pyramid model would rationalise current provision and increase peer group size and use resources more effectively.

1.6 It is proposed that the way forward is based on the adoption of the five criteria as aims to be achieved over time and on a commitment to meet the needs of all deaf and HI children within maintained schools, with only a small number of children who have additional needs attending non-maintained or independent schools.

1.7 There has been a further reduction in the number of pupils attending resourced provision for deaf and HI children and this number is projected to decline again in 2008/2009. This trend puts at risk the sustainability of the present pattern of resourced provision requiring, at least, schools to work together to ensure that staff resources and skills are shared in order to maintain high quality of education and support and to deliver a range of communication modes appropriate to the needs of individual pupils.

1.8 From the extensive consultations and considerations by Select Committee, a clear consensus has not emerged around a consolidation into three pyramids of linked schools. The recommendations in this report take account of the views of parents, professionals and members, but recognise that, after a prolonged process of consultation, this review needs to be concluded, at least for the time being, for the sake of stability and future planning of services and of the schools involved.

1.9 The following appendices are included in the report:

Appendix 1	Map showing deaf and hearing impaired children : school placements by home address
Appendix 2	Agreed Place Number (APN) and Number on Roll (NOR) in resourced provision for deaf/HI children

2 Recommendations

2.1 It is recommended that the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education):

2.1.1 rescinds the following decisions of the Executive Member for Children's Services -

(a) the decisions taken on 15 February 2007 as reproduced in paragraph 3.5 of the report; and

(b) the decision taken on 17 May 2007 as referred to in paragraph 3.7 of the report.

2.1.2 determines that the five criteria adopted by the Executive Member for Children's Services on 12 October 2006 as the basis for the development of resourced provision for deaf/HI children, as set out in paragraph 3.4 of the report, continue to be the aims for the development of this service.

2.1.3 urges all schools with resourced provision for deaf/HI children to be committed to work in co-operation with linked schools (both within local 'pyramids' and other resourced schools) and with officers to contribute to a comprehensive pattern of provision which enables all deaf/HI children to receive appropriate support and education in a maintained school or local pre-school; and to develop in accordance with the five aims providing:

· both auditory/oral and signed modes of communication, according to the needs of pupils and parents' and pupils' preferences;

· viability of numbers to maintain security of staffing and, wherever possible, of pupil peer group;

· geographical spread and accessibility;

· continuity between primary and secondary linked schools;

· outreach to children and young people in other schools and settings.

2.1.4 authorises statutory consultations to take place with the governing bodies, staff, parents and other interested parties on detailed proposals for the closure of resourced provision for deaf and HI children at The Westgate School and Woodcot Primary School with effect from August 2009. A report of the outcome of these consultations to be made to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education).

2.1.5 asks officers to keep under review the pattern of the County Council's provision for deaf and HI children to ensure that the quality of education and support is maintained in Hampshire's provision. Officers should also keep under review the number of children attending non-maintained and independent schools, and the reasons for these placements.

2.1.6 notes and endorses the acknowledgement given by the Children's & Young People's Select Committee to Children's Services' officers for their detailed work on these proposals.

3 Background

3.1 Approximately 170 children in Hampshire have statements of special educational needs (SEN) arising from their hearing impairment. Currently (November 2007) 60 attend resourced provision in mainstream schools, 22 attend non-maintained or independent schools and approximately 70 attend a local mainstream school. Children attending a mainstream school without resourced provision are normally supported by the County Council's Specialist Teacher Advisers (STAs) for hearing impairment; STAs are all qualified and experienced teachers of the deaf, many of whom have previously taught in resourced provision. Thirteen schools (including three pairs of infant and junior schools) host resourced provision for deaf/HI children. (The schools are listed in Appendix 2). Three schools have been designated to provide signed modes of communication and ten auditory/oral provision. In line with the Communication Policy approved in October 2006, these schools are increasingly offering both signed and auditory/oral modes according to the needs of individual pupils.

3.2 Consultations were undertaken in 2006 on key issues relating to the County Council's provision for deaf and hearing impaired (HI) children. A report on the outcomes of those consultations was made to the Executive Member for Children's Services on 12 October 2006. The full report with appendices is available at: www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/061012-exlmcs-R1005115250. The report had also been considered by the Policy Review Committee for Children's Services on 10 October.

3.3 Taking account of the report of the Director of Children's Services and representations made by the Policy Review Committee, the Executive Member for Children's Services approved the Communication Policy as the basis for the County Council's strategic development of services and provision for deaf and hearing impaired children, and agreed that the Children's Services Department should continue to develop support services for pre-school children and their families, in line with the Communication Policy.

3.4 The Executive Member also agreed that resourced provision for deaf and HI children should be developed according to the following criteria:

· Provision which will be able to offer both auditory/oral and signed modes of communication;

· Viability of numbers to maintain security of staffing and, where possible, peer group;

· Geographical spread and accessibility;

· Continuity between primary and secondary linked schools;

· Provision of outreach to children and young people in other school settings.

The Executive Member decided that further consultations should take place on the proposal to consolidate resourced provision into three school pyramids, in the north, south and west of the County, in accordance with the criteria above.

3.5 At her Decision Day on 15 February 2007, the Executive Member for Children's Services received a report on the further consultations (the full report and appendices can be found at: www.hants.gov.uk\decisions\decisions-docs\070215-exlmcs-R0208144629.html) and agreed that:

(1) The following statutory consultations are undertaken within the preferred strategy of consolidating resourced provision for deaf and HI children into three pyramids of schools that will offer both auditory/oral and signed modes of communication, sustainable peer groups, security of staffing and outreach support to children in other schools and settings, and which are accessible to children throughout the County (the adoption of this strategy to be subject to the outcome of the following consultations);

(2) Statutory consultations take place with the governing bodies, staff, parents and other interest parties on detailed proposals for the closure of resourced provision for deaf and HI children at Park View Infant, Park View Junior and Woodcot Primary schools and at Aldworth Science College and The Westgate School with effect from August 2008;

(3) Headteachers and governing bodies of primary schools linked to Henry Beaufort School be invited to consider developing resourced provision, to open in September 2008 (or as soon after as possible), and statutory consultations take place, as appropriate, with the governing body, staff, parents and other interested parties on detailed proposals for the establishment of resourced provision for deaf and HI children;

(4) Statutory consultations take place with the governing body, staff, parents and other interested parties on the proposal to close the resourced provision for deaf and HI children at Medstead Primary School with effect from August 2008, but including a proposal that appropriate support will be offered up to and after that date, as part of the transition process for the implementation of the changes proposed in Recommendation 3; to ensure that appropriate support from skilled staff is provided both to the children and the school and to the development of other resourced provision;

(5) A report of the outcome of these consultations be made to the Executive Member for Children's Services and this report to include an outline of the proposed transition support arrangements.

3.6 The report of the Director of Children's Services to the Executive Member and her decisions in February were considered by the Children & Young People's Policy Review Committee (now Children & Young People's Select Committee) on 13 February and again on 6 March 2007. (Minutes of these meetings can be found at www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/070213-cypprc-R0323112057 and at www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/070306-cypprc-M0502163208). Minutes of the latter meeting record that:

3.6.1 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 locations 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?

· Practical considerations of transportation issues arising from current proposals in the north of the County.

· An examination of how quality of teaching for children with deafness or hearing impairment might be affected by current proposals.

3.7 On 17 May 2007, the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services had deferred from September 2008 to September 2009 the projected implementation of changes to resourced provision, subject to the outcome of statutory consultations.

3.8 The County Council's rules of procedure in Part 3D of the Constitution require that, when the views of the Policy Review Committee, following call-in, differ from, or are critical of, an Executive decision, the facts shall be reported to the next Council Meeting and be debated without changing the previous decision although the Council may request the Cabinet or relevant Executive Member(s) to review the decision(s) in question. Following consideration of the call-in by the Children and Young People's PRC on 6 March, the County Council, at its meeting on 24 May 2007, requested that the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education) reviews the decisions taken by the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services on 15 February (which were subsequently amended by her decisions on 17 May 2007). At his Decision Day on 17 July, the Executive Lead Member agreed to undertake this review in the autumn 2007, following consideration of the report of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Scrutiny Review Group. The Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education) also agreed that implementation of the decisions taken on 15 February (as amended on 17 May) to initiate statutory consultations on the closure of the resourced provision at Park View Infant, Park View Junior, Woodcot and Medstead primary schools and at Aldworth Science College and The Westgate School, and the establishment of a new resourced provision in a primary school in Winchester, be put on hold pending his review on those decisions.

The report of the Director of Children's Services can be seen at: (www.hants.gov.uk\decisions\decisions-docs\070517-exlmcs-R0510131326.html)

4 Findings of Scrutiny Review of Deaf and HI Education Provision

4.1 Minutes of the meeting of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Scrutiny Review Group held on 10 May 2007 record that: "The Group reaffirmed their support for the strategy behind the current proposals, that being:

1) provision which will be able to offer both auditory/oral and signed modes of communication;

2) viability of numbers and maintain security of staffing and, wherever possible, a pupil peer group;

3) geographical spread and accessibility;

4) continuity between primary and secondary linked schools;

5) provision of outreach to children and young people in other schools and settings.

The Group also reaffirmed their support for the Communication Policy forming the basis for the County's strategic development of services for provision for deaf and HI children."

4.2 At its meeting on 10 October 2006, the Children and Young People's Select Committee had also endorsed the recommendation to the Executive Member for Children's Services that the County Council's Children's Services Department continues to develop support services for pre-school children and their families, which will provide access to comprehensive support and advice services for parents of deaf/HI children and provide communication support to those families in line with the Communication Policy.

4.3 At its meeting on 17 September 2007, the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Scrutiny Review Group had received a report from and had discussion with Dr Steve Powers from Birmingham University. (Minutes of this meeting can be found at: www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/071003-cypprc-R0926141959

4.4 The report of the Chairman of the Review Group to the Children & Young People's Select Committee (3 October 2007) is attached (and can be found at www.hants.gov.uk\decisions\decisions-docs\071003-cypprc-R0926141458.html

4.5 The recommendations of the Select Committee were as follows:

The Review Group is advised by Children's Services officers that there are no significant revenue implications of selecting one model of provision over another. In view of this, the Review Group recommends that:

4.5.1 Given the lack of research supporting one model of provision over another and the differing preferences expressed by stakeholders for models of provision, Members of the Committee ask that the Executive Member decides not to proceed with the proposal to consolidate provision into three pyramids.

4.5.2 If the Executive Member does decide to proceed, Members of the Committee would strongly recommend that the following specific issues are considered in further depth:

a. That the Executive Member reviews the consultation responses to current proposals and satisfies himself that, as far as possible, indications of parental preference regarding education provision for deaf and hearing impaired children in Hampshire have been taken into account in the proposed delivery model.

b. That the Executive Member reviews the proposed delivery model and satisfies himself that the schools earmarked to host resourced provision have been selected on the basis of them being best placed to develop high quality provision, equal or better than that in existing established units.

c. That examples of existing good practice in the delivery of deaf and hearing impaired education are identified and used to inform the development of the County's resourced units.

d. That the Executive Member notes - and acts upon as appropriate - any future research on outcomes for deaf and hearing impaired children regarding the impact of schooling later in life in areas such as employment and quality of life.

4.5.3 That the Executive Member considers the dossier submitted by Medstead School in making his decision on this matter.

4.5.4 That Children's Services officers are acknowledged for their detailed work on these proposals.

(The minutes of the Select Committee Meeting can be found at: www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/071003-cypprc-R1107160123

5 Comments on Review Group's findings and Select Committee's recommendations

5.1 The report to Select Committee acknowledges Dr Powers' opinion (para. 8.3): "Overall, very little clear and unambiguous evidence exists to support one model of providing education for deaf and hearing impaired children over another. The research undertaken by Dr Powers also drew no conclusions as to likely impact of researching local data and information in support of current proposals." As noted above, however, Dr Powers clearly supported the proposals in respect of developing provision based on linked primary and secondary schools within a "pyramid" arrangement, and enabling pupils to have a peer group of other deaf/HI pupils. He also noted the importance of resourced provision being within "good" schools.

5.2 Primary and secondary linked schools: the report of the Chairman of the Review Group to the Children and Young People's Select Committee (3 October 2007) notes in paragraph 8.3.i: there is no conclusive research either way to show the relative importance of providing nursery - primary links compared with primary - secondary links. However, the usual issues associated with school `transition' apply to all children, whether deaf/hearing impaired or not. Dr Powers' personal professional opinion was that the importance of friendships was more marked at the primary - secondary transfer stage. The report also records (para. 8.3.ii) that Dr Powers' view was that the `pyramid' model of provision would allow for flexibility to meet a variety of needs and support the maintenance of friendships and (para. 8.3.vi) that Dr Powers supported both the proposed `pyramid' model and the underlying communication strategy as being a desirable model for Hampshire.

5.3 "Dr Powers put great emphasis on the importance of pupil peer group size in resourced provision. The `pyramid' model would rationalise current provision, increase peer group size and use resources more effectively. Dr Powers stated that rationalising current provision was therefore essential in order to effectively deliver mixed mode provision in Hampshire." (Para. 8.3 vii)

5.4 Parental preference: the report states (para. 8.3.iv): "Whilst the factors affecting parental preference are not clearly evident, the overall perception of the quality of the school is very important. Dr Powers' view is that parents choose placements based on the school's ability to offer the pupil an opportunity to reach his or her potential. Dr Powers highlighted the fact that key outcomes for deaf pupils are unreported - such as communication, language competency and personal and social aspects of development - which therefore does not permit parents to select schools based on anticipated outcomes in these fields. Academic excellence is not necessarily the overriding factor in judging quality."

5.5 Quality of "host" schools: Dr Powers stated (para. 8.3.ix) that high quality resourced provision takes a long time to embed. However, as long as provision is sited in a `good' school, then it can easily develop and thrive."

6 Pupil Numbers

6.1 A map showing where children with statements of special educational needs for a hearing impairment live and the type of school they attend is attached at Appendix 1. The table showing numbers of pupils on roll and agreed place numbers (APN) of resource provisions, up-dated to September 2007, is attached at Appendix 2. There has been a further reduction in the number of children attending resourced provision for deaf and HI children since 2006. Currently 60 children are attending these provisions, a reduction of 25% since the peak in January 2000 (79 pupils). Even if current intakes into resourced provision are maintained in the future, the total number attending resourced schools is expected to decline again in 2008/2009, as a large Year 11 group will be leaving one of the secondary resourced schools in July 2008. The current projection for the total number of pupils in resourced provision for deaf/HI pupils in September 2008 is 53 pupils.

6.2 Divided by four pyramids, this figure would represent approximately (on average) 14 pupils per pyramid, i.e. 1.17 pupils per age group. Spread across only three pyramids, this figure would represent approximately 1.5 pupils per age group.

6.3 There is a number of children living in the west of the County who might meet the County Council's criteria for placement in resourced provision for deaf/HI children. If primary phase provision were available and accessible to these children, it might increase the total number in resourced provision by up to eight pupils. Forecasting pupil numbers who may attend resourced provision, particularly in the primary phase, is difficult. Factors affecting whether pupils are placed in resourced provision include parental preference, pupils' progress, the age and impact of cochlear implantation, and benefits of technological aids (e.g. radio aids) for children's hearing and learning. There is currently no reason to believe that the intake to existing resourced provisions will increase in future years. The increasing trend of early identification and intervention with deaf and hearing impaired children, and the impact of medical and technological advances, suggest that many children will continue to be placed by parents in their local mainstream school with appropriate support provided by specialist teacher advisors and other services.

6.4 Officers continue to have concerns about the consequences for peer friendship groups if pupil numbers in resourced provision continue to decline. The lack of, or small size of, peer groups of deaf/HI pupils in some resourced provisions may have negative impacts on the progress some children may make in their social and emotional development. Having peers using similar communication modes has significant benefits for some children in supporting the development of their communication skills, especially in social contexts, and of their self-image and self-esteem.

6.5 Some parents and young people have cited the small size of peer groups in resourced provision as grounds to seek placement in non-maintained special schools for the deaf. Most children placed in these schools are residential, either through preference or because the home-school travel distance is excessive. In October 2007, 22 children with SEN statements were funded by Hampshire County Council to attend special schools for the deaf. Many of these resulted from parents' appeals to SENDisT. The average cost of these placements is £26,565. The cost (Agreed Place Number - APN) of placement in Hampshire County Council resourced provision is in the range of £11,000 to £13,800 (auditory/oral provision) and £22,200 to £25,715 (signing provision). These costs exclude home-school transport.

7 Consultations

7.1 Views on proposals to develop provision for deaf and HI children were invited between February 2006 and January 2007 on the basis of consultation documents issued in February and November 2006, respectively, and in meetings. In the first round of consultations, participants were invited to express preferences amongst five options for the pattern of resourced provision within three or four pyramid arrangements, and were invited to express views on the continuation of provision at Medstead Primary School. Whilst, overall, options based on three pyramids received most support, views were expressed both in favour of and against each of the options. (Responses to the first consultation were summarised in Section 7 of the Report of the Director of Children's Services to Children and Young People's Policy Review Committee and Executive Member in October 2006 - see website reference in 3.2 above.) In the consultations undertaken between November 2006 and January 2007, additional options were included and responses were reported in Annexe 3 of the Report to Executive Member on 15 February 2007 (see website reference in 3.5 above). In response to the statement: "I support the proposal to consolidate resourced provision into three pyramids of linked schools, in the north, south and west of the County", 153 respondents said "yes" and 297 respondents said "no".

7.2 Any proposals to open or close resourced provision would be subject to a further round of statutory consultations and approval by Executive Member.

8 Conclusions : key issues

Criteria for review of education provision

8.1 Throughout the consultations and discussions on the future pattern of provision for deaf and HI children, there has been strong support for the five key criteria (set out in para. 3.4 above). These are intended to ensure that provision in Hampshire effectively: meets the needs of all deaf/HI children, wherever they live and wherever they are taught; supports the essential development of their communication skills; provides support for social and emotional development; and makes efficient use of County Council resources.

8.2 The County Council should reasonably aim to meet the needs of most deaf and HI children within local schools and settings. The need for children to attend non-maintained or independent schools should be restricted to the very small number of children who may have significant additional needs, including health and/or family needs, for which a more specialist and/or residential facility is required.

8.3 All schools with resourced provision should be committed to develop in accordance with the five criteria and to work in co-operation and consultation with linked schools (both within local `pyramids' and other resourced schools) to contribute to a comprehensive pattern of provision which enables all deaf/HI children to receive appropriate support and education in a maintained school. Resourced schools will also need to increasingly enable staff to work together and across schools, particularly amongst linked schools, so that they may ensure cost effective deployment of their services, skills and resources across all Key Stages.

Provision of mixed modes of communication

8.4 The principle of developing resourced provision to offer a range of modes of communication including both auditory/oral and signing has been substantially supported throughout the consultations and is included within the 5 criteria endorsed by both Select Committee and Executive Member. A number of resourced schools are already offering different modes to their pupils.

8.5 A full day conference involving members of Hampshire's Specialist Teacher Advisory Service and all resourced provisions for deaf and HI children, and including representatives of parents and other agencies, took place on 4 October 2007. The benefits and methodologies of enabling children and their families to access different modes to support the development of their learning and communication were shared. Schools are participating actively in the development of their resources, approaches and staff skills to be able, over time, to effectively offer a range of communication modes in each provision, in line with the County Council's agreed Communication Policy for deaf/HI children.

Viability of numbers

8.6 As noted in section 6 above, the number of pupils attending resourced provisions has declined and is expected to reduce further in coming years. The viability of the existing pattern of provision, spread across 10 schools (counting linked infant and junior schools as one school) remains in doubt. Small numbers of pupils in a school do not provide a sufficient peer group to effectively enhance children's social and emotional development, nor do they generate sufficient resources to the school to ensure the recruitment and retention of sufficient numbers of teachers and support staff to provide the range and quality of staff skills, especially those required to effectively deliver a range of communication modes. Some of the benefits of maintaining resourced provision, alongside County services supporting individual children in their local schools, are therefore lost.

8.7 As numbers in resourced provision are relatively low, school governing bodies and headteachers should be encouraged to enable their staff to work together, particularly with their linked schools, so that they may deploy their services and skills across all Key Stages. This is a further benefit of maintaining resourced provision in linked schools within pyramids.

Continuity between primary and secondary linked schools

8.8 There has been substantial support for the principle of resourced provision being maintained within linked schools. This pattern benefits both children and staff. Pupils have greater opportunity to continue through their Key Stages within a familiar and supportive peer group of both deaf/HI and hearing peers. This is likely to benefit their social and emotional development as well as their progress in learning and development of communication and language skills.

8.9 Within a pattern of linked schools, staff are better able to liaise and plan together; this may assist continuity of curricula, consistency of teaching styles and approaches, shared assessment and understanding of children's needs, and efficient use of scarce staff skills.

8.10 Dr Powers is recorded in the report of the Chairman of the Scrutiny Review Group to have supported the proposed pyramid model, noting that it would allow for flexibility to meet the variety of needs and support the maintenance of friendships (see para 5.2 above).

Geographical spread and accessibility

8.11 As confirmed by the attached map (Appendix 1) relative few deaf/HI children living in the west of the county attend resourced schools. There is currently no primary phase provision in the west of the county, although some pupils attend the provision in Southampton. Resourced provision is not therefore equally accessible to all children in Hampshire.

9 The way forward

Review of decisions taken on 15 February 2007

9.1 Through the extensive process of consultations, including consideration by Members (in HATs and Select Committee), a clear consensus has not emerged around a preferred pattern of resourced provision, despite the wholehearted endorsement of the five criteria (para. 3.4 and 8.1 above). During this process, significant concerns have not been expressed by stakeholders about the quality of existing provision for deaf and HI children, and communities have indicated that they place a high value on the provision in which they have an interest. Officers remain concerned, however, about the trend of declining numbers and the impact of that trend on the quality of provision for children's learning and development, the efficient use of resources including the number of children attending non-maintained schools for the deaf, and the sustainability of the present pattern of provision. The advice of officers was largely supported by the expert witness to the Scrutiny Review Group.

9.2 It is now two years since consultations were initiated on a review of education provision for deaf and HI children. For the sake of stability and future planning, these matters now need to be resolved. The decisions recommended in this report take account of the extensive consultations and the strength of feeling expressed, together with the time and energy expended on these issues.

9.3 The recommendations do not remove the underlying concerns which prompted the review nor secure a viable pattern of resourced provision, which meets the five criteria which have underpinned the review and previous proposals. It is proposed that the criteria should therefore become aims for the development of the County Council's provision for deaf and HI children. The way forward and recommendations in this report are not proposed as the best action that can be taken to achieve the five aims. However, provided that the schools work closely together, many of the aims may be achieved over time. It is therefore also proposed that the provision for deaf and HI children be kept under review.

Provision in the west of the county

9.4 Whilst there is no consensus around the proposal to consolidate provision within three `pyramids' of linked schools, there has been greater support for the proposed consolidation of provision in Winchester and the south of the County.

9.5 The Westgate School, Winchester has resourced provision for deaf, signing secondary age pupils. The school currently has only one pupil in this provision, who is in Year 11. Henry Beaufort School, also in Winchester, has resourced provision for hearing impaired pupils who use auditory/oral means of communication. Currently two pupils also receive sign support, with staffing provided from The Westgate School. The provisions in these schools are increasingly working together. The Westgate School will have no pupils in its resourced provision in September 2008. Statutory consultations should, therefore, take place on the proposed closure of the provision at the Westgate School, consolidating its provision in Henry Beaufort School.

9.6 Primary phase provision in Winchester: as noted above (para. 6.3), there is a number of children in the west of the County who are likely to meet the County Council's criteria for placement in resourced provision but whose parents do not take up this option; the distance and travel time from home to the nearest resourced provision may be considered unreasonable. Earlier consultations have shown considerable support for the principle of establishing resourced provision for the west of the County, located in Winchester and in a primary school linked to Henry Beaufort School. Initial interest in developing this provision has been shown by Kings Worthy and South Wonston primary schools.

9.7 The Westgate School has for some time successfully provided an outreach service (of both teacher of the deaf and communication support assistant time) to deaf/HI children and their staff in other local mainstream schools. If resourced provision is not to be established in a primary school linked to Henry Beaufort School, the secondary phase resourced provision in Winchester should be enabled to maintain this service, thus ensuring that the necessary specialist skills are available in supporting and educating children in primary schools in the west of the County. It must be acknowledged, however, that this model of provision does not provide children with the same opportunities to learn and play alongside peers with similar needs as they would have in a resourced school.

Resourced provision in the south of the county

9.8 Woodcot Primary and Wallisdean Infant and Junior schools: Woodcot Primary School in Gosport has primary phase resourced provision for deaf pupils who sign. Wallisdean Infant and Junior schools, Fareham, have resourced provision for pupils using auditory/oral modes of communication. There are currently five pupils in each provision. The development of mixed mode provision will, over time, remove the difference in the nature of the support that these schools provide for their pupils. Given their close proximity (approximately two miles apart), there would be benefit in rationalising provision in this part of the County. Resourced provision is available in Neville Lovett School (the linked secondary school to Wallisdean Junior School) and an amalgamation of the provisions in the primary sector would not, therefore, reduce the total number of pyramids offering resourced provision for deaf/HI pupils in the County, nor significantly increase travel time or costs. Statutory consultations should, therefore, take place on the proposed closure of the provision at Woodcot Primary School, with continuing provision in Wallisdean Infant and Junior Schools.

Resourced provision in the north of the County

9.9 Previous reports to the Executive Member recommended that, in consolidating resourced provision in 3 pyramids, (serving the north, south and west of the county), the provisions in Park View Infant and Junior Schools and Aldworth Science College should close. Children living in the north of the county would have access to the provisions in Manor Infant and Junior Schools and at Cove School. Expressions of support to retain provision in the Park View Schools and Aldworth Science College had focused in particular on : retention of pre-school provision for deaf/HI children offered by the maintained nursery class in Park View Infant School; housing development and possible consequent population growth in Basingstoke; and the greater distance time and cost of travel for children living in the Basingstoke area and attending provisions in either Farnborough or Winchester.

9.10 The consolidation of provision serving the north of the county would, nevertheless, be consistent with the 5 criteria for the review, in particular, by securing greater viability of pupil numbers and therefore the consequent benefits of larger provisions noted previously in this report. Numbers of pupils in the provision at Aldworth Science College have been small for some time, and are not predicted to increase in the foreseeable future if provisions are retained in both Farnborough and Basingstoke.

9.11 If no decision is taken now to undertake statutory consultations on proposals to consolidate resourced provision in the north of the county, it is recommended that the situation is kept under review, to ensure that the quality of education and support for children and quality of opportunity to access an appropriate range of communication modes are sustained. The linked schools in each pyramid should be committed to work collaboratively to ensure that staff skills and resources are deployed effectively and efficiently (as recommended in paras. 8.3 and 8.7 above).

Medstead Primary School

9.12 At its meeting in October 2007, the Children and Young People's Select Committee recommended that the Executive Member considers the dossier submitted by Medstead School in making his decision on this matter. Currently there are six pupils in the resourced provision (including one pupil from West Berkshire). In the consultation which took place between November 2006 and January 2007, 68 respondents supported the continued maintenance of resourced provision at Medstead Primary School and 134 respondents said they did not support it. The Report to Executive Member in October 2006 noted (para. 6.15) that: "The provision at Medstead Primary School does not meet the key criterion of continuity between primary and secondary linked schools. Many respondents associated with the school have questioned the importance of this criterion, several advocating for pupils of secondary age to have access to independent (or non-maintained) special schools for the deaf, in addition to or in preference to the option of attending resourced provision in maintained, mainstream schools".

9.13 Para. 6.16 in that report noted: "A decision on whether to maintain the resourced provision at Medstead Primary School at the present time should take account not only of the extent to which the school meets the key criteria but also the support shown for the school and the impact of the wider re-organisation (if agreed) of the resourced provision. It is considered appropriate to maintain provision at Medstead, at least until existing auditory/oral provisions which will continue have developed appropriate expertise in providing the wider range of communication modes, when a further review may be appropriate."

9.14 The arguments for not retaining the provision at Medstead Primary School (as proposed in the report of 15 February 2007) still remain; in particular, its relatively rural location, not as accessible to more densely populated areas of the county, and the fact that it does not have a linked secondary school with resourced provision, as a result of which many pupils have transferred at secondary phase to non-maintained schools. Nevertheless, the Select Committee has not supported a proposal to consult on the closure of its provision and has, at its meeting on 3 October, drawn attention to the dossier submitted by the school to the Scrutiny Review Group.

9.15 If no decision is taken now to undertake statutory consultations on the closure of resourced provision at Medstead Primary School, the school should be encouraged to engage actively and constructively with the local authority and with other resourced schools to share their knowledge and expertise in offering sign support and in developing whole school approaches. In seeking to enable most deaf and HI children to have their needs met in maintained provision, officers will work with Medstead and other primary phase resourced schools to encourage a positive image of secondary phase provision within the county.

10 Corporate Aims and Every Child Matters agenda

10.1 This proposal supports the corporate strategy and desired outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda.

11 Legal implications

11.1 The Education Act 1996 requires (Section 315 (1) ) local authorities to keep under review the arrangements made by them for special educational provision.

12 Financial implications

12.1 The integration of auditory/oral and signed provisions will not incur additional costs. The existing arrangement (Agreed Place Number) for funding resourced provision takes account of the different costs of provision according to phase and communication mode. Reducing the number of resourced provisions should reduce the current need, in some schools, to fund APN in excess of actual pupil numbers in order not to compromise the quality of education in provisions with few pupils.

12.2 The number of pupils attending resourced provision has been declining. It is unclear whether the proposals in this report will slow that trend. Provision to meet children's special educational needs is funded through either resourced provision or, for children in other mainstream schools, through the County's funding arrangement for SEN. Year by year variations in these numbers are normally accommodated through the careful management of SEN budgets. These proposals should not, by themselves, require more children to receive SEN funding than is currently provided for.

12.3 These proposals should not result in children having a significantly longer home-school journey. There are no capital costs arising from the recommendations in this report.

13 Personnel implications

13.1 If changes to resourced provision are approved, then consultations would start with the relevant parties including the staff themselves and their trade union/professional association representatives as part of the statutory consultations and of the consequent implementation process.

14 Impact assessment

14.1 Race, equality and disability impact has been considered in the development of these recommendations.

15 Crime prevention issues

15.1 None noted.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB: the list excludes

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

None