Return to Agenda

ITEM EX13

EXECUTIVE - 10 DECEMBER 2002

Report by Acting Chief Education Officer

1. In December 1999, after extensive consultation, the Education Committee adopted a Policy on Special Educational Needs (SEN) which had, as a key principle, the greater effective inclusion of children with SEN. An explicit focus was the effective inclusion in mainstream schools of children with moderate learning difficulties (MLD). The Oxfordshire policy reflects the national agenda most recently underpinned by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the SEN Code of Practice. The new requirement on LEAs is to provide places in mainstream schools for virtually all children with SEN, if requested by parents. There is also a requirement that all of a child’s needs will be met, irrespective of whether s/he is in a special school or in mainstream. Nationally this thrust on inclusion has led to falling rolls in, and closure of, special schools as a greater percentage of pupils is being supported in mainstream.
2. In Oxfordshire, as elsewhere, the vast majority of children (approximately 99%) are educated in mainstream schools. This number includes the 20% or so identified as having SEN and nearly two thirds of the 2500 that have Statements of SEN. Less than a thousand children are educated in special schools. This is in line with similar LEAs.

Introduction

3. Because the great majority of children with SEN are in mainstream schools, and always have been, the Oxfordshire strategy has been to strengthen the capacity of those schools to meet their pupils’ needs. To this end delegated and devolved funds have been increased significantly, in-service training and guidance for schools has been enhanced and support services have been strengthened. As mainstream capacity has been developed it has also been possible to support a small, additional number of children who might otherwise have had to transfer to special schools. This has, in part, been achieved by the allocation of additional resources to six secondary schools to develop inclusive provision. Good examples of inclusive practice are now widespread in Oxfordshire schools and have been praised by OFSTED.

Pupil Numbers

4. Unlike many LEAs, Oxfordshire has not adopted a policy of special school closure with the associated return of pupils to mainstream but instead has tried to develop support in mainstream schools so that children’s needs are met and fewer have to be placed in special schools segregated from their communities. However, the success of mainstream schools in developing their inclusive practice has resulted in a small but significant downturn in special school numbers from 957(98/99) to 944 (03/04 proposed). Those relatively few pupils who no longer need to transfer to special schools are generally children who have very similar needs to those of other pupils with SEN already in mainstream schools i.e. they have moderate learning difficulties.
5. Woodeaton Manor School and Iffley Mead School are special schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. As is always the case a proportion of pupils with these needs also have other needs, typically to do with language and behaviour. As greater emphasis has been placed on inclusion and mainstream schools have been strengthened, so there has been a reduced need to transfer pupils with less complex needs to special schools. This has resulted in falling pupil rolls at these two schools as shown below:

School	2000/01	2001/02	2202/03	2003/04*
Iffley Mead	100	99	90	88
Woodeaton	61	57	36	28
Total	161	156	125	116

*Proposed planned places

The Admissions Process

6. LEA officers play a very large part in determining admissions to all special schools, as is their statutory duty. It is therefore accepted that officers’ actions have a strong influence on the balance between pupils and funding going into mainstream or into special schools. Where the question of transfer from mainstream into special school arises, usually at the annual review of a mainstream child’s statement, an officer considers the recommendations from the review and parental views. Particular attention is paid to the nature and amount of support the child has been receiving and the progress s/he has made. The officer then determines the support required by the child. If special school admission is suggested, s/he determines whether such a placement would meet the child’s needs, has the support of the parent and is an efficient use of resources. In some cases this detailed consideration leads to a decision that continued placement in mainstream school, usually with enhanced provision, is appropriate. All recommendations for special school admission (or additional support), and the review reports on which they are based, are also scrutinised by a panel of officers and a Senior Educational Psychologist before decisions are taken¹. The potential receiving special school is also consulted, generally through a termly admissions meeting.
7. While most parents would like to see their children educated in their local schools they also need to be satisfied that their child’s needs will be met effectively. Parents therefore must be engaged in the decision making process. This is achieved by parents being involved in their children’s reviews and having well publicised rights to make representations to officers and to meet with them. They also have a statutory right to independent conciliation and appeal if agreement is not reached with the LEA on placement or other aspects of statements.

Special School Viability

8. There is no absolute number below which a special school cannot operate. However, the forecast for Woodeaton Manor, based on current and past numbers is that, by September 2003, it will have approximately 25 to 28 pupils aged 11 to 16 on roll. Iffley Mead is likely to have approximately 88 pupils aged 7 to 16. (Proposed planned places for special schools appear elsewhere on the agenda). The following year, unless there is a change in the current trend, will see further reductions in both schools.
9. The question, already discussed with Head and Chair of Governors of Woodeaton Manor School, must arise as to whether those numbers create a viable school. Financially the school is likely to face extreme difficulties as pupil numbers generate most of its budget. Iffley Mead is also likely to face reduction in staffing as numbers decline but it is starting from a higher level.
10. The financial problems likely to be faced by Woodeaton would mean that they would be unable to employ enough teachers and other staff to provide a broad and balanced curriculum and carry out all the functions normally expected of a school. This has an immediate impact on the quality and breadth of education which the pupils receive. Even if the school were somehow to be disproportionately financed, the number of pupils is likely to make the school educationally unviable. It is difficult to imagine that a school of only twenty or so pupils (or less?) would provide the sort of environment in which pupils would thrive. Its geographical location makes significant linking with other schools for social and curriculum enhancement quite problematic.
11. Iffley Mead, with a larger number of pupils, faces less of an immediate viability problem than Woodeaton Manor. However, this is not simply a problem for Woodeaton Manor as there will inevitably be knock-on effects on Iffley Mead. For example, if Woodeaton Manor were to close or be amalgamated with Iffley Mead, the remaining Woodeaton Manor pupils would mainly transfer to Iffley Mead or a new school created by an amalgamation. Iffley Mead, or the new school, would then continue to cater for the pupils who might otherwise have attended Woodeaton Manor. Both schools recognise that, while broadly similar in nature, they have different strengths and some of their pupils have different needs. Iffley Mead would have to change. However, as the schools are within a few miles of each other, should the low number of new admissions continue and both schools remain open, then it is possible that children might go to Woodeaton rather than Iffley Mead. This eventuality would temporarily alleviate the problems faced by Woodeaton Manor but would also impact on Iffley Mead.

Residential Facilities

12. Woodeaton Manor has a four nights per week, term time only boarding facility currently funded for 20 places. In almost every case the boarders spend less than four nights per week in residence and the Head, depending on a child’s circumstances, uses the facility flexibly. While it can be argued that a residential experience for many children is beneficial, it should be noted that no such education funded facility is provided for children with more extreme learning and/or physical disabilities. Indeed, it has proved problematic for Social Services Department to provide respite care at a much lower level than is currently on offer at Woodeaton Manor. From time to time Social Services Department have bought residential places when a child in public care is also a pupil at Woodeaton. Few other authorities operate residential provision for children with moderate learning difficulties.
13. Consideration of the future of Woodeaton Manor should include consultation on the future of this part time residential provision. A paper elsewhere on the agenda suggests that residential planned places should be reduced to reflect the school’s falling roll, irrespective of decisions made about the longer-term future of the school.

Options for the Future

14. Pupil numbers in both schools are falling for all the reasons outlined above. Unless there is a change in policy and practice this trend is unlikely to be reversed. Such a change would be out of line with national policy and would require significant additional funding. Assuming current trends continue, the option of doing nothing does not exist. Woodeaton Manor is rapidly becoming unviable. The possibility of achieving a more even balance of intake between the schools would, even if acceptable, simply move the problem around. The idea of changing the character of Woodeaton Manor or Iffley Mead does not appear to offer a solution. Staff expertise at both schools is not generally specialised in meeting the needs of children with severe/profound learning difficulties and there are already several such schools within a few miles. The buildings at Woodeaton would also not be suitable. Other such changes of character can probably be discounted for similar reasons.
15. There appear to be three options that need to be considered. These are to:

1. close Woodeaton Manor and transfer the remaining children to Iffley Mead;
2. close Iffley Mead and transfer the remaining children to Woodeaton Manor;
3. close both and open a new school on one of the sites or a new site, as yet unidentified.

In all three cases any resources released could be used to further increase support in mainstream schools.

16. In accommodation terms all three options appear to be possible but until/unless the Executive agrees to a consultation process no fees are being incurred for detailed appraisal or plans. Any one of the options would incur some capital outlay but the capital receipt accruing from the sale of a surplus site would cover this. As the imperative behind the proposals is increasing the successful inclusion of children in mainstream schools the site issue is of secondary significance. More detailed work would need to be done to plan a future school and the cost/ income issues would be detailed at that time.
17. There are no staff implications arising directly from this report. However, delegated funding to schools are closely linked to pupil numbers. If falling rolls continue, there will inevitably be reductions in staff at these schools, whether or not any the options set out above is eventually adopted. Where and when those reductions will occur is not known at this stage. A decision to reduce or close the residential provision would also lead to staff reductions.
18. There are transport implications arising from falling rolls and any proposal to close a school. Less children attending special schools overall should result in a reduction in the growth of expenditure on special needs transport. This is currently costing much more, for example, than the total budget delegated to mainstream schools to "top up" provision for pupils with statements. Obviously these costs depend on where children live and which schools they attend, as well as other factors.

Consultation

19. This report is intended to explain the main aspects of the issue facing the two schools. Clearly there is a need (and a requirement) to consult interested parties about how to proceed. It is therefore proposed that the Executive approve informal consultations on the three options listed in paragraph 15 with, among others, the governors, staff, parents and pupils of Woodeaton Manor and Iffley Mead schools, all other Oxfordshire schools, the Unions, the Roman Catholic and Anglican Authorities and the Learning and Skills Council. This consultation process would include a written proposal seeking responses as well as meetings with relevant groups, including one for the public and some for specific groups such as staff, governors, parents and other schools.
20. The consultation could take place in January and February over probably an eight week period with a report to the Executive in March. If the Executive then authorised a formal consultation, including the issuing of Public Notices, this would run for a further two months. Depending on the outcome of those consultations there might need to be further consideration by the Schools Organisation Committee, probably in June. It might be possible to make changes for September 2003, perhaps using two sites, and that should be included in the consultation. However, a more likely timing for new arrangements, if agreed, would be September 2004.

Financial Implications

21. There are no significant financial implications resulting from this report other than the cost of fees for further premises appraisal. However, there would be both capital and revenue implications for any proposals to close or amalgamate schools. These would accrue from the reduction in fixed costs if two schools were reduced to one. Ending the residential provision would release £200k at current prices. There would also be transport and building implications which would be determined by the nature, location and number of pupils provided for in the future. It is likely that the Executive would be recommended to ensure that reduction in the special schools budget resulting from these proposals would be made available to further support the inclusion of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

22. There are no implications arising directly from this report but any subsequent decision to change provision may have implications which would be considered as part of the result of a consultation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

23. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to ask the Acting Chief Education Officer to:

1. Undertake consultation, on the basis outlined in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the report, on the proposals set out in paragraph 15 and to include the option of closing the residential facility and the possibility of either September 2003 or 2004 for the start of any new arrangements;
2. carry out further detailed work on premises and funding implications;
3. report the outcome of the consultation and further work to a future meeting for consideration of further action.
   
   Supplement
   

ROY SMITH
Acting Chief Education Officer

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Simon Adams, Senior Education Officer (SEN), Tel: (01865 810602)

November 2002

Return to TOP