Meeting documents

Return to Agenda

ITEM CA8

CABINET – 18 JULY 2006

POST 16 PROVISION FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Report by Director for Children, Young People & Families

1. Oxfordshire is unique in that none of its special schools caters for pupils beyond the age of 16. In the 1980s a decision was taken by the County Council to create its post 16 provision for Special Educational Needs (SEN) in what were then the LEA’s colleges of further education. The rationale was that these colleges had expertise in helping "non academic" pupils make the transition into adult life and were better placed to meet the needs of this group than 12 relatively small special schools. Upon incorporation in 1993 the capital and revenue budgets for this provision transferred to the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), which has, subsequently, been replaced by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).
2. This arrangement may have been appropriate at the time but in recent years the colleges have not felt able to meet the needs of all pupils who have to leave special schools. This, and a lack of confidence in college provision, has led parents (many represented by CHOICE, a parent group) to ask the Council to offer continuation in special school as an option. It has also led to a small, but significant, number of students having to be placed outside Oxfordshire, often at great expense to the County Council. While Oxfordshire is 14^th lowest user of out-county places in England overall, its post 16 usage is twice the national average.
3. Parents also express their concern that in most authorities post 16 pupils with severe learning difficulties remain in special schools until the age of 18 or 19 and then transfer to college for a further period of education. (See Annex 1 for pattern of post 16 special school provision in similar authorities).

Funding

4. The current funding mechanism for post 16 students with Statements of SEN (including out county placements and mainstream schools) is through a historically based block grant from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) that is transferred to the Council through the LSC. This grant is a little more than £500k p.a. whereas the Council’s expenditure on this group is in excess of £1.5million p.a. Ironically, despite this relative "overspending" by the Council, many parents remain dissatisfied.
5. Colleges are allocated funding for each student and, in addition, have a recently capped block of funding for "additional learning support" (ALS) which is used to meet the additional needs of students with a wide range of Learning Difficulties and Disabilities (LDD). Because this sum is limited the colleges do not meet the needs of all students transferring from special schools. Perhaps this is not surprising as the money they receive from the LSC for ALS is very similar to that received by colleges in other authorities (about 8% of total funding - see Annex 2 for details), yet there is no expectation elsewhere, as there is in Oxfordshire, that colleges effectively provide post 16 special schools within their campuses.
6. When a student leaves school or goes to college his/her Statement of SEN lapses. However, responsibility for students with Statements of SEN remains with the County Council. When an appropriate local or specialist college place is not available, placement in an out of county special school is usually required as, unfortunately, there is no in-county provision for this group. This solution is expensive, not inclusive and not what most parents want for their children.
7. There is currently significant expenditure by both the Local Authority and LSC on out-county post 16 SEN provision. The LSC spends £1.272m p.a. on specialist FE college placements and the Council spends £370,000 p.a. on new placements at 16 in out-county special schools. Although there will always be some young people who need out-county placements post 16, if post 16 special school provision were made within the county, numbers requiring out county provision would reduce.
8. Although there is to be a national review of funding for 16-19 SEN in 2008/09 there is no indication that Oxfordshire will gain from this. Indeed, a recent LSC report on funding of post 16 SEN provision (Through Inclusion to Excellence) suggests that government should consider a significantly smaller contribution being made by the LSC for students’ health and care support. This would have a potentially detrimental effect on the Council’s resources.
9. DfES and LSC officials have indicated that even if the Council were to open sixth forms in its special schools it is almost certain that no revenue funding from DfES/LSC would follow, at least under the current funding regime. It is possible that some capital funding might be made available and officers are pursuing this through contacts at the DfES and LSC. It is also possible that some of the funding currently used by the Council and LSC for post 16 out-county placements could be used to contribute to the cost of in-county provision.

Inter-agency work

10. To address the concerns shared by parents, schools, colleges and officers a working group was set up, chaired jointly by officers of the LSC and County Council and involving representatives of CHOICE, the Connexions Service, colleges and special schools. Consultants have been employed by the LSC to assist in the exploration of ways forward and the national LSC and DfES have been consulted.
11. CHOICE has sought parental views through a questionnaire. CHOICE recognises that this was a limited exercise and that wider consultation would be needed before firm proposals for change could be made. Feedback from CHOICE indicates that the great majority of parents who responded wanted special school provision as an option.
12. The working group has explored a range of issues and some possible solutions but recognises that the history of Oxfordshire means it will not be easy, or without cost, to create a system that reflects good practice elsewhere. As one group member put it "I wish we weren’t starting from here". Nevertheless, the group has helped to develop a shared vision of what might be possible and expressed this through work on a new curriculum framework.

Vision for Post 16 SEN provision

13. The group has proposed a new vision for post 16 SEN provision in Oxfordshire based on:

• the development of a curriculum framework for young people with SEN aged 16-22 years;
• the development of a broader range of post 16 SEN provision, in special schools and colleges, to deliver this curriculum framework;
• a flexible approach to meeting needs with young people progressing through the steps of the curriculum framework, in either a school or college setting, as appropriate, to meet their needs and developmental stage.

14. The group has explored a range of options for change in order to achieve the vision outlined above. Each has advantages and disadvantages, some of which are explored below.

Option 1 – Strengthen existing arrangements

15. With improved liaison between schools, parents, students and colleges, and with further improvements in college provision, currently underway, it might be possible to sustain the existing system of college based 16-19 provision. One significant advantage of this is that colleges can offer adult orientated provision in institutions large enough to create viable groups and curriculum flexibility. It would preserve existing college provision and staff within existing or planned buildings. The disadvantages include the need to build parental and school confidence in college provision and the need for colleges/the LSC to invest additional resources so that all students can leave special school assured of a high quality post 16 provision. This option does not deliver the vision symbolised by the draft curriculum framework and is unlikely to satisfy parents or prevent all further out county placements. There would, however, be no funding implications for the County Council.

Option 2 – College Funded Provision in Special Schools

16. It would be possible for colleges to use their resources to purchase places in special schools for some individual students transferring onto their rolls. This has happened already to a very limited extent and for a few students this might be possible. The advantages of this arrangement include the ability to identify students whose needs would be hard to meet in college and to keep them in a school environment until they are ready to transfer. Such "franchising" arrangements cannot be used to change the nature of the school so that all students effectively "stay on" and might be criticised by OFSTED on the grounds of the school not offering a peer group and a coherent 16 –19 curriculum.
17. This option would need to have the support of schools and colleges to make it work. Parents would be concerned that such arrangements would be available to only a few students and that the safeguards offered by a Statement of SEN would be lost.
18. A variation on this option is for colleges to provide staff to teach/support their students but on school sites. It is by no means certain that this would find favour with college or school staff and it would not satisfy all parents. Nevertheless it could allow students to transfer to courses at college when appropriate and not just at 16. This option represents probably only an interim step towards a longer-term solution.
19. This option would require limited additional funding from either the LSC/colleges or from schools/the County Council to ensure that effective provision is made for a few students.

Option3 – Extend the Age Range of Some Special Schools

20. The preferred solution for many parents would be to offer post 16 special school education. This would allow young people to transfer to college courses at 19, or before if that were appropriate to their needs and development. Some students would leave education altogether at 16, as they do now. Having extended age ranges in some schools would reflect practice in other authorities (see Annex 1) and would improve choice for parents. The curriculum framework discussed above would help facilitate this more flexible approach to post 16 education.
21. Concentrating post 16 provision in a small number of schools would make best use of existing school buildings and facilitate the creation of larger groups. This would be particularly important if some students continued to transfer to college, so leaving very small numbers staying on in particular schools.
22. Consideration would need to be given to which schools or types of school would offer an extended age range and to what age. It might be that certain types of provision e.g. courses for students with moderate learning difficulties and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, could continue to be provided in colleges rather than by extending the age range in particular special schools.
23. A disadvantage of extending school provision might be that colleges face reductions in student numbers leading to staff losses. It could result in a continued lack of choice, but this time because some college courses ceased. This option might not be popular with all parents or schools where the age range is not extended and could be seen as inequitable.
24. It is difficult to estimate the cost to the Council of any extension of school age ranges, as this would depend on the numbers of pupils in school each year. If, for example, all students with Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD) stayed on in the first year this would cost around £450k. Such a figure would grow for three years as subsequent students stayed on. If more students stayed on roll the costs would rise proportionately. There would also be a significant but unquantified capital cost, though this might possibly be borne by the LSC.

Further Work

25. Further work is needed to refine the curriculum framework in collaboration with special school headteachers and college principals. This is scheduled for September 2007. Better estimates on revenue costs and how they might be phased are likely to result from a more detailed work being done with headteachers assessing the needs of young people in relation to the curriculum framework to determine potential staying on rates. Capital costs and sources of funding to meet these require investigation and this is in hand. Parental views also need further exploration.
26. A pilot project is being developed between colleges and two special schools to develop provision funded by colleges on special school sites for one or two pupils in September 2007.

RECOMMENDATIONS

27. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED, subject to consideration of any advice from the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee (which is expected to consider a draft of this report on 11 July 2006), to:

1. consider which option or options set out in paragraphs 15 – 24 of the report should be the subject of further work, including the assessment of resource implications and consultation with parents;
2. consider how the funding implications of any changes might be addressed in future budget plans for 2007/08 onwards;
3. ask officers to undertake further work to determine the number of students who might be on each of the steps of the curriculum framework, to assist the authority to determine the number of young people likely to need to stay on in special schools if this provision were available.

KEITH BARTLEY
Director for Children, Young People & Families

Background Papers: Through Inclusion to Excellence: The Report of the Steering Group for the Strategic Review of the LSC’s Planning and Funding of Provision for Learners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities across the Post-16 Learning and Skills Sector. November 2005

Contact Officer: Simon Adams, Assistant Head of Service, Children & Young People. Tel: 01865 810602

June 2006

Return to TOP