Meeting documents

Return to Agenda

ITEM CA14

CABINET – 19 DECEMBER 2006

POST 16 SEN PROVISION

Report by Director for Children, Young People & Families

1. The last two years has seen considerable collaborative working between officers from the County Council and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), representatives of parents (CHOICE), college principals, special school heads, Connexions staff, and others. Options have been examined and information gathered from the Department for Education & Skills, LSC, other authorities and colleges. CHOICE has surveyed its members and contributed parental perspectives.
2. At their meeting in July 2006 the Cabinet supported the proposal from CHOICE that " post 16 school based provision should be provided as soon as possible". As resolved by the Cabinet, there has been considerable further work carried out on the curriculum, logistical and funding implications of post 16 changes. Initially this work focussed just on extending the age range of special schools but consultation with parents and financial and other considerations have resulted in a broader perspective being taken, as described in the body of this report.
3. One very positive outcome has been the recognition of need for greater collaboration between the various interest groups, irrespective of any structural changes made in post 16 provision. The process of collaborative working has identified a number of areas where improvements in provision and process can be made.

Shared Principles and Commitments

4. The collaborative work between LSC/LA/colleges and special schools has resulted in a shared commitment to:

• A curriculum framework – and the principles that underpin this. The framework describes the key elements of the curriculum appropriate to a wide range of post 16 students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and is attached at Annex 1 (download as .doc file). The curriculum guides the teaching that is appropriate to a student’s level of attainment and ability and is not determined by where s/he is educated.
• Joint planning – between all agencies to ensure effective transition post 16 and an appropriate provision for all students.
• Inclusion in Oxfordshire – provision within Oxfordshire should be sufficient and appropriate to meet the needs of all post 16 students whose special educational needs were met successfully in county pre 16.
• Common standards of provision – wherever students learn they will receive high quality teaching and support for the same number of hours.
• Resources - all resources currently dedicated to Oxfordshire’s post 16 students with SEN will continue to be dedicated to that purpose.
• Responsibility – the educational outcomes of SEN students are jointly owned by schools, colleges, the LSC and the Local Authority; problems and successes are shared by all.
• Flexibility of provision – needs can be met in more than one setting and for some students this may mean education in a special school or elsewhere for some time during the 16 – 19 period.
• Improving transition and progression –plans for transition into post 16 education will be agreed at an early stage by all partners, including parents.
• Future challenges and opportunities - such as new legislation or funding mechanisms, will be addressed jointly by colleges, special schools and officers of the LA and LSC.
• Universal high quality support services – such as nursing, Connexions and therapies will be matched to needs irrespective of where the student is educated.
• Further joint work – is required to improve provision and transition for students with SEN moving from mainstream and special schools to colleges.

5. As part of the further work requested by the Cabinet, officers carried out a consultation with parents of children in years 10 and 11 in special schools, the results of which are attached at Annex 2 (download as .doc file).
6. It is clear that of those who replied (27%) there is overwhelming support (95%) for the draft curriculum framework and agreement that, by using it, provision can be made in schools, colleges or a mix of both. There is also a strong indication that parents believe that special schools are most appropriate for children at steps 1-3 whereas colleges would better suit those at steps 7-8 and that a combination of both might be best for those at stage steps 4-6.
7. When parents expressed views on their own children the results were a marked preference for special school (39%) or a combination of special school and college (53%). This may have been because most children in special schools are at steps 1-6 or may reflect a lack of knowledge of college provision at this stage.
8. There was recognition among parents of the need for a smooth transition into adult life and the role that colleges might play in that. This was reflected not only in the responses discussed above but also in parents’ comments. Some parents emphasised the need for the quality and amount of support received in schools up to 16 to be continued after that age. There were particular concerns about the availability of specialist support services, such as nursing and therapy. Some reservations were expressed about the readiness of students, particularly those with complex needs, to move on from a secure school environment into colleges.

A Possible Model for September 2007

9. While it is the case that there is much work still to be done to create a provision in Oxfordshire which meets the needs of all students with SEN, age 16–19, it would be possible to make changes by September 2007 which go some way towards that. A possible model would be to retain the current age range of special schools and, as now, for students to transfer to the rolls of colleges but to agree that some courses, particularly for students at steps1-3, would take place in special schools. All students would be registered on college rolls at 16 regardless of where their learning takes place, unless they wish to cease education/ training or unless, exceptionally, another solution is jointly agreed. This would not require any legal changes, as the status of the institutions would remain the same. It would appear to comply with the wishes of parents for some children to stay on in special school and could provide a flexibility that allows a better matching of provision to students’ needs.
10. One feature of this arrangement would be that students would have a full 5-day offer which would be based at school, at college or at a combination of both. This might, for example, be based on a post 16 federation /partnership. Each student would be assessed on an individual basis, in terms of their "step" on the curriculum framework and the most appropriate support package set out for them. For some students, particularly those at steps 1 and 2, this may be 4/5 days in school and 0/1days in college. For others the offer might be four days in college and only one in school.
11. Such a development would require the support of all the interested parties if it is to be a success but the commitments set out in paragraph 4 of this report are an encouraging first step in the process.
12. To put such an arrangement in place would require careful planning and close collaboration between special schools and colleges, facilitated by the LSC and LA officers and other services. It would also require additional revenue and some capital funding. Schools and colleges would need to agree staffing arrangements, roles and responsibilities in order to deliver the curriculum. There would be opportunities for staff development, which could be delivered by schools and colleges in order to support the delivery of a post 16 curriculum in a school setting.
13. It is suggested that, should proposals for 2007/08 gain Cabinet approval, officers would be required to report in the autumn of 2007 on the implementation of the scheme. This would be in time for future financial and other implications to be addressed before provision for a second cohort of students is arranged, for September 2008.
14. There are both advantages and risks to this proposal. Risks include:

• Practical difficulties of liaison between schools and colleges could limit the success of the scheme.
• Staff training and recruitment may be problematical.
• Issues may arise about roles and responsibilities which would require continued work to establish protocols and agreements.
• Unless provision is enhanced parents may remain dissatisfied with post 16 SEN arrangements.

15. The advantages include:

• The scheme could be in place by September 2007 because there is no need for legal changes for schools.
• The review process built in for the autumn of 2007 would allow any changes to be made from 2008.
• Greater collaboration between the institutions would result in a strengthening of provision and transition arrangements.
• Colleges would continue to provide for students with SEN and that provision would be focussed and enhanced.
• Those students who would benefit most from a school environment would be provided with that.

16. One of the options considered following the Cabinet meeting in July was to extend the age range of special schools for children with Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD) to 19. The cost would be around £1.5m by 2010/11. If this were to include all special schools the cost would be around £2.2 m p.a. The resources currently deployed in colleges for post 16 students with SEN would not be used to fund provision in schools.
17. If, however, all students were to continue to transfer to colleges, then the LSC and the colleges would continue to fund them, even if some of those students were then to be placed, by the colleges, into special schools. Effectively, this would allow some students to remain in special schools while utilising the joint resources of the colleges and the Local Authority.
18. The schools could not provide staffing and facilities without additional funding. For 16-18 year olds a college is funded to deliver a full time course in 450 guided hours. Over 36 weeks this equates to about 3.5 days per week. The college is able to draw £2,598 (06/07 prices) as a contribution to the programme of study. In addition the college can claim additional learning support funds that are used to provide a range of support, including one to one support, tutorial support and assessment. These funds are calculated on an individual basis but, on average for a student with profound and complex needs, this is around £4,500. These funds could be pooled to support individual students in special schools.
19. College funding levels contrast with those in special schools, where the comparable figure is between £9,795 per student and £13,024 per student, depending on the type of school. It is this disparity which, to some extent, has led to colleges not making provision for all students and perhaps, in some cases, struggling to meet parental expectations.
20. If college SEN students were to be placed in special schools, the difference between the funding the school would expect and the funding which might come from the colleges, would be around £150k in the 2007/08 (students would start in September and so be funded for only 7/12 of the financial year). This funding projection is based on school estimates of numbers of current students who might be placed in schools post 16. This would be expected to rise to £1.1m in 2010/11. Costs would then be expected to stabilise. These figures are as accurate as is possible at this stage. However, costs will depend on the number of students each year and the nature of their needs, so these figures can only be seen as indicative amounts, particularly for two to four years ahead.

Estimated Costs of 16 –19 Special School Options

	07/08	08/09	09/10	10/11
Only SLD schools having extended age range to 19 (para 16)	£250,000	£800,000	£1,300,000	£1,500,000
All schools* having extended age range to 19 (para 16)	£380,000	£1,200,000	£1,900,000	£2,200,000
Total cost of those college students likely to be placed in special schools (para 20)	£220,000	£700,000	£1,300,000	£1,600,000
Net cost (after college contribution) (para 20)	£150,000	£500,000	£900,000	£1,100,000

* Excludes the one primary age school

21. Representations are being made to the DfES about the need for additional funding but if the proposal were accepted and additional funds were not forthcoming from that source, or the LSC, then the Council would have to address the financial implications set out in the table.

Capital Funding

22. In 2007/08 there is scope for absorbing additional students on site in some special schools. As the number of students grows over the following years the LSC would work with the colleges and the schools to review the capital investment that may be needed. The two largest colleges are in the process of submitting to the LSC proposals for substantial capital investment and there would be a need to ensure that the capacity to support students with SEN is part of those proposals.

  19 - 22/24 Education

23. The approach described above would move Oxfordshire towards an inclusive and coordinated approach to 16–19 SEN provision and would reflect the range of provision made in other authorities, albeit within a slightly different framework. However, other changes in the LSC funding regime are likely to impact on the colleges’ ability to make provision for these young people, post 19. These issues would need to be addressed irrespective of any changes at 16 –19 and the proposals made in this paper are not expected to detract from provision post 19, and may serve to strengthen it.

RECOMMENDATIONS

24. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

1. endorse the development of a more flexible approach to SEN provision post 16 from 2007 as described in paragraphs 9-15 of the report;
2. consider the financial implications, as set out in the report, as part of the budget setting process for 2007 and beyond;
3. ask officers from Children, Young People & Families for a Cabinet report in the autumn of 2007 evaluating the first year’s implementation of the changes and making recommendations for 2008 onward; and
4. ask officers from Social and Community Services to consider implications for post 19 provision and to report these to Cabinet.

KEITH BARTLEY
Director for Children, Young People & Families

Background Papers: Nil

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

December 2006

Return to TOP