ITEM CA9
CABINET – 16 OCTOBER 2007
POST 16 SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS PROVISION
Report by Director for Children, Young People & Families
Introduction
1. Previous reports in July and December 2006 described the issues presented by Oxfordshire’s unique lack of special school provision for the 16 –19 age range. The Cabinet endorsed the views of CHOICE (a parent group) that “post 16 school based provision should be provided as soon as possible”. The Cabinet resolved to:
§ endorse the development of a more flexible approach to post 16 Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision § consider financial implications as part of budget setting for 2007 and beyond § consider a report in autumn 2007 evaluating progress and making recommendations for 2008 onward § ask officers from Social Community Services (SCS) to consider implications for post 19 provision
2. There is widespread recognition that there is a need for a flexible, collaborative approach to provision for these young people. Whatever the structures and funding mechanisms there is a common aim to improve provision for students across the further education and schools sectors. It is apparent that new arrangements are required whereby students can access appropriate education and are enabled to move on from school into suitable college courses at the time that is most appropriate to them.
3. It is also clear that there is a need to improve transition arrangements and clarity of pathways 14-25. The closer relationship between the various parties, which has characterised recent developments, has added an impetus to this work.
Progress in 2007
4. Collaboration between special schools, Further Education (FE) colleges, officers of the Learning & Skills Council (LSC) and Oxfordshire County Council, Connexions and representatives of CHOICE led to significant developments in a number of areas. These included:
§ creation of a curriculum framework which guides the teaching that is appropriate to post 16 students with SEN, irrespective of where they are taught § agreement to common lengths of school/college days § agreement on flexibility of provision i.e. some students to be taught in colleges and others in schools or a mixture of both § agreement on use of LSC/County Council funds § close collaboration on transition § draft 14 –19 transition protocols for wider consultation § joint training
5. The scheme that emerged from this collaborative working was to continue the practice of students leaving special school rolls at 16 and transferring to colleges. However, a small number of those college students were to be taught on school premises. These were to be students with high level needs and would be taught by school staff and, for nearly all practical purposes, would be treated as part of the school. Funding was agreed to come jointly from the two Councils.
6. After a challenge about an individual child, at an SEN and Disability Tribunal in late summer, and extensive legal research, officers were advised not to proceed with the proposed scheme. Undertakings made to 18 students and their parents were honoured and, exceptionally, it was agreed that these students would remain in special schools, with their statements of SEN.
7. The age ranges of the schools were not extended and it is considered that the small number of students involved does not constitute a change in the character of the schools, which would have required consultation and the issuing of Public Notices.
Evaluation of the first year’s implementation
8. As part of the further work requested by the Cabinet, officers carried out an evaluation of the first year of implementation. It is too earlier to evaluate the impact of the changes for the young people and their families but college principals, head teachers, the LSC, health and adult services were asked to comment.
9. It is clear from those who replied, (8 head teachers, 3 college representatives, a Connexions personal adviser and an SEN Officer) that there were some improvements to transition planning and placement options for young people. A number of positive outcomes were noted including: provision for some young people in special schools, dedicated college transition co-ordinators, joint training for college and school staff, an increase in the number and frequency of transition visits to college, improved transition review meetings.
10. Further suggestions for improvement included: clarity for parents about what is being offered and the support available, more joint training and a better understanding between staff in schools and colleges. Head teachers commented that parents/carers should be able to make their own choice between post 16 courses at school or college and that this is more in keeping with the needs of young people with SEN and the Every Child Matters agenda.
Funding
11. Because the 18 students were not transferred to college rolls, no funding has transferred from the LSC to the schools or the County Council. A further six students were placed out of county in September 2007 at a cost of £650,000 p.a. However, these costs will be met from within existing budgets, including the additional resources agreed by the Cabinet to fund this pilot scheme.
12. The local LSC is exploring funding issues, for current and future years, with the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF, formerly the DfES) and the national LSC. It is understood that there is an acceptance by the national LSC that there will be a need to provide additional funds from 2008 to recognise Oxfordshire’s unique position. Formal confirmation and further details are being sought on both revenue and capital funding.
Options
13. There is a strong view that there is a need to put in place arrangements which better suit students and their families and provide increased choice and flexibility. This should include provision in special schools that would parallel the choices available to mainstream students. There are several options to be considered for possible consultation:
(a) No Change
Key features: § Does not comply with intent of Cabinet or wishes of parents for choice at 16. § All schools to continue with an age range only to16, with college provision post 16. § Some students would continue to be placed in out county schools when local colleges have no appropriate provision. § Existing college provision would continue. § No other additional cost would be incurred.
(b) Extend the age range of all special schools
Key features: § Complies with intentions of Cabinet and parents’ wishes for greater choice. § Revenue costs – estimated to be an additional £180k in 2008/09 rising to £575k in 2009/10, £890k in 2010/11 and £1,100k in 2011/12 and thereafter. § Significant additional accommodation would be unlikely to be required in 2008/09 but would be required thereafter. There is recognition in the LSC that unusual circumstances in Oxfordshire would require capital investment. § Provides continuity and local provision for students would probably result in a reduction in out of county placements. § Threatens college provision so potentially removes choice in future. (For many students, colleges offer a more appropriate setting and educational opportunities – particularly for students with less severe difficulties). § Allows special schools to join colleges in providing an appropriate blend of courses and facilitates movement of students when appropriate. § Would not require that all schools have the same age range.
(c) Extend the age range of some special schools
Key features: § Only partially complies with Cabinet’s and parents’ wishes § Revenue costs would be broadly the same as b (above) as most funding is per student. § Additional capital expenditure would be similar to b (above), as similar numbers of students would require places in schools, overall. (Further work is being undertaken on current “surplus” capacity). § Some increases in transport costs and associated environmental impact would occur. § Does not provide continuity and local provision for some students. § Threatens college provision so potentially removes choice. § Provides opportunities for some schools to create viable groups. § Requires a decision on which schools would be chosen to increase age range and whether to use this as a temporary step toward all schools being extended.
(d) Further considerations
If only some schools were to be selected, at least initially, for extension of age range, a number of factors would need to be considered to determine which those might be: § Ensure a reasonable geographical spread e.g. North, Central and City § Using schools with existing “surplus” space might reduce costs in the short term and facilitate quicker expansion of provision. § Local factors e.g. all post 16 education in the south east is made through the college. § Suitable local college provision may reduce the need for school expansion § Other local educational initiatives/developments e.g. Bicester 14 –19, Wantage/Grove schools. § Schools providing for students with moderate learning difficulties and/or behaviour/emotional/social difficulties might be extended only to 17, to allow greater maturity before transfer to college.
Timetable
14. If the cabinet wanted to consider changes to school age ranges for September 2008 the timetable for consultation would need to be:
Financial and Staff Implications
15. There are no financial or staffing implications at this stage but significant implications for consideration in January 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
16. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
(a) consult widely on the range of possible options set out in paragraph 13; and,
(b) request a further report on the outcome of the consultation in January 2008.
JANET TOMLINSON Director for Children, Young People & Families
Background papers: Cabinet papers 18 July 2006 and 19 December 2006. Evaluation responses located in Members Resources Room
Contact Officer: Simon Adams, Assistant Head of Children and Young People’s Service (SEN, Disability and Access) 01865 810602
October 2007
|