Councillor Paul Hayes “The aspiration should not be for imitation for the Lyndale School, we have the real thing”
Councillor Paul Hayes “The aspiration should not be for imitation for the Lyndale School, we have the real thing”
On the day that Wirral Council fires the starting gun in the local elections with the publication of the notice of election giving candidates until 4pm on Thursday 9th April to submit their nomination papers, I thought it would be good to look back at an issue that has divided the political parties on Wirral Council which was the decision to close Lyndale School.
When Wirral Council met last month to decide its budget for 2015/16 the Conservatives submitted an amendment to Labour’s schools budget. As the amendment was short I will repeat it here:
The Lyndale School
Council recognises the unique and caring environment provided by The Lyndale School to children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. Council acknowledges the value of this facility and affirms its belief that such provision should remain at The Lyndale School.
Council, having regard to the overwhelming support given to the campaign to keep The Lyndale School open by the public of Wirral recognises that The Lyndale School should remain open and wishes to bring to an end the anguish and uncertainty that has been heaped on pupils and their parents and carers throughout this whole sorry saga.
Accordingly, Council requests Cabinet to issue a Revocation Notice to consult on proposals to stop all current and planned action being taken to close The Lyndale School immediately. Should this be approved, Cabinet is further requested to instruct officers to commence negotiations with the Schools Forum and other relevant stakeholders in relation to the High Needs Funding Formula so as to identify and secure adequate funding to enable The Lyndale School to remain open from 1 April 2016. The revised High Needs Funding Formula shall be expressly detailed in the Schools Budget for 2016/17.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Councillor Paul Hayes speaks about Lyndale School 24th February 2015
Here’s what Councillor Paul Hayes had to say on the Conservative amendment to the Schools Budget:
Mr Mayor, tonight we will expect the usual debates on the principles of budgetary principles for the Council and how we prioritise taxpayers’ money to deliver services, but the fact is Mr Mayor this issue, the Lyndale School is not about money. So much has already been confirmed throughout this entire process both by the Cabinet Member and by council officers.
Mr Mayor, this is about, this isn’t about cuts from above, it’s about choices on the ground, choices in this Town Hall and in this Chamber this evening. It’s about how you choose to care and educate for some of the most vulnerable children in our community, children with some of the most profound and multiple learning difficulties and Mr Mayor surely there can be no doubt that the excellent caring and learning environment provided to the children of Lyndale School for so long should continue to be done so at the Lyndale School in Eastham.
The aspiration should not be for imitation for the Lyndale School, we have the real thing, right here in Wirral. Surely Members will join me in the fight to keep it?
Mr Mayor, the Council needs to listen to the real experts in this issue, the parents, the staff and the carers of the pupils of Lyndale. These families who have stood steadfast in defence of this excellent school. We shouldn’t be blindly accepting the views of an expert consultant who charged us £10,000 for the benefit of her advice and as I’ve learned today an extra £500 when called to give evidence at the call in.
Mr Mayor, the Lyndale campaign was of course and as we’ve heard tonight from other Members been recently boosted by Dawn Hughes and her daughter Ellie, I know that Dawn is in the public gallery this evening. She secured backing of a tribunal in her battle to keep Ellie at the School which gives her so much security and comfort.
Mr Mayor, if a learned and I’m sure very distinguished tribunal judge and its two lay panel members recognise the uniqueness of Lyndale School and the real harm moving children from this environment would cause then why can’t Wirral Council?
Mr Mayor, I know some of the Labour Members are very uncomfortable with the decision to close Lyndale School. I appeal to them to make their votes count tonight. This amendment, this second amendment does not put the Labour Budget at risk, it corrects an appalling decision which should never have been made and it halts the anguish which has been caused upon some of the most vulnerable families in our society. I know that it’s difficult to vote a different way to friends and colleagues in the same group and I should know as I’m probably going to do that at item 7a.
However Mr Mayor, this is too much of an important issue to be decided on imposed party whip or as Councillor Sullivan alluded to the block vote. I note that neither the Leader of the Council nor Councillor Tony Smith (the Cabinet Member) have mentioned the Lyndale School in their contributions earlier. I hope Members will not forget Lyndale amongst the political wrangling of tonight and vote to keep this crucial and vital school community.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
What did Wirral Council’s response to my letter about the Lyndale School Cabinet decision on 4th September say?
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
I have received a full response to my letter of the 8th September 2014 to Wirral Council about the Cabinet decision on the 4th September 2014 about the decisions on Lyndale School. This letter was received after the 24th September 2014 deadline in the letter of the 8th September 2014, although an earlier letter was also received stating that this letter would happen by the 1st October 2014. I have yet to consider my response to Wirral Council’s letter of the 30th September 2014 which is below.
The letter of 30th September 2014 is included below as is, there are some missing full stops and unnecessary apostrophes which have been printed as they were in the original letter.
For information I include it below. I am considering my options as to what to do next. The protocol states that an “application for judicial review must be filed promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose”.
That’s 3 months from 4th September 2014 so a maximum time limit of 4th December 2014. However it would be inadvisable to wait that long as permission would be denied for not being done “promptly”!
Personally I feel that we’re getting soon to the date when “promptly” would be an issue (although maybe that explains Wirral Council’s tactics). The call in has put implementation of the decision on hold until at least the 2nd October 2014.
For the ease of converting to HTML some minor formatting has been lost as to how it was laid out in order to get this published promptly. A line of equals signs represents the end of an A4 page.
(Wirral Council logo)
Department of Transformation & Resources
Joe Blott Strategic Director of Transformation &
Resources
Town Hall, Brighton Street
Wallasey, Wirral
Merseyside, CH44 8ED
DX 708630 Seacombe
Website: www.wirral.gov.uk
date 30 September 2014
By Email and Post
to Mr John Brace
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
your ref
my ref
service Legal and Member Services
tel 0151 691 8569 Please ask for Surjit Tour
fax 0151 691 8482
email surjittour@wirral.gov.uk
Response to Pre-Action Protocol letter
Dear Mr Brace
I write further to your letter before claim dated 8 September 2014. For the avoidance of doubt, this letter constitutes Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (“the Council”) formal response in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review.
1. The Claimant
The proposed Claimant is Mr Brace; who is unrepresented.
2. The Proposed Defendant
The proposed Defendant is Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
3. Reference details
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: Surjit Tour, Department of Transformation and Resources, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Wirral, CH44 8ED
The Council’s in-principle decision of 4 September 2014 to publish statutory notices in respect of the closure of Lyndale School (“Lyndale”) from January 2016.
5. Response to the Proposed Claim
The Council denies Mr Brace’s claim for the reasons detailed below.
7. Address for further correspondence and service of court documents
Please address any further correspondence in this matter to Surjit Tour.
8. Background
8.1 Lyndale School is a special school providing specialist educational provision for primary aged pupils, the majority of whom have Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (“PMLD”). There are 21 pupils currently on the roll, nine of whom will be transitioning to secondary school by the end of the 2015/16 academic year. The declining number of students admitted to Lyndale over recent years has drawn into question The Lyndale’s financial viability for the future.
8.2 In 2013 the Department for Education (“DfE”) radically reformed the way in which funding for High Needs pupils is provided. Previously, funding was based significantly on the number of places available at a school rather than the number of pupils actually attending. The new system places a far greater emphasis on the number of pupils attending and their specific needs. Lyndale has set a balanced budget for 2014/15 for 40 places and 23 pupils. Applying the new intended future DfE funding arrangements, Lyndale may only be funded for 23 places, a reduction of £170,000. This shortfall would only increase as the number of pupils reduces. Funding this shortfall would not be possible without a significant reduction in funding for other schools in the area.
8.3 In addition, there are two other primary schools, namely Stanley and Elleray Park which are rated as providing good and outstanding education to students with complex learning difficulties, some of whom will have PMLD.
8.4 The Report presented to Cabinet details why the option to expand Elleray Park and Stanley Schools was the most viable option and therefore we do not propose to go into any further detail here.
8.5 The report to cabinet on the 4th September 2014 contains information on the background history of CLD/PMLD provision. The report also details the responses to the consultation and the independent consultant’s report. A link is provided for your information:
8.6.1 (1) Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;
8.6.2 (2) Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:
8.6.2.1 Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
8.6.2.2 That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually with
children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
(a) – Elleray Park Special School
(b) – Stanley Special School
(c) – Another appropriate school
8.6.3 In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
8.6.4 The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
8.6.5 A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
8.6.6 The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.
8.7 I respond to each of your proposed grounds of challenge as below.
9. Cabinet meeting notice requirements
9.1 You state in your letter that the Council has not complied with Regulations 8-9 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 set out below as the document specified in Regulation 9 was not published.
9.2 Regulation 8
9.2.1 (1) In these Regulations a “key decision” means an executive decision, which is likely–
9.2.2 (a) to result in the relevant local authority incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the relevant local authority’s budget for the service or function to which to which the decision relates; or
9.2.3 (b) to be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards or electoral divisions in the area of the relevant local authority.
9.2.4 (2) In determining the meaning of “significant” for the purposes of paragraph (1) the local authority must have regards to any guidance for the time issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 9Q of the 2000 Act (guidance).
9.3 Regulation 9
9.3.1 (1) Where a decision maker intends to make a key decision, that decision must not be made until a document has been published in accordance with paragraph (2), which states–
9.3.2 (a) that a key decision is to be made on behalf of the relevant local authority;
9.3.3 (b) the matter in respect of which the decision is to be made;
9.3.4 (c) where the decision maker is an individual, that individual’s name, and title if any and, where the decision maker is a decision-making body, its name and a list of its members;
9.3.5 (d) the date on which, or the period within which, the decision is to be made;
9.3.6 (e) a list of the documents submitted to the decision maker for consideration in relation to the matter in respect of which the key decision is to be made;
9.3.7 (f) the address from which, subject to any prohibition or restriction on their disclosure, copies of, or extracts from, any document listed is available;
9.3.8 (g) that other documents relevant to those matters may be submitted to the decision maker; and
9.3.9 (h) the procedure for requesting details of those documents (if any) as they become available.
9.3.10 (2) At least 28 clear days before a key decision is made, the document referred to in paragraph (1) must be available for inspection by the public–
9.3.11 (a) at the offices of the relevant local authority; and
9.3.12 (b) on the relevant local authority’s website, if it has one.
9.3.13 (3) Where, in relation to any matter–
9.3.14 (a) the public may be excluded under regulation 4(2) from the meeting at which the matter is to be discussed; or
9.3.15 (b) documents relating to the decision need not, because of regulation 20(3), be disclosed to the public,
9.3.15 the document referred to in paragraph (1) must contain particulars of the matter but may not contain any confidential, exempt information or particulars of the advice of a political adviser or assistant.
9.4 It is accepted that the “in-principle” decision is a “key decision” under Regulation 8 and therefore the Council must comply with Regulation 9.
However the Council has fully complied with Regulation 9 by publishing the Forward Plan for the period of August 2014 to November 2014.
9.5 The Forward Pan specifically identifies the “Outcome of Lyndale School Consultation” as a key decision and therefore complies with Regulation 9(1)(a) and (b).
9.6 Further, in compliance with Regulation 9(c), page two of the Forward Plan lists the names of the Cabinet members who would be making the decision. It also identifies that the decision is expected to be taken in September 2014 in compliance with Regulation 9(d).
9.7 In relation to Regulation 9(e)-(g), therefore were no reports available at the time the Forward Plan was published, however they were made available in advance of the Cabinet meeting.
9.8 For these reasons, the Council considers your point here to be without foundation.
10. Cabinet decision take by the wrong people
10.1 Your letter states that regulations require a member from the Church of England and Roman Catholic diocese to be appointed to the Council’s Families and Wellbeing Policy Committee and Coordinating Committee (“the Committees”). These committees review, amongst other things, the Cabinet’s decisions on education matters. As such they are “education overview and scrutiny committees” as defined in Regulation 13(1) Local Authorities (Committee System)(England)(Regulations) 2012 and must therefore comply with the requirements in the Regulations.
10.2 Specifically, Regulation 13(2) states that the “committees must have at least one qualifying person” which is defined in Regulation 13(3) as “the person nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education for any Church of England diocese.” Regulation 13(4) and (5) has the same provision in relation to Roman Catholic diocese. This is accepted by the Council.
10.3 However, you further state that as a Church of England diocese member was not appointed to the Committees, a member should have been appointed to the Cabinet. This is not required by any of the Regulations quoted in your letter, nor any other statutory provisions.
10.4 You claim that a Church of England diocese member was neither appointed to the Committees nor the Cabinet when the “in-principle” decision was made on 4 September 2014 that such decision is in someway invalid or defective. We set out below why the Council considers this is completely unfounded.
10.5 Firstly, Table 1, Point 18 of the Council’s Constitution states that the Executive has the authority “to consider and determine statutory proposals relating to the establishment and discontinuance of schools.” As you are no doubt aware, the Executive is comprised of the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet. Secondly, as referred to above, Diocese members are only required to be appointed to the Committees whose function is to review decision relating to decision. Furthermore, the role of the Committees is to scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet and, if necessary, recommend that Cabinet reconsider the decision. The Committees have no authority to nullify the decision of the Cabinet.
10.6 The Cabinet was not required by any regulation or statutory provision to appoint a diocese member and had absolute authority to take the decision in this matter. Any claim to the contrary in entirely without foundation.
10.7 However, as stated, the Council is aware that it is required to have a Church of England diocese member on the Committees. To this end, we have contacted the diocese on numerous occasions in order to receive an appropriate nomination from them. As yet, a nomination has not been received despite the Council’s best efforts. This is due to no fault of the Council and as stated above, this anomaly does not invalidate the decision taken by the Cabinet on 4 September 2014.
11. Human Rights
The Council is fully aware of its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) and the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and ensures that all decisions it makes are fully compliant with these.
The Council refutes any suggestion that there has been a breach of the human rights of any children by the decision under challenge, for the reasons set out below.
11.1 Protocol 1 (Article 2) – Right to education
11.1.1 The assertion that the Council is denying the children of Lyndale the right to an education is entirely without merit. Article 2 of Protocol of the ECHR does not provide a pupil of an educational institution with the right to receive an education or be taught at a specific institution. It merely provides that a pupil must have access to the education system. No child currently at Lyndale is being, or will be, denied access to an education.
11.1.2 In addition, case law has established that local authorities have the discretion to allocate resources how they deem fit when arranging education provision, provided that a pupil is not denied access to the education system, which has not happened in this case.
11.1.3 No final decision has been made in relation to whether to close Lyndale or not. No child will be denied the right to continue their education and so will not be denied access to the system Therefore, there is no legal basis for this alleged ground of challenge.
11.2 Article 2 – right to life
11.2.1 To establish that this Article is engaged, you would have to demonstrate that either; a) the Council were deliberately trying to end the lives of the pupils; or b) we ought to be aware that there was a real and immediate risk to the lives of the pupils were they to be moved to alternative educational provision.
11.2.2 No decision has yet been made in relation to any specific pupil transferring to an alternative educational provider. Therefore this ground of challenge is entirely baseless.
11.2.3 Any suggestion that the Council are deliberately trying to end the lives of the children is simply untenable and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a real and immediate risk to their lives given that no decision has been made to transfer any child to an
alternative educational provider. This ground of challenge is therefore completely unfounded.
11.3 Article 3 – prohibition of torture
11.3.1 The Council denies that the children of Lyndale would be subject to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment.
11.3.2 Torture is defined as “deliberate inhumane treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering.” It is refuted that the children of Lyndale would be subjected to any suffering, let alone serious or cruel suffering or otherwise.
11.3.3 Inhumane treatment is defined as treatment “causing intense physical and mental suffering.” There is no evidence to suggest that any children will be subjected to physical or mental suffering.
11.3.4 Degrading treatment is “treatment or punishment” which “humiliates and debases” the victim. The Council’s in-principle decision to publish a statutory closure notice cannot in any way be described as a decision designed to humiliate or debase the children of Lyndale.
11.3.5 You have provided no evidence to substantiate this claim and is it entirely without merit.
11.4 Article 11 – freedom of assembly
11.4.1 Your reference to this Article is unclear and the Council considers that the Article is not engaged in this matter in any event.
11.5 Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination
11.5.1 This Article is only engaged if a breach of another Article is proven. Given the difficulties, set out above, that you would have to sustain an argument that any of the above Articles have been breached, the Council denies that Article 14 is relevant.
11.5.2 You suggest in your Letter before Claim that the political views of the parents were discounted and that this, in some way, led to Article 14 being engaged. This is denied given the points raised above however we wish to point out that the views expressed by the parents during the consultation process were taken into account in this matter as demonstrated by the summary of the responses considered by Cabinet (which is publicly available online). The Council refutes the suggestion that differing political views affected the decision and denies that any individual or group has been discriminated in any way by its “in-principle” decision.
11.5.3 Further, your reference to children being born disabled is unclear.
12. Equality Act 2010 (“Equality Act”)
12.1 Section 13
12.1.1 You have provided no evidence to sustain an allegation that less money would be spent on the education of the Lyndale children if Lyndale were to close, therefore the Council considered this allegation unfounded.
12.1.2 As mentioned in the Cabinet Report, the net result of a potential closure of Lyndale would be a £33,470 budget surplus. If the Council made a final decision to close Lyndale after completing all of the 5 stages of the statutory processes this could be shared across all remaining schools who would stand to gain £3,347 additional funding each.
12.1.3 The Council does not hold any information relating to the protected characteristics of any staff members of Lyndale. If you require this information we suggest you make further contact with the School direct.
This information is not held by the Council but the governing body of the school
12.2 Section 15
12.2.1 The aim of this process is to secure the highest standard of education possible for the children of Lyndale. In order to secure this, the Council has a duty to ensure that the provision of the education is affordable in the long-term. Your assertion that this is not a legitimate aim for the purpose of the Act is without foundation.
12.2.2 The Council has consulted extensively with interested parties, including staff, parents, Governors and the general public with regard to the potential closure of Lyndale and will continue to invite representations from such parties during the representation stage of the Statutory process. Having considered these views and the report which considered the SEN Improvement Test which was applied to a range of different options it has been decided, in principle, that the closure of Lyndale is the most proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim set out in the 4th September cabinet report.
12.3 Section 19
12.3.1 This argument is legally flawed as, pursuant to s.19(1) Equality Act, the parents would have to possess a relevant protected characteristic. You have provided no evidence of this.
12.4 Section 26
12.4.1 The allegation that the Council has in any way violated the dignity of the persons affected by its decision, whether the children or otherwise, is entirely misconceived and without foundation and is not supported by any evidence.
12.4.2 Further, there is no evidence that any current or previous members of staff at the school have been intimidated by any members of the Council.
12.5 Section 27
12.5.1 For this section to be engaged, the Council would have had to have subjected the parents to a detriment directly because they have threatened legal proceedings. As far as the Council is aware, no legal proceedings have been issued.
12.5.2 You have provided no evidence of this and therefore your claim is unfounded. In any event, the Council denies that any parents have been subject to a detriment.
12.6 Sections 85 and 86
12.6.1 Your claim in relation to these sections are also without foundation as you have provided no evidence to suggest that any children will be subject to a detriment as a result of this decision.
12.6.2 Furthermore, the Council has consulted a wide range of interested parties on a number of different options to ensure that all consultees were aware of the different proposals that the Council wished to consider prior to making an appropriate “in-principle” decision that would lead to the children continue to receive the highest standard of education.
12.6.3 In addition, the decision to commence the statutory process to publish a closure notice to close the school from 2016 is not determinative that the school will be closed or that the children will be moved to another school which is specifically designed to provide education to pupils with special educational needs and other disabilities. On that basis, the children will suffer no detriment as a result.
12.6.4 Further, the allegation that children are being penalised for their parents’ opposition to the proposals, or for any other reason, is entirely without foundation. This is simply incorrect and there is no evidence to support such a spurious allegation.
12.7 Section 112
12.7.1 The Council strenuously denies any breach of the Equality Act, therefore your point in relation to this section has no legal foundation.
12.8 Section 149
12.8.1 For the reasons set out at paragraph 14 below, the Council has clearly discharged its public sector equality duty under the provision of the Act.
12.9 Section 158
12.9.1 The Council accepts that the pupils at Lyndale have educational needs that are different from the needs of pupils in mainstream education. However, you state in your letter that pupils with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (“PMLD”) form a small minority of the school population. This is not the case, there are 21 pupils on the roll at Lyndale, 18 of which are diagnosed as having PMLD.
12.9.2 In dealing with your point, we reiterate that the level of education provided to the children will not be affected by the proposals.
===================================================================================================================
13. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (“DDA 1995”) and the Disability Discrimination Act 2005
13.1 I do not propose to respond in detail to the provisions referred to in the above Acts given that both were repealed by Schedule 27(1) Paragraph 1 of the Equality Act.
13.2 As a gesture of goodwill, I have listed below the points you have raised in relation to these Acts that are covered by the new Equality Act.
13.2.1 Sections 21B, 28B, 28C and 28F DDA 1995 are now covered by s.13 Equality Act.
13.2.2 Sections 21D and 49A DDA 1995 are now covered by s.149 EA 2010.
13.3 I have responded to the points raised under the new provisions above.
14. Equality Impact Assessment (“EIA”)
14.1 As mentioned above, the Council is fully aware of its public sector equality duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between persons with a protected characteristic and those without.
14.2 In order to comply with this, the Council commissioned an EIAs which commenced on the 6th December 2013 and further reviewed on the 6th August 2014. The purpose of the EIA was to ensure that the Cabinet was fully aware of any equality implications when considering a proposal that Lyndale may close before making an in principle decision to public a statutory closure notice.
14.3 The EIA, which is publicly available online, assesses the impact that the proposals could have on pupils; staff at both Lyndale and other schools; and the parents of children affected by the decision. The EIA refers to the potential positive impact that the proposals could have on the children concerned, for example they may be provided access to new and varied opportunities, and steps that can be taken to ensure there are no negative consequences.
14.4 The members of the Cabinet had access to the EIA documents and reviewed both of them prior to making its decision of 4 September 2014. As such, it is clear that the council has had “due regard” to its’ public sector equality duty under the Equality Act.
15. SEN Improvement test
15.1 The Council is fully aware of its obligation to apply the SEN Improvement test to the decision in this matter. To assist compliance with this duty, the Council instructed an independent consultant to assess all the options.
15.2 Specifically in relation to the points you raise, Table 1 and Part 7.7 of the independent consultant’s report referring to the SEN Improvement Test (which is also publicly available) indicate that both alternative schools, Stanley and Elleray Park have at least as good Ofsted judgements. This demonstrates that if in due course it is proposed that Lyndale pupils are placed in either of these schools it will not limit their access but will improve their access to high quality education and services.
15.3 The two alternative schools are special schools with staff that are suitably qualified to teach and support children although no decision has yet been made that a particular child will move to either of these alternative schools. Furthermore, if in due course the Council decides to implement a decision to close Lyndale it will look to support staff at The Lyndale in finding alternative employment. However, no decisions in this regard have been made, so this particular ground of challenge is extremely premature. However, the Council wishes to point out that no pupil’s access to specialist staff will be affected.
15.4 Part 7.7 of the Report also states that the first alternative school, Stanley, has new accommodation specifically designed to cater for children with PMLD. In particular, it has 12 large classrooms, a hydrotherapy pool and sensory facilities. The second alternative school, Elleray Park, is currently being expanded to enhance the specialist facilities that pupils with PMLD require. As such, it is clear that if a decision to close Lyndale is made in due course, pupils at Lyndale will be able to access suitable accommodation facilities at other schools in the area. This may include Elleray Park or Stanley Schools whose capacity has recently been increased.
15.5 On that basis your assertion that there will not be an improved supply of places is unfounded.
15.6 Further, reiterating what has already been mentioned in this letter, both Elleray Park and Stanley schools are special schools and are therefore more than able to receive pupils with PMLD and other complex needs.
15.7 Referring to the point you raise regarding funding, the Report clearly states that this is a viable option. Most other options lead to a budget deficit of between £26,000 and £168,000 which is financially unsustainable and would lead to a significant reduction in the quality of education provided to the pupils at Lyndale, which you will agree, is not a viable option. This proposal indicates there would be a surplus of £33,000.
16. Premature Challenge
16.1 In addition to all of the reasons stated above, the Council regards your threat of Judicial Review as being extremely premature. As is clearly stated in the Cabinet minutes, this is merely an “in-principle” decision to proceed with the statutory process.
16.2 There are still several stages of the statutory process to undergo which includes a stage whereby any person or organisation will be invited to make further representations to the Council in response to the statutory notices. The Cabinet is under a statutory obligation to consider such representations before making a final decision. It is possible, that the Council may decide not to close Lyndale School.
16.3 As these processes have not yet been completed and no final decision on the matter has been made, it is the Council’s view that any suggestion of a way of challenge by way of Judicial Review at this stage is extremely premature and unnecessary.
17. Further information
17.1 At section nine of your letter you outline numerous requests for further information. The Council’s response to each request is detailed below.
17.1.1 The Council’s Cabinet Report of 4th September 2014, its appendices and the record of the Cabinet decision of 4 September
2014 sets out fully the Council’s reasons for its “in-principle” decision.
17.1.2 The Council does not hold statistical information relating to staff at Lyndale. It is possible that Lyndale may hold such information and it would therefore be appropriate for you to deal with Lyndale direct in relation to this request
17.1.3 You have requested information relating to statistics on any protected characteristics of the Council’s workforce. The Council does hold such information, but cannot see the relevance of this request in light of the proposed grounds of challenge. Any such information is held purely based on information employees have provided about themselves to the Council as their employer and is not relevant to the in principle decision to publish a statutory closure notice.
17.1.4 In relation to your request for statistics on pupils at Lyndale – the Council can confirm that currently 21 pupils are listed on the admission the roll at Lyndale. 18 children have been diagnosed as having PMLD, three have complex learning difficulties, two are of Asian (Indian) origin and the remainder are White British.
17.1.5 The Council believes that the financial information that is publicly available as part of the Cabinet report fully discharges its duty of candour in relation to the request for a three year projection of Lyndale School’s budget.
17.1.6 Any earlier draft of the report detailing the outcome of the consultation are not relevant as officers continued to consider their report in the light of feedback and responses
18. Documents you request
18.1 At Section 10 of your letter you request a number of documents that you consider relevant. The Council’s response to each request is detailed below.
18.1.1 Please refer to Appendix 6 of the Cabinet report (which is publicly available) which contains a summary of the responses received during the consultation.
18.1.2 The Council’s response to your request for these documents is detailed at Paragraphs 17.1.5 and 17.1.6 above.
18.1.3 Six public meetings which formed part of the Council’s consultation process were held, to which all interested parties including staff and trade unions were invited to attend. Notes of these are published with the Cabinet report at Appendices 5-7.
18.1.4 As part of the Council’s consultation process it met with the Chair of governors of Lyndale and the whole governing body in separate meetings.
18.1.5 There was no report commissioned from a Principal Educational Psychologist.
18.1.6 Details of how the Council think the preferred option meets the SEN Improvement test – this is detailed extensively in the Cabinet Report, its’ appendices and Paragraph 15 above.
19.1 For the reasons set out at paragraphs 9 and 10, the original Cabinet decision of 4 September 2014 was entirely valid and therefore your request that the Council issue an undertaking to postpone proceeding with the statutory process is unreasonable and inappropriate.
19.2 Any further Cabinet meeting that takes places that considers any decision associated with the decision made on the 4 September 2014 will, of course, comply fully with the regulatory and constitutional requirements, which the Council is subject to.
19.3 The Council is committed to openness and transparency about its decision-making and from the nature of the information that is publicly available all interested parties are able to determine the full range of information the Council took into account, including the different options considered, before the decision of 4 September 2014 was made. The Council is satisfied that its decision making process to date has been transparent and open, and does not consider that a further meeting would be beneficial particularly in light of the fact that the early stages of the statutory process have not yet completed and no final decision with regard to the potential closure of Lyndale has been made.
If you are still minded to pursue a claim for Judicial Review, the Council will vigorously oppose any proceedings and seek to recover its costs of defending such proceedings. We consider the threat of such proceedings to be premature, wholly misconceived and entirely without merit for all the reasons set out above.
Yours sincerely,
(signature of Surjut Tour)
Surjit Tour Head of Legal and Member Services and Monitoring Officer
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Free School Meals and pages 87-88 of Wirral Council’s ~£12 million/year PFI contract with Wirral Schools Services Ltd
Free School Meals and pages 87-88 of Wirral Council’s ~£12 million/year PFI contract with Wirral Schools Services Ltd
A delicious meal (not a school meal which we don’t have any stock photos of) prepared for John by Leonora my wife who also writes for this blog and is a better at cook than I am.
This is a small part of the Schools PFI contract that Wirral Council has that costs the taxpayer this year ~£12 million a year. This is part of a massive contract that I estimate being between 500 and 1000 pages long.
It relates to the following schools (one primary and eight secondary) plus two City Learning Centres:
Leasowe Primary
Bebington High
University Academy of Birkenhead (formerly called Park High)
South Wirral High
Weatherhead High
Hilbre High
Prenton High
Wallasey High
Wirral Grammar Girls
Wallasey City Learning Centre
Hilbre City Learning Centre
Before I start on quoting from the contract on page 87, I need to first explain what the following terms mean.
“Authority” refers to Wirral Council.
“Schools” are the schools listed above that are part of the PFI contract.
“Category A Consumers” means “school meals supplied to those pupils at a School who pay for meals and/or refreshments taken in the Catering Area of the Schools.”
“Category B Consumers” means “those pupils who have been notified to Projet Co as being entitled to free meals, and who take these meals in the School’s Catering Area.”
Category A Consumers & Category B Consumers are treated as non-business for VAT purposes. To be honest a lot of this contract is about tax!
“Category C Consumers” means “meals supplied to members of staff of the Schools and visitors who have been notified to Project Co as being entitled to a free meal are supplied free of charge by the Authority to the consumer and output tax is not applicable.”
“Category D Consumers” are “meals supplied to persons other than pupils who take and pay for a meal and/or refreshments are treated as taxable supplies for VAT purposes. Project Co shall include the appropriate rate of VAT in the prices charged for such meals and refreshments and supply output statistics and the value of VAT output tax to the Authority within a timetable specified by the Authority which has been agreed with HM Customs & Excise”
Right now onto the bit of the contract about free school meals (pages 87-88), my comments are in italics.
20.4 Free School Meals
(1) The Authority has a duty to provide free school meals to those pupils at the Schools who fall into Category B Consumers. Members of staff and visitors of the School who are Category C Consumers are also entitled to a free meal paid for by the Authority or School.
OK, reasonable so far, restates legal requirement in sentence 1. Didn’t know about sentence 2 though… which is a tad unclear as to who pays.
(2) The Authority will issue to all individuals referred to in Clause 20.4(1) a card (the “Smart Card“) in a design to be agreed from time to time by the Authority and Project Co, but including the person’s name, photograph and the name of the School, which shall be credited with cash equivalent to the number of free school meals that person is entitled to in that Contract Month.
Wow, things have changed a lot since my day. So, just because their parents are on means tested benefits, you’re insisting children have photo ID and presumably present such photo ID every time they get a “free school meal”? Sounds like it’s “free” but with strings attached?! OK, call me a civil liberties person who rejoiced when the Coalition government scrapped the ID card plan, but forcing children from poor backgrounds to use photo ID?? Maybe I’m just old fashioned?
(3) The Authority will, using its own data and confidential information on free meals, prior to the commencement of each Contract Month issue a list to Project Co of the number of persons entitled to free school meals.
So wait a sec, Project Co is being given a list of all children that get free school meals and children also have to present photo ID to get them? What’s the point of the photo ID then??? Why not just ask them their name or am I missing something??? Surely kids know their own name? Yes, it’s “confidential information” so why is Wirral Council handing it over to a private company as part of this contract??? *sentence deleted following editorial meeting* Bristol based Wirral Schools Services Limited was called Jarvishelf 2 Limited prior to 29th December 2000.
(4) Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of each Contract Month for the number of free school meals supplied to Category B Consumers at the Meal of the Day Price together with VAT if applicable.
Eh, I thought page 86 said that Category A&B Consumers were “non-business” for VAT purposes? I suppose I’m not a contract lawyer being paid an extortionate amount to write this stuff though.
(5) Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of the each Contract Month for the number of free school meals supplied to Category C Consumers at a charge pre-agreed with the relevant School together with VAT if applicable.
Free meals for staff and visitors eh? Must be one of the few perks of the job I suppose… mind you teaching staff have to put up with a lot so I suppose a “free school meal” is the least they deserve.
(6) In addition to Clauses 20.4(4) and (5), Project Co will invoice the Authority on the last day of each Contract Month for any function, hospitality or visitors’ meals supplied together with VAT if applicable.
Functions, hospitality, oh dear are we getting into “golf” territory again eh? OK, I can envisage visiting sports teams from other schools needing something to eat, staff from other schools and places, meetings held at the school etc, but how much “hospitality” goes on in a school anyway. I get the impression Wirral Schools aren’t inviting the Mayor of Helsinki over every week to their school for a start (or maybe they are?)
(7) Project Co in its capacity as agent for the Authority (or the relevant Support Service Provider acting on behalf of Project Co) will provide:
(a) to each Category B Consumer bearing a Smart Card, a meal to the value of the Meal of the Day Price; and
(b) to each Category C Consumer bearing a Smart Card, a meal to the value of the pre-agreed charge referred to in Clause 20.4(5).
Oh dear, cash seems so old fashioned now doesn’t it? What’s “Meal of the Day” anyway? Gruel? Bread and water? Maybe I’m thinking of Oliver (the musical). I find it worrying that even at primary school age kids are forced to use photo ID cards just to get what they’re entitled to although maybe that’s just the way society has changed. It’s enough to drive people to packed lunches! What if the poor child leaves their “Smart Card” at home, do they go hungry? No “Meal of the Day” for them? After all in the days of cash (yes seems I’m old fashioned), your friends could give you (or even lend you) the money if you were short at the till. No more it seems in these contracts for cashless school meals!
(8) If the price of a meal chosen by:
(a) a Category B Consumer exceeds the Meal of the Day Price; or
(b) a Category C Consumer exceeds the value of the pre-agreed charge referred to in Clause 20.4(5)
the bearer shall be responsible for crediting its card with the excess via the dining room tills and the Authority shall have no liability in respect of the excess. If the price of a meal chosen by a Category B Consumer or a Category C Consumer is less than the value of the Meal of the Day or the pre-agreed charge (as the case may be) Project Co or the relevant Support Service Provider shall be entitled to retain the excess.
Wow, just wow. Let’s take a hypothetical Meal of the Day price at £2.30 (which this recent article about the Cabinet decision on increasing it helpfully provides). If someone choses items to eat that go over this £2.30 threshold, they have to pay more. If someone choses items that go under it, there is no refund but the “Project Co” (Wirral Schools Services Limited) or “Support Service Provider” gets to keep the difference!!! I suppose that’s what you call capitalism!
Category B Consumers are free school meals paid for by the taxpayer. However, even if the cost of providing such meals (out of taxes) is less than the “Meal of the Day” price, this company charges the taxpayer at the “Meal of the Day” price and makes profit on the difference! Yes, they’re making profit out of school children’s’ meals!!!
And so ends the lesson for today on capitalism. It goes without saying that the Cabinet Member for this area at the time the contract was signed in 2004 was Councillor Phil Davies (currently Leader of the Council) doesn’t it?
And yes, there are even more worrying bits of this massive contract (that keeps on running in the gift that keeps on giving for the capitalists for well over another decade) than the minor section on free school meals above, but if I wrote about the but I’m thinking about it would probably lead to questions being asked (even a panic!) and I might be misconstrued due to the millions of pounds that particular bit involves being transferred from Wirral Council to this company to sort out that “mistake”. No wonder the first page is marked “private and confidential”!
However there are some positives about this new approach:
(a) other pupils can’t do the faux pas I did when I was 10 and transferred schools in year 6 (last year of primary school). The new school I transferred to was in a “working class” area, whereas where I had come from was “middle class”.
I reminded a friend of mine (I still remember this embarrassing conversation twenty-four years later although I hope the other guy has forgotten it by now) he’d forgotten to pay at the till for his school meal for him to look extremely embarrassed and have to explain that he hadn’t forgotten to pay and that he was on free school meals. I then committed a second faux pas as I had to ask what “free school meals” actually meant as at age ten I didn’t know why (strangely but perhaps understandably my education (paid for by Wirral Council) had been somewhat lacking to this point on the intricacies of the UK welfare benefits system in 1991, free school meals and other such matters). Such matters were communicated by schools in mind numbing detail to parents in long detailed communications, but concepts not really understood by ten year old children such as myself (the guy I was talking to understood but not me). Maybe these days children have a better understanding of such things than I did then or maybe they don’t.
In the approach above (as outlined in the contract) all kids are issued with a photo ID card and presumably the children on free school meals don’t have “FREE SCHOOL MEALS” emblazoned in large capital letters written on the card.
(b) it reduces the risk of bullying of kids for their lunch money as the card has a photo on it. Unlike money the photo ID cards (unless you happen to be identical twins and I remember the identical twins when I was at school playing all kids of jokes on the adults as their fellow children could tell them apart but the adults couldn’t) can’t be transferred between people easily if the photo is compared to the person using it.
(c) all this bureaucracy is why some parents then and now probably just opt for the simpler option of packed lunches (although if your family is entitled to free school meals this might be ruled out on terms of cost). The upside is no queuing, parents know what their children are eating and fewer profits going to companies making money out of the taxpayer and others.
(d) free school meals have been introduced for all primary school children this month by the Coalition government for under 7 year olds (1.5 million children). The fact all children on this age group (and not just those on means tested benefits) get an entitlement to free school meals should cut down on a lot of bureaucracy.
To put it simply, it is far easier from an administrative perspective giving everyone an entitlement to a free school meal from school age to age seven, then having to process each form detailing the benefits that qualify a family (who may have one or more children at one or more schools) for free school meals, checking that said benefit is now claimed and if so over which dates, tracking said child through the school system if they move schools and sorting out the paperwork, et cetera, et cetera. The current system is a minefield of bureaucracy and takes a lot of staff time who could be using their time to do things that are more use to society than shuffling paperwork around (not to say that isn’t important).
It’s also been a lot of work for schools, a lot of work for the LEA too, which has reduced somewhat now, although a lot of questions have been asked before and after this change about the knock on effect of how the “pupil premium” is calculated as this is a measure whereby schools get extra money based on how many children there get free school meals.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Wirral Council publish draft minutes on 4th September Cabinet decision on Lyndale School
Wirral Council publish draft minutes on 4th September Cabinet decision on Lyndale School
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Wirral Council has published the draft minutes of the special Cabinet meeting held on the 4th September 2014 to consider the future of Lyndale School.
Councillors have between the date the draft minutes were published and the 18th September 2014 to decide whether they wish to “call in” the Cabinet decision and have it reviewed by a meeting of the Coordinating Committee as long as a minimum of six (out of sixty-six) councillors call for it to be called in.
A copy of the draft minutes for the Cabinet meeting are below.
40.
Members’ Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest
Members of the Cabinet are asked to consider whether they have any disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state the nature of the interest.
Minutes:
Councillor S Whittingham declared a personal interest by virtue of his appointment as a school governor at Millbrook Special School.
41.
Minutes
The minutes of the last meeting have been printed and published. Any matters called in will be reported at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: That the minutes be approved and adopted.
Minutes:
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the last meeting held on 7th July 2014 be approved as a correct record.
42.
Chairs Announcement
Minutes:
The Leader of the Councillor indicated that following requests received, prior to the consideration of TheLyndale School item, the Cabinet will be show a video from The Lyndale School first
At its meeting held on 14 July 2014, Council considered a Notice of Motion proposed by Councillor Paul Hayes in relation to The Lyndale School.
Council requested the Cabinet consider this along with all options relating to Lyndale School together with the outcome of the consultation exercise at a special meeting.
(Minute 18 is attached)
Minutes:
At the meeting of the Council held on 14 July 2014 (minute 18 refers), the attached Notice of Motion, proposed by Councillor Paul Hayes and seconded by Councillor Jeff Green, in relation to The Lyndale School, was debated.
Council requested the Cabinet consider this along with all options relating to the Lyndale School together with the outcome of the consultation exercise at a special meeting.
RESOLVED:
That the Notice of Motion in the relation to The Lyndale School be noted.
Prior to consideration of the item the Cabinet considered a video which had been submitted by Ms D. Hughes.
The Leader of the Council, having welcomed everyone to the meeting, invited Ms Zoe Anderson, Parent Governor and parent of a child at The Lyndale School to address the Cabinet. Ms Anderson, spoke on behalf of the staff and parents of the school and spoke of the particular needs of the children at The Lyndale and gave a personal account of her own child’s needs and experiences which she felt could only be provided for at The Lyndale School.
Speaking on behalf of parents Ms Anderson made representations in strong support of retaining The Lyndale School, the consultation responses, the expert report and the proposed options.
Ms Anderson specifically stated that the staff at The Lyndale had gained the trust of all the parents to look after their child’s medical, physical and educational needs – which was the fundamental concern. Ms Anderson highlighted the excellent support, care and education provided all the children at The Lyndale School. The school had excellent facilities including very good outside space to which the children had full access. Ms Anderson commented that The Lyndale School provided the children with a wonderful sensory environment that was safe and relaxed. She asked that a full review be undertaken of the care given to each individual child by staff at The Lyndale School.
Ms Anderson commented that the school’s staff provided specialised care, support and education; they were adept at communicating effectively with the children – skills which took many years to perfect. She stated that it took time to build up trust, and it was unfair that staff did not know what was to happen from week to week. The school played an integral part in the community, and interacted and participated with other neighbouring schools. Ms Anderson shared/circulated a Parents Survey that had been undertaken that showed parents wanted their children to remain at The Lyndale School.
Within her representations, Ms Anderson asked that the funding bands be revisited to reflect the needs of each individual child that attended the school. She highlighted that the school had previously asked for the Schools Forum to revisit the schools banding due to the change in circumstances.
In relation to the consultation document, Ms Anderson reiterated that The Lyndale School was not looking for the Council to enhance the funding but to maintain the funding that was already in place. Ms Anderson stated that parents had confidence in the school but not the process that the parents were involved in. She reminded Cabinet Members that the Council had a legal obligation to listen to the parents under the SEN Test. Ms Anderson drew an analogy with medical consultants who always ask parents for their views and thoughts.
Ms Anderson stated that consultation responses clearly showed overwhelming support for The Lyndale School to be retained. Comments were also made in relation to the consultant (Ms L Wright) and her report.
Concerns were expressed that the ethos of The Lyndale School would not be replicated at either the Stanley orElleray Park Schools, not least because the children attending these schools had different needs. Ms Anderson stated that the suitability of expanding these two schools was based upon assumptions, which was not evidence; and that simply providing training to staff was no substitute for experience. Concerns were raised over health and safety issues and the need for both schools to be upgraded at considerable cost.
Ms Anderson concluded by stating that experienced and effective staff would leave due to the uncertainty and proposals. There would be no investment in The Lyndale School and it would instead stagnate; and parents would not want or be willing to subject their children to such an outcome.
The Leader of the Council thanked Ms Hughes for her informative video and Ms Anderson for her representations. He acknowledged and confirmed that he appreciated the time and effort expended by everyone in supporting the school and pupils. He indicated that Members of the Cabinet had read all reports, representations and the feedback received in relation to The Lyndale School and had also met with parents and staff. He sincerely thanked all staff and parents.
Introduced by the Director of Children’s Services, the Cabinet considered the report from the Director of Children’s Services which detailed the outcome of the consultation on the closure of The Lyndale School.
The report outlined the responses received during the consultation, reviewed alternative options identified, as well as detailing the outcome of the SEN Improvement Test.
The report indicated that, on 16 January 2014 (Minute 129 refers) Cabinet agreed to undertake a consultation on the closure of The Lyndale School. The consultation closed in June 2014. The report recommended that Cabinet considered the contents of the report and made a decision on this matter.
The Director of Children’s Services commended the care, quality and passion of the staff at The Lyndale School which was endorsed by Ofsted and noted their excellent quality of care towards all pupils who attended the school and indicated that she along with her Department would be working closely with all staff and parents to end the uncertainty surrounding the future of The Lyndale School and bring this to a conclusion as soon as possible for both children, parents, and staff.
In relation to consultation, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had met with parents,’ school staff, school governors and an MP; Councillors had also undertaken site visits to the schools and various public meetings had been held to encourage consultation and feedback.
In relation to concerns raised by parents regarding health and safety at Elleray Park and Stanley School these were sent to both Headteachers of the schools who responded to the Council who then responded to the parents questions.
In relation to staff, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had spoken to all staff at The Lyndale School when she visited as and reiterated that those affected would be fully supported throughout the transition as far as the Council can do.
In response to comments from parents, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that there had been no evidence to suggest that parents had been steered away from The Lyndale School by Children’s Services officers although accepted that due to the uncertainty that surrounded The Lyndale School this could be a contributing factor.
In relation to the option in which it was proposed that The Lyndale School close and a new PMLD base be opened on the new Foxfield site, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had recently spoken with theHeadteacher of Foxfield School who had spoken with his Chair of Governors and the Headteacher indicated that it would be inappropriate to have a primary setting even in a separate unit, therefore this option could not be considered.
The Chair welcomed Ms Lynn Wright, Independent Consultant, who had been appointed to consult on the proposal to close The Lyndale School, the options, including those which had emerged throughout the consultation period, and give her view on the SEN Improvement Test.
Ms Wright gave feedback on her findings in relation to each of the options considered; the full report was attached as an appendix.
In response to the Council’s intention to increase the closure period from 2015 to 2016, Ms Wright advised against this as this would have huge implications for the pupils and staff that already had gone through a long period of uncertainty. Ms Wright indicated that the funding system had changed nationally and that schools that were no longer viable or sustainable should not be allowed to continue.
The Leader of the Council thanked Ms Wright for her detailed report and feedback on the considered options.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services thanked all staff and parents for their comments and feedback and indicated that the Cabinet had considered all options in a transparent manner and had listened carefully to what had been said. Cabinet Members were reminded to have regard to the Council Referral under the previous Agenda Item in considering this matter. The Cabinet Member reiterated the need for stability at The Lyndale School and that this had been looked at for both financial and educational reasons, which had to be taken into consideration due to the funding formula changes introduced by Central Government.
Councillor T Smith moved the following motion duly seconded by G. Davies:
(1) Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;
(2) Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:
Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually, with children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
Elleray Park Special School
Stanley Special School
Another appropriate school
In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
and outlined the following reasons for the motion.
Having looked at all the options, and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is our opinion that, while we recognise the special place that The Lyndale School has in the affection of parents and children, the continued operation and maintenance of a school of this size will not meet the future educational needs of the children, nor is a financially viable option, especially when there are good alternative options available.
The Council has a responsibility to ensure for the sustainable future provision of education for the pupils of The Lyndale School. In addition, we have to manage resources effectively for all schools and the school population.
This was a difficult decision to make, and we would like to affirm our continued intention to work positively with the families and the children affected, and reassure parents of our continued commitment to their child’s wellbeing and education.
Councillor P. Davies moved an amendment, duly seconded by Councillor Mooney, that an additional point be included in the motion, namely:
The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.
which was carried unanimously.
IT WAS RESOLVED: That
(1) Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;
(2) Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:
Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually, with children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
EllerayPark Special School
StanleySpecial School
Another appropriate school
In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.
Hear what was said at the Lyndale School Closure Consultation Meeting (16th June 2014)
Hear what was said at the Lyndale School Closure Consultation Meeting (16th June 2014)
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Above is audio from the two hour consultation meeting during the consultation on the closure of Lyndale School
Above is audio from the two-hour consultation meeting held at the Acre Lane Professional Excellence Centre on the 16th June 2014. I’ve been writing about it on this blog, but so far have just got to over half way through the meeting. If you’d like to read what I’ve previously written about the consultation meeting, links to the various parts are below.
