Strange: Labour refuse to take decision on Lyndale School tonight based on abolished predetermination rule

Strange: Labour refuse to take decision on Lyndale School tonight based on abolished predetermination rule

Strange: Labour refuse to take decision on Lyndale School tonight based on abolished predetermination rule

                      

Labour’s Councillor Tony Smith and Councillor Phil Davies have submitted an amendment to the Conservative’s notice of motion on Lyndale School. Although it’s an amendment it retains only a sentence and a half from the original motion. If Labour’s amendment is agreed the text below shows how it’ll change the original motion. Text in the original motion that is deleted by Labour’s amendment has a line through it and extra text added by Labour’s amendment is in bold.

THE LYNDALE SCHOOL

Council, having regard to the support given to the campaign to keep the Lyndale School open by the public of Wirral, resolves that:

1. It is the firm belief of Council that the Lyndale School should remain open, and in order to bring to an end the anguish and uncertainty suffered by pupils and their parents and carers, calls upon Cabinet to confirm that the school will remain open when Cabinet next meets.

2. 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 provision and affirms its belief that such provision should remain at the Lyndale School.

3. Council instructs officers to work with the Wirral School’s Forum in order to investigate how the funding of Wirral’s Special Schools can more closely reflect the will of Wirral’s residents, as expressed by the huge support given to the Lyndale School: that the quality and scale of provision for children requiring the services of special schools in Wirral should continually strive to improve and be in no way diminished.

Council believes that it would be premature to take a view on the future of Lyndale School without taking into account the outcome of the comprehensive consultation process which took place recently. Any statements in favour of a particular outcome run the risk of predetermination.

Council therefore notes the views contained in this motion and agrees to refer it to the special meeting of Cabinet on the 4th September. Cabinet will consider all options relating to Lyndale School together with the outcome of the consultation exercise at that special meeting.

However the predetermination rule was abolished on 15th January 2012 when section 25 (prior indications of view of matter not to amount to predetermination) of the Localism Act 2011 became law.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Tom Harney “it’s amazing the things that go on” (part 8)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Tom Harney “it’s amazing the things that go on” (part 8)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Tom Harney “it’s amazing the things that go on” (part 8)

 

This continues from Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Funding, banding and need (part 7).

Tom Harney, Chair of Governors at Lyndale School said, “Thank you very much. My name for those of you that don’t know me is Tom Harney. I’m Chair of governors at the Lyndale School in Eastham. Mention was made in the consultation about academy status and the governing body agreed that we would actually approach the DfE [Department for Education] and put our names on the list and I’ve just had this email, so I do apologise if I’m telling members of the governing body something in fact that they haven’t been told beforehand, but we have got a list from somebody called Holly Turner who works for the Department for Education and she has given us some names of contacts which we will be taking forward and it seems and I didn’t know this but she told me that one proposal in Wirral that’s been progressed is to put special school children in Wallasey School building. That’s interesting isn’t it?

So there we are, it’s amazing the things that go on. So, well there we are, it’s a national system of education and anyway we will be doing that and of course as has been mentioned here there is a problem and that is the amount of money per a child and the reason by the way that we have been talking to the Council about seven or eight years now, is that at no time have we had enough money per a child. The only reason the school is still open, is that we have actually been funded above the places because of course, both the number of children we’ve had a number of places which has been steadily decreasing and it’s a warning signal and the reason is of course it is expensive to give the sort of service that these children need under the formula we’ve got and there’s no way out of that. It is going to cost more money because effectively one to one is true.

You need more or less one to one, one adult per a child and that costs money and it’s a very, very simple exercise to say how much does it cost, because we know how much salaries cost and people attract salaries, so it’s easy and I am horrified really that it wasn’t in the report and finally the third thing is and I would like to reply to what Dave said and what Ian said, Ian Lewis and Dave Mitchell and that is there was a unanimous view, err decision by Council. What happened was in fact arising out of a petition organised by parents, the Council and with one of our parents, or then parents who addressed the Council. There was an agreement that there would be an investigation leading to a policy which would deal with PMLD in this Borough.

The first part of that investigation was done because they asked parents what they thought and then there was going to be a part two. That part two has never been finished and I feel that the reason we did that was to give a robust basis to actually talk out this what we’re talking about now because we knew it was going to happen and we’ve known for several years it was going to happen and we thought it’s logical if you start with the needs of the children, identify what the needs of the children are. Then you work out how much it costs per a child and then you fund it and as has been said one way or another, this has to be funded. Even if it means cross subsidising the school and I don’t think, I think if we’re going to cross subsidise I think all of the parents in the school should be told that because obviously if a child’s got and suffered health problems that our children have got in the school, they have to have the funding and therefore if there is a choice of staff they have to be taken from somewhere else because their lives are not threatened.

So it’s as easy as that, the issues are very simple and I think they’re being obscured by a lot of the discussions but the fact of the matter is, it costs money to educate the children who are in this condition and we, plus health of course and you never mentioned but health put a lot of money in to Lyndale and the other schools, we need jointly to ensure that the lives of these children are the best that they can be. Thank you.”

Tom Harney received a round of applause for what he had said.

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Cllr Dave Mitchell “They need the care they’ve got!” (part 9).

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Funding, banding and need (part 7)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Funding, banding and need (part 7)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Funding, banding and need (part 7)

 

This is what happened at the last of the consultation meetings about the closure of Lyndale School and continues from Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6).

Julia Hassall (Director of Children’s Services) continued by saying, “Just to reinforce the point that Phil [Ward] has made, we are really clear that if a child needs a certain type of frequency of provision, then we will replicate that in a different school setting.”

The next question was, “Am I allowed to ask about funding?”

Julia Hassall and others replied, “Yes”. Phil Ward said, “Go on then.”

The person asking the question said, “Basically, we do have a big and major issue with regards to the funding with the banding. Obviously you informed us on the last meeting which we work in a way is that band five children have to hit those three things now. We’ve now been made aware that one of the main criteria that they have to be gastroscomy fed. Now a lot of our children are unable to walk, talk, do pretty much anything for themselves, have seizures, … all different types of things, you know choking, aspiration is the main one but we are able to feed them orally, so and they’re getting eight grand less than the kids. I mean can’t we like, you know, surely to God something needs to be done about this? Our kids needs that other eight grand.

I mean because basically, I mean we’re on band four because at this precise moment, us two and you know potentially Robinson as well is going to be in band four right? So our kids are all going to be in band four so we get eight grand. Now where you’ve got the autistic children in Stanley and Elleray who can walk and talk who are on the National Curriculum scale, you know and are …, what band are they because how much money are they going to have taken off them? You know their money’s going to be plummeted.”

Phil Ward said, “Right, let’s bring Andrew in on that because that’s quite a long question. Hang on a sec, let’s bring Andrew in.”

Andrew Roberts said, “I think the main answer to your question is, it goes back to what I said before. This is a new system, it’s a system that’s only started from the first of April with five bands in it. You’ve clearly got to have a means of being able to distinguish between one band and another.”

The person asking the question said, “But we’re already telling you it’s not going to work! It can’t! It’s physically impossible when you’ve got, you know children just because they’re not gastroscomy fed are getting half the amount of money!”

Another person said, “… but he had to have a gastroscomy, because he had seizures and I have to give him his medication at a set time, morning and night.

So if he’s had a seizure and he’s fast asleep after it, obviously I can’t feed him, so then I use the gastroscomy, but if he’s fit and well, I try to keep feeding him orally because I don’t want him to lose the skill of feeding. So, is he going to be in band four and a half, is he band five, is he band four?”

Phil Ward said, “Hang on, hang on.”

David Armstrong said, “I think there’s two issues that are of concern, in terms of taking that away and reflecting on it. It’s two issues. First of all there’s the banding system itself and secondly it is are your children on the right band?

In terms of the banding system, you know, I know it’s simple but it was the special schools budget. We needed to come up with a way of distributing it, we were all in agreement when it was put together on the Schools Forum, including special heads and so on. The banding system was devised, there were comments about the banding system which will also be from outside next week to look at the banding system.

The comments that you’re making back, clearly need to feed back into looking at the banding system after it’s first year of operation. The banding system is a way of taking a fixed budget, which I think is pretty fair and obviously if you adjust one band up, we’ve got to take the other bands down but in terms of are your children on the right band, clearly Andrew [Roberts]’s an accountant, like myself. We’re well away from this. We don’t allocate children to bands, that’s a separate issue.

If your children are sitting in the wrong band, which I can deduce from that, clearly you need to take that up.”

A number of people from the audience started talking at once. One of them said, “We know our children require one to one attention.”

Phil Ward tried to talk but was drowned out by numerous people. He said, “The point’s taken around the banding and the banding issue can also be discussed at every child’s annual review if that needs to be looked at because the point…” He was drowned out by a number of people again. He continued, “hang on a sec, the point at that course is not only to look at the progress the child is making or otherwise but to look at needs as well. Now there’s a lot more… “

Julia Hassall said, “Can I just add one other bit, I think it’s important to feed that in through the psychologist when the meetings are taking place as well.”

Some asked a question about banding and reviews, which was replied to by David Armstrong. Someone responded by saying that it didn’t answer the question.

The next comment made was, “You did say the national funding is the reason why you know it all changed ok? National funding had changed, but local authorities have got you know, they’ve got the ability to decide what change they want to make to funding and what the funding stream is and what those changes are.

Lots of other boroughs have funded on a school by school basis depending on the need. On Wirral they decided to do away with this system, which you know because it was easier, but it really doesn’t have very much flexibility or address the actual needs of the children involved. That could be in relation you know to decide what to do with the banding system.

When you’ve said that you know that’s an ongoing process and the Schools Forum you’ll take it back to them and they will look at it again to reassess it, but by that time in the consultation process rest assured in this exercise you know whether, by the time it’s been looked at possibly splitting band five into two to improve the funding for these children, Lyndale will already be shut. The agreed place allocation as well for Lyndale by the way is twenty-eight, so it hasn’t got fifty percent occupancy.”

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Tom Harney “it’s amazing the things that go on” (part 8).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Councillor Paul Hayes: “I would be concerned if they were meetings behind closed doors”

Councillor Paul Hayes: “I would be concerned if they were meetings behind closed doors”

Councillor Paul Hayes: “I would be concerned if they were meetings behind closed doors”

                    

Yesterday’s Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee started the right way with people from the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre to discuss with the Committee the reasons behind their proposals. I’ve already outlined what is proposed in a previous blog post titled EXCLUSIVE: NHS Consultation on impact on 2,269 Wirral cancer patients of Clatterbridge inpatient and outpatient cuts. You can hear people from Clatterbridge Cancer Centre explain the proposals and answer questions in the video below.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

However the decision made by the Committee at the end of the discussion was that the change proposed was substantial, so that means a joint scrutiny committee will be created. Wirral Council’s representatives on that joint scrutiny committee will be Cllr Moira McLaughlin and Cllr Wendy Clements (the names of a number of deputies were also mentioned at the meeting).

Then Andrew Cranshaw of NHS of the NHS England Team spoke to his report on their two year plan. A number of questions were asked by councillors on subjects such as health screening, NHS changes and health visitors.

The next item was the Future Council item which Claire Fish spoke at length about during a Powerpoint presentation (one of many long Powerpoint presentations during the meeting). The Future Council proposals will go out to public consultation in September and seem to be the new name for what was called last year “What Really Matters?”. Councillors asked questions about the Central Advice and Duty Team, shared services and other matters. The comments made to the end of this item (which start at 3:54 in the video clip link to) are interesting as they show a different approach now Labour are chairing this Committee rather than a Conservative councillor.

COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN (CHAIR)
Does anybody else want to ask a question? Can I take you back to the two last questions and take a feel about the way you’d like to approach them, myself I feel that the formal meeting, errm this doesn’t allows us to give sufficient time in my view, to give an in depth investigations and I would prefer the workshop approach. Obviously we’re taking the views of the Coordinating Committee. Can I just take a feel and views on that?

COUNCILLOR MIKE HORNBY
Chair, we discussed this previously and it does seem to me that it’s certainly to achieve anything we’ve got to look at the detail and with this room involved you cannot have the number of people sitting round this table to look at the detail. It’s just not possible. So I think what’s being suggested, I won’t be involved with, but I think that is the right way forward.

COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN (CHAIR)
OK, thank you very much and thanks to you Claire and I’ll move on if everybody’s ok with that, ok sorry Wendy, sorry.

COUNCILLOR WENDY CLEMENTS (CONSERVATIVE SPOKESPERSON)
Just a brief comment Moira, as well as workshops so that everybody can be involved in the meeting I would suggest as was discussed at the briefing that we might need a longer time as well so that we don’t have to rush through things at a time when people could be increasingly …

COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN (CHAIR)
Right, ok let’s see if we can get together and…

COUNCILLOR TONY NORBURY
Isn’t the economics that drives that?

COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN (CHAIR)
Well I actually think that there is some work we can probably do to work out now, best to come up with something settled and different workstreams. Yes?

COUNCILLOR PAUL HAYES
Just a point which occurred to me in relation to what seems to be the consensus and the preference for workshop working if you like. I’d be concerned that we ensure that those types of meetings or workshops are accessible to the public perhaps and there’s built in accountability with it.

COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN (CHAIR)
OK (nodding).

COUNCILLOR PAUL HAYES
I would be concerned if they were meetings behind closed doors.

COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN (CHAIR)
It was raised at the meeting of the Coordinating Committee about concerns about that. OK, thanks very much and thanks for your input, errm there’s still a lot to do there and I take on board your comments on that.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6)

                              

Next Monday evening (starting at 6.15pm), at a meeting of all councillors at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street in the Council Chamber the issue of Lyndale School is on the agenda again. There is a notice of motion on it (which is the second notice of motion in that list of notices of motion) proposed by Councillor Paul Hayes and seconded by Councillor Jeff Green. As it’s short a copy of the notice of motion that councillors will be voting on is below:

Council, having regard to the support given to the campaign to keep the Lyndale School open by the public of Wirral, resolves that:

1. It is the firm belief of Council that the Lyndale School should remain open, and in order to bring to an end the anguish and uncertainty suffered by pupils and their parents and carers, calls upon Cabinet to confirm that the school will remain open when Cabinet next meets.

2. 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 provision and affirms its belief that such provision should remain at the Lyndale School.

3. Council instructs officers to work with the Wirral School’s Forum in order to investigate how the funding of Wirral’s Special Schools can more closely reflect the will of Wirral’s residents, as expressed by the huge support given to the Lyndale School: that the quality and scale of provision for children requiring the services of special schools in Wirral should continually strive to improve and be in no way diminished.

Once the notice of motion is debated, all councillors present at the meeting (apart from the Mayor who traditionally abstains) will have to either vote for, against or abstain. Probably five or more councillors will call for a card vote which means each councillors name will be individually read out and they’ll have to say which way they are voting.

Mindful of the upcoming debate, I therefore thought I’d continue my write up of the last consultation meeting held at the Acre Lane Professional Excellence Centre just before the consultation ended. If you’re interested in the last bit I wrote about this meeting, it can be found on this blog at “Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)“.

David Armstrong said, “In terms of Kingsway, it’s difficult to talk about the school and then appeal. Kingsway was in the final round within six years of primary reviews, Kingsway was in the final round and the decision was that we would review Kingsway at a future date, the date was set for some date but we’ve actually left it longer than that.

We had a hundred primary schools, we went down to ninety, of that ninety there are four that still struggle financially under those arrangements. Struggle to set a balanced budget because of their numbers, it is problematic. It’s a mainstream school who gets its funding in different ways, it can set and does set a balanced budget.

The issue about Lyndale is its financial stability in the long-term because it is the local context of Lyndale is there, there’s also the national context identified and I’ve assured Members of that expression. In Kingsway, we haven’t gone back, but at some point there’s a Council resolution to go back and revisit Kingsway.

I’ll make it clear, it’s not about the quality of the education or about the quality of the school, I must clearly point out, this is not about any failings at Lyndale, it’s about the medium to long-term financial stability at Lyndale. It’s about can we promise when they’re putting their child in there aged four, can we promise that that school they’re attending will be there for ever and ever?”

Julia Hassall said, “Ian, I would just add, in terms of the Lyndale School, there’s been concerns about the future of the school going back to about 2008/9 and I think that that concentrates my mind throughout all of this process and genuinely thinking about the best needs of how we meet the needs of the children is I want to be able to put something forward and Cabinet will make their own view, put something forward that is about the long-term sustainability.”

Ian Lewis said, “Well I accept all you’ve said. Five years ago as Councillor Mitchell said, a resolution goes to full Council and every single one of those sixty-six councillors said keep this school open. That was five years ago and right now the concerns about viability if you’d listened then, when we told you to keep it open, the message is keep it open, not come back, not keep coming back and trying to close it because you think you’re right.”

Julia Hassall replied, “No, no, the significant difference Ian now to five years ago, is the government have changed the funding formula. So Lyndale is currently funded as if there were actually forty children in that school and over the last seven years, the numbers have gone down. It’s been about fifty odd percent occupancy in the school and following the exact funding formula, it will mean that at some point, the £10,000 per a child will have to be applied and that will mean £230,000 for twenty-three children as opposed to £400,000 because there aren’t the children in the places.”

Ian Lewis said, “Will that financial cost be disbursed with the children from Lyndale wherever they went?”

Julia Hassall replied, “No.”

Ian Lewis asked another question to which Julia Hassall replied, “The bit that comes into play is that if you are part of a bigger school you have the hydrotherapy pool for example will be there for the whole school population.”

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Funding, banding and need (part 7).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other