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.”
Wirral Schools Forum hears of U-turn on schools funding school crossing patrols
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.
Wirral Schools Forum meeting of 30th April 2014 in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall
Wirral Schools Forum hears of U-turn on schools funding school crossing patrols
Andrew Roberts talks at the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of 30th April 2014 about school crossing patrol funding
The Chair of the Wirral Schools Forum Richard Longster said that there were a couple of matters arising, the first being school crossing patrols.
Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager – School Funding and Resources) said, “The delivery of the saving of the school crossing patrols savings option was withdrawn at Council but the rest is part of the budget for 2014-15.”
However this was what was in the Schools Budget report when it was agreed at Budget Council on the 25th February 2014:
“There are a number of budget savings options for 2014-15 arising from working in partnership with schools. These have been progressed in discussions with schools and as part of this budget as follows:
…
– School Crossing Patrols £415,000
This option has been discussed with Headteacher groups with a view to it being funded by schools from their delegated budgets. The crossings would continue to be managed and staffed by Streetscene, but schools individually would meet the costs of the service.”
Cabinet believes the safety of children is paramount. In December Cabinet agreed to ask schools to take over the funding of school crossing patrols. Given the concerns expressed by a minority of schools, officers are instructed to continue discussions with schools with a guarantee that no funding is removed where agreement cannot be reached.”
So I wonder why an officer now states the savings option for school crossing patrols has been “withdrawn”?
So what happened behind the scenes over school crossing patrols to force such a U-turn? Did the headteachers refuse to fund it from their school’s budgets? Did Wirral Council’s legal department change their advice? Or did something else happen?
The Chair referred to the other matter arising relating to the minimum funding guarantee application to the Education Funding Agency to be exempt from the minimum funding guarantee.
Andrew Roberts replied, “OK, this is just to update the application for the LEA’s exemption was withdrawn to the EFA after the meeting on the 27th.”
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
I see even a civil servant in the Department of Education expressed a similar sort of frustration (but in very a very diplomatic way) to that that the parents of children at Lyndale School had in dealing with Wirral Council officers. Gavin Monument (a civil servant who’s the School Funding Policy Adviser at the Education Funding Agency which is part of the Department of Education) states in an email to a Wirral Council officer dated 17th February 2014 “For some reason we are really struggling to understand your approach at this end and we do want to make sure we get it right when it gets sent to the Minister.”
As the issue of the minimum funding guarantee is connected to the issue of Lyndale School’s future that is currently being consulted on, I’m including the email exchanges below. Some of the statements made in these emails seem to directly contradict what was stated during public meetings by some Wirral Council officers on this matter.
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 January 2014 15:31
To: HOWKINS, Keith [keith.howkins@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Cc: FUNDING, ReformTeam [reformteam.funding@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: 237: Wirral 344 Special SchoFUNDING, ReformTeam ols exemption request
Hello Keith
Thanks for comments. I hadn’t picked up the change in grant conditions, or that protected rates apply only to Special Schools or Special Academies.
Option 3 is a calculation comparing each top-up band at a school with the rate used in 2013-14 (less 1.5%). I think from your comments below this no longer applies.
Option 2 compares the average amount that would be paid to a school using the new top ups and existing pupil data, with the amount that has been paid in 2013-14 (less 1.5%).
Option 1 – No MFG was supported by 4 out of 11 Special Schools
Kilgarth
Foxfield
Elleray Park
Orrets Meadow
Option 2 Average MFG was supported by 2 Special Schools
Claremount
Stanley
Regards
Andrew
=======================================================================================================
From: keith.howkins@education.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:keith.howkins@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 30 December 2013 15:24
To: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Cc: FUNDING, ReformTeam [reformteam.funding@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: 237: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request
Andrew – thanks for sending this through.
Could you explain more about the difference between options 2 and 3 please, and send through details on which option each special school supported?
We appreciate that there was some confusion over the exact wording of the protection requirements. What we said originally about these applying to each top-up rate was incorrect; the correct wording is what you have quoted below and applies to the overall budget if the number and overall type of places remained the same. I’m not sure if this changes anything you have sent.
As a point of information, the protection arrangements in the conditions of grant only apply to special schools and academies. There is no protection requirement for special units or AP, so you do not need any approval for proposals in relation to these.
Keith
Keith Howkins
Team Leader, Funding Reform Team
Maintained Schools Division
Education Funding Agency
Department for Education
2 St Paul’s Place
Sheffield. S1 2FJ
=======================================================================================================
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 12 December 2013 12:35
To: FUNDING, ReformTeam [mailto:reformteam.funding@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: 237: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request
This letter is requesting exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG included within the 2014 – 2015 DSG additional conditions of grant. Paragraph g “In deciding on top up funding rates for the pupils it will place in special schools …. and the total number and type of places received the same in the 2 financial years the school or Academy budget would receive by no more than 1.5% in cash between 2013 – 2014 and 2014 – 2015.”
Over the past 12 months a Schools Forum SEN finance group has met to develop proposals for high needs funding and particularly to agree a banded approach for specialist SEN provision.
A banded system (with 5 bands) was developed taking account of a number of issues:
· The need for stability
· The fluctuation arising from part year places and the need to have places available.
· To take account of the increasing demands and population with social communication needs and to recognise the resource intensive nature of provision for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.
These 5 bands have also been applied to SEN resourced base provision in mainstream schools and academies. The bands used take account of the same needs identified within Wirral’s 11 special schools and in addition gives an equivalent level of funding for each child.
Changes of this nature will result in movement of resources and a number of schools will as a result receive more funding and others will receive less. However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.
The SEN top up proposals were subject to a full consultation with all schools and providers in Wirral, commencing on 3rd July and closing on 18th October. The consultation papers included an illustration for each school of the funding a school might receive using current numbers and numbers at capacity, compared with the level of funding provided in 2013 – 2014. In addition there has been a series of meetings with schools to discuss the changes suggested.
24 responses were received including 10 out of 11 special schools and 6 out of 14 school SEN resource bases. Overall the responses were supportive and in favour of the local authority’s proposals.
Since the consultation was launched schools were asked a supplementary question about views on seeking an exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG. This approach has been adopted because the MFG will not work with the new top up bands. Without capping the MFG costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.
Schools were asked for their preferences based on a table illustrating:
No MFG (7)
An Average MFG (phased over 3 years) (5)
A full MFG (0)
The responses are shown in brackets above.
This issue was discussed at the Schools Forum meeting on 13th November 2013. The recommendation from the forum was “That Forum supports an application to the EFA for an exemption from the requirement to use an MFG (Option 1) on Top Ups for 2014 – 2015, and failing that Forum request the EFA agree the use of an average MFG (Option 2)”
A number of papers are attached to this e-mail including:
Please let me know if you would like further details.
I look forward to hearing from you
Yours sincerely
Andrew Roberts
Senior Manager – School Funding & Resources
Children and Young People’s Department
Wirral Council
Tel: 0151 666 4249
Fax: 0151 666 4338
andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk
=======================================================================================================
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 14 March 2014 10:52
To: MONUMENT, Gavin [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information
Hello Gavin
Further to our meting I am writing to confirm the withdrawal of Wirral’s application for an MFG exemption for High Needs. The clarification provided by the EFA indicates the additional cost for Maintained Special Schools be be in the region of £80,000, which is affordable within the High Needs Budget. It is the intention to make the same offer available to Resourced Base provision in Primary, Secondary schools and academies, although this may be for one year only.
Thanks you for your advice.
Regards
Andrew
=======================================================================================================
From: gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 17 February 2014 14:09
To: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information
Hi Andrew,
Sorry for the delay in coming back to you on this. I thought Keith had ruled out your original option 3 – which compared each top-up band at a school with the rate used in 13-14 – as the conditions of grant confirmed the protection applies to the overall budget level. So I thought we were down to options 1 and 2
For some reason we are really struggling to understand your approach at this end and we do want to make sure we get it right when it gets sent to the Minister. I’m due to be over in the North West later in the week and I’m wondering if the simplest solution would be to pop across for a chat and see if we can clear this up face-to-face rather than via e-mail. It probably won’t take very long to do and be less frustrating to you guys who have worked all this through whilst I’ve got a mental block on it. Would this sound a good idea? I can do Wednesday afternoon or any time on Thursday if this would work for you.
Thanks
Gavin.
Gavin Monument
School Funding Policy Adviser
Maintained Schools Division
=======================================================================================================
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 20 January 2014 13:05
To: MONUMENT, Gavin [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information
Hello Gavin
Keith indicated that Option 1 is not correct – the MFG applies to the overall budget (ie I think this means average values and Option 2).Similarly the calculation is only required for Special Schools not Resourced Bases (so is a lesser requirement)The request is for no MFG, but if we need to have one then it should be Option 2.
Is there any idea on timescales?
Thanks
Andrew
=======================================================================================================
From: gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 14 January 2014 11:29
To: Roberts, Andrew D.
Subject: RE: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information
Thanks Andrew,
That’s been really helpful as I’ve been able to track through the calculations for the options. Can I check my understanding though, just to make sure we’ve captured your request correctly.
Your preference is to run with option 1, which uses the banding system for the schools, but creates a much larger MFG requirement. So, you are requesting an MFG exclusion to be able to move straight to the new banding system. If this is not approved you would move to option 2, which uses an average rate for each school as this creates a much lower MFG requirement. Are you also asking for an MFG exclusion for option 2, or will you run with this option including the MFG impact?
Many thanks
Gavin.
Gavin Monument
School Funding Policy Adviser
Maintained Schools Division
=======================================================================================================
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 08 January 2014 17:59
To: FUNDING, ReformTeam [mailto:reformteam.funding@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Cc: MONUMENT, Gavin [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information
Hello Gavin
The attached is a summary of the MFG calculation. The end column shows the MFG for each school. The average band rate shown is a weighted band average for each school which is then compared with the MFG rate.
Pupil numbers used are:
Elleray and Stanley 90
Lyndale 25
Observatory 45
Andrew Roberts
Senior Manager – School Funding & Resources
Children and Young People’s Department
Wirral Council
Tel: 0151 666 4249
Fax: 0151 666 4338
andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk
What did officers say about Lyndale School in reply to “how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?”
What did officers say about Lyndale School in reply to “how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?”
Councillor Paul Doughty asks a question of Julia Hassall about confidence in the Lyndale School closure consultation
Julia Hassall (Director of Children’s Services) and David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive) answer questions from councillors on the Lyndale School closure consultation decision
JULIA HASSALL ..are all included within the admissions book.
(heckling) I didn’t see it. I didn’t see it.
JULIA HASSALL OK, if there are individual parents who are saying this evening they’ve not received that, then that’s something I will continue to look into.
(heckling)
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER So, quite right. My second question is errm, if you look at the, well the information tonight page 141, 140 to 141 2.5 if you skip the bullet points and go straight to the paragraph at the top of page 141, I won’t read the whole paragraph out but it just says that the changes proposed over a two year period, April 2014 to 16 and will be kept under review with regular reports to the Schools Forum. You’re looking to consult on closure for Lyndale, oh sorry.
JULIA HASSALL Sorry Chair, is this the second report?
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER It’s the err…
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES The first.
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER It’s the 21st of March?
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES Quite right, that is under the funding report.
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER Oh no, no, no. Oh right. Maybe I should ask that? It’s not about funding.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES It is under the funding report. I’m afraid, sorry.
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER OK, I’ll hold back on that. I’ll hold back on that question but I won’t forget.
Right, my next two questions are for David. You just said that you were involved when Lyndale sort of moved from Clatterbridge. How big’s the area, the size around Lyndale School’s on at the moment?
DAVID ARMSTRONG I can honestly say Councillor Fraser that I don’t know the answer because I’ve deliberately because I don’t want it to confuse the debate and become a distraction, we have done no action whatsoever looking at the Lyndale site.
I said to Pat this evening after the parents spoke at the last meeting, I would very much like to have visited the school and have a look around, so I did talk to Pat but also to remind myself about the school as I was a mainstream teacher.
I deliberately haven’t done that because if I go to the school particularly with my current monitoring responsibilities everyone will think I’ve come to look at the building or look at the site or look at the land. I know the area that the site occupies but genuinely myself and no one else in my team that work with me would have come to look at the site. So I couldn’t actually quote that figure tonight.
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER Well if you’ve got, this leads me on to another point, without being difficult surely the Council has maps that you could look at? And also to see the size of the land? And also if the numbers at Lyndale are going down why are you extending Elleray Park?
(applause)
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER When my children went to school and I could choose the school, if there weren’t enough places there tough, you had to go to another school. Obviously it’s slightly different with special needs but I don’t understand why you’re not sending, suggesting that children go to Lyndale (making the most of the capacity)? Also I’d be interested if you looked at the map, how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?
(applause)
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES OK, I’ll allow the officers to reply to that and then is that your questions finished?
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER Sorry no, I’ve got one more.
DAVID ARMSTRONG Thank you Chair, yeah but clearly I could look at maps Councillor Fraser. As far as I’m concerned it would be totally irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about whether we should consult on whether to close the school.
I tried to explain, that I am known as the asset person in the Council and currently I have all the baggage and tags that go with that. There has been no work done on looking to dispose of the site.
I think it is useful, very useful that you raised that point because I would just like to take you briefly through the process because if I set that out now then I think it should clear it away for future debate.
The work to Elleray Park stems from a Cabinet report from 2009, where we were asked to go away and bring forward plans to build two new schools, one at Stanley and one at Elleray Park linked to primary school sites.
Clearly we’ve just completed the Stanley one, located it next to Pensby and that was done through funding claiming for that purpose. Because of the national circumstances the funding was withdrawn in July 2010. There’s no prospect realistically of funding on that scale now.
We have £21.5 million worth of funding capital in 2010/11. Next year we’ll have £4.1 million so we know we’re facing a different landscape. So what we want to do is go back and invest in the schools that we know now that we’ll not be rebuilding and that’s where that deal comes from, it has its origins there.
In terms of bidding for the money, we’ve had that, we’ve been looking for that for a while. Yes when we bid internally for the money against our colleagues we did also make a reference to the fact that should a decision be taken to close Lyndale clearly we will need places at other schools but the Elleray Park building work is not dependent on any decision you make about Lyndale. The scheme at Elleray Park will be done for suitability reasons and flexibility reasons whatever the decision about Lyndale. So it is not dependant in any shape or form on a proposition about Lyndale.
It actually begins to sort out things again that I did in the mid 1990s, as a short-term measure. I converted the former caretaker’s house to teaching accommodation. I never intended that it would last the length of time that it did. The scheme deals with that issue.
It moves the kitchen from the back of the school to the front which makes sense in terms of deliveries, so it does deal with issues with the school that exist. In all schools we try and respond to parental choice. We provide extra accommodation where we can when people are clearly wanting to go to that school. That’s national policy and it’s something we’ve tried to do.
In terms of the site, the idea that we can somehow just sell the site and pocket the money is actually a bit, well it’s very far fetched. If the decision was taken to close Lyndale there’d be a stepped process. For me, if a decision was taken to close the school, that doesn’t automatically mean that it would mean there would be no education on the site.
The school could convert to a free school, it could convert to an academy. It could be a shared, split site school with another school and the site would carry on being used much as it is now.
If that didn’t happen, I’d want to look to see what other purposes we could put to it for children because it’s had investment as I say it had an investment in 1999 a substantial one. It’s one of only four schools we’ve got with pools and you’d want to explore other possibilities.
It has a youth hub and a youth club on the corner of the site so there’d be lots of other possibilities. If it came to the fact there was no school and no other use for it, we have to then apply to the Secretary of State. We have to get his permission to dispose of the site.
We have to do it under two pieces of legislation, one is section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act which covers the playing fields and the playing field is not just a pitch it’s any outside space and we have to do it under section 1 of the Academies Act for the rest of the site and the Secretary of State’s words are that “a presumption is against you” on this issue. So even if we went through all those processes and the Secretary of State did give permission to dispose of the site it could then be disposed of but that condition would be based on us having specific schemes where the funding would have to be reinvested in other schools.
So I think it’s useful to set all that out to show, it is a process we’ve gone through. We’ve relocated schools to school sites when schools have closed. We have disposed of sites but the money goes reinvested back into schools.
So there’s absolutely no motive on me and anybody else to address this as a capital or an asset issue. That comes at the end and I hope by going through that and it’s a legal process, it’s a national process that shows that really the debate needs to be had about the needs of the children not about the site.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES Go on, you’ve got one more question Leah.
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER No, you said I could have four, no, but we’ve got plenty of time! But errm right,
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES No sorry, I’ll let you put the question if you like.
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER Thank you Chair. My next question is, the email that Rochelle Smith mentioned, which I’m sure you were waiting for me to ask or somebody to ask that. From Paul Ashton “no plans for closure” sent in April 2012. What happened between April 2012 to a couple of months ago last year? That seems quite a change of policy, can you explain that?
DAVID ARMSTRONG I think we’d like to. The letter came in when I was covering the Director of Childrens Services post, which we… Julia agreed upon to. So I was wearing two hats when that letter came in. I was covering the Director’s post but I was also still working with Andrew doing the finances. The letter was read in that context.
I asked Paul Ashcroft to reply to the letter because he was the specialist special, he was the senior inspector for special education, but I also had a discussion with him because if I sit there wearing the hat doing the thing with Andrew the very last thing we would want is for any member of our team, to be suggesting that children shouldn’t go to the school. It’s the very last thing we would want, it would make an already difficult situation even worse.
He went away, he replied to the letter, he replied to the parent and I also asked him to research whether he could come across any evidence of where our staff were directing children away from the school and that’s the most current and it’s interesting, it’s been really good to listen to what’s been said tonight because the references to me appear to have been mainly, if not exclusively to staff who work for another organisation and I think that’s an issue that Julia will research in her own way.
The situation is as I described at the very beginning, the national framework has now embedded itself in. Andrew and I are looking to the future landscape, we can see more hurdles that we’ll have to go through, other agencies will have to be involved in saying yes or no to the current arrangement we have with funding empty places, we see a clear direction now in special which is to move towards paying for the pupil rather than the place so it’s because, unbeknownst to us at the beginning of this, it’s that national context and also the numbers haven’t added, the numbers have stayed broadly stable and that clearly makes the problem difficult.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES OK, next I’m going to deal with Paul, Pat and Adam in that order.
COUNCILLOR PAUL DOUGHTY I am at an advantage actually over some of the parents and members of the audience because I know you as individuals and I know as individuals how passionate you are about children and your responsibilities towards them and our parents and members of the audience here don’t know that and they don’t have the advantage that myself and some of the other councillors have.
I think one of the problems we’ve got is the language that’s been used in some of the communication, perhaps in the newspapers and their responsibility for that. Also perhaps the, we referred to you that know some of the perhaps careless language of NHS staff perhaps and so we have a challenge really as a local authority as to how we can reverse that negative view that parents have so the question is given some of the comments that have been made to us where parents have a lack of confidence in the process and the consultation is there anything else that you feel that as officers we can do to try and restore confidence in the consultation process that haven’t already been presented tonight?
JULIA HASSALL OK Chair, if I start the answer to that. One of the things that we’re deeply committed to doing should the decision be to proceed with the consultation is to talk with parents and each child, talk with the school and really make sure we’ve got as up to date assessment of the needs of each individual child at Lyndale School.
So that as we go forward, we are very genuinely looking at options in the knowledge of each individual child so that when we apply what’s called the SEN Improvement Test, we’re doing it based on our understanding of what each individual child needs and looking at how their needs can and if they can be met in a different setting.
So it’s making sure amidst what you say Councillor, a lot of the language that’s been used that we pull it back to first principle and say this is about getting it right for some exceptionally vulnerable children and how to care deeply about their children and we’ll need to be absolutely reassured whether the child is going to school they have staff in that school who can absolutely respond to their children’s needs in a very caring appropriate way and that is the very heart of what we must do as we take this forward.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES OK, Pat and then Adam and then Leah and that… and I do want to spread it round the committee, all ok?
COUNCILLOR PATRICIA GLASMAN I’ll try and keep my questions to the question of debating whether we should have a call in on, oh a consultation. One of the parent witnesses Julia has said earlier that she had or that parents had forwarded questions to you and not received replies. My question to you is, have you been waiting to reply to these queries on the fact that the parents have raised objections to the proposed current consultation? I’ve got one more question.
JULIA HASSALL Thank you Councillor, I’m glad you asked me that question. I met with staff at the school and with parents on the 19th of December. It was the soonest date we could arrange after I met with the governing body at Lyndale School and I brought with me a colleague who took very detailed notes at the meeting.
Quite soon after Christmas, there were very detailed questions and did need to canvass a number of views to get accurate responses and Mrs Dawn Hughes who was a parent who spoke at the Cabinet meeting, I think Dawn is here this evening, on the 16th January very helpfully wrote to me saying this is a summary of the questions we asked and here are some additional questions and she did that under the freedom of information process and what I did I was a little delayed, but I did respond to Mrs Hughes within the freedom of information timescale which is about three weeks or so ago.
I’m probably mistaken because I understood that those questions and responses would be circulated to other parents. If that’s not happened I will do that tomorrow.
(heckling) The answers given they weren’t answers.
COUNCILLOR PATRICIA GLASMAN One other question Chair.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES OK.
COUNCILLOR PATRICIA GLASMAN Another witness referred to the fact that the closure of Lyndale School has been brought to their attention by members of staff from another organisation. Have you had any contact yourself with the NHS about Lyndale School and the staff that were mentioned?
JULIA HASSALL Councillor Glasman, I’ve been slightly chary about going very broad on consultation at this point, but I I I have indirectly made contact with Doctor Steiger but I will want to if the consultation proceeds, certainly meet with a group of community pediatricians to elicit their views and meet with other health professionals who are involved and I know that there are some who are actually directly working within the Lyndale School and I want to very much take soundings from them and from any other professional who’s directly involved.
COUNCILLOR PATRICIA GLASMAN You want to emphasise to them that (inaudible)
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES OK, Adam.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What did officers say at the Lyndale School call in? “we had a problem the rules mattered more than the children”
What did officers say at the Lyndale School call in? “we had a problem the rules mattered more than the children”
Councillor Moira McLaughlin asks a question about staffing at Lyndale School (Coordinating Committee, Wirral Council, 27th February 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.
Julia Hassall (Director of Children Services), Andrew Roberts (Head of Branch and Planning Resources) and David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive) answer questions from councillors on the Lyndale School closure consultation decision
CLLR STEVE FOULKES
Back to order. Settle down, I have a rather unfortunate announcement to make. One of our elected Members Councillor Denise Realey has become unwell. I think she’s found the evening stressful as everybody has to be frankly honest and has taken unwell so for the minutes can we have it recorded that Councillor Realey has left the meeting and will take no further part in the decision-making.
OK, with that said, we now move onto the next set of witnesses, these are evidence from the people obviously officers of the Authority. Julia Hassall (Director of Children’s Services), David Armstrong who is Assistant Chief Executive and Head of Universal Infrastructure Services and Andrew Roberts who is Head of Branch and Planning Resources.
They have up to five minutes to speak to us, for brevity they are not taking that option and will probably be spending more time answering questions from elected Members but Julia, you want to give us the background and the thought processes that ended up in the presentation of the papers to Cabinet and the consequent decision. Thank you.
JULIA HASSALL
OK, thank you Chair and members of the audience. I just wanted to start by saying from a senior officer perspective how much I appreciated hearing what the parents and members of staff said this evening.
I think following that what the three of us will say will sound a bit bureaucratic, a bit clinical and it’s by virtue of the proposals that we need to put forward. I would like to state that all three of us come from a position of valuing the children that we work with and regarding outcomes for children as an absolute priority.
The report that was presented to Cabinet on the 16th January, was seeking approval to consult on the closure of the Lyndale School. The report set out the background, saying that local authorities have a statutory duty to make sure there are sufficient places in their area, there’s fair access to educational opportunity to promote every child’s potential.
The reasons why in the report we’re considering closure of the school is because of the viability of the school is compromised because of its small size and falling roll which both contribute to a difficult financial position and I think as you said Chair earlier, it’s not in any way because of the standard of care and education in the school which is good and in many aspects outstanding.
In terms of the falling roll over the last seven years, the Lyndale School’s average occupancy has been 59% and there are currently twenty-three children at the school out of a total possible forty places. I know the second report that you’re considering call in really focuses on the financial position which is very briefly the size of the school and the numbers of pupils contribute to a difficult financial position with a likely deficit of £72,000 corrective action for 14/15 with the potential for this to increase to be in excess of £232,000 based on the numbers of children currently on the school roll. Part of that is because of changes to the national formula, which Councillor Smith referred to in terms of funding individual places occupied and a reduction from forty funded places to twenty-three because there are twenty-three children with places and also applying the new banded top up system.
Should a decision be taken to close and this would be in the future. I need to keep emphasising that the report that went to Cabinet on the 16th January was seeking permission to consult on potential closure and the report on the 16th January said that at this stage, the two most, the most viable option if or should the school close, was to expand Elleray Park School and Stanley schools so that the children currently at Lyndale School and future children would go to both of those schools.
It certainly would simply not be a case of just adding children into the existing schools. It would require very, very careful planning, consultation and change the very nature of each school by virtue of additional children joining that school, both school’s community.
It’s really important to say that in the most recent OFSTED report Elleray Park School was judged to be outstanding across the board and Stanley School was judged to be a good school with outstanding leadership and management.
One thing I did want to say and in response to possibly some of the points made earlier, it’s really important to state at this stage that the closure of the school appears the most viable option after having considered a number of options which are the eight options that parents referred to. However I have said and I’m very mindful of the fact that the eight options have been considered by local authority officers and I would expect to proceed to consultation that each of those options would be rigorously considered again and there will be other options that come forward that we have not thought of.
So in very general there will be a proper options appraisal looking at each and every option that comes forward. Should Cabinet, the report that went on the 16th actually talked about the next steps. So, should Cabinet agree to consult on whether we should close the school, there would then follow a twelve week consultation process that will involve full consultation meetings, a consultation meeting with the parents, teachers, interested people connected with Lyndale School, Stanley School and Elleray Park School. There would be drop in sessions. We’d do whatever we needed to do to get to the best possible option to move forward.
I think in summary, I would want to conclude just by describing the report that went on the 16th January that by saying considering the closure of the school is difficult and distressing as you’ve heard this evening particularly when children have such special needs and other abilities. It’s really important that their needs are placed at the centre of our concern and that what’s called the special educational needs improvement test is applied with absolute rigour and that’s a test to make sure that whatever we come up with and whatever Cabinet may agree in the future, is as good as or better than the current provision for the children concerned and it was on that basis, taking all those points into account that I recommended to Cabinet on the 16th January that they should agree to consult on closure and that I would proceeded to compile the consultation document. I’m very happy to answer any questions that Members may have or any comments.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
Any of the other officers wish to make a statement about the issue? No?
DAVID ARMSTRONG
No.
ANDREW ROBERTS
No.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
No, ok. So, it’s clearly open to. Sorry I’ll use my mike I do apologise. It’s obviously open to questions from Members, I’ve got Moira, Leah and Alan and then I’ll take another three.
COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN
If it’s alright with you Chair, I’ll combine two of my questions in one go and make it a bit simpler. The first one is, is there capacity for forty children and there’s twenty-three there currently? Has that reduction so far, I mean I don’t quite know how to put this, Steve did allude to it before, if there’s fewer children there I imagine the establishment was reduced to accommodate the children or has the establishment, the staffing establishment I’m talking about not changed even though the numbers have reduced?
ANDREW ROBERTS
What err the staffing establishment reduced I think it was two years ago the funded places reduced from forty-five to forty.
COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN
Right, and over a period of time the numbers have reduced further what would happen then as there’s attrition, what would happen? How would that be dealt with?
ANDREW ROBERTS
That’s part of our ongoing discussion with the school and about how the budget issues have been, are dealt with.
COUNCILLOR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN
OK, thank you very much. That’s the first one. The second one is I mean a couple of questions I asked about from Zoe and Rochelle were about confidence in the process at this point. I think, certainly I was dismayed to see the phrase in this report which was consultation on closure and it seemed to me in the first instance that it kind of preempts the outcome and I have been reassured by the Cabinet Member so far, well I’ve heard what the Cabinet Member said, I’m looking for more reassurance that this is a genuine open consultation and that options that are there, eight of them will be considered and the possibility is still there that other options that haven’t been considered to this point may emerge during the process. There’s those and I mean if you can reassure me of or do your best to reassure me that what the second part is how are you going to reassure parents now because they’ve lost a bit of confidence, well lost a lot of confidence in the process?
JULIA HASSALL
OK, by way of reassurance that we will have a very full and open and transparent consultation. I’ll just take a step back, take a step back. The advice I sought prior to embarking on this process was the local authority in these circumstances when we were considering the viability of the school would put forward a proposal to consult on closure. That is what is done, that is how it’s approached.
The intention is to consider every single option, that’s a that’s in the appendix and the eight options that are included there. When I met with the parents prior to Christmas, in a pre consultation meeting I was explaining how we reached a conclusion with a purely internal local authority looking at a number of options which was about us reaching first base to present a report to Cabinet saying that we needed to consult.
The consultation will take account of each and every one of those options, which we will undertake to revisit again and we will genuinely consider every single option that appears that we may not have considered so far.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
OK, I did say I’ve got Leah and Alan. I think those two are … ok, sorry.
DAVID ARMSTRONG
Chair, just to add to that. Just for the benefit of the audience, I’m David Armstrong and Andrew Roberts is sitting to my left.
Just for the benefit of Members, I currently have some duties outside of the department particularly to do with assets and supporting the Chief Exec. I’m here as the Head of Service for the Children’s Department, clearly I have a responsibility about the school budgets and assets and other issues and obviously I have worked here for twenty-four years and know quite a bit about the school from that so clearly that’s why I’m here.
I think that the comments about the language are very fair and people have said the same thing to us when we did the five-year primary review because we have to follow national documentation and national procedures. If we used sort of a more informal process to begin with, a more informal language and then we changed to a very formal process part way through, people with some justification say well you did that to smoke and mirrors, ..ful language whatever.
The language is very cold. The only thing I can say to people is, that clearly if you look at the track record of when we did a very, very lengthy repetitive process of the primary review we brought forward proposals like this and we named the schools for closure and if you look at what we proposed over that period and if you look at the primary school landscape now, the two don’t match because sometimes our proposals were accepted after the consultation period, sometimes we were told to go away and start again and indeed there’s some schools I can think of one school where we proposed closure twice in two successive cycles and the school is still there and functioning normally so I hope, I know it’s difficult for people to believe us, I know the language is very cold but I think the proof is there that the process did work. There was consultation and the outcome was not predetermined. The outcomes were many and varied, at the end of the day we went from a hundred schools to ninety but it was a very different ten schools to the ones that were proposed unfortunately.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
We’ve got Alan and then Leah.
COUNCILLOR ALAN BRIGHOUSE
Thank you for that, thanks Chair. The sort of sustainability of err Lyndale School has been in question for some time as I think we’ve heard tonight. Am I right and I accept what the Chair says, I don’t want to stray into the next part of the call in but is it the change in the Education Funding Agency’s funding arrangements that has actually prompted us into now looking at the school and looking at its viability or would we have done it anyway?
DAVID ARMSTRONG
I think it’s a key issue within the debate. If you take a very brief view. Local management of schools began in 1990, when massively big Council budgets were broken up and delegated to schools quite rightly and power was given to schools to spend that money and clearly I was here when that started.
The primary and secondary debate puts the money through a formula into the schools and what’s happened over the years when we first started we had hundreds of funding factors so some of those, because we didn’t, had a factor that if you had trees on the site you got more money through the formula or if you had a bigger, we had one for a long time where if you had a bigger building you got more money.
What’s happened in primary and secondary mainstream is that the whole thing over the twenty odd years has been streamlined down and streamlined down and streamlined down. You now have a very few factors which are reliant upon deprivation, but primarily pupil numbers.
If you’ve got somebody sitting on the seat you get the money, if you haven’t got somebody sitting on the seat you don’t and there’s a check mechanism the minimum funding guarantee but that’s the hard reality. What’s happened for many years is the special schools sat alongside that, they have a defined budget, a fixed budget but you were allowed to carry on funding by place rather than pupil but what’s happened is as local … of schools has been achieved and it’s not a criticism of the system, it’s where it was always going to end up over a long journey over twenty-five years.
The national changes bring the special sector into line, not quite the same, but they bring them into line with the primary and secondary situation hence this talk of place plus. So for the first time, we cannot fund all of it on the place we have to fund a substantial part of it on the pupil and what I’m doing and Mike and others are is that through the work of the secondary and special heads which is a tight-knit family of eleven, through Pat’s work, through Andrew’s work that family as a group for some time now that they will fund not … they’ll fund forty places even though there are twenty-three children there.
Clearly they do that at the expense of money that would otherwise go through the formula, go through .. with the schools and what we’re nervous of is is that a sustainable long-term position?
We’re also nervous that we’ve been able to decide that locally. Andrew’s been able to take reports to the Schools Forum, Pat’s been able to meet with the other heads, Andrew’s met with the heads, met with the governors and it’s all been ok. From next year we will have to seek an approval from the Education Funding Agency to fund those places. That made Andrew and I deeply nervous because we’ve had some experience of the national Educational Funding Agency where it appeared that when we had a problem the rules mattered more than the children.
We were heartened to meet with the EFA with local officers this week who said that he thought they would be mindful it was the power of, they would agree to but what we see is a local arrangement that we think would be some sort of dereliction of our duties if we didn’t say we don’t think that this is sustainable long-term and we have a changing national picture which for all the right reasons as I’ve … to us is changing that landscape and taking away some of the freedoms we’ve got. So in that context, yes it is a key issue.
COUNCILLOR ALAN BRIGHOUSE
Could I just do a … just to pick up on that the I fully appreciate the direction of travel and where we’re going but ultimately I would like to think that we’re making this decision because we’ve looked at it and we’ve decided that this is because ultimately we are responsible for public funds, that this is the right thing to do. Almost regardless of what the funding arrangements are suggesting because when I read the report it looks as though it’s all driven by the funding arrangements and not by the err by the, I will get to, my question is this.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
You’re clearly straying into the next call in.
COUNCILLOR ALAN BRIGHOUSE
I know I am straying into the next call in, but I just it was because of I do think at the end it’s fundamental to the whole process. I just, what I really wanted, my question is this. Lyndale School is something special, we’ve heard that tonight. Would we as a Council put a price on that specialness?
(applause)
DAVID ARMSTRONG
I agree with you entirely that it’s very special. I came here in 1990 after being a primary school head and I remember going to the Clatterbridge site. I in fact did the bid in my youth to move them from Clatterbridge, the bid that brought in the grant to move the school from Clatterbridge to Lyndale.
I worked through the scheme that amalgamated ??? Juniors to release the site. So yeah it is a very special school but this is where we have a very difficult job to do. Do we just sit on our hands and say nothing and know an informal arrangement that has worked well for a few years, hasn’t got the resilience to carry on or do we come to you and do we say to the Director actually the landscape’s changing nationally, the numbers aren’t rising, we’re funding this place with empty places currently other schools are compliant with that but it’s a tight-knit family of heads that hasn’t had a lot of change. We have to put the issue on the table and say this is where it is. It’s nothing to do with the specialness of the school, the school is a very special place and we’ve all played a part in our little way, a very little way compared to what you’ve heard tonight in making it what it is.
(heckling)
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
Can I bring Leah in?
(heckling)
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
Sorry I’m bring Leah Fraser in ok, thank you.
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
Thank you I’ve got two questions to Julia Hassall and two for David Armstrong. I don’t mind who answers them. Is that ok to ask all four? Right well I’ll ask them one by one.
I’m asking Julia this but as I say I don’t mind who answers it. I asked Andrew to send me some information via email as you know and that information was the complex learning need pupil numbers between 2004 and 2013 for five schools, Foxfield, Meadowside, Elleray Park, Lyndale and Stanley. Now, going through them in this order, I’m not going to go into a lot of detail, I’m just taking them one at a time.
Foxfield in 2004 had a hundred and twenty-seven and last year had a hundred and twenty-four. So they’ve stayed relatively the same. Meadowside seventy-eight, seventy-two, I’ll skip to Stanley eighty-eight ten years later eighty-nine. Elleray Park fifty in 2004, last year they had ninety-one so they’ve almost doubled by fifty percent. Lyndale was forty in 2004 and now it’s twenty-four so basically Lyndale’s halved and Elleray Park’s doubled.
Now also looking at these feel that this errm chart, each school takes children with PMLD so why when numbers are going down in Lyndale have children with PMLD been sent to say Elleray Park? Hasn’t somebody been keeping an eye on this, because it then from what Emma Howlett, was it Emma? Yeah I think it was Emma said that it’s the Council’s statement and it’s the Council that refer to where a child goes to school. So why have the Council allowed the numbers at Lyndale to halve over ten years? That’s my first question.
COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
OK.
JULIA HASSALL
OK, Councillor Fraser, I’ll start but colleagues may want to come into that. The reason why numbers are what they are or changed over a period of time is parental choice.
(heckling)
So I’ve really looked into the issue that parents have raised with me that there’s been a subtext of diverting parents from one school to another and I’ve asked colleagues, I’ve researched how the statementing process works and the response I’ve received and I’ve looked at our admissions booklets and there is a very clear process set out and over a period of time these are choices that parents have made as part of the overall statementing process.
At this point in time, there are as you know three primary schools for children with complex learning difficulties, Stanley, Elleray Park and Lyndale. About a year ago an HMI (Her Majesty’s Inspector) was commissioned by the local authority to look at where the children with profound and multiple learning difficulties were being educated and they looked at the children who are being, there are some children with PMLD that are educated at Elleray Park School and with the larger number of children at the Lyndale School and they formed a view that individual Eric Craven formed a view that both settings could appropriately care for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.
Stanley School has focused more on children on the autistic spectrum and currently don’t have children with profound and multiple learning difficulty but the view was both Elleray Park at that point and Lyndale could care for children with profound and complex needs and it was parents making choices about where there, which school their child attended.
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
Thanks for that, just to follow up from that, Emma did say that she was only offered one school and there wasn’t a ??? . So you can’t chose something if you don’t know about it. If you’re not told about a school, you can’t actually choose it.
(applause)
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
My second question..
JULIA HASSALL
Errm, Councillor Fraser, just
COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
Oh right sorry.
JULIA HASSALL
Sorry, just very briefly on that the three….
