Tag: consultation

Lyndale School Closure Consultation: Cllr Phil Gilchrist “this looks to be a set of moving goalposts”

Lyndale School Closure Consultation: Cllr Phil Gilchrist “this looks to be a set of moving goalposts”

Lyndale School Closure Consultation: Cllr Phil Gilchrist “this looks to be a set of moving goalposts”

                                        

Cllr Phil Gilchrist presented with Andy Day Memorial Cup by former Mayor Cllr Dave Mitchell
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (left) presented with the Andy Day Memorial Cup by former Mayor Cllr Dave Mitchell (right)

Councillor Phil Gilchrist (the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Wirral Council) has kindly provided this blog with his consultation response to the Lyndale School Closure Consultation. It is reproduced below. For the purpose of clarity when reading the acronyms SEN and DCSF have been expanded and this addition appears in brackets [] in bold italic text.

Ed – Updated (revision 4) 10:50 12/8/14 to replace absolute values in table 1 with relative values to fix display problem.
Ed – Updated (revision 5) 10:55 12/8/14 to replace absolute values in table 2 with relative values to fix display problem. Linked email address.

Feedback Form

 

Please let us know the main relationships you have with the school(s) by putting a tick in the appropriate box or boxes. You might be a parent and a member of staff, for example.

 

School

Parent

Member of Staff

Governor

Other Person
Elleray Park
Lyndale
Stanley
Foxfield
Meadowside
Other (Please Specify)

Cllr


I attended the consultative meeting held at Acre Lane on 10th April and the further meeting held on 16th June.

I have also visited The Lyndale School on 27th January on a private fact finding arrangement, and, on 9th May after a request from parents.

In addition I have visited the school and Stanley, Foxfield, Meadowside and Elleray Park with other councillors on 16th and 17th June.

I was also a signatory to the ‘Call In’ considered by the Council committee.

Short fact finding visits can only provide a brief picture of how a school works day by day. In making the recent visits I formed a strong impression of the way the children at The Lyndale might be ‘compared’ with children of the same ages at Elleray Park and Stanley.

In attempting this I also need to take account of the needs that I did not see – children who are not in the school, that day, because of their poor health.

It seems to me that a high proportion of children attending Lyndale have the most serious needs.

Lyndale may not be the best laid out building but is ‘home’ and provides the atmosphere and the facilities to stimulate the children.

The financial problems flow from the formula adopted by the Council.

Consultation on changing the funding formula began in 2010, under the last Government, when the DSCF [Department for Children, Schools and Families] looked at the formula (Chapter 4) for high cost pupils.

The formula the Council adopted in 2013 arose from discussions at the Schools Forum which chose the present banding system which has added to the pressures on Lyndale’s finances.

The parents need the utmost assurances that the care and education being provided must continue to that same high standard.

Without sight of ‘the answers’ provided to parents I am aware that reference is regularly made to what the SEN [Special Educational Needs] ‘test’ should ensure.

As I mentioned at the last meeting this looks to be a set of moving goalposts.

A ‘pale imitation’ is not good enough for the children.

Some years ago parents did seek the creation of an all through school, up to the age of 19. One of the ‘drivers’ was the issue of ‘transition’ at age 11.

Councillors who visited Foxfield and Meadowside were assured that there is a very thorough process for transition – with study of the children, visits to Lyndale by staff before children move, and visits by parents to those schools.

These visits showed the differences in the buildings ‘on offer’.

The new Stanley building was ‘sparse’ and assurances were given that any new additions could be designed with needs of ‘The Lyndale’ children in mind

However this appeared to be an addition as an ‘afterthought’.

The children at Elleray Park had different needs from the children at Lyndale.

Assurances have been given that schools can adapt their teaching styles and methods to the needs of children, that parents have choice and that there is good communication between professionals.

It is apparent that the parents at Lyndale place great emphasis on the way the staff the children ‘know’ interact with them Equally the staff are able to ‘read’ the developing signs and gestures that the children are able to return.

I have asked how the ‘Lyndale’ can be completely replicated elsewhere.

The answer has not, as yet, as far as I know, been given in a way that fully satisfies the parents,

However, if the Council insists on change then it should design a setting that has the atmosphere and facilities valued by parents, several classrooms with accessible changing, a communal hall where children can fully socialise and guaranteed access to hydrotherapy. .

Please tell us your name and address, postcode, and email address if you have one. We will not use your personal information for anything other than this consultation.

Name: Phil Gilchrist
Address: 2 Gordon Avenue Bromborough
Postcode: CH62 6AL
Telephone: 0151 334 1923
E-Mail:philgilchrist@wirral.gov.uk

Please note: In order to ensure that this process is fully open and transparent, other people will be able to read all the responses to this consultation.

Please return this form to:

Email: specialreview@wirral.gov.uk

Post: The Lyndale School Consultation

Children and Young People’s Department

Hamilton Building

Birkenhead

CH41 4FD

Please make sure your response is submitted by:

Wednesday 25th June 2014.

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 branded “white-wash” & 1 officer is singled out for criticism for lack of impartiality

Lyndale School Consultation branded “white-wash” & 1 officer is singled out for criticism for lack of impartiality

Lyndale School Consultation branded “white-wash” & 1 officer is singled out for criticism for lack of impartiality

                           

Phil Ward (Wirral Council's SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014
Phil Ward (Wirral Council’s SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014

Lyndale School has of course made the news again, as the “high level notes” of the six consultation meetings have been published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The concept that these “high level notes” should actually be used as part of the decision-making process is an interesting one.

I was at one of the six consultation meetings so I looked at the “notes” for that one and compared it to my own notes, transcript of the first hour (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8) and an audio recording of what actually happened.

As Tom Harney (the Chair of governors at Lyndale School) himself said at that actual meeting in relation to another matter “it’s amazing the things that go on”. He was also one of the few speakers at that meeting to get applause. The comments made by Cllr Paul Hayes (a Conservative councillor who if I remember correctly was also present at that same meeting) about the consultation process as reported in their local paper were very critical of the way the consultation process and that meeting was handled.

As I’ve mentioned the Conservative and Lib Dem positions, I should mention that the only Labour councillor I recognised at the meeting (Cabinet Member for Childrens’ Services Cllr Tony Smith) arrived late. It is of course extremely difficult to describe what the Labour position is on Lyndale School other than being pro closure consultation, telling the public that they have an open mind and that no decision has been made yet. A decision is expected on the 4th September on the next stage. The point that Labour are keen to make is not for Labour to do things that would give the impression that they have made their mind up. This was again made at the July Council meeting by Councillor Tony Smith and Councillor Phil Davies.

So in the words of a Wirral Council officer Phil Ward what was the purpose of these notes about the meetings? Phil Ward said “They’re notes recording the high level points raised at the meetings and importantly we will be reporting them to Cabinet.”

I had a look through the notes for the one question I asked in the two-hour meeting (something is there but it bears little resemblance to what I asked). It wasn’t there in any form that resembles what I asked. Maybe it wasn’t classed as “high level” enough. Maybe I should instead have started by saying “This is a high level question I am asking so please put it in the notes”. Or maybe Wirral Council doesn’t like putting down tricky questions and answers and prefers to subtly rewrite the historical record to suit itself.

However this isn’t about me. This is about Lyndale School. Let’s have a look at the notes Wirral Council produced.

Here’s the first line of their notes “10th April 2014: 10am to 12pm”

Err no, seems Wirral Council can’t get the date and time of its own consultation right (which should worry you there right from the start if they can’t get the simple stuff right like the date and time!) It should read “16th June 2014: 5.30pm to 7.30pm”.

Turns out there were two different meetings at Acre Lane as part of the consultation. There were notes from both meetings. Apologies.

Moving on, it seems the “points” column according to the table used are not what the people had to say at the consultation. No the “points” column is reserved solely for points made by officers and the Cabinet Member Cllr Tony Smith.

The more difficult questions raised, the important concerns of parents about what’s going to happen, what appears in the points column? Nothing… almost as if Wirral Council is ashamed as to what was said to these questions to be known in public.

Even some of the answers that do make it are misleading. At least one of the officers is in fact tying themselves in knots and going into policy areas that strictly speaking in my opinion they shouldn’t. To the best of my knowledge all the officers at that meeting are in politically restricted posts. One of these legal restrictions from what I remember is that they are not allowed to “speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party”.

Now I will make this clear, I’m not referring to Julia Hassall, David Armstrong or Andrew Roberts. These people are senior professionals and although I’m sure people like me make doing their jobs more difficult, I will state now my personal opinion that all three have been extremely professional in my past dealings with them.

This is despite me doing what in any other sphere of life outside the political arena would be classed as behaviour that would lead to people falling out with each other. I have written things (robust criticism would be putting it very mildly) that disagree with their professional opinions and have pointed out what I perceive as flaws in arguments they have used. They know I do not however do this out of malice or anything personal.

That’s just the nature of politics as one of the rules is “don’t take things personally”. Other people’s opinion of them may be wildly different but like myself they are doing a job in a highly political environment, so criticism goes with the territory. They are public figures (as are politicians) and are rewarded with a high salary partly to reflect the problems that having to deal with the likes of the press can cause.

Now you can point out at this point the press is supposed to be impartial. I try to be even-handed (and believe me that’s very difficult at times) and to quote Cllr Jerry Williams recently “There’s no side to the gentleman, he does a very good job”. An editorial decision (and I’m pretty sure the Wirral Globe takes a similar policy stance too) was made a long time ago that we’re against the closure of Lyndale School, but obviously in the reporting of this matter to do it justice we have to report both sides of this issue.

There are people of course that are for the closure of Lyndale School. You are entitled to your opinion too (it just happens to be one that this publication disagrees with but that is the nature of politics)! However one of the extremely important roles of the press in society is to stand up for the viewpoints of people who can’t advocate for themselves. The children of Lyndale School are in that position.

The person to whom my criticism is about at that meeting is the Wirral Council officer Phil Ward. Now I’m not saying he said things downright stupid and overt like “vote Labour in May” I’m not. However throughout the whole meeting he appeared to champion a particular policy position/stance on this matter.

There is admittedly a fine line between explaining decisions that have already been made and talking about decisions that have yet to be made by politicians in the future. The former is entirely legitimate for officers to do. Taking policy positions (especially on a party political matter such as how education budgets are spent) is something that officers have to be very careful of.

Now officers can say in relation to future decisions “based on my professional advice or opinion I advise you to do X (or X, Y and Z are options I’d prefer you to do X). However the decision is up to you.” That is one thing, however they should not advocate support when speaking to the public during a consultation for a particular political decision that has yet to be decided or even worse give the impression that a decision has already been made when it hasn’t yet (even if they think they can guess how it will be made). If they go down this route, their impartiality will be called and can be called into question (and his was during the meeting).

No officer at Wirral Council I know of before in a politically restricted post has done what was done at that consultation meeting by Phil Ward in the way he did it. Believe me, during meetings politicians have put officers under extreme pressure to take sides. Most officers with some common sense (and there are a lot of them at Wirral Council) will politely decline to answer such questions. This is what should happen.

This was however what the audience at Acre Lane found so amazing. A consultation is supposed to be about listening to their views (and yes Wirral Council has a long way to go on getting better at involving the public in their decision-making). However chairing this meeting was an officer who was the equivalent of waving a red flag to a bull. Had he come to the meeting with the genuine attitude of “We’re here today to hear your views, the purpose of the consultation is to do that, we appreciate you being here and we’ll listen carefully to what you have to say.” then I think the audience would’ve applauded him. However the impression the audience got was that he was lecturing them and completely impervious to any other viewpoints.

Sadly this particular officer did somewhat get stuck in “broadcast” mode. However, this attitude leads to the audience getting the following impression and I quote from the notes “No one has fully answered any question. You are just white-washing it. You have already made your decision”.

The Wirral public are not stupid, nor are they children. They are able to read people’s body language and how they say something. How something is said and the person’s body language when saying it are a large part of its meaning. Sadly Phil Ward didn’t seem politically savvy enough that night to develop a positive relationship with the audience. Nor did he seem to appreciate the way power shifts. The senior officers are better attuned to these kind of things.

There was for example in that room that night, Emma Rigby from the Wirral Globe, myself and Leonora. For those who recognise us, they’d know that that amount of people from the press means you have to be very careful what you say. I hope to carry on in the next few days with publishing a transcript of the long meeting itself. In the meantime the below links should take you to what has been published so far.

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Tom Harney “it’s amazing the things that go on” (part 8)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Funding, banding and need (part 7)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about Stanley, Elleray, Foxfield & the educational psychologist (Part 4)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1)

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.

Audio of entire consultation meeting

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

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

                          

“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”

“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

-The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

The above quote is very suitable for another tale of bureaucracy gone wrong involving Wirral Council.

The below exchange shows a tale of Wirral Council that is sadly familiar, blaming the disabled, making them pay more, making sure officer’s plans can get approved by preventing those pesky members of the public objecting! In the “changed” Wirral Council I hope my intervention will lead to change. We shall see. I suppose in this case they just have the bad luck that these proposals affect this blogger’s wife (which in the interests of openness and transparency/ethics I’m declaring at the start of this piece). As Wirral Council seem to use an extremely small font size for their public notices, you can click on the image below for a more high-resolution version.

Proposed traffic regulation order public notice (Birkenhead Market Service Road) 9th July 2014
Public notice of proposed traffic regulation order (9th July 2014) Wirral Globe Birkenhead Market Service Road

CRM 825834 – PROPOSED WAITING & LOADING RESTRICTIONS – BIRKENHEAD MARKET SERVICE ROAD, BIRKENHEAD
John Brace 8 August 2014 10:35
Reply-To: john.brace@gmail.com
To: “Amos, Carl A.”
Cc: “Smith, Mark” , Surjit Tour , “Cllr Stuart Whittingham – Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation)” , Malcolm Flanagan , Cllr Alan Brighouse , Cllr Mike Sullivan , Cllr Steve Williams , “Cllr Ann McLachlan – Bidston & St. James ward councillor” , David Rees
Dear Carl Amos (Team Leader (Network Management)),

CC: Mark Smith
CC: David Rees
CC: Surjit Tour
CC: Cllr Stuart Whittingham (Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport)
CC: Cllr Ann McLachlan (Cabinet Member for
Governance/Commissioning/Improvement) & ward councillor for Bidston &
St. James ward
CC: Malcolm Flanagan
CC: Cllr Alan Brighouse
CC: Cllr Michael Sullivan
CC: Cllr Steve Williams

RE: Proposed Traffic Regulation Order (your reference KO) at Birkenhead Market Service Road/Car Parking Review

Dear Carl Amos (and others),

Thank you for your email of 4th August 2014 (your CRM reference 825834) in reference to a proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road, Birkenhead.

I appreciate the apology you give in paragraph two. The public notice (which stated was published by Surjit Tour) for this proposed traffic regulation order was published in the Wirral Globe on Wednesday 9th July 2014 and stated “A copy of the Order, map and a statement of the Council’s reasons for proposing to make the Order, may be seen at all reasonable hours at The One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Seacombe, CH44 8ED”.

My wife and I attended the Seacombe One Stop Shop on the afternoon of the 9th July. The staff at the One Stop Shop informed us that they had not been given a copy of the Order, map and statement of the Council’s reasons. Therefore we were unable to view them at this point and make any objections to the proposed TRO. What was the point of publishing the notice in the paper directing people to the One Stop Shop to view this when they did not have it?

Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2489 states in Regulation 7(3) “The order making authority shall comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 as to the making of deposited documents available for public inspection” and Schedule 2 states in relation to the documents that they are to “be made available for inspection at the principal offices of the authority during normal office hours”.

This clearly didn’t happen. It is of course unknown how many (if any) other people would have made an objection as they couldn’t inspect or view the documents relating to this proposed TRO. I would therefore suggest that if you wish to proceed with the next stages of this TRO that you re advertise it in the press, this time making sure that you supply copies of the documents for public inspection to the One Stop Shop prior to having the notice published! Otherwise, it casts legal uncertainty as to the legality of any TRO that results as the regulations regarding consultation weren’t followed.

My comments on the proposed TRO are below (which it would be useful to feed into councillors doing the car parking review therefore I would appreciate it if someone would forward this to them):

I’ve been asked by my wife to respond on her behalf (but I am also commenting in my own capacity) to the proposed traffic regulation order as she is one of the people that will be affected by it if it goes ahead.

I will deal with the points raised first in your email. Parking is already prohibited for blue badge users along most of the Birkenhead Market Service Road as the majority of it is currently either loading bays or is double yellow lines with kerb blips (where those with blue badges can’t park).

Therefore parking in a way that’s obstructing loading bays is already something that a driver doing so could receive a ticket for. The proposed TRO won’t change the parking restrictions in the area around the loading bays so without greater enforcement any existing problem of obstructive parking is likely to continue even if the TRO is agreed.

In relation to displaced Blue Badge users. You refer to free car parking in the Grange and the Pyramids multi storey car park for blue badge users. However free parking in these car parks is only on a Sunday (for all users). Monday to Saturday there is a charge of £2 to park in either the Grange or Pyramids car parks which applies to all users (irrespective of whether they have a Blue Badge or not). Therefore it is misleading to refer to the Grange and Pyramids as “free disabled parking facilities” without mentioning that these are only free on a Sunday. Any concerns raised by the Pyramids/Grange Shopping Centre have to be viewed in light of a commercial interest in increasing patronage of their car parks by reducing parking for blue badge users on the Birkenhead Market Service Road.

There are 14 blue badge parking spaces in the Europa Square car park and 6 in Oliver Street (according to your website). I have no idea exactly how many disabled parking bays are available on Conway Street, but from memory it is not many.

The issue however is not the number of alternative free spaces (referred to in your email) but the fact that at the times when the shops are open it is often impossible for blue badge users to find one of the alternative parking spaces you refer to as available. My wife requires extra space around the space she parks in in order to safely get in and out of her vehicle. She uses a walking stick and has mobility problems due to a disability she has had from birth.

It is clear looking at the numbers of disabled spaces in the car parks in Birkenhead (compared to the overall numbers) and the numbers of blue badges issued by Wirral Council that there is under provision of spaces for blue badge users. I don’t believe that the proposed TRO will achieve its stated aim of road safety and Wirral Council has to be very careful (from the way your reasons are phrased) as it appears you are trying to make disabled people scapegoats.

There are a whole range of legal duties Wirral Council has, such as the public sector equality duty and due to what I’ve written above the impacts that this proposed TRO would have on blue badge users has not been fully thought through. For example those with mobility problems would be forced to park further away from where they’re shopping. This might not be a problem for the able bodied, but for those for whom the extra distance will cause additional pain and suffering is morally (and probably also legally) wrong.

I realise Wirral Council has had a chequered history with regards to how it has treated minorities (including the disabled) in the recent past. I hope the culture however has changed and I will receive a positive response to this letter and assurances that actions will be taken to prevent this happening in the future. Due to the serious corporate governance failings it highlights I am also publishing this letter. Please class it as a complaint/objection to the proposed TRO/to be fed into the car parking review.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

On 4 August 2014 13:30, Amos, Carl A. wrote:
> Dear Mr Brace,
>
> Thank you for your enquiry dated 30 July 2014 requesting information about
> the proposed waiting and loading restrictions along Birkenhead Market
> Service Road, Birkenhead.
>
> I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you experienced in viewing a copy of
> these proposals. Please find enclosed a copy of the consultation plan
> showing the extents of the scheme.
>
> The reason for this order is to prohibit parking along sections of
> Birkenhead Market Service Road and to allow loading and unloading for
> vehicles within the designated bays following concerns raised by the
> Pyramids Shopping Centre and Birkenhead Market Hall management teams. The
> effect of this order is to improve access for vehicles servicing the Grange
> Precinct and Market Hall and prevent obstructive parking.
>
> Vehicles except buses and for loading purposes are currently prohibited from
> travelling through Birkenhead Bus Station which provides access to
> Birkenhead Market Service Road. The proposed waiting and loading
> restrictions will prohibit blue badge holders from parking within the
> Service Road, however there are alternative free disabled parking facilities
> available in the following car parks; Europa Square, Oliver Street, The
> Grange and The Pyramids multi storey car parks. On street disabled parking
> bays are also available along Conway Street.
>
> Letters have been delivered to those businesses who may be affected by the
> restrictions and the proposals were also advertised within the local press.
>
> Apologies for the difficulties you experienced in viewing the proposed TRO,
> should you wish to register any comments can I please ask that you submit
> them to me by Friday 8 August so we can finalise the evaluation of
> consultation feedback and progress with the next stages.
>
> In the meantime, should you have any further queries please do not hesitate
> to contact me.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Carl Amos
> Team Leader (Network Management)
> Regeneration & Environment Directorate
> Wirral Council
> Tel No: 0151 606 2370
> carlamos@wirral.gov.uk
> Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk
> Please save paper and print out only what is necessary
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Smith, Mark
> Sent: 31 July 2014 07:38
> To: John Brace
> Subject: Re: proposed TRO behind Birkenhead Market
>
> Hello John
>
> Thanks for your email – I’ll ask our Traffic team to get the requested
> information to you as a matter of urgency.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, “John Brace” wrote:
> Hi,
> I’m not sure if your responsibilities still cover traffic matters, but I had
> an enquiry about the proposed TRO published in the local press about
> parking changes behind Birkenhead Market. The notice said the
> proposed TRO could be viewed at the Seacombe One Stop but when Leonora and
> I visited they stated they hadn’t been sent a copy.
> As the date for responses is I think August 1st could you if possible email
> a copy of the TRO to myself so any comments or objections can be made
> before August 1st?
> Thanks,
> John
> John Brace
> Jenmaleo
> 134 Boundary Road
> Bidston
> CH43 7PH
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
>
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
>
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.clearswift.com
>
> **********************************************************************

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

Incredible: 1 of many responses to the Lyndale School consultation that Wirral Council refuse to release

Incredible: 1 of many responses to the Lyndale School consultation that Wirral Council refuse to release

Incredible: 1 of many responses to the Lyndale School consultation that Wirral Council refuse to release

                      

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee voting to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)
Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee voting to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Rather predictably, Wirral Council turned down my Freedom of Information Act request for the responses to the consultation on the closure of Lyndale School yesterday, on the basis that they would be publishing them as part of the Cabinet papers for the special meeting on the 4th September. Rather worryingly they stated in their response “Wirral Council can confirm that the requested information will be made available and published during September 2014”, however a legal requirement requires them to publish such reports at least “five clear days” before the meeting meaning the latest the responses should be published is the 27th August.

Applying the “public interest test” to this Freedom of Information Act request, they go on to state “the Council believes that all the information/responses for the consultation require collating and then they are published as a complete article. The Council does not want to release partial information at this time and
then have to amend its response.”

They’ve also not answered my question about how many responses there were to the consultation. I previously published, on the 14th July the Parents’ Response to Wirral Council Consultation Document on the Closure of The Lyndale School which in print form (at least on my computer anyway) runs to fifty-three pages.

Although councillors were sent it before the debate on Lyndale School at the last full Council meeting on the 14th July, I remember during that meeting, the Mayor Cllr Foulkes stating that he’d only received it on the Saturday before the meeting (which was on Monday evening) so how could he be expected to have time to read it before the meeting (or words to that effect)? Similar reasons were also given by councillors last week on the Audit and Risk Management Committee over the amount of time to read a late 526 page supplementary agenda.

So, despite the fact that Wirral Council don’t seem to want the consultation responses to be published until around a week before the special Cabinet meeting (perhaps because all the responses will be hundreds of pages) here is a another consultation response from a married couple of a child at Stanley School. If Lyndale School closes, Stanley School is one of the two schools that Wirral Council have suggested that Lyndale children will be transferred to. I’ve blacked out the names and contact details of the parents who wrote this response.

LYNDALE CONSULTATION
Personal observations and thoughts from Parents with a child at Stanley School who has Severe Learning Disabilities, Autism and who is non-verbal.

Mrs XXXXXX attended the Consultation Meeting held at Stanley School on 3rd June and visited Lyndale School on 10th June, spending a morning meeting children and staff.

Firstly, the consultation document has no explanation of PMLD other than that it means Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (or is it Disabilities!) There is also nothing about the children currently at Lyndale (apart from the number of pupils) and their complex health and medical needs which are especially relevant to this consultation. This document has not made it easy for people and parents of especially Stanley school where there are currently no children with PMLD to be consulted properly when there is no meaningful information about the children that go to Lyndale in it. It is far too general and the information too money focused with nothing about the very complex needs of the children. The term CLD is also only defined as Complex Learning Difficulties (also disabilities) and no explanation or example given again.

We are against the proposal to close Lyndale School for the following reasons:

  • Lyndale school caters so well for the children who go to that school. Why jeopardise that? The children have very specific educational, care, health and developmental needs which we do not feel can be met at any other Wirral school. All avenues should be thoroughly explored to keep Lyndale School open. It is a vital part of the community it serves and it enriches the lives of the children that go there. Their families feel safe in the knowledge that their children are safe, happy and well looked after by the staff and health professionals at the school. This also aids their educational learning.
  • Large schools are not necessarily better schools. The advantage of a smaller school especially for children with PMLD is that their needs can be met in more manageable and stimulating surroundings and class sizes can be much smaller and better personalised.
  • Stanley school as it is currently staffed and equipped is not suitable for the children who go to Lyndale. It will need substantial investment to improve its suitability if it hopes to give children from Lyndale the same quality of life they currently have.

We can only comment on Stanley and not Elleray Park.

  • The children who attend Stanley school as well as having Complex Learning Disabilities, in many cases also have additional needs stemming from autism, communication difficulties and behavioural issues. They do not have the same physical frailties as most of the Lyndale children and many will not understand the potential dangers of physical interactions.
  • The practicalities of putting together 90+ very physically active children with predominantly physically frail and vulnerable children is a real worry for us and other parents/carers from both schools. There is a very real possibility of harm being caused inadvertently.
  • Bringing the Lyndale children to Stanley school will bring massive disruption to all of the children from both schools. It also raises serious safeguarding issues when physically frail children are in close proximity to robust physically active children with unpredictable behaviour patterns.
  • Stanley school has one full time nurse. Additional specialised staff would be needed (at significant cost) to provide medical support for the Lyndale children’s medical and health needs. Also specialised training in lots of areas including tube feeding and use of oxygen would be essential.
  • Outdoor environment. There is a lack of suitable outdoor play space at Stanley even for the current children who attend. For a new build this is unacceptable and should not have been allowed to happen. There are no green spaces nor the sensory garden which was promised. The upper school playground is the
    area in which the school transport drops off and picks up and was painted by the council with road markings. This has caused a vast amount of confusion and problems for a lot of children who are directed to play there when parents/carers spend so much time and effort trying to teach road safety. It will be even more unsuitable and totally uninspiring for children whose current school has a vast
    amount of greenery, quiet areas, a wonderful sensory garden and practical outside spaces.
  • Indoor environment. The new Stanley school has been set up to be predominantly low arousal and this conflicts with the stimulating environment at Lyndale.
  • There is not currently the capacity at Stanley to cope with the relocation of Lyndale children and provide spaces for children coming through the new Education Health and Care Plan (statementing) process due to begin September 2014.
  • Parents/carers chose a school for their child based on circumstances at the time of statementing. If Lyndale is closed then the council will be shifting the goal posts for many of the pupils in other Special Schools as well. This may lead to parents/carers of children in the other schools exploring alternative provision for their own children’s education as the whole ethos and set up of that school will change.
  • The ideal time to bring Stanley and Lyndale together would have been when Stanley was rebuilt. The new Stanley school could have been designed to cater for all the children and would have brought the 2 schools together in one space under one roof in a totally planned and coordinated way having regards for the needs of both sets of children. This possibility of closing Lyndale and transferring the children to other schools just seems totally haphazard.
  • Yes Stanley can be changed, but at what cost to Lyndale and Stanley children’s current and future education and lives? For us as a family it is not a case of not wanting Lyndale children, rather it is more that it shouldn’t have come to this situation, forcing a decision by this consultation.
  • Closing Lyndale will severely reduce the flexibility and capacity of Special Educational Needs primary school places in the borough. This is a very piecemeal and frankly idiotic way of planning SEN provision in Wirral.
  • SEN provision in the borough needs to be considered as a whole and not on a school by school basis as seems to be happening at the moment. Closing one school will have a massive effect on the sector because of the relatively small size of that sector. Once a school is closed there is no going back for anyone! This is a very risky strategy.
  • Special schools are not the same as mainstream where they can fairly easily absorb pupils from other schools if one is closed. There are many more wider issues to consider around SEN and disability. Transition, well being, funding, resources and integration are more complex.
  • The Council should be looking at the whole picture. Look at what there is now and plan for the long term future. There is a real need to come up with a sensible plan and not do it school by school.
  • The Wirral Councillors making these important and ultimately life changing decisions for many children and their families have absolutely no understanding (unless they have a disabled child or relative themselves) of the demanding and challenging issues those children and families face day to day. That is why it was so important to visit Lyndale, see the children, the school, meet with the staff and gain a valuable insight into the educational lives of these children and what it means to their families.
  • Each day can be a massive struggle for parents/carers and their disabled children and it is the staff and health professionals at our special schools who provide much needed and essential support to these children and families. Our Special schools of Lyndale and Stanley are very different from mainstream schools in the way that they operate a very flexible open door policy and the staff are very much like an extended family you can call on for advice and support when you need it. They are more than educational establishments, they are family and treasured for what they bring to our children. The depth of feeling on this special relationship should not be under estimated. If Lyndale is closed that
    relationship will be ripped apart from those children and families. How can you replace that?
  • Our children are all individuals with their own specific needs and personalities and their parents/carers know their child best. They are the ones that should be listened to and taken notice of in all areas affecting their children, especially about their education, happiness, health, safety and security. Every child is different and you cannot generalise their needs. What may be ok for one child
    could be horrendous for another and people don’t always think about that. They are all children who deserve the best we can give them to enable them to flourish and have a happy life.
  • It was an absolute privilege to visit Lyndale School and it would benefit no one to
    close it. It would cause intolerable stress and anxiety to children, families and
    staff who are uncertain about their jobs. How can taking away a major part of
    their daily lives and support system be beneficial?

Mr & Mrs XXXXXX

If you have a response to the Lyndale School consultation you’d like published on this blog please email it to me at john.brace@gmail.com.

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

Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

Councillors ask Labour to keep Lyndale School open; Labour defers decision on Lyndale to September Cabinet meeting

                            

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.

On Monday evening the issue of the future of Lyndale School was debated by Wirral Council councillor for about forty-five minutes. I’m going to try and sum up what was said and decided in a short blog post so inevitably I will be leaving some things out.

The notice of motion by the Conservatives and Labour’s amendment to it is already covered here. The response from the Lyndale parents is here, in addition to that there were a further ninety or so responses to the consultation.

Cllr Paul Hayes (proposing the motion to keep the school open) started by referring to the consultation response by Lyndale parents and the passion and “strength of feeling” he’d observed at a recent consultation meeting (which you can listen to in full). He said he hoped all councillors had received a copy of the consultation response.

The Mayor Cllr Steve Foulkes said that some councillors had received it on the day of the meeting and that he didn’t believe they could be expected to read it in full as they hadn’t had time to digest it.

Cllr Paul Hayes continued by referring to an earlier consultation on Kingsway Primary School and the similarities between the two. He was critical of an officer chairing the Lyndale School closure consultation meeting and said that as well as the majority of people feeling that the officer wasn’t neutral, he also described him as “rude and dismissive”. He described the consultation process as “farcical”.

Cllr Stuart Kelly asked whether Labour’s amendment should be ruled out of order as it was negating the original motion. Labour’s motion deleted all paragraphs in the original motion bar one line. He said surely the same effect could be achieved by voting against the motion?

The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said he would allow a legal opinion, but it had been a difficult decision on his part to allow the notice of motion on Lyndale School to be debated. From his point of view he felt that Cllr Stuart Kelly “didn’t have a leg to stand on” with regards to the [Labour] amendment being ruled out of order.

Surjit Tour said that the notice of motion referred it to the Cabinet as the final decision rested with te Cabinet. The amendment also did exactly the same in referring it to a special meeting in September. Therefore in his view the amendment was lawful.

The Mayor said that points of order was not the way he wanted to open the debate and asked the mover of the amendment to speak.

Cllr Phil Davies said that it had been agreed some time ago that they need to have a special Cabinet meeting and that there had been a very detailed consultation exercise, the results of which they had not yet seen. In his view the consultation responses were a “hugely important piece of evidence” which the Cabinet needed to consider before taking a view. To take the clear view expressed in the Conservative notice of motion before the special Cabinet meeting was “premature” as they would be making the decision now in advance of the special meeting. He was also very concerned that if the notice of motion was agreed then they would fall foul of predetermination. He thought it was a shame that Cllr Hayes had said that officers were not neutral.

He continued by referring to his time as Cabinet Member and again referred to the claim that officers were not neutral. Cllr Davies said that the amendment asked that they take no action on the motion tonight but refer it. Again he said that he was worried if they agreed the motion it would have predetermined the outcome before the Cabinet had considered the evidence, but there was no question that Lyndale School provided a “unique and caring environment”. He had visited the school but it was essential he had an open mind and considered all the evidence. He worried that if they made a decision tonight then they would be completely ignoring important evidence that they had not yet seen.

Cllr Andrew Hodson referred to his daughter who had learning difficulties, despite being in her 30s she had a mental age of nine. He considered himself lucky that she had her full health, but that the children at Lyndale had complicated health needs. Although his daughter lived in an establishment she still had her independence in fact [Cllr] George [Davies] had been at the opening.

He referred to the Corporate Plan about protecting vulnerable people and how Lyndale School was an essential service that met people’s complex needs. The staff at Lyndale were geared up to making sure that while receiving an education the children were safe and well cared for. He was perplexed by the decision as the Council would not benefit financially from the closure of Lyndale School so why do it? He finished by making a plea to keep the school open.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said that the Childrens and Young People Department had told him they had received ninety response and that he had had time to read the documents. He knew that members of the Council had been concerned about the future especially [former] Councillor Tom Harney. He referred to the document received at the weekend and referred to the reference in it to a working party.

Cllr Gilchrist referred to the space that children using wheelchairs need, children with epilepsy, those require oxygen and those who required time consuming feeding. He had attended two of the consultation meetings and concurred with Cllr Paul Hayes’ description. He referred again to the parents’ response to the consultation quoting from it and that it may be September by the time the issue was resolved. He said that the high needs budget for 2013/14 was £31.7 million.

After being given extra time, he referred to the strain on families, the SEN Improvement Test and said that if they wished, councillors on the Cabinet could choose not to vote on this notice of motion (and amendment). The notice of motion was about Council’s view.

Councillor Dave Mitchell said that the way the process worked was that councillors who stood were indicating that they wished to speak in the debate and that if no Labour councillors stood up then councillors who wished to speak should still be allowed to address the Council. Cllr Chris Blakeley said he had no objections.

The Mayor (Cllr Steve Foulkes) said that if that was an early test, that he would decide what goes on, who was asked and which councillor would make a contribution.

Councillor Dave Mitchell said that he’d pick up on the point made by Cllr Paul Hayes at the start. He too had been surprised at the way the presentation had been presented by officers to the parents and that the parents knew what was required and that the parents were the ones who should be listened to. Cllr Mitchell recommended that councillors read every page of the parent’s response to the consultation and absorb every part as it “rips to shreds” the proposal [to close the school] and deals with the real issue which was the children.

Cllr Mitchell continued by saying that it had nothing to do with the schools formula funding as it was all there set by the government and had never been taken away. This was not the case with education funding and the way the funding was divvied out was decided by Cabinet. One of the problems that concerned him with the consultation itself was the way parents had asked questions to officers and had no responses till the last day of the consultation.

Cllr Pat Williams objected to the Mayor refusing to let her speak. She said she was being deprived of her democratic right and that she’d been elected by the people of Oxton to speak.

The Mayor [Cllr Steve Foulkes] changed his mind and agreed to let her speak after all.

Cllr Pat Williams said that during the consultation period it was made abundantly clear that the appropriate place was to let the children remain at Lyndale School. She referred to the petition against closure of nearly 11,000 signatures which demonstrated how much Lyndale School was valued as a unique asset. She like other councillors referred to the parents response to the consultation and wanted the profound and complex needs of the children fairly reflected in the funding.

She had visited the school and was always most impressed by the caring an dedication of the staff and when she was Mayor had had the pleasure of formally opening the sensory garden. The consultation had ended and it was overwhelming apparent that Lyndale School should stay. She asked councillors to take note and resolve that Lyndale was to remain open.

Councillor Pat Cleary (the new Green Party councillor) said that he wanted to make a brief point. He said that Lyndale School doesn’t have to be closed and he appreciated the sincere feelings. He was disappointed as he didn’t understand the Labour councillors not engaging.

One issue he wanted to raise was that 18 months ago there had been a letter from the Leader of the Council during the What Really Matters consultation about whether local elections should only be held once every four years. It had been said that the reason the proposal was being brought forward was that early analysis of the consultation results had shown 91% supporting this change. In that instance a recommendation had been brought forward before the consultation was finished, he wanted to know why the current situation was any different?

Cllr Tony Smith said that he agreed that the uncertainty about Lyndale School must be resolved and had been an ongoing concern for a number of years. The consultation had been undertaken, but reducing numbers of children on the school roll, changes in funding arrangements and questions about the future viability of the school were the reasons behind the consultation. He stressed that the consultation was not about the quality of the education.

He continued by saying that any decision about future provision would be informed by individual needs and make sure people’s requirements were fully met. The government required the [SEN Improvement] test to be undertaken to show that the proposal was as good as or better than the children’s current provision. He said that they would make sure they had an up to date understanding of each child’s needs.

They had undertaken a consultation and there was oversight from the [Wirral] Schools Forum. The original decision had been called in and it was made clear then at the outset that the process should be open and transparent over the twelve week consultation.

Prior to the consultation starting, there had been a meeting with parent governors of Lyndale and throughout the consultation six public meetings. Eighty-five people from the community had turned up to these, with some attending more than one. Wirral Council had commissioned an independent person to consider each of the published options and any new options and consider the application of the government’s [SEN Improvement] test. All councillors had also been invited on an escorted bus tour which included Lyndale School. Twenty-two councillors had taken part in these visits on the 16th/17th June. He made the assurance that all information relevant to the consultation would be made publicly available prior to the Cabinet meeting to inform the decision making when the Cabinet would be taking all factors into account such as the needs and welfare of each individual child.

Cllr Jeff Green (seconder to the Conservative motion) reminded people that when Cllr Tony Smith spoke that closure is a preferred option. He reminded people why it was called in and referred to the speeches of Cllrs Hayes, Gilchrist, Mitchell and others (as well as congratulating Cllr Cleary on his maiden speech). He said a maiden speech was normally held in silence but the response from Labour councillors was because he’d beaten them in an election.

Cllr Green said that Lyndale was unique and incredibly special and that that needed to be safeguarded.

Continues at How did 62 Wirral Council councillors vote on Lyndale School?.

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