Tag: Julia Hassall

How did the Lyndale School closure consultation begin?

How did the Lyndale School closure consultation begin?

How did the Lyndale School closure consultation begin?

                                  

Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Childrens Services) talks at a meeting of Wirral Council's Cabinet about deciding to consult on closing Lyndale School (16th January 2014)
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Childrens Services) talks at a meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet about deciding to consult on closing Lyndale School (16th January 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.

YouTube privacy policy

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

Video footage starts at ends at 1:53 ends at 28:48 (just under 27 minutes)

Next week Wirral Council will start a consultation on closing Lyndale School. I thought it would be useful prior to the consultation to publish a transcript of the Cabinet meeting held back in January where it all started. I will state this caveat though. Some of the things stated at the January Cabinet meeting are now incorrect as Wirral Council withdrew its application to the Education Funding Agency for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee (the minimum funding guarantee guarantees the school gets at least 98.5% of last year’s funding).

Cabinet 16th January 2014
Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall
Agenda Item 14. Report seeking approval to consult on the closure of Lyndale School

This is a link to the Cabinet report titled “Report seeking approval to consult on the closure of Lyndale School”.

Transcript

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Now I’ve been given notice that we have a parent of Lyndale School, Dawn Hughes. Welcome Dawn. So it’s my intention to allow Dawn to address the Cabinet, then I think Julia Hassall (the Director of Children’s Services) will introduce the report and then Tony Smith Cabinet Member will want to make some comments. So that’s the procedure that I intend to adopt. So Dawn, can I invite you to come forward and speak to us. Could you just give us your full name and address first of all before you say anything to us?

DAWN HUGHES
Yeah, it’s Dawn Hughes, 24 ??? Road, Bebington, Wirral.

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Now Dave is just going to switch on the microphone for you, OK. So just take a seat, in your own time just say what you want to say to us.

DAWN HUGHES
Can I ask if these could be passed round?

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Of course, absolutely, yeah, yeah.

DAWN HUGHES
My name is Dawn

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Just take your time, that’s fine, yeah, thank you.

DAWN HUGHES
Hello everyone, my name is Dawn Hughes which you’ve just heard.

My daughter Ellie attends Lyndale School and the disruption that is being proposed is a lot worse than Miss Hassall’s report. It would take me longer than five minutes just to explain my child’s diagnosis and all the ways it affects her daily life.

She is not unusual at Lyndale, this is the level of capacity that the nursing staff deal with every day. But to deal with practical matters first, I want to ask you to show us that you are sincere when you say that you have the needs of our children at the heart of this process by further extending the twelve week consultation and allowing our governors access to resources like Council staff time so that we can explore other options. Then we can take all the time needed to give due weight to this important issue.

Miss Hassall’s report details falling roll numbers at Lyndale, leading to escalating costs with little qualifying information. The truth is that Lyndale has lived under the threat of closure for eight years which leads pre-school services to discourage prospective parents.

Lyndale parents have strongly supported a two to nineteen option for Lyndale for many years so that their very vulnerable children can avoid the unnecessary and cruel distress of transition to an unfamiliar environment and community. This option along with inviting in children from out of area would have increased roll numbers and it is still possible for this to happen if the will is there.

This report says that Lyndale is not financially viable, but the national average spent, the amount on PMLD children is £29,000. That’s against Lyndale’s spend of £33,000, a shortfall of £4,000 per a child and that’s not considering the complexity of needs. Also not a great deal of scope in terms of the local authority budget. This shortfall would be lessened by greater occupancy. The high need of our children means that the cost of education would be the same provided by an alternative school or an alternative.

Our parents feel that the £16,000 top up for PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] children is simply not enough to cover their needs and clearly we’re looking at how this figure was arrived at. Is it based on need or cost?

We know national government decisions have made things difficult but the Discretionary Schools Grant is administered locally and it is within your powers to allocate more where there is need. The SEN [special educational needs] Improvement Test legally means that you have to provide as good as or preferably better provision for our children.

The test would have to look at provision in the suggested alternative schools. Miss Hassall has said that Stanley School and Elleray Park are equipped to take Lyndale children but they are already full to bursting. I spoke to both schools recently. Stanley said they had 97 children already against a capacity of 90 and Elleray Park has 92 pupils and only 75 actual places. Where are our children going to fit?

If you plan to extend these schools why not invest that money to continue to provide good quality PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] provision at Lyndale? Stanley School has never in its history had a PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] child so it has no experience in this field. Lyndale parents are very worried about the safety of their children and their needs.

We contemplate the mix of PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] and children with behavioural difficulties. Many of our children are on life support, oxygen, naso-gastric or gastroscomy feeds and should any of this equipment be pulled out it could be fatal within seconds.

Many of our children cannot purposefully moved at all, and should they be bitten or hit, and should they be bitten or hit they cannot defend themselves. It is madness to put these two types of children together.

Lots of our children are hyper-sensitive to noise or some movement for example. For some children noise is unbearable and induces seizures. My own daughter’s hypersensitive and contracts painful muscle spasms which can last for months leaving her unable to sleep, eat or swallow amongst other horrible symptoms. I don’t even have family around at Christmas because Ellie can’t tolerate bustle, how would she cope in a big, noisy school?

The alternative to mixed disability classes would be to segregate our children within a mixed school. The problem here is that in an emergency (such as a child needing resuscitation or having a seizure which happens frequently to many of our children) medical staff would have to navigate their way through keypad locked doors losing valuable seconds which again could prove fatal to our children.

Aside from these very real safety concerns, Stanley and Elleray are not suitable in this way. Lyndale provides a community atmosphere where children can move freely and safely around the school, visiting each other’s classrooms and socialising at lunchtime and other activities. Why should they be locked away for their own safety in a school which is unsuitable for them in the first place?

No one would sensibly suggest putting heart patients and meningitis sufferers on the same ward with the same doctors for the obvious reasons that they require different environments and treatments despite both having the label of “being ill”. In the same way we can’t treat all children that who have got the label of learning disabilities in the same way either.

Autistic and PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] children have very different medical, environmental, educational and emotional needs. For example PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] children need a stimulating, colourful sensory environment, exactly the opposite of what the type of environment autistic children need.

Parents have asked me to tell you that should Lyndale close, they will either keep their children at home or send them to schools out of area. This will incur a huge cost to the local authority.

The truth is we don’t think that it serves our children’s best interests to move at all. Many people feel our children are “just sitting there” with no consciousness of what happens around them, but I know that when Ellie looks at me with a twinkle in her eye it means she wants to play. I know that when other people see blankness she is in fact concentrating hard. I know when she is in pain or sad or anxious or ill and the staff at Lyndale have taken years to build up the same knowledge – that our children have an inner life as rich as yours or mine despite their inability to communicate it through normal means.

If you force them to move, they will feel the loss of all the people they trust and love and the loss of a placement that they were safe in for years. I ask yourself to put yourselves in their shoes for one minute.

Imagine being completely reliant on others for everything that happens to you and then imagine going to a strange place, where you know no-one and no-one is able to understand you when you try to tell them how you feel. Many of our children could not cope with the upheaval of a move. Change induces anxiety in our children and anxiety significantly worsens their disabilities and illnesses. They then suffer in a way that you would find unimaginable.

I’ve come to accept it with sadness over the years that Ellie will never learn to speak, eat or play independently or be able to take GCSEs. Many of our children don’t even make it to the end of primary school. It is painful for many parents with PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] children to be constantly talked at by educationalists about “achievement” and the need to move on.

Ellie is 11 and still likes peek-a-bo. All she needs is a special place where she is happy and she can rely on the consistency and environment and the adults around her. Lyndale allows for the days when the children frequently feel under par and brings therapy or treatment into the classroom.

Lyndale staff know that ill health is part and parcel of our children’s lives and to accommodate this into their individual sensory curriculum. I don’t believe that you can provide that at bigger schools with no PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] experience. I don’t believe you better Lyndale to pass the SEN improvement test, you certainly can’t convince me or the other parents.

I imagine that most of you who have children or grandchildren and that they are the apple of your eye, quite rightly so. Now imagine that you are forced by some authority to send them to a place for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week to a place where you know that they will unsafe, unhappy and possibly grossly, maybe fatally misunderstood. How would that feel?

And how much worse must that be for us who care for such fragile children every day? I ask you not as councillors or as administrators, but as parents, grandparents and decent human beings, please do not close our school.

I will extend an invitation to all members of the Cabinet to attend a meeting with our parents and visit our children. Come along and get to know them and see the wonderful work that Lyndale does. Thank you for your attention.

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Thank you for a very clear presentation. Thank you very much.

(applause)

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
OK, can I now ask Julia Hassall (Director of Children’s Services) to come and put forward and introduce the report, Julia.

JULIA HASSALL
Thank you Chair. I just want to start by saying I appreciate that what I’m going to say now will sound very cold and factual following on from Dawn’s description of the some of the children at Lyndale and indeed our own report and I just want to acknowledge that before I start my presentation.

From the outset, I think this report is saying that this report is being brought to Cabinet this evening to seek permission to consult on closing the school and it’s not seeking permission to actually close the school.

Meeting the needs of the children is actually central to our concern and we are starting by working in partnership with the school to create an up to date needs assessment for each child. There’s real commitment and I put it to you now that the process is to be very transparent and open.

The report sets out the background and the reasons why it’s felt necessary to consult on closing Lyndale School down. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient places, school places in their area to ensure fair access to educational opportunity to promote the fulfilment of every child’s potential.

To do this any plans must consider the educational benefits for children, value for money and the way schools can develop collaborative practice for the benefit of the children. In this instance the local authority will need to take into account current provision for children with complex learning difficulties and profound and multiple learning difficulties at the Lyndale School, Elleray Park and Stanley primary schools, Foxfield and Meadowside secondary schools.

The reasons for considering on consulting on closure of the school are set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report. Closure of the school is being proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by the small size and falling roll which both contribute to a difficult financial position.

This proposal is not being made to Cabinet because of the quality of educational standards at the school. The most recent OFSTED inspection from November 2012 judged that Lyndale School was a good school and that pupil care and support, behaviour and safety were assessed to be outstanding.

In terms of the falling school roll, by way of background if every available place was taken then the occupancy would be 100%. Over the last seven years, the Lyndale School’s average occupancy has been 59% and there are currently twenty-four children at the school out of a total of forty places.

The size of the school and the numbers of pupils contributes to, as I’ve said previously, a difficult financial position with the likelihood of a deficit of £72,000 without any other action for 2014/15 which is 9% of the school’s budget and the potential for this to increase to £232,000 based on the numbers of children at Lyndale on the school roll.

Just to say a little bit by way of background about the funding reforms. Funding for pupils with special educational needs changed in April last year. The new system is called place plus. This means that the government pays £10,000 for each child that the schools place. In Wirral this year it’s being introduced gradually, but in future with £10,000 paid per a place, with 24 children in a forty place school this could mean a shortfall now of sixteen places or £160,000.

A Cabinet report that we’re presenting later this evening recommends a new approach to high needs top ups of … dependant on the child’s level of needs. This …

The top up now per a child is dependant on the additional needs of the child. It’s set by the local authority in agreement with the special schools and high needs providers on the Wirral who make recommendations to their representatives on the Schools Forum.

The majority of the children at the Lyndale School will receive the maximum top up payment per a child of £16,000 based on their profound and multiple learning difficulties which was described to us so clearly by Dawn.

This is the highest band which applies to all four special schools on Wirral for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. These national funding reforms have brought the Lyndale School provision into sharp focus. One of the difficulties the school faces is in terms of its small size and therefore large unit costs.

Should a decision be taken in the future to close Lyndale School, then the proposal at this stage would be to expand Elleray Park School and Stanley School so that the children with complex learning difficulties including the children with profound and multiple learning difficulties are educated and cared for on the same school site whilst recognising the individual needs of each child. This would not simply be a case of adding children into existing schools. We’re very carefully considering how each school will need to change to fully meet the needs of the children from the Lyndale School.

It’s proposed to expand the numbers of children across both schools up to two hundred and thirty children. Building work at Elleray Park is already planned to address sufficiency and suitability issues and this will be through a one-off capital investment. .. recent OFSTED reports, Elleray Park School was judged to be an outstanding school whilst Stanley School was judged to be a good school with outstanding leadership and partnership.

It’s very important to say that at this stage, the closure of the school appears to be the most viable option after having considered a number of different options attached as appendix two. However if this report is agreed by Cabinet, this will be the start of a lengthy consultation process with parents, staff and stakeholders but all available options will be considered including previously considered options set out in the appendix.

In terms of consultation, if Cabinet agree, then what will follow is a period of twelve weeks consultation after which a further report will be presented to Cabinet detailing the findings of this initial consultation. If the second report recommends the closure of the school and Cabinet agrees, a further formal six week consultation will follow. This is known as a representation period and the final report will .. to before Cabinet. It is only at this stage that a decision to close the school should that be approved can be taken.

My report sets out how a number of meetings with all representative bodies including meetings with parents and carers of … where a number of questions have been raised. The minutes and results of some questions will be sent to all parent carers next week. There is a commitment to work with the school to ensure full up to date needs assessment on each child as soon as possible which will help determine how children’s needs can be met which is very much a sustainable way forward. Should the decision be made tonight to proceed to consultation, a full schedule of consultation events will take place and they’ll be published.

In summary, I want to conclude by saying that considering the closure of a school is difficult and distressing particularly when children have such special needs as the Lyndale School does. It’s clearly important that Lyndale is a place at the centre of our concerns and that the special educational needs assessment improvement test is applied with rigour.

The test requires any future plans to demonstrate our children will maintain the quality of current provision and indeed improve upon it. I recommend that Cabinet agree to consult on closure of the Lyndale School and that I’m authorised to compile and produce the appropriate documentation to start the consultation as soon as is practically possible. Thank you.

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Thanks Julia very much. OK, so I’m now going to ask Tony Smith whose the Cabinet Member for Childrens Services to make some comments.

CLLR TONY SMITH
OK, thanks for that Chair. Thanks very much Dawn for that. Dawn can I first of all say that I certainly will come round with you and meet with the staff and parents at Lyndale and if necessary spend as many days as possible in the school and can I also make this clear? This is a consultation, the officers have already formed a view on Lyndale School and that.

Having worked in that area I do know the concerns of parents and the environment looking at the school at Lyndale and that. I’m also very conscious that it has been an outstanding service to the Authority. You’ve always had good or outstanding OFSTED reports and that and over the last sort of six or seven years the numbers have been falling in the school and that has to be a bit of a problem and that but I do want to make this very, very clear that with regarding how open and transparent the process is.

If you do need any questions answered, if you do need any officer support I will ensure that you know that that is available and you know anyway that will be allowed like that. No options are out at this stage, I’ll make that clear as well. Even if the options are not in the papers that have been put forward, if people have other options then we will certainly listen to those options as well and that.

We are very lucky I have to say in this Authority to have outstanding special schools. It’s not often the case in local authorities that that happens and that. Whether it’s Lyndale or Elleray or Stanley or the other special schools we do really, really well in the Authority. So we do put our children in special educational needs with a high priority and I want to ensure that continues that way.

If there was any change and I don’t know whether there that would be enough … We will listen to the cuts consultation and that we are happy to say that we do have other outstanding schools and that.

So I don’t want to say much more than that really. I will come round into the school with some other Cabinet Members, they need to come round and making sure that happens as well. If you need help and support from the Authority, if you’ve got any question you want to ask or anything you feel you has to go in then we certainly would support that.

I’m happy with the content of the Director’s report. I think it’s been fair. It’s outlined what the pros and what’s happened in the organisation over the last six or seven years and that. The position that we are in at the moment, also the changes that have been brought about nationally and that. We’ll certainly keep an open mind. I think the twelve weeks consultation should give us sufficient time to be able to engage in that process and that but feel free to come back to me at any time if there’s any queries and that if necessary I’ll certainly revisit the school and that but thank you very much on behalf of the Cabinet for that contribution and I will be seeing you …

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
OK thanks Tony. OK, can I just say a few words. I mean first of all thanks to Dawn for such a clear presentation. I think that was really helpful to hear first hand.

I mean the other thing I want to say you know there’s no question Lyndale is a fantastic school, it provides you know a high quality education for its pupils and nobody would want to take a decision like this lightly. So I think it is important that we allow sufficient time for all options to be properly considered and it is important that we as Cabinet Members and Tony as the Cabinet Member for Childrens Services keep an open mind on all the options.

Appendix 2 of this report there are eight options identified. I know from personal experience when I was Cabinet Member for Childrens Services I know that if other options emerge during the consultation then I think that’s absolutely fine and we need to consider them, but I think you know we need to make sure that the outcome being completely open and transparent process for how we go about looking at this and obviously any help, support, advice, guidance you need… that we can give to help this process and for the parents and governors and the staff and everybody to feel that their voices have been heard and we’re happy to give that help and advice.

So I think the main thing now is in my view is to agree this report. We’re not making any decision tonight about any particular option. We’re just agreeing to consult around those options.

I myself, you know I’ve been down to back into Lyndale before and I’m sure there are other Cabinet Members who will avail themselves of the opportunity to go and have a look at the school and its staff, governors and parents I think that’s absolutely fine. So by the time that we come back to Cabinet with a further report at the end of the consultation period everybody hopefully will be content that we’ve done a proper sort of job making sure that we’ve looked at every possible option and certainly Dawn you’ve spoke tonight with passion about your feelings and we will sort of take those feelings on board.

So I think really that’s all I want to say, I just want to thank Dawn and the other parents and governors for coming here tonight and I want to add my support to Tony for recommendations outlined in the report at paragraph twelve that we agree to consult on the closure of Lyndale School, that the Director of Children’s Services or her nominee be authorised to compile the appropriate consultation documentation and proceed with the consultation exercise as soon as practically possible. Can I ask Cabinet if we can agree to those recommendations?

CABINET
Agreed.

CLLR PHIL DAVIES
OK, so we’ve agreed those recommendations. I’d like to again thank everybody who’s coming tonight to hear this report for your attendance and I really do sincerely look forward to the consultation and making sure that everybody is given an opportunity to have their say. So thank you very much for your attendance tonight. OK, I’ll make a pause at that point and allow people who are just here for Lyndale if they want to leave they can do so. So we’ll just have a couple of minutes adjournment.

You may also be interested in What did officers say at the Lyndale School call in? “we had a problem the rules mattered more than the children”.

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

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

 

What’s interesting is how Julia Hassall’s (Wirral Council’s Director of Children’s Services) reasons to consult on the closure of Lyndale School have changed over time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxt7NLR2biU#t=13m46s
Julia Hassall addresses the Cabinet (16th January 2014). What’s quoted below starts at 13:46.

Julia Hassall said to Cabinet, “The reasons for considering consulting on closure of the school are set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report. Closure of the school is being proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by its small size and falling roll which does contribute to a difficult financial position.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_QKYyKwJkQ#t=2m05s
Julia Hassall talks to the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February who were reviewing the Cabinet’s decision starting at 2:05.

Julia Hassall said to the Coordinating Committee, “The report that was presented to Cabinet on the 16th January was seeking approval to consult on the closure of Lyndale School. The report set out the background saying that local authorities have a statutory duty to make sure that there are sufficient places in their area and there’s fair access to educational opportunity to promote every child’s potential.

The reasons why in the report we’re considering the closure of the school is because of the viability of the school was compromised because of its small size and falling roll which both contribute to a difficult financial position and I think as you said Chair [Cllr Steve Foulkes] earlier, this is not in any way because of the standard of care and education within the school which is good and in many aspects outstanding.”

Interview (BBC regional news) 18th March 2014

In an interview Julia Hassall said, “The quality of care and education is really good at this school but there are concerns about whether we can sustain this school going forward” (source interview (ITV regional news) 20th March 2014).

However two days later she seemingly has a complete volte-face on funding or financial reasons being the reason for consulting on closing Lyndale.

Interviewer: This is all about saving money for the Council, isn’t it?
Julia Hassall: It’s absolutely not about saving money for the Council or balancing the Council’s books.
Voiceover: Julia Hassall is Wirral Council’s Director of Children’s Services.
Julia Hassall: If, and it’s very much if Lyndale School closes, the Council does not benefit in any way.
Voiceover: The Council also say that Lyndale children would be well looked after if they had to move to another school.
Julia Hassall: Both of the other schools could care adequately for these children and educate them properly. They’ll need to make some changes and adjustments. We absolutely will not put these children in settings where their needs are not properly met.
Voiceover: A consultation on the future of Lyndale School will start next month, the Council say they are minded to shut it down. The parents will continue their campaign to keep it open.

Below is a copy of page three of a handout at the Coordinating Committee meeting on the 27th February deciding on the call in to consult on closing Lyndale School which explains

LYNDALE SPECIAL PRIMARY SCHOOL, EASTHAM

SURPLUS FORECAST FOR 2014/15
Following a further cost saving exercise (re non teaching staff costs) recently approved by the Governors, & on the basis that the Minimum Funding Guarantee is to be applied, a small surplus is now forecast for 2014/15 & the cumulative deficit at 31/3/15 is now forecast to be approx £18,000, rather than the cumulative £72,000 included in the January Report to Cabinet. Savings from this reorganisation of approx £70,000 per annum, will continue in future years.

AGREED PLACES ALLOCATION
Following the independent reviews undertaken by Eric Craven in 2012, the Governors consider that the appropriate number of places to be allocated to School (as required to be agreed with the Education Funding Agency) to be 28.

TOP UP FUNDING
As detailed in the submissions to the recent consultations, the Governors consider that the currently proposed level of Band 5 Top Up funding of £16,000 per pupil to be insufficient to fund the necessary support required by these children. (As you will be aware, the Governors response to the 2013 consultation considered that the Band 5 Top Up funding should be £27,500 per pupil to adequately cover the various & complex needs of these most vulnerable children. Please also note that the Full Time Equivalent cost of a teaching assistant currently stands at just over £21,000 per annum.)
To this end, the Governors consider it essential for an impartial assessment of the needs of each individual pupil to be undertaken, from which the appropriate level of funding should follow.

PUPIL SAFETY
In view of the Band 5 assessed pupils’ lack of mobility and complete vulnerability, the Governors consider it essential for the children to be educated in a completely safe environment and the current proposals do NOT meet this necessary requirement. It is more cost effective to invest available capital funding in making relatively minor changes to the existing Lyndale premises rather than making significant changes to the newly rebuilt Stanley School or Elleray Park (which is already planned to expand, but purely to adequately deal with their existing pupil numbers.)

EDUCATION
The Governors and staff have always aimed to make Lyndale a Centre of Excellence for the education of PMLD pupils and the current proposals would be detrimental both to the considerable staff expertise which has built up over the years and to the group of available supply staff who provide the necessary support ensuring the best for our children.
Ian D Harrison F C A
Vice Chair of Governors, Lyndale School
26th March 2014

So if anyone could leave a comment detailing the reason (or reasons) why Wirral Council is planning to consult on closing Lyndale School it would be appreciated!

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

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

                                    

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

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

I received a response yesterday from the Education Funding Agency to my Freedom of Information Act request about Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee (that was later withdrawn).

Wirral Council assumed it would make a successful application for an exemption from the 98.5% minimum funding guarantee. This was what led to the predicted shortfall in Lyndale School’s budget of £72,000 for 2014/15. This application was later withdrawn (before the Education Funding Agency reached a decision on it) which led to Lyndale School’s financial forecast for 2014/15 changing from a deficit to a surplus.

The detail of the rationale behind the application is interesting though and is included below. It seems to it was emailed to the Education Funding Agency by an Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager, School Funding & Resources). The date of the email isn’t included, however I’ve submitted an internal review request for that too.

What’s interesting is that it in the application Andrew Roberts states “However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.” However at the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February the eight Labour councillors voted against an amendment (six voted for the amendment who were the Lib Dem councillor, five Conservative councillors and the parent governor rep) proposed and seconded by the Conservative councillors that was “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children.”

Wirral Council’s Andrew Roberts also states “Without capping the MFG (minimum funding guarantee) costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.”

This however seems to contradict what Surjit Tour stated at Budget Cabinet on the 12th February 2014 in his advice to Cabinet deciding on their recommendation to Council for the Schools Budget for 2014/15 (I’ve underlined the relevant section of what Surjit Tour said) which was

“Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.

One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.”

The contingency referred to was for £908,900. At this point you might point out that £908,900 is more than enough to cover the £800,000 extra needed by the minimum funding guarantee. However if you read this report to the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of the 22nd January 2014 it states what the £908,900 contingency is planned to be used for and I quote:

Contingency. The contingency identified of £908,900 is required to cover the potential costs of:

  • Adjustments with the EFA for post 16 students. There are ongoing discussions about the costs of mainstream school and academy High Needs places (£6,000 per place) which potentially will cost £372,000
  • Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.
  • Unfunded growth in place numbers – there has been a small net increase in the planned number of High Needs places
  • Any mismatch between places identified with providers and places taken up.
  • Inflationary pressures within Non Maintained Special Schools.
  • Uncertainty about the overall statement numbers

So with Wirral Council officers stating that funding Lyndale School is first “unaffordable”, then another officer stating that “provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications” is it any wonder that people are confused on this point?

The minutes of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call in state “The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”

How can it be “more affordable” though? Has the designation of what the contingency fund to be used for changed from what was agreed by the Wirral Schools Forum in January (as outlined above) to a decision behind the scenes to withdraw the minimum funding guarantee exemption application and use the contingency to fund the minimum funding guarantee? Is the reason why funding is no longer mentioned with regards to Lyndale School because officers stated (at different times) that it was both affordable and unaffordable (and as the underlying budget hasn’t changed both positions can’t both be accurate can they)?

Wirral Council’s Julia Hassall now says that the consultation on closing Lyndale School is because of pupil numbers as there are twenty-three children at the school which has a capacity for forty. Following the review by Eric Craven there was a reduction in the planned admission number for Lyndale School last year from forty-five to forty. I’m sure Wirral Council (if it wanted to) could reduce the planned admission number at Lyndale School for future years to a lower number such as thirty or twenty-five.

Wirral Council’s policy on the admission arrangements for primary schools for 2015-16 was agreed by Cabinet last Thursday. In it it states at “3.5 Special Needs. All schools will be required to admit a pupil with a Statement of Special Educational Needs naming the school.”

Therefore if Wirral Council started naming Lyndale School in SEN statements, rather than sending more pupils to oversubscribed special schools such as Elleray Park (currently with 91 pupils and 80 places) wouldn’t this help increase numbers at Lyndale towards its place figure of forty?

What’s interesting is that money was put in the budget for next year to increase the numbers of places at Elleray Park by ten. So why can’t Wirral Council agree to reduce the number of places at Lyndale School by ten?

Below is Wirral Council’s application (later withdrawn) from Andrew Roberts for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee which guarantees that schools receive at least 98.5% of the money they received the previous year.
——————————————————————————————————-

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:

School Forum Agenda from 13 November 2013:
– Element 3 Top up funding arrangements for pupils with high needs (SEN) and for pupils attending Alternative Provision. (This report includes the consultation paper and letter to schools about the MFG)
– An extract from the Schools Forum minutes

Please let me know if you would like further details.

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours sincerely

Andrew Roberts signature

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

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

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

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

                                         

The Cheshire Cat from Disney's Alice in Wonderland (the 1951 version)
The Cheshire Cat from Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (the 1951 version) which seemed about the only image that seemed ideal for this story about Lyndale School and Wirral Council

First, if you’ve been away on holiday the past two months a recap on what’s happened so far in a saga that’s seems to quickly becoming as complicated as the plot to the Lord of the Rings.

It starts with a proposal to Wirral Council’s Cabinet by Wirral Council officers to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting Wirral Council’s officers also proposed introducing a new system for funding “high needs” students where from 2014-15 extra funding to schools would be determined by which one of five bands that school’s pupils were categorised as being in. There was an emotional plea made to councillors on the Cabinet by Dawn Hughes (who has a child at the school) not to agree to consult on closure of Lyndale School (which was reported on this blog). However Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet decided to both agree to consult on closing Lyndale School and also the banding proposals too.

It’s important at this stage to state the reasons given back in January for consulting on closing Lyndale School by Wirral Council officers, which are detailed both in the minutes and the report.

Here are some quotes from the report (although at this point in time some of these purported facts have been found to be factually incorrect).

“The closure of the Lyndale School is proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by its small size and falling roll, which both contribute to a difficult financial position.”

“In 2013-14 the school has set a budget for the year based on School Funding of £761,733 with a small deficit of £3,647. This was achieved using all accumulated balances brought forward of £51,707. The latest position indicates there will be deficit at the year end of £15,667. This has resulted from changes in staff costs and support services.”

“In 2014-15 the school forecast, before any corrective action, is that there would be a deficit of £72,000. This deficit has the potential to increase to in excess of £232,000 based on the numbers of children currently on the school roll.”
…
“This means that for 2014-15 the shortfall the school may experience will be approximately £72,000 for the year based on the number currently on school roll. This is approximately 9% of their budget.”

What this report in January didn’t mention at all (which was a pretty glaring omission at the time although a report to the same meeting did mention it but that other report didn’t specifically refer to Lyndale School) was this was all dependent on the assumption that Wirral Council would have its application to the government that the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% wouldn’t apply to it approved. The minimum funding guarantee is a legal requirement on Wirral Council found in Regulation 19 of The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2013 not to reduce funding to a school for its 2014-15 financial year (based on its 2013-14 budget allocation) by more than 1.5%. However the regulations allow the Secretary of State for Education to agree to requests from local councils to a different minimum funding guarantee.

Wirral Council did at some point make an application to the Education Funding Agency for the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% not to apply to it in 2014-15 (although I’m waiting for this Freedom of Information Act request to the Education Funding Agency to be answered as to the details on that). On the 27th January 2014 Cllrs Tom Harney, Phil Gilchrist, Jeff Green, Ian Lewis, Cherry Povall and Pat Williams called in the two Cabinet decisions.

These two decisions then went to the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 5th February 2014 to be looked at again. However the Coordinating Committee didn’t have the required parent governor representatives and Diocesan Body representatives that they were required by legislation to have when making decisions on educational (or school) related matters. So the meeting of 5th February 2014 was adjourned and a recommendation made to the Council meeting on the 25th February 2014 so that the parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives could be added to the Coordinating Committee. This was agreed at a meeting of the full Council on the 25th February 2014.

While all this was going on, the Cabinet made its recommendation on the 2014-15 Schools Budget to Council on the 12th February 2014 and Council agreed the Schools Budget on the 25th February 2014 (including matters that were yet to be decided because of the adjourned Coordinating Committee meeting). The issue of the upcoming call ins was raised at the Cabinet meeting and councillors were told that there was a contingency (of £908,900) included as part of the Schools Budget which would mean that whatever the outcome of the call ins were that it could still be funded.

On the 27th February the Coordinating Committee met again to consider the two call ins on the decision to consult on closing Lyndale School and the banding proposals.

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.

Video of the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February to consider the Lyndale School consultation closure call in (adjourned from the Coordinating Committee on the 5th Feburary).

On both matters the draft minutes state that a majority of the councillors plus the parent governor representative present who had a vote, voted to uphold the original Cabinet decisions. It’s worth pointing out that on the Lyndale School closure consultation decision the Conservative councillors proposed instead a review (which was voted against by nine votes to six). On the banding proposals the Conservative councillors proposed the following motion “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children” (which was lost by seven votes for the motion and eight against).

The votes on the Labour councillor’s recommendations to uphold the two original Labour Cabinet decisions were on the Lyndale School consultation closure decision nine votes to six (the Labour councillors plus the Lib Dem councillor Cllr Alan Brighouse voted in favour of a consultation on closure whereas the Conservative councillors and parent governor representative voted against). The vote on a recommendation by Labour councillors to uphold the Labour Cabinet decision on the banding proposals was won by a narrower margin of eight votes to seven (the Labour councillors voted for it with the Lib Dem councillor, Conservatives and parent governor representative being opposed to it).

So, what’s new? Well unfortunately I had to go (and as the first call in on consulting closing Lyndale School had taken three and half hours had run out of tape anyway) after the first decision over the Lyndale School closure consultation decision. So I’ve only found out what happened at the second part of the meeting by reading the draft minutes of that meeting were available at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting.

Here is what the draft minutes state about the minimum funding guarantee. My comments are in italics underneath.

The first quote is about the explanation of the banding proposals decision by the Cabinet Member Cllr Tony Smith.

“Basically, the report had dealt with the banding model and informed how top ups would be made. The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”

Well that’s a revelation isn’t it? When did Wirral Council withdraw its application for an exemption from the minimum funding requirement? The minimum funding guarantee was always “affordable” as there was a contingency (in case the application for a minimum funding guarantee exemption was turned down of £908,900). Wirral Council also gets for 2014-15 an Special Educational Needs Reform Grant of £364,135 (see here for the details) which according to the letter linked to the government state that Wirral Council can “choose how to spend the money in order to best meet local need”.

Then this in the draft minutes from the evidence of the Vice-Chair of Governors at Lyndale School (and Chair of their Finance Committee) Ian Harrison.

“Mr Harrison informed that the Lyndale School now had a surplus forecast for 2013/14. It was going to get the minimum funding guarantee. There would be a small surplus in 2014/15.”

So if the original reason for consulting on closing Lyndale School was that an officer (or officers) at Wirral Council thought it wouldn’t have enough money, but the minimum funding guarantee exemption request has been withdrawn so that Lyndale School is now projecting a surplus (at least for 2014/15), why is Wirral Council going to the trouble of a twelve week consultation on closing the school?

“Members then asked Mr Harrison some questions which he answered as appropriate. It was noted that:

  • The Cabinet had received an early estimate rather than one at the end of the period when it would have been more realistic.”

Perhaps councillors were too polite to suggest that the Cabinet had based their decision on an estimate based on an assumption about the minimum funding guarantee (that is that the assumption that it would be approved and not withdrawn) which turned out not to be the case.

  • None of the special schools agreed with the formula that had been approved.

There are eleven special schools on Wirral (Hayfield, Clare Mount, Orrets Meadow, Gilbrook, Stanley, Elleray, Lyndale, Foxfield, Meadowside and Kilgarth). The 2014-15 budgets for each special school would have each been affected by the banding proposals. Had the minimum funding guarantee exemption application not been withdrawn, other schools could have been facing deficits (although Lyndale was the school most affected). The motion that was agreed on this item is stated in the draft minutes as “That the Committee upholds the Cabinet’s decision and it be ensured that consultation is meaningful, informed and transparent”. This is very unclear. Does that mean there’s going to be a consultation on the banding proposals or is it referring to the consultation to close Lyndale School?

So to summarise, Wirral Council officers thought there would be a large deficit in Lyndale School’s budget so recommended to the Cabinet that they should consult on closing the school. This decision was called in and during the call in it was discovered that Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee had been withdrawn. So now there’s a legal requirement that Lyndale School will get at least 98.5% of the amount they got in the previous year. As Lyndale School had looked into reducing costs of non teaching staff to reduce the original estimated large deficit, they now estimate a small surplus in their budget for 2014/15.

However Wirral Council is still going to carry out a twelve week consultation on closing the school based on an estimated deficit in Lyndale School’s budget that now can’t happen because the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% is a legal requirement on Wirral Council.

How much is such a consultation, based on a guesstimate by officers (which ended up being wrong) going to cost? Bearing in mind the above, is it any wonder that people get confused by Wirral Council’s decision-making and politics? Am I missing something vital or is everything I’ve stated here correct?

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

Was the Wirral Council Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School lawful?

Was the Wirral Council Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School lawful?

Was the Wirral Council Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School lawful?

                                          

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School

Unless you’ve been on holiday or don’t read the papers you can’t fail to have heard about the decision by Wirral Council’s Cabinet last Thursday to start a consultation on the closure of a primary school called Lyndale School in Eastham for children with special educational needs. This was reported on this blog and in the Wirral Globe. There is also a large petition against closure that had attracted over five thousand signatures before the decision at the Cabinet meeting.

Over a year ago (on 10th September 2012) a law came into effect called The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 which changed the way Wirral Council’s Cabinet made decisions and introduced some further requirements as well as checks and balances.

The report seeking approval to consult on the closure of Lyndale School deems this decision to be classed as a “key decision”. There are four regulations in The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 which relate to key decisions.

Regulation 8 merely defines what a key decision is.

Regulation 9 states the following (decision maker refers to the Cabinet and is defined here):

9. (1) Where a decision maker intends to make a key decision, that decision must not be made until a document has been published in accordance with paragraph (2), which states—

(a) that a key decision is to be made on behalf of the relevant local authority;
(b) the matter in respect of which the decision is to be made;
(c) where the decision maker is an individual, that individual’s name, and title if any and, where the decision maker is a decision-making body, its name and a list of its members;
(d) the date on which, or the period within which, the decision is to be made;
(e) a list of the documents submitted to the decision maker for consideration in relation to the matter in respect of which the key decision is to be made;
(f) the address from which, subject to any prohibition or restriction on their disclosure, copies of, or extracts from, any document listed is available;
(g) that other documents relevant to those matters may be submitted to the decision maker; and
(h) the procedure for requesting details of those documents (if any) as they become available.

(2) At least 28 clear days before a key decision is made, the document referred to in paragraph (1) must be made available for inspection by the public—

(a) at the offices of the relevant local authority; and
(b) on the relevant local authority’s website, if it has one.

(3) Where, in relation to any matter—

(a) the public may be excluded under regulation 4(2) from the meeting at which the matter is to be discussed; or
(b) documents relating to the decision need not, because of regulation 20(3), be disclosed to the public, the document referred to in paragraph (1) must contain particulars of the matter but may not contain any confidential, exempt information or particulars of the advice of a political adviser or assistant.

As you can see from the above, the decision “must not be made” until a document has been published containing the information specified in (a) to (h) above at least 28 clear days before the meeting on Wirral Council’s website.

I emailed the Chair of the Families and Wellbeing Committee Cllr Wendy Clements and she pointed out in her reply that the Forward Plan listed the item Permission to Consult on an Option for Change at Lyndale School on 18th December 2013.

Yes, this entry on the Forward Plan complies with regulation 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b).

However does it comply with 9(1)(c) and include “where the decision maker is an individual, that individual’s name, and title if any and, where the decision maker is a decision-making body, its name and a list of its members”? No it just states “Decision due: January 2014 by Cabinet”, with no list of who the individuals that make up the Cabinet are.

Yes, regulation 9(1)(d) is complied with, however 9(1)(e) is not. Although there is a link now to the Cabinet report, this report was published on the 9th January 2014 therefore wouldn’t have been in existence on 18th December 2013. When this item was published on the Forward Plan this document wasn’t listed. Nor did it state the address from which copies of it could be obtained (Regulation 9(1)(f)).

Also as this report was submitted to the Cabinet, in contravention of Regulation 9(1)(g) this entry in the Forward Plan did not state that “other documents relevant to those matters may be submitted to the decision maker” or how to obtain these (Regulation 9(1)(h)).

There is provision within regulation 10 and regulation 11 for a decision to be made without following the notice requirements in Regulation 9, however this is only with the permission of the Chair of the relevant overview and scrutiny committee (in this case the Chair of the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee) Cllr Wendy Clements. I emailed Cllr Wendy Clements asking her was she asked and did she give her permission, her reply was “In response to your specific questions; no, I was not asked, and no I did not give permission.”

The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007

Moving onto another legal requirement, regulation 8 of the The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 which states

8. Any governing body, local education authority or adjudicator (where applicable) when—

(a) consulting on proposals;
(b) considering or determining proposals;
(c) considering what are related proposals;
(d) making decisions on matters relating to implementation
must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.

This is the fifty-seven page guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Was this guidance that Wirral Council “must have regard to” included as an appendix to the report? No it wasn’t.

Had this guidance been read by Cabinet prior to making the decision to proceed to consultation they would’ve read things like this:

“The Special Educational Needs Improvement Test (Paragraph 4.55)

When considering any reorganisation of provision that would be recognised by the LA as reserved for pupils with special educational needs, including that which might lead to some children being displaced through closures or alterations, LAs, and all other proposers for new schools or new provision, will need to demonstrate to parents, the local community and Decision Makers how the proposed alternative arrangements are likely to lead to improvements in the standard, quality and/or range of educational provision for children with special educational needs. All consultation documents and reorganisation plans that LAs publish and all relevant documentation LAs and other proposers submit to Decision Makers should show how the key factors set out in paragraphs 4.59 to 4.62 below have been taken into account by applying the SEN improvement test. Proposals which do not credibly meet these requirements should not be approved and Decision Makers should take proper account of parental or independent representations which question the LA’s own assessment in this regard. ”

and

“4.59 Decision Makers will need to be satisfied that the evidence with which they are provided shows that LAs and/or other proposers have taken account of the initial considerations and all the key factors in their planning and commissioning in order to meet the requirement to demonstrate that the reorganisation or new provision is likely to result in improvements to SEN provision. ”

So bearing the above in mind, I’m starting two polls on this blog.

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