Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Date: Wednesday 11 November 2009
Time: 2:00pm
Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich
Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones.
Membership
Mr J Carswell (Chairman)
Mr R Bearman (Spokesperson) Ms D Irving Mr B Borrett Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mr B Bremner (Spokesperson) Mr W Nunn Miss C Casimir (Vice-Chairman) Mr M Scutter (Spokesperson) Mrs D Clarke Mr B Spratt Mr G Cook Mrs A Thomas Mr T Garrod Mr P Wells Mr B Hannah Mr A Wright
Parent Governor Representatives
Mr P East Dr L Poliakoff
Church Representatives
Mrs J O’Connor Mr A Mash
Non-Voting School’s Forum Representative
Mrs B Carrington
Non-Voting Cabinet Member
Mrs S Hutson
Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Member
Mr I Mackie Education Non-Voting Co-opted Advisors
Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Mr P Large Secondary Education Mr L Poulson Post-16 Education Mrs H Rowlinson Special Schools Mr M Sale Norfolk Governors Network
For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Kristen Jones on 01603 223053 or email [email protected] A g e n d a
1 To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending
2 Minutes
To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Children’s (Page 1) Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel held on 16 September 2009. 3 Members to Declare any Interests
Please indicate whether the interest is a personal one only or one which is prejudicial. A declaration of a personal interest should indicate the nature of the interest and the agenda item to which it relates. In the case of a personal interest, the member may speak and vote on the matter. Please note that if you are exempt from declaring a personal interest because it arises solely from your position on a body to which you were nominated by the County Council or a body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g. another local authority), you need only declare your interest if and when you intend to speak on a matter.
If a prejudicial interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter, in which case you may attend the meeting for that purpose. You must immediately leave the room when you have finished or the meeting decides you have finished, if earlier.
These declarations apply to all those members present, whether the member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.
4 To receive any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency
5 Public Question Time
Fifteen minutes for questions from members of the public of which due notice has been given.
Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Officer by 5pm on Friday 6 November 2009. Please submit your question(s) to the person named on the front of this agenda. For guidance on submitting public questions, please view the Council Constitution, Appendix 10, Council procedure rules. www.norfolk.gov.uk/reviewpanelquestions 6 Local Member Issues/Member Questions
Fifteen minutes for local members to raise issues of concern of which due notice has been given.
Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Officer by 5pm on Friday 6 November 2009. Please submit your question(s) to the person named on the front of this agenda.
7 Cabinet Member Feedback
8 Demonstration of Foster Carers web systems
Scrutiny Items
9 Scrutiny Programme (Page 11)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Review Items
10 Children’s Services Performance Quarter 2 2009-10 Report by (Page 15)
the Director of Children’s Services
11 Children’s Services Financial Monitoring Report 2009/10 as at (Page 36) 30 September 2009
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
12 Service and Budget Planning 2010-13 (Page 45)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services and Head of Finance
13 Review of Subsidised Letting Charges (Page 73)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
14 School Organisation Issues: 3-year Junior Clusters (Page 81) and Cringleford CEVA Primary
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
15 Consultation on a set of principles to consider when investing in (Page 110) Norfolk Schools for the 21st Century
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
16 Strategy for Special Educational Needs (SEN): Complex Needs (Page 116) Schools (Change of Designation) and Specialist Resource Bases (Implementation) – Statutory Public Notices Report by the Director of Children’s Services
17 DCSF Consultation on Proposed Changes to First Admission to (Page 151) School
Director by the Director of Children’s Services
Group Meetings
Conservative 1:00 pm Colman Room Liberal Democrats 1:00 pm Room 504
Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services
County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH
Date Agenda Published: 3 November 2009
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel Minutes of the Meeting Held on Wednesday 16 September 2009
Present:
Mr J Carswell (Chairman)
Mr R Bearman* Ms D Irving Mr B Borrett Mr J Joyce Mr B Bremner** Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mr A Byrne Mr J Mooney Miss C Casimir (Vice Chairman) Mr M Scutter*** Mrs D Clarke Mrs A Thomas Mr G Cook Mr P Wells Mr T Garrod Mr A Wright
* Green Spokesperson ** Labour Spokesperson *** Liberal Democrat Spokesperson
Parent Governor Representatives:
Dr L Poliakoff
Church Representative:
Mr A Mash
Non-Voting School’s Forum Representative:
Mrs B Carrington
Non-Voting Cabinet Member:
Mrs S Hutson
Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Member:
Mr I Mackie Education
Non-Voting Co-Opted Advisors:
Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Mr P Large Secondary Education
Mrs H Rowlinson Post-16 Education
1 Apologies and substitutions
Apologies were received from Mr P East, Mr B Hannah (Mr J Joyce substituting), Mr W Nunn (Mr P Wells substituting), and Mr B Spratt (Mr J Mooney substituting).
2 Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2009 were agreed by the Panel and signed as an accurate record of the meeting subject to the following amendment:
Members requested that 11.6 be added to the minutes to reflect the fact that “Mrs Clarke said that she would let the Panel know, in light of the debate on this item, whether or not she wished to sit on the working group.”
3 Declarations of Interests
Members declared the following interests:
Mr Cook Personal – Governor at Stradbroke Primary, Gorleston Mr Joyce Items Personal – Member of Adoption/Foster Panel 11,12, Personal – School Governor at 13 Reepham/Foulsham Mr Mackie Personal – Governor at Dussindale Primary School Mr Mash Item 12 Personal – Represents church schools Dr Poliakoff Personal – Governor at City of Norwich School and Recreation Road Mrs Thomas Item 11 Personal – Member of Adoption/Foster Panel Mr Wells Personal – Governor at Chapelbreak Infant School Mr Wright Item 8 Personal – Governor at Blenhem Park Community Primary School
4 Items of Urgent Business
4.1 The Chairman called on Mr Scutter who had an item of urgent business. He asked if children at Norfolk schools were fingerprinted for services such as school meals or taking out library books and, if so, could this subject be explored in more details.
4.2 The Director of Children’s Services agreed to look into this and report back to the Panel about this subject.
5 Public Question Time
There were no public questions.
6 Local Member Issues/Member Questions
There were no Local Member issues/Member questions.
7 Cabinet Member Feedback
7.1 The Cabinet Member reported that she was pleased with the results from Key Stage 2 and GCSEs and credited teachers, head teachers, parents, and Children’s Services staff for these positive results.
7.2 The Cabinet Member had recently attended the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme presentation at the Abbey Conference Centre and wanted to make Members aware of the outstanding work of Norfolk’s children and young people through their innovative projects.
Items for Scrutiny
8 Scrutiny Programme
8.1 The annexed report (8) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report contained details of the forward plan of scrutiny items. The Panel was requested to note the forward plan and agree to the appointment of a working group to undertake a scrutiny review of the recruitment and retention of head teachers. The Panel was asked to consider if there were any items which they wished to put forward for future scrutiny reviews.
8.2 During the discussion the following points were made:
While the constitutional rules were accepted, the valuable contribution which could be made by non-elected Members of the Panel was not being realised. It was suggested that non-elected Members of the Panel should be invited to join the working group as full Members and not as co-opted Members.
It was added that working groups should draw on the talent of Panel Members and not allocate Members of the working group along party political lines. It was suggested that all candidates state their relevant experience which made them ideal Members for the working group.
The Chairman clarified that the Panel was not to decide which individual Members would join the working group but just decided the number of members and whether or not membership would be politically proportionate or not. Individual members who would take up the agreed number set out by the Panel would be appointed by the Overview & Scrutiny Strategy Group.
8.3 The motion was put to the Panel that the make-up of the working group be the original make-up agreed with a ratio of 3:1:1 (Mr Carswell, Mrs Irving, Mrs Thomas, Mrs Clarke, and Mr Bearman), and also include non-elected members of the Panel as full Members and not as co-opted Members, specifically Dr Poliakoff. A vote was taken with a result of 5 in favour and 10 against and therefore the motion was defeated.
8.4 The motion was put to the Panel that the number of Members on the working group be 5 and that these be set out politically proportionately (4 Conservative Members and 1 Liberal Democrat Member) with the individuals to fill these roles be decided by the Overview & Scrutiny Strategy Group. A vote was taken with a result of 11 in favour and 4 against and therefore the motion was successful.
8.5 Following the two votes, the following points were made:
The Cabinet Member added that working groups tended to work together and rarely if never voted.
It was clarified that Members of the working group did not necessarily need to be Members of the Panel but they needed to be County Councillors.
Mr Mash noted that he had a role in appointing over one hundred headteachers throughout his career and that there was 105 years of combined relevant experience available from various members of the Panel.
The Overview & Scrutiny Strategy Group (OSSG) was made up of the group leads on the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee plus the Chairmen from each of the Overview & Scrutiny Panels. After the Panel decided on the number of places and political makeup of the working group the OSSG would decide on which individuals would sit on the working group.
8.6 The Panel AGREED:
To note the forward plan.
That there would be five Members (4 Conservative and 1 Liberal Democrat) on the working group to undertake a scrutiny review of the recruitment and retention of head teachers.
Items for Review
9 Children’s Services Financial Monitoring Report 2009/10 as at 31 July 2009
9.1 The annexed report (9) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report set out the projected variations between the approved budget for 2009/10 and year end spending projections as predicted for 31 March 2010. The paper commented on the Children’s Services Revenue Budget, Capital Budget, School Balances and Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions. The Panel was asked to consider the content of the report.
9.2 During the discussion the following points were made:
While the need to balance the budget was understood, the tactic of leaving posts vacant was questioned. It was asked whether this would process would continue to be used in future years to make the necessary savings. Assurances were sought that delaying recruitment to certain posts was not having an adverse effect on the service. The Director of Children’s Services responded to this question by explaining that each vacancy was carefully considered before recruitment was delayed and a risk assessment was carried out. High risk posts, such as social workers, were not delayed. It was noted that social workers was an area, however, where recruitment was difficult.
In response to question raised regarding Looked After Children (LAC), the Director of Children’s Services explained that the service was doing all it could to prevent family situations disintegrating to the point where children needed to be taken into care. Every single child was judged individually whether it was less destructive for the child to stay with their natural family or to be taken into care. She explained that in other authorities, figures of LAC were rising exponentially but in Norfolk, we were not seeing this level of change. She also pointed out that costs were not just affected by the numbers of children being taken into care but also by the cost of the care itself. Therefore, the service was looking at what could be done during the procurement process to bring these costs down.
In response to a question on the causes of family breakdown in light of the economic recession, the Director of Children’s Services said that it was difficult to say whether there was one particular cause for family breakdown and she thought it would be naïve to say that the economic recession was causing so many children to be taken into care around the country. However, she pointed out that nationally there was more awareness of family situations since the Baby P case and this may be one factor among several leading to the rise in numbers of LAC.
The Cabinet Member noted that the number of Looked After Children had only risen 3% since the beginning of the year and that this was not very substantial considering the current climate.
9.3 The Panel AGREED to note the report.
10 Children’s Services Performance Report Quarter 1 2009-10
10.1 The annexed report (10) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report included performance monitoring information for the first quarter of 2009-2010 and provided an update on the Joint Area Review (JAR) post inspection action plan 2008-09. The report was structure to help the service monitor progress against the Children’s Services Service Plan. In doing this it monitors key areas of performance against the County Council Plan and the service’s contribution to the Children and Young People’s Plan.
10.3 The Panel AGREED to note the report and that further reports would include the data for statistical neighbours for 2008/09 and whether targets were national or local ones.
11 Annual Report of the Norfolk County Council Adoption Agency & Adoption & Permanence Panels
11.1 The annexed report (11) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report worked toward satisfying the requirement of the Adoption Agencies Regulations that an annual report on the performance and achievements of each local authority’s Adoption Agency was considered by the Council’s executive. The Panel was asked to scrutinise and question the Adoption Agency Annual Report 2008/09 and to forward it, with comment, onto Cabinet.
11.2 During the discussion the following points were made:
The Corporate Parenting Service Manager apologised for a factual error which occurred at the top of the third page of the report. Instead of a figure of 80.3% it should read 68.7%, which means that Norfolk is in line with both the national and statistical neighbours’ performance in relation to this performance indicator.
Members congratulated officers on an exceptional report and asked them how they produced such positive results. In response, the Corporate Parenting Service Manager explained that Norfolk had a very high calibre of adoptive families which allowed the Norfolk County Council to exceed the figures of Norfolk’s local authority statistical neighbours and the national average for the number of children ceased to be looked after.
It was suggested that Members could send out letters within their divisions to request foster carers to come forward. The Director of Children’s Services stated that the service did have a recruitment team for foster carers but she thought this was an innovative idea and one worth exploring.
11.3 The Panel AGREED to forward the Adoption Agency Annual Report 2008/09 with its comments onto Cabinet.
12 School Organisation Proposals
12.1 The annexed report (12) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report updated Members on a number of school organisational issues that were of significant public interest. Members were asked to note the options for the future of primary school provision currently being consulted on in the Grimston, South Wootton, Mundesley, and Lingwood clusters for 3- year junior schools and their feeder first schools.
12.2 Following discussions with Children’s Services and Norwich Diocese officers, the Governing Body of Cringleford Voluntary Aided Primary had decided to consult formally on a proposal to increase in size the relocate to new premises on the Roundhouse Park development.
12.3 This report also brought Members up to date with progress in establishing Academies in the light of the previously approved academy strategy and proposed that an Expression of Interest be submitted to take forward the academies strategy under a single Trust in Thetford.
12.4 During the discussion the following points were made:
The Senior Development Officer for Review and Organisation confirmed that the consultation had been carried out with regard to the recent findings of the scrutiny working group which focussed on consultation processes within Children’s Services.
In response to a question about the results of the reorganisation, the Senior Development Officer for Review and Organisation noted that the relevant unions had been consulted and that there would be broadly the same number of staff required in the reorganised schools.
Regarding distribution of the proposals, the Senior Development Officer for Review and Organisation explained that the documents had been distributed widely but not to every resident. He confirmed that every parent or family of students affected would receive a copy of the proposal and would be invited to respond. In regards to Cringleford, the statutory requirements for consultation applied and the County Council would need to judge if the consultation was appropriate and efficient when it came to determining the formal proposal.
The Senior Development Officer for Review and Organisation was congratulated on the consultation on Earlham High School as those involved felt that they were involved and consulted satisfactorily.
It was requested that Members were updated and involved in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, particularly in view of the uncertainties around funding.
12.5 The Panel AGREED:
To note the proposed programme of review of 3-year junior school clusters in the Grimston, Lingwood, Mundesley and South Wooton areas.
To note the proposal to extend Cringleford VA Primary school on a site in the new housing development.
To note the progress of the Academies strategy in Earlham, King’s Lynn and Thetford.
To recommend that an Expression of Interest in line with the BSF submission be submitted for our academy strategy in Thetford.
13 Fair Funding Consultation
13.1 The annexed report (13) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report provided information on the issues that schools and other providers would be consulted on in respect of the funding arrangements for 2010/11 and sought the views of the Panel prior to the consultation papers being completed. The paper also sought nominations to represent the Panel at the Schools Forum/Overview and Scrutiny Liaison Group.
13.2 During the discussion the following points were made:
The Assistant Director for Resources and Efficiency clarified that any additional costs arising from the proposals in this consultation would have to be met by the schools budget through the Dedicated Schools Grant and that Children’s Services was aiming to keep the costs of the funding changes cost-neutral.
The Assistant Director for Resources and Efficiency advised Members that a detailed consultation paper would come to the January 2010 Panel meeting with the responses from the School’s Forum and the consultation results. He emphasised that at this meeting Children’s Services wanted to focus on principles rather than the outcome for individual schools.
13.3 The Chairman proposed that the number of Members who would represent the Panel at the Schools Forum/Overview and Scrutiny Liaison Group be five, with a political ratio of four Conservatives and one Liberal Democrat. A vote was taken and the motion was carried.
13.4 The Panel AGREED:
To note the consultation proposals.
That five Members, four Conservative and one Liberal Democrat, would represent the Panel for the Schools Forum/Overview and Scrutiny Panel Liaison Group. The individual Members to serve on this Group would be decided by the Overview & Scrutiny Strategy Group.
14 Review of School Admissions 2008/9
14.1 The annexed report (14) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. At the previous Panel meeting on 15 July 2009 the Panel requested information on admission pressures and this report gave information on the admission processes undertaken during the year.
14.2 The Panel AGREED the report.
The meeting concluded at 4:10 pm.
CHAIRMAN
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011
(textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Report to Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item no 9 Scrutiny Programme
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
This paper contains details of the forward plan of scrutiny items and reports on the appointment of members to a scrutiny working group to look at the recruitment and retention of head teachers.
1. Background 1.1 This is a standing item on the agenda of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel and provides an update on scrutiny reviews in Children’s Services.
2 Scrutiny review of the recruitment and retention of head teachers 2.1 At its last meeting the Panel agreed to proceed with a scrutiny review of the recruitment and retention of head teachers. In accordance with the new arrangements recommended by Cabinet and approved by Full Council, appointments to scrutiny groups are made by the Overview and Scrutiny Strategy Group (OSSG). At its meeting on 22 October OSSG agreed to appoint the following Members to the working group.
Tony Adams Conservative John Rogers Conservative Alison Thomas Conservative Paul Wells Conservative Diana Clarke Liberal Democrat
2.2 Arrangements are being made to hold the initial meeting of the working group and a progress report, including the working group’s terms of reference, will be made to the next meeting of the Panel
3. Current programme
Date of Topic Objective Next steps meeting 11 November Recruitment and To note the Working group to draw up 2009 retention of head appointment of its terms of reference and teachers a working agree a programme of work. group. 14 January Recruitment and To receive and Working group to continue 2010 retention of head approve the scrutiny and its agreed teachers terms of programme of work. reference
Originated by: Mick Sabec Created on: 9 October 2009 Version:Final
4. Future programme
4.1 The items in the table below were placed on the future programme by the previous Overview and Scrutiny Panel following assessment by the cross party Children’s Services Scrutiny Planning Group. The current members of the Scrutiny Planning Group are Councillors James Carswell, Mervyn Scutter, Richard Bearman and Bert Bremner.
Priority Items Raised at Overview and Scrutiny Scrutiny Panel (Date) Planning Group Score 1. Availability/condition of pupils’ September 2007 55/74 toilets in schools. 2. Strategy to combat racism and September 2006. 35/74 promote inter cultural Briefing paper March understanding 2008
4.2 All Members can propose items for scrutiny and inclusion on the future programme by completing a template (appendix 1) outlining the reasons for undertaking a scrutiny review. The completed template is then used by the Scrutiny Planning Group to assess and score items that have been proposed. This forms the basis of its recommendations to the full panel where a decision is made on which items should proceed. 4.3 It is recommended that new items be put forward for inclusion on the forward plan following scoring and prioritisation. 4.4 Currently all the items on the forward plan were agreed by the former Overview and Scrutiny Panel. It is important that the forward plan also reflects the views and priorities of members of the current Panel. Therefore, it is suggested that the Children’s Services Scrutiny Planning Group be asked to consider whether there are any significant performance issues that need to be scrutinised. The Scrutiny Planning Group could use the performance monitoring information as the reference point for undertaking this exercise. It would then report back to the Panel with its recommendations for items to be added to the forward plan
5. Equality Impact Assessment 5.1 The report is not directly relevant to equality in that it is not making proposals that will have a direct impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups.
6. Impact on Children & Young People in Norfolk 6.1 The scrutiny programme identifies items for review of areas that have a significant impact on the provision of services for children and young people.
2
Each of the scrutiny reviews is considering the means by which outcomes for children and young people can be improved.
7. Section 17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998 7.1 The Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. The direct implications have been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance. 8. Action Required
8.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is requested to note the forward plan and membership of the working group to undertake a scrutiny review of the recruitment and retention of head teachers. 8.2 Members of the panel are requested to consider if there any items which they wish to put forward for future scrutiny reviews. 8.3 The Children’s Services Scrutiny Planning Group be asked to identify areas of current performance that warrant scrutiny.
9. Officer Contact Mick Sabec (01603) 223499 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help
3
Appendix 1
Children’s Services: Scoring System for Scrutiny Reviews
Proposed Topic: Proposed by: Objective/Outcomes:
Criteria Score Supporting information/evidence (Use separate sheet if necessary) a) Score 0-10
1 Will the review contribute to the Children’s Services objectives and priorities?
2 Weak/Poor Performance – Are there issues of weak or poor performance?
3 Public importance – Is the issue ranked as important by young people and their parents/carers Norfolk?
4 Is there evidence of general dissatisfaction?
5 Will scrutiny be of benefit to young people (service delivery and improvement)?
6 Member concern – Has the matter been widely identified by Members as an issue? b) Score 0-5
7 Will the outcomes be measurable and of value (i.e., will the scrutiny ‘make a difference’?)
8 How practical is it to undertake the review? c) Score 0-2
9 Will scrutiny be of benefit to the
Children’s Services
10 Are there issues of financial control or
impact? TOTAL SCORE
Please return the completed form to [email protected]
4 Report to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item No 10
Children’s Services Performance Quarter 2 2009-10
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
This report sets out the performance monitoring information for the second quarter of 2009-2010 in the context of the Children’s Services Service Plan and how they relate to the council’s delivery of its corporate objectives.
The areas for consideration by the panel include: Year end performance data for 2008/2009 Progress and achievements against key service objectives in the Children’s Services Service Plan
Overview and Scrutiny Panel members are asked to consider and comment on: Progress for this quarter.
1 Background 1.1 The Children’s Services Service Plan represents our single integrated plan for Children’s Services. It is the plan through which we implement our strategic ambitions and corporate objectives, our contribution to the Children and Young People’s Plan and improvements in the five Every Child Matters outcomes as well as our outcomes and targets in the Norfolk Local Area Agreement. 1.2 Year end results for 2008/09 were reported at Quarter 4. Attached at Appendix A is our year end results compared to our statistical neighbours and the England averages.
2 Current Performance Monitoring 2009/10 2.1 National Indicators are reported annually throughout the year. The reporting timescales mean that year end data is reported in year rather than at Quarter 4. Each quarterly report will highlight where new, year-end data is available. 2.2 Appendix A provides an update based on Ofsted of how Norfolk Children’s Services compared with its statistical neighbours and the English average for the year ending March 2009. There is a mix of data years as some results are based on academic year whilst others are based on financial years. 2.3 Appendix B sets out any new year end information that has been published in quarter 2 and any indicators that are monthly monitored. In this second Quarter report there is new year-end data for NI 72, NI 73, NI 75 and NI 92. 2.4 Prism, our performance management system, assigns a performance alert based on how our results compare to the target. On target or better is denoted by a star ( ). Below target but within 5% variance is shown by a circle alert ( ). More than 5% below target is shown by a triangle alert ( ). 2.5 Appendix C sets out Norfolk’s Performance Profile produced by Ofsted. This is the third performance profile we have received from Ofsted and is a mix of 2007/08 and 2008/09 data. The profile combines information from inspected services – childcare services, schools, colleges, children’s homes and fostering and adoption services – safeguarding inspections and serious case reviews; and from performance against the national indicator set. This will now be updated by Ofsted quarterly.
3 Annual Rating of Councils Children’s Services for 2009 Update. 3.1 Under the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA), Ofsted is charged with providing an annual performance rating for children’s services for each local authority area. This rating will contribute significantly to the managing performance theme of the CAA organisational assessment.
3.2 The rating will be published as part of the overall CAA Area Assessment and Organisational assessments by the Audit Commission on the Oneplace website on 10 December 2009. The Oneplace website is a new joint inspectorate website for independent information about the performance and prospects for improvement of local public services throughout England.
4 Progress against Corporate Objectives The following sections set out progress against key areas of performance improvement within our service objectives.
4.1 Corporate Objective - Improve the health and well-being of Norfolk’s residents
4.1.1 Service Objective - Improve the sexual health of young people Norfolk’s teenage pregnancy work is part of a national strategy to reach the target of reducing the rate of teenage conceptions among under-18s by 50% (rate per 1000 15-17 young people) from a baseline set in 1998. Norfolk’s under-18 conception rate, as of the last nationally produced figures for 2007, is 40.4 per 1000 girls aged 15-17. This is lower than the national average of 41.7. However, whilst the teenage conception rate in England declined by 10.7% between 1998 and 2007, in Norfolk it increased by 9.1%.
4.1.2 The actual number of Norfolk’s under-18 conceptions in 2007 was 591. Therefore to achieve the Norfolk target for 2010, we need to ‘prevent’ 296 conceptions.
4.1.3 There are hotspot wards in across the county where the rates rise up to 1 in every 9 young women becoming pregnant before they reach age 18. The high rates of teenage pregnancy in these wards reflect high levels of socio- economic deprivation and low levels of aspiration.
4.1.4 The reduction of teenage conceptions and provision of effective support for teenage parents has been adopted as one of the highest priorities for the Children and Young People’s Partnership Trust and the following key actions were confirmed at the Trust Board meeting in September 2009 Improved sex and relationship education in the county including In school and out-of-school settings Supporting parents to discuss sex and relationships Targeted sex and relationship work with young people ‘at risk’ Underpinned by workforce training on sex and relationship education Young people friendly contraception services Strong, consistent messages to children, young people, parents and partner agencies Building aspirations and self-esteem Good use of local data Effective youth service with things to do and places to go.
4.2 Corporate Objective - Help make Norfolk a safe place to live and work
4.2.1 Service Objective - Reduce the number of young people entering the youth justice system for the first time and the number of young people who re-offend 4.2.2 Reducing the number of First Time Entrants into the criminal justice system by the end of March 2011 is a designated priority target in the Norfolk Local Area Agreement (National Indicator 111). The baseline is the 2007/08 performance as indicated by the Police National Computer (PNC) which was 1607 young people. The common national target is a 2% annual reduction by the end of March 2011. This equates to actual numbers of young people in the range of 1499 - 1515.
4.2.3 Although the 2008/09 data will not be available from the PNC until November 2009, performance on this indicator (based on YOT data) continues to be positive. Further to the 23.8% decrease in First Time Entrants in 2008/09 (1442 first time entrants reduced to 1102 based on final YOT data) provisional performance for Quarter 1 of 2009/10 shows a further decrease of 28.8% (288 first time entrants reduced to 205).
4.3 Corporate Objective - Improve educational attainment and help children and young people achieve their ambitions 4.3.1 Service Objective - Improve the achievement of young children at the end of the Foundation Stage Ofsted regularly inspects early year’s settings in a similar process to schools. They are divided into two areas; groups and childminders. Group settings include playgroups, pre-schools and nurseries, all in the private, voluntary and independent sector. In Norfolk, 154 inspections in such settings have taken place since April 2009 with 104 judged as good or outstanding.
4.3.2 Service Objective - Increase levels of attendance in schools As part of the Government’s specific drive to raise pupil attendance in schools the DCSF has focused, for the past three years, on persistent absence (PA). ‘Persistent absentee’ is defined as a pupil who, at any point in the year, has accumulated absence at 20% or more of the available sessions, regardless of whether or not any of the absence is authorised.
Data for the autumn and spring terms 2008-09 shows that our percentage of persistent absentees has improved (on the previous year equivalent period from 7.6% to 6.7%). The number of persistent absentees has also reduced by 700 from 4809 to 4109. Despite this Norfolk remains an Intensive Support Authority.
In order to meet targets in the Children’s Plan and following analysis by the DCSF of the absence data for the autumn and spring terms 2008/09, an adjustment has been made to the criteria used to identify priority schools for persistent absence for the school year 2009/10. The focus is to be on schools where the data shows they have more than 6% of their pupils who are persistently absent.
For Norfolk this means that there are 25 secondary schools that fall into this category.
In addition 32 primary schools have been identified as a priority based on having a PA figure higher than 2.5% and at least 10 pupils. We will be working in partnership with schools to ensure improvement.
4.3.3 Service Objective - Reduce the number of schools in Ofsted categories Since last reported to the panel, there has been no publication of school inspections to report. In line with the new academic year starting in September a number of Norfolk schools are currently being inspected the results will be reported to the panel in a future report.
4.3.4 Service Objective - Increase the number of children and young people reaching expected levels of attainment at age 7 and 11 Further provisional key stage 2 has been published for the academic year of 2008/09. For Norfolk the overall the picture is the same as last year. In mathematics level 4 (or better) results improved by 1% and level 4 in english dropped by 1%. The percentage of children gaining a level 4 in both english and mathematics remains the same at 69%. This is line with the national picture, which has also stayed the same at 72%. There has been some improvements in target groups results for boys eligible for free school meals results have improved by 2% for level 4 or better in writing from 32% to 34% at the lowest attaining schools there has been on average a 12% increase in pupils achieving level 4 or better in english and mathematics. 4.3.5 School Improvement ‘Better Together’, a recent study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families has praised collaborative working between four Norfolk Schools. The study recommends more small rural schools adopt Norfolk’s successful approach of supporting joint heads and close working between small rural schools. Norfolk currently has 18 partnerships amongst some of its 130 primary schools with fewer than 100 pupils, with more in preparation.
The study found the Norfolk model of executive headship was a highly effective response for small rural schools. The effectiveness of partnerships had created higher added value scores, raised expectations, recruitment of better qualified staff, wider opportunities for professional development and more effective leadership.
4.3.6 Service Objective - Increase the number of children and young people reaching expected levels of attainment at 16 (GCSE) Provisional, GCSE data was published on 27th August 2009 to schools. An initial analysis of the overall Norfolk picture was included in the last report to the panel. Further provisional information has been released and we can now breakdown the results to an Area level. The Norfolk average for 5 GCSE A*-C including English and Maths is 49.6%. This is in line with the National average of 49.7% and slightly below the East of England average of 51.7%.
% of 5 GCSE A* - C % of 5 GCSE A* - C including English and Maths 2008 2009 % up 2008 2009 % up East 45.6 49.4 3.8 58.8 63.8 5.0 Central 48.3 51.0 2.7 60.3 63.6 3.3 North 52.8 53.0 0.2 64.6 65.9 1.3 South 56.2 58.0 1.9 66.1 69.5 3.4 West 38.1 40.9 2.8 52.0 58.7 6.7
4.3.7 Service Objective – Increase the range of places for young people (11 to 19) to go and positive activities for them engage in. Norfolk Celebrating Talent The Norfolk Sports and Cultural Foundation, which is funded by the County Council provides financial support to young people who excel in a sporting or cultural arena. One of its schemes is Rising Stars and under this scheme many young people have already seen their achievements grow. Success so far includes a number Norfolk Risings Stars featuring in UK Athletics top 10 athlete’s programme which is aimed at raising standards in preparation for London 2012, a junior alpine ski champion and a British Olympic Association’s ‘Archer of the year’.
5 Commentary on managing Children’s Services risks 5.1 Risks to achieving the service objectives are contained within the Children’s Services risk register. These continue to be monitored and reported on.
6 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) 6.1 The Children’s Services Service Plan represents activity agreed as part of the Council’s wider strategic agenda to address inequality over the medium to long term.
7 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
7.1 Measuring performance against the service plan actions and the national indicators are used to monitor progress against the services plan objectives and measure the impact of the children and young people’s plan 2009-2010.
8 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act 8.1 There are no specific implications for crime and disorder reduction. However, many of the indicators included in this report have indirect implications for crime and disorder reduction.
9 Action Required 9.1 Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained within this report.
10 Background Papers Children’s Services Service Plan Norfolk County Council Plan Children and Young People Plan Norfolk Action
10 Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Katherine Attwell 01603 638002 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendix A - Comparator Information for Year ending 2008/2009 - As at end of August 2009. Statistical Norfolk Statistical England Outcome National Indicator Unit England Neighbour Good Performance 2008/09 Neighbours Comparison Comparison NI 50 Emotional health 1. Being healthy % - TellUs 62.5 61.6 63.4 Inline Inline bigger is better of children NI 51 Effectiveness of child and adolescent Self assessed score 1. Being healthy 13 14 14 Inline Inline bigger is better mental health out of 16 (CAMHS) services NI 52 Take up of % - School Fund Trust 1. Being healthy school lunches - 35.3 32.6 40.6 Inline Inline bigger is better survey Primary NI 52 Take up of % - School Fund Trust 1. Being healthy school lunches - 30.4 28.1 37.6 Inline Inline bigger is better survey Secondary NI 53 Prevalence of 1. Being healthy breastfeeding at 6 - 8 % 46.7 46.4 44.5 Inline Inline bigger is better weeks from birth Information not currently available from NI 54 Services for 1. Being healthy % - DCSF Survey 60 61.6 63.3 bigger is better Ofsted. Proxy data not sourced from disabled children Ofsted. NI 55 Obesity among primary school age 1. Being healthy % 9.4 9.1 9.9 Inline Inline smaller is better children in Reception Year NI 56 Obesity among 1. Being healthy primary school age % 18.3 16.5 18.9 Inline Inline smaller is better children in Year 6 NI 57 Children and young people's % - Schools Sports 1. Being healthy 84 82 76 Inline Inline bigger is better participation in high- Survey quality PE and sport NI 58 Emotional and Number - strength & Information not currently available from 1. Being healthy behavioural health of difficulties 14.3 smaller is better Ofsted. children in care questionnaires NI 199 Children and young people's 1. Being healthy % - TellUs 46.5 40.4 44.8 Above Inline bigger is better satisfaction with parks and play areas Appendix A - Comparator Information for Year ending 2008/2009 - As at end of August 2009. Statistical Norfolk Statistical England Outcome National Indicator Unit England Neighbour Good Performance 2008/09 Neighbours Comparison Comparison NI 48 Children killed or % change comparison 2. Staying safe seriously injured in (based on 3 yr rolling 4.3 5 6.6 Inline Inline bigger is better road traffic accidents average) NI 69 Children who 2. Staying safe have experienced % - TellUs 54.5 50.8 47.2 Below Below smaller is better bullying NI 70 Hospital admissions caused by unintentional and 2. Staying safe Number per 10,000 118.8 122.4 123.9 Inline Inline smaller is better deliberate injuries to children and young people NI 71 Children who Information not currently 2. Staying safe have run away from Number - Survey 11 smaller is better available from Ofsted. home/care overnight NI 68 Referrals to children's social care 2. Staying safe % 63.7 75.4 66.5 Inline Inline plan is best going on to initial assessment NI 59 Initial assessments for children's social care 2. Staying safe % 68.1 66.7 72.9 Inline Inline bigger is better carried out within 7 working days of referral NI 60 Core assessments for children's social care 2. Staying safe that were carried out % 79.9 72.4 78.4 Inline Inline bigger is better within 35 working days of their commencement NI 64 Child protection 2. Staying safe plans lasting 2 years or % 3.4 5.9 5.3 Inline Inline plan is best more NI 65 Children becoming the subject 2. Staying safe of a Child Protection % 23.8 13.9 12.5 Below Below plan is best Plan for a second or subsequent time NI 67 Child protection No banding from Ofsted cases which were or comparator view. Proxy 2. Staying safe % 100.0 98.9 98.2 bigger is better reviewed within data not sourced from required timescales Ofsted. NI 61 Stability of looked after children adopted following an Information not currently 2. Staying safe % 74.5 bigger is better agency decision that available from Ofsted the child should be placed for adoption NI 62 Stability of placements of looked Information not currently 2. Staying safe % 9.5 smaller is better after children: number available from Ofsted of moves NI 63 Stability of placements of looked Information not currently 2. Staying safe % 68.7 bigger is better after children: length of available from Ofsted placement NI 66 Looked after children cases which Information not currently 2. Staying safe % 76.2 bigger is better were reviewed within available from Ofsted required timescales Appendix A - Comparator Information for Year ending 2008/2009 - As at end of August 2009. Statistical Statistical England Outcome National Indicator Unit Norfolk 2008/09 England Neighbour Good Performance Neighbours Comparison Comparison NI 72 Achievement of at least 78 points across 3. Enjoying and the Early Years Foundation Stage with at least % 48 49.9 48.5 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving 6 in each of the scales in Personal Social and Emotional Development and Communication,
3. Enjoying and NI 109 Number of Sure Start Children Centres % 66.7 bigger is better achieving Information not currently available from Ofsted. NI 92 Narrowing the gap between the lowest 3. Enjoying and achieving 20% in the Early Years Foundation % 34.6 33.9 34.8 Inline Inline achieving Stage Profile and the rest
3. Enjoying and NI 93 Progression by 2 levels in English % 79.4 83.5 83 bigger is better achieving between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 Information not currently available from Ofsted.
3. Enjoying and NI 94 Progression by 2 levels in Maths % 74.3 78.03 78.8 bigger is better achieving between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 Information not currently available from Ofsted.
3. Enjoying and NI 73 Achievement at level 4 or above in both % 69 71.7 71.9 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving English and Maths at Key Stage 2 (Threshold)
3. Enjoying and NI 76 Achievement at level 4 or above in both Number 30 12 9 smaller is better achieving English and Maths at KS2 (Floor) No banding from Ofsted
3. Enjoying and NI 99 Children in care reaching level 4 in % 53 53.2 47.6 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving English at Key Stage 2
3. Enjoying and NI 100 Children in care reaching level 4 in % 57 46.3 45.3 Above Inline bigger is better achieving Maths at Key Stage 2
NI 104 The Special Educational Needs 3. Enjoying and (SEN)/non-SEN gap achieving Key Stage 2 % 53 52 50 Inline Inline smaller is better achieving English and Maths threshold 3. Enjoying and NI 107 Key Stage 2 attainment for Black and % 69.1 73.6 73.6 Below Below bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - White group
3. Enjoying and NI 107 Key Stage 2 attainment for Black and % 69 75.2 74.2 Below Inline bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - Mixed group
3. Enjoying and NI 107 Key Stage 2 attainment for Black and % 82.5 71.1 72.7 Above Above bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - Asian group
3. Enjoying and NI 107 Key Stage 2 attainment for Black and % 39 61 62.3 Below Below bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - Black group
3. Enjoying and NI 107 Key Stage 2 attainment for Black and % 62.5 71.5 77.7 Inline Below bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - Chinese group
NI 102 Achievement gap between pupils 3. Enjoying and eligible for free school meals and their peers % 26.1 25 22.9 Inline Inline smaller is better achieving achieving the expected level at Key Stages 2
NI 102 Achievement gap between pupils 3. Enjoying and eligible for free school meals and their peers % 27.2 30.2 27.4 Inline Inline smaller is better achieving achieving the expected level at Key Stages 4
NI 75 Achievement of 5 or more A*-C grades 3. Enjoying and at GCSE or equivalent including English and % 47.9 49.6 47.8 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving Maths (Threshold)
NI 78 Achievement of 5 or more A*-C grades 3. Enjoying and at GCSE and equivalent including GCSEs in Number 7 2.9 smaller is better achieving Information not currently available from English and Maths (Floor) Ofsted. NI 101 Children in care achieving 5 A*-C 3. Enjoying and GCSEs (or equivalent) at Key Stage 4 % 10.5 bigger is better achieving Information not currently available from (including English and Maths) Ofsted. NI 105 The Special Educational Needs 3. Enjoying and (SEN)/non-SEN gap achieving 5 A*-C GCSE % 41.3 46.1 44.5 Inline Inline smaller is better achieving inc. English and Maths
3. Enjoying and NI 84 Achievement of 2 or more A*-C grades % 49.5 54.1 49.6 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving in Science GCSEs or equivalent
3. Enjoying and NI 108 Key Stage 4 attainment for Black and % 47.5 49.3 47.1 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - White group 3. Enjoying and NI 108 Key Stage 4 attainment for Black and % 50.4 54.4 48.8 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - Mixed group 3. Enjoying and NI 108 Key Stage 4 attainment for Black and % 50 54.8 52.2 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - Asian group
3. Enjoying and NI 108 Key Stage 4 attainment for Black and % 55.6 31.1 40.8 Above Above bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - Black group
3. Enjoying and NI 108 Key Stage 4 attainment for Black and % 76 59.7 68.5 Inline Inline bigger is better achieving minority ethnic groups - Chinese group
3. Enjoying and NI 85 Post-16 participation in physical Number 362 278.4 bigger is better achieving sciences (A Level Chemistry) No comparator data in Ofsted profile
3. Enjoying and NI 85 Post-16 participation in physical Number 532 438.6 bigger is better achieving sciences (A Level Maths) No comparator data in Ofsted profile
3. Enjoying and NI 85 Post-16 participation in physical Number 288 205.3 bigger is better achieving sciences (A Level Physics) No comparator data in Ofsted profile
3. Enjoying and NI 90 Take up of 14-19 learning diplomas Number achieving Information not currently available from Ofsted.
3. Enjoying and NI 86 Secondary schools judged as having % 65 82 76 Below Inline bigger is better achieving good or outstanding standards of behaviour
3. Enjoying and NI 87 Secondary school persistent absence % 6.6 4.9 5.6 Below Inline bigger is better achieving rate
3. Enjoying and NI 88 Number of Extended Schools % 84 bigger is better achieving no comparator data in Ofsted profile or on measures catalogue
3. Enjoying and NI 89 Reduction of number of schools judged Number 12 smaller is better achieving as requiring special measures no comparator data in Ofsted profile or on measures catalogue
3. Enjoying and NI 89 Improvement in time taken to come out Number 19 18 19 Inline Inline smaller is better achieving of the special measures category
3. Enjoying and NI 103 Special Educational Needs statements % bigger is better achieving issued within 26 weeks Information not currently available from Ofsted. Appendix A - Comparator Information for Year ending 2008/2009 - As at end of August 2009. Statistical Norfolk Statistical England Outcome National Indicator Unit England Neighbour Good Performance 2008/09 Neighbours Comparison Comparison 4. Making a NI 110 Young people's positive participation in positive % - TellUs 74.2 71.4 69 Inline Inline bigger is better contribution activities 4. Making a NI 112 Under 18 change in rate per positive 9.1 -8.8 -9.8 Below Below smaller is better conception rate 1,000 girls aged 15-17 contribution 4. Making a NI 113 Prevalence of Information not higher percentages positive Chlamydia in under 20 % per 10,000 screened 15.36 currently available from screened contribution year olds Ofsted. 4. Making a NI 115 Substance positive misuse by young % 11 12.9 10.7 Inline Inline smaller is better contribution people NI 111 First time 4. Making a No comparator entrants to the Youth positive Rate per 10,000 2060 1713 1907.2 Below Inline smaller is better information available Justice System aged contribution from Ofsted 10-17 4. Making a NI 19 Rate of proven positive re-offending by young Number 0.9 0.8 0.8 Inline Inline smaller is better contribution offenders NI 43 Young people within the Youth 4. Making a Justice System positive % 4.7 3.5 6.3 Inline Inline lower percentages receiving a conviction contribution in court who are sentenced to custody NI 44 Ethnic composition of 4. Making a offenders on Youth Zero/lower positive % -0.5 -0.6 -2.6 Inline Justice System percentages contribution disposals - Asian or Asian British NI 44 Ethnic composition of 4. Making a offenders on Youth Zero/lower positive % 0.5 0.2 4.3 Inline Justice System percentages contribution disposals - Black or Black British NI 44 Ethnic composition of 4. Making a offenders on Youth Zero/lower positive % -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Inline Justice System percentages contribution disposals - Chinese or other ethnic group NI 44 Ethnic 4. Making a composition of Zero/lower positive offenders on Youth % 0.1 -0.1 1 Inline percentages contribution Justice System disposals - Mixed NI 44 Ethnic 4. Making a composition of Zero/lower positive offenders on Youth % 0.4 1 -2.1 Inline percentages contribution Justice System disposals -White
NI 45 Young offenders 4. Making a engagement in suitable positive % 63.7 71.3 73.2 Inline Below bigger is better education, employment contribution or training
4. Making a NI 46 Young offenders positive access to suitable % 96.4 95.9 95.7 Inline Inline bigger is better contribution accommodation
4. Making a NI 114 Rate of positive permanent exclusions % 0.07 0.09 0.11 Inline Inline smaller is better contribution from school Appendix A - Comparator Information for Year ending 2008/2009 - As at end of August 2009. Statistical Statistical England Outcome National Indicator Unit Norfolk 2008/09 England Neighbour Good Performance Neighbours Comparison Comparison
5. Achieving economic NI 116 Proportion of children in poverty No data available well-being
5. Achieving economic NI 118 Take up of formal childcare by low- % 13 15.3 17.4 Inline Below bigger is better well-being income working families
5. Achieving economic NI 91 Participation of 17 year-olds in education % 72 77 77 Below Inline bigger is better well-being or training
5. Achieving economic NI 117 16 to 18 year olds who are not in % 5.2 5.8 6.9 Inline Inline smaller is better well-being education, training or employment (NEET)
5. Achieving economic NI 148 Care leavers in employment, education % 33.3 bigger is better No comparator data available from Ofsted well-being or training
5. Achieving economic NI 79 Achievement of a Level 2 qualification by % 71.8 75.5 72.4 Below Inline bigger is better well-being the age of 19
5. Achieving economic NI 82 Inequality gap in the achievement of a % 53.7 53.5 55.9 Inline Inline smaller is better well-being Level 2 qualification by the age of 19
5. Achieving economic NI 80 Achievement of a Level 3 qualification by % 43.3 48.9 46.9 Below Inline bigger is better well-being the age of 19
5. Achieving economic NI 81 Inequality gap in the achievement of a % 25.6 29.6 25.1 Inline Inline smaller is better well-being Level 3 qualification by the age of 19
5. Achieving economic NI 106 Young people from low income % 21 22 19 Inline Inline smaller is better well-being backgrounds progressing to higher education
5. Achieving economic NI 147 Care leavers in suitable accommodation % 94.1 bigger is better No comparator data available from Ofsted well-being Appendix B As at 22/10/09
Year End figures Norfolk National Norfolk Prism Good Plan Norfolk Outcome Area Indicator Description Rationale Unit Actual alert Comments Performance Target Actual Number 08/09 09/10 09/10 09/10 Children’s attainment is monitored from pre- Percent of pupils (aged 5) achieving at least 78 school to leaving school in order to points across the early years foundation stage Improvement track progress and tackle poor Higher Enjoy & Achieve 72 with at least 6 in each of the scales in personal % 48 58.9 48 action plans performance and its roots either in percentages social and emotional development and are in place personal circumstances or teaching communication, language and literacy quality. Children’s attainment is monitored from pre-school to leaving school in order to Improvement Percent of pupils at level 4 or above in both track progress and tackle poor Higher Enjoy & Achieve 73 % 69 78 68.7 action plans English and Maths at Key Stage 2 (aged 11) performance and its roots either in percentages are in place personal circumstances or teaching quality. Children’s attainment is monitored from pre-school to leaving school in order to Percent of pupils achieving 5 or more A*-C track progress and tackle poor Higher Enjoy & Achieve 75 grades at GCSE or equivalent including Maths % 47.9 51 49.6 performance and its roots either in percentages and English (aged 16) personal circumstances or teaching quality. Children’s attainment is monitored from Percentage point difference between the pre-school to leaving school in order to Improvement median Foundation Stage Profile score track progress and tackle poor Enjoy & Achieve 92 % Lower Numbers 34.6 29.2 35.6 action plans (children aged 5) and the mean score of the performance and its roots either in are in place lowest achieving 20% personal circumstances or teaching quality. Children’s achievement and growth is based on a range of factors outside of Percent of schools providing access to the full Higher Enjoy & Achieve 88 teaching and the extended schools % 84 85 88 core offer of extended schools. percentages programme aims to tackle these issues as well. Appendix B As at 22/10/09
Latest Monthly figures Norfolk National Norfolk Norfolk Date of Good Plan Outcome Area Indicator Description Rationale Unit Actual latest for Norfolk Performance Target Number 08/09 09/10 latest 09/10 This indicator looks at the number of Percent of young people (aged 10-17) in the young people (aged 10-17) who have Lower Staying Safe 43 youth justice system receiving a conviction in % 5 5.6 Jun-09 5 offended and received a punishment from percentages court who are sentenced to custody. court. Preventing young people (aged 10-17) from entering or re-entering the youth justice system is the responsibility of local councils, the Youth Offending Team, Young offenders engagement in suitable police and partners. If young offenders Higher Staying Safe 45 % 54.3 54.3 Jun-09 75 education, employment or training are receiving an education, are training or percentages are working they are less likely to commit offences again. This indicator tracks the young offender and whether they are in education, training or employment. It is important to diagnose the needs of Percent of children’s social care initial children and young people at risk quickly Higher Staying Safe 59 assessments carried out within 7 working days in order to put services in place to meet % 75 68.8 Aug-09 80 percentages of referral these before they get worse. This is the first stage of that process. It is important to diagnose the needs of children and young people at risk quickly Percent of children’s social care core in order to put services in place to meet Higher Staying Safe 60 assessments that were carried out within 35 % 75 76.3 Aug-09 80 these before they get worse. This is the percentages working days second stage of that process, once immediate needs have been dealt with. The more stable the caring environment for Percent of children looked after with 3 or more looked after children the more secure Lower Staying Safe 62 % 10 8.9 Aug-09 9 placements during the year they are and the better progress they percentages make. Percent of children ceasing to be the subject of The more stable the caring environment a Child Protection Plan who had been the for looked after children the more secure Lower Staying Safe 64 % 1.3 3.9 Aug-09 1.3 subject of Plan continuously for 2 years or they are and the better progress they percentages longer make. Lower percentages (though there will always be Children’s needs should be dealt with as some Percent of children becoming the subject of a fully as possible during their first period of children in Staying Safe 65 Child Protection Plan for a second or time under a Child Protection Plan so the % 14 21.3 Aug-09 14 need subsequent time need to have one later on should be who should be reduced made the subject of a child protection plan). We need to ensure that young people’s Percent of looked after children whose cases Higher Staying Safe 66 needs are met throughout their time % 95 78.4 Sep-09 95 were reviewed in timescale. percentages under our supervision. We need to ensure that young people’s Percent of children whose Child Protection Plan Higher Staying Safe 67 needs are met throughout their time % 100 100 Aug-09 100 has been reviewed in timescale. percentages under our supervision. Ideally the percentage should not be too high or It is important to diagnose the needs of too low, but Percent of children’s social care referrals that children and young people at risk quickly Staying Safe 68 % should fall 70 62.3 Aug-09 70 lead to an initial assessment in order to put services in place to meet within the these before they get worse. median percentage band of all authorities. Percent of secondary schools with good or Schools with good qualities of behaviour Higher Enjoy & Achieve 86 outstanding standards of behaviour as provide an environment in which children % 50 61.5 Sep-09 68.5 percentages assessed by Ofsted. learn better. Percent of secondary school pupils absent for Pupils who are absent from school often Lower Enjoy & Achieve 87 % 6.9 6.7 Jun-09 5.9 20% or more of the available sessions achieve less well. percentages a) Number of schools in special measures at Enjoy & Achieve 89a Special measures’ is a term used by No.No schools in 5 4 Sep-09 3 the end of the summer term each year Ofsted, the schools inspection agency, to special describe schools it believes are failing to measures; or supply an acceptable level of education. any schools in Reducing the number of schools in special special measures should indicate that a measures to satisfactory education service is being be judged provided locally. Special Measures are a as making category assigned by Ofsted to schools good that are not performing well judged by progress at the inspections. This looks at how many 12- schools fall into that category and how month quickly we put remedial measures in monitoring b) Average time (whole months) spent by place to get them out. visit. Enjoy & Achieve 89b schools in special measures during previous No. 15 21 Sep-09 15 academic year
% of Final Statements issued within 26 weeks The sooner the additional needs of young Higher Enjoy & Achieve 103a % 98 77.7 Sep-09 98 excluding exceptions (financial year to date) people are identified the sooner they can percentages be met with additional resources to help them achieve their full potential % of Final Statements issued within 26 weeks Higher Enjoy & Achieve 103b % 70 69.2 Sep-09 70 (financial year to date) percentages Percent of the total school population Lower Enjoy & Achieve 114 % of all pupils with a permanent exclusion % 0.08 0.10 Sep-09 0.08 receiving a permanent exclusion. percentages Local area children's services performance profile: Local area: Norfolk summary profile Reporting Date: Quarter 3 : 14 August 2009
Inspected Services Safeguarding and looked after children inspections, including unannounced inspections and % of providers judged outstanding, good, satisfactory, inadequate for Overall Effectiveness serious case reviews Annual unannounced referral and assessment (safeguarding) n/a n/a inspection Outstanding/Good/ %Good or Similar National Satisfactory/ Inadequate Number Inspected Better Areas Average Three-yearly inspection of safeguarding n/a n/a
Childminder 675 5 61 31 3 66% below above Three-yearly inspection of services for looked after children n/a n/a
Childcare - Domestic Serious Case Reviews conducted adequately or better 01/04/07 - 15/07/09 3 out of 4 Joint Area Review Nov '08 Looked after Children Good Childcare - Non-Domestic 387 3 66 29 2 69% below above Nov '08 Safeguarding Good
Nursery 89 8 64 28 72% below below Every Child Matters indicators: National Indicator Set
Primary 360 7 51 41 1 58% below below Count of indicators Comparison with Comparison with with data Similar Areas National Average
Secondary 51 6 49 39 6 55% below below % of Indicators in upper/upper Data Total middle/ lower middle/lower quartiles Sixth Form School 31 16 42 35 6 58% below below Available NIS Above In line Below Above In line Below
1. Being healthy 10 11 10 50 30 10 1 8 0 0 10 0 Special 12 42 50 8 92% above above
2. Staying safe 12 14 8 33 25 33 0 9 3 1 8 3 Pupil Referral Unit 5 60 40 60% below below 3. Enjoying and 24 36 13 38 25 25 3 16 5 2 19 3 General Further Education achieving 4 25 50 25 75% above above and Tertiary 4. Making a positive 14 15 14 29 43 14 0 7 2 0 12 2 contribution Sixth Form College 2 100 100% in line above 5. Achieving 10 11 10 30 30 30 0 6 4 0 9 1 Independent Specialist economic well-being
College Click here to view all latest NIS data Children's Home 8 13 63 25 75% above above Notes: Local Authority Fostering 1 100 100% above above 1) Please see the Ofsted publication 'CAA: annual rating of council children's services' for a full list of the indicators used to produce this Agency summary profile, indicators included in the full performance profile, and other evidence used to inform the children and young people Local Authority Adoption element of the joint inspectorate CAA report. 1 100 100% above above Agency 2) For inspected services data the bands for % judged good or better are based on the following cut off points: dark green is 80% of providers or over, light green is 65-79.99%, amber is 50-64.99%, red is less than 50%. Private Fostering 3) For ECM/NIS data, data available is the number of indicators where data currently available to Ofsted, and total NIS is the number of 1 100 0% below below Arrangements NIS indicators relevant to this outcome. Some NIS are not available until the second year of CAA. For year 1 the bands are based on quartile distribution. The most up to date time period available is used for the summary profile, but time periods vary between different indicators (for instance financial or academic year). ECM grades from Ofsted inspections of providers will also be considered as part of the full performance profile. Click here for further detail and ECM judgements 4) Comparison with similar areas is based on the children's services statistical neighbours groups developed by NFER and DCSF. 5) NI78, NI67, NI89a and NI76 have been excluded from the quartiles banding and comparisons with Statistical Neighbours and National Average 6) Sixth form schools includes secondary schools, special schools and PRUs
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item no 11 Children’s Services Financial Monitoring Report 2009/10 as at 30 September 2009
Report by Director of Children’s Services
Executive Summary This paper sets out the projected variations between the approved budget for 2009/10 and year end spending projections as at 31 March 2010. The paper comments on the Children’s Services Revenue Budget, Capital Budget, School Balances and Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions.
The main points within the paper are The Children’s Services revenue budget remains on target to be on budget at year end. The report highlights a significant budget overspend on school pension/redundancy costs which is off set by a number of saving on other budgets. The Schools Budget variations remains contained within the approved contingency fund. The Capital Budget is being managed with a reduced level of slippage, ie £571,000 or 0.4%, this period compared to the report in September. The projected level of school balances at 31 March 2010 has increased by £539,000 or 4.2% since the September report. The projected level of balances and provisions at 31 March 2010 has increased by £581,000 0r 2.6% since the September report.
Action required The Review Panel is asked to consider the content of this report.
______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 1 of 9 1. Introduction
This is the second 2009/10 financial monitoring report to the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel. This report shows the relative value of the revenue budget variation and clearly distinguishes between activities funded from the County Council and those funded from the Dedicated Schools Grant.
2. Children’s Services Revenue Budget
The 2009/10 Children’s Services revenue budget is £166.447 million. There is no Local Authority funding of schools as they are funded completely by the Dedicated Schools Grant.
Since the start of the year the 2009/10 budget has been reviewed to: ensure the adequacy of each budget; ensure the savings projections built into the 2009/10 budget are deliverable, and reflect the management review of spending undertaken to achieve a balanced budget.
This current report based on September monitoring information shows a projected balanced revenue budget at the end of the year.
The following summary table shows by type of budget, the spending projections for the period. The table shows the projected variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget.
Projected Variance Total Movement % of £000 £000 Budget Budget Increases Looked after Children 4,445 -644 27 Additional savings achieved or to be achieved Looked After Children costs (£644,000). The £16.5 million agency residential and agency foster care budget is currently projected to overspend by £4.445 million due to the level of budgeted savings being lower than anticipated and the volume of bed night activity being higher than anticipated in the budget. School Pension/Redundancy costs 1,289 1,289 29 Additional cost of school staff redundancies/early retirements (£1,289.000). Additional cost of school staff redundancies/early retirements (£1,289,000).
______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 2 of 9
Projected Variance Total Movement % of £000 £000 Budget Spending Reductions Staff vacancies -1,654 -235 2 Additional savings on staff vacancies (£235,000) Staff vacancies across a number of services have resulted in £716,000 savings to date and a further £938,000 are achievable which will represent only a minor risk impact on service provision if held vacant. Transport -1,958 -125 7 Other transport efficiencies (£125,000) Reduced inflation costs of Home to School Transport (£815,000), route savings (£585,000) and other transport efficiencies (£558,000) Staff training -229 8 Reduction in management and early years training (£229,000) School Support -614 12 Reduced spending on hiring school sports facilities (£50,000), schools ICT contract costs (£100,000), reduced costs of school energy efficiency surveys (£50,000), savings on extended schools activities (£250,000) and other school support reductions (£164,000). Grant Income -378 -275 n/a Additional grant income being utilised to maximise local authority funded expenditure (£275,000). Grant income being utilised to maximise local authority funded expenditure (£378,000) Additional Income -340 6 Additional income expected to be generated from traded activities with school related activities (£340,000) Other savings -561 -10 6 Additional other running costs reductions (£10,000) Other running costs reductions over 35 budget lines with no more than a minor impact on service delivery (£561,000)
Total Projected Spend at 31 March 2010 = 0 0.00
3. Dedicated Schools Grant ______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 3 of 9
The Dedicated Schools Grant funds the Schools Budget. The Schools Budget has two main elements, the amounts delegated to schools and the amounts held centrally for pupil related spending. The amount delegated to schools includes a contingency which will be allocated to schools for specific purposes.
The Dedicated Schools Grant can only be used for specified purposes and must be accounted for separately to the other Children’s Services spending and funding.
Variations on Dedicated Schools Grant Funded Budgets The variations are presented in the same way variations within the budget for Local Authority services are being reported. The following summary table therefore shows by type of budget, the spending projections for the period. The table shows the projected variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget. The table also shows movements in the projections since the last report.
Projected Variance Total Movement % of £000 £000 Budget Pupil Specific Special Education Needs Reflecting level of additional in year funding 500 2 provided to schools over and above the schools approved budget. This additional funding is provided for the special educational needs of pupils as identified in statements of Special Educational Needs. Non-maintained School Placements Increased number of Norfolk pupils in non- 1,000 17 maintained schools Academy schools Reduction in 2009/10 Dedicated Schools Grant to 153 n/a reflect transfer of funds for the academy Dedicated Schools Grant Additional grant due to increased pupil numbers -63 n/a School Pension costs School staff ongoing pension costs following 100 100 2 school reorganisations (£100,000) School staff ongoing pension costs following school reorganisations Schools Contingency Fund Use of Schools Contingency Fund to fund the -1,690 -100 n/a item above. (-£100,000) Use of Schools Contingency Fund to fund the items above
Total Projected Spend at 31 March 2010 = Approved Budget 4. Capital Budget
______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 4 of 9 2009/10 Future Years £M £M Approved Budget 130.889 123.019 Forecast Outturn 128.855 125.326 Variation from Approved Budget -2.034 2.307
The 2009/10 approved capital budget contained £91.112 million of estimated payments in 2009/10. Since approval the approved budget has increased by £39.777 million to £130.889 million. This is made up of £10.085 million slippage from 2008/09 and £29.692 million of additional external funding. Since July’s monitoring report £0.207 million of external funding has been reprofiled from 2009/10 to future years and £6.390 million of additional external funding has been added to future years.
The projected 2009/10 outturn based on the latest monitoring information is £128.855 million. A variance of £2.034 million.
All funding has been committed to individual schemes and programmes of work.
The reasons for the variance can be analysed as: 2009/10 Capital Programme Scheme Description £m Special Education Needs Movement between years is due to the extended time needed to -1.659 fully plan, prepare, cost and commission the Specialist Resource Base programme in line with the agreed phasing of SRBs. TCF Churchill Park 0.033 A small overspend is projected on this budget. South Harford Pupil Referral Unit Movement between years is due to the extended time needed to fully plan, prepare, cost and commission some of the schemes in -0.859 this programme, which includes several very complex, high cost schemes. Cobholm School Funding is available in 2010/11 to cover these costs. The funding 0.255 cannot be brought forward Temporary Classroom Removal Funding is available in 2010/11 to cover these costs. The funding 0.196 cannot be brought forward
Total Projected Variance at 31 September 2009 = -2.034
5. School Balances
The Scheme for Financing Schools in Norfolk sets out the local framework within which delegated financial management is undertaken. In respect of budget plans the expectation is that schools submit budget plans: at the end of the Summer term, taking account in particular the actual level of balances held at the end of the previous financial year;
______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 5 of 9 at the end of the Autumn term, taking account in particular of staff and pupil on roll changes; and if necessary, during the Spring term.
Based on budget information provided by schools the original projection of balances and revised projected balances at 31 March 2010 are as follows:
Projected School Balances as at 31 March 2010
Original Revised Projected Projected Variance Balance Balance £000 £000 £000 Nursery 64 72 8 Primary 7,344 7,802 458 Secondary 2,519 2,567 48 Special 711 736 25 Partnerships 2,129 2, 129 0 Total 12,767 13,306 539
6. Children’s Services Balances and Provisions
A number of Reserves and Provisions exist. The following table sets out the balances on the reserve and provision in the Children’s Services accounts at 1 April 2009 and the projected balances at 31 March 2010.
The table has been divided between those reserves and provisions relating to Schools and those that are general Children’s Services reserves and provisions.
Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions
Balance at Balance at 1 April 2009 31 March 2010 Variance £000 £000 £000 Schools Transport Days 0 295 295 Equalisation Fund Schools Contingency Fund 3,910 2,220 -1,690 Schools Non-Teaching 256 256 0 Activities Building Maintenance 923 400 -523 Partnership Pool Childcare revolving loans 100 0 -100 fund Balance at Balance at 1 April 2009 31 March 2010 Variance
______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 6 of 9 £000 £000 £000 School Sickness 1,473 1,473 0 Insurance Scheme School Playing surface 117 130 13 sinking fund
Education Provision for 42 31 -11 Holiday Pay Non BMPP Building 1,204 1,204 0 Maintenance Fund
Provision for Modern 6,973 6,973 0 Reward Strategy
Norfolk PFI Sinking Fund 9,433 9,433 0
Schools total 24,431 22,415 -2,016
Children’s Services IT Earmarked Reserves 138 138 0 Repairs and Renewals 156 100 -56 Fund
Non Schools total 294 238 -56
Total 24,725 22,653 -2,072
The following paragraphs set out the reasons for movements of each of these reserves and provisions:
Schools
Transport Days Equalisation Fund – £295,000 is being added to this fund due to the reduced number of home to school/college transport days in the 2009/10 financial year as a result of the timing of Easter. In 2005/06 196 travel days were funded, in 2006/07 189 travel days were funded, in 2007/08 185 travel days were funded, in 2008-09 199 travel days were funded and in 2009-10 the number of travel days is 188.
School Contingency Fund – This is part of the School Budget and is spent on schools for special circumstances and unforeseen circumstances. £1,000,000 is being used to fund additional out of county placements, £500,000 for additional Pupil Specific funding to schools, £100,000 for school staff ongoing pension costs following school reorganisations and reduction in 2009/10 Dedicated Schools Grant to reflect transfer of funds
______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 7 of 9
Schools Non-Teaching Activities – This relates mainly to school community sports facilities.
Building Maintenance Partnership Pool – This reserve is a collective non- profit making subscription scheme for Norfolk Schools and provides a comprehensive Building and Engineering maintenance service by Norse Ltd.
Childcare Revolving Loan Fund – a contribution of £100,000 was made from the 2004/05 Education revenue budget, to create a fund to provide ‘revolving’ loans to develop childcare provision. No loans have been made from this fund; so it is being written off to revenue in 2009/10.
School Sickness Insurance Scheme – This reserve is a mutual insurance scheme operated on behalf of schools.
School Playing Surface Sinking Fund – This reserve is to maintain and replace astro turf playing surface at several schools in Norfolk.
Education Provision for Holiday Pay - This reserve is used to pay the frozen holiday pay entitlement to former Education staff now employed by Norse Ltd on their retirement.
Non BMPP Building Maintenance Fund – This reserve is for schools that are not part of the Building Maintenance Partnership Pool and is used for large building and engineering maintenance projects.
Provision for Modern Reward Strategy – This provision is planned to be used by schools to fund the results of the Modern Reward Strategy.
Norfolk PFI Sinking Fund – This fund relates to the funding of the Norwich Schools PFI scheme.
Children’s Services IT Earmarked Reserve – This reserve is planned to be spent on the purchase of additional Modern Social Care IT equipment.
Repairs and Renewals Funds – £56,000 of this fund is planned to be used for the replacement and repair of equipment within the Children’s Services Department.
7. Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 8 of 9 There are no impacts.
8. Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
The action outlined in this report is designed to minimise the impact on children and young people and maximise the allocation of resources to areas of priority.
9. Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act
The Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. The direct implications have been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Review Panel is asked to consider the content of this report.
Officer Contact: Paul Fisher 01603 223464 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact the Customer Service Centre on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help
______Originator: Paul Fisher Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel/11 November 2009 Created: 15 October 2009 Page No. 9 of 9 Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item No 12
Service and Budget Planning 2010-13
Report by the Director of Children’s Services and Head of Finance
Executive Summary
This report sets out the main planning considerations for the services covered by this overview and scrutiny panel and the context in which they are set. This includes the financial position and the relevant performance and improvement considerations that relate to the council’s delivery of its corporate objectives.
The main issues and areas for consideration affecting Children’s Services include: Sustaining areas of strength identified following inspections Reducing teenage pregnancies Reducing levels of obesity Continuing to raise standards across all levels from early years, Key Stage 1, 2 and 4 Improving achievement at level 2 and level 3 Improving standards in some schools Continuing to support schools to reduce the number of schools going into a category of concern Improving outcomes for looked after children
Reducing persistent absence
The report sets out the overall funding prospects and spending pressures for the County for 2010/11. The position for Children’s Services in particular is: 2.5% assumed budget uplift equals £2.691 million Additional costs pressures and service improvements - o Inflation £2.345 million Government requirements £853,000 o o Demand pressures £9.911 million o Cost of service changes £71,000 Proposed savings – o Savings achieved without policy changes £8.632 million o Savings requiring policy changes £1.821 million
Overview and Scrutiny Panel members are asked to consider and comment on: - the planning assumptions and how these are applied, - the proposed spending pressures and savings, - the proposed priority areas for scheme to be included in the capital programme.
1
1. Background
1.1. This discussion takes place in a financial climate for public services that has been widely described as ‘dire’ as a consequence of the national economic downturn. Though we know our level of Government grant for 2010/11, we don’t know what it will be for the following two years. For planning purposes, therefore we are assuming there will be no increases in grant levels over this period. Since it is clear that the newly elected government will need to take drastic action to cut public spending in order to re-balance the country’s finances.
1.2. In the light of such challenges, the Leader and Cabinet have agreed an organisational blueprint that describes how this council intends to develop its operations over the coming four years to become a more responsive, efficient and streamlined organisation, focused on frontline services with increased value for money.
1.3. In addition, to help local people manage through the recession, the administration has assured Norfolk council tax payers that we will freeze the level of council tax for at least two of the next four years and, where we levy any increase, it will not be higher than the level of inflation.
1.4. Our planning for next year and the years to follow takes place within a clear framework and process agreed by Cabinet.
1.5. In August, Cabinet received and agreed a report1 that set out the planning context, requirements and parameters services should use to steer their service planning. It confirmed as the authority’s strategic intentions, the strategic ambitions, corporate objectives, values and key improvement areas set out in the County Council Plan 2008-11 and the outcomes we should focus on in our planning.
1.6. We deliver the County Council Plan through 34 detailed service plans which set out our service needs, outcomes, actions, targets, assessment of value for money and capacity. When we prepare them, we also consider the external and internal drivers for change, such as financial and economic predictions, performance and value for money, risks, customer needs and the impact of our services on the people of Norfolk.
Cabinet asked that we prepare draft service and financial planning requirements and budget options for discussion by county councillors in the November Overview and Scrutiny Panels and public consultation.
1.7. This paper sets out the planning issues and requirements relevant to the services covered by this Overview and Scrutiny Panel, together with a summary of the relevant corporate assumptions that underpin them. It also puts forward from the Cabinet Member in association with the service Chief Officer, some draft proposals for consultation based upon the financial parameters set by Cabinet in August.
1 Service and Financial Planning 2010/11 to 2012/13 – Report to Cabinet 10 August 2009 2 The strategic and corporate context
1.8. The County Council Plan 2009-12 sets out our three Strategic Ambitions for Norfolk, which are closely aligned to the Norfolk County Strategic Partnership Vision. The ambitions are for Norfolk to be:
. An inspirational place with a clear sense of identity . With a vibrant, strong and sustainable economy . And aspirational people with high levels of achievement and skills;
It also sets out our nine Corporate Objectives (priorities) and our three cross-cutting Organisational Objectives, with the main areas where we want to improve, together with the targets set to help us know we have done so.
1.9. Each year we also assess the background and context for the County Council’s work. Internal and external factors can affect our work positively or negatively and are factored into plans for how we provide our services and the implications for resources. Significant issues affecting County Council services during this planning period are outlined in Appendix A, but matters relevant to the corporate context include:
The impact of the recession
1.10. Like many other organisations, the recession is biting in a number of ways. For example, from a financial point of view our plans must reflect, in particular, less investment income, due to lower interest rates. However, unlike some organisations, demand for services is higher than ever, particularly in the demand led caring services and our service plans will need to consider this. We report progress on the Council’s response to the economic downturn on a regular basis to the Economic Development and Cultural Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
The new organisational blueprint for Norfolk County Council and its implementation programme - Norfolk Forward.
1.11. A review of senior management structures is already underway and scheduled to report in December. The identified costs and savings associated with any agreed recommendations will be factored in to budget planning later in the process when the outcome is known.
1.12. As already reported to Cabinet in September, the costs of managing and operating the programme office, which will oversee the implementation of Norfolk Forward, are being contained within existing resources
Managing our performance
1.13. Our planning must reflect the elements of the performance framework for local government, including the Local Area Agreement (LAA), the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA), the National Indicator Set and implications for increased partner working including shared resources.
3
1.14. Under the final round of the former Corporate Performance Assessment (CPA) inspection regime, (2008), the Audit Commission assessed the council as ‘excellent’ awarding us 4 out of 4 possible stars. This tells us that on the whole, we are delivering effective and good value services.
1.15. This year, the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) has replaced CPA. CAA assesses how well public services are working together to meet the needs and aspirations of their communities and using their resources to meet identified needs and deliver the outcomes set in the Local Area Agreement for Norfolk. In reaching its judgement, the Audit Commission also draws upon those judgements made by other inspectorates, such as Ofsted, to help reach its conclusions. The first CAA report for Norfolk will be published in December.
1.16. Inspection assessments on individual services and organisations are ongoing. The Audit Commission will publish the 2009 Performance and Organisational Assessment reports in December.
1.17. In addition, service and budget planning needs to take account of the challenging targets and outcomes agreed by partners in Norfolk Action, the Local Area Agreement (LAA) for Norfolk.
Modern Reward Strategy
1.18. Previous budgets provided for the impact of implementing the Modern Reward Strategy Project, (MRS), which will introduce new pay scales and pay-related conditions of employment for approximately 16,000 County Council employees (teachers and fire-fighters are excluded).
1.19. Though MRS has been delayed as a result of the time taken to pursue a collective agreement with Unison nationally, the authority is keen to implement its proposals with effect from April 2010 and Members of the Personnel Committee asked that the necessary steps be taken to secure this. At the time of drafting this report, Unison and Unite are balloting on the original proposal agreed in 2008. If a yes vote is achieved, the proposals can be implemented through a collective agreement.
Carbon Reduction Commitment
1.20. The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) is an obligatory emissions trading scheme covering both public and private sectors. We will need to comply with the new scheme, which commences in April 2010, including ensuring we have adequate resources to procure the trading allowances and deliver energy efficient solutions. We are assessing how much money we will need to set aside to purchase allowances and budgeting for this corporately. The scheme will include an annual performance league table, with financial incentives and penalties based on our performance. To compare well against other organisations, plans need to consider energy usage and include ways of exploiting options to reduce it.
4 2. Financial context 2010 - 2013
2.1. The detailed assessment of financial prospects for 2010-13 is set out in the August report to Cabinet. It is necessarily a funding forecast for planning purposes only and we will continue to review it.
2.2. The Government has indicated that the previously announced grant settlement for 2010/11 (an increase of £12.0m) will be honoured. However, the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 scheduled to cover the three years from 2011/12 has been deferred until after the General Election. This means we cannot be clear about financial prospects beyond the end of the next financial year (2010/11). For planning purposes, we are assuming a grant freeze for 2011/12 and 2012/13.
2.3. We are also assuming that there will be no change to the ‘grant damping’ arrangements. This is the adjustment the Government makes to Norfolk’s calculated grant entitlement in order to compensate some other councils, which suffered a loss in grant when a new distribution formula was introduced in 2006/07. Over the past four years 2006/07 to 2009/10, Norfolk has had its grant adjusted downwards by a total of £96.8m.
2.4. In the light of the administration’s pledge to keep tax increases within the level of inflation and freeze council tax in two of the next four years, for planning purposes we have assumed a council tax increase of 2% for 2010/11 and a tax freeze for 2011/12 and 2012/13.
2.5. Based on these assumptions our current net revenue budget of £559.9m, would increase by £18.9m in 2010/11 and then stay at that level for 2011/12 and 2012/13.
2.6. After allowing for funding of new external borrowing for the Capital Programme, Chief Officers were asked to approach their service and financial planning assuming a 2.5% budget increase in 2010/11 and no increase in 2011/12 and 2012/13. Following further consideration of the provision for pay inflation to be included in budgets for 2010/11, the Leader has requested this uplift to be adjusted to reflect an assumed pay freeze in 2010/11, for all awards still to be negotiated. For planning purposes only at this stage a provision of 2.25% pay increase remains for 2011/12 and 2012/13. Typically, additional cost pressures arising from inflation, demographic growth and new legal requirements total £50m each year. In 2010/11, the projected cost pressures are in excess of £43m, most of which is due to demand and demographic increases (£24m), inflationary pressures (£7m) and costs arising from changes in government legislation (£5m). As a consequence, we require considerable and ongoing cost savings if we are to sustain services and budgets over the medium term.
3. Service specific - strategic context
3.1. The plan for Children’s Services will reflect our contribution to the County Council Plan and the Children and Young People’s Plan. The 2009-2011
5 Children and Young People’s Plan has recently been produced. The Plan is a thematic partnership document with an expectation that where ever possible we are working together to improve outcomes for children and young people and deliver our 19 priorities.
3.2. Children’s Services is facing a number of challenges in shaping services to meet local need in the context of implementing national polices including 14-19 strategy, care matters, the focus on child protection following the Lord Laming report and 21st century school.. Children’s Services continues to review and change working practices through the use of new tools and technologies to ensure equitable access to services across the county and reduce inequalities.
3.3. Norfolk is the fifth most deprived county with 19% of children aged under 15 living in income deprived households. There is a significant correlation between the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) score and both the number of looked after children and educational attainment at GCSE. Health inequalities between the 20% least deprived and 20% most deprived sections of the population are marked, as is reflected for example in the higher teenage pregnancy rates in Great Yarmouth and Norwich.
3.4. Black and ethnic minorities make up 6.1% (2005) of the population. The number of languages spoken in Norfolk schools today fluctuates at around 100.
3.5. Local needs vary significantly. Planning is based on a comprehensive analysis of the range of outcomes and needs of the county’s children and young people. The plans are refreshed each year based on data on outcomes and service performance with the engagement of children and young people.
3.6. Central Area has the most children and young people, 44,900 aged 0-17 and is set to grow significantly by 2025 with development on the fringe of Norwich. Like every major city Norwich is not without its share of social problems with 8 of its 13 wards in the top 20% most deprived nationally.
3.7. In the East there are 21,300 children. Deprivation in the East is the highest in the county with 26% of 0-15 year olds living in deprived households. The East is characterised by the low wage and seasonal economy of Great Yarmouth, high levels of worklessness, an unemployment rate of 4.32% and overcrowded households.
3.8. The South has 30,800 children. Two of the three localities are more affluent and largely rural with some pockets of deprivation and issues of social isolation. The third locality has 23% of children in deprived households and a large migrant worker population.
3.9. The North and West areas are particularly large geographically and schools and services are widely dispersed. The West has 34,000 children and young people, with 18% of 0-15 year olds living in deprived
6 households. The urban environment of King’s Lynn includes two of the 3% most deprived wards in the county.
3.10. The North has 32,200 children with 15% of 0-15s in deprived households, a low wage economy, a high concentration of second homes, eight small market and coastal towns, and travel and access to services is a challenge.
4. Financial and service planning for next year (2010/2011)
4.1. Corporate assumptions
All the County Council’s consultation proposals use a set of common, corporate assumptions as a means of balancing the budget for 2010/11.
These assumptions are set out below in the interests of fairness and consistency. We invite Members views on the assumptions and the principle that they should be applied corporately in each case, as part of their consideration of these service proposals.
Cash uplifts for services
4.2. Services have been asked to plan on the basis of an assumed budget increase of 2.5%, less an adjustment for the revised assumptions for pay, within which increased costs and pressures should be managed.
The adjusted uplift for this panel is £2.691million.
Absorbing inflationary pressures 4.3. A planning assumption has been made that departments will absorb inflationary pressures of 2% for general prices. This will apply to both expenditure and income budgets. The exceptions to this are:
A proposed 4% cash uplift for home to school transport costs, and a proposed 4% cash uplift for passenger transport services provide via the PTU for adult social services
It has been assessed that the impact on Children’s Services of these price pressures will be £2.843 million. These pressures will be absorbed partly by the use of the 2.5% uplift and partly by making various savings on current levels of activity as set out in Appendix B.
Staff costs
4.4. We are assuming that there will be no nationally negotiated pay increase next year for the public sector with the possible exception of staff whose pay is subject to agreement by national pay review bodies such as teachers and firefighters.
7 The current teachers nationally negotiated pay agreement has fixed a 2.3% increase for September 2010; therefore an assessment of this cost has been included within the 2010/11 budget.
Payments to independent and voluntary providers
4.5. We are assuming that independent and voluntary providers will likewise absorb inflationary pressures. We are not providing for any inflationary uplift for 2010/11.
The impact of this assumption will be the need for the independent and voluntary providers to absorb an estimated 2% inflation amounting to £593,000.
An exercise has been underway in conjunction with partners to review all the 114 contracts terminating on or prior to 31 March 2010 made with independent and voluntary providers. Part of the exercise has been the aggregation of all the contracts previous independently awarded by the Connexions Service and Children’s Fund with those managed directly by Children’s Services. The second part of the exercise has been the commissioning of priority services for children. The Children’s and Young Persons Trust Board meeting on the 5 November 2009 agreed the services to be commissioned. This approach will ensure these services are managed within the agreed cash limit.
Placements with independent and voluntary residential providers for individual social care and residential and day education are generally made under regional contracts which determine the basis on which inflation uplifts are calculated in these cases Children’s Services an uplift may need to be paid to avoid these types of placements being terminated.
Sharper commissioning
4.6. We are assuming that commissioning arrangements will be reviewed where appropriate to ensure spending and services align with the council’s priorities and deliver value for money. This will mean de- commissioning (ending) some automatic funding of some grants or services that may be nice to have, but are not directly aligned to the council’s priorities for service users and so cannot be afforded as a priority.
As set out in paragraph 4.5 this process has been undertaken for Children’s Services contracts terminating at the 31 March 2010.
The governance of children’s services commission is overseen by the Children’s and Young Persons Trust Board.
8 Tough purchasing
4.7. We are assuming that goods and services will continue to be procured as efficiently as possible, driving down costs for Norfolk taxpayers whilst retaining quality.
The main area of purchasing undertaken by Children’s Services is of placements for vulnerable children either in terms of social care or special educational needs. In respect of these purchases we continue to work with local authorities across the region to ensure both efficient and quality services.
Efficiency
4.8. The authority has an ongoing responsibility to reduce costs and improve efficiency. All planning is based on this understanding. We are on target to have delivered efficiencies of over £85m over the part six years by March 2010. The efficiency target set by government for next year is 4%. This requires us to find a further £19m savings. No service specific targets have been set, we are assuming and expecting all services to contribute towards the achievement of the total.
Children’s Services is as part of the review of services to Vulnerable Children undertaking a value for money exercise across all the social care services being provided to vulnerable children. This review is aiming to identify comparable unit costs of the varying services and service providers, to benchmark this data across different ways we currently deliver services within Norfolk and also with other local authority costs. The exercise will also consider changing service delivery methods if more efficient and effective means are identified.
Realistic charging
4.9. We are assuming that subsidies, fees and other charges are reviewed where possible and relevant to reflect changed economic circumstances and expectations, other forms of grant or income or any significant changes in price, market or service.
The opportunities to charge for services provided by Children's Services are limited.
The school meals charge is regularly reviewed and at £2 per day is currently one of the highest in the country. A joint project is underway to review various aspects of the service provided to primary schools by Norse Commercial Services.
Home to school/college post-16 transport charging policy was reviewed in 2006. The principles behind the policy include the charge to users being based on actual costs less a 50% subsidy. The current subsidised charge is £334 per annum. As part of the budget proposals
9 set out in this report it is proposal to consult on reducing the level of the subsidy.
A review has also been undertaken of school letting charges. These charges are used as part of the subsidised letting scheme operated to provide subsidised use of school premises by voluntary organisations. These charges have been reassessed to ensure they cover costs. The implication of this change is set out in another report elsewhere on this agenda.
Capital
4.10 In February, schemes and funding were considered within a three-year capital programme as part of the County Council Plan 2009-12 (Appendix C). We have not made assumptions about the allocation of capital at this stage; however, it is assumed that corporate capital bids are identified following option appraisal and that these will be evaluated by the Corporate Capital and Asset Management Group (CCAMG). These will be evaluated alongside existing schemes using the capital prioritisation model and recommendations for any revision to the programme will be reported to January Overview and Scrutiny Panels.
Children’s Services is submitting one new scheme for consideration this year, improvements to the Norwich Professional Development Centre to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. As this scheme is a statutory duty upon the County Council, we would ask Panel to support this £175,000 bid.
4.11 Government allocations to the County Council within the Children’s Services funding block were given in November 2007 for a three-year period 2008-2011. In line with this, approval was given by Cabinet in February 2008 for a three year Children’s Services capital programme. The principles of the delivery programme were as follows: drawing our current 2005-08 major programme, predominantly reorganisation schemes to a close, in construction and financial terms; developing new major modernisation and growth programmes for delivery in 2009 onwards, as funding permitted; continuing the steady application of funds to the smaller block programmes which, in association with the schools’ application of their Devolved Formula Capital, maintain and improve the school estate fit for purpose.
4.12 At this stage these principles remain valid through to 2011 but it will also be necessary over the next year to plan for major new programmes from 2011, including the embedding of the Primary Capital Programme in the overall capital programme and, subject to approval of the recent resubmission, begin preparation for delivery under Building Schools for the Future. However we cannot expect approvals and Government financial allocations to be in place for 2011 onwards until autumn 2010. A key factor in the overall size of the programme will be the division
10 between funding which is ring-fenced by Government to Children’s Services (ie comes as grant) and those elements of the programme which are allocated from Cabinet to Children’s Services from supported borrowing.
4.13 Subject to confirmation of the indicative 2010/11 budget, work will continue in 2010/11 on: Major strategic programmes carried over. The year will see the completion of the Norfolk Schools Project and a number of major schemes such as the new primary school in South Lynn and the junior age extensions at Horning and Cobholm; the new Complex Needs school in King’s Lynn will also be completed. Continuation of year 1 Primary Capital Programme schemes and start of year 2 schemes SEN strategy – implementation of initial Specialist Resource Bases Phase 3 Children’s Centres and smaller schemes supporting Quality and Access in early years settings and Extended schools schemes The four colocation schemes in Norfolk, funded from direct DCSF grant The urgent programme of improving gas-fuelled school kitchens to ensure compliance with Health and Safety regulations The growth scheme at Little Plumstead Voluntary Aided Primary school, which the County Council is supporting as a Basic Need scheme to contribute to relieving pupil number pressures in the Thorpe High area. Five modernisation schemes which have been prepared to full planning permission stage but which will only be released for funding when financial risks elsewhere in the programme have been fully removed.
4.14 This strategy has been shared with the Capital Priorities Group throughout the year. At its last meeting, the Group approved a reallocation of funding to cover a number of pressures on the programme, in particular increased cost estimates at Little Plumstead and the potential purchase of the proposed academy site in South Lynn. The programme schedule (Appendix C) incorporates these changes
4.15 For the years 2011/12 and 2012/13, for which, as has been mentioned above, funding will not be known until autumn 2010, indicative programme components are likely to include the following: Primary Capital Programme years 3 and 4, for which schemes have already been approved by DCSF (but not funded); The proposed new Voluntary Aided primary school at Cringleford: this is already part-funded from existing funds but its full financial profile will need to be funded from Basic Need allocations in 2011/12; The next priority scheme under the Complex Needs Schools programme (SEN strategy) – the replacement Chapel Road
11 school (if not funded via Building Schools for the Future). This will include site purchase. Continued investment in Specialist Resource Bases under the SEN strategy High growth schemes: these will for the shorter term focus on current pressure points (eg Thorpe St Andrew) but responses will also need to be developed for Growth Point areas and other growth points within the Local Development Frameworks across the County. A significant factor will be any shortfall in funding between available developer contributions and the costs of schemes which match the long term needs of local areas. Significant consultation will be taking place over the next year on how schools and wider services for children can be configured to best effect in growth areas. The final phase of Key Stage reorganisation: ie in areas with three year junior schools. Consultation on these has already begun. Modernisation: Capital Priorities Group will be prioritising modernisation schemes for 2011 onwards over the next six months in order that preparatory work can begin. Continuation of the programme of temporary classroom removal in all school phases and addressing science and technology shortfalls in secondary schools will be proposed to the group as priorities. Schemes which implement specific agreed policy areas – including County Council components of further academy schemes Schools’ devolved formula capital (ring-fenced)
The 2011/12 and 2012/13 programme is also likely to include provision for block funding as follows: Children’s Homes – planned improvements to the existing homes and development of forward strategy Disability Discrimination Act and Access Urgent condition Mobile classroom movements Site acquisition and improvement
Individual schemes will be specified with particular attention to maintaining consistent levels of ICT investment (around 8% of budget), to increasingly high standards of sustainability, including but not exclusively carbon reduction, and to the outdoor as well as the indoor learning environment.
4.16 The Panel will wish to note that all schools’ capital funding will be managed from 1st October by Partnerships for Schools, rather than directly by Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Building Schools for the Future
4.17 The County Council has submitted a ‘Readiness to Deliver’ proposal into the next round of Building Schools for the Future (BSF) (Cabinet -14th 12 September 2009). The financial implication for 2010-11, should the Councils proposal be accepted, is an additional cost of £2m. This potential commitment has been noted and its funding will be considered within the overall Council budget when a decision is made on the Council’s entry into BSF. A decision is expected later this month.
5. The principal challenges for this service
5.1. Based on the latest information, the principal challenges facing the services covered by this Overview and Scrutiny Panel, which need to be taken into account when assessing the budget proposals and preparing the 2010/11 service plan include
Sustaining areas of strength identified following inspections Reducing teenage pregnancies Reducing levels of obesity Continuing to raise standards across all levels from early years, Key Stage 1, 2 and 4 Improving achievement at level 2 and level 3 Improving standards in some schools Continuing to support schools to reduce the number of schools going into a category of concern Improving outcomes for looked after children Reducing persistent absence
5.2 The Children’s Services Risk Register contains the risks which are consistent with the areas of improvement listed above. The prospects for meeting the outcome targets of the risks are rated.
5.3 A number of data sources are available by which performance and value for money of the service can be measured. Price Waterhouse Coopers produce comparative county data, the Society of County Treasurers has developed a tool which enables costs and performance to be compared between counties and the Department of Children, Schools and Families produces comparative per pupil costs comparisons across the Service.
5.4 Each data source has its limitation in terms of variations in policy and accounting treatment between local authorities which can distort the comparisons. All sources of comparable data show that Norfolk has a high level of spend on Children’s Social Care when compared to both our statistical neighbours and all other counties. However, the Society of County Treasurers 2008/09 comparative data for Children’s Social Care shows an improvement since 2007/08. This statistical data shows Norfolk’s relative position in terms of cost and performance compared to statistical neighbours. The statistics show improvement in terms of performance but the same relative position in terms of unit cost, with one of the statistical neighbours having higher costs and two of the statistical neighbours having lower performance. In 2007/08 these statistics indicated that Norfolk had the second highest unit costs and the lowest performance.
13 6. Draft revenue proposals for this overview and scrutiny panel 2010 – 2011
6.1. The following proposals are brought forward by the Cabinet Member in association with the service Chief Officer for consultation purposes and views are welcome. The proposals are listed in full in Appendix B. The line references in the following paragraphs relate to the reference numbers shown in Appendix B.
Cost Pressures and Service Improvements 6.2 In producing the budget proposals within the Cabinet guidelines consideration has been given to expenditure arising from inflationary pressures government and legislative requirements demand and demographic pressures costs specific to action to meet County Council Plan target costs specific to meeting service strategies and improvements
6.3 Inflation (lines 1-5) - As already indicated, standard inflation increases of 0% for pay, except teachers pay where 2.3% award from September 2010 already agreed, a 0.5% increase in national insurance employer’s contribution, 4% for transport and 2% for prices (excluding services provided by the voluntary and independent sector for which a no uplift is being assumed) have been included in the budget projections.
6.4 14-19 Education and Training - Machinery of Government Changes. (line 6) - The transfer to local authorities for commissioning 14-19 education and training provision together with the funding for 16-18 education and training from Learning and Skills Councils (LSC) is planned to be complete by April 2010. The staff to be transferred from the LSC have recently become known and work is currently underway to ensure the local authority has the structure in place to undertake the transferred functions. As yet details on funding transferred are unknown and therefore a degree of risk remains that current funding levels are adequate to meet the needs. This budget will therefore will subject to review early in the new financial year when full details of structures and funding are known.
6.5 Duty to accommodate homeless 16/17 year olds. (line 7) – A recent House of Lords ruling has confirmed that local authorities should presume that any lone, homeless child should be provided with accommodation under Section 20 of the Children’s Act 1989. The Department for Children’s, Schools and Families’ advice is such children are “in need” and would therefore require accommodation under Section 20 which results in the child becoming “looked after”.
The previous practice was for the local housing authority to deal with the homelessness.
The local authority is working with other second tier local authorities in the county and the Supporting People programme to seek alternative provision to avoid such young people being admitted into care. To date 14 the local authority has very little evidence to base any cost projections, however based on an assumed weekly cost of £200 and two children “in need” being identified each week the cost in 2010/11 could be £540,000. As will be seen from the savings proposals (paragraph 6.16) it is proposed that these costs be off set by alternative provision funded from the Supporting Peoples programme.
6.6 In-Year school admission co-ordination. (line 8) - The Government has imposed an additional duty on local authorities to co-ordinate in year school admissions. In Norfolk this is currently undertaken by individual schools. The new duty commences in September 2010, it is anticipated that the task will involve approximately 7000 applications per year. To undertake the task we estimate three addition admission staff will be required at a cost of £80,000 (£47,000 in 2010/11 as it is only a part year).
6.7 Increased cost of Looked After Children. (line 9) - The current level of overspend on looked after children agency residential and agency foster care spending has been projected to the year end using average trend analysis from the last three completed financial years. The projected overspend has been calculated as £6.33 million. The average cash increase on these two budgets over the last three completed financial years has been calculated and shows a £2.081 million increase. A total projected increase of £8.411 million is therefore included in the budget projections.
6.8 Increased demand for school related early retirements/redundancies. (line 10) - Under the current statutory requirements the cost of school early retirement and redundancies must be funded by the local authority unless a school fails to follow our procedure in which case the school would be required to fund the costs, or the costs arise from an efficiency review eg school reorganisation, in which case the Schools Budget can be charged with the costs. As reported elsewhere on the agenda these costs are expected to exceed the 2009/10 budget by approximately £1.3 million. It is anticipated that this overspend could be £1.5 million in 2010/11 and thus this sum has been included in the 2010/11 budget projections.
6.9 Increased cost of subsidised school lettings. (line 11) – As reported elsewhere on the agenda it is proposed that the letting charges used in the application of the subsidised lettings policy be increased as rates no longer reflect the actual cost of those lettings. Currently the local authority provides subsidies of 25% or 100% to different categories of users. The proposed increase in the letting charges will increase the cost of these subsidies by £71,000.
Savings Proposals 6.10 Taking account of these various pressures and the 2.5% uplift (agreed by Cabinet for planning purposes) consideration has been given to how savings could be achieved within the Service. The approach adopted included protecting front-line services where possible; maintaining focus on prevention; continuing to implement the changes of Every Child Matters; plus improving value for money.
15 6.11 Special education needs transport - reduced expenditure. (line 12) The additional £350,000 proposed saving is the result of the continued application of the eligibility criteria. Given the delivery of similar levels of savings during this and last year it is assessed that the delivery of the savings represents a moderate risk.
6.12 Home to school transport – savings on inflation and efficiencies. (line 13) This sum represents delivered efficiency savings on the transport budget. The £1.395 million comprises £450,000 route savings delivered in 2008/09 but not fully reflected in the current year budget, £155,000 additional Government grant to deliver Choice on Transport which is not required and £790,000 saving in the 2009/10 budget as a result of actual contract increase being only 2% compared to the 5% provision. No risk exists to the delivery of these savings.
6.13 Foster Carers – increase in the number of in-house foster carers. (line 16) This efficiency saving is based on a net increase of 50 carers being recruitment to the in-house service from April 2010. It has calculated that that if on average each additional foster carer fosters fostered 1.5 looked after children, savings of £1.5 million. This has been calculated as £20,000 per child compared to the lowest cost alternative provision, ie the cost of agency foster carer costs. This saving is dependent on the successful employment of additional foster carers and then the successful location of looked after children with them. Because of these factors it is assessed that the risk of this saving not being delivered is moderate.
6.14 Social care transport – reduction in costs. (line 17) Social care transport is provided under a number of budgets to support social care activities. It is perceived that the currently arrangements are not consistent with the current approach to transport entitlement and parental responsibilities. A project is being established to review the transport arrangements that currently exist to make the arrangement more efficient and effective. As the precise action has yet to be determined the risk of not delivering this £1 million savings should be treated as major.
6.15 High cost social care placements – reduce the number of new high cost placements for looked after children. (line 18) An efficiency project reviewing the strategy, organisation, procedures, processes relating to looked after children management whilst supporting the local authorities overall strategy focussing on early intervention and prevention to avoid permanent placements in care has made a number of recommendations including proposals to change the processes and procedure relating to the admission of children into care. It is anticipated that the implementation of these particular recommendations will lead to a reduction in the number of children being placed in high cost residential placements. The savings figure being included in the budget proposals is of moderate risk being calculated as the changes will avoid ten high cost placements of £200,000 pa, ie in total £2 million savings.
6.16 Various 2009/10 budget savings repeated in 2010/11. (lines 20-34) The 2009/10 budget monitoring report elsewhere on the agenda identifies a number of savings to off set increased costs within the 2009/10 budget. 16 These costs were assessed in terms of risk to the delivery of the service. These savings have been reviewed to see if any could be used in balancing the 2010/11 budget. 15 of these 2009/10 savings amounting to £977,000 have been assessed as being deliverable again in 2010/11 without risk to the delivery of front line services. These saving are listed on lines 20-34 in Appendix B.
6.17 Accommodated 16/17 year old. (line 35) Use the Supporting People project to off set the cost of making provision for 16/17 year olds without accommodation. Discussions are underway within the Supporting People Board about how homeless 16/17 year olds can be supported by that programme rather than formally being brought into care. This £540,000 savings has been set at the same at the additional cost previous shown as a pressure on line 7.
6.18 Schools ICT services – partially fund school ICT services from Government grant. (line 36) Currently a portion of school ICT services are funded from Children’s Services base budget. It is proposed to transfer £1 million of these costs to the existing Harnessing Technology grant budget. The saving is achievable without any risk in 2010/11.
6.19 Post-16 home to school/college transport – reduce the level of subsidy. (line 37) As already indicated in paragraph 4.9 home to school/college post-16 transport charging policy was last reviewed in 2006. The provision of post-16 transport is a discretionary service but the local authority is required to have a post-16 transport policy and failure to provide such support is likely to attract a direction from the Secretary of State.
Norfolk’s agreed principles for post-16 include a 50% subsidy level. Thus post-16 transport users are generally charged 50% of the actual cost in the previous financial year. The current subsidised charge is £334 per annum. The principles also provide for special education needs transport to be charged at the same rate as other users despite the higher average actual cost of the transport provision; a 50% remission of the charge is available for low income families; payment of instalments is also available.
As part of the budget proposals set out in the report it is proposed to consult on reducing the level of subsidy. The consultation will set out a number of subsidy levels from the current 50% to no subsidy. It is not proposed to consult on changes to the other principles of the post-16 charging policy.
For the purpose of the budget proposal it is anticipated that net savings of £500,000 will be achieved but clearly this depends on the result consultation exercise. Given the need for a consultation exercise with users the risk of delivering this saving is assessed as moderate.
6.20 Voluntary sector organisation funding – commission services in line with priorities and reduce overall level of spend. (line 38) In total Children’s Services has 149 contracts valuing £14.8 million with the independent and voluntary sector of which 35 expire after the 31 March 17 2010. As already referred to in paragraph 4.5 an exercise has been undertaken in conjunction with partners to review all the 114 independent and voluntary providers’ contracts terminating on or prior to 31 March 2010. Part of the exercise has been the aggregation of all the contracts previous independently awarded by the Connexions Service and Children’s Fund with those managed directly by Children’s Services. The second part of the exercise has been the commissioning of priority services for children. The Children’s and Young Persons Trust Board meeting on the 5 November 2009 agreed the services to be commissioned.
Excluding 44 of the contracts which are either existing Children’s Centres or social care centres and also those contracts funded by specific grant and Dedicated Schools Grant – 70 contracts with a value of £2.4 million are effectively being subject to the commissioning process. It is proposed that the commissioned services be £1.4 million ie a reduction of £1 million compared to the value of services currently being commissioned. As the process is being managed via the new Children’s and Young Persons Trust Board commissioning process these savings can be delivered with the minimum of risk.
6.21 Holt and Wells Field Study Centres – remove the subsidy to these centres. (line 39) Currently these centres are supported by a £250,000 subsidy. It is proposed to eliminate this subsidy and expect the centres to be self sufficient by implementing changes in the way the centres are operated. The delivery of this saving is assessed to be moderate.
6.22 Subsidised use of school premises – reduce the level of subsidy. (line 40) As set out in paragraph 4.9 a review has also been undertaken of school letting charges. These charges are used as part of the subsidised letting scheme operated to provide subsidised use of school premises by voluntary organisations. These charges have been reassessed to ensure they cover school costs. The implication of this change is set out in another report elsewhere on this agenda. The additional cost of subsidies arising from this proposed increase in the letting charges is £71,000, set out on line 11 of Appendix B.
As explained in the report elsewhere on the agenda it is being proposed to Cabinet that a number of changes be made to the subsidised letting policy to reduce the costs of subsidised letting to the Children’s Services budget. It is assumed that the proposed changes to this policy will decrease the subsidised letting cost by £71,000.
6.23 Taking the Council budget as a whole, there is presently an overall shortfall in the savings requirements of some £5m based upon the proposals set out in all Scrutiny Panel reports. Work is ongoing to identify where further savings can be made, there are also some other budgetary pressures, which need to be finalised. For example, we need to make provision in 2010/11 for any projected loss on our Icelandic Bank investments. Latest information from the banks’ administrators suggests that could be some £6m. We are also at the present time waiting to hear the outcome of our submission to enter the next round of Building Schools 18 for the Future. The Council will need to agree how we meet this overall shortfall and other pressures not included within panel reports at this stage while still making progress on meeting our nine corporate objectives. Further information will be reported to Panel meetings in January.
7. 2011/12 and 2012/13
As reported to Cabinet in August we expect typically that the County Council will be incurring additional cost pressures of some £50m in each year. Within the attached service schedules some cost pressures for 2011/12 and 2012/13 have been identified. These will be kept under ongoing review.
8. Resource Implications
The implications to resources including, financial, staff, property and IT are set out in Section 8 of this report and within the Appendices.
9. Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
These proposals are aimed to ensure resources are focussed on the highest priority needs of children and young people in Norfolk thus ensuring services are as efficient and effective as possible.
10. Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
A full programme of EqIA’s has been carried out on policies, procedures and practices across Children’s Services. Whilst this does not directly address issues of equality of access and outcomes, it is worth noting that recent actions arising from the EqIA programme are being fed into both departmental action plans and the service planning process. This will be further bolstered by the ongoing EqIA of the Children and Young Peoples Plan.
11. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
The Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. The direct implications of this report have been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance.
12. Action Required
12.1 In light of the contextual issues presented and key challenges, overview and scrutiny panel members are asked to consider and comment on the planning assumptions and how these are applied, and the proposed spending pressures and savings set out in Appendix B, in order to inform Cabinet members’ discussions.
19 12.2 Members are also asked to consider and identify any specific issues on the proposed list of new and amended capital schemes to be evaluated within the capital prioritisation model as part of the review of the three-year capital programme. The recommended capital programme will be reported to the January meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
Background Papers
List here all those papers referred to in compiling this report. (Only those that do not contain exempt information).
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Officer Name: Paul Fisher Tel No:01603 223464 email address: [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
20
APPENDIX A PLANNING CONTEXT – NEED TO CHANGE TO REFLECT UPDATED PLANNING CONTEXT
1. Key demographic changes, include:
. Norfolk’s population is growing faster than the regional average . We have increasing numbers of active older people – 81% of our over 85 year olds still live at home – raising implications for housing, independence and rising demand for the provision of care . Norfolk is becoming more diverse, with rapidly increasing black and ethnic minority populations – already around 100 languages are spoken . There are large and growing numbers of people from Europe living and working in areas of the county.
2. Socio-economic factors, such as: . Norfolk does have pockets of both rural and urban deprivation, and although the majority of people living in the county are not disadvantaged, 19% of children live in income deprived households . Generally good levels of health and higher than average life expectancy but there are people within our communities experiencing increasing inequalities in health and well-being, frequently correlating to areas of greatest deprivation in the county – for example teenage pregnancy . Obesity levels in the county continue to be of concern, with children’s obesity being of particular concern; diseases normally seen in obese adults are becoming more common in children . Levels of adult participation in sport and active recreation in Norfolk remain much lower than in other parts of the country . Despite overall levels of crime falling in Norfolk, local people’s perception of crime as an issue remains high.
3. Factors affecting Norfolk’s economy and skills, including:
. The current economic downturn is affecting employment and development nationally. Latest unemployment figures for Norfolk (as at mid August) show an increase in the number of people claiming job seekers allowance. . Norfolk already has one of the country’s most significant financial service sectors, but our overall economic growth lags behind the regional average . Basic literacy levels in the county are below national and regional levels . Low wage and skills mean that that we need to create and attract more higher value jobs, such as jobs in knowledge-based industries . High and volatile price of crude oil impacts on the price of many oil derived materials 21 . It is expected that Norfolk will see 78,000 new homes built and 55,000 new jobs created by 2021, with significant numbers of people travelling to work by car.
4. Environmental factors, such as:
. Local Government has been identified as having a key role in tackling climate change and developing a strategy to support the UK Climate Change Programme, by cutting all greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions – this presents us with a significant leadership challenge as well as delivery of improvements to our own operations . Climate change and water resources are of major concern in the county, with challenges around issues of coastal erosion, storm damage and flooding – and increasing severity of emergencies caused by natural occurrences . Moving towards paperless transactions in order to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill . The Government intends to introduce five-year carbon budgets which may be set alongside other operational, funding and taxation policies and are likely to affect expectations of standards and targets as part of the assessment of services, to encourage investment in low-carbon fuels and technologies.
5. Advances in the use of technology, including:
. Convergence of voice and data services over broadband networks to support increasing use of mobile and home working facilities . Increased use of mobile devices such as laptops . Switchover from analogue to digital television in 2012 means that many more people could access services in diverse ways, such as via the internet using their television . As part of the Waste Strategy for England 2007, we may have to make further progress with technologies relating to landfill diversion and increasing recycling at home. . Maximising technologies available to enable safe independent living.
6. National policy and government legislation, such as:
. Putting People First – the Government’s shared vision for the transformation of Adult Social Care – including establishing community based support systems for the health and wellbeing of local populations, through bringing together and re-designing (health and care) local systems around the needs of citizens . Care Matters: Time to deliver for children in care and Children & Young Persons Bill – the Government’s expectations of the right quality care and support being in place for children in the care system . Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods – the Government’s national strategy for dealing with housing in an aging society. 22 Appendix B
Revenue Budget Planning - Spending Pressures and Savings 2010-13
Children's Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel Ref Description of cost pressures or service 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Corporate Objective and Risk improvement - shown against the key £k £k £k assessment of key impact to driver performance, value for money, equality, environment, workforce etc.
Budget Uplift for planning purposes only 2,691 0 0 Full details included in report
COST PRESSURES AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS Basic Inflation - Pay (2010-11 - 0% (2.3% Teachers pay); 2011-13 - 1 2.25%) 105 1,436 1,469 Basic Inflation - Prices (General 2%, 2 Social and care transport 4%) 2,545 2,620 2,698
Additional Inflation - Pay Additional 0.7% contribution to 3 Pensions - (1% for 2011/13) 288 416 420 Additional 0.5% increase in National 4 Insurance Employer's contributions 200
Reduction in inflation pressures No inflationary uplift to independent and voluntary sectors based on 5 2009/10 uplift -593
Sub Total Inflation 2,345 4,672 4,587
Government/Legislative requirements 14-19 Machinery of Government - Transfer of responsibilities and reduction in Learning and Skills 6 Council funding 266 86 Duty to accommodate homeless 16/17 year olds following house of Lords 7 ruling 540 In-year schools admissions co- 8 ordination - new duty 47 33
Sub Total Legislative 853 119 0
Demand/Demographic Looked After Children - increased residential agency and foster care 9 agency costs 8,411 2,081 2,081 Increased demand for school related 10 early retirements/redundancies 1,500
Sub Total Demographics 9,911 2,081 2,081
Costs specific to actions to meet County Council Plan targets
Sub Total County Council Plan 000
Children's Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Appendix B
Ref Description of cost pressures or service 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Corporate Objective and Risk improvement - shown against the key £k £k £k assessment of key impact to driver performance, value for money, equality, environment, workforce etc.
Costs specific to meeting service strategies and improvements Increased cost of use of school premises by subsidised users. Based 11 on existing 25% subsidy rate. 71
Sub Total Service Improvement 71 0 0
TOTAL COST PRESSURES AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENT 13,180 6,872 6,668
Shortfall based on difference between funded budget increase and forecast cost pressures -10,489 -6,872 -6,668
Ref Proposed action 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Corporate Objective and Risk Estimated Estimated Estimated assessment of key impact to Saving (£k) Saving (£k) Saving (£k) performance, value for money, equality, environment, workforce etc. Non-policy issues 12 Reduced Special Educational Needs 320 transport expenditure 13 Inflation and efficiency savings on 1,395 Home to School Transport 14 Use of Not in Education, Employment -200 or Training related Local Public Service Ageement reward grant (two years) 15 Removal of provision for early years -100 revolving loans fund (one-off) 16 Increase number of in-house foster 1,500 carers 17 Reduce level of social care transport 1,000 costs 18 Changes to processes and procedures 2,000 for taking children into care
19 Repeat of 15 of budget reductions included in the 2009/10 budget monitoring ie lines 20 to 34 listed below
20 -Reduced former school staff pension costs 20 21 -Fewer discretionary awards to students 12 22 -Reduced number of boarding pupils supported at Wymondham College 9 23 -Savings on swimming pool hire costs for school use 50 24 -Redundant school support budgets 105 25 -Headteacher recrutiment now funded from schools budgets 29 26 -Reduction in management training costs for social care 150 27 -Savings on vacant school crossing posts 30 28 -Alternative use of 16c Harvey Lane Residential home and savings on other centres 200
Children's Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Appendix B
Ref Proposed action 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Corporate Objective and Risk Estimated Estimated Estimated assessment of key impact to Saving (£k) Saving (£k) Saving (£k) performance, value for money, equality, environment, workforce etc. 29 -Reduced running costs of Holt Hall Study Centre 20 30 -Moving to solely electronic delivery of school post 20 31 -Delay projects in creative music programmes 15 32 -Reduced expenditure on equipment for statemented pupils 17 33 -Energybusters project now part of Dedicated Schools Grant 50 34 -Reduced support to schools on extended schools start ups 250 35 Use of Supporting People project to 540 support costs of accommodating 16/17 year olds 36 Transfer of funding for school ICT 1,000 services to existing Govt. grant
Policy Issues 37 Home to School transport - reduce the 500 post 16 subsidy 38 Voluntary Sector Organisations - 1,000 reduce the level of services procured 39 Reduce subsidy to Holt and Wells 250 Study Centres Reduction in subsidy rate for use of 71 40 school premises from 25% to 15%
TOTAL SAVINGS 10,453 -200 0
SHORTFALL -36 -7,072 -6,668
Children's Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Children's Services Capital Estimates 2009/10 to 2011/12 Appendix C
2010-11 2010-11 2009-10 2009-10 2011-12 ONWARDS ONWARDS PROGRAMME AREA APPROVED PROJECT INDICATIV APPROVED PROJECT FUNDING COSTS E FUNDING FUNDING COSTS £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Childrens Centres and Extended Schools Children Centres Phase 2 867 867 0 0 0 Childrens Centres 3 977 977 4,724 4,724 0 Childrens Centres 3 Maintenance 61 61 570 570 0 Surestart Sustainabilty/Extended Schools 4,518 4,518 3,130 3,130 0 Surestart Extended Schools 08/09 onwards 79 79 2,506 2,506 0 Fakenham High Swimming Pool 330 330 0 0 0 Playbuilder 536 536 604 604 0 Sedgeford Pre-school 19 19 0 0 0
ICT Computers for Pupils 197 197 0 0 0 E-Learning Credits 301 301 0 0 0 ICT Harnessing Technology to schools 3,532 3,532 1,660 1,660 0 ICT Harnessing Technology 4,000 4,000 9,508 9,508 0 ICT Mobile Tech for Children S Workers 157 157 0 0 0 ICT Refresh Programme 1,078 1,078 921 921 0 10/100 Project 1,860 1,860 0 0 0 National Digital Infrastructure 1,880 1,880 0 0 0 Home Access For Targeted Groups 310 310 0 0 0 Upgrade of Schools Pupil Management System 00000
Primary Capital Programme 8,395 8,395 1,359 1,359 0
Major Projects and Targeted Capital Grant Norfolk Schools Project 6,287 6,287 1,174 1,366 0 Norwich Reorganisations 2005/06- 2007/08 1,097 1,097 0 0 0 Sewell Park East Site 692 692 760 760 0 Fairstead Primary - Library extn & Toilet Refurb 38 38 0 0 0 T C F - Blyth Jexs School 411 411 0 0 0 T C F - Churchill Park 3,848 3,881 63 111 0 T C F - NORA 7,716 7,716 165 165 0 T.C.F - Community Hubs 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 0 T.C.F - Food Technology 0 0 645 645 0 Whitlingham Boat Park 50 50 0 0 0
High Growth Areas St Michaels Bowthorpe - HG 2008/09 500 500 18 18 0 Chapel Break HG 2008/09 213 213 9 9 0 Costessey High - HG 2008-09 1,462 1,462 270 270 0 Costessey Infant - HG 2008-09 228 228 0 0 0 Costessey Junior - HG 2008-09 597 597 26 26 0 Easton Primary 65 65 0 0 0 Little Plumstead HG 2008-09 3,022 3,022 395 395 0 Cringleford HG 2008-09 0 0 1,348 1,348 0 High Growth Areas 2005/6 - 2007/8 382 382 0 0 0 High Need Growth Areas Pre 2005/6 179 179 0 0 0 2010-11 2010-11 2009-10 2009-10 2011-12 ONWARDS ONWARDS PROGRAMME AREA APPROVED PROJECT INDICATIV APPROVED PROJECT FUNDING COSTS E FUNDING FUNDING COSTS £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Compliance with DDA Schools Access Initiative 1,812 1,812 2,051 2,051 0
SEN Review Compass Centre 100 100 150 150 0 Eaton Hall 601 601 300 300 0 SEN Commitments 315 315 0 0 0 SEN Strategy 3,730 2,071 1,468 3,127 0
Modernisation Primary Cobholm School 2008-09 1,245 1,500 1,087 832 0 Condition Funding 2005/06-2007/08 419 419 0 0 0 Condition Funding 2008/09 2,107 2,107 2,000 2,000 0 TCF Kitchens 116 116 465 465 0 Open Academy 18,457 18,457 3,507 3,507 0 Kings Lynn Academy 2,700 2,700 0 0 0 City Academy, Norwich 417 417 0 0 0 Horning Primary Major 400 400 0 0 0 Norwich PFI 448 448 0 0 0 2009/10 Starts 293 293 2,745 2,745 0 South Harford PRU 2,613 1,754 790 1,649 0 Temporary Classroom Removal 1,806 2,002 200 4 0
Specialised Diplomas Specialised Diplomas 3,133 3,133 5,200 5,200 0
School Based Projects Caister Sports Hall 809 809 0 0 0 Capital Expenditure Scheme 1,224 1,224 0 0 0 Developer Contribution 128 128 0 0 0 Devolved Formula Capital 17,137 17,137 17,412 17,412 0 Capital Furniture and Equipment 213 213 40 40 0 Reepham 6th form 2008-09 onwards 3,263 3,263 0 0 0 School Based Projects 470 470 0 0 0 School based VA Projects 147 147 0 0 0 School Travel Plans 503 503 443 443 0 Specialist Schools 1,495 1,495 350 350 0 Specialist Sports College 800 800 0 0 0 Seed Challenge 98 98 0 0 0 Successful & Popular Schools 538 538 0 0 0 Wayland High School 1,094 1,094 0 0 0 Wayland High School 74 74 0 0 0
Minor Works Minor works - Adoption Unit 22000 Minor Works - Holt Hall Fire Safety 27 27 0 0 0 Minor Works - Dereham 66000 Minor Works - West Norfolk PDC 33000 Minor Works-Unthank Family Centre 99000 2010-11 2010-11 2009-10 2009-10 2011-12 ONWARDS ONWARDS PROGRAMME AREA APPROVED PROJECT INDICATIV APPROVED PROJECT FUNDING COSTS E FUNDING FUNDING COSTS £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Social Care Pathfinder 857 857 0 0 0 Children's Homes 40 40 180 180 0 Childrens PSS 00000
Other schemes AMP Development 54 54 0 0 0 BSF/PCP Preparation 200 200 100 100 0 CERF Carbon Reduction 22 22 0 0 0 Costessey Co-location fund 80 80 16 16 0 North Walsham Co-Location fund 863 863 4,441 4,441 0 Lakenham CPO contingency 0 0 500 500 0 Integrated Office (corporate bid) 656 656 0 0 0 NOF3 13 13 0 0 0 Non Project Specific Development Fees 313 313 0 0 0 Over/underspend b/fwd 00000 Project Development 2005/06-2007/08 00000 Shrublands Communtiy Learning 101 101 0 0 0 Sites 454 454 250 250 0 Sustainability 500 500 250 250 0 Temporary Classroom Movements 700 700 500 500 0 Thetford Rosemary Musker High 40 40 0 0 0 Youth & Community Capital Fund 360 360 366 366 0 Education Unallocated 000046,353
Total 130,889 128,855 123,019 125,326 46,353
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item No 13 Review of Subsidised Lettings Charges
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Executive Summary The purpose of this paper is to advise members of the review of charges for subsidised school lettings charges, outline the financial implications of the changes to Children’s Services budget, identify possible changes to the school lettings subsidy policy, highlights the impact of the changes on the level of support provided to individual users and seek views for Cabinet consideration when making decisions on these matters.
The main points within the paper are the local authority may issue directions to community, voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools on the use of school premises as part of this process Norfolk operates a subsidised letting scheme by which categories of users receive either a 100% or 25% subsidy on the approved rates. Also Adult Education use of these school premises can only be charged at the approved letting charge. it has been agreed with the Schools Forum that the approved rate does not cover school costs and therefore as schools cannot subsidies community users from their School Budget share the rates need revising. The paper sets out proposed new charging rates. A consequence of this change is that the cost of the subsidy to users funded by the local authority will increase by £71,000 The paper sets out proposals on how the subsidised letting policy could be changed to ensure the cost of the subsidy is contained within the existing budget provision.
Members are asked to note the need to revised the current letting charges to reflect actual school costs, and provide comments to the Cabinet member on the proposed changes to the current subsidised letting policy to inform the discussion at Cabinet.
1. Background
1.1 Schools may retain income from lettings of the school premises that would otherwise accrue to the Authority. Schools are permitted to cross-subsidise lettings for community and voluntary use with income from other lettings, provided there is no net cost to the budget share. However, community, voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools shall be required to have regard to any directions issued by the Authority as to the use of school premises as permitted under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 for various categories of schools.
1.2 Based on these provisions Norfolk has a policy for the use of school premises by the community. The arrangements were originally agreed in 1988 on the introduction of Local Management of Schools.
1.3 These arrangements include a scheme of subsidised lettings. The scheme applies to lettings outside the normal school day, deemed to be 8 am to 6 pm and through school holidays.
1.4 The subsidised letting arrangements are based on two basic principles ie schools must use the local authority determined letting rates and the subsidy only applies to specified groups which must pre-register with the local authority to be entitled to a subsidy.
1.5 These letting rates are intended to cover costs incurred by schools but the subsidy scheme on its own should not make a profit or a loss for schools.
1.6 The current subsidy rates are 100% and 25%.
1.7 Schools via the Schools Forum recently expressed the view that the current scale of charges does not adequately reflect the cost of individual lettings which is effectively resulting in schools subsidising users covered by the subsidised letting policy. The charges were last revised in 1995 but have been increased each year by the rate of inflation.
1.8 Schools Forum asked that the current basis of charging should be reviewed and a small working group of officer and school representatives was established to examine the individual components of cost and to simplify the current scale of charges.
2. Proposed Revision to Level of Subsidised Letting Charge
2.1 The proposal made by the working group for a new set of charges was accepted by Schools Forum in July 2009. It is proposed that the revised charges be introduced from April 2010.
2.2 The new scale of charges (Appendix A) for the hire of school premises are built up from three elements. The caretaker costs, energy costs and wear and tear of buildings and assets.
Caretaker Costs
For the purposes of determining the caretaker element within the lettings charge the MRS scheme proposals were used whereby the caretaker is only required for unlocking and relocking the premises and will be paid for 2 hours work, enhanced as appropriate for weekends.
Energy costs and wear and tear
It is extremely difficult to determine accurate costs for energy and for wear and tear related to individual lettings. We consulted NPS in relation to these costs and have attempted to determine reasonable costs to reflect these elements in normal classroom based situations.
Work was also undertaken to analyse actual costs of energy consumed and maintenance costs incurred in a selection of schools that have significant community lets, in order to determine a notional hourly charge for a typical classroom.
2.3 Cabinet will be asked to adopt these charges for the purpose of the subsidised letting scheme.
2.4 Having established a new scale of charges the next step was to assess the impact of their introduction on schools, the voluntary groups, Adult Education and the local authority.
3. The Subsidised Lettings Scheme
A subsidy is available only for those groups/organisations that are run on an entirely voluntary basis. This means that the organisers of the groups should not receive any payments or honorarium other than a reimbursement of expenses incurred.
There are currently two levels of subsidy awarded 100% and 25%
Those groups which are eligible are:
100% subsidy level
Children's Services Norfolk Schools Associations such as Norfolk Schools Cricket/Football/Basketball etc. Parochial Church Councils meeting in the own church schools Workers Educational Association groups
25% subsidy
Voluntary organisations with a membership of 16 year olds and under OAP groups Voluntary groups for the disabled Holiday play schemes
Users
A total of 210 groups accessed the scheme in 2008/09, using the facilities of 102 schools
The groups undertake various activities such as dance groups, youth groups, and various sports, and they include 54 scouts/guides groups, 30 football groups and 23 swimming groups
Adult Education
Adult Education do not receive a subsidy under the scheme but their hire charges for school premises are based on the subsidised lettings charges so any increase will impact on Adult Education costs.
In 2008/09 Adult Education ran 1400 courses in 198 Norfolk Schools.
Schools are used as: they are at the heart of the community which they serve so learning is placed where people live they comply with health and safety legislation they are generally fully accessible it promotes the partnership between AE and schools whereby they promote courses to parents through newsletters etc. they usually have ample car parking they have some specialist teaching facilities such as ICT room, swimming pools and workshops.
4. Financial Impact of Increase in Charges
The 2009/10 lettings budget is £93,000, in the year 2008/09 the total expenditure from this budget was £98,000, ie an £5,000 overspend.
Impact of new rates
2008/09 Revised Increase Amount Amount £ £ £ NCC Subsidy 98,000 169,000 71,000 User Contributions 237,000 410,000 173,000
Income to schools 335,000 579,000 244,000
Thus by applying the new rates the Children’s Services costs would increase from £98,000 to £169,000.
Charges made to users would increase from £237,000 to £410,000
In 2008/09 Adult Education paid £105,000 in hire charges to schools.
If Adult Education uses schools in 2010/11 to the same extent as in 2009/10 the Head of the Adult Education Services estimates the increased costs for adult education would be £28,000.
The Head of Finance has advised that these increased costs should be included in the 2010/11 budget submissions.
5. Children’s Services Funding Options
5.1 As school budgets cannot subsidies non school activities from Budget Share funding the charges must be set to match the estimated cost of use of school premises.
5.2 A number of options could be considered to ensure the subsidy cost to Children’s Services does not exceed the current £93,000 budget.
Discontinue the Scheme of Subsidised Lettings
5.3 The result of discontinuing the scheme of subsided letting would save £93,000. Schools would be free to set charges for all users and the costs to currently subsidised users are likely to increase by at least £342,000. This assumes that currently subsidised users would only be charged estimated costs of hire.
Discontinue the 100% Subsidy Rate
5.4 The 17 user groups currently eligible for the 100% subsidy are:
User Groups Receiving 100% Subsidy on Use of School Premises
Children’s Services Governor Support Norfolk County Amateur Swimming Club Norfolk County Netball Association Norfolk County Schools Netball Association Norfolk County Schools Football Association Norfolk Junior Chess Norfolk Music Education Service Norfolk Schools Football Association Norfolk Schools Korfball Norfolk Youth Cricket Committee NUT Redenhall with Harleston & Wortwell PCC St Edmunds Parochial Church Council West Norfolk Schools Athletics Association West Norfolk Schools Football Association Workers Educational Association
The subsidy provided to this group of users is currently £20,000 (approximately £30,000 with the revised charging rates).
Reduce User Groups entitled to the 100% Subsidy Rate
5.5 This option contains three parts ie –
a) Whilst Children’s Services would wish to continue to access school premises at the subsidised rate it is proposed that the costs for the use of schools be recharged to internal users budgets. b) The 100% funding for the Workers Educational Association (WEA) is a historical feature from when it was the Education rather than Children’s Services. The Head of Adult Education indicates that the Adult Education does not provide financial support to the WEA. Adult Education charges booking fees to the WEA for their use of Wensum Lodge although the charge is lower than that for general users. It is therefore proposed to withdraw the 100% subsidy from the WEA. c) It is proposed that the remaining non-Children’s services user groups on the list be reviewed to ensure that continue to provide a county wide service to Children’s services thus justifying a continuation on the 100% subsidy rate.
The estimated changes from these changes would be £10,000 (£15,000 with the revised charging rates).
Reduce the 25% Subsidy Rate
5.6 A reduction in the 25% subsidy to 15% at the revised charge rates would have the following consequence:
Impact of reducing Subsidy from 25% to 15%
2008/09 Revised Increase Amount Amount £ £ £ NCC Subsidy 98,000 113,000 15,000 User Contribution 237,000 466,000 229,000
Income to schools 335,000 579,000 244,000
The reduction in the level of subsidy would reduce the costs of the subsidy paid by Children’s Services by £56,000.
Eligibility
5.7 User groups currently have to complete an application form to gain access to the subsidised letting scheme. It is proposed that a review of all currently eligible user groups be asked to re-register, and that in future the re-registration process be undertaken every three years.
Conclusion
5.8 To encourage community use of schools the continuation of subsidised lettings is proposed however the subsidy must be affordable within the context of Children’s Services overall budget.
5.9 A reduction of user groups entitled to the 100% subsidy (£15,000 savings), a reduction of the 25% subsidy rate to 15% (£56,000 savings), a review of eligibility of all subsidised user groups and revised re-registration of all subsidised users be adopted would be one way to achieve the balance between the two factors set out in paragraph 5.8.
5.10 Again Cabinet will be requested consider making changes to the subsidy arrangements.
5.11 For the purpose of the Service and Budget Planning 2010-13 report included elsewhere on the agenda it is being assumed that the increase cost of the subsidy arising from the proposed increase in charges will be off set by changes to the current subsidy policy.
6. Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
This proposal is relevant to equality, and there is an impact on diverse groups – particularly those groups described within paragraph 3 of this report which fall within the 25% subsidy category:
Voluntary organisations with a membership of 16 year olds and under Older peoples groups Voluntary groups for disabled people Holiday play schemes
It should be noted that the above groups are proportionately more likely to fall within low income brackets. In addition, disabled people’s and older people’s groups (and parents with prams and buggies) are more likely to need access to lower-cost premises which are fully accessible, such as schools.
Approximately 20% of Norfolk residents report a disability, and the county has an aging population which is predicted to increase over the next 25 years.
7. Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
The impact of the increase in the subsidised letting charges will ensure that school budgets and thus pupil funding is not cross subsiding non- school users of school premises. The continuation of the subsidised letting scheme will continue to give an encouragement to the use of school premises to voluntary organisation to which children and young people may belong. The maintenance of the current cost of the school letting subsidy arrangements ensure other Children’s Services budgets are not be directly away from the support of children and young people.
8. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
The content of this report is not assessed to have an impact on crime and disorder.
9. Action Required
Members are asked to note the need to revised the current letting charges to reflect actual school costs, and provide comments to the Cabinet member on the proposed changes to the current subsidised letting policy to inform the discussion at Cabinet.
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Paul Fisher Tel No: 01603 223463 email: [email protected] Yvonne Bickers Tel No: 01603 222878 email: [email protected] Alan Voyzey Tel No: 01603 222551 email: [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact the Customer Service Centre on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Subsidised Letting - Charges
Non sporting includes use of kitchen Type Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday 30mins 1hr 2hr 3hr 4hr 5hr 6hr 7hr 1hr 2hr 3hr 4hr 5 hr 6hr 7hr 1hr 2hr 3hr 4hr 5hr 6hr 7hr Classroom 15.03 16.06 17.09 18.12 19.15 20.18 21.21 22.03 23.06 24.09 25.12 26.15 27.18 28.21 29.03 30.06 31.09 32.12 33.15 34.18 35.21 0.52 Additional c.room 1.03 2.06 3.09 4.12 5.15 6.18 7.21 1.03 2.06 3.09 4.12 5.15 6.18 7.21 1.03 2.06 3.09 4.12 5.15 6.18 7.21 0.52 Hall 20.18 26.36 32.54 38.72 44.90 51.08 57.26 27.18 33.36 39.54 45.72 51.90 58.08 64.26 34.18 40.36 46.54 52.72 58.90 65.08 71.26 3.09 Specialist Rooms 18.18 22.36 26.54 30.72 34.90 39.08 43.26 25.18 29.36 33.54 37.72 41.90 46.08 50.26 32.18 36.36 40.54 44.72 48.90 53.08 57.26 2.09
Sporting Use - includes use of changing rooms/showers etc Type Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday 30mins 1hr 2hr 3hr 4hr 5hr 6hr 7hr 1hr 2hr 3hr 4hr 5 hr 6hr 7hr 1hr 2hr 3hr 4hr 5hr 6hr 7hr Hall 23.36 32.72 42.08 51.44 60.80 70.16 79.52 30.36 39.72 49.08 58.44 67.80 77.16 86.52 37.36 46.72 56.08 65.44 74.80 84.16 93.52 4.68 Gym/Sports Hall 21.36 28.72 36.08 43.44 50.80 58.16 65.52 28.36 35.72 43.08 50.44 57.80 65.16 72.52 35.36 42.72 50.08 57.44 64.80 72.16 79.52 3.68 S.Pool heated 35.36 56.72 78.08 99.44 120.80 142.16 163.52 42.36 63.72 85.08 106.44 127.80 149.16 170.52 49.36 70.72 92.08 113.44 134.80 156.16 177.52 10.68 S.Pool unheated 21.36 28.72 36.08 43.44 50.80 58.16 65.52 28.36 35.72 43.08 50.44 57.80 65.16 72.52 35.36 42.72 50.08 57.44 64.80 72.16 79.52 3.68 Football Pitches 21.36 28.72 36.08 43.44 50.80 58.16 65.52 28.36 35.72 43.08 50.44 57.80 65.16 72.52 35.36 42.72 50.08 57.44 64.80 72.16 79.52 3.68 Artificial Pitch 25.60 37.20 48.80 60.40 72.00 83.60 95.20 32.60 44.20 55.80 67.40 79.00 90.60 102.20 39.60 51.20 62.80 74.40 86.00 97.60 109.20 5.80 Cricket Pitch 20.30 26.60 32.90 39.20 45.50 51.80 58.10 27.30 33.60 39.90 46.20 52.50 58.80 65.10 34.30 40.60 46.90 53.20 59.50 65.80 72.10 3.15 Athletics 25.60 37.20 48.80 60.40 72.00 83.60 95.20 32.60 44.20 55.80 67.40 79.00 90.60 102.20 39.60 51.20 62.80 74.40 86.00 97.60 109.20 5.80 Tennis Court 2.59 3.62 4.65 5.68 6.71 7.74 8.77 2.59 3.62 4.65 5.68 6.71 7.74 8.77 2.59 3.62 4.65 5.68 6.71 7.74 8.77 1.30 Floodlights 13.60 27.20 40.80 54.40 68.00 81.60 95.20 13.60 27.20 40.80 54.40 68.00 81.60 95.20 13.60 27.20 40.80 54.40 68.00 81.60 95.20 6.80 A £1.50 admin charge will be added to each booking
Report to Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item No 14
School Organisation Issues: 3-year Junior Clusters and Cringleford CEVA Primary
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary This report summarises the outcomes of the recent consultations on school organisation in four 3-year junior school clusters in the Grimston, Mundesley, South Wootton and Lingwood areas and comments on the options for change.
The consultation responses for each of the clusters were:
Grimston: The majority of respondents in this cluster overall preferred Option 1 in which three 5-11 primary schools would be created by extending the first schools in Ashwicken and Gayton, and by amalgamating the first schools in Church Hill and Pott Row with Grimston Junior. However, most of the respondents from Church Hill and Pott Row did not favour any of the proposals, and suggested alternatives. Church Hill First School’s option was for all the four first schools to become 5-11 primary schools. Pott Row First’s proposal was for it to become an infant school feeding into Grimston Junior.
Mundesley and Bacton: The majority of written responses showed a preference for Option 2, in which the age range at Bacton would be extended year on year to grow into an all-through primary, and in the Mundesley schools, year 3 children would transfer to the Junior School, creating an infant and a junior school in the existing buildings. There are significant doubts within the community, however, about whether a primary school in two buildings can be genuinely effective, even though they share a site.
South Wootton: Most of the respondents, including both governing bodies, supported a 4 - 7 infant school and a 7 – 11 junior school.
Lingwood: The majority of those responding, including the governors of the first school, agreed that a primary school was the best option provided it was on a single site.
The originals and summaries of all the responses have been placed in the Members’ Room. Members are asked to consider and comment on the consultations to guide recommendations to be made to Cabinet
The report also informs members of the current consultation being run by the governing body of Cringleford Church of England VA Primary School on their proposal, developed with the support of the Norwich C of E Diocesan Board of Education and Children’s Services officers, to enlarge the school on a new site and seeks their views on the proposal. Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
1 Three-year junior school clusters
1.1 Introduction
At the Panel’s meeting in September members were informed of the initial consultation which had recently commenced into proposed changes to the four 3-year junior schools (for pupils in Years 4-6 at Grimston, South Wootton, Mundesley and Lingwood) and their eight feeder first schools (years R-3). These are now the only schools in Norfolk where pupils do not change school at the end of a key stage. This review will complete the process of school review and reorganisation in Norfolk that has taken place over more than ten years. The consultation period ran from 1st September to 23rd October and during that period consultation documents were sent out to all 12 schools, parents, early years settings, parish and district councils, and to local facilities such as libraries and doctors’ surgeries. Open meetings were held in each school to outline the possible options and hear the views of those attending. The notes of the meetings have been placed on the school organisation web page. Responses were returned via Freepost and online. The deadline for responses has been extended so that submissions received after the deadline because of the postal strike have been included. Any further responses received by the time of this meeting will be reported orally. The originals and summaries of all the responses have been placed in the Members’ Room.
1.2 Grimston Cluster
Schools involved: Ashwicken CE VA First, Church Hill First, Gayton CE VC First, Pott Row First and Grimston Junior.
1.2.1 Options:
Option 1: Create three 5 -11 primary schools in Ashwicken, Gayton and Grimston Option 2: Create two 5 -11 primary schools in Grimston and Ashwicken/Gayton (Church of England Voluntary Aided) Option 3: Create one 5-11 primary school on the Grimston Junior site
1.2.2 Outcome of consultations:
Number of documents 633 Number of responses 292 distributed
Five public meetings were held, one at each school, together with a drop-in session at Grimston Junior and a further public meeting organised by the Grimston Parish Council on 19 October attended by representatives of all three local schools and the County Council. The meetings were mostly very well attended and at each of the first school meetings there was very strong support for the continuation of primary education on that school’s site.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
There is broad acceptance of the County Council’s aim of aligning the organisation of schools with the Key Stages. 292 respondents stated their preferred options, with 203 supporting Option 1 (the creation of three primary schools in Ashwicken, Gayton and Grimston). 10 supported option 2 for two primary schools in Ashwicken/Gayton and Grimston. 7 respondents supported option 3 for one new primary school serving the whole area. See Appendix 1.
The governing bodies of Ashwicken CE VA First School, Gayton CE VC First School and Grimston Junior School are in favour of Option 1 (3 primary schools in Ashwicken, Gayton and Pott Row/Grimston). Although overall most of the responses supported option 1, the great majority of those from Pott Row and Church Hill supported none of the options. The governing body of Pott Row First School has submitted an alternative proposal (A) – to retain Pott Row as an infant school feeding into Grimston Junior. 45 respondents supported Alternative A. In addition a supporting petition was submitted with 314 signatures, although only 51% of those came from within the Pott Row and Grimston catchments. It was also strongly supported at the meeting attended by 74 people, including the local MP. The governing body of Church Hill First School has submitted an alternative proposal (B) – to create four primary schools at Church Hill, Pott Row, Ashwicken and Gayton. This was supported by 27 respondents. Grimston Parish Council supported the retention of a school in each village.
1.2.3 Summary of responses
Option 1 - The reasons for supporting the creation of 3 primary schools (Ashwicken, Gayton and Grimston) option included:
In support of Gayton CE VC Primary: Existing above-average standards can be carried through to KS 2. Gayton is a growing village and to be designated as a Key Service Centre by the Borough Council. Most parents are able to walk their children to school. Important to have a school at the heart of the village. Smaller schools and classes provide better environment for young children. Children will benefit from continuity across both key stages and will get extra facilities for KS2. Close ties with pre-school Better for children to be nearer home and not be concerned about bus travel. Preserves diversity and maximum choice for parents. Standards are higher in all through primaries. Children enjoy being at the school. Advantages of continuity of teaching and environment. Stability. Excellent before and after school clubs for working parents. Quickest and most affordable option.
In support of Ashwicken CE VA Primary: A thriving school with high standards and a demand for places. A well thought of school where parents know that every child really does matter. Continuity of learning and avoiding the stress of splitting the child’s peer group. It would be much easier if siblings could be at the same school.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
The numbers of pupils divided across 3 schools would mean smaller classes and more individual attention for each pupil. Ashwicken used to be a primary and so will easily transform. It has a new eco classroom and is a Forest School. Local choice, 3 medium sized schools will allow a connection with teachers and provide 3 centres for local communities. Transition at age 8 is too young, children are ready for change at age 11. There should continue to be a choice of Church of England school. Outstanding inspection grade for Church ethos The school is the last community meeting place left in Ashwicken.
In support of Pott Row/Grimston Primary: Church Hill too small, Pott Row site not big enough. Move everyone to the junior site – it’s big enough and in the middle of Grimston. Least disturbance for the children. Cost would be minimal and the junior site is within easy reach. Retains a local school without the need for travel.
Option 2 - The reasons for supporting the 2 primary schools option (Cof E in Ashwicken/Gayton, and Pott Row/Grimston) included: Best compromise for providing efficient junior school for catchment villages without causing excessive travelling. Provides a cost effective solution with good long term flexibility. Involves minimum travel for youngest pupils. Retains core services within 2 distinct communities. Provides opportunities to increase pupil achievement. Grimston and Gayton to become primary schools. Ashwicken attracts pupils from outside its catchment area. Parents should have a choice between Church and community school.
Option 3 – The reasons for supporting the new primary school serving the whole area:
No change for pupils from year 4. Would provide better resources and encourage better retention of staff. Grimston Junior site has the potential for expansion. Beneficial to the community – sporting, arts, drama and music facilities will be enhanced. Better range of education and facilities all under one roof, rather than moving from first to junior school. It is not viable for each village to have its own school.
Alternative A: The reasons for supporting Pott Row becoming a 4 – 7 infant school:
Pott Row is a “good” and developing school, a judgement confirmed by Ofsted. It has a successful pioneering outdoor curriculum It has a high quality of SEN provision. Bigger and newer doesn’t mean better There would be too many children in a primary school.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
The benefits to young pupils starting school in a small environment. Retains links with pre-school next door. Most of the Grimston children travel to Pott Row pre-school. Pott Row is a key part of the community with strong parental support and is vital for keeping community spirit. Local choice for infant school provision should not be removed. Pott Row could absorb the pupils from Church Hill. Schools feed into Grimston Junior. Missing out on the move from infant to junior school would be detrimental to the children and other moves they will have to make in their future. Transport issues – increase of traffic flow on the road network, environment and safety of villagers. The school felt disappointed and angry that an infant/junior option had not been included by the County Council in the consultation document and that insufficient hard evidence had been provided that 5-11 primary schools were more likely to be higher performing.
Alternative B: The reasons for supporting Church Hill becoming a 4 – 11 primary school:
Standards are well above national averages It would fit the County policy for all through primaries There could be 4 primary schools at Ashwicken, Gayton, Pott Row and Church Hill. Sell Grimston Junior for local affordable housing. Infrastructure is already in place and the school has strong community support. Minimises travel impact. Benefits of smaller schools – teachers know pupils very well and can identify any problems/issues. Least change for pupils. School has adequate space for 4 -11 year olds. Parental choice for the village – parents want their children to benefit from the closeness of a rural community. The school felt that this option should have been consulted on.
Other suggestions: Two primary schools, one in Pott Row and one in Gayton, given that most of Ashwicken’s pupils are from out of catchment. Fund building adaptations through the sale of Grimston Junior.
Pott Row could become one school on two sites.
Other comments: Traffic issues at Ashwicken School. Inadequate parking spaces and lack of care when using car park. Extra traffic in Grimston (Vong Lane) would not be welcome. It would become unsafe for elderly residents. Concerns were raised about what would happen to the buildings at Pott Row and Church Hill if the schools were to close.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
1.2.4 Commentary
Overall, the numerical responses have strongly favoured Option 1 for three 5- 11 primary schools: Gayton, Ashwicken and Grimston. This proposal would create three primary schools accessible to the main villages in the area. The schools could in due course have in the region of 115-125 pupils each with a viable class organisation of 4 or 5 classes each. Feasibility work would now need to be undertaken to determine more precisely what needs to be done to extend Ashwicken and Gayton, making them suitable for older pupils and to provide appropriate accommodation for younger pupils at Grimston.
Options 2 and 3 both received minimal support, although a strong case could be made that Option 3, a single 5-11 primary school of around 315 in significantly refurbished and improved facilities for all the children of the Grimston cluster area would be most likely in the longer term to secure sustained high quality primary education. This would be a likely solution if the County Council was commissioning provision for a newly-built community. However, in this situation careful consideration will need to be given to the geographic context of the existing schools, the travel and access issues and the potential impact on the communities. There were some strong responses opposing these options on the grounds of size, cost, travel and community impact. The Norwich Diocese, after careful consideration of option 3, responded with a preference for option 1.
The great majority of respondents from Pott Row and Church Hill First Schools expressed opposition to all of the proposed options as none of them included the retention of schools on the Pott Row and Church Hill sites and felt that further alternatives should have been put forward as options. A range of points were made that these were schools with good standards of performance and good inspection reports that played an important role in village community life and offered distinctive strengths in providing for young children. However, there was no shared view between the three schools of what the best future pattern of schools would be and some of the responses did not address the implications for the cluster as a whole.
We have looked at the suggestion that Pott Row (and possibly other schools) becomes an infant school, and at the Church Hill proposal for there to be four primary schools. These alternatives would have led to the following patterns of pupil numbers, based on the numbers in the schools in January 2009. Over time, these numbers would of course change, depending on the attractiveness of individual schools to parents and increases in numbers of children in some areas.
Alternative A (One infant Alternative A (Two infant school) Schools) Pott Row/Church Hill Infant: 43 Pott Row Infant 35 Grimston Junior: 63 Church Hill Infant: 8 Ashwicken Primary: 118 Grimston Junior: 63 Gayton Primary: 96 Ashwicken Primary 118 Gayton Primary 96
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
Alternative A (Four infant Alternative B (Four Schools) primaries) Pott Row Infant 35 Pott Row Primary 85 Church Hill Infant: 8 Church Hill Primary 21 Ashwicken Infant: 75 Ashwicken Primary: 118 Gayton Infant: 55 Gayton Primary: 96 Grimston Junior: 184
For comparison, the figures for Option 1 are:
Option 1 (Three primaries) Pott Row/Church Hill Primary 106 Ashwicken Primary 118 Gayton Primary 96
Some of these options had been considered at early stages of the discussions, but they had not been proposed as options within the consultation because:
The infant options would not be in line with the County Council’s longstanding preference for 5-11 primary schools wherever feasible and affordable. 5-11 primaries provided greater continuity of learning and reduces the possible drop in standards on transfer at age 7. It would not make educational or economic sense to have one very small infant school a few hundred yards away from a small junior school or up to four small infant schools in older buildings, creating more surplus places. Alternative B would mean having two small primary schools within 1.3 miles . The size of the schools means that they would continue to face the challenges of being very small, however good they were initially, and lead to vulnerability over time. Many small schools in Norfolk and elsewhere are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit headteachers and staff of the right calibre. Very small schools have very high costs per pupil and close consideration has to be given to the effective use of resources across all schools. The four infant option would be very unlikely to have community support from the Gayton and Ashwicken communities and would lead to more children travelling some distance to the junior school.
The creation of a newly established primary school on the Grimston site (under any of the options) would present an opportunity to build on the strengths and successes of the existing schools. The governing body would draw its membership from the community and could ensure that the aims and ethos of the school were right for all children in these communities. The leadership and staff of the school could be appointed on this basis and
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
continuity of good quality learning and care maintained for children across the whole primary age range. The school would benefit from an improved modern building with up to date facilities and large grounds that would provide excellent opportunities for outdoor learning.
Some of the respondents challenged the County Council’s preference for 5-11 primary schools wherever feasible and affordable. Although infant and junior arrangements can be very effective, and we have retained some such patterns in the county, this has been our approach in reorganisations in Norfolk for over ten years for a range of reasons:
Children have access to a wider range of teacher expertise across Key Stages and broader curriculum with greater continuity in learning More opportunities for teachers’ continuing professional development and wider experience and responsibilities It is easier to 'track' children's progress and attainment in one school. Improved transition between key stages and removal of the disruption for pupils moving to a new school at the start of Year 3; Parents would only have to communicate with one school and children would have the opportunity to attend the same school as older or younger brothers and sisters; Reduced duplication and economies of scale in the management of resources. Opportunities for more effective use of resources. Over the past three years pupil performance in Norfolk at Key Stage 2 has been, on average, higher in 5-11 primary schools than in infant/first and junior or first and middle clusters.
Financial implications. In the current financial year, the total revenue funding for the five schools comes to approximately £1,391,000. As three primaries (Option 1) the annual funding at current values would be approximately £1,259,000; as two primaries(Option 2), it would be approximately £1,182,000. The revenue funding for a single primary (Option 3) would be approximately £1,077,000. The annual funding for the alternatives proposed by Pott Row and calculated on the same basis would be around £1,320,000 for the one infant school version of Alternative A, £1,443,000 for two infant schools and £1,381,000 for four infants. The Church Hill alternative of four primaries would mean annual funding of about £1,393,000.
1.3 Mundesley Cluster
Schools involved: Mundesley First, Bacton First and Mundesley Junior
Options:
Option 1: Create Two 5-11 primary schools in Bacton and Mundesley Option 2: Create a 5-11 Primary school in Bacton; infant and junior in Mundesley preferably under a single federated governing body Option 3: Create One 5-11 primary school in Mundesley
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
1.3.1 Outcome of consultations:
Number of documents 553 Number of responses 119 distributed
There was a total of 119 responses. Two public meetings were held, one in Bacton and one in Mundesley. Both meetings were well-attended, with 68 people in Bacton, and 41 in Mundesley.
The majority of written responses show a preference for Option 2, in which the age range at Bacton would be extended year on year to grow into an all- through primary, and in the Mundesley schools, year 3 children would transfer to the Junior School, creating an infant and a junior school in the existing buildings. The Norwich CofE Diocesan Board of Education has expressed a preference for Option 1, although it gave serious consideration to the benefits of a single primary option.
32 respondents supported two 4 -11 primary schools (in Mundesley and Bacton). 83 supported the option for a 4 - 7 infant school and a 7 – 11 junior school in Mundesley and a primary school in Bacton. No respondents preferred the all through primary school in Mundesley. 4 respondents did not express a preference. See Appendix 2.
The governing body of Bacton First School has expressed a preference for the school to move to primary status and this was strongly supported at the meeting. The governing bodies of Mundesley First and Mundesley Junior Schools have concerns about the effectiveness of a primary school in the existing buildings and have therefore expressed a preference for separate infant and junior status.
Option 1 - The reasons for supporting the two primary schools (Bacton and Mundesley) option included: Concerns about the increase in transportation of children if Bacton school closed. The high standards achieved at Bacton should continue. Less disruption for school and children. Smaller schools provide an excellent start for children. Local children should remain at their school until they are 11. Primary schools are better for the children – they do not get disturbed half way through school life. To avoid changes of school causing dips in performance. Primary schools are a major centre in a village community, contributing greatly to social exchange of all ages. Bacton needs a pre-school with child care facilities so there is a complete stage of learning in one location.
Option 2 - The reasons for supporting the Bacton primary and Mundesley infant/junior option included: Less disruption to staff and pupils. It gives parents the choice between infant/junior and primary. The three schools are functioning well and this option allows them to continue. If Bacton School closes it will be devastating to the whole community.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
More cost effective and can be implemented quickly. Achieves the aims of key stage transfer with minimal disruption. Status quo should be kept in Mundesley until the correct buildings are in place. Population increase in the 2 areas warrants this option. Bacton becoming a primary will improve links and opportunities for the local community and will benefit the children. A co-located school in Mundesley would create a sense of separateness and so this option ensures teaching of an entire key stage at one school. Small primary schools which retain the family feel are more beneficial to younger children. The better option to meet the needs of the 2 communities.
Option 3 – Close all 3 schools and build a new primary school in Mundesley: There was no support for this option, although 1 respondent considered it to be the best solution, but not really an option if the capital funding is not clearly available at this stage. Another respondent considered this to be kept as the ultimate goal as and when finance becomes available.
Other comments: The Bacton site is surrounded by farmland which could be purchased, in preference to using the school playing field. 60 new houses, mainly starter homes, to be built in Bacton. Once funding options are clear there could be further consultation on education provision in Mundesley.
1.3.2 Commentary:
There is strong support within both communities, but most particularly in Bacton, for retaining a school in Bacton village. In September 2009, only 50% of children within the catchment area chose to attend their local school, with most of the remaining 50% opting for local all-through primaries, and it is felt that extending the provision in Bacton to age 11, will encourage people to opt for their village school. There is some concern about the relatively small site that a Bacton Primary School would have, but there are plans to establish a footpath from the school to the local playing field which would create further space for PE.
Option 3 received little or no support from either community, with concerns being expressed about the need for very young children to travel to school by bus, and the potentially detrimental effect that no school would have on attracting younger residents into Bacton. People were also worried, in these uncertain financial times, about relying on a scheme dependent upon significant capital investment and about the consequent delay in acting upon the alignment of transfer with end of key stage.
The situation for the Mundesley schools, deciding between Options 1 and 2, is not quite so clear cut. There is general recognition that aligning age of transfer with the end of the key stage will benefit the children of the village. There is also understanding of the educational benefits to be derived by eliminating any transfer during the primary phase. There are significant doubts within the community, however, about whether a primary school in two Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
buildings can be genuinely effective, even though they share a site, and fears that once established as a primary, capital funding will not be allocated to improving the facilities.
In the current financial year, the total revenue funding for the three schools comes to approximately £1,152,000. As two primaries (Option 1) the annual funding at current values would be about £1,056,000; as Bacton primary and an infant /junior combination in Mundesley (Option 2), it would be approximately £1,158,000. The revenue funding for a single primary (Option 3) would be around £970,000. We will need to undertake a feasibility study at Bacton to determine what needs to be done to make the school suitable for older pupils. Short term accommodation issues can be solved by providing a temporary classroom.
1.4 South Wootton Cluster
Schools involved: South Wootton First and South Wootton Junior.
1.4.1 Options:
Option 1: Infant and junior. A single federated governing body could be considered for the two schools.
Option 2: 5-11 primary. This would need to be established on the present two sites until funds could be identified to provide a single-site school.
1.4.2 Outcome of consultations: Number of documents 681 Number of responses 100 distributed
100 respondents stated their preferred options, with 18 supporting one 4 -11 primary school and 79 supporting a 4 - 7 infant school and a 7 – 11 junior school. 3 respondents did not express a preference. A meeting was held in each school with more attending at the first school than at the junior. The main concern raised at the first school was the potential impact of Option 2 on traffic and parking in the area near the schools. It was felt that this would exacerbate an already difficult situation at the beginning and end of the school day. See Appendix 3.
The governing bodies of both schools have expressed a preference for the infant/junior option.
Option 1 - The reasons for supporting the infant/junior option included: The objective of starting Key Stage 2 at the junior school is achieved with minimal cost and disruption to the children. It is better for young children to be taught in a smaller, more intimate environment. The organisational structures of the schools could still merge. This would allow improvements and efficiencies to be promoted. Moving schools in year 3 prepares the children for the move to high school.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
Smaller pupil numbers help reception and year 1 pupils become more self confident. It would be difficult to run one school on two sites. Year 3 are in mobiles on the first school site – it would be cheapest and easiest to put those mobiles on the junior site. A primary would be too big – I like small schools – there is no need to spend a lot of money to build a new one. It is important that year 3 children transfer to the junior school in keeping with the key stages. Not enough room on the junior site for expansion – the playing field would be sacrificed for parking. Would like to see the space available at the infant school for the pre- school/day nursery. Much money has recently been spent on extensions at the first school.
Option 2 - The reasons for supporting the primary option included: It is better for overall education and in developing social skills. Better for staff. No need for change in uniform. Siblings would attend the same school. It would make it easier to get them to school. Smooth transition and no break mid-key stage. Less traumatic/disruptive to the education of the children. Selling the smaller school would finance a larger one to be built (or extending the existing one). Easier to plan and manage the school, including inset days organised for all year groups.
Respondents had mixed views about building a new primary school on the junior school site: It could only happen if there are appropriate buildings in place. I would not be happy with mobiles. It would cost too much money to expand the junior site.
Other comments: The local residents have serious concerns about parking and associated health and safety issues, were the school to become a primary school on one site. The local residents are concerned about any change of use of the first school site for housing.
1.4.3 Commentary
There is a strong local preference for the schools to align with the key stages by the creation of an infant and junior school arrangement so that Year 3 children would move to the junior school. Although this would mean a reduction in pupil numbers at the infant school, both schools (which already achieve high standards of attainment) would remain two forms of entry and be of a sufficient size to be educationally and financially sustainable. This could be achieved in the short term through the relocation of mobile accommodation
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
from the first school onto the junior school site and the provision of permanent classrooms once funding became available.
It would be feasible to create an all-through primary on the junior site, although there could be significant problems of traffic and access with a more than doubling of the school roll. It would require a significant capital investment to achieve permanent buildings for a single new school, and this is unlikely to be available in the near future.
In the current financial year, the total revenue funding for the two schools comes to approximately £1,260,000. As infant and junior (Option 1) the annual funding at current values would be £1,262,000; as South Wootton primary (Option 2), it would be £1,210,000 as a split-site school and £1,186,000 as a single-site school.
1.5 Lingwood Cluster
Schools involved: Lingwood First and Nursery and Lingwood Junior.
1.5.1 Options:
Option 1: Infant/nursery and junior. A single federated governing body could be considered for the two schools. Option 2: 4 – 11 primary. This would need to be established on the present two sites until funds could be identified to provide a single-site school.
1.5.2 Outcome of consultations:
Number of documents 425 Number of responses 46 distributed
44 respondents stated their preferred options, with 28 supporting one 4 -11 primary school and 16 supporting a 4 - 7 infant school and a 7 – 11 junior school. See Appendix 4. The majority of the governing body of Lingwood First and Nursery School agreed that a primary school was the option they would support provided it was on a single site. One governor supported the infant and junior school option. The governing body of Lingwood Junior School were evenly split between the options.
Option 1 - The reasons for supporting the infant/junior option included: My children have benefited from smaller schools. Children should start Key Stage 2 at the junior school. Least disruption. Transfer from first to junior school is excellent preparation for high school transfer. The school was previously a primary and the change to first and junior has worked well, but all KS2 should be kept together. One governing body should be formed to oversee the development of the two schools.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
Option 2 - The reasons for supporting the primary option included: The children’s education is not disrupted by moving schools in year 3. Teaching staff can have a greater overview of progress the child. Administration would be more cost effective with one management team. One governing body could oversee the development of the school and ensure consistency in leadership. Children are too young at age 7 to transfer to a new school. Children need stability and consistent learning. It is important to keep all the children together in the same environment from 4 – 11 and will help in key stage learning. It may encourage people to stay at Lingwood schools – many parents choose to sent their children to other primary schools within the area. The standards achieved by an all through primary would benefit all the children. I would prefer a one site school – better learning environment and building. It will bring Lingwood in line with other schools in the area.
Respondents had mixed views about building a new primary school on a new site: Two schools merging into one would mean more building work in Lingwood and a loss of jobs for some of the teachers. No temporary accommodation as a short term solution, and wasting of teacher time moving across the two sites. One school site would aggravate the traffic situation at the start and end of the school day. More potential for financial efficiencies – sale of both sites for development land and build a new purpose built school with modern facilities. More available resource for extra-curricular activities. Both schools will need substantial building work to make them into schools of the 21st century and not modified 20th century buildings. It will be more cost effective to build a single new energy efficient school. Consider the next 25 – 30 years and not the next 5. A split site would be divisive, only change to primary status once a new school can be built.
Other comments: More information into the transition to high school comparing children from all-through primary schools to those from infant and junior schools would be helpful.
Wouldn’t it be more practical to swap the schools over so years R,1 and 2 are in the smaller building (junior site) with KS2 students in the larger first school building?
1.5.3 Commentary
Either of the proposed options would be feasible. The creation of an infant school and a four-year junior could be achieved with the addition of a classroom at the junior school although this would increase the numbers of surplus places at the infant school. Both schools would be relatively small.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
The majority of respondents favoured the creation of a single 5-11 primary school. The addition of a temporary classroom on the junior site would enable in the short-term all of Key Stage 2 to be taught together within a split-site primary school. Some, including the first school governing body, while supporting the primary option has suggested that, it should only be implemented on a single site. Further work will be commissioned to investigate the feasibility of achieving a single school on either of the school sites, or a new one, given the potential issues with access, parking and site configuration. The governors could give further consideration to the federation of the two governing bodies as a first step in the process.
In the current financial year, the total revenue funding for the two schools comes to approximately £794,000. As infant and junior (Option 1) the annual funding at current values would be £790,000; as Lingwood Primary (Option 2), it would be £722,000 as a split-site school and £693,000 as a single-site school.
1.6 Conclusions and next stages
There have been detailed, thorough and very helpful responses to the consultation in each cluster. In some there are relatively clear preferences but in others, the situation is more complex and some additional options have been brought forward. The next stages of the review process are:
The Director of Children’s Services will consider the outcomes of the consultation together with the views expressed by the Panel. Recommendations will be brought forward for preferred options in each of the clusters the light of all the responses in the report to Cabinet for its meeting on December 7.
Depending on Cabinet decisions, statutory consultations on preferred options in January/February. These single proposals for each cluster are a required part of the process as set out in the national statutory guidelines.
A further report to be brought to the Panel in March on the outcomes of the statutory consultation. Public notices could then be issued in April/May with final decision on those proposals in the summer or early autumn. Any proposals involving the opening of a new or amalgamated community school will be decided by the Schools Adjudicator, while those only requiring extending the age-range of one or more school can be decided by the County Council.
The criteria set out in the statutory guidance for decision makers, whether they be local authorities or the Schools Adjudicator, are the impact of the proposals on:
Standards Travel and accessibility Diversity and self-governance Funding and land Every Child Matters outcomes Special Educational Needs Equal opportunities Views of interested parties Need for school places Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
2 Cringleford Primary School
2.1 Members were informed at the September meeting of the intention of the governing body of Cringleford VA Primary School to consult on a proposal to increase the size of the school to 420 places and relocating on the site identified within the Roundhouse Park housing development on the north side of the A11. The governing body agreed to proceed with the proposal which has been developed in collaboration with the Norwich Diocesan Director of Education and Children’s Services officers.
2.2 The original proposal in 2004 had been to construct a separate 210 place school for children from Roundhouse Park , but it is now the view of both officers and the school’s governors that this proposal would be a much more effective solution educationally which would avoid unnecessary duplication.
2.3 The proposal will enlarge the school from its present 210 pupils and provide local primary schooling for the present and future children from the existing Cringleford community and from the new development, providing a unifying provision for the two parts of the community in a purpose-built school fit for delivering a 21st century curriculum for all the children of the area. The development, which is partly built at present, will eventually exceed 1,000 houses and there is already a demand for places that the school can not meet in some year groups.
2.4 The consultation period began on 1 October and ends on 27 November and the consultation document is attached as Appendix 5. There has been a public meeting and several drop-in sessions so that parents and other local people can discuss the proposal before giving their views. Children’s Services officers were invited to attend as advisers.
2.5 The governors will consider the responses to the consultation in early December, will take them into account when deciding whether to go forward with the proposal and issue public notices in early January. There would then be a representation period of six weeks before the proposal could be considered by Cabinet for final determination in the spring.
3 Resource Issues
3.1 Property implications The property implications of the proposed 'preferred options' now need examining in more detail before the further round of consultation takes place. We would propose commissioning work from NPS Property Consultants Ltd on two main aspects - the capacity of sites proposed for expansion to take on that expansion and, secondly, the options for creating the additional internal capacity for the extra pupils. For those sites where schooling might be discontinued under a preferred option, the options for the future of the site need to be understood in broad terms.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
These reports would be available in time for the second round of consultation to inform the discussions and be part of the final decision-making process, when Cabinet reviews the options and the results of the consultation.
3.2 Financial implications Revenue: An estimate of the annual revenue implications of the 3-year junior cluster reviews is set out in the individual sections on each cluster in section 1 above. It should be noted that these estimates do not take into account changes to transport costs that could result from longer or shorter journeys to schools as a result of amalgamations or of first schools becoming primaries.
Capital: The capital implications on individual sites would follow on from the property assessments set out above. Cost estimates used to date would need to be refined on the basis of more detailed building options. There is no capital funding identified in the 2008-11 capital budget for these possible statutory proposals other than for temporary classroom provision. The level of capital funding for the period 2011-14 will not be known until late 2010 but the process of prioritisation will begin in the Capital Priorities Group this autumn; this process will recognise the stated County Council priority of completing its primary Key Stage reorganisation and the desire to fund that within the 2011- 14 funding round. Before statutory proposals can be agreed, there will need to be a clear statement of what the County Council is committed to fund to ensure that it can implement its proposals.
Cringleford - the County Council will be required to fund the cost of the new school, in terms of any shortfall from developer contributions or the disposal of the existing site. As the school constitutes a Basic Need requirement, it is anticipated that the funding already available and being held within the 2008- 11 capital budget will be supplemented to the extent of any shortfall as a first call on the 2011-14 Basic Need allocation from Government. Such an arrangement would tie in with the anticipated spending profile to ensure the new school opens in September 2012. Revenue funding will be allocated on the basis of pupil numbers in the usual way.
4 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Consideration of equal opportunities issues is an integral part of the decision- making process for school organisation. An assessment of the equalities issues in these proposals indicates that they have the potential to make a significant contribution to equalities issues, and choice and diversity of provision. As part of the statutory consideration of any proposal, consideration would need to be given to the impact on pupils with special educational needs, and it will be important to ensure that the provision and support for SEN is at least as strong as at present.
5 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
It is not anticipated that the recommendations of this report will have any direct or immediate impact on the reduction of crime and disorder. However, the quality of education, of wider services for children and families and the
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
location and design of school buildings are known to influence aspects of behaviour. The implementation of the outcomes of this review will therefore take these factors into account when designing new facilities.
6 Action Required
Members are asked to:
a) Consider and comment the outcomes of the consultations into the review of 3-year junior clusters in order to guide the Director in preparing recommendations on preferred options for Cabinet
b) Consider the consultation document issued by the governing body of Cringleford VA Primary School so that any comments can be incorporated into the County Council’s response to the proposal.
Background Papers
DCSF Statutory Guidance on School Organisation Proposals
Consultation documents and report to CSOSP 16 September 2009
Folders of all consultation returns
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Officer Name: Tim Newton Tel: 01603 222572 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative different language please contact the Customer Service Ce 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our be
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: Final 2/11/09
Primary education in the Grimston area
Which of the options do you support? Type of respondent Response Response Options Percent Count Pupils Parents Staff Governor Other Option 1: Three 5 – 11 primary schools (at Ashwicken, Gayton and Grimston) 69.5% 203 7 101 18 9 68 Option 2: Two 5 – 11 primary schools (a Church of England primary school at Ashwicken OR 3.4% 10 Gayton and a community school at Grimston) 051 05 Option 3: One 5 – 11 primary school (a new community, or Church of England primary school 2.4% 7 serving the whole area) 051 02 Alternative A: Pott Row becomes a 4 - 7 infant school 15.4% 45 126 6 012 Alternative B: Four primary schools (Church Hill, Pott Row, Gayton, and Ashwicken) 9.3% 27 074 311 answered question 292
Analysis of responses received at 27 October 2009 NOR May-09 Option 1: Three 5 – 11 primary schools (at Ashwicken 71 Ashwicken, Gayton and Grimston) Gayton 58 Church Hill 11 Pott Row 52 Option 2: Two 5 – 11 primary schools (a Grimston Junior 132 Church of England primary school at Ashwicken OR Gayton and a community school at Grimston) Option 3: One 5 – 11 primary school (a new community, or Church of England primary school serving the whole area)
Alternative A: Pott Row becomes a 4 - 7 infant school
Alternative B: Four primary schools (Church Hill, Pott Row, Gayton, and Ashwicken) Primary education in the Mundesley and Bacton area
Which of the options do you support?
Response Response Options Percent Count Pupils Parents Staff Governor Other Option 1: Two primary schools 27.8% 32 015 1 412
Option 2: A primary school in Bacton; an infant and a 72.2% 83 junior school in Mundesley 33415 331 Option 3: One all-through primary school in Mundesley 0.0% 0 00000 answered question 115 skipped question 4
Which of the options do you support? Please tick one only
Option 1: Two primary schools
Option 2: A primary school in Bacton; an infant and a junior school in Mundesley Option 3: One all-through primary school in Mundesley Primary education in the South Wootton area
Which of the options do you support?
Response Response Options Percent Count Pupils Parents Staff Governor Other Option 1: An infant and a junior school 81.4% 79 061 7 211 Option 2: One 5 – 11 primary school 18.6% 18 117000 answered question 97 skipped question 3
Which of the options do you support? Please tick one only
Option 1: An infant and a junior school Option 2: One 5 – 11 primary school Primary education in the Lingwood area
Which of the options do you support?
Response Response Options Percent Count Pupils Parents Staff Governor Other Option 1: An infant and a junior school 36.4% 16 08215 Option 2: One 4 – 11 primary school 63.4% 28 019144 answered question 44 skipped question 2
Analysis of responses received at 27 October 2009
NOR May-09 Lingwood First 136 Liingwood Junior 86
Option 1: An infant and a junior school Option 2: One 4 – 11 primary school Cringleford CE VA Primary School Cantley Lane Cringleford Norwich, Norfolk NR4 6UG
Tel/Fax: 01603 454946 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cringleford.norfolk.sch.uk
Headteacher - Miss G. Blake
Consultation on the proposal by the Governing Body of Cringleford CE VA Primary School to expand and relocate into new purpose-built premises on Round House Park to provide education and resources for the whole community through a two-form entry Church of England Primary School.
As we all know the village of Cringleford is expanding and changing rapidly. The school, originally built in 1858, has done its best to keep pace with village expansion and changes in education over the years. Permanent and temporary buildings have been added on and developments such as the use of ICT as a learning tool have been embraced as far as our present accommodation will allow. The Governors of Cringleford CE VA Primary School have been offered what we consider to be a once in a lifetime opportunity to provide a 21st century school to serve all the children of Cringleford now and in the future. We believe that we would be failing in our duty to future generations of children if we were not to pursue this opportunity with enthusiasm and vigour. We have therefore prepared this consultation document to provide you with as clear a picture as possible and will also be providing opportunities for face to face discussions over the coming weeks, as detailed later in the document. Here are answers to some of the main questions which may arise:
Why do we need a larger school?
Cringleford CE VA Primary School offers 210 places for children in the catchment area of Cringleford, Keswick and Intwood. Any surplus places at the school in the past have been filled by families who want a Christian based education and others who choose Cringleford School for a variety of reasons. The building of Round House Park will eventually produce over 1,000 houses and Cringleford as a whole will need 420 school places. There is already a strong demand for places which we cannot meet. At present we have children attending the school from all parts of Cringleford including Round House Park and have children on waiting lists for many classes. Children who cannot be admitted are travelling to other city schools for their education.
Sept/Oct 2009 page 1 Consultation by the Governing Body of Cringleford CE VA Primary School
Why not enlarge and rebuild the present school buildings?
. We believe that the children of Cringleford should be educated together in a modern purpose-built school fit for delivering a 21st century curriculum . The local community, Norfolk County Council and Norwich Diocesan Board of Education all recognise that Cringleford is a highly successful school. They are keen for more children to benefit from the strong spiritual and pastoral ethos and academic success of the school. This is why they have taken the positive step of joining forces to identify money and resources to support us in this exciting venture. . It is widely agreed that an optimum size for a primary school, in terms of a wide-ranging curriculum, facilities, funding and staffing, is two-form entry i.e. 14 classes of up to 30. Many new schools are built to this specification. . The present school building has many shortcomings and is struggling to meet the demands made on it. The Victorian building is damp, leaky and does not provide for a viable way forward. The rest of the school is a rambling mixture of mobiles, temporary structures and other additions. Our mobile classrooms are unsuitable teaching spaces not least because their temperature cannot be regulated satisfactorily. We have constant issues regarding heating, plumbing and keeping the site secure. Money which could be used to support learning has to be diverted to maintain the ageing buildings. Much of the present building will not be appropriate for teaching purposes within a few years and our site is not big enough for buildings to be extended. . Despite our walking and cycling initiatives, the available parking on site for staff and visitors is totally inadequate. Stopping and parking around the school causes problems daily both for parents of children at the school and for local residents.
The last two points are the main reasons why we have reached the view that the previously explored option of two separate 210 place Cringleford schools – ours remaining on this site and a new second one at Round House Park – no longer appears to meet our future educational requirements, would lead to unnecessary duplication and would further highlight the deficiencies of our school buildings on this existing site.
Sept/Oct 2009 page 2 Consultation by the Governing Body of Cringleford CE VA Primary School
How would a larger new school be funded?
The funding would come from a number of sources ~ . The majority would come from Norfolk County Council’s capital funding for new primary places in Cringleford . A contribution from the developers of Round House Park . Sale of the present site . Use of the School’s Devolved Formula Capital for approximately three years
Why have you been improving the present building if it is to be demolished?
We have a development plan for our present building to maximise its potential for the existing pupils. We use our annual building grant, supplemented by PTA fund raising, to make improvements each year to give short term benefits. Our annual building grant has a time limit of 3 years; therefore failure to use it would lead to the money being lost. All of our recent improvements have involved making maximum use of small spaces. These do not tackle the fundamental issues of the buildings and site.
Why don’t we extend the present building on the existing site?
The shape, size and position of the present site would not be suitable for a two- form entry school. A two-form entry school would be expected to have a site of around 1.95ha or just under 5 acres. However, our site is only 1.6ha. Even if the site were suitable it would be very difficult to do a major re-build on a site occupied by children.
Sept/Oct 2009 page 3 Consultation by the Governing Body of Cringleford CE VA Primary School
What additional advantages would there be to a new build over and above the provision of an excellent learning environment?
Schools are now expected to be more than just providers of education for 7 hours a day. . Early years and extended services could be built into the site including proper facilities for Breakfast and After School Clubs . A playgroup could be brought on site . The school could make use of the adjacent community playing field . Creative provision could be made for a worship area within the school which could be shared with the community . Expanded use of the school facilities by the community as a whole would be anticipated . The building would be constructed to embrace the issues of sustainability and with the clear aim of reducing our carbon footprint.
What other considerations are there?
. We are working with Norfolk County Council to identify safe routes to the school. They have confirmed for example that the current footpath from Colney Lane into Round House Park is planned to be upgraded to a fully adoptable standard footpath (for more detail see site map on page 5). . It is important to remember that the proposed new school would still be Cringleford CEVA Primary School, the same school with the same people and ethos. Only the location and size would change . Although there is bound to be some emotional attachment to the present building, there is no other way that funds can be identified to upgrade it at a later date. The funding from NCC and the developers, as well as a sale receipt, would only be available for a school at Roundhouse Park. This would be the only opportunity for Cringleford CEVA Primary to develop the high quality school provision expected by the growing community of Cringleford.
Sept/Oct 2009 page 4 Cringleford CE VA Primary School Cantley Lane Cringleford Norwich, Norfolk NR4 6UG
Tel/Fax: 01603 454946 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cringleford.norfolk.sch.uk
Headteacher - Miss G. Blake
Proposed timescale:
If this proposal was to go ahead and all aspects of planning and preparation were to proceed without delay, the new school could open in September 2012.
What is the consultation process?
Once you have read this consultation, we would like to know what you think about our proposal to meet the future demands on Cringleford CEVA Primary School. Your views will help us to make our final decision on the proposal. What do you believe would be the best course of action to provide for the young people of Cringleford in the future?
Would you like to discuss this proposal?
There will be a public meeting held in Cringleford CE VA Primary School Hall on
Thursday 22nd October at 7.30 p.m.
In addition the Governors will be holding drop in surgeries at the school on
Monday 12th October 2.45 – 3.45 p.m. & 5.00 – 6.00 p.m and Thursday 12th November 7.00 – 8.00 p.m.
They will be pleased to explain any issues in more depth.
How can you express your opinion?
. By returning the attached response form addressed to the Chair of Governors at the school
. By e-mail to the Clerk to the Governors, Chris Smith. [email protected]
The closing date is Friday 27th November
Sept/Oct 2009 page 5 Consultation by the Governing Body of Cringleford CE VA Primary School
Sept/Oct 2009 page 6 Cringleford CE VA Primary School Cantley Lane Cringleford Norwich, Norfolk NR4 6UG
Tel/Fax: 01603 454946 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cringleford.norfolk.sch.uk
Headteacher - Miss G. Blake
Consultation by the Governing Body of Cringleford CE VA Primary School
Do you agree with our proposal?
Proposal: To expand & relocate into new purpose-built premises on Round House Park
YES NO
Please give your main reasons for your answer
Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make to help us with this decision and in planning for the future of primary education in Cringleford? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Sept/Oct 2009 page 7 Consultation by the Governing Body of Cringleford CE VA Primary School
Please tell us who you are:
Tick box:
I am the parent/guardian of a pupil
I am a member of staff
I am a governor
None of the above Please give other connections/interest (e.g. local resident, member of Parent Teacher Association, local sports group or business).
______
______
First name: ______Last name: ______(optional)
Your address: ______
Postcode: ______
Your views will help us decide about the future of Cringleford CE VA Primary School. The Governors of the School will discuss the results of this consultation at their meeting in January 2010 and decide whether to proceed.
An electronic version of this reply form can be found on the school’s website http://www.cringleford.norfolk.sch.uk.
We will keep you informed of developments as they happen through the school’s website.
Your comments will be anonymous and will not contain your name or anything that could identify you. However, we cannot guarantee that this information will be withheld if it is requested under the Freedom of Information act.
Please return the response form (pages 7 & 8) to the Chair of Governors at the school by 27th November. Alternatively, you may prefer to email your responses to the Clerk to the governors [email protected].
Sept/Oct 2009 page 8
Report to Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item No 15
Consultation on a set of principles to consider when investing in Norfolk Schools for the 21st Century
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary
Over the next 15 years, Norfolk will have the opportunity to benefit from a number of national initiatives, including the Primary Capital Programme (PCP) and Building Schools for the Future (BSF), which will see a significant investment of capital into Norfolk Schools. In addition government plans for housing growth in Norfolk means that we will need to create some new schools in order to cater for this growth.
Children’s Services is conducting a county-wide consultation on the key principles that we think should be taken into consideration whenever a significant capital investment is made in school buildings, whether through PCP, BSF or in areas of significant housing growth.
The proposed principles are:
1. We need to provide a range of different learning opportunities near where people live, so that all learners are given the chance to do the very best that they can. 2. ICT investment should be used to help transform teaching and learning and inspire all learners to take responsibility for their own learning both in and out of schools. 3. A range of services for children, young people and their families such as health, early years and childcare should be provided in and around schools 4. Wherever possible, there should be space for sport, culture and leisure, so as to help make the school the centre of the community. 5. Schools, colleges, other agencies, community groups, businesses and voluntary organisations should work more closely together to make sure that services meet the needs of as many people as possible. 6. Local people must have a voice in the development and design process 7. The development of the learning places must be part of any local regeneration plans. 8. Buildings must be environmentally friendly
Meetings are being held in each area of the county and responses are invited in writing and online. The consultation closes on 30 November. Members are asked to consider and comment on the principles as part of the consultation process Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: FINAL
1. Background
1.1 Over the next 15 years, Norfolk will have the opportunity to benefit from a number of national initiatives, including the Primary Capital Programme (PCP) and Building Schools for the Future (BSF), which will see a significant investment of capital into Norfolk schools.
1.2 In addition, government plans for housing growth include building 21,000 new homes in the Greater Norwich area by 2026, with further significant housing developments in King’s Lynn, Thetford and Great Yarmouth. It is likely that we will need to create some new schools in order to cater for this growth.
2. Contents of Report
This injection of capital is the opportunity for us to plan for, not only education, but all services for Norfolk children, young people and their families to transform learning, our institutions and the communities they serve. During the preparation of our proposals for PCP and BSF, we have consulted widely with groups of headteachers, governors, staff in Children’s Services, NPS, Planning and with elected members in order to help us determine what provision should look like in the future.
From these discussions, we have drawn up a set of principles which we think need to be taken into consideration whenever a project requiring significant capital investment is undertaken.
These principles will also underpin the criteria against which we will be able to measure the transformational impact of the capital investment.
We are inviting as many people as possible to have their say about these principles from 16 October until 30 November. Copies of the attached document have been sent, via the schools and early years providers to all parents, staff and governors. Copies have also been distributed to all stakeholders as identified in the Secretary of State’s guidance on Statutory Proposals for school change, and in accordance with Norfolk County Council’s guidance on consultation.
As well as responding by post or on-line, people are invited to tell us their views by coming to one of the drop-in discussion sessions which are being arranged in each of the five Children’s Services areas across the County.
It is anticipated that the final set of principles will then be considered for adoption by the Children’s Trust. The outcome will inform our Local Authority BSF Strategy for Change, the further implementation of PCP and will underpin all future individual school projects.
They will also form the basis of the second part of the Greater Norwich Growth Point consultation which will focus on those areas most affected by the growth proposals and will take place during the Spring Term 2010. The Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: FINAL
aim of this second part of the consultation process will be to agree strategies for each individual area with schools and key stakeholders. These will set out the organisation, pattern and location of schools and other children's services provision to meet the need of the existing communities and the proposed housing growth. These strategies will when agreed, form part of the implementation of the Joint Core Strategy, know as the Integrated Development Programme.
3. Other Implications
3.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
The principles support the five Every Child Matters outcomes and emphasise the requirement that in planning for new schools or for major refurbishment of existing schools, attention must be given to addressing the needs of all children and young people across all outcome areas.
3.2 Communications: The consultation is being conducted in accordance with the County Council’s processes and guidance on consultation
3.3 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
The principles to underpin capital investment in our schools will determine the extent to which a balanced curriculum is accessible to learners of all ages living in the areas concerned. They will also support the need to take into account the potential benefit of wider services available to children and their families, including where possible, joint work with partners.
4. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
4.1 Adoption of these principles support cohesive and safe communities and will be beneficial in minimising crime and disorder. Educational and wider children’s services will play a key role in this within communities
5. Action Required
5.1 Members are asked to discuss and comment on the draft principles as an integral part of the consultation process.
Background Papers
Review of the Primary Strategy for Change, Cabinet 6 April 2009 Building Schools for the Future – submission of Readiness to Deliver, Cabinet 5 May 2009 Greater Norwich Development Partnership: Joint Core Strategy consultation OSP 15 July 2009
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: FINAL
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Alison Cunningham, School Development (Review and organisation) 01603 223480
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact the Customer Service Centre on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 13 October 2009 Version: FINAL
Norfolk schools for the 21st century
Two national projects, the Primary Capital Programme (PCP) and Building Schools for the Future (BSF), have been set up to rebuild, remodel or refurbish many of our schools to make them fit for 21st century learning. Norfolk is already part of the PCP programme and we are currently bidding to enter BSF so over the next 15 years there are likely to be many new and improved schools in Norfolk.
The Government has also set out plans to build more houses; including 21,000 in the Greater Norwich area by 2026, with further new housing in King’s Lynn and Thetford.
We must make sure that this money improves and changes, not only our schools, but also all services for Norfolk’s children and young people. Inside this leaflet, you will find some of our ideas.
We want to know if you agree with us.
1. We need to provide a range of different learning opportunities near where people live, so that all learners are given the chance to do the very best that they can
2. ICT investment should be used to help transform teaching and learning and inspire all learners to take responsibility for their own learning both in and out of schools
3. A range of services for children, young people and their families such as health, early years and childcare should be provided in and around schools
4. Wherever possible, there should be space for sport, culture and leisure, so as to help make the school the centre of the community
5. Schools, colleges, other agencies, community groups, businesses and voluntary organisations should work more closely together to make sure that services meet the needs of as many people as possible
6. Local people must have a voice in the development and design process
7. The development of the learning places must be part of any local regeneration plans
8. Buildings must be environmentally friendly
In each area, we will need to
Think how many school places there are
Be flexible enough to meet changing educational needs
Support the five national Every Child Matters outcomes –
Being healthy
Staying safe
Enjoying and achieving
Making a positive contribution, and
Achieving economic well-being
This is our chance to get things right for children and young people, and we all have a role in making it happen. Please let us know what you think. Come and talk to us at one of our drop in sessions:
Monday 16 November from 2 – 6pm at the West Norfolk Professional Development Centre, Kilham’s Way, King’s Lynn, PE30 2HU
Monday 16 November from 2 – 6pm at The King’s Centre, Queen Annes Road, Southtown, Great Yarmouth, NR31 0LE
Monday 16 November from 2 – 6pm at Attleborough Community Learning Centre, Church Street, Attleborough, NR17 2AH
Friday 20 November from 2 – 6pm at Lionwood Junior School, Wolfe Road, Norwich, NR1 4HT
Thursday 26 November from 2 – 6pm at Fakenham College (Conference Hall), Wells Road, Fakenham, NR21 9HP or log on to www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation where you can find out more and respond online or email us: [email protected] or write to us: Norfolk schools for the 21st century consultation, FREEPOST, IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR. You don’t need a stamp
Please let us have your response by 30 November 2009
If you need this leaflet in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Tel: 01603 223905 Fax: 01603 222119 Textphone: 0344 800 8011 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help.
Report to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item No. 16
Strategy for Special Educational Needs (SEN): Complex Needs Schools (Change of Designation) and Specialist Resource Bases (Implementation) – Statutory Public Notices (Part of the Learning Difficulties & Disabilities Programme)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Executive Summary
This report provides Members with the outcome of recent consultations, via the Public Notice process, regarding the intended change of designation of our special schools to ensure that they can be registered as all-age (3-19) Complex Needs Schools and also the implementation planning for our new Specialist Resource Bases.
It is a requirement that the outcome of Public Notice consultations are presented for determination by Cabinet within the context of ‘key decisions’. The information which forms the basis of this report will be presented to Cabinet on 7 December 2009.
The development of complex needs schools will ensure that all special school provision offers placements from 3 to 19 years old, meeting the needs of children and young people with a diverse range of needs close to their home and ending the current situation where different schools operate different age ranges. Our current pattern of special schools provides eleven schools across the county and we plan to remodel existing schools and build new schools so that in the future Norfolk will have 13 complex needs schools located equitably to help reduce travel time for children and young people.
We currently have 38 mainstream schools in Norfolk that operate specialist units, predominantly as learning support centres but also as language development centres and specific learning difficulties (dyslexia) units. In Norwich there are also four schools which provide for children and young people with sensory loss (visual impairment and hearing impairment). Specialist resource bases will promote early intervention support through the development of a network of 59 bases, hosted by mainstream schools and through behaviour and attendance partnerships, across the county and within both primary phase and secondary phase schools.
The Department for Children Schools & Families (DCSF) guidance document ‘Making Changes to a Maintained Mainstream School’ provides information on the procedures established by The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) and The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007. It contains both statutory guidance (ie guidance that must be followed) and non-statutory guidance on the process for making changes to school provision, and applies to proposals or decisions related to special schools in addition to mainstream schools, using the supplementary guidance to identify any additional or different requirements.
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 1 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
The Public Notice consultation for Complex Needs Schools ended on 18 October and we received a total of 7 responses which broadly support out plans but which outline a number of concerns regard details of the forthcoming implementation plan.
The Public Notice consultation for Specialist Resource Bases ends on 6 November and as at 2 November (final report deadline) no responses had been received.
This report asks Members to note the outcome of these Public Notice consultations, in the context of the implementation plan for the Strategy for Special Educational Needs, and also in the context that the outcome of the Public Notice’s are scheduled for progress to Cabinet for determination on 7 December 2009 as a ‘key decision’.
1 Background
1.1 In August 2008 Norfolk County Council agreed to proceed to the implementation stage of the Strategy for Special Educational Needs (SEN) which would mean that we would be able to develop new, and transform existing, specialist provision for children with special educational needs.
1.2 In particular this would mean that our existing special schools would become complex needs schools and our units within mainstream schools would become specialist resource bases.
1.3 Why are we changing our specialist provision? Over the last few years we have been reviewing our specialist provision, in our special schools and within our mainstream schools, to make sure that we could plan to have the best possible chance of improving outcomes for children and young people with SEN.
1.4 We work closely with a range of colleagues across children’s services, schools, health and also with representatives from voluntary groups and parents / carers. This work resulted in a large scale consultation in 2006 to seek views on a range of proposals for improving SEN provision. The feedback from that consultation gave us a large amount of information to plan our strategy. The key things that we learned were the following:
. We had to reduce travel time for children and young people attending our special schools . We had to ensure that all of our special schools could provide all-age provision . Specialist units in mainstream schools had to be available equitably across the county and should provide specialisms . Specialist units in mainstream schools should be available to children and young people regardless of whether or not they have a Statement of SEN . Developing behaviour provision was a priority for our colleagues in schools . Developing autistic spectrum disorder provision was a priority for many parents
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 2 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
1.5 We developed these responses into a detailed strategic plan and consulted on this again in 2007 with a specific range of options regarding where new models of specialist provision could be located, to minimise travel time and to maximise choice. The results of this consultation were discussed throughout the first half of 2008 via the Children’s Services Review Panel, Cabinet Scrutiny and Cabinet and in August 2008 the Strategy for Special Educational Needs implementation plan was agreed.
1.6 What is a complex needs school? The majority of our special schools are currently designated as offering provision for children with either moderate learning difficulties (MLD) or severe learning difficulties (SLD); with MLD schools offering placements from age 7 to 16 years old and SLD schools offering placements from age 3 to 19 years old. Many children travel long distances to access the school which best ‘fits’ their age range and type of special educational need.
1.7 The development of complex needs schools will ensure that all special school provision offers placements from 3 to 19 years old, meeting the needs of children and young people with a diverse range of needs close to their home. Our current pattern of special schools provides eleven schools across the county. We plan to remodel existing schools and build new schools so that in the future Norfolk will have 13 complex needs schools located equitably to help reduce travel time for children and young people.
1.8 This model of complex needs school provision has been developed with a range of stakeholders, including our current special school Headteachers.
Please refer to Appendix 1 for a map of our current and future specialist provision. Appendix 2 provides a definition of a complex needs school.
1.9 What is a specialist resource base? We currently have 38 mainstream schools in Norfolk that operate specialist units, predominantly as learning support centres but also as language development centres and specific learning difficulties (dyslexia) units. In Norwich there are also four schools which provide for children and young people with sensory loss (visual impairment and hearing impairment).
1.10 Previous work through a multi-disciplinary / stakeholder project group identified the need to develop a new model of specialist provision within our mainstream schools. Specialist resource bases will promote early intervention support through the development of a network of 59 bases, hosted by mainstream schools and through behaviour and attendance partnerships, across the county and within both primary phase and secondary phase schools. The following specialisms will be developed within the specialist resource bases:
Learning difficulties Autistic spectrum disorder Behaviour, emotional and social difficulties Language difficulties Dyslexia
1.11 Children and young people will not require a Statement of Special Educational Need to access these provisions and the bases will promote the concept of assessment placement, ensuring that links are maintained with the child or young person’s home
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 3 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
school. We plan to promote an outreach model from the dyslexia specialist resource bases, ensuring that all high schools can become ‘dyslexia friendly’. We are currently assessing the most appropriate model of provision for children and young people with a sensory loss, to ensure that there is equity across the county regarding access to specialist support.
Please refer to Appendix 1 for a map of our current specialist units within mainstream schools and the future locations of the specialist resource bases.
2 Outcome of the public notice consultation regarding the change of designation for special schools to become complex needs schools and the implementation of specialist resource bases
Statutory Public Notice
2.1 The Department for Children Schools & Families (DCSF) guidance document ‘Making Changes to a Maintained Mainstream School’ provides information on the procedures established by The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) and The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007. It contains both statutory guidance (ie guidance that must be followed) and non-statutory guidance on the process for making changes to school provision, and applies to proposals or decisions related to special schools in addition to mainstream schools, using the supplementary guidance to identify any additional or different requirements.
2.2 To provide the countywide strategic context we issued a single public notice for nine of our current special schools. According to the definition provided by the DCSF, proposals should be considered as linked or ‘related’ if they are included in the same notice or where the decision on one proposal would be likely to directly affect the outcome or consideration of the other. The DCSF has approved this approach.
2.3 Attached at Appendix 3 is a copy of the public notice which we published between 7 September and 18 October 2009. The nine schools proposed for changes are listed in that document. This takes into consideration the previous decision to close the special schools in King’s Lynn, Alderman Jackson and Ethel Tipple Schools, with effect from 31 August 2009, and replace them with the new 150-place complex needs school, Churchill Park, with effect from 1 September 2009. It also takes into consideration the agreement for Eaton Hall School, as Norfolk’s only special school for children with BESD, to remain outside the complex needs model.
The Special Educational Needs Improvement Test
2.4 Regulation 8 of The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) provides that both the Local Authority and schools adjudicator are required to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State when reviewing or considering proposals for changes to SEN provision.
2.5 This statutory guidance, including the SEN Improvement Test, aims to provide assurance that any reorganisation of SEN provision “is designed to improve on existing
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 4 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
arrangements and enable all children to achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes”, and requires Local Authorities, when considering any reorganisation of SEN provision, 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, and should:
. identify the details of the specific educational benefits that will flow from the proposals in terms of: a) improved access to education and associated services including the curriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment, with reference to the LA’s Accessibility Strategy; b) improved access to specialist staff, both education and other professionals, including any external support and/or outreach services; c) improved access to suitable accommodation; and d) improved supply of suitable places.”
Specialist Resource Bases
2.6 Throughout the last academic year (2008/09) children’s services staff who are involved in the implementation of the SEN Strategy continued to meet with the schools that have been identified as hosting the new specialist resource bases. These discussions focussed on:
. Development of a service level agreement to define the specialism for each specialist resource base, revenue funding and the request for placement / admission process . Identification of the first wave of schools where capital developments would take place, both in terms of making improvements to existing provision and building new specialist resource bases . Roll out of a £378,000 start up training programme for staff working within specialist resource bases
2.7 Earlier this year we received additional advice from the DCSF that meant that we are required to carry out a further round of consultation regarding our specialist resource base developments. Previous consultations had been focussed upon children and young people who have special educational needs and their families. We have also been required to ensure consultation with the parents of all children and young people who attend schools where we plan to change / develop new specialist provision.
2.8 Therefore, on 8 June 2009 we began a consultation process, starting with a six-week period of background information regarding the specialist resource bases. Information was provided via 35,000 flyers, with access to a full consultation document, directed to all parents / carers who have children placed, or due to be placed, within schools identified for specialist resource base changes. A copy of the flyer / consultation document is available via the following link www.norfolk.gov.uk/senstrategy
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 5 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
2.9 This information stage has now been followed by the publication of public notices for new specialist resource bases and where we plan to decommission existing provision. Copies of these public notices are attached at Appendix 3.
Responses to the Public Notices for Complex Needs Schools and Specialist Resource Bases
2.10 Complex Needs Schools The Statutory Notice period began on 7 September and concludes on 18 October 2009. We have received 7 responses and the table below outlines the content of these:
Respondent Group / Comment Organisation Sally Youell, Learning & A suggestion for this change to be considered Partnership Skills Council by the 14-19 Strategy Group, as it includes Manager young people in the 14-19 age group and may have an impact on other provision currently in place in the County, for instance the LLDD provision within FE colleges. As we move towards 1 April 2010, when the LA will have responsibility for all learners 14-19 (up to 25 for LDD) both in schools and FE colleges, we need to ensure that provision for LLDD learners is co- ordinated across all institutions. Andy Mash, Diocese of Mr Mash is confident that the Norwich DBE Diocesan Norwich would have no objections to the proposals. Director of Education Barry Payne, Parkside School Mr Payne’s response on behalf of Parkside Headteacher School outlined both the positive aspects of Parkside becoming a complex needs school, and also a number of areas of concern. The letter is attached at Appendix 4. Karin Heap, Chapel Road As with Parkside’s response, both positive Headteacher School aspects and areas of concern were highlighted. The letter is attached at Appendix 4. Jan Wiggins, Hall School As with Parkside’s response, both positive Headteacher aspects and areas of concern were highlighted. The letter is attached at Appendix 4. Alison Kahn, Fred Nicholson As with Parkside’s response, both positive Headteacher School aspects and areas of concern were highlighted. The letter is attached at Appendix 4. Barry Payne, NASSH (Norfolk Mr Payne’s response on behalf of NASSH Chair of Association of stressed that the group fully supported the SEN NASSH (on Special School Review, but also highlighted a number of areas behalf of all Headteachers) still to be addressed. This letter is attached at
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 6 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
members) Appendix 5.
2.11 Specialist Resource Bases The Statutory Notice period began on 21 September and concludes on 6 November 2009.
To date (2 November) , we have received no formal responses to the statutory notices, but have received two requests for copies of the complete proposal document. The table below outlines the content of these:
Respondent Group / Comment Organisation SEN Cliff Park High Request for copy of the complete proposal Governor School document, as it relates to Cliff Park High School. Administrative Diss Town Request for copy of the complete proposal Assistant Council document, as it relates to Diss High School.
The full results from the statutory notice consultation process will form the basis of this report to be presented to Cabinet on 7 December 2009.
3 Resource Implications
3.1 Capital – the Strategy for SEN was supported in the committed 2005-2008 capital budget to £9.376m, with a further sum now agreed by Cabinet for the period 2008-2011 of £1.610m. This represents a total of £10.986m.
Of the total £10.986m, a sum of £4.45m has been allocated against early commitments in the SEN Review / Strategy for SEN, including specialist resource bases within the Open Academy and the new St Michael’s Primary in the Nar Ouse Regeneration Area (NORA). This leaves a total of £6.5m to be allocated to the implementation of the Strategy for SEN across the County to 2010/11. It has always been the intention to seek further capital funding allocations during and beyond this period. However, with current national and local anticipated budget pressures, we need to manage expectations appropriately regarding the likelihood of future sources of capital funding. As stated in the Cabinet Report of 28 January 2008, the Strategy for SEN developments that require capital input will also be linked into the strategic work within the Primary Capital Programme and Building Schools for the Future.
3.2 Revenue – Funding for special schools is provided from within the Dedicated Schools Grant and it is not anticipated that the development of complex needs schools will result in changes to revenue allocations in the short term.
A project group is being initiated to carry out a review of the current revenue model for special schools, to consider its appropriateness within the context of the development of complex needs schools. The project work will conclude in July 2010 with recommendations for consultation via the Fair Funding consultation process with all Norfolk schools in the autumn of 2010. Therefore, if any changes are proposed these would not be effective until April 2011 at the earliest.
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 7 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
3.3 Staff – The impact of the Strategy for SEN implementation plan on school-based staff will be managed with input from Human Resources professionals within Children’s Services and will follow the agreed process for changes of this kind that has been agreed corporately and with the relevant unions. The implementation plan will be co-ordinated via the SEN Strategy Team and will link with, in particular, the area management structure.
4 Other Implications
4.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) The issues contained within this report, and the Strategy for SEN as a whole, have been considered as part of the equality impact assessment process. The Equality Impact Assessment Screening Form has been used as a tool to ascertain if there is a negative impact upon issues of equality and access. It has been concluded that the Strategy for SEN programme of projects, and specifically the future location of complex needs schools and specialist resource bases, will further enhance access to specialist provision for children and young people with learning difficulties and disabilities.
4.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk The key driver for the Strategy for SEN is an aspiration to achieve an equitable distribution of specialist provision across the five areas of Children’s Services. In addition the Strategy will ensure that the needs of all children and young people with special and additional needs, including in particular, autism, behaviour, emotional and social difficulties, and sensory loss will have their needs met within their local learning community, no matter where they live.
4.3 The implementation of the Strategy for SEN and the new development of a Learning Difficulties & Disabilities programme are planned to lead to improved outcomes for all children in Norfolk with learning difficulties and disabilities, including special educational needs.
5 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
5.1 The Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. Members are asked to note that there is a strong link between SEN and behaviour and we would expect that an improvement in provision for these young people will have a considerable and longer term positive impact on crime and disorder reduction across Norfolk.
6 Action Required
6.1 This report asks Members to note the outcome of these Public Notice consultations, in the context of the implementation plan for the Strategy for Special Educational Needs, and also in the context that the outcome of the Public Notice’s are scheduled for progress to Cabinet for determination on 7 December 2009 as a ‘key decision’.
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 8 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Michael Bateman – Strategic Manager, Special Educational Needs and Learning Difficulties & Disabilities Lead
01362 654546 [email protected]
Helen Howard - SEN Strategy Project Manager
01362 654543 [email protected]
If you need thi s report i n large print, audio, Brail le, alternative format or i n a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendices:
1. Location of current and future specialist provision 2. Definition of a Complex Needs School 3. Statutory Public Notices – CNS and SRBs 4. Responses to Complex Needs School Consultation from Parkside, Chapel Road, Fred Nicholson and Hall School 5. Response to Complex Needs School Consultation from NASSH (Norfolk Association of Special School Headteachers
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 9 of 9 Created: 2 November 2009 Version: 8 SEN Final
Report to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel November 2009
Strategy for Special Educational Needs – Strategy for Special Educational Needs (SEN): Complex Needs Schools (Change of Designation) and Specialist Resource Bases (Implementation) - Statutory Public Notices
Appendix 1 – Location Maps
Existing Specialist Provision and Recommended Complex Needs School and Specialist Resource Base Locations Including Number of Proposed and Forecast Complex Needs School Places
Page 1 of 7
Page 2 of 7
Existing Special Schools and Mainstream Units
Numbered Numbered Marker School Marker School 1 Alderman Jackson Special School 25 Colman Junior School 2 Chapel Road Special School 26 Cromer Junior School 3 Clare Special School 27 Diss High School 4 Eaton Hall School - BESD 28 Earlham High School 5 Ethel Tipple Special School 29 Flegg High School 6 Fred Nicholson Special School 30 George White Junior School 7 Hall Special School 31 Heartsease Primary School 8 Harford Manor Special School 32 Hethersett High School 9 John Grant Special School 33 Hillside First School 10 Parkside Special School 34 Kinsale Junior School 11 Sheringham Woodfields Special School 35 Mile Cross Community Primary School 12 Sidestrand Hall Special School 36 Millfield Primary School 13 Abbey Junior School 37 North Denes Middle School 14 Attleborough High School 38 Oriel High School 15 Aylsham High School 39 Rosemary Musker High School 16 Bignold Primary School 40 Southtown First School 17 Bluebell Primary School 41 Suffield Park Infant & Nursery School 18 Browick Road Infant School 42 Taverham High School 19 Caister High School 43 Terrington St Clement Community School 20 Charles Burrell High School 44 The Hewett School 21 City of Norwich High School 45 Tuckswood Community Primary School 22 Clackclose Community Primary & Nursery School 46 Watton Junior School 23 Cliff Park Community Middle School 47 Wayland Community High School 24 Colman Infant School 48 Wroughton Middle School
Page 3 of 7
Page 4 of 7
Recommended Complex Needs Schools
Location School Children’s Current Funded Proposed Funded Forecast Funded Number Services Area Places Places Places * 1 Complex Needs School in Long Stratton – South n/a 73 107 Exact Location to be determined 2 Complex Needs School in Swaffham – West n/a 80 134 exact location to be determined 3 Churchill Park Complex Needs School West 151 151 151 4 Clare Complex Needs School Central 95 68 83 5 Hall Complex Needs School Central 79 68 83 6 Harford Manor Complex Needs School Central 76 67 82 7 Chapel Road Complex Needs School South 63 100 107 8 Eaton Hall Complex Needs School – BESD Central 44 44 44 9 Fred Nicholson Complex Needs School North 95 77 95 10 John Grant Complex Needs School East 120 136 165 11 Parkside Complex Needs School Central 144 68 83 12 Sheringham Woodfields Complex Needs North 90 90 90 School 13 Sidestrand Hall Complex Needs School North 105 40 80
* Subject to Housing Growth
Page 5 of 7
Recommended Specialist Resource Base Locations (list refreshed July 2009)
Location School Children’s Services Number Area 14 Abbey Junior School – now Bishops VA Primary School South 15 Attleborough High School South 16 Aylsham High School North 17 Bluebell Primary School & Nursery Central 18 Browick Road Infant School South 19 Caister High School East 20 Charles Burrell High School South Clackclose Community Primary School – School withdrawn from SRB development by mutual 21 agreement between School and Local Authority West 22 Cliff Park Community Junior School – Existing Unit proposed for Decommission East 23 Costessey High School (Foundation) Central 24 Costessey Junior School Central 25 Cromer High School North 26 Cromer Junior School North 27 Drayton CE VC Junior School Central 28 Earlham High School Central 29 Fakenham High School & College North Fakenham Infant & Nursery School – School withdrawn from SRB development by mutual agreement 30 between School and Local Authority North Fakenham Junior School – School withdrawn from SRB development by mutual agreement between 31 School and Local Authority North 32 Flegg High School East 33 George White Junior School Central 34 Harleston CE VA Primary School South 35 Heartsease High – now Open Academy Central 36 Heartsease Primary School Central 37 Hethersett High School Specialist Science College South 38 Bradwell Hillside Primary East 39 Hobart High School South 40 Howard Junior School & Howard Infant and Nursery School (Shared Resource) West 41 Kinsale Junior School Central 42 Long Stratton High School South 43 Manor Field Infant & Nursery School South 44 Marshland High School West 45 Methwold High School & Duchy of Lancaster CE VC Primary – Shared Resource West
Page 6 of 7
Location School Children’s Services Number Area 46 Milecross Community Primary School Central 47 Millfield Primary School North 48 Dereham Neatherd High School North 49 North Walsham High School North Oriel High School – School withdrawn from SRB development by mutual agreement between School and 50 Local Authority East 51 Park High School West 52 Rosemary Musker High School South Smithdon High School – School withdrawn from SRB development by mutual agreement between 53 School and Local Authority West 54 Southtown Infant School East 55 Springwood High School West 56 Sprowston Community High School Central 57 Sprowston Infant School Central 58 SRB in Acle Cluster – Lingwood Junior School East SRB in Northern Area – Toftwood Community Junior School - shared resource base with Toftwood Infant 59 School North 60 SRB in Northern Area – Exact location to be confirmed North 61 SRB in Sprowston Cluster – White Woman Lane Junior School Central 62 St George’s CE Junior School (Dersingham) West 63 St Michael’s CE VC Primary School West 64 Suffield Park Infant & Nursery School North 65 Taverham High School Central 66 Terrington St Clement Community Primary School West 67 The Hewett School Central 68 Tuckswood Community Primary School Central 69 Watton Junior School (see Wayland Community High School) West Wayland Community High School – relocation of existing provision at Watton Junior School to become a 70 Shared Resource Base at Wayland Community High School West 71 West Walton Community Primary School West 72 Wroughton Junior - – Existing Unit proposed for Decommission East
Page 7 of 7
Definition of a Complex Needs School
There is a sense in which it may not be helpful to think in terms of a “model” for a complex needs school. A complex needs school should be a reflection of the aggregated identified needs of the children who attend the school at any one time. The departure or arrival of just one child will affect the total make-up of provision to a small extent, as this will have some effect on the overall needs profile of the school. Thus, any “model” which we try to establish must be fluid and flexible, allowing carefully managed changes to the profile of the school.
Whilst it will be reasonable to expect to see similarities between our future complex needs schools, it is unlikely that any two schools will be alike, as each will be reflecting the needs profile of its cohort.
A child may be considered for a place in a complex needs school if they can be described as being within two of the following three categories:
A. They have a delayed developmental profile, ie will be functioning at a significantly below-average level of general ability B. Where, despite a period of sustained reasonable adjustment strategies from the child’s mainstream setting, the child’s needs continue to be unmet C. They present other significant needs that require sustained specialist interventions, therapies and teaching approaches that can be more appropriately delivered within a complex needs school
These significant needs might include:
. Learning Difficulties . Sensory Impairment . Multi-sensory Impairment . Autistic Spectrum Disorder . Profound & Multiple Learning . Complex Health (including Difficulties technology dependent) . Physical Impairment
A Complex Needs School will not be tasked with supporting children and young people whose main presenting difficulty is Behaviour, Emotional and Social Difficulty who have a cognitive profile within the normal range and whose recent [last 6 months] access to the curriculum in their current placement has been in line with expectations of ultimate potential.
8 SEN App 2 - Def of CNS Page 1 of 3
In determining how to make the best provision, it will be helpful to return to the six areas of consideration of our Inclusion Statement, developed through a previous round of projects within our SEN Review:
Inclusion is the process of taking necessary steps to ensure that every young person is given an equality of opportunity to develop socially, to learn and to enjoy community life. In real terms this means that we: 1. Adopt creative and flexible approaches 2. Give consistent messages 3. Actively challenge and dismantle barriers 4. Offer a range of readily accessible provision 5. Actively involve and listen to the young person 6. Work in partnership
1. Adopting creative and flexible approaches We will need to: Have common assessment framework across agencies with definitions that are mutually understood. Adopt assessments which measure children’s potential rather than focussing only on their impairment. Ensure that we are thinking about what the child needs rather than what is available. Plan creatively to provide for needs. Ensure our interventions are evidence-based. Constantly ask ourselves “Is there another way of doing this?”
2. Giving consistent messages We will need to: Check that our proposals and decisions are fair by matching against precedents in our own and other schools. Check that our proposals and decisions match up to our agreed policies, procedures and professional criteria. Cross-examine our proposals and decisions against the Every Child Matters outcomes and our vision for children and young people.
3. Actively challenging and dismantling barriers We will need to: Define the barriers to each child’s involvement in “the common educational enterprise of learning”. (Warnock) Implement creative ways of challenging these barriers. Involve all partners in supporting this challenge.
4. Offering a range of readily accessible provision We will need to: Fully understand what reasonable adjustments have been made so far. Seek out and implement further adjustments where necessary.
8 SEN App 2 - Def of CNS Page 2 of 3
Access examples of good practice or research to support our proposals for adjustment. Plan for participation in academic, technical or vocational activities and socio-cultural practices and ensure access to the social and cultural ethos of the school as a whole, the teaching groups or classes and to inter-personal relationships. By challenging restrictive barriers we will seek to provide the most enabling, positive and meaningful inclusion environment for learning to occur Establishing curriculum flexibility through varying differentiation levels, pathways, teaching programmes and teaching approaches.
5. Actively involving and listening to the young person We will need to: Capture the views of the child, value them and explain to the child how we will act on that information. Ensure that we are able to recognise all communication and signals from children and young people, however, intangible and minimal they may first appear to us. Ensuring all possible advocacy for the child.
6. Working in partnership We will need to: Maintain and further develop the sharing of professional developments with other complex needs schools in Norfolk, in the region and nationally, and with our own local authority and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Welcome the views of parents/carers, recognise that they may have found their own ways of coping and providing and value these ideas alongside those of professionals. Work professionally and supportively with all parts of Children’s Services and other partners – eg health, voluntary organisations, Connexions etc.
8 SEN App 2 - Def of CNS Page 3 of 3
Strategy for Special Educational Needs - Establishing New Provision
Notice is given in accordance with section 19(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that Norfolk County Council intends to make a prescribed alteration to the schools as listed, from 1 January 2010. It is intended that the schools listed below will establish a Specialist Resource Base to make provision for one of the following type(s) of special educational needs:
Learning Difficulties, Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties, and Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
1. Bradwell Hillside Primary School (Community), Lords Lane, Bradwell, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR31 8PA - Specialist Resource Base for Learning; 2. Costessey High School (Foundation), Middleton Crescent, Norwich, Norfolk, NR5 0PX - Specialist Resource Base for Behaviour; 3. Cromer High School (Foundation), Norwich Road, Cromer, Norfolk, NR27 0EX - Specialist Resource Base for Learning; 4. Dereham Neatherd High School (Community), Norwich Road, Dereham, Norfolk, NR20 3AX - Specialist Resource Base for Autism; 5. Howard Infant & Nursery School (Shared with Junior) (Community), Parkway, King's Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 4QJ - Specialist Resource Base for Learning; 6. Lingwood Junior (Community), School Road, Lingwood, Norwich, Norfolk, NR13 4TJ - Specialist Resource Base for Learning; 7. Manor Field Infant & Nursery School (Community), Manor Road, Long Stratton, Norwich, Norfolk, NR15 2XR - Specialist Resource Base for Behaviour; 8. Springwood High School (Foundation), Queensway, King's Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 4AW - Specialist Resource Base for Autism; 9. Sprowston Infant School (Community), Recreation Ground Road, Sprowston, Norwich, Norfolk, NR7 8EW - Specialist Resource Base for Autism; 10. Tuckswood Community Primary School (Community), Tuckswood Centre, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 6BP - Specialist Resource Base for Learning; 11. Wayland Community High School (Relocation of specialist provision at Watton Junior School) (Community) to become specialist resource base based at Wayland Community High School), Merton Road, Watton, Thetford, Norfolk, IP25 6BA - Specialist Resource Base for Learning. This Notice is an extract from the complete proposal. Copies of the complete proposal can be obtained from: Michael Bateman, Children’s Services, Norfolk County Council, Room 24, County Hall, Norwich, NR1 2DL Telephone: 01603 224494 Email: [email protected]. Within six weeks from the date of publication of this proposal, any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending them to The Director of Children's Services, Norfolk County Council, Room 24, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2DL
Strategy for Special Educational Needs - Establishing New Provision
Signed: Director of Children’s Services Chair of Governors, Costessey High School Chair of Governors, Cromer High School Chair of Governors, Springwood High School
Date: 21 September 2009
Explanatory Notes
It is proposed, as part of the Strategy for Special Educational Needs, to implement 54 specialist resource bases (SRBs), to be hosted by schools throughout the county, with each having facilities to provide the equivalent of ten full time places. In order to implement this programme, we need to establish new provision at 27 schools throughout the county, and also discontinue the existing specialist provision at 5 schools. For this to take place a formal statutory process is required for those schools hosting new specialist provision and for those where we will be decommissioning existing specialist provision.
The 11 schools subject to this notice have been identified as priorities for the 2009 / 2011 capital build programme to provide the facilities at the school for the provision. There is a separate public notice for those 16 schools where new SRBs are being established, but the schools are not at this point subject to building work, and another separate notice for the 5 schools where SEN provision is being withdrawn. Copies of these notices can also be obtained as above.
Some schools already have spare capacity that may require some building adaption. In other cases, schools will require new builds, but these will be within the curtilages of the existing school sites.
We want to make it easier for children and young people to access specialist provision closer to their home, and if, as a result of the strategy, a place becomes available at a specialist resource base in future, which is closer to a child’s home, they will have the opportunity to move should this be appropriate and the parent’s/carer’s choice.
However, this will not mean that children already placed in existing learning support units will be displaced. There will be a carefully managed process of closure which will ensure that support is given to those children currently placed in the units, and as such the actual date the units will close will be dependant upon when the last child currently placed at the specialist provision either leaves that school or no longer requires support from that specialist provision. Parents and children will be kept fully informed about the developments.
Strategy for Special Educational Needs - Establishing New Provision
Notice is given in accordance with section 19(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that Norfolk County Council intends to make a prescribed alteration to the schools as listed, from 1 January 2010. It is intended that the schools listed below will establish a Specialist Resource Base to make provision for one of the following type(s) of special educational needs: Specific Learning Difficulties (Dyslexia), Learning Difficulties, Speech, Language & Communication Difficulties, Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties, and Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
1. Costessey Junior School (Community), Three Mile Lane, Costessey, Norwich, Norfolk, NR5 0RR – Specialist Resource Base for Learning 2. Drayton CE VC Junior School (Voluntary Controlled), School Road, Drayton, Norwich, Norfolk, NR8 6EF – Specialist Resource Base for Autism 3. Fakenham High School & College (Community), Field Lane, Fakenham, Norfolk, NR21 9QT – Specialist Resource Base for Learning 4. Harleston CE VA Primary School (Voluntary Aided), School Lane, Harleston, Norfolk, IP20 9HG – Specialist Resource Base for Speech & Language 5. Long Stratton High School (Community), Manor Road, Long Stratton, Norwich, Norfolk, NR15 2XR – Specialist Resource Base for Autism 6. Marshland High School (Foundation), School Road, West Walton, Wisbech, Norfolk, PE14 7HA – Specialist Resource Base for Learning 7. Methwold High School (Shared with Duchy of Lancaster CE VC Primary School) (Voluntary Controlled), Stoke Road, Methwold, Thetford, Norfolk, IP26 4PE – Specialist Resource Base for Behaviour 8. North Walsham High School (Community), Spenser Avenue, North Walsham, Norfolk, NR28 9HZ – Specialist Resource Base for Autism 9. Park High School (Community), Queen Mary Road, Gaywood, King's Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 4QG – Specialist Resource Base for Dyslexia 10. Sprowston High School (Community) Cannerby Lane Sprowston, Norwich Norfolk NR7 8NE – Specialist Resource Base for Learning 11. St. George's CE Junior School (Foundation) Admiral's Drive Dersingham, King's Lynn Norfolk PE31 6LR – Specialist Resource Base for Behaviour 12. St. Michael's CE VC Primary School (Voluntary Controlled) Saddlebow Road King's Lynn Norfolk PE30 5BW – Specialist Resource Base for Behaviour 13. The Hewett School (Community) Cecil Road Norwich Norfolk NR1 2PL– Specialist ‘ Resource Base for Autism 14. Toftwood Community Junior School (Shared base with Toftwood Infant School) (Community) Westfield Road Dereham Norfolk NR19 1JB – Specialist Resource Base for Autism 15. West Walton Community Primary (Community) School Road West Walton, Wisbech Norfolk PE14 7HA – Specialist Resource Base for Learning 16. White Woman Lane Junior (Community) White Woman Lane Sprowston, Norwich Norfolk NR6 7JA – Specialist Resource Base for Learning This Notice is an extract from the complete proposal. Copies of the complete proposal can be obtained from: Michael Bateman, Children’s Services, Norfolk County Council, Room 24, County Hall, Norwich, NR1 2DL Telephone: 01603 224494 Email: [email protected]. Within six weeks from the date of publication of this proposal, any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending them to The Director of Children's Services, Norfolk County Council, Room 24, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2DL
Signed: Director of Children’s Services Chair of Governors, Drayton CE VC Junior School Chair of Governors, Harleston CE VA Primary School Chair of Governors, Marshland High School Chair of Governors, Methwold High School Chair of Governors, St. George's CE Junior School Chair of Governors, St. Michael's CE VC Primary School
Date: 21 September 2009
Explanatory Notes It is proposed, as part of the Strategy for Special Educational Needs, to implement 54 specialist resource bases (SRBs), to be hosted by schools throughout the county, with each having facilities to provide the equivalent of ten full time places. In order to implement this programme, we need to establish new provision at 27 schools throughout the county, and also discontinue the existing specialist provision at 5 schools. For this to take place a formal statutory process is required for those schools hosting new specialist provision and for those where we will be decommissioning existing specialist provision.
The 16 schools subject to this notice are to establish new specialist resource bases in the schools, but are not identified as priorities for the 2009 / 2011 capital build programme to provide the facilities at the school for the provision. There is a separate public notice for those 11 schools where new SRBs are identified as priorities for the 2009 / 2011 capital build, and another separate notice for the 5 schools where SEN provision is being withdrawn. Copies of these notices can also be obtained as above.
Some schools already have spare capacity that may require some building adaption. In other cases, schools will require new builds, but these will be within the curtilages of the existing school sites.
We want to make it easier for children and young people to access specialist provision closer to their home, and if, as a result of the strategy, a place becomes available at a specialist resource base in future, which is closer to a child’s home, they will have the opportunity to move should this be appropriate and the parent’s/carer’s choice.
However, this will not mean that children already placed in existing learning support units will be displaced. There will be a carefully managed process of closure which will ensure that support is given to those children currently placed in the units, and as such the actual date the units will close will be dependant upon when the last child currently placed at the specialist provision either leaves that school or no longer requires support from that specialist provision. Parents and children will be kept fully informed about the developments.
Strategy for Special Educational Needs - Closing of SEN Provision
Notice is given in accordance with section 19(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that Norfolk County Council intends to make a prescribed alteration to the schools as listed. It is intended to close the learning support centres within these schools, which provide provision for special educational needs:
1. Clackclose Community Primary School (Community), Nursery Road, Downham Market, Norfolk, PE38 9PF 2. Cliff Park Community Junior (Community), Orde Avenue, Gorleston, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR31 6SZ 3. Diss High School (Community), Walcot Road, Diss, Norfolk, IP22 4DH 4. North Denes Junior School (Community), Jellicoe Road, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR30 4HF 5. Wroughton Junior School (Community), Burgh Road, Gorleston, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR31 8BD This Notice is an extract from the complete proposal. Copies of the complete proposal can be obtained from: Helen Howard, Children’s Services, Norfolk County Council, Room 24, County Hall, Norwich, NR1 2DL Telephone: 01603 224495 or email: [email protected]. Within six weeks from the date of publication of this proposal, any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending them to The Director of Children's Services, Norfolk County Council, Room 24, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2DL.
Signed: Director of Children’s Services Date: 21 September 2009
Explanatory Notes
It is proposed, as part of the Strategy for Special Educational Needs, to implement 54 specialist resource bases, to be hosted by schools throughout the county, with each having facilities to provide the equivalent of ten full time places.
In order to implement this programme, we need to establish new provision at 27 schools throughout the county, and also discontinue the existing specialist provision at 5 schools. For this to take place, a formal statutory process is required for those schools hosting new specialist provision and for those where we will be decommissioning existing specialist provision.
The 5 schools subject to this notice have been identified through consultation as those to have their learning support centres, which provide provision for special educational needs,
Strategy for Special Educational Needs - Closing of SEN Provision decommissioned.
There is a separate public notice for those 11 schools identified as establishing new provision, being also identified as priorities for building work under the 2009 / 2011 capital build programme, and for those 16 schools where new SRBs are being established, but the schools are not at this point subject to building work. Copies of these notices can also be obtained as above.
Some schools already have spare capacity that may require some building adaption. In other cases, schools will require new builds, but these will be within the curtilages of the existing school sites.
We want to make it easier for children and young people to access specialist provision closer to their home, and if, as a result of the strategy, a place becomes available at a specialist resource base in future, which is closer to a child’s home, they will have the opportunity to move should this be appropriate and the parent’s/carer’s choice.
However, this will not mean that children already placed in learning support units will be displaced. There will be a carefully managed process of closure which will ensure that support is given to those children currently placed in the units, and as such the actual date the units will close will be dependant upon when the last child currently placed at the specialist provision either leaves that school or no longer requires support from that specialist provision. Parents and children will be kept fully informed about the developments.
NORFOLK COMPLEX NEEDS SCHOOLS AND CHANGE OF DESIGNATION
Notice is given in accordance with section 19(1) and 19(3) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that Norfolk County Council intends to make a prescribed alteration, with effect from 1 January 2010, to the following schools: 1. Sidestrand Hall School (Community Special), Cromer Road, Sidestrand, Cromer, Norfolk, NR27 0NH 2. Fred Nicholson School (Community Special), Westfield Road, Dereham, Norfolk, NR19 1JB 3. Hall School (Community Special), St. Faith's Road, Old Catton, Norwich, Norfolk, NR6 7AD 4. Sheringham Woodfields School (Community Special), Holt Road, Sheringham, Norfolk, NR26 8ND 5. Chapel Road School (Community Special), Chapel Road, Attleborough, Norfolk, NR17 2DS 6. Clare School (Community Special), South Park Avenue, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7AU 7. Parkside School (Community Special), College Road, Norwich, Norfolk, NR2 3JA 8. Harford Manor School (Community Special), 43 Ipswich Road, Norwich, Norfolk, NR2 2LN 9. John Grant School (Community Special), St. George's Drive, Caister-on- Sea, Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR30 5QW It is proposed that from January 2010, Norfolk’s Special Schools will be known as Complex Needs schools. The schools shown above currently individually make provision for a range of needs, including: Moderate Learning Difficulty, Severe Learning Difficulty, Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulty, Speech, Language and Communication Needs, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Visual Impairment, Hearing Impairment, Multi-Sensory Impairment and Physical Disability. It is intended that the change of designation of these schools from schools providing for pupils with a particular type of need to complex need schools, will ensure that schools can make provision for all of the special and additional needs of children and young people in their local learning community. As part of this change, it is also proposed to standardise the age range of the school for each school to 3 to 19 years.
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 1 of 2 Version: Public Notice - Short Version (CNS LInked) FINAL
NORFOLK COMPLEX NEEDS SCHOOLS AND CHANGE OF DESIGNATION This Notice is an extract from the complete proposal. Copies of the complete proposal can be obtained from: Helen Howard, Children’s Services, Norfolk County Council, Room 43, County Hall, Norwich, NR1 2DL Telephone: 01603 224495 Email: [email protected]. Within six weeks from the date of publication of this proposal, any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending them to: The Director of Children's Services, Norfolk County Council, Room 24, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2DL
Signed: Director of Children’s Services Date: 7 September 2009
Explanatory Notes
It is planned that from January 2010, our Special Schools will be known as Complex Needs schools. As part of this change, it is also proposed to ensure that all complex needs schools have an age range of 3 to 19 years.
These changes will improve choice and increase accessible and equitable provision across the county, to enable as many children and young people as possible to go to school in their local community, in provision designed to meet their individual special educational needs and local need.
However, this will not mean an immediate change to the age range or range of pupil needs in each school. There will be a gradual and carefully managed process to ensure that the already high standard of our Special Schools is maintained and continues to improve. Parents and children will be kept fully informed about the developments.
We will continue to work closely with schools over the next 5-10 years. This work will include training and development as well as building projects to enable our schools to fully become Complex Needs schools. While it is reasonable to expect to see similarities between our future Complex Needs schools, it is unlikely that any two schools will be wholly alike. Each school will have areas of specialism and reflect the needs of its pupils.
Originated by: SEN Strategy Team Page 2 of 2 Version: Public Notice - Short Version (CNS LInked) FINAL
Appendix 4
Norfolk County Council Parkside School
Headteacher: Mr B R Payne Chair of Governors: Mrs S Gamble
SEN Strategy Team College Road c/o Marianne Ashford Norwich Children’s Services NR2 3JA County Hall Tel 01603 441126 Martineau Lane 01603 441127 NORWICH Fax 01603 441128
th Email:[email protected] 7 October 2009 Our Ref: Office/ac/SENStrategy
Dear SEN Strategy Team
Response to the Consultation of Change of Designation to Complex Needs Schools
Positive aspects of Parkside School becoming a Complex Needs School We feel that this reflects the current position of our pupil intake at present. In recent years there has been an increase of pupils with severe learning difficulties, health issues and those on the autistic spectrum. This does not reflect with our designation as a moderate learning difficulty school. We believe that this will bring Parkside School an increased ability to work with other agencies. In the past, some agencies have only worked with those schools designated with severe learning difficulties. There will be a reduction in travel for a number of pupils decreasing the time spent on minibuses and taxis, however, this must be linked to a co-ordinated admissions system in order to stop parental choice becoming a block in the system. This will increase parent participation as we feel that as parents are likely to live closer to the school, we will be able to encourage them to come into school activities, parents evenings and parents meetings such as Annual Reviews. For those that live long distances at present this is a problem. With the proposed building of two new Special Schools it should give parents who live in between Special Schools an opportunity to choose which to send their child to. At present, there are large areas of Norfolk where there is very little choice. It is hoped that all Special Schools will come up to a minimum specification of facilities and such things as medical facilities, sensory rooms and calm areas should be a standard.
Areas of concern for Parkside School becoming a Complex Needs School We feel that we are already a Complex Needs School without support. This is illustrated by the increase in health issues without an increase in support from the Health Service.
Appendix 4
As currently happens, training of staff comes when the new pupils arrive and we have to quickly train staff to meet their needs. We feel a more pro-active approach to staff development is needed. The buildings at Parkside School need adaptation now to meet the wider range of pupils admitted to the school. If the transition to a Complex Needs School is to be successful then buildings must be done ahead of the increased need, not behind. We feel that admissions are more complex each year, coming into the school, without risk assessment taking place. We feel it is necessary to risk assess on all groups of children entering Special Schools in order to meet their wider range of need within the setting. How will the transition to a 4 - 19 Complex Needs School be phased? We feel there should be a plan for this well in advance so that we can incorporate it into our School Improvement and Development Plans. We would like to be assured of the legal position with regard to Tribunals if we are deemed as 4 – 19 Complex Needs Schools from January 2010. Does this mean that parents / lawyers can insist that we take younger or older pupils before we are ready? We have concerns that small Special Schools would only cater for the needs of the most severe learning difficulty pupils. In order for schools to meet the wider range of learning difficulties, including those with moderate and other complex needs it is important that a number of models be adopted. We do not feel that all Special Schools should only have primary class based teaching as this does not encourage work with Secondary School partners. If this was the case we feel that pupils with moderate and other complex needs would only have one option, which was to go into mainstream schools settings, even though their complexity of need may need a Special School setting.
Thank you very much for considering all these matters and we look forward to seeing the outcomes of the Consultation in the near future.
Yours sincerely
B Payne Head Teacher
HALL SCHOOL A Specialist College for Communication and Interaction
Headteacher - Mrs Jan Wiggins B Ed, MA(Ed) Chair of Governors - Mrs Helen Almey St. Faith’s Road, Old Catton, NORWICH. NR6 7AD Tel: 01603 466467 Fax: 01603 466407 Email:[email protected]
Consultation on change of designation to Complex Needs School
Positive Aspects of Hall School becoming a Complex Needs School Allows for the placement of pupils whose educational needs can be best met within the structure and profile of the school. Allows parents to make a choice of school for their child without having to ensure professionals give them a specific label. Ability to reflect the profile of the school and identify the significant difference in provision required for the pupil’s placed there by Children’s Services
Areas that the documentation does not make explicit or identify within the request for a Change of Designation to the DCSF There is no mention of the pedagogical link with Complex Needs. It seems unlikely this development will make any changes to the current situation if there is no research based link between the title Complex Needs School, and the needs of the pupils this label includes. Curricula development proposed within ‘Building a 21st Century School’ require specific attention to identifying and meeting the individual child’s needs. The fact that each school will be different does not include a current profile of student needs currently provided for. The facilities within Hall School are below expected standards, identified in an asset review 2008, and Ofsted Inspection 2009. Despite clear identification of the impact of the current limitations and building improvements required to accommodate any changes to the current profile, this has not been included within the proposal. Parents and other professionals will need a time-line to identify when the school will be in a position to accommodate any deviation from the current pupil profile. The health professional support currently received by the school is not sufficient, and there is no identification of when and how Commissioning of Nursing will be addressed. There is no clear guidance on admissions to each school, and how the safeguarding of pupils will be addressed through risk assessment assessed including the current profile of the school.
Total Communication, Total Education: Helping and Achieving, Learning for Life
Chapel Road School Chapel Road Attleborough Norfolk, NR17 2DS
Tel: 01953 453116 Fax: 01953 455931 E-mail: [email protected]
Headteacher: Mar. Karin Heap Chair of Governor: Mrs. Anne Landamore
04 November 2009 SEN Strategy Team County Hall Martineau Lane NORWICH NR1 2DL
Consultation of the Change of Designation to Complex Needs Schools
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the re-designation of Special Schools to Complex Needs Schools (CNS).
“Chapel Road School can never become a Complex Needs School on its present site.”
The reasons for this are obvious and have been communicated to the Local Authority on numerous occasions.
The site is severely restricted and there is no space for growth. We therefore can not accommodate the necessary change which would be needed to become a CNS. The building is inadequate as we are not able to accommodate current needs and any additional intake would make our provision unsafe. The existing ‘pupil mix’ is only just safe to meet the needs of pupils and staff on this current site and building. Any change in this make up will result in unsafe practice. We will not be able to safeguard our pupils and staff. On this site we are unable to provide facilities for therapies and to effectively meet the medical needs of our pupils. We are very restricted in the building and on the site and we would not be able to accommodate pupils with more severe medical needs, physical needs, challenging behaviour or severe autism.
We are very concerned that the school is just being re-branded as a CNS, without it being able to provide the specialist resources that actually make it a CNS.
Yours sincerely
Anne Landamore (Chair of Governor)
Consultation of the Change of Designation to Complex Needs Schools
Please find below a compilation of the views of all eleven schools within the Norfolk Association of Special School Headteachers. The points put forward are a result of a meeting of all Head Teachers, a summary of the schools responses to the local authority and this draft document being approved by all members of the association.
We would like to thank the local authority for this opportunity to respond to the consultation and hope that our points are given serious consideration in the future planning.
To begin with, we would like to stress that we fully support the SEN Review and the need to look at special education throughout the county including Special Schools. As we have previously stated, we felt that change was happening by drift and not by clear planning. As the review became a strategy we felt it was important to go back to the clear understanding that it was outcomes for children and families that was paramount in this strategy.
If successful, the SEN Strategy should produce a continuum of provision across Norfolk to meet the needs of a wide range of children with special educational needs, it should increase parent confidence and reduce the need to travel long distances. It should have significant impact within mainstream settings which will lead to school improvement and establish the principal that every teacher is a teacher of special education.
Within the Special School sector it should enhance the range of pupils that each school is able to work with and the buildings and resources should be available and of a quality that meets the 21st century needs. Our Association has worked collaboratively to establish eleven good Special Schools across Norfolk and the strategy should not endanger this strong position but look to enhance and improve it in the future. In order to meet these goals there are a number of issues still to be addressed and we would like to highlight these in the points below:
1. The lack of clarity involved in planning for the development of the majority of Special Schools. It is imperative that schools have facilities that are fit for purpose and this is not the case in the majority of Special Schools in Norfolk. This, of course, is linked to funding and in the present climate we feel that there are significant risks to the plan of upgrading our re-building Special Schools. The Association feels that this is in sharp contrast to other local authorities in our region who have not only costed their change but have the funds to take forward their plans.
2. Most Special Schools are now dealing with a much more complex group of children outside their designated status. This is currently stretching resources within our schools in meeting the needs of either more severe, higher abilities, challenging behaviour, complex health matters and a wide range of social issues. As complex needs are now upon us, we need to plan more thoroughly for these changes and establish clear protocols for admission, risk assessment and staff development. If this does not happen, the whole process may falter and our ability to manage the changing needs become too difficult.
3. The change in age range is already building expectations within parents and we are unsure as to how this will be managed in the future. If there is no clear plan for implementation then we feel each of our schools will be put in a very vulnerable position.
4. We are still unsure as to what a Complex Needs School will look like in our settings. To what extent does this include sensory, emotional behavioural difficulties, or the PMLD pupils? There are key issues with regard to safeguarding and how such a mix a pupils can be successfully dealt with. Already schools are sharing high risk factors, for example children with extremely challenging behaviour incorporated into classes with pupils who have life threatening or life limiting conditions.
5. It is recognised by many Special Schools that the Health Service support they receive is not sufficient to meet current need. How will this change in the future and how will we set up our new Complex Needs Special Schools to meet this need?
6. It is our view that the consultation for Special Schools in Norfolk to become 4 – 19, meeting a wider range of need, has highlighted the desperate need to have a plan for each school to take this strategy forward. It should be clear and costed with revenue sources identified and agreed, there should be a clear timeline of implementation identifying when new groups of pupils will be admitted to the schools and what is required to do so.
In conclusion, we hope that you have found this consultation response useful in planning the way forward for this most important strategy. We are acutely aware of the high expectations of this project and, as always, we are keen to support the local authority in establishing high provision and improved outcomes for the children of Norfolk.
Yours sincerely
B Payne Chair of NASSH On behalf of all NASSH members
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 November 2009 Item No 17
DCSF consultation on proposed changes to first admission to school
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Executive Summary
DCSF (Department of Children Schools and Families) has recently launched a consultation on changes to first admission arrangements (19 October – 16 November 2009).
Norfolk County Council, as admission authority for all community and Voluntary Controlled schools in Norfolk is formally encouraged to respond to the consultation.
The consultation proposes a revised statutory right for pupils to commence full time education from the September after their fourth birthday.
The consultation also proposes that parents will have the right to opt for a funded place for part of the year in the private or voluntary sector. Places must be taken up in full time education in a Reception class by the beginning of the term after the child’s fifth birthday and no later than the Summer term of the intake year.
Overview and Scrutiny Panel members are asked to comment on the proposed response to the consultation:
To support the proposal to require all admission authorities to enable all children to start school in the September following their fourth birthday where their parents choose this. To seek the need to ensure clarity, consistency and appropriate funding for part time and full time placements in all settings and sufficient clarity in the funding arrangements to ensure a clear, fair and easily understood process. To highlight the need for a thorough consultation with the private and voluntary sectors as the proposed changes will also affect them.
1. Background 1.1 The law currently states that pupils must be in full time education the term after their fifth birthday.
1.2 The admission policy for Community and Voluntary Controlled schools allows older born children (born between 1 September and the end of February) to commence full time education in the term after their fourth birthday and younger born pupils (born between 1 March and the end of August) are offered part time education in the Autumn Term and full time education from the Spring Term. All parents are advised they have the right to defer their admission until later in the academic year. Norfolk last reviewed the first admission policy in 2001 and the revised policy has applied since the September 2002 intake.
1.3 A small minority of families complain about the current inflexibility in existing policy with most of these families seeking earlier full time admission to school.
1.4 Foundation and VA (Voluntary Aided) School Governors were strongly encouraged to adopt the same policy but around half of foundation and VA schools exercise their legal right to adopt different intake arrangements.
1.5 Sir Jim Rose, former director of inspection at Ofsted, recently carried out an independent review of the primary curriculum in England. In his report he stated that summer born children are at greater risk of poor outcomes than children born earlier in the school year. This DCSF consultation is in response to the review.
2. Consultation Proposal 2.1 The DCSF are proposing changes to the statutory School Admission Code to require all admission authorities to amend their first admission policies. Amended policies will need to ensure that all pupils are offered a full time place from the September after their fourth birthday and this will need to be included in the annual consultation on admission arrangements for September 2011. To meet the flexibility described in the consultation document it is assumed that further changes will be made to the Admission Code to clarify that all parents can choose for their child to take a full or part- time school place from the September after their fourth birthday, or a full or part-time place in other early learning settings. The child would have to be in full time education by the beginning of the term after the child’s fifth birthday and no later than the summer term of the intake year.
2.2 The consultation opened on 19 October and closes on 16 November 2009.
2.3 To implement the change the DCSF will need to amend the statutory School Admissions code. They are planning for the revised Code to come into force from February 2010.
3. Conclusions 3.1 The principle of offering a full time school place from September for all reception age children will ensure that all schools operate the same policy. This will be beneficial for parents and remove tensions between local schools with differing intake arrangements.
3.2 The flexibilities proposed will also ensure that parents can fully consider the appropriate time for their child to commence full time education within the proposed national policy.
3.3 The consultation document does not explain how parents exercise the flexibilities proposed. Specifically the consultation document suggests that part time reception places could be offered where it was judged as appropriate but does not explain the process or whether parents will be given the right to challenge refusal of a part time placement. The consultation refers to part time and full time placements but does not quantify these.
4. Implications
4.1 Resource Implications: Currently all reception age pupils in full time education on the January census return are funded at the full age weighted pupil allocation. The DCSF consultation states that from September 2011 they will fund local authorities for the costs of full and part time provision - including in maintained nursery schools and classes and in private, voluntary and independent sector provision. The Local Authority has established mechanisms to distribute funding between the Private and Voluntary Sector and maintained nurseries for funded early years provision.
4.2 Legal Implications: The consultation proposes a change to the statutory School Admissions Code. If the changes are implemented all admission authorities will have to comply with the change. Admission authorities are being advised in the DCSF consultation to ensure that local consultation on proposed admission arrangements for 2011 includes this change. The Local Authority consultation for admission arrangements for September 2011 will include this change and foundation and VA schools will be advised that they will also be required to reflect this change in their proposed arrangements.
5. Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) The legal framework within which admissions is managed seeks to ensure that admissions are fair and do not discriminate against any applicant. Our arrangements are regularly checked against the School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Codes and our arrangements are judged to be fully compliant with the duties set out in these codes.
6. Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk The proposed change will ensure that all schools have a consistent policy for first admission to school. It will also allow parents the option to defer admission to school and continue to receive funding for a place in a private or voluntary setting until later in the Academic Year. This improves the opportunity for parents to consider the most appropriate setting for children and ensures that all four year olds have access to a full time funded place.
7. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act The Act requires Local Authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. The direct implications have been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance.
8. Action Required 8.1 Overview and Scrutiny Panel members are asked to comment on the proposed response to the consultation:
To support the proposal to require all admission authorities to enable all children to start school in the September following their fourth birthday where their parents choose this. To seek the need to ensure clarity, consistency and appropriate funding for part time and full time placements in all settings and sufficient clarity in the funding arrangements to ensure a clear, fair and easily understood process. To highlight the need for a thorough consultation with the private and voluntary sectors as the proposed changes will also affect them.
9. Background Papers The final report of the Primary Curriculum Review and a Written Ministerial Statement in response were published at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/primarycurriculumreview/
The DCSF admissions consultation “Independent Review of Primary Curriculum – recommendation 14(1) - points of entry into reception class” is published at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations
DCSF School Admissions and School Admission Appeals Codes 2009, http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/sacode Current Admission Arrangements: A parents’ guide to primary, infant and first schools in Norfolk 2009-2010 http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/article /ncc060475.pdf
Officer Contact: If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Richard Snowden – Head of Pupil and Student Support Tel No: 01603 223489 Email address: [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.