People and Communities Strategic Schools Forum

Wednesday 4th May 2016 – Priory Community School

Agenda Action Lead Apologies and Declarations of Interest – John 1. 09.30 SSF members are reminded that they need to declare an Simpson interest in any item that is on the agenda John 2. 09.35 Minutes of the previous meeting Simpson

Matters arising – John 3. 09.40 Notification of AOB – Demand for the link programme Simpson Chair’s Business - Letter from Mendip Green Primary John 4. 09. 45 Schools and response Simpson Decision on withdrawal of funding for Sheila 5. 09.55 early help via Community Family Decision French Service/parenting following consultation Wendy 6. 10 .15 Alternative Provision Review Decision Packer Carolyn Review of Safeguarding in Education 7. 10.45 Decision Hills/Louise Officer role Malik Louise 8. 11.00 Review of effectiveness of decision making Decision Malik 11.05 Refreshment break Request for resources for pre-opening Emma 9. 11.20 costs for Parklands Educate Together Decision Whitehead Primary Academy 2015-16 Schools Budget Monitoring – Louise 10. 11.30 Information papers to be provided at the meeting Malik Emma 11. 11.40 Process for traded services 2017-18 Information Whitehead Discussion on school funding reforms and Louise 12. 11.50 white paper and potential impact on the Information Malik role of the schools forum 13. 12.05 Impact reports

Agenda Action Lead Sue 13a – The Learning Exchange Information Ivermee Gabrielle 13b – SEN Equipment and other costs Information Stacey 13c – Sensory impairment joint Gabrielle Information arrangements Stacey John 14. 12.35 Evaluation of meeting Simpson 12.40 Date of next meeting Wednesday 6 July 2016, Gordano School (deadline for papers Friday 17 June 2016 )

People and Communities Strategic Schools Forum

Wednesday 2 March 2016 – Clevedon School

Present

John Simpson C Chair Peter Binding V Headteacher, Worle School Stephen Webber V Headteacher, All Saints Primary School Julian Baldwin V Headteacher, Backwell School (substitute for Gary Lewis, Gordano School) Chris Wade V Headteacher, Nailsea School Peter Turner V Headteacher, Ashcombe Primary School Nick Donnelly V Principal, Voyage Learning Campus Fiona Richings V Headteacher, Baytree Special School Richard Riordan V Headteacher, Portishead Primary School Denise Hunt V Governor, Bournville Primary School Jacci Ramplin V Governor, Backwell School Sonia Russe V Governor, Castle Batch Primary School Phil Weston V Early Years Mike Evans NV Governor, Ravenswood Special School Claire Hudson NV Diocese of Bath & Wells Jon Reddiford NV RTPA arrived at 11 am Sue Ivermee Of Assistant Director (Learning & Achievement) Louise Malik Of Service Leader (Resources and Strategic Planning) Wendy Packer Of Prevention and Re-engagement Service Leader Emma Whitehead Of Education Funding and Traded Services Manager Sheila French Of Community Family Service Leader (North) – agenda item 6 Kate Wilcox Of Strategy & Policy Development Officer (Family Support) – agenda item 6

Item Issue Action

1. Apologies and Declarations of interest (JS) Apologies were received from Gary Lewis - Gordano School, Jacqui Ford - Weston College, Cllr Harley and Cllr Hall

Declarations of interest: Denise Hunt declared an interest in agenda item 11 regarding the carry forward budgets, in particular in relation to Becket Primary School and Bournville Primary School. Nick Donnelly declared an interest in the additional agenda item regarding the Voyage Learning Campus. See below.

1

2. Minutes of the previous meeting (JS)

The following amendments were made to the minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2016: Pg 5 regarding pupils living on the county border refers to schools in another authority. Pg 14 regarding possible redundancies in March. An informed decision will be made at the March meeting.

Matters arising: Nil

3. Any other business (JS) Notification of any other business – Alternative provision LM gave a verbal update regarding the fast moving situation. An additional paper will be tabled at the meeting regarding alternative provision which will be discussed after item 9 on the agenda.

Apprenticeship levy The levy will be introduced from April 2017 and is currently under consultation. There are two element to the government’s plan to increase the number of apprentices. The first will apply to any employer with more than 250 employees and the target will be for 2.3% of the workforce to be apprentices. The second will be to apply a levy fund training costs for the additional apprentices. This levy will apply to public institutions with a pay bill of over £3M. The Levy will be 0.5% of pay bill. This will apply to individual academies and VA schools. However, if a school is in a MAT it will apply to the MAT as a total not to individual schools. For maintained schools where the local authority is the employer they are considered part of the council’s pay bill so all such schools will pay the 0.5% apprentice levy. LM to ensure all Schools will be updated via Noticeboard. schools are informed Future request for new school support A new primary school will open in September 2016 and a further new one in September 2017. A budget of £45,000 has been agreed this year in line with policy. Discussions with the next sponsor have commenced and they have indicated set up costs of £220k. The sponsor has been told that this is not in line with our policy and that they would need to make a request to the SSF meeting, possibly to the meeting being held in May.

Scheme for financing schools update EW updated the meeting regarding the article produced by HR (Piers Hartridge) for pension implications regarding TUPE staff. Schools need to be aware of the article and the pension implications. The wording within the scheme will be changed accordingly. The document regarding the new scheme will be circulated to schools.

2

4. Chair’s Business (JS) The Chair thanked Peter Binding for chairing the January meeting.

The Chair advised that a short paper will be tabled during the refreshment break under AOB regarding alternative provision. He highlighted the duty of the SSF regarding the Equalities Act and the necessity of undertaking equality impact assessments which need to be taken into consideration against the decisions made at the last meeting.

5. Impact of the Council’s budget for 2016-17 (LM) LM advised that the discussion at the December meeting was about the type of reductions being considered by the Council for the 2016-17 financial year and this paper gives further details now the budget has been set. Some of these will not have a direct impact on the SSF but give an overview. Table 1, page 2 – the top row of figures shows the government grant funding. These are estimates and LM advised the position could change, and is on top of significant grant reductions in the period 2010-15. It puts into focus the significant reduction in government grant funding.

Table 2, page 3 – shows the scale of reductions being considered by the Council to set a balanced budget. There are a range of plans for future financial years but still more to identify.

RR asked if this same information will be shared with schools. LM advised that Noticeboard has included a link to all the SSF papers. The information will also be shared at a meeting of Headteachers and Chairs of Governors being held on 3 March.

Savings Proposals – Line PC_CSS4 relates to reductions in the Community Family Teams. This is in addition to the proposals that were considered at the SSF meeting in January. Income generation and trading activity – the Council has not always have been consistently charging for activities. There is a need to be more consistent about charging for non-statutory activities. There will be implications on relationships with schools and EY providers. An example for future schools was provided. Future schools activity is de-delegated from the SSF. The suggestion is to support schools to improve sustainability through investigating new governance or collaboration options. Once a school has taken a decision, the costs associated with this change should be charged to the school, such as academy conversion. This matter will be discussed at Future Schools Board meeting. Line PC_LA_2 – PT asked what this means in real terms to schools.

3

SI replied that work behind statutory work is not part of the allocation of time from VLS. This will be negotiated and fully understood before any work is undertaken. SI advised that there will still be a time allocation for children with a statement or plan but the proposal is for work beyond this model. There will be no reductions in allocations, although schools may have exceeded allocations and the need is to be more robust about recording and charging for this. LM advised that work has been undertaken jointly with BANES who have asked North Somerset to consider working across both authorities regarding education psychology provision. PT asked whether this would be cost effective for staff travelling greater distances. SI advised that NS would manage BANES colleagues regarding deployment and supervision would be managed through senior education psychology time. Line PC_ASS_31 – school meal rate change. PT asked about this change. LM replied that the change is scheduled for 1st April 2016. Letters have already been sent to schools regarding the 5p increase from April to reflect the National Living Wage and healthy schools agenda. LM advised there were two different letters, for those in LA organised contract and for those outside the contract. This was discussed at the SSF meeting in October.

The SSF is recommended to: The SSF noted. a. Note the savings within the Council’s budget and their impact on children and young people and the education community.

6. Implications of funding cessation for Family Support

provided through the Community Families Teams

(SF)

LM advised that the decision was taken at the last SSF meeting to make this reduction as part of setting the draft budget. This paper is presented to ensure that members are not fully aware of the implications of that provisional decision.

SF presented the paper giving a draft detailed equalities impact assessment. She explained that the paper is still in draft form as more work is required around the consultation to inform the equalities impact statement. JS advised that this is a legal position and the SSF members must have regard to this impact assessment. LM explained that it would have been better to circulate the paper in advance of the meeting. This had unfortunately not be possible as, although the provisional decision was made at the meeting on 20 January, work had been required to identify the impact on staff and service users. As the Council takes its

4 responsibilities on equalities very seriously, this document needed to include as much information as possible at this stage. SF advised that it had been necessary to inform and consult with staff and the document has been revised several times. At the next meeting the equalities impact assessment will be presented as a final document incorporating the consultation has been undertaken. This will enable the SSF to take a final decision on this issue in May in light of the full implications.

DH asked whether, as the paper had not been available when the decision was made in January, the SSF could be challenged about their decision. LM advised that the SSF still have the opportunity to review and amend that decision, in light of the full equalities implications, so, therefore, the risk of challenge is reduced. At the previous meeting, when setting the draft budget, the SSF looked at a potential cut to AWPU but made this decision instead. The option to cut AWPU cannot now be taken. The decision could be amended but it would then be necessary to find an alternative way to balance the budget. DH asked if, in future a decision is required for which the papers are not available, the SSF should not be asked to make a decision. All the options should be available to make an informed decision.

LM said the paper was not available as it was not an option to reduce this budget.

SF advised that the consultation could not be undertaken prior to a proposal being tabled.

The Chair advised that the process is thorough so there can be no basis for a legal challenge and the decision will be finally made at the next SSF meeting in May.

PPM asked if there would be a specific impact on particular schools in particular geographical areas. SF replied that the impact would be across the authority and, therefore, there will be concern for smaller primary schools who may struggle to provide early help.

PPM asked if there would be socio-economic implications. SF replied that schools in Weston-super-Mare do have a range of support available in schools to assist families with children with high level need.

CH asked what schools have a statutory obligation to provide. SF advised that schools have a duty to provide early help services. Consideration has to be given to an early help plan if required. At the moment in NS few early help plans are being implemented. There are 90 across the authority but there are

5

400 children in need. This suggests that early help services are variable across the authority. CH asked how much of this service should be provided by schools, i.e. should it fall on schools to provide this. SF advised that current legislation is not clear on this but does emphasise schools responsibility for early help. Historically this has been funded from the schools budget. FR asked about the number of children in need and early help and how many children in need have a statement. SF replied that not all children are in special schools are children in need. Children in need are those who require a social care service so not all these children are in special schools. PT felt that it was about overlapping thinking. Families and children are being supported within school budgets. He questioned the visibility of community and family teams and the lack of direct impact on families. He felt there is a huge case for needy children but no direct link to the proposals. RR felt that the SSF is being asked to make a difficult decision affecting a range of services and teams. The Chair advised that the provisional decision was taken without benefit of the impact statement and this debate is evidence that regard is being made to this in order to make decision at the next SSF meeting. DH questioned paragraph 28 regarding future billing of school which don’t comply. LM advised that it would not be easy to identify that a cost incurred for a child coming into care was directly related to a school’s failure to offer early help. Difficult decisions are having to be made but it must be remembered that those decisions are having an impact and that there are consequences of decisions. It is necessary to ensure that schools are aware of impact of what they decide. SF advised that transition arrangements will be made and that this is part of an overall service and not a separate service. Originally set up as education family support now integrated. Funding enabled LA to focus 25% of resources on early help. There will be a number of children whose support will need to transfer to school. The proposal is that the service stops accepting new applications from July 2016.

PT advised that a group of schools in Weston are discussing opening parenting groups to parents of other schools. KW advised that the money has been used to train those staff. RR asked if ahead of the start of the process next year to look at range of services and where high risk of equalities impact are identified, whether at that point these issues could be highlighted at the first meeting so the widest consultation could be undertaken. The Chair confirmed that the equalities impact will be identified at the earliest possible stage. SI asked how this process will be communicated to schools so they have understanding of what was being discussed. This can

6

be undertaken through direct communication and HT reference groups to ensure schools are not caught out by circumstances if they don’t realise responsibility is transferred to them. It was agreed that this information will be shared with schools. The SSF are recommended to:

a. Agree to commence consultation on the impact of this The SSF agreed. change by the SSF and to review the decision in light of the outcome of consultation at the SSF meeting in May 2016

b. Note the implications for schools and early years providers of The SSF noted. the proposed decision of the SSF to cease funding to the Community Family Support Services

c. Agree to issue information to schools and early years providers to inform them of this change in the funding for The SSF agreed. early help and to clarify the expectations of schools and early years providers (subject to final decision following consultation)

d. Agree to cease new referrals to the existing service with The SSF agreed. effect from 1st July 2016 to provide capacity to support schools and early years providers to establish their early help arrangements (subject to final decision following consultation)

e. Agree to receive a future recommendation for consultation on potential changes to the scheme for financing schools to The SSF agreed. reflect this change in funding responsibility (subject to final decision following consultation).

7. Schools Budget Monitoring (LM)

LM advised this was a standard monitoring report and offered

apologies regarding the recall of appendix C.

The change in out of authority placement (Appendix C) was

introduced fairly recently. Appendix D is new and shows the

monthly spend on the main categories of top up funding.

The overall position has worsened. – pg 1 recommendations

include some information to summarise the position.

LM advised that the paper presented to the January SSF meeting

indicated an overspend of £550,000. The position is now

predicted to be £714,000.

Early years numbers are difficult to predict the income and

expenditure impact. The early year’s numbers as at January

2016 have now been received although the numbers are still

subject to refinement. This shows a worsened position of

£120,000.

LM explained that the budget for top up funding has been broken

down in mainstream schools, early years and FE etc. The

allocation to FE providers are restricted to keep within the capped

7 budget. Pre 16 students at NSETC have been incorrectly included in this cap. Taking out pre 16 students and considering them as part of mainstream budget has increased the position by £68,000. The implications of carrying forward this larger deficit are more serious.

PPM advised that after speaking to other headteachers it appears that a number of schools are facing a deficit. He asked if the number of schools in this position is known. LM advised that the schools finance team work with schools that buy back their services and budget setting support is being undertaken at present. There is more concern due to cost pressures on school budgets when funding is not increasing to reflect them. She advised that there is no overall information due to the mixed economy of maintained schools, academies, etc. PPM asked if the Council is looking at local situations and undertaking a dialogue regarding out of authority placements. The Chair advised that this issue will be discussed later in the agenda.

CW advised that data released this academic year indicates 10% of schools are setting a deficit budget and over the next three years this figure increases to 65%. PW asked why the early year’s numbers had had such a big impact. LM replied that this is the difference between the actual and estimates of income and expenditure of hours of take up based on January counts. As take up changes, it is difficult to estimate as expenditure varies throughout the year. Implications for the 2016-17 budget are more positive. PW asked if this was based on a two year cycle of predicted growth and whether planning was being undertaken ahead of the 30 hrs free childcare plan for 2017 when demand will be high. LM advised that numbers have continued to increase in recent years. The LA does want to plan ahead for the move to 30 hrs free childcare but the ability to plan for this is difficult as detailed information is not yet available. FR asked about the children attending schools in other local authorities. LM replied that this is a communication issue as the Council doesn’t always know there is NS child who has started school in another authority. FR asked about those who are they transferring from a NS school. LM advised that the number of children educated out of authority will be brought to next meeting to provide better information to the SSF. However, no hospital education charges should be levied, although some invoices have been issued to us around mental health issues. PT felt that appendix C was really useful and easy to read, although appendix D is not as clear.

8

LM advised that expenditure is tracked month on month and change backdated doesn’t translate to when the allocations where actually made to schools. There are variations in numbers, i.e. the number of children in alternative provision is a volatile number and increases during the academic year. An increase is seen in December due to the November moderation process. Other figures are down to individual issues. The FTE are those receiving top up funding.

FR advised of a case where full time funds where paid for a student who was part time and felt that anomalies in data are unexplained. RR asked why children are going outside NS in first place and asked if anything could be done to encourage them to stay in our schools and whether it is those who live closest to borders. LM replied that could be borders or specialist education provided in Bristol, for example. It could be due to a child being North Somerset’s legal responsibility in respect of funding but fostered in Bristol. LM to provide Additional information will be provided to the next SSF meeting in information on NS May. pupils in other LA schools in the next Springboard – when decisions were made in October regarding monitoring report to top up funding, specialist providers were afforded some protection. However, Springboard was not technically protected, even though it is specialist provider in early years and therefore the SSF made a local arrangement to offer the same level of protection as other specialist settings. Springboard numbers grow during academic year and in October the position was not representative. The SSF agreed that this needs to be adjusted in January. The paper shows an estimated value.

The SSF is asked to: a. Agree the proposed changes to the schools budget as detailed in Appendix A, The SSF agreed b. Agree to recalculate the MFG for Springboard Opportunity Group to reflect January 2016 take up data as detailed in paragraph 7, The SSF agreed c. Note the projected outturn overspend in the schools budget for 2015-16 of £539,783 (was £398,550 in January report) as The SSF noted detailed in Appendix B and consider any questions, d. Note that after taking into consideration earmarked underspends (de-delegations) the actual overspend that will The SSF noted impact on the 2016-17 financial year is £714,503 (was £550,082 in January report),

9

e. Note the use of the DSG underspend from 2014-15 as The SSF noted detailed in paragraph 15 and in particular the over allocation of this underspend of £92,933,

f. Note the projected overspend on de-delegated services for The SSF noted 2015-16 of £48,506 (excl. rates) as detailed in Appendix B and consider any questions. 8. Confirmation of 2016-17 budget incl. equalities

impact assessment and proposals to cash limit top

up funding budget (LM)

The Chair directed the meeting that all items for note by the members would be noted without additional discussion, unless any members did not agree. All agreed to this course of action. The report is a duplicate of that submitted in January with differences highlighted in bold. LM advised that the changes in early years budget has resulted in £139k underspend. This could possibly be added to the contingency line to be offset against deficit carried over from the previous year. There is some flexibility around this decision if SSF want to reconsider when the report is submitted at the SSF meeting in May. As it is a small contingency it should be considered to support the deficit position. In addition, the early year’s numbers have not been finalised so the figure could change. The Chair also advised that the assumption is made that members have had due regard to equality impact statements.

Table 1a Detail Paragraph Recom number Menda tions SSF are asked to: 1 Note the estimated DSG for 2016-17 2.2 & The SSF noted and the explanations for the changes Appendix A 2 Agree the estimated increase in the 2.3 note d. early years block of the DSG for 2, 3 & Appendix The SSF agreed & 4 year olds A 3 Note the additional resources added 2.3 note f. & to the high needs block of the DSG Appendix A The SSF noted (as at the January SSF meeting)

4 Note the overall levels of savings and 2.5 & The SSF noted growth built in to the proposed Appendix C schools budget for 2016-17 when compared to 2015-16 5 Agree that no inflation should be 2.8 The SSF agreed allocated within the schools budget (as at the January SSF meeting) 6 Note the inflationary pressures on 2.9 providers during the 2016-17 financial The SSF noted year

10

7 Agree the proposed value of the 2.12 delegated funding budget and the changes within it as detailed in The SSF agreed Appendix D agreed 8 Note the financial impact on the 2.13 note b. schools budget of new schools The SSF noted provision in the 2016-17 financial year (as at the January SSF meeting) 9 Agree not to amend the funding 2.13 note e. levels or band values used for social The SSF agreed deprivation in light of the updated IDACI data for the 2016-17 financial year (as at the January SSF meeting)

10 Agree to ask the FRWG to review the social deprivation factor used in the The SSF agreed formula to distribute resources to schools, if the ability to influence this locally remains (as at the January SSF meeting) 11 Note the decision of the DfE not to 2.14 agree a disapplication from the The SSF noted regulations to amend the value of the lump sum for the NSETC 12 Agree the proposed early years pupil 2.15 premium budget (as at the January The SSF agreed SSF meeting) 13 Agree the proposed Learning 2.17 Exchange budget (as at the January The SSF agreed SSF meeting) 14 Agree the proposed delegated place 2.18 funding budget (as at the January The SSF agreed SSF meeting) 15 Note that the figures generated as a 2.20 note b. result of the new vision for the VLC will need to be reviewed once full The SSF noted costings have been calculated (as at the January SSF meeting) 16 Agree the proposed value of the top 2.23 up funding budget The SSF agreed 17 Agree the further proposals in relation 2.25 & to the process to cap the top up Appendix E The SSF agreed funding budget. 18 Agree the proposed budget for the 2.26 vulnerable learners service The SSF agreed

19 Agree the proposed budget for out of 2.27 The SSF agreed authority placements

20 Agree, subject to reviewing the 2.28 The SSF agreed outcome of consultation, to withdraw (see previous item) funding from family support provided

11

through the Community Family Service with effect from 1st August 2016 21 Agree to review the outcome of 2.29 consultation and the updated The SSF agreed equalities impact assessment at the (see previous item) May 2016 SSF meeting 22 Agree the proposed budget for 2.30 commissioned resource bases (as at The SSF agreed the January SSF meeting) 23 Agree the removal of the budget for 2.31 the commissioned enterprise initiative The SSF agreed for high needs pupils (as at the January SSF meeting) 24 Agree the proposed budget for SEN 2.32 equipment and other resources The SSF agreed 25 Agree the proposed budget for 2.35 commissioned provision for students with no school place, subject to review following completion of the The SSF agreed detailed costings (as at the January SSF meeting) 26 Agree the proposed budget for the 2.38 prevention and re-engagement provision subsidy, subject to review following completion of the detailed The SSF agreed costings (as at the January SSF meeting) 27 Agree the proposed budget for 2.42 administration of the placement protocol, subject to review following The SSF agreed completion of the detailed costings (as at the January SSF meeting) 28 Agree the proposed budget for the 2.45 Assessment and Intervention Hub (as The SSF agreed at the January SSF meeting) 29 Agree the proposed budget for 2.48 support and advice to the SSF/Schools (as at the January SSF The SSF agreed meeting) 30 Agree the proposed budget for 2.49 licences and subscriptions (as at the January SSF meeting) The SSF agreed 31 Agree the proposed budget for 2.50 Admissions and FSM eligibility (as at the January SSF meeting) The SSF agreed

32 Agree the proposed budget for early 2.51

years administration (as at the The SSF agreed January SSF meeting)

33 Agree the proposed budget for 2.52

contingencies (as at the January SSF The SSF agreed meeting)

12

34 Note the risk of having to cap 2.53 allocations for exceptional pupil growth again in 2016-17 (as at the The SSF noted January SSF meeting) 35 Agree the inclusion of pre opening 2.54 new schools funding as part of the The SSF agreed schools budget (as at the January SSF meeting) 36 Agree to establish a contingency for 2.57 unallocated DSG to contribute The SSF agreed towards the anticipated overspend brought forward from 2015-1 37 Agree that the schools budget is not 2.59 reduced further, at this stage to The SSF agreed recover the projected overspend from 2015-16 38 Agree that repaying the overspend 2.60 should be the first consideration for any savings that have not already The SSF agreed been committed elsewhere (as at the January SSF meeting). 39 Note the areas of the schools budget 2.62 that are at most risk of overspend The SSF agreed during the 2016-17 financial year (as at the January SSF meeting) 40 Agree all other budgets in the schools Appendix B budget for 2016-17 as detailed in The SSF agreed Appendix B (as at the January SSF meeting) 41 Note the de-delegations detailed in 2.64 Appendix B (as at the January SSF The SSF noted meeting) 42 Agree to maintain the existing values 2.65 for de-delegated items, other than those specifically noted, for the 2016- The SSF agreed 17 financial year (as at the January SSF meeting) 43 Note the limited scope for the SSF to 2.66 amend the proposed schools budget The SSF noted 44 Consider the equalities implications 2.68 & and duties to inform decision making Appendix F The SSF agreed Yes believe we have considered all that consideration implications had been given to 45 Receive a report in May 2016 to 2.69 all the implications identify how funding in the schools budget relates to statutory and non The SSF agreed statutory responsibilities

46 Agree the Combined Services 2.70 The SSF agreed budget (as at the January SSF

meeting)

13

Refreshment break Suggested new core strands of commission provision at Voyage Learning Campus and

Westhaven Special School (SI) A paper was tabled.

SI advised that this has been presented previously to the SSF and contains the vision for the Voyage Learning Campus but without the detail contained in the paper today. She advised that the paper had been completed by ND/WP and the VLC team and that she had worked with LM to complete the correct funding model. The changes are to the middle block in the table (bottom row) as ND considered the provision for high needs students at the VLC was not currently appropriate. Further work is being done for the specification for the 6 elements which will be presented at the May SSF meeting. ND advised that the PRU provision for KS4 is for 40 students. This will be an 80 place PRU model once the assessment hub is in place. From September the capacity of the Y10 and Y11 will be almost full and new referrals are still being received from out of school panel. Primary provision will start at capacity and there is also a waiting list. There are 3/4 places available at KS3 which it has been an issue as since September 40 students have been placed who have come out of schools. It is a concern that places are being limited to 80 from September. The VLS is able to run 5 blocks and numbers are manageable in the longer term but will be difficult in the transition period. . A detailed paper will be brought to the SSF meeting in May setting out the transition arrangements from the current provision. High needs provision will be provided by Westhaven who have come forward to take responsibility for 10 high needs places from September 2016. Provision will be in the Fairways building, alongside the Westhaven building to accommodate Y5-Y9 (not Y6-Y9). This will be C3 funding students and above. A piece of work will be undertaken with schools to describe how pupils apply for provision in one of the. With regard to the budget for the high needs element, there is an 18 month funding period agreed. Two pupils have been identified, whose parents are keen for them to be brought back into the North Somerset education system. The new provision will open in September with 6 students, increasing to 10 during the financial year. The assessment hub is 6 week provision for up to 10 young people

14

Schools will be expected to work closely with staff in the assessment hub to manage students being brought back into their existing school or another school.

PB asked whether the impact on the high needs students currently at Westhaven had been considered. SI advised that the building is configured so that it will not present a risk to Westhaven students, although there will be a common entrance to the school. The risk can be managed. An asbestos survey has been carried out from the budget of £35,000. The headteacher and SLT will have conversations regarding the management of the transition and implementation; the governing body have given their full support to this proposal. JR asked if the governing body have the necessary skills and have knowledge of the types of decisions they will be expected to make. SI agreed to check governors are aware of exactly what is being WP to review any commissioned. support required for PPM asked about the transitional issues and waiting lists and Westhaven whether the ultimate strategic aim is to cater for all children in the governing body North Somerset area rather than to rely on significant outplacing. SI replied that this is a strategic decision to cater for the LA with further provision through Weston college who will apply for free school provision. Pupils who remain in authority reduce costs from £30,000-40,000, therefore the potential savings are significant. PT welcomed these developments but asked if the balance was right in KS1 and KS2. SI replied that this paper is still draft and ND advised that historical data over five years was considered. If the assessment hub works it should keep numbers at lower end. PT advised that he has 12 children top up funded children in his school, some of whom are extremely challenging. SI advised that the SSF has agreed these blocks and that the People & Communities Director has approved this paper.

Thanks were recorded to Westhaven School for agreeing to host this provision.

The SSF are asked to: (a) note that the provision will be provided by Westhaven School. The SSF noted

(b) agree 10 high needs place for 2 year period and increase their The SSF agreed provision by 10.

9. Request for support from Flax Bourton Primary

School (LM)

LM advised that the reason for exception is due to poor

communication, not necessarily circumstances of the school.

15

PB queried amount of money being requested as the amount quoted is £5,616 and this should be £4,916. LM confirmed that the correct amount would be allocated if the SSF agree the request. FR asked if this exception should be noted in relation to any other school. LM has ensured that the policy is fully understandable for the future. A meeting is being held on 21st March 2016 with the governing body about the next intake.

SI felt that the school should be advised that a lot of information has been included which is irrelevant to the request before the SSF. LM advised that the original request from the school had been for £16k. The SSF response was that the school should not be financially penalised. The SSF asked the school to come back to the SSF at the end of the year in case the position had improved.

JS felt that the key issue was that the school presents accurate information. PT felt that as the school was able to show impact, this is a reasonable request

The SSF is recommended to:

a. Agree to a one off funding allocation of £5,916 from the de- The SSF agreed delegated contingency budget if the SSF agree that additional the revised figure to resources are required to meet the exceptional circumstances be verified by LM that the school feel that they face.

10. Traded Services uptake (Laurence Marsh)

EW advised that one of the issues coming to attention more and more are schools who join a MAT and are submitting a request to leave pooling schemes. For example the sickness scheme which they signed up for for two years. If schools join a MAT the expectation is that they will remain in the scheme for the term of that scheme and cannot ask to leave a pooling scheme half way through the period. The SSF were asked to consider their response to this and how the process should proceed.

A report on the legal implications of leaving a pooling scheme will be brought to the next SSF meeting.

SI felt that it should be made clear to each school that they would The SSF agreed not be able to withdraw halfway through a scheme.

The SSF is asked to note the take up of services from schools. The SSF noted

16

11. Proposals to retain excessive balances (LM) The SSF is recommended to:

a. Note the applications to maintain an excess balance The SSF noted

b. Note the results of the applications The SSF noted

c. Receive a report at their meeting in May 2016 if a dispute The SSF agreed to regarding the outcome of an application occurs. receive a report

d. Receive further information with the outturn report in July The SSF agreed 2016 regarding the finalised position.

Impact Reports 12. SEN equipment and other costs including

development of Cost Control (Gabrielle Stacey)

It was felt that budget holders must take responsibility for

ensuring that the budgets under their control will not be

exceeded.

The cause of the overspend was questioned as it was felt that the

budget holder should be planning ahead.

SI advised that later in this financial year some requests could be

refused and could raise legalities issues.

The service lead has ways of procuring services better to meet

demand and stay within budget.

The Chair advised that this was report aimed to ensure the

budget meets spend by April 2017.

FR asked if how the money is spent should be looked at.

SI drew attention to page 2 of the report (second block) which

can itemise this.

SI advised that tribunal work is mandatory and therefore some

money needs to be retained in the budget for this work.

RR felt there was no point in reducing budget if overspent next

year. Would have to wait to new financial year if overspend

ahead of the end of the financial year.

FR asked if children have statements why elements are not

coming from top up funding.

CW asked if this budget been set incorrectly if it is overspent

every year.

The Chair advised that by April 2017 this budget should not

overspend.

CH asked if the deficit on this budget at year end will roll forward

into next year and, if so, will an extra £75,000 be required out of

next year’s budget.

LM advised that the overspend will roll forward as a total and not

on individual budget lines.

17

This should be part of monitoring reports and more information about historical patterns and implications for the budget will be brought to the SSF meeting in May.

The SSF is recommended to:

a. Note the current overspend The SSF noted

b. Agree the measures for reducing the spend to budgeted The SSF agreed levels by April 2017, as detailed below.

13. DfE Consultations of schools funding, early years and high needs and the responsibilities of schools and the LA (if issued) (LM)

LM advised that no information regarding the consultations had been received, although this had been expected early in the new year. A national conference is being held on 8th March and papers to inform the meeting would normally have been received by now, even if only in draft format.

14. Evaluation of meeting  It was agreed that extra vigilance would be paid to ensure papers tabled did not contain individual pupil names or other sensitive information.  If people were due to attend a meeting to present papers, sufficient space at the meeting table would be afforded to ensure they could sit in an identified space with their nameplate.  The amended agenda papers would be recirculated.

Date of next meeting Wednesday, 4 May 2016 at Priory Community School.

18

Date: 22nd March 2016 My ref: Your ref: Contact: Louise Malik Direct dial: 01275 884103 Email: [email protected]

Mendip Green School Greenwood Road Worle Weston-super-Mare Somerset BS22 6EX

Dear Dr Ribeiro and Mr Dale

Thank you for your letter of 8th March. I will present your letter to the next meeting of the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) on 2nd May for further consideration. In the meantime please see my initial response below to the two issues that you have raised:

1. Top up funding

The SSF recognises and understands how difficult the in year reduction in top up funding was for schools and other providers. Schools have a responsibility to utilise the funding available to them to meet the needs of all of their pupils with Special Educational Needs. The SSF were aware, in taking this decision, that schools and other providers would face increased financial pressure to meet these responsibilities. However, the SSF also has a responsibility to use the finite resources available in the most effective way possible and to set and manage a sustainable budget for all children and young people in North Somerset.

The SSF have considered how this situation would be handled in the coming financial year, should a further overspend be projected. The SSF agreed that the top up funding budget must be managed within the agreed designated resources and that the value of top up funding allocations would be reduced further during the year if necessary. Schools are advised to plan their budgets in the knowledge that a reduction could be applied.

Your letter indicates that Mendip Green School has a high proportion of children with Special Educational Needs. Funding arrangements do allow for us to make additional, formulaic funding allocations to schools that have a disproportionately large number of high needs pupils. The SSF, through the Formula Review Working Group (FRWG) have considered the creation of such a funding agreement for several years. This work has concluded, following consultation, that there is not a suitable set of data on which to base an effective formula and that there is not clear demand for this additional funding in North Somerset. The SSF has agreed to review this potential funding arrangement again in 2018-19. However, the SSF could ask the FRWG to consider the issue again during 2016-17 on the basis of the concerns that you have raised.

\\Nsc-datastore1\ed\Education Department\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2016\03 - May 04 deadline 15 April\3 To be PDFed\Agenda item No 4 Letter to Mendip Green.docx Your input into the discussions at the FRWG would be very helpful if you would like us to progress on this basis.

2. Exceptional Pupil Growth

The policy for exceptional pupil growth was approved by the SSF following consultation with all schools. The policy clearly states that the funding will be capped if the resources to be allocated exceed the funding available and schools are advised of this as part of the financial support package that they purchase through the LA. When faced with an overspend in this budget in the past, the SSF have agreed not to implement a cap on the allocations and have utilised other resources to support this budget. With a significant deficit proposed at the end of the 2015-16 financial year, the SSF concluded this was not a viable option for in the current financial year.

Whilst the cap is a clear part of the exceptional pupil growth policy, I do accept that it is difficult for schools to budget accurately in the knowledge that a cap could be applied.

I will raise your concerns about the impact of the exceptional pupil growth cap on Mendip Green School at the SSF meeting on 2nd May. However, I need to inform you that another school has already appealed against the cap to the SSF and the appeal was not successful.

You are welcome to attend the meeting of the SSF on 2nd May to listen to any discussion regarding your letter and to answer any questions. If you would like to take up this opportunity please confirm your attendance with Louise Malik to ensure you can be accommodated.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff and governors for your dedication to inclusion, equality and diversity particularly in light of the difficult financial context we all face.

Yours sincerely

John Simpson Chair of the Strategic Schools Forum

\\Nsc-datastore1\ed\Education Department\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2016\03 - May 04 deadline 15 April\3 To be PDFed\Agenda item No 4 Letter to Mendip Green.docx Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No: 5

Decision on withdrawal of funding for early help via Community Family Service/parenting following consultation

Sheila French

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

Introduction

1. This report highlights the feedback from stakeholders in relation to the proposed reductions in relation to parenting groups and funding for staffing in Community Family Teams.

2. These proposals were first identified by the Strategic Schools Forum in January 2016. There is a duty to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment in relation to any significant changes in funding. The first EIA was brought to the SSF in March 2016. It highlighted that further consultation was required with families, children staff and schools to inform the SSF regarding the Equalities impact of the proposal.

Purpose of the Report

3. The purpose of the report is to:

a. Share the updated equalities impact assessment, following consultation, with the SSF.

Recommendations

4. In view of the findings from the consultation, the SSF are recommended to:

a. Communicate with all schools to ensure that their families and children are aware of the range of services schools offer under Early Help.

b. Inform schools of the availability of training in Incredible Years during the summer term and ask schools to identify staff who would wish to be trained.

c. Consider what support schools can be offered to enable groups of schools to co-ordinate and offer parenting groups and other Early Help services.

d. Re-consider the decision to delete the funding for the 2 advisory teacher posts in the light of the feedback from staff and schools about the valuable role they play and that these skills are not available elsewhere. Maintaining the advisory teachers would cost £70k in a full year and £52k in the 2016-17 financial year. However this decision would also remove redundancy costs currently estimated at £20,621.

e. Re-consider the reduction in the parenting funding and agree funding of £15k to enable groups to be offered at Early Intervention.

f. If this is not possible agree for arrangements to be put in place for schools to be able to purchase places on parenting courses as part of their Early Help offer.

- 1 -

Detail

5. The consultation was undertaken over a 5 week period and 47 responses were received as detailed in the updated equalities impact assessment attached as Appendix A.

6. The report highlights:

a. Families and children value the service and indicate it makes a significant difference to their lives.

b. Schools especially value the input from the 2 advisory teachers, the training and staff development offered. Similarly staff in support and safeguarding welcomed the strong links that the advisory teachers promoted between schools and Community Family Teams.

c. Neither families nor schools were aware of being able to obtain similar support elsewhere.

d. While staff and families understand that this may mean parenting groups can only be offered to those who are Children in Need, or families subject of a child protection plan, they are concerned that many other families who would benefit from this work at an earlier stage will miss out and may then reach crises.

- 2 - Equality Impact Assessments Service Area: Children’s Support and Safeguarding - Community Family Teams Equality Impact Assessment Owner: Sheila French Review date: 4th February 2016 updated 20th April 2016 Ref Budget Reduction Budget Reduction (£) Staffing Reduction Service user Service user Proposal (FTE) impact before impact after mitigating mitigating

actions actions 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2016/17 2016/17 to 20 2019/2020 SSF05 £217k &08 Reduce staffing early help support delivered through the Community Family

Teams by 3.5 x posts. 5.7 plus Family support admin worker/young people’s support 0 0 0 Medium Medium support worker, 2 part time from (.6) advisory teachers, Agilisys business support and 1 £23k manager. From £72,671 Reduction in funding for to parenting groups £12,671

Section 1 – The proposal

Background to proposal – Max 250 words (Please provide a brief explanation of the project/proposals, you should consider both the impact on customers and staff)

The proposal is to reduce staffing in Community Family Teams by 3.5 x. support worker posts, 2 x .6 advisory teachers, 1 manager and business support. This service is already due to have a reduction of 3 family support posts from April 2016 due to the local authority budget challenge. There are 19 support workers posts across the teams. Therefore there will be a third reduction in capacity of support workers of the teams. In addition as outlined above management capacity, business support and 2 part time advisory teachers posts will be lost.

The reduction of staff will end the early help offer currently delivered on behalf of schools and early years providers. It will that mean fewer families or children/young people will receive a service across the Local Authority. This will affect preventative work as support will only be available to those families that meet the social care thresholds. The Community Family Teams will have less capacity to deliver parenting groups and group work with children/young people and their families, again affecting timely support and preventative work to vulnerable groups.

Two staff are likely to be at risk of redundancy – the other savings are likely to be achieved through the ending of fixed term contract and vacant posts.

It is the aim of the service to ensure children are effectively safeguarded; to build the capacity of families to meet the needs of vulnerable children; to promote positive relationships between parents, co-ordinated interventions with families at a high level of need and enable parents to obtain the parenting skills whereby Children’s Social Care are no longer needed in their lives.

Family Support and Young People Support Workers provide intervention support to vulnerable children and young people with identified needs, in terms of behaviour and social and emotional needs which are linked to family difficulties. They work very closely with social workers where children are subject to a Children in Need, Children looked After or Child Protection plan. Often these workers provide support and specific pieces of work to inform social workers evidenced based assessments for Court or where the local authority is considering intiating pre-proceedings.

Family Support and Young People Support Workers also provide provide many preventive parenting and evidence based parenting programmes such as Mellow Babies; Mellow Parents; Incredible Years; Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities. Young Person Support Workers provide a regular group to the Romany, Gypsy and Travellers Group.

Where possible, some workers provide support at an earlier stage of intervention (Tier 2B of the Threshold), as per their team plan for 25% preventative work. This Early Help work at Tier 2 will now need to cease and only cases which meet the threshold for Children in Need Services from social care will receive servcies from Augsut 2016.

280 fewer parents will be offered a parenting groups over a year. 120 fewer children and their families will be offered individual support by a family support workers over a year.

Please detail below how this proposal may impact on any other organisation and their customers. Early help Continuum of Need

 An Early Help Assessment (EHA) is undertaken when a coordinated response from two or more agencies is required to improve the outcomes for a child or young person.  Statutory Guidance1 states that unless there is a risk of immediate serious harm to a child, there will be an expectation that an EHA will have been considered before a referral to CFS.  Early Help is a way to find out what is happening for the child and family when their needs reach Level 2b in the Continuum of Need diagram (below). Level 2b is where a child has multiple needs, which require a co-ordinated response from two or more agencies.

 Working Together 2015 states that:

a. Providing early help is more effective in promoting the welfare of children than reacting later. Early help means providing support as soon as a problem emerges, at any point in a child’s life, from the foundation years through to the teenage years.

b. Effective early help relies upon local agencies working together to:

 Identify children and families who would benefit from early help; undertake an assessment of the need for early help; and provide targeted early help services to address the assessed needs of a child and their family which focuses on activity to significantly improve the outcomes for the child.

1 Keeping Children Safe in Education https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447595/KCSIE_July_2015.pdf  ‘Working together to safeguard children’27 identifies specific groups of children who would benefit from early help. Professionals should, in particular, be alert to the potential need for early help for a child who:

 is disabled and has specific additional needs;

 has special educational needs;

 is a young carer;

 is showing signs of engaging in anti-social or criminal behaviour;

 is in a family circumstance presenting challenges for the child, such as substance abuse, adult mental health, domestic violence;

 is showing early signs of abuse and/or neglect.

From the beginning of the new academic year, schools will be asked to take on the EHAs of school age children (currently an additional 46 children) and to take on the existing Early Help Assessments for children as they reach school age (currently Children’s Centres coordinate EHAs for 88 children aged 2+).

While some schools do provide Early Help, the provision is variable. Some schools provide a range of support, employing Parenting Support Advisors and/or Family Support Workers and deliver Parenting Groups; some schools, especially smaller schools, are not in this position and the local authority will not be able to give them additional support.

The service will be reduced which will impact on other teams who will need to work with or hold these families. Universal services such as schools, health visitors and other agencies will be asked to hold cases at Early Help where they do not meet the threshold for statutory interventions. Schools will need to provide a range of parenting groups and Early Help services.

Schools are likely to see an increase in poor behaviour, emotional difficulties and family breakdown which in turn will impact on attainment school readiness and exclusions.

Section 2 - What do we know?

Customer/Staff profile details - What data or evidence is there which tells us who is, or could be affected? Early Help  Currently there are 303 cases in North Somerset with an Early Help Assessment: 212 of these children are under five years old co-ordinated by children’s centres while 91 children are of school age. However, only 40 of these Early Help Assessments are co-ordinated by Education providers. Of these 20 are supported by the 2 advisory teachers in the Community Family Teams.

 North Somerset LA is currently working with 472 Children in Need of whom 373 are of school age. The figures above suggest that very few schools identify, assess and provide co-ordinated Early Help Services for school age children.

Caseloads are closely monitored. Each worker holds approximately 12 cases at any one time. Some of these cases also have an allocated social worker who will continue to work with them.  There are 146 females and 159 males.  There are 87 White British children and 11 BME children. Ethnicity was not recorded for many of the children.

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Half of all mental health problems have been established by the age of 14, rising to 75 per cent by age 24. One in ten children aged 5 – 16 has a diagnosable problem such as conduct disorder (6 per cent), anxiety disorder (3 per cent), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (2 per cent) or depression (2 per cent). Children from low income families are at highest risk, three times that of those from the highest. Those with conduct disorder - persistent, disobedient, disruptive and aggressive behaviour - are twice as likely to leave school without any qualifications, three times more likely to become a teenage parent, four times more likely to become dependent on drugs and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. (Five Year Forward View https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mental-Health- Taskforce-FYFV-final.pdf)

CHIMAT (Child and Maternal Health Intelligence Network) has provided estimates of the number of children in North Somerset with a mental health issue based on the 2004 national prevalence rates (the most recent national data) and the 2014 North Somerset population estimates: Estimated prevalence in 5-16 year old children Estimated number of children in North Somerset by disorder and young people Conduct 1450 Emotional (including anxiety, depression) 955 Hyperkinetic (including ADHD) 405 Less common issues (including eating disorders) 350 Autistic spectrum (including Asperger syndrome) 260

Exclusion from education State-funded secondary schools Fixed term exclusions Permanent exclusions 2012/13 2013/14 2012/13 2013/14 North Somerset 4.6% 5.09% 0.18% 0.23% South West 5.6% 5.9% 0.10% 0.12% England 6.8% 6.62% 0.12% 0.13% Source: Department for Education While the trend in the South West is a rise in FTEs the trend in North Somerset is comparatively higher in both FTEs and PEx (0.05% cf South West. The number of FTEs in all schools (primary, secondary and special) is 680. In 2013/14, the reason for the majority of fixed term exclusions in North Somerset state-funded primary, state-funded secondary and special schools was ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ (n=154, 23%) but 351 (51%) were for verbal or physical abuse, 61% of those (n=213) against an adult. (Source: Department for Education SFR27, Table 24, 2015). ln 2014/15 the number of permanent exclusions in North Somerset increased from 4 pupils to 12 pupils in primary schools and from 35 to 42 pupils in secondary schools. (Noticeboard, Issue 10, 17 November 2015) Youth Justice In 2013, 101 children entered the youth justice system for the first time which equates to 543.9 per 100,000 10-17 year olds compared with 440.2 per 100,000 in the South West and 440.9 in England. This gives a significantly higher rate than the England average for young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction. (CHIMAT, Child Health Profile, June 2015) Children In Need Data The data below taken from the DfE Children In Need submission for 2014/15 shows the profile of the families and nature of support that the family support workers work with. IN 2014/15 there were 1,618 assessments completed. Factors of Concern Identified in Single Assessments Completed during 2014/15

Factors Identified at the end of Number of Completed Percentage of assessments having factor Assessment Assessments recorded 1A - Alcohol misuse: child 51 3% 1B - Alcohol misuse: parent/carer 250 15% 1C - Alcohol misuse: another person 31 2% 2A - Drug misuse: child 92 6% 2B - Drug misuse: parent/carer 259 16% 2C - Drug misuse: another person 26 2% 3A - Domestic violence: child subject 291 18% 3B - Domestic violence: parent/carer subject 475 29% 3C - Domestic violence: another person 90 6% subject 4A - Mental health: child 194 12% 4B - Mental health: parent/carer 507 31% 4C - Mental health: another person 49 3% 5A - Learning disability: child 153 9% 5B - Learning disability: parent/carer 37 2% 5C - Learning disability: another person 13 1% 6A - Physical disability or illness: child 107 7% 6B - Physical disability or illness: 109 7% parent/carer 6C - Physical disability or illness: another 18 1% person 7A - Young carer 91 6% 8A - Privately fostered 10 1% 9A - UASC 5 0% 10A - Missing 56 3% 11A - Child Sexual Exploitation 41 3% 12A - Trafficking 7 0% 13A - Gangs 8 0% 14A - Socially unacceptable behaviour 136 8% 15A - Self-harm 95 6% 16A - Abuse or neglect - neglect 239 15% 17A - Abuse or neglect - emotional abuse 326 20% 18A - Abuse or neglect - physical abuse 269 17% 19A - Abuse or neglect - sexual abuse 78 5% 20 - Other 127 8% 21 - No factors identified 156 10%

Data source: ICS, Jan 11 2016 What does the data or evidence tell us about the potential impact on diverse groups and how is this supported by historic experience/data? The Early Help data shows us that children over 5 are already significantly underrepresented in receiving a co-ordinated Early Help plan. It will therefore be very important that agencies such as health and school ensure that children are identified who would benefit from an Early Help plan and that is provided and that the existing Early Help cases managed though the Community Family Team are co- ordinated by these agencies Boys are marginally over represented in the Early Help cohort. The data tells us that vulnerable families and children in North Somerset are likely to be affected. Boys, disabled parents and children with SEND are overrepresented in the Family Support Workers clients. These staff have effectively supported families in caring for children and the number of crises and family breakdown resulting in children becoming Looked After has reduced in North Somerset in recent years. All of these data suggest that children and young people’s behaviour is a more serious problem in North Somerset than in the rest of the south west and in England. It is an issue which affects all services (Education, Health, Social Care, Youth Justice) and needs a systemic response. Work with parents/carers is essential to address conduct disorder/behavioural problems (as recognised by NICE and SCIE), both on an individual and group basis. Ideally, group work would be supplemented by individual work to embed strategies in day-to-day parenting practices Are there any gaps in the data, for example; across protected characteristics where information is limited or not available? Our data for CIN includes appropriate information across protected characteristics. The data in relation to Early Help services is limited regarding ethnicity and disability.

How have we involved communities and groups that could be affected? Families are consulted regularly on all parenting groups they attend and at the end of their work with family support workers. The feedback is very positive regarding the work offered and the changes this has made in families. Consultation on 7th January with the equality scheme stakeholder group regarding the reduction of 3 posts through the Local Authority raised the following comments. What has this told us?

 Increase in numbers of children in care will wipe out the Families will receive help through Early Help from schools, High savings. Impact Team, and other universal agencies such as health and the  Increased level of dependency on services as not encouraged new service development through the Social Impact Bond. to work through issues through prevention. The Social Impact Bond will focus on reunification and young  Some families do not qualify for a Social Worker, so rely on people (10-17 years old) at imminent risk of coming into care. Family Support workers who provide all-over support.  There will be a cumulative impact of cuts as a number of savings impact on the same families.

 Opportunities for Voluntary Sector to offer some services to North Somerset welcomes and values contribution of the voluntary support mitigation of negative impact. sector through services such as Springboard and Home Start which provide preventive services for families either as a commissioned services or on a voluntary basis.

 Concerns were raised regarding safeguarding responsibilities North Somerset has a good track record in effectively There are increased risks of Child Sexual Exploitation and safeguarding children. North Somerset is currently recruiting a issues around internet safety that parents did not experience worker to strengthen our work with family to prevent Child Sexual when they were children. exploitation.  Effective preventive work is at risk storing up future problems – Preventive work is carried out in Children’s Centres through Early short termism. Help plans and in High Impact Families.  Will this lead to increased waiting lists? Families’ needs will continue to be prioritised and constantly kept  Early intervention good, but should not be complacent. under review but the scales of these reductions will mean fewer  There are larger areas of new housing with young families families will get a service unless universal services such as moving in and plans for many more new houses. Extra schools are able to pick up this work. demands on system of joined-up working. Work has begun to look at the needs in the new housing areas prioritising existing resources and through limited additional funding from High Impact Families in the last year.

 The levels of impact described in the EIA are not acceptable. It North Somerset has a duty to provide services across thresholds is not an acceptable risk: Family workers are incredibly focusing on the most vulnerable, while ensuring preventive important. services support families to effectively parent and safeguard their  The risk of Government finance changes and increased children. concern if Strategic Schools Funding is cut. These reductions in service will be mitigated through the more  Look at this cut in the context of other relevant reduction effective use of Early Help for example in schools, the work of the proposals, e.g. Ed Psych, Vulnerable Learners, Community High Impact Family team and the new services developed through Access Review. the Social Impact Bond.  These are the most vulnerable people/families.  The reduction/benefits so far in child welfare. What will the effects be of future changes?  Further consultation has now taken place with stakeholders regarding the reductions proposed by SSF.  Schools 6 schools have feedback in particular about the role of the advisory teacher. Consultation was undertaken during March and early April 2016 with schools, staff and families affected by the proposed changes. A total of 47 responses were received. 15 responses were received from families, 11 from children, 6 from schools and 15 from staff.

What has this told us Response Parents Parents have highly valued the support they received with all As parents and children have indicated they do not know where else except one indicating it made a very positive difference, in terms they could get this support from it will be important that schools of routines and parents feeling more in control. communicate their Early Help support to families. Families did not know where else they could get this type of For families who do not want social care services it may be possible if support. the situation for children improve that support can be offered at Early Help. Some parents volunteered to be involved in helping us develop and deliver our services in the future. One parent indicated she would like help from another agency as she did not want social care telling her what to do- her children were subject of a Safeguarding plan.

Parenting groups Parents indicated that this made a very The SSF will be asked to re-consider their decision on 4th of May re positive difference in their lives and indeed this is true of routine parenting groups and provide an additional £15 k which would enable a evaluations undertaken for all groups. more comprehensive programme to be offered. Parents indicated they did not know where else they could find a Schools will be offered the opportunity to train in the Incredible Years parenting group parenting programme during the summer term i.e. so that they can facilitate future groups in their own setting or in clusters. A few schools also offer a Family Links course .Co-ordination across groups of Parents accepted that if fewer groups are to run in the future schools will be important. Promotion of this offer to relevant parents will they should be focussed on those in greatest need. be necessary. For Children in Need and Child Protection, it is hoped the groups will continue to be offered by the Support and Safeguarding Branch.

For under 5s it is hoped Children Centres will continue to offer

parenting groups at Early Help level to ensure school readiness. HIF are considering appointing 2 new parenting workers (but this will not overcome the difficulty in providing childcare and/or transport to those most at need. Agencies will be notified that they can no longer refer for parenting groups unless the children are Children in Need subject to the decision on 4th May. Children also indicated that they found the work very helpful Children will need to be aware that this type of support can be offered and commented that the work made them feel happier and in school. helped them express and deal with their feelings. One child commented they would not be at home without this work. Another indicated she was better behaved because of the work. Children said the work has helped them in schools addressing issue re self-confidence, anxiety and bullying. Children commented that the work had supported their parents so that they were less depressed and the house was cleaner and tidier. Schools have indicated that they highly valued the work of the The SSF will be asked to re-consider their decision re the Advisory Advisory Teachers. Teacher posts in the light of the positive feedback from schools.

They indicated that the work is different from the support they get from others and they do not know where else they could get this support. Training offered was especially valued with significant impact on staff and children. Support is ongoing and responsive. This has led to a reduction in exclusions.

Staff Staff are especially concerned in the reduction of the number of The Parenting Strategy Group will meet on 12th May to finalise the parenting groups which can be offered because they know the reduced parenting programme which will be offered subject to the SSF difference they can make to parents/carers and their children; final decision on 4th May. they also commented on the need to address behavioural The option from schools to purchase places on parenting courses will problems given that the data shows this is an identified issue in be offered. North Somerset.

They have indicated that this is a waste of their skills in this area and that it now seems either the groups will not run or a new group of staff in schools or HIF will need to be trained.

They are concerned that the groups run will only meet the needs of families with the most complex needs when preventive work can be more effective and a mixed group can support all group A formal consultation with staff regarding the reduction in budget and attendees learn and develop their parenting skills. need to move teams will be undertaken in May 2016 subject to the th Support workers and social care teams are saddened at the loss decision on the 4 May of the expertise of the Advisory Teacher’s posts and the loss of A formal consultation is also being undertaken with the 2 Advisory the close working relationship they help our teams develop with Teachers. schools with some very complex children. Family Support and Young People’s Support Workers are pleased they do not face redundancy but unhappy at the prospect that some of them will need to move teams.

Section 3 – Assessment of Impact

Will the proposed savings included in this assessment have an impact on any of the following? Actual or potential negative impact Actual or potential positive impact Disabled People  high X medium  low  none People from different ethnic groups  high  medium X low  none Men and Women  high X medium  low  none Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual People  high  medium X low  none People on low incomes  high X medium  low  none People in particular age groups  high X medium  low  none People of particular faith groups  high medium X low  none Transgender People  high medium X low  none Women who are pregnant or on maternity leave  high X medium  low  none Other specific impacts, for example carers, parents. Carers and parents will receive less support as outlined above but mitigated through services from Please specify Early Help provided by schools and High Impact Families Please describe the impacts listed above: The families we work with are more likely to have disabilities, live in poverty and boys. These groups are over-represented in the Children in Need and Children Looked After cohort. These families will receive less early intervention and parenting support as outlined above from Community Family Teams. The effects will be mitigated by interventions from schools and other teams.

Does this proposal have any potential Human Rights Does this proposal have an impact on health inequalities? implications? If yes, please describe If yes, please describe No Not directly, although the family support work does address early intervention in emotional and mental health needs in families and occasionally issues re healthy lifestyles

Section 4: Action

The Equality Impact Assessment must be able to influence the proposal and decision. This section asks how your understanding of impacts on people with protected characteristics has influenced your proposal, and how the findings of your Equality Impact Assessment can be measured going forward.

How has the equality impact assessment informed or changed the proposal? The assessment has highlighted areas we need to monitor more effectively in terms of protected characteristic.

What course of action could we take/have we taken to mitigate the identified impact? In terms of mitigation of the reductions in family support staffing, North Somerset has effectively re-launched Early Help and gained stronger engagement from other agencies such as schools who will be able to support families more effectively as a result. The Thresholds guidance has helped other agencies understand the role of Community Family Teams more clearly and so there has been a significant reduction in the number of referrals and allocated cases. For the cases which are also open to a social worker the family will continue to recieve services from the social workers.

The HIF team have also been extended in recent years which will help with some of the complex families. Prioritisation will ensure that the families in greatest need will continue to receive a service.

The Local Authority has applied for a Social Impact Bond which will allow specific work with children on the edge of care, which will also allow some of this work to be picked up. In order to meet their responsibilities to deliver early help schools will need to:

a. Establish internal arrangement within in school to identify families in need of early help.

b. Establish arrangements to coordinate information and proposed actions to support families with other schools, early years providers and other agency.

c. Hold cases at Early Help where they do not meet the threshold for statutory interventions.

d. Provide the agreed early help support to families to prevent the escalation of need. This could include individual family support, preventive and evidence based parenting groups, targeted groups for children living with domestic violence, parents with mental health problems and parents with substance misuse issues, etc.

e. Establish the resources required to deliver early help responsibilities as part of the process for setting their schools budget for the 2016-17 financial year.

Challenge and Support

The existing LA staff will continue to provide early help to families until 31st July 2016. No new referrals for early help will be accepted after 1st July 2016. This will enable capacity to share the relevant data, action plans, etc, with schools to enable the delivery of early help by schools to commence with effect from 1st August 2016. This will also provide capacity to work with schools to help establish the necessary arrangements for the future.

April 2016 update: In view of the findings from the consultation, further recommendations are being made to the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) which will be considered at their meeting on 4th May 2016. The SSF are being asked to:

a. Communicate with all schools to ensure that their families and children are aware of the range of services schools offer under Early Help.

b. Inform schools of the available of training in Incredible Years during the summer term and ask schools to identify staff who would wish to be trained.

c. Consider what support schools can be offered to enable groups of schools to co-ordinate and offer parenting groups and other Early Help services.

d. Re-consider the decision to delete the funding for the 2 advisory teacher posts in the light of the feedback from staff and schools about the valuable role they play and that these skill are not available elsewhere. Maintaining the advisory teachers would cost £70k in a full year and £52k in the 2016-17 financial year. However this decision would also remove redundancy costs currently estimated at £20,621.

e. Re-consider the reduction in the parenting funding and agree funding of £15k to enable groups to be offered at Early Intervention.

f. If this is not possible agree for arrangements to be put in place for schools to be able to purchase place on parenting courses as part of their Early Help offer.

What are the plans to monitor the actual impact of this budget proposal? The work will be closely monitored to ensure those with the highest needs continue to receive a service from Community Family teams. The impact will be monitored through file audit, client feedback and data analysis.

Strategic Schools Forum 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No.: 6

Alternative Provision Review

Wendy Packer

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

1

Introduction

1. During the course of 2015, there has been a recognition that there are a number of issues relating to the provision of social, emotional and behaviour support for children and young people including the availability of alternative provision. In response to this, a number of reviews have taken place and, as a result, a series of changes proposed.

2. These reviews have been brought together and a continuum of support has been developed, which will be available to schools to support these vulnerable children and young people.

Purpose of the Report

3. The purpose of this report is to:

a. Inform the SSF of recent progress and respond to information requested

b. Highlight the next steps

Recommendations

4. The SSF is recommended to:

a. Accept the new proposals relating to Permanent Exclusions including the transfer of proposed additional funding from schools to the Out of School Panel (paragraphs 5&6)

b. Agree that, whilst students should not commence in Westhaven Horizons in year 10 or 11, that that they can continue to attend during these years if alternative mainstream or AP provision is not suitable (paragraph 15)

c. Accept the working arrangements for the VLC and Westhaven Phoenix and Westhaven Horizons (paragraphs 7 to 20)

d. Agree to guarantee top up funding for the 10 places at C4 for the 2016- 17 academic year (paragraph 20a)

e. Agree one off funding of £35k to support the setting up of Horizons (paragraph 20b).

f. Increase the budget for Horizons by £55,540 to reflect recommendations d. and e. above and reduce the out of authority placement budget by the same amount (paragraph 20d)

g. Accept the role of the Out of School Panel (paragraph 21 to 23)

h. Agree to provide an additional £45k to the VLC to cover rates costs, whilst continuing to investigate if the rates for the VLC could become exempt (paragraph 25a)

2

i. Agree to increase tuition charges to schools to a maximum of £6,000 p.a. (paragraph 25b)

j. Increase the number of places at Westhaven School to be permanently increased to 96 with effect from September 2016 and reduce the out of authority placement budget by the same amount (paragraphs 30 & 31)

k. Consider a further increase to place numbers at Westhaven School 102 from September 2017 at a later point in time

Detail

No Exclusions’ Partnership Agreement with secondary schools

5. It has previously been presented to SSF that the originally proposed ‘No Exclusions’ Partnership Agreement” with secondary schools / academies is not achievable. There had not been universal agreement to the original proposal. Further detailed discussions have taken place at SHINS and agreement has been reached that a formal partnership “No Exclusions” agreement is not required. There is an understanding that schools will use the Out of School Panel to seek support at various stages when encountering difficulties with individual students. If a student then reaches the stage that a Permanent Exclusion is the only option, the school will be able to evidence further the support, which has been put in place.

6. To support further the options, which the Out of School Panel might have at its disposal to provide different forms of alternative provision, a proposal has been made by SHINS that the £25k, which had been earmarked for each of the secondary schools/academies to enable them to extend their provision to help them reduce PEX, be passed to the Out of School Panel. These resources will be used to ensure that the out of school panel operate effectively and to provide additional support for students to enable their education placement to be maintained such as impact mentoring.

The Assessment and Intervention Hub…”Westhaven Phoenix”

7. Following detailed discussions and due diligence, Westhaven School has agreed to manage the Assessment and Intervention Hub, which will now be referred to as Westhaven Phoenix, for the 18 months of the pilot.

8. Staffing (Teacher, HLTA x 2, 0.5 FSW /PSA. 0.5 EP) will be the responsibility of Westhaven. The post of Re-Integration Worker, who will provide some support to this provision will continued to be managed by Wendy Packer. This is because this worker will continue to support students identified by the Out of School Panel with re-integration into mainstream schools either from the VLC or, in some instances, as a result of a managed transfer, in addition to those who will be from Westhaven Phoenix.

9. Tracey Towler, Westhaven School Head Teacher, will join the Out Of School Panel in order to be able to be part of the identification of suitable students for the provision.

3

10. The first group is due to commence in Term 6.

11. A background paper to the rationale for this provision is included as Appendix B.

12. Funding for the provision can be met from within the budget agreed by the SSF of £180,000

High Needs Provision: Westhaven Horizons

13. Westhaven School will be responsible for the High Needs Provision for a period of 2 years commencing September 2016.

14. Up to 10 students will be identified by SEND / OOS Panels for returning to Westhaven Horizons or being referred to this provision instead of an out of LA placement.

15. The SSF have agreed for the provision to support students in years 5 to 9. An important consideration for returning students is that we have a clear path for their future provision which may be problematic if the provision for them will cease in year 9, and there is not somewhere suitable for them to progress to within North Somerset for Years 10 and 11. The SSF are therefore recommended to agree that, whilst students should not commence in Westhaven Horizons in year 10 or 11, that that they can continue to attend during these years if alternative mainstream or AP provision is not suitable. Discussions with Westhaven school will be able to inform the SSF discussion on this issue at the meeting.

16. Wendy Packer has presented the model to Westhaven School Governors, who have accepted it and are happy to progress with the current proposals.

17. Modifications to the Fairways site are planned to take place during Term 6 from the £35k funding previously agreed by the SSF. Consultations are currently underway within the VLC and there is no decision at this point as to whether Fairways will be a shared provision between Westhaven Horizons and VLC or a single Westhaven provision.

18. Westhaven School have costed the budget required to support Horizons with the ongoing costs amount to £208,727 in the 2016-17 financial year. The school have budgeted income to support this of £170,742 leaving a deficit for this provision of £37,985.

19. In addition the school have identified one off costs of £53,800 for which they have no funding at all, resulting in an overall deficit for Horizons of £91,785.

20. This provision is an integral part of the continuum of support for children and young people with social, emotional and behaviour needs and therefore the SSF is recommended to provide additional financial support during a transitional period for this provision. The SSF are recommended to:

a. Agree to guarantee top up funding for the 10 places at C4 for the 2016- 17 academic year. This would increase the income that they school

4

have budgeted for in the 2016-17 financial year by £19,880 and create and overspend in the schools budget of £20,540.

b. Agree one off funding to support the setting up of Horizons. Given our financial constraints the SSF are recommended to allocate £35,000 for this purpose and to request that the school scale back their plans to be within this level of resource.

c. If the recommendations above are agreed it will reduce the deficit identified for Horizons to £18,105. It is recommended that the school reduced planned expenditure on Horizons in order to meet the remaining deficit. Officers have identified the share of existing staff costs that are being attributed to Horizons as a potential area for this reduction to be made.

d. No reductions have been built in to the out of authority placement budget to anticipate children returning to be placed in Horizons. Officers are confident, however, that this will happen and that the increased funding proposed above (£20,540 + £35,000 = £55,540) can be funded by reducing the out of authority placement budget. This work is still ongoing and is subject to engagement with the children/young people and their families, however, the SEN team are currently progressing discussions about placements for 8 children and young people. 3 of these are currently in out of authority placements, 3 are currently in maintained special schools in other Local Authorities and a further 2 could avoid new placements in out of authority independent provision.

Out of School Panel

21. Schools will refer students with whom they are experiencing behavioural, social and emotional difficulties. The OOS Panel will then advise / recommend/ refer to alternative provision.

22. Stages of intervention / support will include:

 Initial advice on services to access to gain additional support e.g. Vulnerable Learners Service: Supporting Skills for Learning (SS4L), Educational Psychologists; additional forms of Alternative Provision

 Managed moves / Negotiated transfers between schools

 Referral to Westhaven Phoenix

 Referral to the different phases of the Voyage Learning Campus

23. The new VLC model is included in Appendix A for reference.

The Voyage Learning Campus (VLC)

24. The VLC and the LA have worked together to produce a budget which reflects the new model for the VLC. Despite staffing reductions, it was not possible to

5

set a budget for the new model for the VLC within the resources available. The VLC task group, therefore, considered proposals that would enable a sustainable budget for the VLC to be set.

25. As a result the SSF are recommended to:

a. Agree to provide an additional £45k to the VLC to cover rates costs, whilst continuing to investigate if the rates for the VLC could become exempt. The VLC are funded in the same way as special schools but special schools are exempt from paying rates. This places an additional, unfunded cost pressure on the VLC.

b. Agree to increase tuition charges to schools to a maximum of £6,000 p.a. The SSF commission the VLC to provide tuition and schools currently contribute to the cost of tuition for students on their school roll. The charge to schools is capped at no more that the appropriate age weighted pupil unit (AWPU) charge for the pupil for the term in which the provision occurred. It is proposed that the cap is increased from the AWPU value to £6,000 p.a. to reflect the additional needs of these students

26. A further issue in relation to the funding of home to school transport is being discussed between the VLC and the LA.

27. The VLC have been consulting with staff on the proposed staffing structure for the new model and the SSF will be updated on the outcome at the meeting.

28. At the last SSF meeting concern was expressed that 80 places at the VLC may not be sufficient in September due to the transition to the new arrangements and while other new arrangements for AP embed. The SSF is asked to note that officers still believe that this is a risk and that the SSF should expect an overspend, equivalent to approximately 5 places from September to December (£17k) as a result.

Westhaven School

29. Westhaven School is currently established with 90 places. The SSF agreed funding to enable the continuation of 6 additional places until the end of this academic year as part of the 2016-17 budget and these places have enable provision to be established for a number of KS1 children that otherwise would, mostly likely, have needed and out of authority independent school place. The feedback and outcomes from this additional provision so far are very encouraging.

30. The LA and Westhaven School would like the number of places at the school to continue to be increased to 96 for the 2016-17 academic year. This has not currently been factored into the 2016-17 budget and would require additional place funding of £35,000.

31. No reductions have been built in to the out of authority placement budget to anticipate children returning to occupy these additional placements. Information

6

on how these places will be used and how this can contribute towards the cost of the additional places will be provided to the SSF at the meeting on 4th May.

32. The LA and Westhaven School would like to increase place numbers further to 102 from September 2017. The SSF will be given an opportunity to consider the case for this change at a later point in time.

7

Appendix A

PRU provision on VLC roll Provision for students with Tuition Service Mostly PEX no school place Voyage Learning Campus Voyage Learning Campus Voyage Learning Campus

OOS Panel Number of places: 25 OOS Panel Number of places: 80 OOS Panel Number of places: 12  Medical Senior CAMHS Clinician  Meeting C2 top up funding criteria and  6 weeks maximum placement referral or medical professional at above  Movers in/CLA/may require 6 day Consultant level or Senior  Transport funded if required provision following a PEX/expected Educational Psychologist referral  KS1/KS2 20 places to return to mainstream  Transport funded if required  KS3 20 places KS4 20 places  Transport funded if required  Year 3 to Year 11  Year 1 to Year 11

Re-engagement and prevention High needs provision: Administration function provision Westhaven Horizons students on our roll but Voyage Learning Campus attending mainstream Voyage Learning Campus OOS Panel Number of places: 10 SEND/OOS Panel Number of places: 10 OOS Panel Number of places: 20 (TBC)  C1 top up funding and below (criteria  C3 and above top up funding (may  Managed moves (Negotiated transfers) will be set for referring students) have been PEX)  Could meet C1 and above top up  Subsidised place/part funded by the  Transport funded if required funding (may have been PEX/criteria school £n a term  Year 5 to Year 9 will be set for referring pupils)  Transport funded if required  Transport school/parent/carer  Year 4 to Year 9 (or by exception responsibility other year groups)  Year 6 to Year 11

8

Appendix B - Westhaven Phoenix: Assessment Hub OOS Panel Number of places 10  Could met criteria for C1 and C2 top up funding  Top up funding transfers to the Assessment Hub for 6 week provision additionally a member of the host school is expected to work within the Assessment Hub for up to 30 hours from week 3 to aid transition back into the original mainstream school or as part of a managed move.  Transport school/parent/carer responsibility  Year 5 to Year 9

9

Appendix B

The Assessment and Intervention Hub by Wendy Packer

Prevention and Re-Engagement Service Leader and Virtual School Head Teacher

Background North Somerset LA are working towards providing a continuum of support to individuals and schools for those children and young people recognised as having social, emotional and behavioural needs. This begins with the schools themselves providing as much early intervention as possible through to alternative provision in the VLC and, in extreme cases, to out of authority placements. Schools recognised that there are individual cases where it would be possible, indeed desirable to maintain the young person’s placement in their mainstream school, however, the school feels that more needs to be known about the precise nature of the young person’s difficulties for this to be achieved. The Assessment and Intervention Hub is being established in response to this need. It will provide a period of assessment, coupled with some more intensive work focused on identifying with the individual and their school reasons for the individual’s possible disaffection / difficulties and providing strategies and techniques for overcoming the identified barriers to learning and engagement. The nature of this provision needs to be different to what the young person has been experiencing in schools as it is the next stage of any intervention. The proposed model for the Assessment and Intervention Hub is based on current research and good practice. The young person is still on their home school roll and remains the responsibility of the school Aims The aims of the Assessment and Intervention Hub are:  to provide a period of 6 weeks’ intervention, in which a greater understanding of the individual’s needs are identified and assessed and work is undertaken with the individual and their school to maximise the possibility of them succeeding in mainstream education;  to provide a holistic form of provision in which we demonstrate to the individual young people that we care about them;  to model behaviours and intervention, which will be transferrable back to the mainstream school;  to restore/ repair relationships with the mainstream school and / or family when appropriate.

10

The Assessment and Intervention Hub  Students will attend the Assessment and Intervention Hub for a period of 6 weeks.  Eligible individuals will be in NC Years 6-9.  A maximum of 6-8 students will be supported at any one time.  There will be 6 entry points throughout an academic year. This is to ensure that each term there is an identified group of individuals who will work together throughout the intervention.  Requests for a place at the Assessment and Intervention Hub will be via the Out of School Panel in the term preceding a request for a place.  There will be an expectation that, prior to any request for a place, the school will have accessed some forms of additional support e.g. from SS4L. Colleagues in the Vulnerable Learners Service  The time spent at the Assessment and Intervention Hub will allow for reflection so that the individual student and staff from the school are able to focus on what has been learnt and what will need to be done differently back in school.  There will be a focus on consequences rather than punishments.  School staff are an important part of the process and intervention and there will be an expectation that between weeks 3 and 6, there will be some joint, on-site involvement with appropriate staff from the home schools. It may be that a member of the school staff spends part of each day at the Assessment and Intervention Hub. It is proposed that the home school will commit to a minimum of 30 hours of support spread across weeks 3-6.This is an important part of the process as it ensures that the individual students still feel part of their mainstream school and are able to link what they are learning to their needs / issues in school. This joint partnership working will also ensure strong, on-going communication and a consistency of approach between the Assessment and Intervention Hub and school, an essential element if behaviours are to be effectively transferred to the mainstream setting.  The re-integration process will be supported by the Assessment and Intervention Hub Re-Integration worker, who will assist the school’s own staff, who will have been involved in the intervention.

Procedures  Requests for a place at the Assessment and Intervention will be made through a referral to the Out of School Panel during the term preceding the desired placement.  All requests need to have parental agreement.  The Assessment and Intervention Hub sits between additional support given to the school and any alternative provision, such as that provided by the Voyage Learning Campus. As such, the referral should include evidence of the nature of the support provided by areas such as the VLS Service. It is highly likely that a referral to the Assessment and Intervention Hub will be made upon the recommendation of early intervention staff, such as those in SS4L.  The nature of the outcomes the school is seeking, need to be explicit and specific. 11

 A time line will be provided for each term to allow for consideration of the requests; determination of the groups and communication back to the school and the families.  A clear pen portrait of each individual being referred is essential to assist in the formation of the groups.

It should be noted that a place at The Assessment and Intervention Hub is not an alternative to a fixed-term exclusion but a holistic, pro-active programme designed to support the school and the individual achieve a long term placement, in which the young person will be able to thrive.

Staffing  Teacher (FTE) … to have daily oversight of the Assessment and Intervention Hub  Higher Level teaching Assistants x2 (FTE … TTO)  Assessment and Re-Engagement Re-Integration Worker (FTE … TTO)  Educational Psychologist (0.5) … part of the brief will be providing support and supervision to staff both from the assessment and Intervention Hub and schools  Family Support Worker (0.5 …TTO)

Curriculum The provision will look to provide support and develop relationships between:

Student Parent Key Worker Student/Parent Student / Adult/ School

A focus will be on understanding and exploring any barriers to positive engagement and learning. Themes covered will include areas such as self-esteem, resilience, efficacy, learning and literacy issues, social skills. There will be a creative focus with a nurturing, team work approach. By working closely with the school staff and the Assessment and Intervention Hub staff the individual student and his key workers will gain the necessary understanding of what needs to happen in order for the student to be able to interact positively in school and work to their full potential.

Funding

The funding for this provision will be provided through the centrally retained schools budget, via the strategic schools forum. Schools will not therefore be expected to pay for the basic cost of a placement at the Assessment and Intervention hub. Schools will, however, be expected to transfer any top up funding for individual pupils to the Assessment and Intervention hub for the period of their placement.

12

13

Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No.: 7

Review of Safeguarding in Education Officer Role

Carolyn Hills, Service Leader, Learning and Development

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

Introduction

1. Sarah Mellor, Safeguarding in Education Officer has accepted a new post and is likely to be leaving North Somerset Council at the beginning of June. As the post is funded by the Schools Strategic Forum a decision is required as to the future of this post.

Purpose of the Report

2. The purpose of the report is to:

a. Outline options for the SSF to consider to continue this important area of work.

Recommendations

3. The SSF is recommended to:

a. Agree one of the following options and instruct the Service Leader, Learning and Development to implement their decision. Bearing in mind the key importance of this area of work the preferred option of the Service Leader is option 1 in order to build on the excellent work and maintain the momentum that has been created.

Detail

4. Two options for filling this post have been devised as detailed below:

a. Option 1 - Fill the post exactly as is i.e. 37 hours per week, all year round, grade JM2, please see job description attached as Appendix A.

b. Option 2 - Fill the post with a slightly different emphasis:

i. A job shared post with an existing safeguarding lead from schools and a new part time person employed by the local authority. This option will encourage integration whilst maintaining objective independent advice. ii. A role to Quality Assure and commission services – rather than direct training delivery. iii. Provide schools with regular training resources and support to help embed safeguarding as business as usual in the school setting. This role would have less direct training delivery and is in line with expected changes in Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance in September.

5. Any of these options could be offered within the existing resources and on a secondment basis bearing in mind the potential changes around Academies and safeguarding legislation on the horizon.

- 1 - North Somerset Council

Job Description

DEPARTMENT: DIVISION Corporate Services Performance Improvement and HR JOB TITLE: GRADE: Safeguarding in Education Officer JM2

1. JOB PURPOSE

To provide advice, guidance and training on aspects of Safeguarding and Child Protection as they relate to schools and support schools with their requirements in respect of:  Section 175 of the 2002 Education Act and monitor compliance with this guidance.  Statutory guidance in respect of progressing child protection concerns and allegations management.  Safer recruitment

To provide direct follow up support to schools where there are specific safeguarding and child protection issues.

To contribute to related work for the North Somerset Safeguarding Children Board.

2. DIMENSIONS

There is likely to be a limited budget associated with this post and expenditure will be authorised by the line manager.

The post holder will be working with all schools across the authority, extended schools providers and partner agencies from the Safeguarding Board.

We are not expecting the post holder to have any staff formally reporting to him/her.

3. MAIN DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1. To develop and maintain monitoring systems for measuring compliance with section 175.

2. To provide support and advice to schools and partner agencies on dealing with child protection concerns and allegations of abuse against school based staff.

3. To provide training for schools and governors on dealing with child protection concerns and allegations of abuse against teachers and other staff.

4. Provide direct support to individual schools where there are specific child protection feedback, training and support needs.

5. Together with Human Resources to provide a consultation service for schools on their duties under S 175 of The Education Act 2002 including the promotion of safe recruitment practices.

6. To establish systems to identify and track training needs of governors, Head Teachers, Designated teachers and teaching staff.

7. To design and provide training for governors, Head Teachers, designated Teachers, related to safeguarding children in education.

8. To ensure all new education staff receive induction and refresher training on safeguarding children in education.

9. To establish and maintain a support group for designated teachers and ensure they receive training suited to their needs.

10. To ensure that all schools receive regular updates on safeguarding issues and that they are able to access appropriate information effectively and efficiently.

11. Attend local and regional training when required and to receive regular supervision.

12. To report to the local authority on progress and implementation and to ensure production of updates for the Safeguarding Board annual report.

13. To participate in regional and national networking events as required.

14. To be aware of and understand the council’s Equality Scheme and ensure at all times that the duties of the post are carried out in accordance with the policy.

15. To ensure compliance with all Health and Safety legislation and associated codes of practice and authority policies.

16. To undertake any duties commensurate with the grade of the post.

4. ORGANISATION

This post reports to the Service Leader, Learning and Development. .

5. SUPERVISION AND WORK PLANNING

The post holder will receive supervision from their line manager.

The post holder will need to plan up to a year ahead to deliver and audit training across the authority.

Part of the work role will be to respond to concerns from schools and other agencies about inappropriate staff behaviour or child protection concerns in relation to the organisation. This may require a more immediate response and the post holder will be expected to manage these situations and reschedule other work accordingly.

6. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Please see attached Person Specification.

7. JOB CONTEXT

The post holder will be responsible for the implementation of the Safeguarding agenda in Education.

8. SCOPE FOR IMPACT

The post holder will have a significant impact on the safeguarding and child protection performance of schools across North Somerset. They will design appropriate processes by which to support and challenge schools in respect of their safeguarding and child protection arrangements. This will include the development of self assessment tools, training packages and practitioner networks. They will be expected to follow up directly from serious child protection situations and provide feedback in relation to performance. The post-holder will be expected to make day to day decisions without the requirement to refer to their line manager.

9. CONTACTS

There will be enquiries from schools, partner agencies, voluntary groups and they will be working very closely with the Police in relation to allegations against any professionals working with children and young people.

The post holder will report to their line manager, the Safeguarding Board and may be expected to report directly to elected members.

The post holder will be dealing with highly sensitive and confidential matters in relation to staff and children and young people.

They will be required to communicate with a wide range of people including parents, senior management and national and regional representatives and will be representing the authority at national and local events.

10. GENERAL

This job only contains the main duties relating to this post and does not describe in detail the tasks required to carry them out.

11. Special Notes or Considerations (if applicable)

Much of the work undertaken within the Department is of a highly confidential nature. The postholder must at all times maintain confidentiality and should be aware that, given the nature of the services provided by the Department they may on occasions be exposed to information that they may find upsetting.

Person Specification

DIRECTORATE: SECTION: Corporate Services Performance Improvement and HR JOB TITLE: GRADE: Safeguarding in Education Officer JM2

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ESSENTIAL DESIRABLE Professional qualification in Qualification in delivering FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS Social Work, Youth and training Community Work, Teaching, Human Resources or related field or relevant professional experience to a senior level such as in the Police

Demonstrable significant Experience of dealing with WORK RELATED experience of working in an allegations against people EXPERIENCE AND education, social care, health who work with children. ASSOCIATED VOCATIONAL or voluntary sector setting. TRAINING Writing policy documents. Demonstrable experience of taking account of equal Designing training materials. opportunities and anti- Managing and implementing discriminatory practice when information systems. implementing work. Making presentations. Experience of working with business partners at all levels. Using information systems. Voluntary work with bodies OTHER RELEVANT relating to safeguarding EXPERIENCE Knowledge of primary and Education Disciplinary SPECIALIST KNOWLEDGE secondary school systems processes including: Knowledge of Children’s Special Educational Needs Services, and strategic and Disability Discrimination. developments in this area including an understanding of Good knowledge of Child the role of the Local Protection and recently Safeguarding Board. updated training in this area. Understanding of the role of Education Act 2002 Education Welfare and Social Children Act 1989 and 2004 Care. Working Together 2011 Safer Recruitment in Education 2007

JOB RELATED SKILLS A sound knowledge of ICT Chairing meetings applications.

Ability to write reports and to analyse data to inform development within the authority.

Presentation and training skills which will enable the delivery of information to a wide range of audiences including those that are both internal and external to North Somerset Council.

Ability to negotiate with schools and other agencies.

Produce policy and guidance documents with the ability to convert theory into practice.

Excellent interpersonal skills. PERSONAL SKILLS Commands a high level of personal respect.

Ability to work on own initiative and to maintain and prioritise workloads.

Good communication skills at many operational levels.

Ability to work diplomatically and with a high level of personal integrity.

There is a requirement to SPECIAL WORKING travel. CONDITIONS There may be a need to work occasional evenings.

There will be a requirement to attend regional and national networking events.

Satisfactory enhanced DBS check (relevant applications and checks will be carried out before any job offer is confirmed)

Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No.: 8

Criteria for informing decision making

Louise Malik

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

Introduction

1. At the SSF meeting in May 2015 members agreed criteria for informing decision making.

2. Members asked to review the criteria in 12 months to consider its effectiveness and any necessary changes.

Purpose of the Report

3. The purpose of the report is to:

a. Review the criteria for informing decision making.

Recommendations

4. The SSF are recommended to:

a. Consider the effectiveness of the criteria for informing decision making and any necessary changes.

Detail

5. The agreed criteria for informing decision making is attached as Appendix A.

6. No changes to the criteria are recommended by officers.

- 1 -

North Somerset Strategic Schools Forum – Criteria for Informing Decision Making

In undertakings its work, the SSF agrees to be mindful of the following principles which should always inform its decision making.

Principles

 To make decisions which support pupils educationally, that are not already a statutory obligation by the local authority, in settings and schools across NS as a whole;  Agree seed funding proposals only when there is: o An identified and proven un-met need which can best be met by collective action by the schools community; o A new statutory duty, which can best be met by collective action by the schools community; o A convincing invest to save case has been made; or o Considerable impact on specific groups and vulnerable individuals  To support the sustainability and strong financial management of the schools budget. Reviewing the project

 Promote robust management accountability for all budgets and not look favourably on requests for funding which seek to address previous management failures;  Be confident that any agreed investment proposal will adhere to the original purpose, budget and timescale;  Always time limit any investments, ideally within one year, and not beyond two years, so they do not compromise future financial decision making;  Ensure proposals provide value for money i.e. realistic, justified resources. Proposals

 Need to follow a standard agreed format;  Have sufficient information about actual costings, expected impact (with supporting evidence), measurable outcomes and provide clear details of how the project would be viable through self-financing beyond the initial set up, should this be required. Impact reports

 Need to follow a standard agreed format;  Impact reports, from the applicant, should details funding spent, measurable impact (with supporting evidence), next steps and, if relevant, how the project will continue by being self-financing;  Impact reports from applicants require support from a third party, who is in a position to comment independently on the impact of the project in relation to its objectives. Time period

 Not to agree the extension of any agreed investment except in exceptional circumstances;  Following the proposed agreement to a project, should relevant action not have been taken within the time period agreed, the SSF will review its decision to support the project.

- 1 - Strategic Schools Forum

3 May 2016

Agenda Item No.: 9

Request for resources for pre- opening costs for Parklands Educate Together Primary Academy

Emma Whitehead

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

- 1 - Introduction

1. Parklands Educate Together Primary Academy will initially be a 420 place school (two form entry) and is due to open in September 2017. Its site and core facilities are equivalent to that of a 630-place school enabling the school to be expanded by the provision of extra classrooms only when needed in the future.

2. The school is to be located on the Locking Parklands development on part of what was the former RAF Locking Camp, this is situated to the west of the village of Locking.

3. The school will be part of the Educate Together Trust. The Trust was established in 1978 and are responsible for a number of schools in Ireland. In England the Redfield Primary Academy a 420 place school in Bristol which opened in 2014 was their first school. They have also been appointed to run a 210 primary school in Somerdale, Keynsham which is planned to open in September 2017.

4. It is expected that demand for places at the Parklands Educate Together Primary Academy will be such that the school will open with up to 60 reception aged children and grow a year at a time until all classes are open for the 2023/24 academic year. The Trust are however keen to explore options for admissions into other year groups from September 2017 if there is demand within the development for this (i.e. older siblings). Any final decisions will be subject to having appropriate class structures and pupils numbers that could enable this to be economically and educationally viable.

5. The purpose of this report is to:

a. Enable the SSF to consider the proposed pre-opening costs for the Parklands Educate Together Primary Academy in line with the Exceptional Pupil Growth Policy.

b. Enable the SSF to take a decision about the value of the pre-opening costs.

c. Consider the request from Educate Together that a “with prejudice payment of £25k “to Educate Together now to allow the trust to continue their work

d. Inform the SSF that by agreeing to a. and b. above Educate Together will have £25k of funding towards their legal costs released to them by the DfE.

Recommendations

2. The SSF is recommended to:

a. Agree to fund the pre-opening costs of £45k which has been calculated using the Exceptional pupil Growth policy parameters (attached as appendix A).

b. To take a decision if any additional money should be provided using the figures provided by Educate Together and after taking into account the local context and potential impact on the sustainability of other schools if any additional money is allocated.

c. To not make a “with prejudice payment of £25k “to Educate Together in the 2016/17 financial year. - 2 -

Detail

3. The dashboard below provides an overview of the funding request:

How reasonable is it for Very reasonable Very unreasonable providers to fund this area?

What is the total cost of Small (<£10k) Large (over £250k) the request (all years)?

What is the level of need Universal provision Highly targeted of those receiving the service?

Is there a financial risk of No financial risk High financial risk not funding this area?

Is there a risk to C&YP of No risk to C&YP High risk to C&YP not funding this area?

How innovative is the Existing practice Highly innovative request?

4. Specific details of the proposed activity, which expands on the summary above, are provided below:

Planned activities Please see appendix B provided by the Educate Together Trust – including timeframe

Staff/Resource Please see appendix B provided by the Educate Together Trust costs – itemised per annum

Planned Please see appendix B provided by the Educate Together Trust outcomes - overall

- 3 - Specific The Local Authority projects that there will be a demand for places outcomes – (e.g. from 2017/18 for this development as below. no. of children / young people / Projected numbers 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 families to benefit, and ratios No. primary pupils 53 168 313 470 636 787 specific targets No. secondary pupils 25 79 145 218 294 365 such as reducing Projected Year R pupils 12 17 15 27 39 58 exclusions by x% etc) Until preferences are made however, actual applications for the 2017/18 academic year are difficult to confirm for certain at this juncture. Research to Pre-opening costs are consistent with other developments. Haywood support Village Academy which is opening in September 2016 has been proposals (e.g. allocated £45k from the Local Authority. This allocation has been historical trends, further supported from s106 funds that have been available benchmarking specifically for this development only. information, how . delivered in other Bath and North East Somerset Council will be providing £66,034 LA’s areas, (appendix C) as pre-opening grant for the primary school in opportunities for Somerdale, Keynsham which is planned to open in September 2017. joint working either intra or inter In 2014 Bristol City Council provided a pre-opening grant of £220k for authority working) Redfield Primary Academy (appendix D). Verbally Bristol City Council have confirmed that they would not provide such a sum now as they cannot afford to do so.

Risks if the That, if Parklands Educate Together Primary Academy is not service is not available from September 2017, there may not be enough school provided (risks places. may be financial or non financial; short, The current assessment is that there will be sufficient places in the medium or long 2017/18 academic year across the whole local authority area, term). however, there is a risk of pupils having to travel out of their local area for a school place and this will incur transport costs for up to 7 years per pupil.

The current assessment is that there will not be sufficient schools places in 2018/19 in this area of Weston super Mare

There is a risk that the DfE won’t agree to the Funding Agreement and therefore the places or school won’t be approved. This is a medium risk for the SSF that has financial implications for other schools as exceptional growth may need to be applied elsewhere

How the service N/A will be sustained financially in the future Exit strategy N/A

- 4 - Other potential These are for the Educate Together Trust to pursue. funding sources

5. In addition to the dashboard above, further information is provided below on why the SSF are recommended not to agree to the request for a “with prejudice payment of £25k “to Educate Together in the 2016-17 financial year:

a. Making such a payment is unprecedented. No pre-opening costs have ever been made 16 months prior to a school opening.

b. No provision has been made in the 2016-17 budget and if made would result in an overspend.

c. If 55% of the expected pre-opening costs are paid now, what happens if the development is delayed, Educate Together withdraw or if the changes to the National Funding Formula mean that this payment should have waited.

- 5 - Appendix A

North Somerset’s Exceptional Pupil Growth Policy

Exceptional Pupil Growth Funding - Existing Schools

This is allocated where schools are required to provide extra places in order to meet basic need and are strategically planned by the Local Authority. This is determined by the criteria below. Schools who meet all three criteria will qualify for additional pupil growth funding:

Firstly:- Where the Local Authority agree one of the following with the school to meet basic need: increase planned admission numbers; provide an extra class or extend its age range.

Secondly: An increase in the number of notional classes. Measured by dividing the October pupil numbers, both preceding and during the financial year, by 30 pupils. The second criterion is met if the latter creates a higher number of classes.

Thirdly:- An increase in pupils of more than 2%. Measured by the increase in pupils between the October pupil counts preceding and during the financial year. The third criterion is met if the increase exceeds 2% when expressed as a % of the pupils as at October preceding the financial year.

Any resulting allocation will be calculated by multiplying the increase in pupils over the 2% trigger by 7/12ths of the average AWPU rate for the phase to reflect the period September to March. For maintained schools the AWPU rate will be adjusted by deducting the value of the AWPU de-delegations. Additional pupil growth funding will be adjusted to reflect SEN.

Pupil Growth funding will be time limited to a maximum of the relevant years applicable to the school setting or until the school reaches its capacity if earlier.

This funding will be cash limited if the demand exceeds the funding available.

Exceptional Pupil Growth Funding – New Schools

That one off pre-opening set up costs, for schools that are required to meet basic need and have been strategically planned by the LA, is allocated on the basis of the details below:

Pre-Opening

The actual funding provided to new schools will be determined on a case by case basis and will take into account the local context and potential impact on the sustainability of other schools. One off pre-opening set up costs, will be allocated on the basis of the details below:

 A Headteacher at an appropriate scale point as laid out in the School Teachers Pay and Conditions document for the planned size of the school for the agreed period of time prior to opening. - 6 -  Administration support on an appropriate grade for a comparable school of equal size for the period of time equal to that of the Headteacher.  Initial office equipment, premises and consumables to cover temporary office costs in the period before the school opens.

There is no fixed period prior to opening, that these arrangements need to be in place for, but 5 months is considered as the minimum.

Post Opening

In the first year, the delegated budget share, for the period of the financial year open, will be based on estimated pupil numbers with social deprivation and SEN data based on the average of up to three schools of the same phase with demographic characteristics similar to those expected for the new school.

SEN data will continue to be based on this methodology for the first three financial years that the school is open.

Estimated pupil numbers will be used for new schools and schools which have opened in the last seven years and do not yet have pupils in every year to which the school can admit.

 An allocation will be made from the exceptional pupil growth fund to reflect the pattern of pupil growth only seen in new schools. The allocation will be calculated on the difference between the estimated pupil numbers used in the delegated budget share and the actual pupil numbers, as at January during the financial year, rounded up to the nearest multiple of 30 pupils. This number will be multiplied by the appropriate AWPU value and the appropriate number of months with an adjustment for SEN and social deprivation funding.  Post opening funding will be time limited to a maximum of 5 years from opening for primary schools and 3 years for secondary on the presumption the school will have a clear plan to operate at the planned admissions number and so by this time the school will be viable through the usual funding mechanisms. This will encourage efficient deployment and allocation of resources as the school grows and will protect the growth fund against long term, non-sustainable commitments where demographic change falls short of expectations.  In the instance where a school is expanding to the extent that it could be viewed as a new school, as it is on a separate site, the school will be considered as eligible for the new school post opening element of the exceptional pupil growth policy.

Funding for qualifying measures in order to meet Infant Class Size Legislation

The Strategic Schools Forum have a small contingency to support schools where the appointment of an additional teacher is required in order to meet infant class size legislation at no fault of the school, or due to the perverse decision of an appeals panel following an LA presented case. The funding will provide resources to the school to employ an additional teacher and therefore meet the infant class size requirements. It is not, however, a long term allocation and will only be

- 7 - available to the school while pupil numbers still require qualifying measures to be taken.

Teachers, funded from this source, should be appointed on a temporary contract for the maximum of one year, renewable on a termly basis (3 term).

- 8 - Appendix B

Pre-opening cost projections by Educate Together for Locking Parklands Primary Academy

Locking Parklands Educate Together Primary Academy Project Plan pre-opening

Summary of Costs of Programmes

Total for projec to school opening March-August 2016 Q1/17 Q2/17 Q3/17 Q4/17 Total for FY 16/17

Programmes Days (FTE) Cost Days (FTE) Cost Days (FTE) Cost Days (FTE) Cost Days (FTE) Cost Days (FTE) Cost Days (FTE) Cost

Project Planning 55 £ 23,343 12 £ 6,262 10 £ 3,973 10 £ 3,973 10 £ 3,973 13 £ 5,164 43 £ 17,082

Accommodation and Funding 74.25 £ 33,871 23 £ 13,611 5 £ 1,986 6 £ 2,384 11 £ 4,370 29 £ 11,520 51 £ 20,260

School Communications 76.5 £ 36,076 21 £ 14,029 19 £ 7,349 8 £ 3,178 8 £ 3,178 21 £ 8,342 55.5 £ 22,047

Recruitment 86 £ 34,264 4 £ 1,689 15 £ 5,959 15 £ 5,959 28 £ 11,123 24 £ 9,534 82 £ 32,575

Teaching and Learning Development 80 £ 31,930 5 £ 2,136 4 £ 1,589 7 £ 2,781 32 £ 12,712 32 £ 12,712 75 £ 29,794

School Policy Development 29.5 £ 12,366 7 £ 3,229 6 £ 2,384 6 £ 2,384 6 £ 2,384 5 £ 1,986 23 £ 9,137

Governance 25.5 £ 10,430 6 £ 2,485 5 £ 1,887 5 £ 1,887 5 £ 1,887 6 £ 2,284 20 £ 7,945

School Infrasturcture Development 97.5 £ 45,828 11 £ 11,267 42 £ 16,784 18 £ 7,250 7 £ 2,880 19 £ 7,647 87 £ 34,561

Totals 524.25 £ 228,107 87.75 £ 54,708 105.5 £ 41,910 75 £ 29,794 107 £ 42,506 149 £ 59,190 436.5 £ 173,400

£ 96,618 £ 72,300 £ 232,590

Summary of Cost as per DfE outline for Locking Parklands Educate Together Primary Academy

Accommodation andSchool Funding CommunicationsRecruitment Teaching andSchool Learning Policy Development DevelopmentGovernanceSchool InfrasturctureProject Development Planning Project Team £ 62,247.52 50% 7% 15% 5% 5% 50% 15% 100% Education Team £ 23,958.26 7% 50% 40% 5% Development Team £ 16,299.02 35% 6% 10% 10%

Lead In Costs

Head Teacher -Salary £ 33,664.35 5% 5% 40% 35% 20% 5% 5% -Recruitment £ 11,992.23 35% -Expenses £ 6,874.16 15% PA Salary £ 13,748.33 30% Other Recruitment costs £ 4,582.78 10% HR Manager £ 4,582.78 10% Finance Manager £ 3,387.11 10% Governance £ 6,319.36 10% 26% etc

Other Costs Marketing and Publicity & £ 9,018.97 25% Consultation Expenses £ - Prospectus £ 3,607.59 10% Induction £ 10,331.24 10% 10% 10% 1% Web site £ 5,440.70 10% 4% Office Costs £ 11,490.49 10% 25% 2% 10% CRB checks £ 562.58 1% 1%

Total £ 228,107.44 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

- 9 -

Appendix C

An extract from Bath and North East Somerset Policy for funding a new primary school

FY2016-17 B&NES Council Policy for funding a new primary school Pre-opening start-up Grant

A one off lump sum of £66,034 will be paid in respect of a new school before it opens as a pre-opening start-up grant. This lump sum has been created based on a new school being able to fund the following however this is not ring fenced:

Staffing costs  The cost of employing a Headteacher for a 3 month period for two days a week, then 6 months fulltime before opening day based on a mid-range salary scale point and including employers on costs  the cost of employing part time Admin staff for 5 months before opening day based on a mid-range salary scale point and including employers on costs  The cost of employing part time Caretaking staff for 3 months before opening day based on a mid-range salary scale point and including employers on costs  The cost of employing a part time Clerk to the Governors including employers on costs

Some initial Non-Staffing costs in relation to  IT software licences  IT Server installation  Minor furniture  General curriculum resources  Initial insurance  Initial recruitment costs  Basic website and promotional materials

This grant is a financial year allocation and the timing of payment will depend on the date the school is expected to open and will be negotiated with the sponsor.

- 10 -

Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No: 11

Traded Services arrangements for 2017-18

Laurence Marsh

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

Introduction

1. In 2016-17 North Somerset Council and our partners offered a number of services to schools. Buyback was maintained at a similar level to previous years for maintained schools whilst those schools converting into Multi Academy Trusts have tended to move away from these services.

2. Traded Service buyback in 2016-17 was co-ordinated through www.nsesp.org allowing schools to purchase services from North Somerset Council electronically.

3. Academies are currently making their purchases for September 2016 onwards following the conclusion of the 17 month contract to bring their buyback in line with their financial year.

Purpose of the Report

4. The purpose of the report is to inform the SSF of the proposed process for traded services for 2017-18.

Recommendations

5. The SSF is recommended to:

a. Note the planned timelines and process for the 2017-18 Traded Services offering,

b. Suggest any additional changes to the process for 2017-18,

c. Note the outcome of the consultation regarding the Headteacher Support Service and the redundancy costs to be charged to the DSG.

- 1 -

Detail

6. The provisional timetable for 2017-18 is detailed in the table below:

Provisional timetable for Traded Services 2017-18 August 2016 onwards Services engaged to update their offered services. 7th December 2016 Updated service offerings agreed by the SSF 12th December 2016 Services available to purchase through www.nsesp.org for maintained schools (and new converter Academies requiring services through to September 17) 10th February 2017 Deadline date for returns for maintained schools 1st April 2017 New services start for maintained schools 24th April 2017 Services available to purchase through www.nsesp.org for academies for services starting September 2017 26th May 2017 Deadline date for returns for academy schools. 1st September 2017 New services start for academy schools

7. As with previous offerings the information for 2017-18 will be available via www.nsesp.org. This is being used successfully by schools and early year providers. Once again there should be no need to produce a printed brochure of the offer.

8. The future arrangements for traded services will be impacted by the current consultations of the future of schools and high needs funding, and the white paper Educational Excellence Everywhere. The SSF will be informed of the impact of these changes as further information becomes available.

9. Following consultation it has been confirmed that from the end of term 6, 22 July 2016 the Headteacher Support Service will no longer be provided through the Council. Increasingly the priorities for the support from the Council to schools has focused on statutory responsibilities giving schools greater flexibility to choose the services they need from a range of providers.

10. As an interim from April 2016 to the end of term 6, headteachers within the Service Level Agreement can expect up to two one hour visits on site or up to two telephone conversations and unlimited email contact to support their personal well-being in the workplace.

11. We will seek to avoid compulsory redundancy if possible through pursuing redeployment opportunities. In a redundancy situation, the Council’s Redundancy Policy will apply. The basis for calculation of the redundancy payment will be whatever the stated policy is at the time of the redundancy but is currently expected to be £17,334. This will be chargeable to the DSG.

- 2 -

Risk Management

12. If schools choose to buy services, which they have previously bought from North Somerset Council, Agilisys, Liberata, or elsewhere, this will reduce the level of income received. Those services then will have to review their service offering and structure and this could result in staffing reductions, potential TUPE implications and severance costs that will be chargeable to the DSG. 13. A significant withdrawal from any of the services that are traded could jeopardise that service’s ability to provide their service to those schools that have opted in, as the service may no longer be viable with a lower buy back. 14. As the market for services that are traded increases schools need to ensure that they adhere to contract standing orders and the correct procurement methods found in the scheme for financing schools when exploring alternative suppliers.

- 3 - Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No.: 12

Discussion on school funding reforms and the white paper Educational Excellence Everywhere, and their potential impact on the schools forum

Louise Malik on behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

1. A range of information has been provided about the proposed reforms. A summary of this information is provided below:

a. Consultation paper on Schools national funding formula - https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/schools-national-funding- formula

b. Consultation paper on High needs funding formula and other reforms - https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/high-needs-funding-reform

c. The White Paper Educational Excellence Everywhere - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/educational-excellence- everywhere d. Summary of Schools and High Needs consultation documents – Attached as Appendix A

2. Further information is also now available for the SSF and members are asked to note this information and ask questions / make comments:

a. Response to the Schools and High Needs consultation documents from the SSF – Attached as Appendix B

b. Results of the exercise to re-baseline the blocks that make up the DSG – Attached as Appendix C

3. A number of briefing opportunities have been provided for schools, LA officers, elected members and members of the Strategic Schools Forum.

4. This agenda item provides an opportunity for members of the SSF to ask questions and discuss the impact of the proposed reforms.

5. Whilst this can be an open discussion it is suggested that there are three key themes for discussion:

a. The end of the Education Service Grant and how these statutory functions will be funded and delivered in the future,

b. High Needs, particularly managing demand and costs,

c. The future role of the Schools Forum

- 1 - Appendix A

Summary briefing of Fair Funding consultations issued by the DfE on 7th March 2016

Introduction

The DfE issued two consultations on 7th March. They are seeking views on proposals to introduce a national funding formula for schools and high needs.

The consultations sets out how the DfE plans to deliver a fair, transparent funding system where the amount of funding for high needs, and that children attract for their schools, is based on need and is consistent across the country.

A further consultation on early years is due at a later point in time

The consultations issued on 7th March are the first of 2 planned stages of consultation. At this stage the DfE are seeking views on:

 the principles that underpin the formula for schools and high needs  the overall funding system  the pupil characteristics and school factors that are included in the school formula  whether the high needs formula factors are appropriate  how the high needs formula should be phased in, to avoid disrupting the education of children and young people with SEN and disabilities  the ways the DfE intend to help authorities address high needs cost pressures

Stage 1 of the consultation process will end on 17th April and the stage 2 consultation will follow when the DfE have considered, and reflected the outcome of stage 1.

The full consultation documents can be accessed here: https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/schools-national-funding-formula https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/high-needs-funding-reform

It is recommended that the consultation documents are read in full and a response submitted. This summary just identifies some of the key proposals and the full document contains a lot of additional information.

The government has also issue a white paper setting out their vision for schools in England which can be accessed from the link below: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/educational-excellence-everywhere

Key proposals

The DfE are proposing:  The overall design of the proposed funding system is detailed in table 1 below:

Table 1

1

The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)

 The DSG is currently made up of 3 blocks: the schools block, the early years block and the high needs block. It is proposed that a 4th block will be created called ‘the central schools block’  The remaining schools block, following the creation of the central schools block, will be ringfenced and will all have to be allocated to schools (it will not be possible to subsidise the other blocks as is currently the case)  The value of the existing blocks will be reviewed based on current planned spend to create a baseline for the new blocks. The new baselines will be used to create the national total for each block and the level to which protection will be applied  It is proposed that the retained duties element of the education services grant (ESG), which is funded at £15 per pupil for all school types, is amalgamated into the new central schools block. This will effectively increase the scope of the DSG

National Funding Formula for Schools

2

 The DfE propose that a national funding formula is created to allocate funding directly to schools from central government without any local decision making from 2019-20  The national funding formula will be used from 2017-18 to calculate the value of each LAs schools block of the DSG but local decision making will determine the funding formula that will be used to allocate these resources to schools in 2017-18 and 2018-19  The DfE are proposing that the national funding formula (that will create the funding for the schools block in 2017-18 and 2018-18 and the funding for individual schools from 2019-20) will include:

Table 2

Basic per-pupil funding

Per pupil - different basic rates for primary, key stage 3 A costs and key stage 4

EAL - EAL Deprivation Low prior attainment - pupil entered B Additional - current and state needs past FSM EYFSP/key education in IDACI stage 2 last 3 years

Lump Rates – Premises Growth School sum C initially on initially on initially on costs and historic historic historic spend sparsity spend spend

Geographic D Area cost adjustment costs – unlikely to be applicable in North Somerset

 This is similar to the formula currently used in North Somerset but the weighting between each of the factors are not yet know and will form part of the stage 2 consultation. This will include things such as the ratio of funding between primary and secondary phases, the balance between the basic level of funding for all pupils and funding for additional needs, and the extent to which funding should be driven by pupil characteristics rather than on a per- school basis  There are no changes planned to the formula factors that we can use in North Somerset for the 2017-18 & 2018-19 financial years  It is proposed that every school will receive a lump sum but the value, and whether it will be the same for primary and secondary, will be considered as part of stage 2 of the consultation  For 2017-18 and 2018-19 it is proposed that some of the formula factors are based on historic spend (as detailed in table 1 above). The DfE hope to move to a formulaic methodology for these factors from 2019-10  The DfE have recognised that the funding system needs to be able to respond to significant in-year pupil growth, which is not currently reflected within the 3

lagged funding system. The growth fund will form part of the schools block and will initially be allocated on the basis of historic spend. From 2019-20 the DfE hope that this can be calculated formulaically, taking into account the interaction with basic need and estimates of growth in individual schools  The DfE have concluded that it is not sensible or feasible to include the disability living allowance as a factor in the formula for schools

The pupil premium  The pupil premium, pupil premium plus and the service premium will continue to operate through the separate pupil premium grant and is protected until 2019-20  The eligibility criteria for the pupil premium will remain unchanged during this period  The DfE are proposing to remove the Looked After Children factor (which is currently eligible to be used to distribute formula funding to schools but not used in North Somerset) and to remove the funding currently allocated through this factor nationally from the DSG. This funding will be reallocated via the pupil premium by increasing the pupil premium plus rates for children looked after, and those who have left care through an adoption order, special guardianship order or child arrangements order High Needs  From 2017-18 the DfE are proposing to allocate the high needs block to LAs on the basis of a formula consisting of a number of factors, and some historic spending levels  The majority of high needs funding will continue to be allocated to LAs rather than directly to schools and other institutions  It is proposed that the high needs national funding formula, that will create the funding for the high needs block from 2017-18, is mostly based on proxy indicators of need rather than the assessed needs of individual children and young people. The DfE are proposing that the formula will include:

Table 3

4

 The basic unit of funding for special institutions will be based on the number of children and young people in special schools, special academies or special post 16 institutions as at the January census/Individualised Learner Record 15 months before the start of the financial year in question i.e. January 2016 to fund the high needs block for 2017-18. This element of the formula will fund some of the £10,000 place funding allocated to special institutions (e.g. £4,000)  The population factor will reflect the estimated number of children and young people aged 2 to 19 with high needs resident in the LA as a proportion of all children and young people in this age group. This means that high needs funding will be able to reflect year on year population increases  The formula will reflect the number of children aged 0 to 16 for whom parents resident in the LA are in receipt of disability living allowance (DLA)  It is also proposed to reflect the number of children aged 0 to 16 in bad or very bad health resident in the LA, as a proportion of all children in England in this age group in bad or very bad health, as reported by parents in the 2011 general population census  The low prior attainment factor is based on those not achieving level 2 in reading at the end of key stage two and 5 A* - G at GCSE, or equivalent  The population and deprivation factors will be used to allocate funding for alternative provision as part of the high needs block  The DfE are not planning any fundamental changes to the way that schools are funded for their pupils with SEN and disabilities. Mainstream schools will continue to have the existing requirement that they meet from their budget the costs of additional support up to £6,000 p.a. for all pupils with SEN. Special schools will continue to receive place funding of £10,000  The DfE are not proposing any changes to how alternative provision (AP) is funded locally, but this is being kept under review  Currently special units attached to mainstream schools are funded in the same way as special schools, at £10,000 per place, and with the pupils educated in those units excluded from the calculation of the schools delegated budget share. The DfE propose that instead the pupils educated in the unit are included in the schools pupil numbers for funding purposes (and will, therefore, attract AWPU funding, SEN and deprivation etc) plus place funding of £6,000  The DfE have said that they will consult later in the year on specific measures to help secure improvements to early years provision for young children with SEN and disabilities  The DfE would like to introduce a common set of funding arrangements for SEN and disability at both pre and post 16. They propose to introduce the concept of special units, or resourced provision into the FE sector to be funded in the same way as special units in schools (as detailed above). It is

5

proposed that the remaining SEND provision in FE would be funded through a formulaic allocation and this will be the subject of further consultation  From 2017-18 the DfE propose to offer independent special schools (on the section 41 approved list) the opportunity to receiving a grant from the EFA for £10,000 place funding  The DfE are considering two routes to develop new special places: capital funding to establish new special free schools, and capital funding to support the expansion of existing provision. They are currently considering how best to distribute capital funding and how it should respond to LAs’ strategic assessment of their need. At least £200 million will be available during the current Spending Review period. The DfE have said that they recognise the importance of LAs in identifying the scope of potential new special free schools Schools Forums and de-delegation  The DfE see a continuing role for schools forums in relation to schools funding in 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since they envisage moving to a national funding formula for schools by 2019-20, this would be a relatively short-term role. They do not intend to make changes to the make-up or functions of the schools forum during this period  In advance of introducing the national funding formula for schools in 2019-20, the DfE will carry out a review from first principles of the role, functions and membership of schools forums  The DfE are proposing to withdraw current arrangements for de-delegation with the introduction of the national funding formula for schools in 2019-20 to give schools greater responsibility for their budgets. These services include behaviour support services, insurance, licences, maternity cover etc. If LAs wish to continue to provide these services they should do so as a traded service, giving individual schools the choice of buying into the service  It is likely that schools forums will have an ongoing role in relation to the distribution of resources for early years and high needs The Role of the LA  The role of LAs in supporting the provision of excellent education for all children of compulsory school age is to ensure that every child has a school place and ensuring fair access through admissions and transport arrangements; ensuring the needs of vulnerable pupils are met; and to act as a champion for all parents and families. On top of these responsibilities, LAs have a key role in shaping school provision in their area, and to encourage an increasing number of academies. The DfE will continue to provide funding to local authorities for these functions on an ongoing basis  LAs currently receive funding from the government for these responsibilities from 2 different funding streams – the DSG funding that is held centrally by the LA, and the retained duties element of the education services grant (ESG) which is funded at £15 per pupil for all school types. The DfE are proposing to bring these 2 funding streams together into a new central schools block, distributed on a simple formulaic basis. This will effectively increase the scope of the DSG  In addition to the responsibilities that would be funded through the central schools block, LAs hold other responsibilities in respect of education, for which they are allocated funding from other sources. These responsibilities include those for the provision of home to school transport, assessing pupils 6

with SEN, and planning for and supply of sufficient school places. The funding for these functions is not in scope of these consultations  The DfE have confirmed that they plan to remove the remaining general element of the ESG (currently £77 per pupil) with effect from September 2017 from LAs and academies  There is an expectation that LAs and academies can make efficiency savings to support this reduction in funding but it is recognised that the full £600m reduction in the ESG cannot be achieved through efficiencies alone. The DfE have, therefore, considered how to reduce the statutory burdens on schools and LAs  The DfE are reforming school improvement policy in the context of the overall drive towards a school-led system. They expect LAs to step back from running school improvement from the end of the 2016/17 academic year and therefore will not require funding for this function. Further information on the delivery of a new strategy for school improvement will follow shortly  The removal of duties may reduce financial pressures on LAs and schools, and therefore help them to manage with reduced funding. The DfE have identified a small number of duties that they think could be removed as detailed below: o From 2019-20 LAs will no longer be responsible for setting local funding formula o Music services, visual and performing arts, pupil support and outdoor education are non statutory elements of the existing general element of the ESG. All schools, whether academies or maintained, are expected to fund extra-curricular activities in music and the performing arts from their budgets

 The DfE recognises that LAs will need to use other sources of funding to pay for education services once the general funding element of the ESG has been removed. The DfE proposes to allow LAs to retain some of their maintained schools’ DSG to cover the statutory duties that they carry out for maintained schools. This would be similar to the current de- delegation arrangements where funding is removed from maintained schools delegated budget shares. The main difference being that the statutory responsibility to fulfil the duties for maintained schools remains with the local authority and could not be delegated.  The level of the DSG to be retained by the LA, not whether any should be retained, would need to be agreed by the maintained schools members of the schools forum, with recourse to the Secretary of State if they are unable to agree. This would result in an effective reduction to the core schools funding of maintained schools, which would be equivalent to the reduction in the general element of the ESG for academies

Transition to a reformed system  In 2017-18 and 2018-19, LAs will continue to allocate the schools block to schools through a local formula, as now  LAs will be required to pass on all of the funding they are allocated through the schools block to schools  LAs will be given greater flexibility in setting a minimum funding guarantee (MFG) that reflects local circumstances. This is because some LAs will receive less funding in their schools block than they currently do. For these

7

LAs having to protect schools funding within the parameters of a nationally determined MFG may give very little room for manoeuvre  Some form of MFG protection will still apply as schools move to the new national funding formula in 2019-20  A cap on gains will also apply to fund MFG protection  The DfE proposes to continue to provide protection to academies for reductions in the ESG using the existing methodology for the remainder of the spending review period. They propose to unwind this protection by 2020  In the run up to the introduction of the national funding formula for schools in 2019-20 the DfE will continue to support schools to become financially healthier and more efficient  The DfE will also launch and ‘invest to save’ fund in 2016-17 to allow schools to invest in way to save money in the future  The DfE have specified that introducing changes to high needs funding gradually is a key priority, so that the special provision in existing settings can be maintained where necessary. They propose, therefore, to include an element of funding based on current planned spending levels on SEN and AP in the national formula for at least the next five years  There will be an overall minimum funding guarantee to ensure that an LAs high needs funding is not reduced by more than a specified percentage each year. This will be funded by applying a cap to LAs that gain under the new high needs formula

8

Appendix B

Schools national funding formula Consultation response stage one - North Somerset Council Strategic Schools Forum Question 1 Do you agree with our proposed principles for the funding system? Yes.

We also wonder whether this is an opportunity to move from two separate pre 16 and post 16 national funding formulae to one overall funding allocation incorporating both. It may also be worth considering other grants (such as universal infant free school meals) that could be incorporated in the main school funding allocations at the same time as this change is implemented

In order for the formula to be considered fair there needs to be transparency about how it is built. Simply using averages of current funding levels will not generate any kind of fairness. The key component parts need to be transparent such as class sizes at each of the key stages.

We also feel that a further principle should be incorporated which ensures that where funding is allocated aligns to where the statutory responsibility falls.

Question 2 Do you agree with our proposal to move to a school-level national funding formula in 2019-20, removing the requirement for local authorities to set a local formula? No.

We feel there is still a benefit to retaining some local decision making, through the schools forum, within a national framework. An example of this would be deprivation. The level, spread and pockets of deprivation are individual to each local authority area and can not necessarily be reflected in a national formula. The ability to continue to set the IDACI band values for example would be an example of how local circumstances can be reflected within a national framework.

We are concerned about the proposal in this section of the consultation document that requires LAs to pass on all of their schools block funding to schools. This has a number of potential negative implications. Firstly, if LAs/schools forums retain responsibility for just high needs and early years, the pressure on high needs funding will not be able to be met by topslicing resources from the schools sector. The pressures on high needs funding, whilst improved, is not going to be solved by the proposals for the high needs block and therefore we are concerned that the early years sector will bear the impact of having to fund increases in demand led high needs funding. Alternatively, if the early years block is also ring fenced, pressure in the high needs block will have to be resourced by reducing other services to vulnerable children and young people. This position would generate significant concern about being able to meet need. Secondly, the link between the schools block and the high needs block can be used to incentivise good and inclusive practice in schools. At the moment for example schools funding could be reduced if out of authority placements go up to accommodate an increase in children and young people from schools. Supporting schools to understand the wider implications of their actions is helpful both financially and in terms of good outcomes. If the ability to subsidise high needs from the schools block is removed these incentives will be removed and will result in less inclusive practice and increased pressure in the high needs block.

1

Further clarification is required about how both DSG under and overspends will be treated in the soft and hard national funding formula years. The lack of flexibility to either use underspends, or recover overspends, may have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable children and young people.

At the moment the Schools Forum and the LA work together to provide oversight and objectivity for the benefit of all children and young people in the area. How will local areas be able to work collaboratively to make the right decisions about the use of resources for the specific needs of children and young people in the proposed arrangements

Question 3 Do you agree that the basic amount of funding for each pupil should be different at primary, key stage 3 and key stage 4? We accept that there is a difference in cost base between key stage 3 and 4 but there is also a difference in cost base between reception, key stage 1 and key stage 2. However, when taking the opportunity to establish a national funding formula we feel that both sectors should be treated consistently with either one basic amount of funding for each sector or a rate for each key stage (even if the values are the same). The Schools Forum would prefer one rate for primary aged children and one rate for secondary aged children but would want to ensure that prevention and early intervention is maintained by supporting funding in the early years of school.

The value of the basic amount of funding needs to be based on the costs associated with the educational provision and not simply an average of existing funding levels. This needs to incorporate both the higher costs associated with KS4 provision, for example, and the evidence of improved outcomes from early intervention and support.

Question 4 a) Do you agree that we should include a deprivation factor? b) Which measures for the deprivation factor do you support? • Pupil-level only (current FSM and Ever6 FSM) • Area-level only (IDACI) • Pupil- and area-level a) Yes. However we are concerned that the weighting that is applied to the deprivation factor will be used to dampen the appropriate re-distribution of resources from more generously funded local authorities to those that are currently underfunded. The whole principle of fair funding will be undermined if the weighting that is applied to the deprivation factor is based on historic funding levels. It needs to be based on an assessment of need for children and young people from deprived backgrounds along with some clarity about what type of support should be funded from the schools delegated budget share and what from the pupil premium.

The Schools Forum would like there to be continued local decision making about the use of the deprivation factor and the values attached. In North Somerset we have the 3rd highest inequality, as measured by the range in national ranking between the most and least deprived LSOAs in the district. North Somerset is also a seaside area. While 20% of England was judged as deprived in 2010, for the 31 larger English seaside towns, such as Weston-super-Mare, the figures leapt to

2

26.9%. These example of local circumstances demonstrate why local funding arrangements are necessary for the future.

The Schools Forum would like to see the pupil premium integrated within a single funding allocation, using the existing factors. b) We support the use of both pupil and area level deprivation factors. However, there are areas of concern with the proposed data. We feel that the values attached to funding using the current FSM data should be limited to reflect the cost of providing a free school meal. We feel that educational support for deprived pupils should be calculated using Ever6 FSM and IDACI. There are, however, concerns with both data sources. Ever6 FSM is becoming less meaningful as a data set for Primary Schools due to the introduction of the universal infant free schools meal and the subsequent reduction in those claiming eligibility for FSM. This of particular concern in areas of significant pupil growth especially in relation to new social housing where the needs of young children are unlikely to be appropriately represented in this data. In North Somerset Ever6 FSM has been used to recognise a wider distribution of deprivation across schools, whilst the IDACI data has been used to deliberately target funding to schools with significant proportions of their pupils from the most deprived areas. This, we believe, is important to recognise in a new systems and the IDACI bandings need to apply significant weightings to the highest levels of deprivation. Whilst we have used IDACI data for this purpose in North Somerset for a long time, its reliability as a data source has been reduced given the reduction in the level of need in the most recent data set.

If IDACI is used, consideration needs to be given to smoothing the impact when the data is updated every 5 years to avoid significant and opaque changes in funding.

Question 5 Do you agree we should include a low prior attainment factor? Yes – it is important that deprivation is not used as the only proxy indicator of special educational needs and disabilities. There are of course concerns about the data to be used and its reliability as an indicator of need given the amount of change in this area.

We are disappointed that DLA is not being considered for use in the national funding formula for schools. Whilst not perfect it would at least ensure that the funding allocated takes into account the needs of those children and young people, who’s SEN or disability does not affect their attainment levels. We would like the stage 2 consultation to include the DLA data so that we can consider its potential inclusion.

We agree that a notional SEN budget should not be calculated for each school as part of the national funding formula. We feel that keeping this concept in the short term is pointless and a waste of the valuable time of SENCOs, school business managers and Headteachers.

The schools forum are particularly concerned about how to funding allocations can appropriately reflects the needs of children who’s needs are unlikely to be reflected through the use of low prior attainment. This could include children and young people with physical or sensory disabilities or those on the autistic spectrum. Whilst the use of DLA may help with this, the process to get it is not a simple or straightforward one.

3

We are also concerned about the potential manipulation of data for this factor and would like further information about how robustness can be ensured.

Question 6 a) Do you agree that we should include a factor for English as an additional language? b) Do you agree that we should use the EAL3 indicator (pupils registered at any point during the previous 3 years as having English as an additional language)? a) No. We are concerned about the use of this factor for a number of reasons. Firstly, some pupils with EAL are amongst the highest performers in the schools system and therefore this is not necessarily a strong factor to reflect additional needs – we feel that this can be adequately reflected through the deprivation factor. Secondly, significant improvements will be needed to the data used if this factor is to be used for funding purposes. This is to ensure that the data does not capture languages that are unlikely to be representative of additional needs such as Cornish or Scottish. It can be difficult to cater for a small number of children with EAL compared to where there is a large community. Using this factor could result in funding being allocated where it is not required. Children with EAL in the early stages of their education are more likely to progress more quickly than a young person joining a schools with EAL in key stage 4. This will not be reflected by the proposed use of this data b) If this factor does end up being used then we would support the use of EAL3

Question 7 Do you agree that we should include a lump sum factor? Yes - but there needs to be some understanding of what costs it is supporting to ensure that it is justified rather than something that protects the status quo e.g. ensuring that schools receive a minimum level of funding for a headteacher, reception cover, SEN etc that they might not get if funded purely on data factors.

Question 8 Do you agree that we should include a sparsity factor? Yes – but its weighting needs to be calculated in recognition of costs faced rather than historic funding levels.

The proposed factor is complicated and does not adequately reflect cost pressures, for example there are not always spaces at the next nearest school. We also feel that the pupil numbers of 21.4 in each age group in Primary is too high for this funding. A level of 7.14 per age group seems more appropriate to ensure that this funding supports the smallest schools in rural areas.

Question 9 Do you agree that we should include a business rates factor? No – Rates should be removed completely from the schools funding system. The inclusion of rates goes against many of the principles that have been established for schools funding such a fairness (there is no fair distribution of rates apart from actual cost) and efficiency. Further efforts should be made with the treasury to get rates removed from school funding.

If rates do still form a part of schools funding, clarification is needed on whether we will still be able to effectively de-delegate rates for maintained schools in the future? If not how will in year and backdated increases and decreases in rates

4 costs be reflected. This will also be an area of concern for academies. This could be a significant burden if it falls on individual schools.

Work still need to be done to resolve the situation where rates for schools with 6th forms is fully funded from the DSG. In many cases this may be irrelevant but it becomes a significant issue when new post 16 provision is established and funding for schools has to be cut to fund it.

Question 10 Do you agree that we should include a split sites factor? Yes – We are concerned however about the concept of using historic costs. This will not be appropriate for split site schools that are either new or growing where the split site factor is likely to increase.

There needs to be a clear definition of a split site to ensure that funding is allocated to schools which face additional costs. The definition used in North Somerset is “The buildings of the school are split by a public highway that are over 0.5 miles apart and that travel between the sites requires the use of a public highway. There is no single continuous boundary that includes all campuses in place”. The definition needs to ensure that circumstances cannot be manipulated for example different sites in multi academy trusts or a 6th form building being defined as off site.

Question 11 Do you agree that we should include a private finance initiative factor? Yes – as long as this takes into consideration how these costs are expected to increase or decrease in forthcoming years.

Question 12 Do you agree that we should include an exceptional premises circumstances factor? Yes.

Question 13 Do you agree that we should allocate funding to local authorities in 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on historic spend for these factors? • Business rates • Split sites • Private finance initiatives • Other exceptional circumstances Yes – with the comments noted in questions 9, 10 & 11 above Question 14 Do you agree that we should include a growth factor? Yes it is crucial that additional funding for pupil growth is reflected in the DSG. The current arrangements, where funding is lagged, has significantly impacted on the funding available for all children and young people in North Somerset and other areas of significant pupil growth. We would like to understand how the DfE plans to fund additional DSG funding for pupil growth – presumably this will be through a national topslice before the schools block factor funding rates are calculated?

The growth factor must include funding allocated through the LAs exceptional pupil growth policy, adjustments for growth in the APT (including split sites etc) and new schools funding policy including pre opening set up costs.

5

The consultation says that the new schools block will need to be fully allocated to schools. There needs to be recognition that this will not happen until later in the year as funding will need to be held back and allocated later in the year for growth. Clarity will also be required about what will happened if the amount held back is either insufficient to meet the allocations to be made to schools or if there is funding remaining. We also need to know if the allocation of pupil growth funding is something that will be determined nationally or through local decision making.

The schools forum would like to see a range of factors taken into account when funding for pupil growth is formulaically calculated. These should include housing growth, housing development (e.g. conversion of existing properties to incorporate families) and the increase in the number of children registered with GPs.

Question 15 Do you agree that we should allocate funding for growth to local authorities in 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on historic spend? No. We would prefer to see this funding being data driven as you suggest for 2019-20. However, if this is not possible for 2017-18 then we would support it being based on historic spend if there is an opportunity to present evidence to identify that the pattern of historic spend is not appropriate for the future.

Data from other departments such as the ministry of defence should also be taken into consideration.

Question 16 a) Do you agree that we should include an area cost adjustment? b) Which methodology for the area cost adjustment do you support? • general labour market methodology • hybrid methodology a) Yes but the weighting applied to the factor should be proportionate to the additional costs

The Schools Forum questions if the London weighting to teacher salaries should even exist anymore as there are a range of cost pressures right across the country. An example of this is the pressures applicable in seaside towns. The Communities and Local Government Department benchmarking report into England’s seaside towns includes nearly 30 indicators on which England’s principal seaside towns can be ranked and compared with the average for England as a whole. On around three-quarters of these indicators, the average for seaside towns is worse than for England as a whole. For example, seaside towns as a whole have a lower-than-average employment rate, an above average share of working age adults on benefits, lower average earnings and are more affected by seasonal unemployment than the rest of England.

There has been significant investment in London schools which has resulted in a significant increase in outcomes. It is therefore more appropriate that this investment can be shared with the rest of the country to support the same drive for improvement. b) If an ACA is agreed, we support the hybrid methodology as this most closely represent the costs in the education sector.

Question 17

6

Do you agree that we should target support for looked-after children and those who have left care via adoption, special guardianship or a care arrangements order through the pupil premium plus, rather than include a looked-after children factor in the national funding formula? Yes if the pupil premium remains a separate grant but, as previously detailed the Schools Forum would prefer to see the pupil premium incorporated in the national funding formula

Question 18 Do you agree that we should not include a factor for mobility? Yes

Question 19 Do you agree that we should remove the post-16 factor from 2017-18? Yes – but need to clarify that this funding will be distributed as part of the schools national funding formula and not the post 16 national funding formula.

Question 20 Do you agree with our proposal to require local authorities to distribute all of their schools block allocation to schools from 2017-18? No – We are concerned about this proposal as it has a number of potential negative implications. Firstly, if LAs/schools forums retain responsibility for just high needs and early years, the pressure on high needs funding will not be able to be met by topslicing resources from the schools sector. The pressures on high needs funding, whilst improved, is not going to be solved by the proposals for the high needs block and therefore we are concerned that the early years sector will bear the impact of having to fund increases in demand led high needs funding. Alternatively, we will have to ration support for some children with high needs to fund increases for others. Secondly, the link between the schools block and the high needs block can be used to incentivise good and inclusive practice in schools. At the moment, for example, schools funding could be reduced if out of authority placement go up to accommodate an increase in children and young people from schools. Supporting schools to understand the wider implications of their actions is helpful both financially and in terms of good outcomes. If the ability to subsidise high needs from the schools block is removed these incentives will be removed and will result in less inclusive practice and increased pressure in the high needs block.

The Schools Forum would like the ability to present evidence to the Secretary of State to use the schools block to support high needs costs in the future where it can demonstrate the detrimental impact that the proposed ring fencing will have.

North Somerset Council and the Schools Forum would be happy to work proactively with the DfE to identify practical ways that the new arrangements can work without any unintended consequences that will adversely affect children and young people.

There needs to be recognition that the schools block will not be fully allocated until later in the year as funding will need to be held back and allocated later in the year for growth. Clarity will be required about what will happen if the amount held back is either insufficient to meet the allocations to be made to schools or if there is funding remaining.

Question 21

7

Do you believe that it would be helpful for local areas to have flexibility to set a local minimum funding guarantee? Yes – although it needs to be recognised that schools are facing significant cost pressures and this will add to these pressures

The Schools Forum are concerned that the proposals transfer funding responsibility to schools without the appropriate resources – such as elements of the general element of the Education Service Grant. This is on top of general inflationary pressures and other changes such as the apprenticeship levy. The Forum feel that funding and statutory responsibilities should be aligned

Question 22 Do you agree that we should fund local authorities’ ongoing responsibilities as set out in the consultation according to a per-pupil formula? No – The proposals for the retained element of the ESG seem reasonable, apart from the fact that the £15 is wholly unrealistic and subsidised by the general element of the grant. However the proposals for the general element of the ESG are completely unreasonable. This is a real and significant cut to maintained schools budgets without being offered any of the transitional protections that academies are being offered for the impact of this cut on their budgets. This is likely to be a very contentious issue and much more clarity is required about the decision making responsibility in relation to this area. Depending on the future funding decision of the LA/schools forum on this issue there could be significant termination of employment costs associated with this reduction in funding. If reductions are required as a result of schools forum funding decisions should be picked up by the DSG? How will this be possible if the schools budget has to be fully allocated?

Clarity is also required about potential TUPE implications when the funding for delivering statutory responsibilities transfers from the LA to maintained schools, or to academies as part of the drive to all school becoming academies.

From what point in time will new academy converters not be entitled to receive the general ESG funding. Will this be 1st September 2017? What transitional protection will be offered to schools that convert between now and this point in time?

The Schools Forum feel that funding and statutory responsibilities should be aligned and the proposed arrangements, where funding responsibility sits with maintained schools but the statutory responsibility remains with the LA are unworkable. Further clarity on decision making and associated redundancy costs needs to be provided

Question 23 Do you agree that we should fund local authorities' ongoing historic commitments based on case-specific information to be collected from local authorities? Yes. Question 24 Are there other duties funded from the education services grant that could be removed from the system? Most of the elements funded by the ESG are very difficult to remove or would just increase the burden on schools

Further clarification on statutory responsibilities is required to enable an informed response. Work also needs to be completed to clarifying the respective

8 responsibilities for health and education. There is a wide variation in practice and the financial contributions between health and education across the country and, whilst these proposals will standardise the resources in accordance with need for education, they will not improve the inconsistencies in relation to health contributions.

Question 25 Do you agree with our proposal to allow local authorities to retain some of their maintained schools’ DSG centrally – in agreement with the maintained schools in the schools forum – to fund the duties they carry out for maintained schools? No – LAs should be funded properly for the duties that they carry out for maintained schools – in line with their statutory responsibilities. This proposal is a real and significant cut to maintained schools budgets without being offered any of the transitional protections that academies are being offered for the impact of this cut on their budgets

Other The Schools Forum are very concerned that the proposals in this document amount to a real terms cut in funding for schools, particularly in relation to the ESG, at a time when schools are already facing significant cost pressures.

We need to understand what will happen with any DSG overspends that will be carried forwards from 2016-17. Under the current arrangements the deficit could be recovered over time from the entirety of the DSG. With a ring fenced schools block this reduces our ability to recover the deficit and puts an undue burden on early years children and those with high needs.

When will more information about the invest to save fund to support schools to make efficiency saving be announced?

What will happen to under or over spends on the current de-delegations when they end? We may need to retain this for termination of employment costs for the de- delegated services or for elements of the general element of the ESG if maintained school reps on the schools forum can reduce the level of funding currently available.

How will adjustments for permanent exclusions be calculated in the future, until the proposals in the white paper are implemented. Will this still be calculated by LAs or by the DfE/EFA and will it be based on a local or nationally agreed methodology? What happens to any balance of funding removed from schools for permanent exclusions when all of the schools block has to be allocated to schools.

Is this an opportunity for the nationally arranged licences to be topsliced from the DSG and funded centrally by the DfE? This would support the principles of a more efficient system.

The stage 2 consultation needs to clarify the future role of the schools forum. How will the collective voice of schools be heard if the schools forum does not exist or only has responsibility for high needs.

It has been difficult for the schools forum to respond fully and effectively to this consultation without the full information being provided and the financial implications understood. The proposals in the stage 2 consultation could change some of the responses that we have made in our stage 1 response.

9

The government should introduce arrangements where utility costs should be removed or significantly reduced for education settings and hospitals, funded by the large profits made by the utilities companies.

The Schools forum would like the DfE to look at working proactively with the treasury and with businesses to look at further opportunities for efficiencies, growth and opportunities to improve outcomes and opportunities for children and young people.

The Schools Forum would also like to express their significant concern about the Apprenticeship Levy and the additional cost pressure that this will generate for schools, on top of all the other pressures that schools are facing. This is just another example of changes that will impact schools abilities to provide the best possible education and support for their pupils.

High needs funding formula and other reforms Consultation response stage one - North Somerset Council Question 1 Do you agree with our proposed principles for the funding system? Yes. Question 2 Do you agree that the majority of high needs funding should be distributed to local authorities rather than directly to schools and other institutions? Yes. Question 3 Do you agree that the high needs formula should be based on proxy measures of need, not the assessed needs of children and young people? Yes – subject to using the right factors. Question 4 Do you agree with the basic factors proposed for a new high needs formula to distribute funding to local authorities? Please see details below: Basic entitlement – We agree with this factor but do not agree with this being based on the January pupil numbers (unless this is updated during the year to reflect the January preceding the financial year). As AP provision is not included in these numbers we do not believe that there is a strong case for the January census providing a better reflection of average on roll over the year. The October count preceding the financial year should be used for this purpose. We need to understand the criteria and process for determining special units or resourced provision in FE.

Population factor – the document is not clear on whether this is a total population factor or one reflecting the population with high needs. If it is children and young people with high needs, we need to understand how a child or young person is identified as such within this data in order to respond to this proposal. There is an inconsistency between the consultation document and the technical guidance with one saying that the population factor will be 2 to 18 and the other 2-19. It would be good if this factor could reflect changes in the proportion of high needs students as well as increases and decreases in the total population. In this way it reflects the level of high needs in each LA as compared to other LA and the general increase or decrease in the population for this age group. We believe that this should include young people up to the age of 25. North Somerset is a net importer of young people with high needs post 16 and children and young people in North Somerset will be disadvantaged if the full post 16 age range is not reflected.

10

Health and disability factors – We are pleased to see DLA included in this data set. Is there any that equivalent data for post 16 so that this age group can also be reflected? We are, however, concerned about the data that is proposed to be used as a measure of child health. Firstly this data is only updated every 10 years and therefore is not a sound ongoing measure of need. Secondly the data depends on whether parents complete the census saying that their child is in bad or very bad health. The data is therefore subjective and unreliable. We would prefer to see robust data from the NHS used for this purpose. This could include data on the number of children and young people assigned to a consultant, the results of school nurse checks or could include school attendance data due to illness. The Schools Forum are concerned that the proposed data does not reflect those with mental health difficulties or young carers.

Low attainment factor – We support the use of this data and the levels that are proposed. However, this should be based on data for several years rather than data for one particular year to create a more sustainable proxy indicator of need. The same methodology as used for the school prior attainment factor could be applied. The Schools Forum are again concerned that the needs of certain children and young people with SEND such as autism, physical, sensory or mental health difficulties are not adequately reflected in the proposed factors.

Deprivation – We would prefer Ever6 FSM to be used because of the impact that universal free school meals has had on the number of parents registering their eligibility for FSMs. This data should also be based on the October count preceding the financial year rather than January, which would result in the data being much more out of date.

If IDACI is used, consideration needs to be given to smoothing the impact when the data is updated every 5 years to avoid significant and opaque changes in funding.

Question 5 We are not proposing to make any changes to the distribution of funding for hospital education, but welcome views as we continue working with representatives of this sector on the way forward. We support this approach

Question 6 Which methodology for the area cost adjustment do you support? The Schools Forum questions if the London weighting to teacher salaries should even exist anymore as there are a range of cost pressures right across the country. An example of this is the pressures applicable in seaside towns. The Communities and Local Government Department benchmarking report into England’s seaside towns includes nearly 30 indicators on which England’s principal seaside towns can be ranked and compared with the average for England as a whole. On around three-quarters of these indicators, the average for seaside towns is worse than for England as a whole. For example, seaside towns as a whole have a lower-than-average employment rate, an above average share of working age adults on benefits, lower average earnings and are more affected by seasonal unemployment than the rest of England.

There has been significant investment in London schools which has resulted in a significant increase in outcomes. It is therefore more appropriate that this

11 investment can be shared with the rest of the country to support the same drive for improvement.

If the area cost adjustment is used, we support the hybrid methodology as this most closely represent the costs in the education sector. The weighting applied to the factor should be proportionate to the additional costs

Question 7 Do you agree that we should include a proportion of 2016-17 spending in the formula allocations of funding for high needs? Yes but we need to understand what proportion of the high needs block will be based on the formula and how much on historic costs and how this will change over the 5 year period

Question 8 Do you agree with our proposal to protect local authorities’ high needs funding through an overall minimum funding guarantee? Yes – the consultation document was not clear that a minimum funding guarantee would need to be funding by a cap on gains. This needs to be clearly understood.

We also need to understand how the minimum funding guarantee, and the element of the high need block that is based on historic costs, will work together. We need to ensure that there is no duplication of protection.

Question 9 Given the importance of schools’ decisions about what kind of support is most appropriate for their pupils with SEN, working in partnership with parents, we welcome views on what should be covered in any national guidelines on what schools offer for their pupils with SEN and disabilities. There needs to be a link between budgets and the Educational Health Care Plans (ECHP). As an example the number of hours in the plan needs to match the number of hours in the school day – this is not the case at the moment where some ECHPs include hours well beyond what can be accommodated within the school day.

Question 10 We are proposing that mainstream schools with special units receive per pupil amounts based on a pupil count that includes pupils in the units, plus funding of £6,000 for each of the places in the unit; rather than £10,000 per place. Do you agree with the proposed change to the funding of special units in mainstream schools? No – We believe that special units should continue to be funded in the same way as special schools. This will disadvantage schools with special units in low funded LAs and advantage those in higher funded LAs where the basic pupil funding is higher. It will also disadvantage primary schools with special units over secondary schools as the per pupil funding is generally lower in primary schools. Finally it will disadvantage schools with special units where the needs of the students that they support is not likely to trigger other formula factors such as deprivation or low prior attainment.

Question 11 We therefore welcome, in response to this consultation, examples of local authorities that are using centrally retained funding in a strategic way to overcome barriers to integration and inclusion. We would be particularly interested in examples of where this funding has been allocated on an “invest-to-save” basis,

12 achieving reductions in high needs spending over the longer term. We would like to publish any good examples received. There is the need to develop local provision. However the DfE need to research and share what best practice looks like prior to investment. There is also a risk that strategic visioning and decision making will be less effective due to the diminished role for the schools forum. Question 12 We welcome examples of where centrally retained funding is used to support schools that are particularly inclusive and have a high proportion of pupils with particular types of SEN, or a disproportionate number of pupils with high needs. We have looked at a number of options to do this over recent years along with the methods used by other LAs. As yet we have not found a suitable data source that both reflects schools with a high proportion of children in receipt of top up funding and those with a high proportion of children with special educational needs but which don’t exceed £6,000.

Question 13 Do you agree that independent special schools should be given the opportunity to receive place funding directly from the EFA with the balance in the form of top-up funding from local authorities? Yes – but this needs to go along with the understanding that independent schools will have to operate within the LAs top up funding framework and not just continue to send invoice for their fees less £10k place funding.

Regulation of fees that are charged should be possible under the proposals. The proposal should apply to all independent schools and not just the listed ones.

Question 14 We welcome views on the outline and principles of the proposed changes to post- 16 place funding (noting that the intended approach for post-16 mainstream institutions which have smaller proportions or numbers of students with high needs, differs from the approach for those with larger proportions or numbers), and on how specialist provision in FE colleges might be identified and designated. We need to understand the criteria and process for determining special units or resourced provision in FE before we are able to fully engage with the proposed changes to post 16 place funding. We also need to understand the arrangements for high needs in schools 6th forms as this is also not clear from the document.

The Schools Forum supports using local colleges and post 16 provision as much as possible.

Other We agree that a notional SEN budget should not be calculated for each schools as part of the national funding formula. We feel that keeping this concept in the short term is pointless and a waste of the valuable time of SENCOs, school business managers and Headteachers.

When will we know more about the proposed help for LAs and institutions to enable future costs to be reduced, capital funding and encouragement to schools and colleges to include children and young people with SEN?

Will early years high needs arrangements be covered as part of the early years fair funding consultation due out later this year?

More detail is required for the invest to save proposal

13

Cost pressures need to be considered and factored in, so that support to high needs students can be provided. Also to ensure that funding does not prohibit the purchasing of specialist services to provide the support required to give these pupils the same opportunities as all other pupils.

Funding should be demand led – this is due to the increasing numbers of high needs students and the increasing level of need. The number of diagnoses and survival rates are increasing and the impact that this will have on schools budgets, whilst unknown, is a reality.

14

Local authority baselines for 2017-18 dedicated schools grant blocks

LA Num 802 LA Name North Somerset Figures are in £m throughout this spreadsheet

PART 1: DfE calculation of 2015-16 DSG block baselines

Schools NFF block Central schools block Total individual school budget allocations £111.668 Central spend £2.106 Total pupil growth and falling rolls spend £0.325 One-off central expenditure £0.000 Approved MFG exceptions for one-off funding £0.000 Scaling so blocks (excl. schools NFF) total 15-16 DSG £0.035 Final 2015-16 schools NFF block baseline £111.993 Final 2015-16 central schools baseline £2.141

High needs block Early years block High needs block spend £17.923 Early years block spend £6.550 Additional funding for places in SEN units and RP £0.000 Central spend on children under 5 £0.187 One-off central expenditure £0.000 One-off central expenditure £0.000 Scaling so blocks (excl. schools NFF) total 15-16 DSG £0.301 Scaling so blocks (excl. schools NFF) total 15-16 DSG £0.113 Final 2015-16 high needs block baseline £18.224 Final 2015-16 early years block baseline £6.850

PART 2: LA confirmation of 2015-16 DSG block baselines

DfE calc. LA figure Schools NFF block £111.993 £112.014 Central schools block £2.141 £1.966 High needs block £18.224 £18.479 Early years block £6.850 £6.749 Total (= 2015-16 DSG allocation) £139.208 £139.208

Explanation of any differences between figures calculated by DfE and figures entered by LA Schools NFF The original figure for pupil growth is incorrect as it does not include the budget established for infant class size. The correct figure of £345,750 was recorded in block the 2015-16 S251. This increases the overall value of the schools block. The pupil growth figure also does not include £54k of pupil growth funding that was included in the original schools delegated share by altering pupil numbers in the APT to include estimates of growth for new school provision. The consultation says that adjustments for growth in the APT should be reflected in the value of pupil growth. This switches funding between the ISB and pupil growth but does Central schools block The original figure from the S251 needs to be amended to reflect £139,471 of expenditure which should be recorded as part of the high needs block. As all of the DSG has now been appropriately allocated between the blocks, the scaling adjustment of £35k is no longer required High needs The original figure from the S251 needs to be amended to reflect £139,471 of expenditure which should have be recorded as part of the high needs block as block detailed in the central schools block above. The high needs block also needs to be adjusted to include £416,666 of high needs place funding which was subsequently removed from the DSG to be allocated directly to providers by the EFA. As all of the DSG has now been appropriately allocated between the blocks, the scaling adjustment of £301k is no longer required Early years I can not identify where your figure of £6.550 for early years spend has come from. The figure now provided by the LA is the correct figure for the initial block allocations for 3 & 4 year olds plus adjustments that have been made through the year (the budget for the adjustments was originally in the S251 on central spend for the under 5s). The central spend for under 5 has been reduced to reflect the transfer of funding for adjustments as detailed above and increased by £107k to reflect costs for 2 years which are beyond the funding received for 2 year olds in the DSG. As all of the DSG has now been appropriately allocated

PART 3: LA submission of 2016-17 DSG block baselines

LA figure DfE calc. LA figure Total pupil growth and falling rolls spend less approved total individual school budget allocations £113.271 MFG exceptions for one-off funding £0.370 £0.957 Central schools block £1.933 High needs block £18.853 Early years block £6.743 Please ensure the five components sum to the 2016-17 DSG total allocation, to the Total (= 2016-17 DSG allocation) £141.191 nearest £0.001m

Explanation of significant differences between figures entered by LA for 2016-17 and the 2015-16 baselines in Part 2

(for blocks where the difference from the amended 2015-16 baseline is: (a) more than 1% of the corresponding 2016-17 amount, and (b) more than £0.5m) Central schools block

High needs block

Early years block

Total pupil The original figure for pupil growth is incorrect as it does include the budget established for infant class size. The correct budget of £390,750 will be reflected in growth and the 2016-17 S251. The pupil growth figure does also not include £566,616 of pupil growth funding that was included in schools delegated budget shares by falling rolls altering pupil numbers in the APT to include estimates of growth in new schools provision. The consultation says that adjustments for growth in the APT should spend be reflected in the value of pupil growth. The should coincide with a reduction in the individual school budget allocations of £566,616 but the spreadsheet will

Additional Attachments Information The figures included do not tie back to the DSG by £567k. This is because the spreadsheet will not allow me to reduced the individual school budget allocations to reflect the amount included for pupil growth which should be included in the pupil growth box as detailed above

Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No.: 13a

The Impact of the Learning Exchange

Sue Ivermee

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

Introduction

1. The Learning Exchange is a ‘not-for-profit’ partnership between member schools and North Somerset Council. The Learning Exchange is dedicated to helping schools achieve their school improvement priorities; providing valued professional development opportunities for teachers, school leaders and other educational practitioners by facilitating the journey toward excellence.

2. The team consists of experienced education professionals who are committed to working with schools to achieve positive outcomes for children through outstanding leadership, teaching and classroom practice. The team is at the cutting edge of educational best practice, leading pedagogical development across the South West and beyond.

3. Through collaboration, the Learning Exchange aims to facilitate lasting change in schools, by helping schools create their own knowledge-sharing culture and by building supportive peer to peer relationships between professionals from different schools.

4. The Learning Exchange delivers a valued and sector-leading service to a broad range of primary, special and secondary settings, pupil referral units and further education institutions within our local authority and beyond. Many of the most popular courses, materials and advisory services are used by schools all over the UK to secure best practice and meet the developing needs of their communities.

5. Services are developed and honed through the transformational work carried out in association with partner schools and school networks in North Somerset. The effectiveness of the Learning Exchange can be seen in Ofsted outcomes and national assessment outcomes at each Key Stage.

Purpose of the Report

6. The purpose of the report is to inform the SSF about the impact of the Learning Exchange in 2015-16.

Recommendations

7. The SSF is recommended to:

a. Note the evidence of impact contained within the report.

Detail

8. The Learning Exchange routinely collects evidence of feedback. Conferences and events always have evaluations. Evaluation of impact is gathered from key pieces of work in each school. Feedback from school leaders both formal and informal always informs the offer for the following year.

- 1 -

Headteachers and Chair of Governors briefings

Grading - 5 is 25 June 15 25 June 15 9 Oct 15 4 Feb 16 excellent and 1 Primary Heads – Heads and Chairs - Primary Heads and Headteachers and is poor Learning without Learning without Chairs - Learning Deputy Limits – The North Limits – The North without Limits – Headteachers – Somerset Somerset The North Gordon Stobart Challenge Challenge – Gwyn Somerset ap Harri Challenge – Gwyn ap Harri 1 2 17% 3 8% 9% 20% 16% 4 23% 41% 30% 35% 5 54% 36% 10% 28% No score 15% 14% 23% 21%

Conferences

Grading – 5 is HMI Conference – Primary Middle Deputy and Assistant E-Safety Conference Middle Leadership Leaders Conference Headteacher ‘Shaping your Future’ excellent and 1 Conference - 20 October 2015 Conference – Linda - 24 November 2015 is unsatisfactory – 3 July 2015 Kaser and Judy Halbert - 10 November 2015 1 2 3 4% 5% 4 30% 40% 22% 11% 5 70% 60% 74% 84% No score

Inspection outcomes:

9. In December 2015 Ofsted published its 2014/15 report on education and skills.

10. The report included data up to 31 August 2015. This data showed that North Somerset is either equal to or above the national average in terms of the number of ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools within the area.

11. For primary schools, as of August 2015, 85% in North Somerset were judged as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. This is equal to the national average. North Somerset has no primary schools that are judged to be ‘inadequate’.

- 2 -

12. North Somerset primary schools have seen a continual improvement over time. Combining the data in the Ofsted report with the results of recent inspections shows that in August 2011, 15% of North Somerset’s primary schools were ‘outstanding’ whilst 28% ‘required improvement’. By December 2015, this had changed to 17% being ‘outstanding’ and just 12% ‘requiring improvement’ (fig 1.1).

Ofsted ratings for primary schools in North Somerset

Dec 2015 . Outstanding Aug 2015 . Good Aug 2014 . Requires improvement Aug 2013 . Inadequate

Aug 2012 Aug 2011

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fig 1.1

13. For secondary schools, and as of August 2015, 90% in North Somerset were judged as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. This compares to 80% regionally and 74% nationally. North Somerset has no secondary schools that are judged to be ‘inadequate’.

14. Like North Somerset’s primary schools, secondary schools have also seen a continual improvement over time. As of August 2011, 11% of North Somerset’s secondary schools were ‘outstanding’ whilst 33% required improvement. In August 2015, this has changed to 50% being outstanding and 10% requiring improvement.

15. However, that 10% was equal to one school (St Katherine’s) that has since been judged as ‘good’, meaning that as of December 2015 there are no secondary schools in North Somerset without a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ rating. This is also the case for all of North Somerset’s special schools.

Ofsted ratings for Secondary schools in North Somerset

Dec 2015 . Outstanding Aug 2015 . Good Aug 2014 . Requires improvement Aug 2013 . Inadequate Aug 2012 Aug 2011

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

- 3 -

The Percentage of Pupils Who Attend a Good or Better School in North Somerset

16. The percentage of pupils who attend a good or better primary, special or secondary school in North Somerset was 95.2% in April 2016.

17. North Somerset is 7th within all Local Authorities in England for the percentage of pupils who attend a good or better school and 1st in the South West.

18. The England figure is 83%. The South West figure is 88.2%.

Pupil outcomes:

19. The Learning Exchange makes a positive difference to the outcomes for children and young people in North Somerset.

Early Years Foundation Stage () National

20. The percentage of children gaining a Good Level of Development in North Somerset increased to 73%, which is above the England score of 66%.

21. The gap between all children and the lowest 20% of attaining children has narrowed to 9.5% (11.2%).

Phonics Screening Check Year 1 () National

22. 82% (77%) of Y1 children in North Somerset met the expected level in the 2015 Y1 phonics screening check.

Phonics Screening Check Year 2 () National

23. 93% (90%) of Y2 children in North Somerset retaking the Y1 phonics screening check in 2015 met the expected level.

Key Stage 1 Results 2015

Subject Level North Somerset 2015 England 2015 Reading L2B+ 85% 82% Reading L3 37% 32% Writing L2B+ 75% 72% Writing L3 20% 18% Mathematics L2B+ 85% 82% Mathematics L3 29% 26%

24. Pupil outcomes in North Somerset are above England in all subjects at KS1. - 4 -

Key Stage 2 Results 2015

North Somerset Subject Levels England 2015 2015

Reading L4+ 92% 89% Reading L5+ 53% 48% Writing L4+ 89% 87% Writing L5+ 32% 36% English Grammar, Punctuation & L4+ 82% 80% Spelling English Grammar, Punctuation & L5+ 57% 55% Spelling Mathematics L4+ 89% 87% Mathematics L5+ 44% 41% Combined L4+ 83% 80% Combined L5+ 23% 24%

25. Pupil outcomes in North Somerset are above England in all subjects at KS2 expect in writing at L5+ and combined outcomes at L5+.

26. The attainment of disadvantaged pupils was 72% and for other pupils it was 86% for combined outcomes at L4+. The gap was -14%, compared to a national gap of -13%.

27. The attainment of disadvantaged pupils was 11% and for other pupils it was 27% for combined outcomes at L5+. The gap was -16%, compared to a national gap of -18%.

GCSE Results 2015

28. The headline measure of 5+ GCSEs at A*-C (or equivalent), including English and mathematics GCSEs, was 59% in North Somerset, better than the England average of 57%. 29. The attainment of disadvantaged pupils for 5+ GCSEs at A*-C, including English and mathematics GCSEs, was 32%. The attainment for other pupils for 5+ GCSEs at A*-C, including English and mathematics, was 65%. The gap was -33% compared to a national gap of -31%.

‘A’ Level Results 2015

30. Results in North Somerset were in line with those for England, with an average pass rate for 3 A levels at 89%, compared to 89.1%.

- 5 -

31. The percentage achieving 3 A*- A grades in North Somerset at 9.5% was below those for England at 11.4%.

32. The percentage achieving AAB grades in North Somerset at 15.8% was below those for England at 18.7%.

Planned  The White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, March activities 2016 describes the ever-increasing delegation of powers and responsibilities to schools. All local authorities are currently working in the context of a mixed economy of schools, typically with a high proportion of academies in the secondary sector and a smaller proportion in the primary sector. It is expected that by 2020 all schools will have become an academy or have plans in place to become an academy by 2022.  By 2020, it is expected that all schools will be working formally in partnership with others. Therefore, North Somerset local authority will need to develop a more autonomous and self- improving school system, with a clear commitment to enabling schools, irrespective of their status, to lead their own improvement in partnership within a Multi Academy Trust.  Remodelling will be required across all service areas within the Learning and Achievement Branch, wider Directorate and Council to balance the demands of being a maintaining authority, and the responsibilities that entails, with the development of a different type of role as a facilitator and enabler within a more diverse and devolved school system by September 2017 when it is anticipated local authorities will not lead on school improvement in its widest sense.  The website allows us to publicise both conferences and publications. Next year will be one to further enhance and expand the organisation within multi-academy trusts to become their preferred partners for school improvement.

Staff/Resource Income summary 2015-16 costs – itemised Council funding for statutory functions: £119,206. Dedicated Schools Grant for LE membership: £419,697. Dedicated Schools Grant for School to School Support: £128,000 (plus £15k for early years). Dedicated Schools Grant for Management: £42,120. Other income from PHANS/HANS, Future Schools, SACRE, E- Safety, ICT, Achievement for All, NQT activity, data lead: £74,180. Income from additional capacity purchased by LE member schools and academies and traded work outside of North Somerset: £83,590. Publications: £3,000.

TOTAL: £869,793 - 6 -

Expenditure summary 2015-16 Core Learning Exchange staffing: £350,111. Business Support staffing: £144,182. External capacity to support Learning Exchange delivery (including National, Local and Specialist Leaders in Education): £128,000. Funding for events: £20,000. Website and subscriptions (including FFT): £27,600. Central costs (including HR, payroll, accommodation, travel etc.): £211,990.

TOTAL: £881,883

Planned  Improve progress of disadvantaged groups in all Key Stages. outcomes  Continue to raise attainment for all pupils in North Somerset and, specifically, raise attainment of disadvantaged or vulnerable learners, including Children Looked After at Key Stage 1, Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4.  Improve attainment in writing for the most able at KS2.  Improve combined outcomes for the most able at KS2.  Improve attainment in reading at KS2 for pupils with a statement or EHC plan.  Improve progress between KS1 and KS2 for pupils with a statement or EHC plan in reading, writing and mathematics.  Improve attainment in the English Baccalaureate subjects at KS4 (especially science and languages).  Improve the percentage of A Level pupils achieving 3 A*- A grades.  Improve the percentage of A Level pupils achieving AAB grades.

Specific  96% of North Somerset schools and academies were engaged outcomes with LE activity. achieved– no. of  61% (46/76) accessed the Learning Exchange Adviser support children/families and challenge visits through the LE. who gained  100% of LE primary schools have taken part in a LE training from this event over last year. activity (even  73% of secondary and special schools/academies have taken where the part in a Learning Exchange network, leadership activity or service was other Learning Exchange activity. provided to a school) and what they gained

- 7 -

How could Further changes will be made to the way we work with schools that these outcomes are maintained (see Educational Excellence Everywhere). The be improved Learning Exchange will continue to deploy National and Local with these same Leaders of Learning within the school improvement offer. This is costs? reflected in the reduction of centrally retained staff.

How could The Learning Exchange Board has given a clear steer that it these outcomes intends to develop a Learning Exchange service for traded school be maintained/ improvement and professional development for schools as a improved with legally separate entity from the local authority by April 2017. efficiency savings? Implement a revised School Improvement Strategy (Excellence Policy) to reflect the White Paper in order to maintain the percentage of good and outstanding schools in North Somerset.

If any of the 91.6% of the activity was carried out against the activity requested planned between April 2014 and March 2015. outcomes were not achieved, It was not 100%. This was due to non-attendance at training or how might they changes to a network programme. be realised? We have addressed this by publishing dates for the full year’s training and networks activity as part of the offer for 2016/17.

Risks if the The key risk is to outcomes for children & young people if school service is not improvement support were to end from the Learning Exchange: provided The LA could have schools below the Floor Standard or deemed to be ‘coasting’ or in Ofsted Requires Improvement or Inadequate Categories or with declining outcomes.

A second risk is that the ethos of collaboration in North Somerset through school to school support could be undermined.

- 8 -

Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No.: 13b

The Impact of SEN equipment budget

Gabrielle Stacey

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

Introduction

1. The SEN equipment budget is used to meet the needs of pupils with complex Special Educational Needs and Disabilities where these needs fall outside that which can reasonably be expected to be provided from the following:

 Notional SEN delegated funding  Top Up funding  Capital funding

2. At present this budget is used to fund the following equipment, support and activities:

 Equipment such as hearing systems, specialised seating and hoists  Individual therapeutic packages e.g. Applied Behaviour Analysis, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy where this is ordered as a result of an SEND tribunal (SENDIST)  Individual support packages such as Banwell Equestrian Centre where the needs of a student cannot be met in their local provision (mainstream or special)

3. Spend on equipment is agreed by the SEN casework team following a request from an occupational therapist from the Disabled Children’s Team.

4. Any spend from this budget for activities and support which is not ordered by SENDIST is agreed through the SEND panel.

5. The budget for 2015/16 was £125k. The budget for 2016/17 is £165,833. The Strategic Schools Forum have asked that this is a budget which does not overspend in the current or subsequent financial years.

6. To date the spend against this budget during 2015/16 is £179,402.78. The final figure may change slightly due to the need to complete year-end financial reporting.

Purpose of the Report

7. The purpose of this report is to:

a. To update the SSF on the use of this budget during the financial year 2015-16

b. To inform the SSF on the plans to reduce the spend from this budget during the 2016-17 financial year from current levels and to ensure it remains in budget from this point forward

Recommendations

8. The SSF is recommended to:

a. Agree the proposed measures for reducing the spend to budgeted levels by April 2017 and for maintaining it within budget in the current and subsequent years.

- 1 -

Detail

Planned activities The SEN equipment budget is used to fund the following equipment, support and activities:

 Specialised equipment for students with complex SEND

 Individual therapeutic packages ordered as a result of an SEND tribunal

 Individual support packages where the needs of a student cannot be met in their local provision (either mainstream or special)

Staff/Resource The breakdown of costs during the current year against these areas costs – itemised of spend is as follows:

Specialised equipment: Approx £58k

During 2015-16:

 45 pieces of equipment were purchased for 35 pupils from the SEN equipment budget  The average equipment cost per pupil over the year was approximately £1,650  Of these 45 pieces of equipment, 18 were specialised seats and 5 were seat accessories. The average cost of a seat was £2,210  There were 5 slings purchased and 3 hoists. The average cost of a sling was £251. The average cost of a hoist was £900  All but two of the other pieces of equipment cost less than £60 per item

The vast majority of SEN equipment is purchased from MediQuip, North Somerset’s contracted provider. Most of the equipment needs to be replaced over time as children grow. Some of the equipment can be recycled with a refund on return. Some equipment is lower cost as it is in ‘stock’ but more specialised equipment that requires adapting to students’ individual needs is more expensive. Occupational Therapists are required to check the cheapest options first when requesting funding from the SEN equipment budget. In addition to the cost of equipment, there is a small charge for recycling equipment and for delivery and collection.

The contract with MediQuip is managed by the Integrated Community Equipment Services (ICES) Partnership managed by Jodie Birchall. The company provides equipment to both children’s

- 2 -

and adults’ teams across the local authority including the Disabled Children’s Team. ICES board meetings take place every 6-8 weeks and are attended by Jill Woolfall, Occupational Therapist from the Disabled Children’s Team and Anthony Webster from the SEN Casework Team. One of the prime functions of this board is to ensure that resources are used effectively and are good value for money.

The needs of pupils who need high cost equipment are reviewed formally on an annual basis at the Pastoral Management Clinic by a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist. In addition informal reviews take place for pupils in Baytree school once or twice each term. A seating clinic also takes place in the school every 6 weeks with the senior product designer from MediQuip who is able to advise on adaptations etc.

Individual specialised therapeutic packages ordered as a result of an SEND tribunal: Approximately £106k

This spend can be broken down into the following categories:

 Applied Behaviour Analysis (for students with Autism): Approximately £69k  Speech and Language Therapy: Approximately £29k  Occupational therapy: Approximately £12k  Music therapy: Approximately £4k  Drama therapy: Approximately -£8k (refunded from previous financial year)

Individual support packages: Approximately £15k

A small number of students require individual packages where there needs cannot be met locally in either mainstream or special schools or at the VLC. In the last year, this spend has included payments to the following:

 Coln House School  Path Hill Outdoors  Banwell Equestrian Centre and  An academic tutor

These costs are currently wrongly being drawn from the SEN equipment budget and should either be included in the Out of Authority Placements budget and/or Top Up funding budget in future financial years.

Planned outcomes The planned outcomes for this budget is as follows:

Specialised equipment for students with complex SEND: Ensuring the needs of individual pupils are met allowing them to access their

- 3 -

school environment and participate in educational activities

Individual therapeutic packages ordered as a result of an SEND tribunal: Ensuring the Local Authority and schools meet their statutory obligation to make provision as described in pupils’ statements and Educational Health and Care Plans

Individual support packages where the needs of a student cannot be met in their local provision: Ensuring the needs of students with complex SEND are met in their local area, avoiding increased costs associated with Out of Authority placements, and ensuring the Local Authority meets its statutory duties with regards to providing appropriate education for pupils

Specific outcomes Outcomes achieved as described above. achieved– no. of children/families The following number of pupils benefited from this support during who gained from the current 2015-16 financial year. this activity (even where the service Specialist equipment: 34 was provided to a school) and what 15 of these pupils attended mainstream schools. 17 attended they gained (should special schools (14 at Baytree, 2 at maintained special schools in link back to the aims) neighbouring local authorities, 1 at an independent special school). 2 children attended Springboard.

Tribunal therapeutic packages: 14

7 of these pupils attended mainstream schools. 1 had a split placement. 1 attended a special school in North Somerset. 2 attended maintained special schools in other Local Authorities and 3 attended Independent Special Schools

Individual support packages: 4, 1 of whom attended a maintained special school in another authority

How could these This spending needs to be reduced as it is overspent against the outcomes be budget set by SSF. improved with these same costs?

How could these Proposals for Specialised equipment: outcomes be maintained/  A policy could be agreed where individual schools pay the improved with costs of SEN equipment for students other than hoists and efficiency savings? seats, seat accessories and any single piece of equipment (for instance a sound system for a hearing impaired child) which exceeds £700. Although this would not be a reduction of the money spent overall, it would share it differently between schools and the centrally maintained equipment - 4 -

budget.  Continue to make all requests for specialised equipment to be funded from the SEN equipment budget (including those where there is a need for replacement equipment due to the growth of the child) using the Major Equipment Application form through the SEN casework team, and supported with an up to date assessment of need. The Major Equipment Application Form is appended to this report.  A cap could be agreed beyond which any pieces of equipment needed during the financial year would be purchased by the individual school rather than from the SEN equipment budget. This would be monitored by the Vulnerable Learners’ Service Lead and schools and the Disabled Children’s Team notified when this cap has been reached.

Proposals for individual therapeutic packages:

 The LA has employed an ABA consultant to work with existing students receiving this approach and their families to try to reduce dependence on the intervention and therefore the annual spend. The consultant will be training specific schools in how to embed the principals into their everyday support for pupils. This approach is also planned as a preventative measure in response to a small number of children in the Early Years who currently receive ABA funded by their parents.  Use time purchased from Weston Area Health Trust Speech and Language Therapy Service to review all individual speech and language therapy packages ordered by the SENDIST and cease where appropriate through the annual review process.  Recommission delivery of remaining packages through a single provider if possible with reduced rates and clear exit criteria.

Proposals for individual packages of support for pupils without a school place

 Cease funding these packages from the SEN equipment budget and fund from Top Up funding budget (managed through an authority wide percentage cap) or Out of Area budget where appropriate

It is recognised that this final proposal would not save the SSF money overall as the spend would continue, albeit from another budget. However it would allow for better strategic oversight of the budget and how it is spent. If any of the N/A planned outcomes

- 5 - were not achieved, how might they be realised?

Risks if the service Schools and Local Authority not meeting statutory obligation under is not provided the Equalities Act 2010 and Children’s Act 2014. Increase in appeals to the SEND tribunal and complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman. Increase in spend on Out of District Placements.

- 6 - Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 May 2016

Agenda Item No.: 13c

The Impact of the Sensory Support Service

Gabrielle Stacey

On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities

Introduction

1. The Sensory Support Service is commissioned through a contract across 4 authorities: North Somerset, Bristol, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset to provide support for children and young people (CYP) with hearing impairment, visual impairment and multisensory impairment.

2. The notice period on the contract is currently 42 months for any one Local Authority and 36 months if there is agreement across the four Local Authorities.

3. In 2015-16 the four Local Authorities commissioned the National Sensory Impairment Partnership to review the service. The full report from this review is provided as Appendix A. The service review looked at effective commissioning and service delivery to ensure the availability of appropriately targeted services for all children and young people with sensory impairment. The team undertaking the review were requested to explore opportunities for new models of working to best position the service to support the challenges of implementation of the SEND reforms across the four LAs.

Purpose of the Report

4. The purpose of this report is to:

a. Report on the outcomes achieved by the Sensory Support Service in the last reporting period

b. Make recommendations about the future spend on the Sensory Support Service

Recommendations

5. The SSF is recommended to:

a. Maintain current levels of spending on the Sensory Support Service (with a planned reduction of £15,000 per year for non-contracted support from September 2016)

b. Engage in recommissioning work following the NATSIP review to establish the needs from the service and future budget prior to agreeing contractual changes if required

Detail

6. The Sensory Support Service aims to promote the well-being, development, achievement and participation of all CYP with vision, hearing or multi-sensory impairment.

7. Specific aims from Sensory Support Service: Service Specification (2011) are:

 To ensure that CYP with sensory needs are healthy  To ensure that CYP with sensory needs are safe  To ensure that CYP with sensory needs enjoy and achieve - 1 -

 To ensure that CYP with sensory needs make a positive contribution  To ensure services provided to CYP with sensory needs and their families are effectively coordinated and multi-agency working practices are established

8. This report provides details to the SSF on the impact of spend of £278,440 for the Sensory Support Service in 2015-16 (budget of £216,630) The budget has not been increased to reflect the additional £15,000 additional funding agreed since 2007/8 following the closure of the secondary school Hearing Resource Base in North Somerset or the overspending which has occurred in recent years.

9. The spend of £278,440 is an increase from the spend of £248,556 in the last financial year. This reflects North Somerset’s increased demand for support from the service and subsequent increased percentage share of the overall cross authority budget.

10. The budget for 2016-17 has been set at £278,440. However, the Local Authority has already given notice on the additional £15,000 provided to the service from September 2016 and this will generate a saving in the current financial year and enable the budget to be reduced in 2017-18.

Planned The planned activities of the service linked to each of their aims are activities listed in the Service Specification 2011. A selection of the activities planned in relation to ‘enjoy and achieve’ with school age children are as follows:  Assessment of sensory needs  Technical support  Advice of adaptations/modifications to ensure access to the curriculum  Contribution to IEPs and Annual Reviews  Training of TAs and key staff on producing resources

In addition to the activities related to the main aims of the service, in the last year a selection of the activities carried out are as follows:  Service evaluation extended to teaching assistants as well as SENCos and Headteachers  Collaboration with the voluntary section in the field of VI with the aim of ensuring parents receive consistent messages  Development of online training offer  Planning a Cerebral Visual impairment conference with Bristol University and the Bristol Vision Institute Staff/Resource costs – itemised Staffing (across the 4 Local Authorities)

Head of Service 1 fte Hearing Support Teachers 11.3fte Vision Support Teachers 9.7fte Specialist TAs VI 2.94 fte Specialist TAs HI 1.27 fte Transition coordinator HI 0.49 Technician HI 30 hrs - 2 -

Technician VI 7.75 hrs SLCAs 50.5 hrs Admin 73.5 hrs Mobility Officer 37 hrs Caretaker 12 hrs

Planned See aims from Service Specification above outcomes

Specific Information taken from Sensory Support Service: Service Report 2015 outcomes (Joao Roe) achieved– no. of Number of CYP receiving support: children/families who gained from Hearing Impairment: this activity (even School age: 131 (an increase of 5 from the previous year) where the service Early Years: 24 (an increase of 1 from the previous year) was provided to 15 of these pupils attend special schools a school) and what they gained Visual Impairment: (should link back School age: 49 (an increase of 7 from the previous year) to the aims) Early Years: 12 (a decrease of 3 from the previous year) 15 of these pupils attend special schools

Multi-sensory impairment: School age: 9 (a decrease of 1 from the previous year. 4 of these pupils attend special schools) Early Years: 2 (an increase of 1 from the previous year) 4 of these pupils attend special schools

Performance Indicators (from 2014 exam results)

HI VI MSI Performance Number % Number % Number % Indicator in in in cohort cohort cohort % achieving 41 53.7 18 44.5 N/A N/A L4 or above in Reading Writing and Maths at the end of KS2 % achieving 33 42.4 6 50 2 100 5 or more A*-C at GCSE including English and Maths

- 3 -

Parent Evaluation results 2014

(EY) 1. What do you think about the overall quality of the support received? Hearing Support Team: 100% good or better Vision Support Team: 100% good or better

2. What do you think of the range and quality of the advice/support needed? Hearing Support Team: 100% good or better Vision Support Team: 100% good or better

EY Setting and School Evaluation 2014

1. What do you think of the range and quality of the advice/support needed? Hearing Support Team: 100% good or better Vision Support Team: 89% good or better

2. What do you think of our support through written information? Hearing Support Team: 95% good or better Vision Support Team: 89% good or better

Pupil Questionnaire (KS2 upwards)

These questionnaires focused on pupils’ views of how much access they had to their work, their level of independence, their social experiences, their understanding of their condition and ability to self advocate, their aspirations and any other comments.

Example results:

‘I spend break/ lunchtimes with my friends’ 71% Agree 19% Don’t know 10% Disagree

Extract from 2015 report:

‘Between 3-6 CYP said that they did not know or disagreed when asked about whether they understood their HI, could explain it or had a discussion with their Teacher of the Deaf.

In terms of aspirations 6 CYP did not know what they would like to do when they grow up although 3 of these said that they wanted to go to university. Four CYP would like to work with animals and others mentioned professions such as being a mechanic, artist, chef, doctor or teacher, etc. Some pupils said that they wanted more support to develop their confidence, self belief and encourage their learning.’

- 4 -

Some of the areas of strength identified by NatSIP review (2016):

 Specialist knowledge and effective working of management and front line staff  Training from the Visual Impairment team  Multi-agency working  Specific pieces of work for example role of Multi-Sensory Impairment Coordinator in Special Schools providing a ‘valued and varied service’, data collection and analysis by educational audiologist demonstrating need for and effective use of resources

How could these The recommendations made by NatSIP during their review were as outcomes be follows: improved with 1. Create an agreed Strategic Commissioning and Development Plan, these same across the four local authorities costs? 2. Improve handling and monitoring of data 3. Commissioners to review current governance arrangements separating strategic and operational overview of the service 4. Review the current models of how specialist support is provided and how this is integrated with teaching and ancillary support deployed against agreed and planned priorities 5. Produce a sustainability plan for specialist SI workforce development to ensure the four authorities are able to meet the requirements of the SEND Code of Practice in the future 6. Increase the focus on the Equalities Act in schools and settings and embed the work of the service in the context of a school led system where the aim is increase the confidence and capability of schools to manage SEND 7. Embed coproduction practices including during the development and review of the contract at the commissioning level 8. Establish a Regional Sensory Centre, with an appropriate geographical spread of sub-regional centres across the four local authorities

Initial areas of agreement between the four LA commissioners and a plan for the next year in renewing the service specification on the basis of the NatSIP review are given in Appendix B.

How could these The renewal of the service specification will include discussion of outcomes be whether some of the current service delivery for students with low level maintained/ sensory impairment could be delivered through a traded model with improved with individual schools, alongside a greater focus on capacity building efficiency within educational settings. If this is agreed across the 4 authorities savings? this could generate a saving in 2017-18. If it is only North Somerset that wishes to reduce the service budget, a 42 month notice period will need to be given. Feedback should be available for the SSF in November on this issue.

- 5 -

If any of the Not applicable planned outcomes were not achieved, how might they be realised?

Risks if the Some children and young people with sensory impairment unable to service is not attend mainstream schools with subsequent significant increase to out provided of area education budget.

Drop in attainment wellbeing and attendance of students with sensory impairment.

North Somerset Local Authority not making reasonable adjustments for students with sensory impairments, therefore in contravention of Public Sector Equalities Duty.

North Somerset Local Authority unable to provide specialist teachers for sensory impairment as part of Education Health and Care Needs Assessments therefore in contravention of Children and Families Act 2014.

- 6 -

NatSIP Review Team

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service

January 2016

Date: February 2016

Version: vRC5

Status: Report

About NatSIP The purpose of the National Sensory Impairment Partnership (NatSIP) is to improve outcomes for children and young people with sensory impairments, closing gaps with their peers, through joint working in services for these children. NatSIP is a unique national partnership representing the views and expertise of professionals, voluntary organisations, schools and colleges working in the field of SI. More than 70 support services, schools, colleges, the major VCS and professional bodies, are affiliated to NatSIP. Through this, and the administration of HoSS (Heads of Sensory Support Services) forum, we are directly connected with support to front line services nationally. With NatSIP's growing national reputation we are becoming the first port of call for many professionals working in the SI sector and this ensures that we can support at all levels those who need advice. NatSIP also has bilateral relationships with other key professional and user groups and, through its VCS partners, can ensure input from the voices of users, parents and young people.

Contact: Lindsey Jane Rousseau, NatSIP Facilitator T: 07711 030711 E: [email protected] W: www.natsip.org.uk

Copyright © NatSIP 2016

This document is copyright © NatSIP 2016, and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. For more details please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ You are free to share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. Share Alike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 2 of 70 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 4 1.0 Introduction: Background to the review ...... 6 2.0 Possible models of service provision explored in the strategic context of the SSS review...... 6 3.0 Principles of the Legislation and its impact on Commissioning Models...... 7 3.1 Joint Commissioning...... 7 3.2 Assessment and Joint Commissioning ...... 8 3.3 Joint Commissioning and the Local Offer ...... 9 3.4 Implications for Governance of Commissioning Arrangements and Contracting...... 9 3.5 School responsibility for SEND...... 10 3.6 Specialist Support within a School-led System ...... 10 3.7 Greater Role for Parents and Children and Young People...... 12 3.8 General Principles for a new model of service delivery ...... 13 4.0 National data for CYP with SI: ...... 14 4.1 HI ...... 14 4.2 VI ...... 14 4.3 MSI ...... 14 5.0 The Sensory Support Service – Areas of operational strength ...... 15 6.0 SSS - Areas requiring more clarity...... 17 7.0 SSS – areas for concern ...... 19 8.0 SSS - Areas of Development ...... 22 Appendix 1 – Scope for the review ...... 24 Appendix 2 – Evidence of consultation ...... 26 A2.1 Evidence Base – HI ...... 26 A2.2 Evidence Base – VI ...... 27 A2.3 Evidence Base – MSI ...... 29 A2.4 Evidence Base – Commissioners ...... 30 Appendix 3 – Parent Interviews ...... 31 Appendix 4 – Vision 2020 Pathway ...... 44 Appendix 5 – Braille teaching in mainstream ...... 46 Appendix 6 – Online survey of settings ...... 49 A6.1 Survey Questions ...... 49 A6.2 Results of the Setting Survey ...... 52

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 3 of 70 Executive Summary

The Bristol Sensory Support Service (the SSS) serves four local authorities; Bath and North East Somerset (BANES), Bristol, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire. In November 2015 Bristol City Council, as lead of the four local authorities, commissioned a team from NatSIP, the National Sensory Impairment Partnership, to review the SSS in the context of the Children and Families Act 2014. The NatSIP review team consisted of: David Braybrook, a specialist teacher of the deaf trainer, the former Head of Ovingdean Hall School, Brighton, and Registered Ofsted Inspector (SEN), now an independent consultant Brian Lamb, Chair of the UK government Inquiry into parental confidence in the special educational needs system (the Lamb Enquiry 2009), a member of the Advisory Board of the SEN Policy Group and specialist in SEND strategy, research, policy and practice Bev Mars, a qualified teacher of children with MSI, former principal MSI consultant with Sense, former Head of Access, Admissions and Assessments at Seashell Trust, now a Sense Associate and mainstream school Inclusion Manager Lindsey Rousseau, the Facilitator for NatSIP, a qualified teacher of the deaf and educational audiologist, previously Head of Physical and Sensory Services in two local authorities Judy Sanderson, a Qualified Teacher of the Visually Impaired with a background in SEND, former Head of Service, Physical and Sensory Support for Surrey County Council, and now an independent consultant. Steve Johnson, NatSIP’s IT Associate, who provided technical support to the team. The team was asked to look at effective commissioning and service delivery to ensure the availability of appropriately targeted services for all children and young people with sensory impairment. In addition the team was requested to explore opportunities for new models of working to best position the SSS to support the challenges of implementation of the SEND reforms across the four LA areas. The team undertook a series of desk work analyses, telephone and face to face meetings, on-site visits, focus group interviews and on-line surveys. The SSS is highly regarded across the region and the review team found many areas of strength. The review identified both strategic and operational issues within the service which need to be formally addressed: The biggest strategic need is for the governance and commissioning of the service to be reviewed in the light of local responses to the SEND reforms, and a new strategic board constituted to provide strong strategic leadership and direction. The first task for this board would be the creation and updating of a strategic development plan for the service, which matches the objectives across the CYP plans in the four LA areas. The review team was also asked to consider a number of structural models for how the SSS is delivered. A number of models were considered and discussed during the review. The review team recommends the establishment of a Regional Sensory Centre, which could include Elmfield School, with an appropriate geographical spread of sub-regional centres across the four local authorities. The structure of this recommended model would provide a new, very innovative nationally unique provision for a post-SEND reforms era, by providing a multi-agency, wraparound specialist resource which would be comprehensive, and coherent, capable of providing the ‘best possible outcomes’ (CoP 2015) for CYP with HI, VI and MSI and their families. It would also provide an opportunity to align processes and provision across the four local authorities, eliminating some of the inconsistencies and duplication identified in the review. The review team identified a number of specific recommendations (listed below) The team also identified areas of strength, areas where more clarity is needed, and areas of concern in the operation and delivery of the service.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 4 of 70 List of recommendations Recommendation Page R1: There is an urgent need for the creation of an agreed Strategic Commissioning and Development Plan, across the four local authorities, and the input of clear and effective leadership by a Joint Strategic Commissioning Development Group, combined with a strong focus on the key operational areas of quality, effectiveness, best use of resources, accountability and the impact and outcomes of the Service. This will be required to address the 0 – 25yrs agenda and include aspirations and transition into employment for young people with SI...... 6 R2: There needs to be much better handling and use of data as a baseline for monitoring outcomes, planning future service needs and feeding into the JSNA, Health and Wellbeing Board, and Local Offer...... 9 R3: The commissioners should review the current governance arrangements with a view to making a much clearer distinction between the strategic development of the service and the operational management...... 9 R4: Commissioners should review the current models of how specialist support is provided and how this is integrated with teaching and ancillary support deployed against agreed and planned priorities. A sustainability plan for specialist SI workforce development is needed to ensure the four authorities are able to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice (CoP 6.60) in the future...... 10 R5: Any review of the service model in recommissioning the service needs to take account of the specific advisory role of specialist teachers, and of the interface with the Equality Act. In line with the previous recommendation, this needs to be in the context of a school led system where the aim is increase the confidence and capability of schools to manage SEND...... 11 R6: That as part of the recommissioning of the service more direct mechanisms for co- production are developed both at the level of the Sensory Support Service and to feed into the development and review of the contract at the commissioning level...... 13 R7: The establishment of a Regional Sensory Centre, which could include Elmfield School, with an appropriate geographical spread of sub-regional centres across the four local authorities...... 13

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 5 of 70 1.0 Introduction: Background to the review

1.0.1 The Joint Authority Sensory Support Service (SSS) is commissioned by the four local authorities of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. The contract for the provision of services for children and young people with sensory impairments is longstanding and requires review in the context of the Children and Families Act 2014. 1.0.2 A team of specialist NatSIP Associates was commissioned to recommendation of different possible models of service provision and collaborative working practices in the context of the development of multi-agency services for children and young people with SI. The team was asked to use the existing sensory impairment strategy and previous review of deaf provision to inform their findings. Team members were given helpful access to data from the SSS, educational provisions, local authorities and commissioning agents, and parents. 1.0.3 The scope document for the review is included as Appendix 1. 1.0.4 The evidence base of consultation is included as Appendix 2. 1.0.5 The SSS has a long, credible history going back to the mid-1990s. It has significant strengths and is broadly well regarded. It faces significant challenges, both externally and internally, which have been recognised, and now need to be addressed and resolved. In recent years, the lack of a strategic vision for the SSS (which by its construct across four LAs is necessarily complex) has resulted in a range of operational developments taking place. Some of these have proved valuable and effective, but this growth has also fragmented aspects of the SSS, and in some cases resulted in duplication of provision. 1.0.6 Recommendation R1: There is an urgent need for the creation of an agreed Strategic Commissioning and Development Plan for the SSS across the four local authorities, and the input of clear and effective leadership by a Joint Strategic Commissioning Development Group, combined with a strong focus on the key operational areas of quality, effectiveness, best use of resources, accountability and the impact and outcomes of the Service. This will be required to address the 0 – 25yrs agenda and include aspirations and transition into employment for young people with SI. 1.0.7 The need for clear strategic leadership had been highlighted in the 2014 Early Years review which was commissioned by Bristol’s Service Manager, Early Years, and which resulted in the Integrated Locality Team project which is currently running in south Bristol and will be extended to central Bristol and the north of the city.

2.0 Possible models of service provision explored in the strategic context of the SSS review

2.0.1 The internal task of reviewing, repositioning and restructuring the Service will need to take into account ongoing changes in the external context, including education, health, social care, demographics, and the technological and medical advances in the field of sensory impairment. These challenges also present the four LAs with an opportunity to reinvigorate and recreate the SSS into an innovative model which will more robustly and effectively serve and meet the needs of children and young people with sensory impairment and their families, in this and into the next decade. 2.0.2 The current accommodation for the SSS has limitations and the members of staff accept that a move is necessary. Given a large, new site which has been identified for Elmfield School, it would seem to have merit to designate the site as a Regional Sensory Centre, which would also have on the site an HI school. Sub-regional sensory centres could then be identified and created with an appropriate geographical spread to act as the support, training, mentoring and monitoring arms of the SSS. The sub-regional sensory centres could be mainstream schools, academies, free schools, hearing impaired resource bases (HIRBS) or special schools. Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 6 of 70 2.0.3 Such a model would create a new, very innovative nationally unique provision for a post-SEND reforms era by providing a multi-agency, wraparound specialist resource which would be comprehensive, coherent and capable of providing the ‘best possible outcomes’ (CoP 2015) for CYP with HI, VI and MSI and their families. 2.0.4 Frequent reference was made in the documentation and by a range of professionals to the SSS becoming a ‘virtual school.’ This was seen as a possible way of reconfiguring the provision so it would be more coherent, with clearer lines of accountability, and more able to attract funding. The example of Norfolk LA (which has created such a named provision) was cited by a number of SSS professionals. A draft of the possible structure of a ‘Multi-agency virtual school for CYP with sensory impairment’ was available, which had been previously discussed by the Head of SSS and the Executive Head of Elmfield School, as well as at a senior officer level. 2.0.5 Reference was also made by some members of the SSS staff to a ‘hub and spoke’ model although there were no clear views expressed or documentation shared as to how this would be created and structured. There is in existence a draft drawn up by the Head of SSS which sets a virtual school model in the context of a ‘soft federation’.

3.0 Principles of the Legislation and its impact on Commissioning Models.

3.0.1 Any consideration of commissioning arrangements for specialist services needs to be put in the context of the Children and Families Act 2014 1 and the accompanying SEND Code of Practice (2015)2. It also needs to align with the new funding arrangements for schools and an understanding of schools changed role in commissioning SEND services.

3.1 Joint Commissioning.

3.1.1 The Children and Families Act (2014) strengthens pre-existing expectations on commissioners of education and health and social care to work together in meeting the needs of children and families with SEND. The Code of Practice makes clear that joint commissioning arrangements must set out: • The education, health and social care provision reasonably required by local children and young people with SEN and disability, and how this provision will be secured and by whom • What advice and information is to be provided about education, health and care provision and who is responsible for providing this advice (Local Offer and SEN and Disability Advice Services). • How health services will support the identification of children and young people with SEN and disability • The process by which local health services (including primary and secondary care) are able to inform the local authority of children, including those under compulsory school age who they think may have SEN and/or disability • How complaints about education, health and social care provision can be made and will be dealt with • Procedures for ensuring that disputes between local authorities and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) are resolved as quickly as possible • How partners will respond to children and young people who need to access services swiftly

1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/contents/enacted 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 7 of 70 3.1.2 The joint commissioning must also include arrangements and responsibilities for securing outcomes and personalised services, specifically: • Securing Education, Health and Care assessments • Securing the education, health and care provision specified in EHC plans • Agreeing personal budgets 3.1.3 The wider commissioning framework into which the SEND reforms fits also includes: • Section 3 of the National Health Service Act (2006)3 which requires each CCGs to arrange the provision of services it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the persons for whom it has responsibility. Section 75 places a duty on local authorities and CCGs to consider how children and young people’s needs could be met more effectively through integrating services. • The Health and Social Care Act (2012)4 which introduced a requirement for health and wellbeing boards to develop joint strategic needs assessments and joint health and wellbeing strategies, both of which support prevention, identification, assessment and early intervention and a joined up approach from those providing services. • The Care Act (2014) 5which requires local authorities to promote the integration of care and support with health services. Local authorities must ensure the provision of preventative services, the diversity and quality of care and support services for adults, and the provision of information and advice on care and support locally. • The Department of Health’s guidance document Care and Support for Deafblind Children and Adults,6 which requires local authorities to identify and keep a record of deafblind children and adults in their area and undertake specialist assessments of their needs.7 • The NHS Mandate 2016 to 20178, which contains a specific objective on supporting children and young people with SEND, including the offer of personal budgets.

3.1.4 Implications for the Review In setting up and developing the SSS contract across all four authorities, with the continued involvement of health and social care in commissioning arrangements, has meant that the four authorities have been ahead of developments in legislation. However, the particular planning, working and governance arrangements for the contract now lag behind what the legislation is aiming to achieve. This suggests the need for a review not just of how the contract is commissioned, but also of the specific relationships within the contract between education, health and social care, looking specifically at how far the work of the service is aligned with other services.

3.2 Assessment and Joint Commissioning

3.2.1 The new Education, Health and Social Care assessments (Code of Practice, Ch 9) require a new level of co-operation between different agencies that was not previously a statutory requirement. While it is clear in the legislation that the local authority will continue to take the lead in pulling together

3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/41/contents 4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/contents/enacted 5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/contents/enacted/data.htm 6 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388198/Care_and_Support_for_Deafblind_Children_and_Adults_P olicy_Guidance_12_12_14_FINAL.pdf 7 The guidance at also states that mainstream services should be accessible for deafblind children and adults and where support is required this should be delivered by a specifically trained one to one support worker. 8 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-mandate-2016-to-2017

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 8 of 70 the plan, there are also clear requirements on health and social care to co-operate in the production of the plan, and, crucially, to agree the provision to made. Appeals against proposals for provision are taken, by parents or young people themselves, to the SEN and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST). While the statutory means of redress remain different at this point, the likely outcome of the Tribunal’s review of redress mechanisms (a pilot scheme is under test during 2016 – 17) is likely to combine the appeal mechanism for all three strands of provision under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This will increasingly question current commissioning arrangements, ways of working and calls for more joint working and co-ordination between agencies to reflect the legal position, and also ensure effective use of resources. 3.2.2 Implications for the Review. Because of the low incidence nature of sensory impairment, regional co-ordination and joint commissioning arrangements become more rather than less relevant for the future. The intention to review commissioning arrangements is therefore timely. The new legislative requirements provide an important backdrop for thinking about changing the current model in the contract to ensure that a range of provision, with or without an EHC plan, can be provided locally or within the region.

3.3 Joint Commissioning and the Local Offer

3.3.1 The Local Offer must be developed by local authorities and their health partners, together with children and young people with SEN and disability and their families. The Local Offer should build on the Joint Strategic Needs assessment ( JSNA )and the analysis of local SEN and disability needs. As well as providing information about the services that the local authority expects to be available, the local offer should also be used as a tool to improve provision by setting out how services will meet local need and achieve the outcomes set out by the joint commissioning arrangements. (Code of Practice Ch 3). 3.3.2 A fundamental question for the further development of the SSS will be the reliability of data about numbers of children and young people currently in the service and the needs of children across the four local authority areas and related CCGs. It was clear from our work that the data from different sources on current numbers in services and levels of need was either incomplete or contradictory. 3.3.3 Recommendation R2: There needs to be much better handling and use of data as a baseline for monitoring outcomes, planning future service needs and feeding into the JSNA, Health and Wellbeing Board, and Local Offer.

3.4 Implications for Governance of Commissioning Arrangements and Contracting.

3.4.1 The current commissioning arrangements could be seen to be an opportunity to ensure joint commissioning across the four LAs as a response to ensuring meeting the needs of a low incidence group. Whilst looking at how the current arrangements are both structured and operated, it would be worth reviewing the contract to see how far they are aligned with the enhanced responsibilities in these areas. Specifically, it might be helpful to ensure a continued strategic approach to the development of joint services in this area, and to split the current arrangements for reporting into two different groups; a strategy group and an operational management group. The role of the strategy group would be to review and develop the existing services and monitor how well these are working within any revised commissioning arrangements. The operational group would look more at service management issues and report outcomes and progress against targets to the strategy group. 3.4.2 Recommendation R3: The commissioners should review the current governance arrangements with a view to making a much clearer distinction between the strategic development of the service and the operational management. Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 9 of 70 3.5 School responsibility for SEND.

3.5.1 All schools have significant responsibilities to ensure that disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs are taught well and supported effectively so that they fulfil their potential and are well prepared for their next stage of education, employment or training. Whether or not these young people are able to attain at age expected levels, it is crucial that their schools have high expectations. Where expectations of achievement are low, including where this is due to the incorrect assumption that this is to be expected if a pupil has special educational needs, then outcomes are weak and life chances are affected. Ofsted 2015 3.5.2 The SEND and wider reforms envisage a more school-led system, where schools are responsible for the provision of the first £6,000 of SEND provision9. The Code of Practice also makes clear that teachers take more responsibility for the delivery of SEND support within their classrooms, calling on support from the SENCo and other education specialists as appropriate. Support is then delivered through the assess-plan-do-review graduated approach. (Code of Practice Ch 6). The aim of the legislation is to ensure that schools take more direct responsibility for delivering better outcomes for children with SEND, but are supported to do so, not just through the education system, but across Education, Health and Social Care whether children have an EHC plan or not. 3.5.2 It is also important to note the extent that schools can be properly supported to develop an offer to meet the needs of children with sensory impairment within the school. The role of the specialist support service is clearly fundamental to ensure that teachers and support staff within the school can be supported to deliver this role. Training and outreach from the SSS play an important part in enabling schools to meet their responsibilities. 3.5.3 Implications for the Review. Placing the responsibility for SEND with the school does question the deployment of the specialist teacher team across more general (non-education specific) support for parents, and asks whether this resource should be more tightly deployed. Focusing on supporting the teaching and support workforce to ensure a wider range of skills and competence while still providing one-to-one support in schools for children with more complex needs. There is evidence of duplication of activities across the four LAs in areas such as training and outreach. 3.5.4 Recommendation R4: Commissioners should review the current models of how specialist support is provided and how this is integrated with teaching and ancillary support deployed against agreed and planned priorities. A sustainability plan for specialist SI workforce development is needed to ensure the four authorities are able to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice (CoP 6.60) in the future.

3.6 Specialist Support within a School-led System

3.6.1 When providing support for children with sensory impairment, there are specific requirements in the legislation. The Code of Practice notes that: Many children and young people with vision impairment, hearing impairment, or a multi-sensory impairment will require specialist support and/or equipment to access their learning, or habilitation support. Code of Practice 6.34.

9 See: Schools revenue funding 2015 to 2016 Operational guide Version 5: March 2015

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 10 of 70 3.6.2 Also that: Those teaching classes of children with sensory impairment must hold an appropriate qualification approved by the Secretary of State. Teachers working in an advisory role to support such pupils should also hold the appropriate qualification. Where assessment indicates that support from specialist services is required, it is important that children and young people receive it as quickly as possible. Joint commissioning arrangements should seek to ensure that there are sufficient services to meet the likely need in an area. Code of Practice. 6.60 3.6.3 This would include: … specialist teachers or support services, including specialist teachers with a mandatory qualification for children with hearing and vision impairment, including multi-sensory impairment, and for those with a physical disability. Code of Practice 6.60 3.6.4 Commissioners will therefore need to ensure that within a schools-led system there is the necessary specialist support to support mainstream teachers to operate in the way envisaged by the Code of Practice. 3.6.5 It is also important to recognise that children and young people with sensory impairment will be covered by the Equality Act duties, and it is important to ensure that: Where a child or young person is covered by SEN and disability legislation, reasonable adjustments and access arrangements should be considered as part of SEN planning and review. Also that: These duties are anticipatory – they require thought to be given in advance to what disabled children and young people might require and what adjustments might need to be made to prevent that disadvantage. Code of Practice, Introduction 3.6.6 The sensory support service will play a crucial role in ensuring that schools and the local authority have the capacity and expertise to meet their obligations in these areas, especially in relation to equipment, specialist support and advice to schools, and services about the reasonable accommodations they are required to make. 3.6.7 Implications for the Review All the commissioners need to continue to ensure that there is a specialist workforce in place which can support good identification, assessment and ongoing support of children with sensory impairment. Commissioners should note that that the issues for children with sensory impairment are more complex than some other areas of SEND. This is due not only to the low incidence nature of the disability, but also because of the duties imposed by the Equality Act 2010. It cannot be seen as simply the responsibility of the specialist support service to meet the needs of children with sensory impairment. Specialist support can enhance the whole of the school system and help schools and other services meet their statutory duties. The review team were concerned that that there seemed to be very little focus on the Equality Act entitlements within the school context or awareness amongst parents. 3.6.8 Recommendation R5: Any review of the service model in recommissioning the SSS needs to take account of the specific advisory role of specialist teachers, and of the interface with the Equality Act. In line with the previous recommendation, this needs to be in the context of a school led system where the aim is increase the confidence and capability of schools to manage SEND.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 11 of 70 3.7 Greater Role for Parents and Children and Young People.

3.7.1 One of the most distinctive requirements of the new legislation is the need to ensure that the views of parents and young people are taken account of at every stage of the process, from the commissioning of services, to working with individual families children and young people in assessment of their needs, either with or without an EHC plan. The SEND Code of Practice10 lists the main areas where engagement is required: 1. Commissioning: The At a strategic level, partners must engage children and young people with SEN and disabilities and children’s parents in commissioning decisions, to give useful insights into how to improve services and outcomes. Page 42, para 3.18 2. Local Offer: To make provision more responsive to local needs and aspirations by directly involving disabled children and those with SEN and their parents, and disabled young people and those with SEN, and service providers in its development and review. Page 59, para 4.2 3. Individual Service provision/assessment: The impact and quality of the support and interventions should be evaluated, along with the views of the pupil and their parents. Page 100, para 6.45

Local authorities must consult the child and the child’s parent or the young person throughout the process of assessment and production of an EHC plan. Page 147, para 9.21 3.7.2 Implications for the Review It is important to examine how far parents and young people’s views are taken account of in the commissioning of services and their delivery. From the interviews with parents (see Appendix 3) it is clear that while the SSS is highly valued by parents, and that significant engagement and co- production goes on at the level of individual work with parents, there is no obvious and structured way in which parents views are sought, at the level of the management of the service, or more widely in the commissioning arrangements. It may well be that this is addressed as part of LA individual Local Offer processes, but it was not evident that there was a systematic way in which parents or young people’s views were directly taken account in service commissioning and analysis of needs. The SSS provides crucial support, and acts as a bridge for parents into the rest of statutory services. It is a concern that parents relied so heavily on this one route for the bulk of their information and support, whether this support related directly to the provision of educational advice and support, or more generally on any issues impacting on the child or the family. Much of the more general information parents needed might routinely be picked up by other services working with families or children with disability without recourse to the specialist service, but this clearly is not happening at the moment. Parents also consistently expressed concerns about the links between wider statutory services and their reliance on the SSS.

10 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 12 of 70 3.7.3 Recommendation R6: That as part of the recommissioning of the SSS, more direct mechanisms for co-production are developed both at the level of the SSS and to feed into the development and review of the contract at the commissioning level. To ensure that specialist teacher teams can focus on their core roles, there needs to be a better integration of wider advice and support services across health, social care and education, which could address wider needs of the families and children with sensory support needs.

3.8 General Principles for a new model of service delivery

3.8.1 There are some general principles about the development of options for the commissioning of services which follow from the requirements of the legislation outlined above and which suggest a new model of delivery: 1. Any new commissioning model should ensure that the SSS helps build capacity across early years, schools, colleges, and the wider support system. 2. Early years professionals, teachers and the SSS need to work together in an integrated way with a clear understanding that the main aim is to increase the confidence and capacity of front-line teaching staff working in early years, schools and colleges and other professionals working with children and families. 3. The SSS should provide continuum of support which includes all the specialist resources in the system (special schools, specialist support services, and other statutory services with specialism). 4. There needs to be flexibility across the system to align different types of support to make the most of joint commissioning arrangements and multi-disciplinary working. 5. Focusing specialist support where they can have most impact across the system and in improving outcomes. 6. Clearer accountability mechanisms at the level of commissioning across the four LAs and service delivery which also ensure greater parental involvement. 3.8.2 The development of models around these principles would help to promote joint working across different professional groups in the region and ensure that the more effective and efficient ways of working are developed. 3.8.3 Recommendation R7: The establishment of a Regional Sensory Centre, which could include Elmfield School, with an appropriate geographical spread of sub-regional centres across the four local authorities. The structure of this model would provide a new, very innovative nationally unique provision for a post-SEND reforms era by providing a multi-agency, wraparound specialist resource which would be comprehensive, and coherent, capable of providing the ‘best possible outcomes’ (CoP 2015) for CYP with HI, VI and MSI and their families. It would also provide an opportunity to align processes and provision across the four local authorities, eliminating some of the inconsistencies and duplication identified in the review.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 13 of 70 4.0 National data for CYP with SI:

4.1 HI

4.1.1 The CEO of the National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) recently reported that 36% of deaf children achieve the government’s benchmark for five good GCSEs at A* to C, compared with 65% of hearing children with no special educational needs. 4.1.2 NDCS has stated that one of the reasons that there is such a wide attainment gap is that no one is held to account for how well deaf children are doing. Local authority specialist educations services for deaf children play a vital role for many deaf children and their families. Despite their importance, there is no external scrutiny of how well they do. There is also no data on how well deaf children in different areas do. This is totally unacceptable. Why should parents of deaf children be given less information about the quality of education that their child receives?

4.1.3 The NDCS said 78% of deaf children were in mainstream education where there was no specialist provision, with 7% in mainstream schools with specialist provision. It is reasonable to assume that as technology improves more deaf children are now attending mainstream schools.

4.2 VI

4.2.1 RNIB Research11 indicates that while pupils with vision impairment do less well educationally than pupils with no SEN, the most important factor is whether or not a pupil has another SEN in addition to a vision impairment. This remains the case even when social and other differences between pupils with vision impairment and pupils with no SEN are taken into account. 4.2.2 At GCSE, pupils with no SEN were found to do best, followed closely by pupils with vision impairment and no additional SEN (‘VI only’). Pupils with vision impairment and additional SEN and pupils with all other types of SEN (treated as a single group) did least well, coming some way behind the VI only group. 4.2.3 According to DFE12, in KS2 – KS4 pupils with vision impairments were the most likely to make the expected progress in English (61.2%) and those with hearing impairments were more likely to make the expected progress in mathematics (53.1%).

4.3 MSI

4.3.1 Deafblindness or multi-sensory impairment (MSI) is a very rare disability. Sense estimates that it affects about 3 in every 10,000 children and young people. A wide range of conditions can cause MSI and there is no single main cause. In 1989 the Department for Education policy statement on education provision for deafblind CYP defined deafblindness as: A heterogeneous group of children who may suffer from varying degrees of visual and hearing impairment, perhaps combined with learning difficulties and physical difficulties, which can cause severe communication, developmental and educational problems. A precise description is difficult because degrees of deafness and blindness - possibly combined with different degrees of other disabilities – are not uniform, and the educational needs of each child will have to be decided individually.

11 RNIB: Educational attainment of blind and partially sighted pupils in the UK January 2010 12 DfE: Special educational needs: an analysis and summary of data sources November 2015

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 14 of 70 4.3.2 It is therefore the case that MSI CYP may access education in a range of provision including, mainstream schools and specialist units, special schools, non-maintained independent schools and residential schools. A flexible service is required to provide support, with a focus on how MSI affects the individual CYP’s ability to communicate, to travel independently and to access information. 4.3.3 The NatSIP Eligibility Framework (2015) used by SSS uses the following definition: multi-sensory impairment applies where a child or young person has combined vision and hearing impairments, which may include a functional loss in one or both of these senses, that create difficulty in accessing the curriculum and engaging in daily life experiences.

5.0 The Sensory Support Service – Areas of operational strength

5.0.1 The Head of the Service and the members of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) have considerable specialist knowledge, experience and expertise. They work very effectively together in the best interest of CYP and their families. They are ambitious for the CYP and seek to provide what they see as necessary for them to enable them to progress socially and academically and to gain independence. 5.0.2 The Team consist of an experienced and knowledgeable staff with a range of specialisms. They provide responsive, targeted, sustained support to children and young people with VI and their families and settings. The VI team is fully abreast of recent and current developments in the field such as the national adoption of Unified English Braille, the need for diversity of approach in relation to choice of tactile communication and the sensory needs of complex children. 5.0.3 Training provided by the VI Team is viewed as a strength by settings and families, and as being essential in supporting successful inclusion, especially of high need/complex VI children and young people in settings. In addition to general VI Awareness Training and bespoke packages to settings, other training offered on a regular basis are Yr 6 Transition to KS 2 Peer Induction Sessions; residential weekends providing emotional resilience training such as Think Right Feel Good, in conjunction with Blind Children UK and Action for the Blind; Saturday Family Days which cover different issues as raised by families ranging from areas such as sleep deprivation to access to work; developing an on-line support service for TAs in settings and involvement with multi-disciplinary INSET with other professionals from other disciplines in social care and health. 5.0.4 The team liaise and work with a wide range of other statutory and voluntary agencies, and relevant medical colleagues. The SLT models the ethos of an effective sensory service by showing professional regard and respect for each other and the wide and varied range of experience, qualifications and expertise of the team members. There is some innovative work being undertaken with Bristol University Psychology Department researching into vision impairment and maths and the team achieved the Research Charter mark last year for their action research, including work on unilateral HI loss and work on learning braille and print together. The SLT also recognise and acknowledge the positive changes and developments which have recently taken place at Elmfield School under its current leadership. 5.0.5 The work of the SLT in HI and VI Early Years is a strength, as is the 14+ HI and VI transition work. The direct support given to HI CYP and to schools by the ToDs and QTVIs is seen as a strength by families and by staff in the various settings. 5.0.6 The Head of the SSS, the SEN Manager and Service Manager for Early Years in Bristol all spoke of a strong commitment to improving the strategic direction of services with clear pathways and improved outcomes for CYP and their families. 5.0.7 Inclusivity is a strong feature in the early years work underpinned by the ethos of multi-agency working and an equality of access and provision. This is reflected in the Integrated Locality Team Project which has a focus on developing an effective approach to identifying young children with SEND in Bristol and providing family-focused multi-agency services. The pilot has to date involved 9

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 15 of 70 HI children, 12 VI children and 4 MSI children. A proposed plan is identified for each child and family, with the plan reflecting their individual needs. In addition to proposing EHCP assessments, the plans for the MSI children include assessment for specialist equipment, short break support, identification of nursery and community support groups, and requests for specialist VI assessments. 5.0.8 The work around specialist VI joint assessments (SVA) with Bristol Eye Hospital of high need and/or complex VI children is a strength that is seen as leading to improved outcomes for the child by the families and professionals involved. The monthly joint assessments work on a ‘Team Around the Family’ model and involve a consultant paediatrician from community health, an orthoptist, relevant SSS QTVI and SSS Specialist Central Support Worker, parents/carers and other professionals as necessary. The SVAs are open to all LAs with liaison between LAs taking place. 5.0.9 Whilst the review was not focussed on the quality of SSS, it is relevant to record the positive outcomes of the SSS’s internal evaluation work and the mainly positive responses in this survey carried out by the review team as detailed in the appendices. 5.0.10 The Educational Audiologist provides strong and valuable support to the SLT, the various settings and to CYP and their families. Data is well collated and analysed to demonstrate both the effective use of resources as well as areas which need better audiological resourcing (such as the provision of radio aids systems). 5.0.11 The paediatric mobility officer (two LAs only) provides strong and valuable support to CYP with VI and their families, the various settings and for the VI Team, which is seen to enhance independence and life skills for the child/young person, supporting raised outcomes in line with the UK Vision 2020: Guidelines and Pathway for putting the UK Vision Strategy into Action for Children and Young People (0 to 25 years) with Vision Impairment, and their Families.13 14 15 In addition to direct mobility training with the child, the paediatric mobility officer is involved in forward planning re transition at all key stages; risk assessments for school excursions/residential field trips, work experience; mobility awareness training to settings including pupil peer training working closely with settings, families, the VI Team and the child at all times. 5.0.12 The work the MSI Coordinator undertakes in the special schools provides a varied and valued service including; training, modelling of good practice, continuity of approach when a child moves from a primary to a secondary provision, observation and assessments, implementation of the use of specialist curriculum approaches as well as acting as a link with external professionals such as ophthalmology departments. In Claremont School the coordinator was said to provide a ‘value added’ service with regard to providing feedback on classroom practice to senior managers. The coordinator provided a trusted ‘link’ for the families and helped to broaden the school’s knowledge and information by providing regular updates on developments in the field of MSI nationally. 5.0.13 The coordinator makes good use of IT, and has access to Claremont School’s Google Drive which facilitates reviewing and updating of programmes. The coordinator also manages an MSI Sensory Exchange email group which provides networking opportunities across Bristol. Whilst this facility is not as well used as the SSS would hope, it is nevertheless a valuable tool as the twilight networking sessions are not as well as attended as the previous sessions which were held in the school day. 5.0.14 MSI CYP in mainstream settings receive a combined service from the SSS involving visits from a TOD and a QTVI. A SENCo in a secondary school in Bath described a flexible and positive approach to supporting a Year 10 young person Usher Syndrome. Environmental audits, regular training and observations in class contribute to ‘skilling up’ the teaching staff, and the young person is said to be making good progress both academically and socially. The young person’s sibling had attended the school and had gone on to attend college in Bristol and a similar transition is expected for young person when she leaves school.

13 http://www.vision2020uk.org.uk/guidelines-and-pathway-for-putting-the-uk-vision-strategy-into-action-for-children-and-young-people-0-to-25- years-with-vision-impairment-and-their-families-2/ 14 http://www.vision2020uk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Seeing-it-my-way-booklet.pdf 15 See Appendix 4

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 16 of 70 5.0.15 The young person values the input from both of the SSS teachers; she said that the TOD visits are helpful… because she helps me through any concerns I have in my subjects or on homework. And they get sorted out as soon as possible’ and when describing the QTVI input she said he ‘sometimes gives me eye tests to ensure my eyes are doing fine, we then sometimes walk around the school and I would tell him any of my concerns, e.g. dark areas of the school, and he sorts it out. We also talk about any concerns too and we talk about things that are going well at school.

6.0 SSS - Areas requiring more clarity

6.0.1 In relation to CYP with HI and VI and MSI there is indicative data, but the SSS is not entirely secure as to the accuracy and reliability of some of its core data with regard to the number of CYP, the number on statements or single plans, or the extent of independent school placements across the four authorities. (See HI and VI and MSI Data section of the Appendices) 6.0.2 There appears to be no agreed definition across the LAs or across the various settings within them in relation to children with complex needs. This small, but increasing cohort, many of whom have survived very premature births as a result of medical advances, is now entering educational settings. These children and young people are described in the DfE funded Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities (CLDD) Research Project 2011 as having conditions that co-exist, overlap and interlock creating a complex profile. The co-occurring and compounding nature of complex learning difficulties requires a personalised learning pathway that recognises CYPs’ unique and changing learning patterns. Children with CLDD present with a wide range of issues and a combination of layered needs – e.g. mental health, relationships, behaviour, physical, medical, sensory, communicative and cognitive. 6.0.3 The current use of the term ‘complex’ appears to be employed in different ways in different settings and LAs. It is used by some professionals to describe HI CYP who appear to have an additional need often identified as a learning difficulty or a behavioural need in the BESD sense, not as a social, emotional and mental health difficulty, or it is used to describe pupils whose progress is slow and whose outcomes are not commensurate with teacher expectations. 6.0.4 Reference was made to the NatSIP Eligibility Framework for Scoring Support Levels16 in discussions with the SSS regarding agreeing the number of annual visits to be made to MSI CYP. This document contains guidance regarding the identification of degree of MSI which in addition to providing clarification regarding caseload would provide robust information which the SSS could use to benchmark against other sensory services using the framework. 6.0.5 There is an increase nationally in the numbers of children and young people with cerebral vision impairment (CVI, sometimes also known as cortical vision impairment) and this is reflected throughout the four authorities. The single most common cause of vision impairment in children is cerebral vision impairment. CVI is where there has been damage to the visual pathways in the brain, which affects the way that visual information is processed. This damage can occur ante- or post- natal. CVI accounts for 48% of blindness in children17 and between 32% and 45% of all children with vision impairment 18. Children with CVI are likely to be placed in a special school setting. Research has shown that children with vision impairment in special schools are one of the groups at risk of having their specialist support from a qualified teacher of the vision impaired (QTVI) reduced or withdrawn.19 Head teachers of special schools may not have sufficient knowledge to be aware of the significance of unmet needs of children with CVI or of the ways in which their teaching could be

16 https://www.natsip.org.uk/index.php/doc-library-login/eligibility-framework 17 Rahi and Cable, 2003; Mitry et al, 2013 18 Rogers, 1996; Flanagan et al, 2003 19 Keil and Cobb, 2011; Keil, 2012

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 17 of 70 adapted to better meet their needs.20 Feedback has shown that whilst there are some SSS staff with excellent skills in this field, there is a need for further development of such skills across all of the VI team to enable consistent support in this area. 6.0.6 Access for HI CYP to speech and language therapy is inconsistent across the four LAs. Some CYP receive it through a dedicated therapist funded by Education, others receive it by a setting buying in a therapist for one or two days a week from Health. In one authority it appears not to be available unless a HI pupil has identified speech difficulties. 6.0.7 Access for VI CYP to mobility training is inconsistent across the four LAs. VI CYP have good access to paediatric mobility and independent living skills provision (provided by the SSS VI Team’s paediatric mobility officer). In one authority, the mobility provision is provided by adult services. In another it is commissioned from Blind Children UK. This inconsistency makes efficient forward planning for transition at all stages difficult. Three LAs Joint Strategic Needs Assessments refer to improving outcomes for children with sensory impairment: Significant vision impairment can delay early childhood development and learning; including social communication, mobility, and everyday living skills. Children with vision impairment are at risk of poor outcomes across a range of emotional and social wellbeing indicators, which can have an effect on adult life, limiting work opportunities. It can also have a major impact on the wellbeing and coping capacities of the family. Bath & North East Somerset Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 6.0.8 Clarification regarding identifying CYP as MSI and the associated description of their support needs is required. Previously the term ‘Intervenor’ had been used within Bristol. However, there was a suggestion within the special schools that statements have not provide sufficient clarity regarding need (they ‘allude to a child being MSI’) and there was thought to be some confusion regarding local authority descriptors/bands of support contained within funding guidance. Staff expressed the view that perhaps the EHC planning process would provide a clearer picture of need and resources to meet need. 6.0.9 An Intervenor provides one to one support for children and young people who have been born with hearing and vision impairments and their role is to: …help the individual to experience and join in the world around them as much as possible. They promote their personal and social development, encourage independence and support their communication. This help may be provided in someone’s home, their local community, in an educational or work setting - or a combination of these SENSE 6.0.10 The Woodside Centre is a family centre in Bristol which provides accommodation for a number of local services to run support groups, including the SSS (Explorers VI early years group) and the voluntary organisation Sense, a national charity that supports and campaigns for children and adults who are deafblind or have sensory impairments. Due to the similar nature of the service provided by these two groups there is often an ‘overlap’ between them, whereby the SSS and Sense may be involved in supporting the same family. The similarity in activity and name often leads to confusion for both families and professionals and it would be beneficial if information provided to both groups made clear the differentiation of purpose and the referral route for the SSS. [Note that if a Google search for the Woodside Centre is made, the first link returned is to the Sense Woodside Centre. No link to the SSS group is returned].

20 Porter and Lacey, 2008

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 18 of 70 6.0.11 In December 2014 the Department of Health issued guidance titled Care and Support for Deafblind Children and Adults.21 Often referred to as the ‘deafblind guidance’, it imposes three main duties that local authorities are required to meet: • Ensuring that when an assessment of needs for care and support is carried out, this is done by a person or team that has specific training and expertise relating to deafblind persons – in particular to assess the need for communication, one-to-one human contact, social interaction and emotional wellbeing, support with mobility assistive technology and habilitation/rehabilitation • Ensuring that services provided to deafblind people are appropriate, recognising that they may not necessarily be able to benefit from mainstream services or those services aimed primarily at blind people or deaf people who are able to rely on their other senses • Ensuring that deafblind people are able to access specifically trained one-to-one support workers if they are assessed as requiring one.

6.0.12 The SSS MSI Coordinator holds the necessary qualifications and expertise to support social care teams in undertaking deafblind guidance assessments; support has been offered in the past for assessments of early years children where the outcome has been the provision of an Intervenor within the home setting. Due to the lack of an agreed review and monitoring process of the provision, this has led to one child maintaining intervenor support one day a week (funded through social care) whilst attending special school four days a week. Work needs to be undertaken at a strategic level between key personnel in the local authority education/sensory team and social care teams to agree an assessment and monitoring protocol for deafblind guidance assessments. 6.0.13 It is not clear how and to what extent the Service is aware or actively involved in the embedding and further development of the SEND reform agenda of the four LAs. 6.0.14 There was no evidence of a strategy across the four LAs with a focus on longer term outcomes, aspirations and transition into employment for young people with SI.

7.0 SSS – areas for concern

7.0.1 The lack of strategic direction, operational inconsistencies and reliable analysed data limits the further development of the SSS as well as the dissemination of best practice and the entitlement of equal access of CYP with HI and VI and MSI to specialist expertise and resources. 7.0.2 The 2004-09 SSS Agreement remains a context for the SSS. However, its potential to drive and support change and development through activating some of the procedures set out in it (particularly paragraphs 6.3, 6.5 and 9.1) have not been used by the Strategic Development Group, the SSS or the LAs.

21 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388198/Care_and_Support_for_Deafblind_Children_and_Adults_P olicy_Guidance_12_12_14_FINAL.pdf

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 19 of 70 7.0.3 Alongside the growing national shortage of teachers and head teachers there is a succession issue waiting in the wings for schools and services for HI and VI and MSI CYP. In the next ten to fifteen years, a significant number of teachers of the deaf and vision impaired will be retiring, given that over 50% of the profession is now over 50.22 RNIB FOI returns have indicated similar figures for QTVIs. This is at a time when primary school numbers have been increasing since 2011 and secondary numbers from 2016 onwards. Bristol and possibly the surrounding area is also experiencing a higher level of increase in the child population than most other urban areas apart from London. 7.0.4 Whilst the current number of MSI teachers across the region is relatively healthy, two of the most experienced teachers will be retiring from Claremont School in July 2016 and capacity and succession planning within the SSS team has been flagged up as an issue. It is essential that strategic steps be taken to maintain support for staff in schools and to retain the skills and expertise of retiring personnel if possible. This could be achieved through: • Revising and re-launching the BTEC training • Developing MSI outreach services through schools • SSS consider training an existing TA as an Intervenor or recruit to a new post • Delivery of a new joint training initiative with Sense (MSI Regional Centre of Expertise course) 7.0.5 A significant number of HI children and young people are educated out of the four LAs, either at Mary Hare School in Newbury, or Exeter Academy for the Deaf. These are a result of LA placement decisions, parental preference, or tribunal decisions. There is a longstanding issue raised by the SSS about integrating these young people back into their community and clarifying an appropriate personalised pathway to meet their needs when they return at 16-19 years of age. Within the duties of the Children and Families Act, 201523 the responsibility for making suitable educational provision now extends to 25 years. This is compounded for those ex-Mary Hare students who choose not to go to university, but have spent three rather than two years in the sixth form, which can make transferring to local FE college difficult. 7.0.6 A small number of VI children and young people are educated at VI specialist settings out of the four LAs, either at WESC Foundation, New College Worcester or the Royal National College for the Blind, Hereford, as a result of LA placement decisions or parental preference, with a further two being placed by the LA in a Priory Group setting with twice weekly support from a QTVI funded by the LA. There is a longstanding issue in the SSS about integrating these young people back into their community and clarifying an appropriate personalised pathway to meet their needs when they return at 16-19 years. As stated in 7.0.5 above, under the Children and Families Act, 2015 the responsibility for making suitable educational provision now extends to 25 years. The same issue is also true for a small number of MSI children and young people. 7.0.7 There is some evidence that decisions about placement for some HI CYP appears in some cases to be determined by transport cost and needs, rather than the need for an HI child or young person to have all of their needs appropriately met. 7.0.8 The lack of a Strategic Development Plan which articulates the strategic vision of the SSS and establishes costed, time-framed priorities makes it difficult to make a judgment as to the best current use financial resources. There has been a lack of strategic thinking across the four LAs and it appears that over the last two to three years, the Service has functioned in a largely operational, responsive way. This has achieved improvement in some areas of the SSS, but other areas have not kept pace with the wider educational and SEND agendas. Deployment of specialist staff needs reviewing across the four LAs to ensure the most effective use of expertise, and so that the CYP make the maximum progress they are capable of. The overall staffing level in the SSS HI team is

22 CRIDE National data 2014 23 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/contents/enacted

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 20 of 70 sufficient but more input to audiology and transition years is needed. There is evidence of duplication across the four LAs of activities such as training and outreach. 7.0.9 There is no budget alignment across the four LAs for allocation of radio systems or for training for the mandatory qualifications. Specialist SI teachers nationally represent an ageing workforce and are in short supply. A plan for SI workforce development , deployment and sustainability is needed. There was no evidence of deployment of staff against budget with areas of spend prioritised in a development plan. An apparent recent underspend in the budget was highlighted to the review team. This is surprising, given the key areas of under-resourcing identified by staff in the SSS. 7.0.10 There is an issue re the provision of technology for CYP with VI that currently leads to equipment being out of date and therefore of little use. A coherent, strategic overview across the four LAs could improve the deployment of up-to-date technology resulting in less waste and improved value for money. 7.0.11 The two-pronged HI secondary specialist provision provided by Fairfield Academy is an unusual working structure. It appears to have been created out of the recent history of provision in Bristol, parental preference, the views of the local deaf community and the lack of clarity about the future development and role of Elmfield School. One element is the HI provision which forms the HIRB, and is part of the Service managed by the TOD and overseen by the Academy SENCo. The second element other is at Elmfield School, which has accommodation in the Academy for some of its secondary pupils. The HI pupil population appear, as observed over the lunch break, to be one social entity, but are educated separately, the HIRB pupils integrating and being withdrawn when needed, whereas the Elmfield pupils are taught mainly in the Elmfield resource and integrated on an individual as and where appropriate. The most pressing issue for HI YP in the setting is the need for appropriate specialist accommodation, given the projected pupil numbers for the Academy, and HI pupils in the HIRB and in Elmfield School. 7.0.12 In addition, on roll at Fairfield there is one high-need VI pupil using braille, with two further high need VI pupils using braille commencing at the school in September 2016. As a consequence, the school have approached the LA with a view to the HIRB being made a resource base for sensory impairment (ie including VI in addition to HI). It is reported that the proposed SI provision would be strategically managed by the school with the QTVI specialist support bought back from SSS VI Team. This brings into question the issue of accommodation for resources and equipment to support modification of the secondary curriculum to braille for these three pupils, as well as the capacity within the SSS VI Team to provide on-site support. For any overall sensory base to be effective, the environment for optimum learning would require careful management. 7.0.13 There are issues in relation to the recruitment and retention of appropriate specialist support staff by settings to support pupils learning braille. The numbers of pupils using braille are small (16) but their support requirements are intensive and expensive. The challenges of teaching braille in mainstream provision are discussed in Appendix 5. 7.0.14 The RNIB report that numbers of children using braille are increasing nationally. In the RNIB FOI (2014) responses, several VI services spoke of having a sudden, unexpected increase in the number of braillists in their area. This is also reported by SSS VI Team. LAs should be aware that clusters of particular groups of children can sometimes occur, such as blind children who will need to read and write through braille. It is therefore essential that each LA collects its own data on children with vision impairment, and ensures that its register of children who are blind or partially sighted is maintained and kept up to date so as to inform strategic planning. 7.0.15 There is one primary school with a PD and VI Resource Base in one LA. It is staffed by 2 QTVIs ( 1.6FTE) with 14 CYP on roll, 4 with VI as primary need, 5 with VI as secondary need. Other than liaison at transition points and mobility input, there is no direct support from or joint monitoring role by the SSS. There is currently no secondary VIRB in any of the four authorities.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 21 of 70 7.0.16 The SSS currently monitors the outcomes of the HI CYP by collating them from the four LAs and reporting them internally to the Strategic Development Group and externally to CRIDE. There is no equivalent model for vision impairment or MSI. The SSS also carries out regular QA surveys and tests its own effectiveness through regular, random scrutiny and interrogation of its Record of Cases to identify best practice, be aware of learning points and learn from any shortfalls in delivery that may have occurred. Across the four LAs there is no joint monitoring of outcomes by senior members of the SSS in conjunction with the relevant LA staff to ensure appropriate expectations are in place and that ‘best possible outcomes’ are achieved for the CYP and for the settings. The existence of such a formal formal arrangement would allow specialist staff to act as advocates for the pupils and ensure they receive full access to the curriculum and appropriate entitlement to specialist support.

8.0 SSS - Areas of Development

8.0.1 There is a need for some professionals in the SSS and in some in linked provision to recognise the very significant changes that have, and are, taking place nationally in HI and SEND and in education generally. These changes have created a new and exciting but also challenging agenda. All professionals will need to take the best learning and practice from the past forward into a new era, and be prepared to adopt a shared, unified approach to the development of HI work, recognising the wide range of need of deaf and hearing-impaired children and young people, and the similarly wide range of provision and approaches needed to best match their individual and group needs. If a new service model is identified and adopted, it will allows the considerable strengths of the SSS to be further developed, creating a new, regional model on a new site, to meet current and future needs more fully and comprehensively. 8.0.2 Improved data collection and analysis must inform priority setting, and inform the creation of a robust service development plan setting out a clear vision for the service and how that vision will be delivered and over what time frame. 8.0.3 The profile of MSI CYP needs to be raised both within data collection and analysis, and in the information sent out to families and carers regarding feedback on the SSS. There is no clearly agreed definition of the term MSI or deafblind across the four LAs. Agreeing such a definition is important to ensure compliance with the requirement for specialist assessment (CoP 6.06) 8.0.4 Stronger more effective strategic management of the SSS would create a more proactive provision and ensure capacity needs were met, as well as ensuring the best use made of specialist, physical, financial and human resources within a framework of accountability. 8.0.5 The issue of succession planning and ensuring sufficient number of teachers of the deaf and the vision impaired and MSI need to be addressed, along with the reviewing of the deployment of specialist HI and VI staff against the wider 0-25 agenda and the increased HI/VI population of children and young people. Increased specialist staff, will be needed, for example, to support 14-25 transition. Greater input will be needed into areas such as educational audiology and CVI to ensure that children and young people benefit from all available medical, technical and audiological advances. Given the difficulties in recruiting qualified HI/VI/MSI teachers and the potentially detrimental effect of HI/VI/MSI pupils not having continuity in their support and teaching, consideration should be given to create a ‘bank’ arrangement by employing additional qualified staff, perhaps recently retired ToD/QTVI/MSI, for occasional interim placement. 8.0.6 The ceasing of the Deaf provision at Bristol College has exacerbated the difficulties in identifying personalised pathways for 16+ HI students in Bristol. Currently the SSS is seeking to work with colleges across the LAs and with the commissioners to establish more joint working and to clarify the potential pathways for HI learners. This is a much-needed development across the SSS, so that clearer pathways 14-25 for young people with HI and/or VI can be identified and appropriately funded.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 22 of 70 8.0.7 The relationship between the SSS and Sense would benefit from being reviewed and if possible a joint working protocol put in place, realistic expectations built on reciprocal working would help families/carers in achieving positive outcomes for the children and young people, rather than leading to conflict. Joint training initiatives and support for networking opportunities would assist in developing this relationship, which could in turn raise the awareness of the needs of MSI children and young people, and facilitate improved multi-agency working. 8.0.8 There is a need to review and revise the SSS Agreement 2004-09 to encompass the changes in the SEND reforms and the requirements of the Ofsted Inspection Framework with its focus on impact/outcomes as well as to reflect and strengthen particular paragraphs of the Agreement such as 6.3, 6.5 and 9.1.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 23 of 70 Appendix 1 – Scope for the review

REVIEW OF JOINT AUTHORITY SENSORY SUPPORT SERVICE Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire Scope and specification 1.0 Rationale 1.1 The Joint Authority Sensory Support Service (SSS) is commissioned by the four local authorities above. The contract for the provision of services for children and young people with sensory impairments is longstanding and requires review. 1.2 The Children and Families Act 2014 imposes duties on local authority agencies to work together to improve outcomes for children and young people with SEND. Young people can remain in education where they have an Education, Health and Care plan to 25 years and are following an appropriate FE and /or HE course. Local authorities are required to improve pathways, transition and preparation for adulthood. This involves collaboration between agencies and effective commissioning to ensure the availability of appropriately targeted services for all children and young people with sensory impairment. For young people with dual sensory impairment there are specific changes around specialist assessments. These and other changes in the Act give opportunities for new models of working to be developed, which should be explored through the review. 1.3 Evaluations show the SSS to be well regarded by parents/carers and schools and other settings/services and agencies, and need for the service continues to be significant. A review of the service is required to enable commissioners to make well informed decisions about the future of such provision at a time of significant budgetary constraint, to ensure that the SSS provides value for money in relation to outcomes for children and young people and in light of the new legislation. 1.4 Plans are being developed to relocate the primary element of Elmfield School for the Deaf, probably co-locating it with a mainstream primary school. This presents the opportunity to review the provision of services for children and young people with hearing impairment or deafness, which should dovetail with a review of the SSS. 1.5 There is a need to consider different possible models of service provision and collaborative working practices in the context of the development of multi-agency services for children and young people with SEND. The existing sensory impairment strategy and previous review of deaf provision will help to inform the review of the SSS. 1.6 The impact of developments in practice, and current challenges in the field of sensory impairment, also need to be taken into account, including: 1.6.1 An increase in the number of children and young people identified as having complex needs, including social, emotional and mental health difficulties; 1.6.2 The requirement to focus on longer term outcomes and transition into adulthood, with implications for post 16 and post 19 provision, and an emphasis on developing independence;

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 24 of 70 1.6.3 The need to ensure good practice in braille teaching and effective HI support in mainstream settings, which can present particular challenges; 1.6.4 Developments in technology which aid independence and the need to ensure that all children and young people who benefit from these, eg radio aids, are able to access them; 1.6.5 The impact of cochlear implantation and the need to respond with different models of deaf education; 1.6.6 Increased demand for specialist provision, eg for deaf-blind children and young people and those with cerebral vision impairment.

2.0 Scope 2.1 Review of all aspects of the remit and current provision of sensory support services, financial, budgetary and otherwise, including the deployment of staff and joint working with other services; 2.2 Fact finding and discussion with providers and service users including children and young people, parents/ carers and schools, and commissioners; 2.3 Analysis of current and projected need and outcomes for children and young people to 19 years and beyond; 2.4 Review of the current contract for the provision of services, and information gathering re LAs’ future commissioning plans, including any joint commissioning with health services eg for the provision of audiology, speech and language therapy etc; 2.5 Consideration of current provision for all children and young people who are deaf/HI, the re-location of Elmfield School for the Deaf and opportunities this may provide to develop further collaborative work; 2.6 Final report with options for future service provision which take account of evidence based best practice.

3.0 Specification 3.1 The contractor selected to undertake the review will be an independent, suitably qualified professional with significant experience in the field of sensory impairment and other areas of SEND, and understanding of local authority commissioning processes. 3.2 It is expected that the review will take approximately 15 working days. A final report of findings, with options for future service delivery, is required within six weeks of the start of the review. 3.3 The contractor will report at given points to the Service Manager, Additional Learning Needs, Bristol City Council who has commissioned the review. 3.4 The day rate for the contractor may be open to negotiation but will be within the fixed budget for the work.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 25 of 70 Appendix 2 – Evidence of consultation

A2.1 Evidence Base – HI

A2.1.1 Meetings with: • Head of Service • Team Leader, Hearing Support Team • Educational Audiologist, SSS • SSS Senior Leadership Team • SSS Transition Coordinator • Executive Head Teacher, Elmfield School • Chair of Governors, Elmfield School who is also the school’s SALT.

A2.1.2 Telephone contact was made with: • Senior School Improvement Officer, SEN and Strategy Consultant, Bristol City Council • Service Manager for Children with Additional Learning Needs, Bristol City Council • SENCo, Fairfield Academy • SENCo, Henbury Court Primary Academy • Head Teacher, Baytree Special School, Weston-super-Mare.

A2.1.3 Visits were made to: • Yate International Academy, HIRB • Castle School, Thorbury, South Gloucestershire • Weston All Saints Primary School HIRB (WASP), Bath, BANES • Elmfield School for the Deaf, Bristol • Fairfield Academy HIRB and Elmfield School’s Secondary provision.

A2.1.4 Documents that were submitted or requested that were scrutinised: • S1 Strategy (June 2013) • Data on number of CYP-SSS • Data on number of CYP-SSS • SSS Agreement 2004-09 • External Review Report as the Educational Provision for Deaf Children and Young People in Bristol (June 2010) and the LA’s response to the outcomes of the report (November 2010) • Bristol Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee Interim Report and Recommendations (Oct 2011) on the Inquiry Day on Deaf and HI Services • SSS Review Report (2015)

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 26 of 70 • SSS Budget 2014/15 and 2015/16 • SSS Main Service Estimates 2013-14 • SSS Assessment Policy • SSS Structure Details • Issue and Fitting of Radio Aid Systems by SSS • SSS Complaints/Concerns File • Record of Case Review File • Minutes and notes of Strategic Development Group meetings 2013-2015 and notes of meetings with Commissioners • SSS Evaluation Questionnaires • Report on Sensory Support Equipment 2012 • Responses for data collection requests made by SSS to BANES, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire • Current HI data on numbers of CYP/type of school statement or EHCP • SSS Leavers Years 11, 12, 13 as of July 2015 • SSS Annual submissions to Consortium for Research in Deaf Education (CRIDE) 2011-2014 • SSS Hearing support communication policy • CRIDE Survey Reports 2011-15 • The submissions of the Service to the CRIDE annual survey 2011-15.

A2.2 Evidence Base – VI

A2.2.1 Meetings with: • Head of Service • Team Leader, Vision Support Team • Consultant Paediatrician, Community Child Health, Bristol • Head Orthoptist, Bristol Eye Hospital • Advisory Teacher Vision Impairment, SSS • SENCo, St Bede’s Catholic College • Pupil, St Bede’s Catholic College • Teaching Support Assistant, St Bede’s Catholic College

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 27 of 70 A2.2.2 Telephone contact was made with: • Headteacher, Baytree Special School • SENCo, Emerson’s Green Primary School • SENCO, Fairfield Academy • Deputy Head/SENCo, New Fosseway Special School

A2.2.3 Visits were made to: • SSS Team Base, Elmfield School for the Deaf, Bristol • Specialist Joint Vision Assessment, SSS Team Base, Bristol • St Bede’s Catholic College

A2.2.4 Documents that were submitted or requested that were scrutinised: • SSS S1 Strategy (June 2013) • SSS Service Specification (June 2011) • SSS Service Review Report (June 2015) • SSS Agreement for Provision of Service for Children with Sensory Needs:2004-09 • JSNAs across the four LAs • Banes CYP Plan 2014-2017 • Banes Children’s Workforce Development Training Strategy 2015-2018 • SSS Budget 2014/15 and 2015/16 • SSS Main Service Estimates 2013-14 • SSS Assessment Policy July 2014 • SSS Entry and Exit Criteria • SSS Structure Details 2015/16 • SSS Special School Support Data 2015/16 • SSS Staffing Details 2015/16 • SSS Data on CYP Numbers 2011 - 2015 • SSS Complaints/Concerns File • SSS Parent Partnership Strategy • SSS List of Current Issues • SSS List of Activities • SSS Travel Policy Statement – Banes, Bristol, North Somerset • SSS VI CYP Records and Outcome Plans, data tracking sheets • Minutes and notes of Strategic Development Group meetings 2013-2015 and notes of meetings with Commissioners

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 28 of 70 • SSS Evaluation Questionnaires 2011 - 2014 • SSS Report on Equipment 2012 • Responses for data collection requests made by SSS to BANES, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire • Current VI data on numbers of CYP/type of school statement or EHCP • SSS Leavers Years 11, 12, 13 as of July 2015 • SSS Braille Policy 2013 • SSS Keyboarding Policy 2013 • SSS VI new referrals by LA 2011-2015 • Partnership Agreements for selected schools with high need pupils and with which contact was made • SSS/Bristol/South Gloucestershire Service Agreement for Mobility Service

A2.3 Evidence Base – MSI

A2.3.1 Meetings with: • Head of Service • MSI Coordinator • Deputy Head Claremont School

A2.3.2 Telephone contact was made with: • Senior School Improvement Officer, SEN and Strategy Consultant, Bristol City Council • Service Manager for Children with Additional learning Needs, Bristol City Council • Service Manager Early Years, Bristol City Council • 0 – 25 Service Manager Education, South Gloucestershire • SENCO Oldfield School, Bath

A2.3.3 Visits were made to: • SSS Team Base, Elmfield School for the Deaf, Bristol • Claremont School, Bristol

A2.3.4 Documents that were submitted or requested that were scrutinised: • SSS SI Strategy (June 2013) • SSS Service Specification (June 2011) • SSS Service Review Report (June 2015) • SSS Assessment Policy (July 2014) • SSS List of Current Issues

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 29 of 70 • SSS List of Activities • Minutes from SSS Strategic Development Meeting held on 24.11.2015 • Responses for data collection requests made by SSS to BANES, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire • SSS Staffing Details 2015 - 16 • SSS Data on CYP Numbers 2011 - 2015 • SSS Evaluation Questionnaires 2011 - 2014 • SSS document ‘Profiling individual children attending specialist provision’ and accompanying ‘Core support’ document • Partnership Agreement 2015 – 16, SSS and Claremont School • Early Years Inclusion in Bristol: An independent review of services to young children with SEN and their families (Ellis & Ellis Education Consultants 2014) • Proposal for Developing a Pilot in South Bristol: An Integrated Locality Team for supporting early identification and intervention for young children with SEND (Ellis & Ellis Education Consultants 2015) • Record of plans /pathways for MSI children in the current Integrated Locality Team project • Progress tool Bristol Early Years Research web-site • ‘Communication and children with Multi Sensory Impairment’ and ‘Deafblind Assessment – Guidance 7’ , factsheets from the SSS web-site • SSS Local Offer for children and young people with multi-sensory impairment • Advanced Skills in Teaching Pupils with Multi-Sensory Impairment Level 3 BTECH course overview

A2.4 Evidence Base – Commissioners

A2.4.1 A meeting was held with: Annette Jones, Service manager for children with additional learning needs, Bristol Carol Watson, 0-25 Service manager, Bristol Alison Woodiwiss, Bath & North East Somerset Children’s Health Commissioner Chris Jones, SEN Manager, North East Somerset Gabrielle Stacey, Head of Vulnerable Learners Service, People and Communities, North Somerset

A2.4.2 Subsequent telephone conversations were held with the inidividuals named above.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 30 of 70 Appendix 3 – Parent Interviews

(13 January 2016) A3.1 There were three focus group sessions with parents attending Elmfield School and users of the Sensory Support Services and interviews with individual parents. (approx. 40 parents). The online survey had a total of 59 responses. A3.1.1 Topic areas for the focus groups were: • Participants will be asked to give examples about what they felt had been really good support or help to the child or young person from the service and consider: what is in place to allow it happen; what might need to be in place to allow it to happen again. What was the impact of that service or intervention at the time? • Participants will be asked to identify key features that they feel capture the Service at its best in meeting the educational needs of children with sensory needs in their area. • Participants will be asked what gaps there are in the current provision and services generally. • Participants will be asked to generate a picture of a ‘preferred’ future to meet the educational needs of children with sensory needs-including how the service relates to other services.

A3.1.2 Questions for Online Survey were: 1. What is the main sensory impairment of your child or young person?

Please tick

Hearing Impairment

Deafness (dependant on BSL as the primary form of communication)

Deafness (English as primary form of communication)

Vision Impairment

Multi Sensory Impairment

Other (Please specify)

2. Does your child or young person have:

A Statement of Special Educational Need Please tick

An Education Health and Care Plan

Another type of non-statutory plan such as a non-statutory Education Health Care Plan or IEP

Other (Please specify)

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 31 of 70 3. Which county does your family live in and how long has your child been supported by the Sensory Support Service?

One Two Three Four Five years year years years years or longer

Bristol

South Gloucestershire

Bath and North East Somerset

North Somerset

Other (Please specify)

4. Please describe the main types of support your child or young person receives from the Sensory Support Service

5. If there is additional support you would like your child to receive from the Sensory Support Service could you please describe what this would be?

6. What are the main outcomes you think are achieved by the support your child receives from the Sensory Support Service (what is the main difference that the service has made for your child?)

7. Are there other services or support in the future which you think the Sensory Support Service should be providing for children and people (0-25) with Sensory Impairment?

8. Are there services or support in the future which you think the Sensory Support Service should be providing for parents to help with children or young people's needs?

9. How good is the Sensory Support Service at listening to parents views?

Very good Good Neither good Poor Very poor nor poor

Please tick

Please give an example to illustrate your view

10. How good is the Sensory Support Service at listening to children's and young people's views.

Very good Good Neither good Poor Very poor nor poor

Please tick

Please give an example to illustrate your view

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 32 of 70 A3.1.3 Numbers and status of parents who took part in the online Survey.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 33 of 70

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 34 of 70 A3.2 The Views of Parents using the Sensory Support Service. The following is a summary and exploration of the views of parents who either took part in the focus groups run by Brian Lamb on 13 January 2016 or of those parents who filled in the online survey, communicated directly with the service, or whose views were passed onto the review team. A3.2.1 Overall Summary. Parents highly value the Sensory Support Service and especially the one-to-one support provided by to parents, crucially in the early years, but also for their children once at school. However, it is clear from their comments that the service is not well integrated into the wider support network for families, and that health and social care support is not as joined up or integrated as it could be or that legislation requires. It would appear that in parents’ perceptions, a consequence of this is that the specialist teachers play a keyworker role for many families, especially in the early years, in joining up service provision. Parents would like better integration between different services without a diminution in the specialist support they receive overall. They would also like greater co-ordination with themselves, schools, and the service, and more opportunity to meet together after their children move to school. There were mixed views about how successful schools were in implementing the advice from the service. There are a number of concerns about the provision of other services, especially speech and language, occupational therapy, and equipment support. Parents would also like more language support. Parents felt that the service listens to them and their children and young people, but there was less evidence of engagement in the strategic development of the service, or wider services. Parents also felt that more general information and advice was not focused on sensory issues beyond what was available in the service. Most parents were not aware of the Local Offer or found it was not that helpful in finding out information about local specialist service offers. Most parents were not aware of the Schools Information Report. A3.2.2 Role of the Service Specialist Teaching Support There was repeated support for the fundamental role that specialist teachers played from the very early years. In the early years parents, felt that this support was essential in being able to understand what they should be doing with their young child, and many described the role as also being a conduit into other services, providing general advice, and times verging on a keyworker type role. One very specific aspect of this was helping parents with emotional support and adjusting to their child having a sensory disability: …teacher of the deaf has been our emotional support since finding out about our daughter’s deafness. She played a major role in us coping with the finding of deafness, and helped us deal with it as well as provided us with all the information we needed in regards to supporting our daughter and in making the life changing decision of bilateral cochlear implants for her to hear. Along with our speech and language therapist, we ourselves and our daughter’s setting have been provided with information, support and activities/knowledge that has helped us to ensure that we meet our child’s needs in order for her to develop. I can honestly say this support has been vital, and without it we wouldn't have known what to do or where to start!! Online Survey. The key role specialist teachers played in language acquisition was also stressed by a number of parents. This was typical: Our child is able to attend her nursery with the confidence of knowing she will be looked after and helped to be able to join in and participate in all activities and gain understanding of them, also progressing with her speech and language to be able to communicate with her world around her. Having visits at home and the setting helps us to liaise with the setting to make sure we are all working off the same page in providing and meeting targets to develop in her learning. Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 35 of 70 As was support for improving habilitation and independence: Vision support has allowed us to understand Alex's conditions exactly and helped us determine what he can and cannot see by organising a full visual assessment. As Alex can't talk and has limited communication skills, this has been essential! Vision support has meant that we have been able to adapt the nursery and home environments to better suit Alex's needs. It has also meant that we have been able to adapt our behaviour around and with Alex to enable him to better interact with people and the environment. For example, the suggestion to use contrasting colours of bowls and spoons during mealtimes has allowed us to maximise Alex's independence at these times. The suggestion to walk Alex around new places so that he gets to know where things are (and at quiet times if possible) has helped make Alex more at ease in new situations. These are just examples - Alex is definitely able to cope with the world around him more easily because of these suggestions and the help he receives from the vision support team. Another parent commented about the importance of being able to link up with other deaf children through the service: My son has access to sign language which supports his communication, and we have lots more support from other parents and professionals if we are unsure or need help with anything. Massive support for me (mum) to come to terms with diagnosis and what deafness means for my son. Very positive and inclusive approach… No matter what type of deafness or disability. So if I am more confident and happy it is positive for my child. He has also been able to grow in confidence and has access to other children who wear hearing aids which means he doesn't feel different. Online Survey.

Better understanding of [child’s name]’s needs across the various professionals involved. [Child] has benefited from a continuity of support from the team since starting infants school and their knowledge of him and his needs has been invaluable in ensuring good levels of school staff awareness, classroom positioning, use of aids, and in dealing with/considering options to improve his hearing through the use of hearing aids and ancillary equipment. Online Survey

We have found the support to be amazing for children with hearing loss. Our daughter also has balance problems and we have had little support in this area as it is not so well recognised as an impairment, and it would be beneficial to have access to staff with expertise in this area. Online Survey Once their child went to school, parents valued and recognised that the relationship also moved to focusing on supporting the school, and that this was appropriate and valuable. Many parents commented on the crucial role they felt specialist support had in supporting development and better outcomes. This comment was typical: …without the sensory support service, I do not feel that her needs would be understood or met by her mainstream school. There has been a good deal of training and support given to the school, enabling them to meet her needs well so far. She is making good progress in school due to the expertise of the qualified Teacher of the Deaf in advising and supporting the school. Parent Online Survey While another focused on the support to classroom teacher, and how invaluable this was: The class teacher is aware of better communication practices to help my daughter get as much information as possible. It also helps that the TOD is there to remind the class teacher that though my daughter is well adjusted to her environment, and not behind, that her ability to receive sound is very reduced, especially without lip-reading. I really like that the aim is for her to achieve her full potential regardless of her deafness. The care, monitoring and attention she receives from the Deaf Services have given her a confidence and positive attitude to her hearing aids - especially the team here in Bath. Online Survey

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 36 of 70 How central support was for improving outcomes at school was attested to by a number of parents. Again, this was typical: Accessing mainstream school. Accessing the curriculum. Supporting me. Without this service my child would not have same opportunities and would be falling behind in his learning. Online Survey

…when she did have input from the VI team, she was able to have differentiated tasks in class ... at special school ... to help her access the curriculum. She had help learning to expand her visual field and I had help developing activities at home to help with wearing glasses and hand/eye coordination development. Online Survey Some parents described the shift of support away from the parent and to the school as a loss, and thought it would be helpful if Specialist Teachers could also spend more time supporting home- school relationships and working. Some parents gave examples where this was already happening but mentioned that it very much depended on the capacity of the specialist teachers. Our daughter really appreciated the visit from [Name] at school, and still remembers how kind she was and how she talked to her about a range of issues, not just hearing. This holistic approach really worked for her and she felt listened to. She feels able to ask to sit at the front of class. It feels mostly driven by her, though, rather than supported/considered by the school. Perhaps this is a good thing for empowering her? Though the problems can get quite bad (e.g. failing to hear the details of a few homeworks) before she does something about it. Online Survey. Some parents were concerned that while the advice from specialist teachers was really helpful, it was not always taken on board by the schools and implemented, and that neither the service nor parents had the capacity or authority to enforce recommendations or ways of working if the school did not want to follow the advice. In early years this was sometimes seen to a problem: A bit of a clearer link between parents, nursery staff and teacher of the deaf. And maybe a few more regular visits when they first start to provide that same level of guidance to staff. I struggle to instil the level of confidence in the staff that the teacher of the deaf and other parts of the sensory support service have instilled in me. Online Survey Also at Schools: Schools don’t follow up on the advice from the service and we cannot make them do that. It would be better if schools had to follow what the service recommended. Parent at the focus groups Another parent felt that they would like to see: …working with his class teachers, teaching support, school SENCo, etc., pointers on extra-curricular activities and what additional considerations might enable him to do whatever he wants and join in to the full. Links to previous experience lessons learnt in particular situations of relevance etc. Online Survey

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 37 of 70 Parents also felt that the liaison between schools, the service and home could get too complex, and that there was a danger that parents are cut out of the loop. The following concern was shared by a number of parents: The service is currently contracted with schools only, to the exclusion of parents. Reports are sent directly to the school and parents need to remember to ask for a copy from the SENCo. This just creates an added bureaucratic layer, and is just not transparent enough or in keeping with principles of old and new SEND reforms. Other LAs have a much better open door policy. Online Survey Better links between school and the support service also came out very strongly in two of the focus groups where one parent proposed that: There should be better protocols about communicating with parents about what is happening between school and specialist support. Parents need more clarity. Focus Group This idea was widely supported in the following discussion. Many of the parents noted the relationship with the school’s SENCo was crucial in making this work. Where this was good parents had very positive views of both the service and the school. Where this was not working parents still saw the service as valuable but where frustrated at the inability to translate advice into practice. Parents also felt that the specialist teacher support was feeling stretched, especially the capacity to cover illness or recruitment. While it was recognised that it was not always possible to guarantee continuity of specialist teachers support where this was possible it was much preferred by parents who valued that fact that the teachers really understood their child’s need and could represent that inside the system. Specialist teachers were also seen as a key point of liaison and co-ordination with other statutory services, especially audiology and other VI support. They were also for seen as being crucial for advice on equipment and mental health services. The Sensory Support Service have provided a link between the hospital and audiology team and the childcare setting. Nursery staff have found the training they have been given invaluable ensuring that our child gets the most out of her experience at nursery. Online Survey A few parents felt that they were not listened-to well enough by the service. This comment was not typical but is worth noting as an outlying viewpoint: More parent support and advice. For staff to listen to parents who after all know THEIR child better than anyone, and live with their disability EVERYDAY. For emails and calls to be returned. Online Survey One parent was very critical of the service and felt they had not received any useful support: Sadly, at this moment in time, and my daughters current abhorrent situation, I feel she has gained nothing from Sensory Support. In seven years she has only received ample support from one QTVI, who sadly left….. Online Survey

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 38 of 70 Another commented that: I think the whole service needs to change and update with current times. Expectations to be raised for our children. More time should be available for parents once a child reaches school age. More communication and support. Braille should be championed, promoted and supported much more, as should canes and mobility. Children are currently being denied literacy and independence. Your service should support not hinder progress. Online Survey These were not typical of the bulk of comments.

A3.2.3 Links with other Statutory Services. Many parents complained about the lack of SLT support and also could not understand why this was provided separately, when the legislation classifies its provision as an education function. A number of parents supported the idea of placing SLT (or part of the service) within the SI service. The following comment garnered significant support from other parents in one of the focus groups: I do not understand why the Sensory Support Service does not also provide or run the Speech and Language support – after all – it’s supposed to be to support my child’s education needs, so I don’t understand why it is health? Focus Group Many parents raised the issue of lack of information. This was not simply printed or online advice, but about where to go for specific issues, and especially how different statutory services joined together and what was available within them. While there was often support for individual services, (Bristol Eye Hospital was positively mentioned by a number of parents) there was an overall sense among focus group participants of a lack of co-ordination and consistency of approach and awareness of individual children’s needs across services. Given that majority of parents at these sessions and in the online interviews have children who have Statements or EHC plans, this is an issue of concern. Parents also felt that there was little advice over choice, especially in relation to the selection of schools, provision of early support, and the quality of services. Most parents were unaware of the Local Offer (only 3 in one focus group and 1 in another). Those who had used it had not found it very comprehensive or useful. There was virtually no awareness of the Schools Information Report or its intended role in informing parents of provision within the school. A number of parents complained that universal services including Children’s Centres did have some specialist support, but it was not clear unless you knew the service. Parents were concerned that the review might break up the central nature of the service and were not confident that embedding the service more within schools would be helpful. This fear was partly driven by some parents’ experiences of schools, but also by them fearing that without a focal point, expertise and focus would be lost. A3.2.4 Role of ACORNS The ACORNS early years support group was continually mentioned as being extremely helpful and supportive. The early years nursery provision was really valued and hugely popular with parents. Parents also valued the opportunity for their children to mix together, and the support it gave in developing early play and communication opportunities. Similar comments were made about the Explorers VI provision provided at Kingswood. ACORNS is wonderful – I don’t know what I would do without it. Focus Group The parents support group around the ACORNS service also allowed parents to meet on a regular basis and they really valued the opportunity to meet together, provide mutual support and also as a focus point with the service for communication and feedback.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 39 of 70 A3.2.5 Parental Support and Engagement Engagement of Parents At the individual level, there was very impressive evidence of good personalised one-to-one working with parents through the specialist teams, the nursery provision and parental support via the ACORNS group. This was very positive and also reflected in the comments on the parents survey of how well parents’ voices were listened-to, with 90% of respondents feeling that the service was good at listening to them:

While 83% thought that the service was good at listening to the views of their children and young people:

However, there was no evidence of a more structured approach to co-production at the level of service management, or strategic input into service planning, in either the interviews or comments in the surveys. The review team were not made aware of any formal service users group, or wider group which could directly feed into service development. Parents again felt that there was a loss of that level of support and connection once their children moved into the school system, and wondered if something similar to the ACORNS support group, (albeit meeting less frequently) could be provided for older children and parents, perhaps with a focus around transition points. This comment was typical of both online and focus feedback: Some sort of opportunity on a bi-monthly sort of basis for hearing impaired/deaf children to meet up which would give the opportunity for parents to meet up particularly when your child is the only deaf child in a school. Online Survey And: Keeping ACORNS going. Having another similar group or youth club for school-aged children, for parents to meet at too. Online Survey

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 40 of 70 This was also linked to the need for more opportunities for children to meet together. More opportunities to meet other parents. Activities for school age children. Online Survey This was very strongly supported by parents in the focus groups. Much of the need expressed here was for peer support and advice. This might also suggest that for these parents, there is at least a question of how far their views and aspirations are being represented within wider parent forums. For most parents it was not clear that they felt there were other conduits for their concerns.

A3.2.6 Role of other services Audiology Services There were some serious concerns raised about the sensitivity of health professionals in breaking the news of children having hearing loss within the new-born hearing screening programme. One parent was in tears describing how she felt she had been dealt with insensitively by the original team in hospital who informed her about her child’s hearing loss. The parent and others were clear that this was because there was an over-professionalised or over-medicalised approach to process, which did not recognise how parents would be feeling at the point of diagnosis. It was only after conversations with the TOD that they started to feel more positive, and that this was something which could be managed. This comment was not isolated, but was reflected and endorsed by a number of other parents in that particular group, all of whom had pre-school children. This concern has specific implications for the service, in the additional work which might therefore be needed to ensure that parents are able to assimilate their child’s hearing loss and start to positively look at strategies to start to manage their feelings. It is questionable how far Specialist Teachers should be being pulled into these support roles, either to either make up for poor practice around breaking the news, or to provide follow-on emotional support which should be available from a wider team of professionals. Parents also mentioned in this context that they would like more information about emotional support, and directing them towards groups of parents who might be able to help. Generally, parents commented on the lack of joined-up approach between audiology and other services, with man noting a lack of communication between the services. There were also issues raised about access to equipment, insurance of hearing aids and problems with ear moulds: Ear moulds! No flexibility obtaining moulds. It involves a visit to hospital where it is very difficult to get an appointment. Online Survey A3.2.7 LA Support in Special Schools There were some specific issues which came out of the focus group with parents at Elmfield School. The main issue was the liaison between LAs, special schools and the specialist support service in respect of what is provided outside of the Special School provision. This issue was raised by nearly all the parents at the Elmfield focus group. Parents felt that they were in the middle of trying to sort out what additional support they might need, while LAs disputed who was going to pay. (The authorities mentioned are not necessarily the commissioners of the Sensory Support service). Specific additional support which parents would like included home visits, family sign, and counselling. There were also very specific comments about the Bristol Cochlear Implant Service. Bristol was seen to as not ‘forward thinking’ on this issue. There were complications when some follow up services where not provided locally. Some parents had attended sessions at the Ear Foundation in Nottingham which they had praised as being very helpful. Some parents thought there should be more of interface between the school and the SI service. It was also felt that there was not enough multi-sensory support for families and this was not co-

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 41 of 70 ordinated enough with the service. Access to speech therapy was raised as an issue for a number of children at the school. Overall, parents also expressed a lot of satisfaction with provision in Elmfield and in a number of cases felt that they had fought hard to secure that provision and were concerned that it should be continued. More generally, parents felt that there should be more integration between the specialist support which was embedded in special schools and the wider school system, and this should be more integrated with other support. There should be more working between special schools and other schools and we should be able access some of the support they have even if our children are in mainstream. Focus Group

A3.2.8 Cerebral Vision Impairment (CVI) There were criticisms of the core offer provided by the service from the parents of children with cerebral visual impairment (with acuity) who felt that their child had fallen between the cracks of what provision was available if their child did not meet the service criteria. Attempts had been made to access the service, which had been limited in what it was able to provide, but had made some recommendations around equipment. Parents had become very frustrated that the school had been unable to make the necessary adjustments, and they had chosen to home educate. This family felt that a restrictive core offer simply meant that costs would be passed onto other parts of the system as their child struggled without the right support. A3.2.9 What other support parents would like. Many of the parents in the focus group sessions were initially reluctant to forward views on what else should be provided. On further questioning, this seemed to be a mixture of concern that this would be taken as a criticism of the current service, a lack of knowing what else might be available or possible beyond what was already provided and satisfaction that the current service was meeting their child’s needs. Some of the areas that did come up in the subsequent discussion and in the Online Survey and included the following: Better support for classroom assistants in sensory provision: Schools need more support than the service can give. I would like to see more support for teachers and classroom assistants to understand my child’s needs. Focus Group And Yes vision support for classroom assistants and teachers in planning activities. Sensory integration therapy assessments and ongoing support such as for noise management, oral fixations and other behaviours caused through sensory hypo or hyper stimulation. There's hundreds of children in North Somerset being labelled as naughty kids and not being able to reach their potential because there is no sensory services to help them or their parents. Online Survey More generally, parents were concerned about the lack of specific information and support. The following comment was typical: Mobility and developmental assessment. I would have also liked to have available a guide of what to expect for every year of my child's life with advice on everything from toys to schools, Braille etc. I am currently working with RNIB to produce this myself but I wish this existed already. Online Survey

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 42 of 70 Again it often seems that the specialist teacher’s team is drawn into providing this information. While this may be very helpful for parents, it is not obvious why the service team should be doing this, rather than more generalist services. The issue of links to and support from other services also came up very clearly, with parents wanting more support on managing behaviour from occupational therapy and other therapy services. These comments were typical: Yes Sensory integration services and workshops for parents on calming techniques, behaviour management using exercises run by qualified OTs and support in schools when a child is recognised as having sensory issues. Early intervention programmes coordinated with OT, physio, schools and other professionals involved with the child. Online Survey Also more linking of services: Looking to form active cross-disciplinary support groups; linking vision, mobility, cognition, SALT, et cetera Online Survey There were a number of requests either for more support about learning BSL, support for haptic signing for MSI, and additional braille support. Also for more work on positive role models for children and the opportunity for children with sensory impairment to get together more regularly. There was specific concern from one parent that there was not enough support for MSI related services. Provision post-16 was an issue for some parents, who were unclear about what support would be available. For most parents in the focus groups this was still a long way off though the following was suggested: I don't know if they already provide this but help with applying for college, university, and jobs and support once they are in these settings would be good. Online Survey The amount of time that the specialist teachers could spend with families was raised a number of times, and there was a consistent view that while families valued all the support, this was often not enough but at the same time recognition that the service was stretched: …also more time available for home visits and more regularly later on as this became a lot less once our child was through first year of support and now meetings seem rushed and time limited to fit everything in needed to discuss at meetings at home and in the setting with other professionals involved with our child. Online Survey

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 43 of 70 Appendix 4 – Vision 2020 Pathway

Vision 2020 UK Guidelines and Pathway for Appendices: Vision 2020 UK Children and Young People’s group have developed guidelines and a pathway; which sets out the key needs and support milestones for children and young people and their families from the moment vision impairment is identified through to transition into the adult pathway. These guidelines are intended for those responsible for commissioning and providing services for children and young people and their families. They will assist with the interpretation and implementation of the UK Vision Strategy across health, education and social care. VISION 2020 UK – Service Provision for Children and Young People (0 to 25 years) Health Education Screening • Specialised provision by qualified staff (0 to  Neonatal / 72 Hours 25 years)  6 to 8 weeks • Qualified teacher of the Vision Impaired (QTVI)  4 to 5 years • Habilitation Worker

• Setting support – VI specific • Clinical intervention (including genetic testing) • Access to resources • Low vision assessment • Provision of and support to use aids and Transitions (14 to 25 years) equipment • 14+ transition review and transition plan. • Monitoring of eye condition Access to information, advice and guidance • Skills development • Therapeutic intervention for other conditions • Social participation • Genetic testing and guidance • Focus on wellbeing Social Care • Signposting to career support • Initial and Core Assessment • Habilitation/rehabilitation * Voluntary Sector • Identification of needs • Facilitate peer support and mentoring • Specialist VI Support • Advice and information, including welfare rights • Information and advice • Home adaptions • Key working • Direct payments for one to one support • Advocacy / mediation • Leisure and play opportunities • Recreational and leisure opportunities • Respite and short breaks. (for disabled • Support to individuals, parent carers, children) siblings, family members, professionals and communities • Transition planning to adult services • Influencing Policy and Practice

• Monitoring and holding ‘to account’ • Public education and awareness *Habilitation: the acquisition of mobility, orientation and other independent living skills in relation to children and young people born with vision impairment or who acquire it during childhood. A qualified habilitation specialist is the lead specialist in delivering this training. He/she is responsible for assessing the habilitation needs of the child and all aspects of the training programme. They work with the young person, their family, and other professionals, such as specially qualified teachers to ensure a joined up approach.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 44 of 70

VISION 2020 UK – Pathway for Children and Young People (0 to 25 years) with Vision Impairment, and their Families • Identification of potential vision impairment

• Engagement with parent carer (and child or young person where possible)

Early Support and Key Woking • Assessment of vision impairment and/or related conditions

Emotional Support

• Certification and Registration (where appropriate)

• Statutory assessment (education, health and social care)

• Service Provision – Health, Education, Social Care, Voluntary Sector

• Regular review and updating of provision

• Transition into Adult Pathway

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 45 of 70 Appendix 5 – Braille teaching in mainstream

A5.0.1 Vision impairment in children is a low incidence high impact disability. Children with vision impairment have different needs to adults with sight loss. In order to reduce lifelong inequalities, it is important that support is provided from birth, throughout childhood and the transition into adulthood. If this support is not received, then their development and life chances can be severely limited. A5.0.2 Most children with vision impairment have conditions that were present from birth or diagnosed in the first year of life.24 Although it is important to be aware that some conditions can develop or become apparent in later childhood, the majority of children need specialist support to minimise the developmental impact of vision impairment. A5.0.3 Sight plays a fundamental role in children’s play, development of language, and social interaction. Most teaching approaches take typical vision for granted, so making sure that children with visual difficulties achieve their full educational potential can present significant challenges. A5.0.4 Significant vision impairment can delay early childhood development and learning, including social communication, mobility, and everyday living skills. Children with vision impairment are at risk of poor outcomes across a range of emotional and social wellbeing indicators,25 which can have an effect on adult life, limiting work opportunities.26 It can also have a major impact on the wellbeing and coping capacities of the family. A5.0.5 Blind children in particular require high levels of specialist input to address crucial needs in their cognitive development, communication, social and independence skills. A5.0.6 Early intervention which includes support from a practitioner with specialist knowledge, skills and understanding of childhood vision impairment is therefore a priority. A5.0.7 The exact nature of this intervention will vary according to the needs and skills of each individual child, the nature of their setting and other factors. However, the RNIB maintains that it must always include specialist input and advice from a QTVI. Evidence shows that the QTVI is usually the key worker for blind children, assessing their needs and co-ordinating the provision to address these. A5.0.8 An estimated 0.2% (2 per 1,000) of children and young people up to the age of 18 in the UK have vision impairment, of whom around 0.05% (5 per 10,000) are blind. There are between 900 and 1,000 children who use braille as their sole or main literacy medium in education. While many local authorities make good provision for blind children, there is considerable variation in levels of support around the country.27 Pressure on school and local authority budgets is commonplace in the current climate of financial austerity. A5.0.9 The RNIB reports that in some local authorities specialist input for blind children is confined largely to advisory work, with ongoing support in crucial areas such as braille literacy being carried out by unqualified staff such as teaching assistants. There is concern that some blind children do not receive adequate support to address the social, emotional and independence needs that are often associated with profound vision impairment. A5.0.10 The SEND Code of Practice (2015) emphasises the importance of specialist support from QTVIs and habilitation officers and the need for specialist professionals to hold an appropriate qualification. A5.0.11 It seems important to emphasise that learning literacy through braille is not just an issue of ‘access’ through a different code. Children developing literacy through braille require specific pedagogical

24 Rahi JS, Cumberland PM, Peckham CS, 2010. Improving Detection of Blindness in Childhood: The British Childhood Vision Impairment Study. Paediatrics 2010;126;e895 –e903 25 Harris J, Keil S, Lord C and McManus S, 2012. Sight impaired at age seven: Secondary analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study. RLSB, RNIB and NatCen Social Research 26 McManus S and Lord C (2012) Circumstances of people with sight loss: secondary analysis of Understanding Society and the Life Opportunities Survey. Natcen report for RNIB. See http://www.rnib.org.uk/aboutus/Research/reports/otherresearch/Pages/circumstances_sight_loss.aspx 27 Keil S (2012) RNIB survey of VI services in England and Wales 2012: Report for England. RNIB: London

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 46 of 70 approaches that are different from those required by print readers. Therefore the class teacher in a mainstream classroom requires support from specialist teachers, QTVIs, with a sophisticated knowledge of the issues.28 A5.0.12 The RNIB in their 2015 position paper Why blind children need specialist support29 make the following recommendations: • The specialist needs of blind children must be determined by an independent assessment carried out by a QTVI. • Averaged over time, any child learning through non-sighted means will require specialist support that is unlikely to amount to less than 0.4 of a QTVI post. • A child may need more specialist support when they start school, during periods of transition or where there are other factors such as additional disabilities, or learning English as an additional language. • A child may need less support from a qualified teacher of VI when they are settled in a school with experienced staff and have well established communication and independence skills. • Anyone supporting a child learning braille who is not a QTVI should have a relevant qualification in braille and should be working under the close guidance of a QTVI. • Blind children should receive regular assessment and support from a qualified habilitation specialist or a mobility officer trained to work with children. A5.0.13 Points to Consider: • Teaching braille is intensive and costly, both in terms of the costs of resources, the production of curriculum materials in braille and the support for the pupil, setting and family. • Braille pupils are a prime example of what is meant by low incidence high impact. A5.0.14 Indicative Costs: • QTVI in-class support: +2points for QTVI. Majority of QTVIs tend to be experienced and therefore on UPS 2/3 • TA in-class support - the lack of specialist TAs ie with a braille qualification has training implications. Where schools do not have staff who are skilled braille reading then a Tiger Embosser (£3,800) would be beneficial (provides text and braille). • Funding transcription from print to Braille for all curriculum materials; eg an embosser – an Index Everest costs approx. £2,725 (with an additional £578 for the compulsory acoustic hood). • Braille translation software e.g. Duxbury (allows you to create in word and translate to emboss) - £400 for a single license for each PC that is being linked to the embosser. • Training staff to use braille translation software is quite specialised – TechnoVision charge approx £700 per day for training. Initially, staff would attend a beginners course but schools producing braille for students working at GCSE and A level would require advanced training (an additional day). • Embossers should be serviced annually – depending on what is required this costs between £200 and £400, including travel costs. • It is easier to source braille copies of school textbooks, but these are only useful when the teacher is teaching straight from the text book. As soon as additional resources, worksheets etc. are introduced, then these need to be produced in school.

28 Douglas G, McCall S, McLinden M, 2011. A review of the literature into effective practice in teaching literacy through braille: VICTAR, University of Birmingham. 29 http://www.rnib.org.uk/why-blind-children-need-specialist-support

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 47 of 70 • Transcription from print to Braille for exam materials • QTVI input for transcribing and checking GCSE/AS exam papers • Specialist equipment, both ICT and curriculum, for blind pupils. Pupils will have sole access to the technology required to support their recording (eg a BrailleNote Apex) but staff will require training to support pupils using these devices in school eg HumanWare charges £450-£500 for one day of training. • Producing resources is time consuming . It can take several hours to create a tactile map for use in a geography lesson. Challenges for time management and forward planning • The need for storage space for braille resources. • The need for constant renewal of braille resources. Braille text has a short life as the raised dots are flattened with use, therefore the approximate lifespan is 2 pupils. • Technology in place to produce a tactile curriculum. A Zyfuse heater costs around £600 and paper approximately £1 per sheet. Whilst the only issue of having an embosser in an area where CYP are working is the sound, this device get extremely hot and H&SE would want this to be used in an area away from CYP. Raised diagrams can be commissioned e.g. from Zytech. • At Key Stages 3 & 4 there is a significant need for adapted materials in each subject area • Assessments and examinations in Braille incur high costs • There needs to be a contingency to cover insurance, repair, servicing and upgrades of all equipment

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 48 of 70 Appendix 6 – Online survey of settings

A6.1 Survey Questions

As part of the review, and online survey of settings was conducted, with settings invited to participate by email. 39 submissions were received. The survey consisted of 7 questions.

Q1. What type of setting are you?

Choose one of the following answers: Please tick Early years setting or nursery Local authority primary school or secondary school/provision Primary or secondary academy Free school or provision Independent school or provision Primary unit/specialist sensory resourced provision/centre Secondary unit/specialist sensory resourced provision/centre Local authority special school or provision Special academy Other (Please specify)

Q2. Which teams from Bristol SSS have been involved with your setting in the academic year 2014-15?

Please tick all that apply Tick Hearing Impairment (HI) Vision Impairment (VI) Deafblind or multi-sensory impairment (MSI) Little or no involvement during the period

Q3: Do you have specialist sensory staff (for example, Teacher of the Deaf, Qualified Teacher of Deafblind/MSI or VI) on your site?

Answer Tick Yes No

Q3a: (Only displayed if Q3 was answered ‘Yes’) Could you give a brief description of their role and relationship with the SSS?

[Free text answer]

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 49 of 70 Q4: The list below shows areas where the SSS provides support. Has your setting received support in any of these areas from the SSS in the academic year 2014-15?

Please tick all that apply: Tick Assessments Advice and information (including the Equality Act 2010) Records of visits Supporting the Education, Health and Care Plan, and annual review/IEP target setting process Classroom, curriculum and access support Monitoring Training Home/setting liaison Liaison with other professionals Equipment and adaptations Information and communications technology advice, assessment and provision of resources

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 50 of 70 Q5: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Not applicable

The SSS professional(s) supported staff with their understanding and knowledge of the pupil's impairment(s) The input from the SSS influenced practice to improve pupil progress in the classroom Social inclusion, pupil attitudes and behaviour have been positively affected as a result of SSS involvement The involvement of the SSS has led to better outcomes for pupils due to improvements in curriculum access Advice and targets from the SSS have been appropriate and realistic Training sessions delivered by advisory teachers from the SSS have raised awareness and developed staff knowledge leading to improved outcomes for pupils The SSS has responded effectively to enquiries from my setting The input from the SSS advisory teachers at annual reviews has contributed to improved pupil outcomes The records of visits provided by the SSS advisory teachers has contributed to pupil progress SSS involvement has helped my setting move forward on disability issues Pupils with sensory impairment have made greater progress than they would have done without SSS involvement

Q6: How could the SSS improve to better meet your needs?

[Free text answer]

Q7: What difference has the input from the SSS made to your setting?

[Free text answer]

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 51 of 70 A6.2 Results of the Setting Survey

39 submissions were received.

Q1: What type of setting are you?

Answers were as follows:

Answer Count % Early years setting or nursery 0 Local authority primary school or secondary school/provision 17 43.59% Primary or secondary academy 16 41.03% Free school or provision 0 Independent school or provision (A5) 1 2.56% Primary unit/specialist sensory resourced provision/centre 0 Secondary unit/specialist sensory resourced provision/centre 0 Local authority special school or provision 1 2.56% Special academy 1 2.56% FE provision 16-19 years 2 5.13% Other 1 2.56%

The respondent who answered ‘Other’ identified themselves as a Local Authority Infant School.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 52 of 70 Q2: Which teams from Bristol SSS have been involved with your setting in the academic year 2014-15?

Answers were as follows:

Answer Count % Hearing Impairment 29 74.36% Vision Impairment 27 69.23% Deafblind or multi-sensory impairment 0 Little or no involvement during the period 0

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 53 of 70 Q3: Do you have specialist sensory staff (for example, Teacher of the Deaf, Qualified Teacher of Deafblind/MSI or VI) on your site?

Answer Count % Yes 4 10.26% No 35 89.74%

Q3a: Could you give a brief description of their role and relationship with the SSS?

ID Response 10 Two qualified teachers of for the blind come into our setting on a regular basis and also attend meetings, give us training and offer advice. 24 1-1 support for students, observations, provide reports and assessment information, attend Annual Reviews, provide staff training, carry out environmental audits. Provide careers advice. Technical support for equipment. 56 Specialist tutor for deaf students Coordinate learning support for deaf/HOH learners within college setting I liaise with SSS to identify potential learners with an HI who may want to visit college/access the Additional Learning Support facility here. 64 Visual Impairment team: Provide information on learners potentially wishing to attend Weston College. Knowledge exchange for example assistive technology and methods for working with VI leaners. Partnership work were appropriate.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 54 of 70 Q4: The list below shows areas where the SSS provides support. Has your setting received support in any of these areas from the SSS in the academic year 2014-15?

Answer Count % Assessments (SQ001) 29 74.36% Advice and information, (including the Equality Act 2010) (SQ002) 36 92.31% Records of visits (SQ003) 33 84.62% Supporting the Education, Health and Care Plan, and annual review/IEP 21 53.85% target setting process (SQ004) Classroom, curriculum and access support (SQ005) 32 82.05% Monitoring (SQ006) 23 58.97% Training (SQ007) 18 46.15% Home/setting liaison (SQ008) 19 48.72% Liaison with other professionals (SQ009) 17 43.59% Equipment and adaptations (SQ010) 25 64.10% Information and communications technology advice, assessment and 21 53.85% provision of resources (SQ011)

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 55 of 70 Q5.1: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [The SSS professional(s) supported staff with their understanding and knowledge of the pupil's impairment(s)]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 29 74.36% Agree 9 23.08% Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 1 2.56% Not applicable 0

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 56 of 70 Q5.2: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [The input from the SSS influenced practice to improve pupil progress in the classroom]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 25 64.10% Agree 13 33.33% Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 1 2.56% Not applicable 0

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 57 of 70 Q5.3: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [Social inclusion, pupil attitudes and behaviour have been positively affected as a result of SSS involvement]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 17 43.59% Agree 17 43.59% Disagree 1 2.56% Strongly disagree 1 2.56% Not applicable 3 7.69%

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 58 of 70 Q5.4: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [The involvement of the SSS has led to better outcomes for pupils due to improvements in curriculum access]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 19 48.72% Agree 18 46.15% Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 1 2.56% Not applicable 1 2.56%

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 59 of 70 Q5.5: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [Advice and targets from the SSS have been appropriate and realistic]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 28 71.79% Agree 10 25.64% Disagree 1 2.56% Strongly disagree 0 Not applicable 0

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 60 of 70 Q5.6: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [Training sessions delivered by advisory teachers from the SSS have raised awareness and developed staff knowledge leading to improved outcomes for pupils]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 19 48.72% Agree 5 12.82% Disagree 1 2.56% Strongly disagree 0 Not applicable 14 35.90%

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 61 of 70 Q5.7: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [The SSS has responded effectively to enquiries from my setting]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 24 61.56% Agree 10 25.64% Disagree 2 5.13% Strongly disagree 0 Not applicable 3 7.69%

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 62 of 70 Q5.8: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [The input from the SSS advisory teachers at annual reviews has contributed to improved pupil outcomes]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 15 38.46% Agree 5 12.82% Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 1 2.56% Not applicable 18 46.15

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 63 of 70 Q5.9: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [The records of visits provided by the SSS advisory teachers has contributed to pupil progress]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 17 43.59% Agree 21 53.85% Disagree 1 2.56% Strongly disagree 0 Not applicable 0

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 64 of 70 Q5.10: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [SSS involvement has helped my setting move forward on disability issues]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 15 38.46% Agree 18 46.15% Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 1 2.56% Not applicable 5 12.82%

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 65 of 70 Q5.11: What do you think of the SSS? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? [Pupils with sensory impairment have made greater progress than they would have done without SSS involvement]

Answer Count % Strongly agree 19 48.72% Agree 18 46.15% Disagree 1 2.56% Strongly disagree 1 2.56% Not applicable 0

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 66 of 70 Q6: How could the SSS improve to better meet your needs?

22 (of 39) respondents gave an answer to this question.

ID Response 10 This is a fantastic service and I have no suggestions about how to make it better. 11 Visit the pupils on a regular basis 23 Couldn't improve the service 26 I am very satisfied with the level of contact and support that we currently receive. 29 We are happy with the support we have received from Marion - her expertise, communication and ability to help us to meet the needs of the child has been excellent. 30 Both the VI and the HI service have been excellent. Short of giving us more time, I'm not sure how else they can improve. 31 More frequent visits - weekly not fortnightly. 35 I can't think of any improvements. They have been a brilliant support. 36 Cover for absent staff has been inconsistent and we would have found suitable cover beneficial. Ensure expertise in all areas of the curriculum. It was difficult to find support for PE. 37 The SSS worker who comes to our school is a strong advocate of the student in question but has not been able to accept and support the limitations of our provision. Essentially, the worker has not met our needs as a school struggling to put immediate high level and costly supports in place. Further to this, the SSS worker has not been able to acknowledge and further support the systems and infrastructures we have laid down as interim measures. This has led to unnecessary tension and even a sense of conflict when changes were not being implemented 'quickly enough'. The SSS worker has been visibly and vocally impatient with individual members of the school staff and has caused anxiety among staff who are genuinely doing their best to improve infrastructures and systems for visually impaired students. The SSS worker has, in effect, alienated themselves from the teams in the school. Unfortunately, there are strong questions around this worker's professionalism. We have done our best to meet the outcomes of sensory reports etc., but we feel this has not been appreciated by the SSS worker and I feel our professional relationship is not a positive one due to the lack of understanding of challenges facing schools in the current climate of change in SEND and limited funding opportunities. We would request that SSS workers have experience working in secondary schools in order to fully appreciate and understand the very real challenges facing us as SENCos and student support teams. Then, they may be able to show patience and understanding and try to meet the needs of the SENCO and student support teams as a crucial element of meeting the needs of students. Ultimately, this experience has called into question our working relationship with the SSS for Visually impaired students as our working relationship with other team(s) within the SSS is really outstanding, with clear understanding and support as a basic element of the professional relationship. 38 No opinions 42 I think they could do with a few more team members to support their work. 45 At present they are meeting the needs of this setting. 49 No improvement needed as the service they provide is accessible, flexible and extremely professional. 50 Nothing in particular, just continue what they are doing now. 53 I cannot think how Nathan or Penny could do any more , they are a fantastic resource for our school. Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 67 of 70 ID Response 56 More early information of school pupils with HI that may want to visit college and greater liaison with school SENCos and SS 58 Not sure, very happy with the service as it is. 59 Our current support and interaction is excellent- at this moment in time no improvement is required. 60 Increased access/time available and direct provision of resources. Advice given on physical adaptations could be better positioned within this team than the local authority. 61 We are very happy with the service we currently receive. 64 Termly meetings to discuss best practice and developments in the support for VI learners. Discuss approaches to meeting Government policy change.

Q7: What difference has the input from the SSS made to your setting?

32 (of 39) respondents gave an answer to this question.

ID Response 10 For the child that they come in to support, they make a significant and ongoing difference. The knowledge, support and guidance that we are given as a school is invaluable. Without their support, I am not sure how well we could cater for the needs of our pupil. I value all of the support that they offer the pupil, our staff and the parents of the child. 14 The staff from the hearing impairment team have been really helpful to two of the pupils in our setting. They have responded to queries, helped with equipment and helped with the pupils' feeling of being understood and listened to. They have given very useful advice that has been shared with staff in order to further support the inclusion of the pupils. 19 The fact that the students and their parents have an advocate independent of school is important. Advice is appreciated. Access to and advice on specialist equipment is appreciated. 20 Reassurance and picked up changes in child's sight for RB. In terms of hearing impairment it has been a monitoring approach. 23 Child has a better chance of reaching full potential 24 Provided specialist support, advice and training for both staff and students. 26 It has allowed us to give advice and strategies to members of staff that has had a positive impact on the students, mostly allowing them to achieve their potential. 28 We have aways received excellent support from SSS. Advice and reports are realistic of what school is able to deliver for these children. Training has been invaluable for our more complex children. Staff and parents have been fully engaged and the pupils have made good progress. 29 They gave us guidance to ensure the smooth transition from pre school setting to school for a pupil and supported us in applying for an EHC plan. They interpreted the complicated medical information from reports from professionals to help to understand and the meet the child's needs and to put effective strategies in place. 30 Improved staff understanding and awareness. Students feel well supported. 31 Invaluable 32 All staff have a clearer understanding of how to support the child in our setting, therefore enabling a greater rate of academic progress to be made. Liaison between parents and school has been very effective and supportive. 33 The staff have gained a greater understanding of the difficulties faced by individual children, specific to their needs. Support with parents has helped with more consistent access to learning in the class. Advice to new teachers (each Year) is invaluable especially as the child progresses through the school and his social needs change. 35 It has meant that our VI child can access the curriculum and make good progress. 36 Raising the level of understanding and knowledge with Faye's staff team Introduced Braille to the school and provided ongoing training Offered support during challenging periods.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 68 of 70 37 The SSS worker has provided practical guidance and insight (teaching differentiation, ICT infrastucture, physical building infrastructure) based on student consultations and assessment of needs, which we have implemented into our personalised planning for the student and our faculty action plans/school action plans. Other than that, the input has been negative and we do not wish to have further one to one professional meetings/feedback with the worker. We are happy to work from the reports submitted, based on student consultations and assessments. It is unfortunate, but I must safeguard my staff from further inappropriate 'probing' and undermining comments. 38 Helped to meet needs of students 41 It has helped provide expertise to the staff who work with the pupil daily and helped pupils to take more responsibility for their independence. 42 They are the most fantastic team. They are very quick to respond to any queries through email and phone calls and are also very helpful. They come into school regularly to see the pupils and parents. They are extremely knowledgeable in their individual fields and this is so helpful when seeking to support parents and ensure classroom practice is the best that it can be to support the pupils. They are always friendly, willing to go above and beyond and supportive of the school and I consider it a real privilege to have such brilliant colleagues to work alongside to support our children with, I see myself as a team with them and that is a wonderful relationship to have with an external agency. 45 A great deal of difference. Their expert knowledge has helped students with a sensory impairment and their advice has helped staff better meet students' needs. They have also supported during Annual reviews and their knowledge of specialist equipment has helped students access the curriculum. 49 Specific advice and expertise given to all staff has led to a greater understanding of the needs of pupils with SI. Staff and pupils feel well supported. Strategies and advice given to staff are practical and hugely beneficial to the progress and success of the pupils with SI. Assessments and reports given to support Annual Reviews are invaluable. Pupils with SI have greater access to the curriculum supported by resources and knowledge from SSS. 50 Staff confidence in supporting these youngsters has increased. 53 They are the advocates for the pupils. Always assessing the pupils ability to access the mainstream school environment and offering effective advice and support to teaching staff. 54 The advice and support given to the class teacher has improved the learning environment and access to the curriculum. 56 Smoother transitions for HI learners considering FE provision 58 It has helped to build up trust between school and home. Deaf awareness training has helped support staff with disability issues. Support with social inclusion has been very successful. Support with transfer to secondary school has also been valuable. 59 Allowed the child to be included. Staff supported and constant support in relation to what the child should be receiving in relation to support and advice. A professional specialist overview which has retained the pupil in mainstream education. 60 The support given has been excellent for both the pupil and the staff, improving outcomes for the pupil. Advice has been invaluable as have links with the family and other professionals. We are extremely reliant on this expertise and greatly value what is offered - if only there was more available. 61 Made staff more confident in how best to support particular pupils. 62 The SSS have enabled staff to work with children who have impairments. The team is a valuable resource, easily contactable and very supportive. 63 Given effective advice to support children, given ideas for resources to support children.

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 69 of 70 64 As mentioned I personally feel there are a number of positive inputs made by the SSS, which include but are not limited to: Providing detailed and accurate data on learners who may be attending Weston College as part of their next learning step. This in-turn has supported the College's efforts in establishing a more objective starting point for support recommendations to meet that learners needs. Sharing best practice, when opportunity arises, has afforded a valuable exchange of information that can be applied back to current practice and support model with a view to improving standards. Assurances in the forms of essential skills being imparted with learners in primary and secondary school settings, which in turn, provides a baseline for progressing these skills to meet higher level learning needs.

-- End of Document --

Review of the Bristol Sensory Support Service RC5 February 2016 Page 70 of 70 Appendix B

Sensory Support Service Strategic and Development Plan: First steps

Background

The NatSIP review of the Sensory Support Service (SSS) made it clear that the service had many operational strengths. In addition, the review was clear that greater clarity and direction was required from the four LAs commissioning the service about the way forward for the service, both on an operational and strategic level.

Following the publication of the review there is agreement between the four LAs of the following principles:

 Subject to agreement from budget holders and directors in each LA, there is commitment to continuing to jointly commission the SSS to deliver support for CYP with Sensory Impairment.  Over the next twelve months a new service specification will be agreed between the four Las to achieve good outcomes for CYP with sensory impairment, provide good value for money in an increasingly challenging budget context, avoid duplication, and ensure each of the LAs is meeting the statutory requirements of the SEND Code of Practice.  Strategic planning needs to ensure there is a sustainable workforce with the necessary skills knowledge and experience to deliver support into the foreseeable future.  The agreement of the Service Specification will need to be based on a robust needs analysis within and across the four LAs.  There will be an increased focus on the role of the SSS in building the capacity of schools and other educational settings in the re-specification.  The four LAs will work closely together at a strategic level to agree the new service specification and to hold the service to account with regards to this specification in the future. There is agreement that in order to achieve this task successfully, there will need to be a separation of the strategic work from the operational oversight of the service.  There will be greater emphasis on embedding the work of the SSS within existing organisational structures in each of the four LAs as well as in a central base.

Next steps

The proposed time line for agreeing the specification for the SSS between the four LAs and the actions to be completed are as follows:

Task By when

Coproduction with parents, children and young people July 2016 regarding service specification

Agreement with Clinical Commissioning Group and Disabled July 2016 Children’s Teams regarding SSS activity and funding streams

Draft specification for SSS agreed by commissioning group and September 2016 shared with service manager

Final service specification agreed October 2016

Operational preparations for new service delivery model November- December 2016

New service model delivery start date January 2017