ITEM 5

NORTH COUNTY COUNCIL

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S SERVICE

SCHOOLS FORUM

Friday 28th November 2014

Report Summary Cover for Item 5: Funding of Enhanced Mainstream Schools

Summary of Report Contents

This report sets out the current funding for EMS and the recommendation of the post implementation review that this be redistributed across the network of EMS to better meet the local needs.

It explains that this work will be progressed as soon as practicable and that, in the meantime, EMS budgets should be retained at their current levels.

Report prepared by: Andrew Terry, Assistant Director – Access and Inclusion (CYPS), and Judith Walls, Finance Manager – Strategic Resources (CYPS)

This report:

Requires a decision to be made by the Schools Forum √

Seeks the guidance of the Schools Forum

Is a consultation document seeking the views of the Schools Forum

Is for information only: this report will not be presented to the Schools Forum. Members wishing to comment or raise questions on its content should advise the Clerk to the Schools Forum who will, if necessary, arrange for the author to be present at the meeting to respond to the issues raised. Please e-mail comments / questions to the Clerk to the Schools Forum: [email protected]

Please note that all reports are uploaded to the CYPSinfo site after the meeting where they can be viewed by the public. If the information in this report is of a sensitive nature and you DO NOT want it uploading to the CYPSinfo site please indicate with a “X” in the box to the right.

Note to Report Author: insert √ against the description that applies to this report

ITEM 5

NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S SERVICE

SCHOOLS FORUM

Friday 28th November 2014

FUNDING OF ENHANCED MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To consider the funding of Enhanced Mainstream Schools (EMS) in the context of the recommendations in the review of EMS which was completed in the summer term, 2014.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 There are 27 EMS across the county. They were established as an outcome of the 2006 SEN/BESD review. They form an important part of the pattern of specialist provision and support local mainstream schools to meet needs. Details of the locations and needs met by the EMS are as set out at Appendix 1.

3.0 CURRENT FUNDING

3.1 The total budget for EMS in 2014/15 is £3.78M. The individual allocations reflect the agreed staffing requirements for the different types of EMS.

4.0 POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW

4.1 A copy of the Executive Summary from the review is attached at Appendix 2. As regards the funding of EMS, the report recommends a redistribution of resources across the EMS network to better meet needs and demands. The recommendation is for this to be taken forward in the medium term but it is recognised that there is a need to progress this at greater pace.

4.2 The report emphasises that any changes to funding would have to be managed in a phased way to avoid destabilising existing provision.

5.0 NEXT STEPS

5.1 Whilst it has been possible to make relatively minor alterations to the funding of some EMS, with the agreement of head teachers and better to reflect local demand, it is necessary for a timetable to be drawn up to progress the work, alongside the other recommendations in the report. The recent appointment to the post of Head of Inclusive Education will provide the necessary capacity to take this forward, but no changes will be proposed for September 2015. ITEM 5

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 That the recommendations in the post implementation review of EMS be noted and a timetable drawn up to take the necessary work forward.

6.2 That the budget allocations to EMS be retained at current levels until the work on the redistribution of funding is completed.

PETE DWYER Corporate Director - Children & Young People’s Service

Report prepared by Andrew Terry Assistant Director for Access and Inclusion ITEM 5: Appendix 1

EMS FUNDING 2014-15

Autism South - Academy 72,800 High School 107,833 King James School 137,996 Holy Family RC School 85,829 Secondary School 101,884 TOTAL 506,342

Specific Learning Difficulties Upper Wharfedale School 116,217 School 106,919 Richmond School 118,521 Rossett High - Academy 136,728 Barlby High school 113,698 Graham School 133,914 Lady Lumleys School 97,021 TOTAL 823,019

Communication and Interaction Embsay Primary School 127,845 Mill Hill Primary School 153,823 Hookstone Chase Primary School 137,156 Thorpe Willoughby CP School 151,549 Alverton Primary School 80,738 Kirbymoorside CP School 153,210 TOTAL 804,322

Behaviour, Emotional and Social Difficulties Greatwood CP School 187,022 Primary 156,142 Bedale CE Primary School 181,356 Grove Road CP School 185,061 Starbeck CP School 182,376 Barwic Parade CP School 192,217 Barrowcliffe Nursery, Inf & Jun Sch 189,089 Braeburn 151,461 (Working out of Barrowcliff) 49,786 Malton CP School 174,157 TOTAL 1,648,665

3,782,348

ITEM 5: Appendix 2

NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW OF ENHANCED MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 A strategic review was completed in 2006 of the Council’s provision for Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Behaviour, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD). As a result of the recommendations from the review, the Local Authority (LA) opened 25 Enhanced Mainstream Schools (EMS) over a phased period for children and young people with a range of special educational needs (Specific Learning Difficulties, Autism, Communication and Interaction and Behaviour, Emotional, Social Difficulties). The aim was to enable high levels of specialist support to be accessible locally through EMS and provide opportunities for children and young people with high need SEN to be educated with, and alongside, their mainstream peers. At the same time, the LA decommissioned the centrally managed Learning Support and Behaviour Support Services.

1.1 EMS were designed to be part of networks of specialist support and outreach, which in turn would be part of a continuum of provision for children and young people with SEN and BESD. It was also envisaged that they would become integrated with other early intervention and preventative services available within each locality. In this wider context, EMS were there to provide specialist support and resources for those pupils with high need, and also to support targeted, whole school universal and preventative work.

1.2 The establishment of EMS was a forward looking and innovative approach to delivering provision in a large rural area, supported by significant capital and revenue investment. The approach would develop locally based specialist resource led and managed by schools, and facilitate groups of schools working together in localities through a model of school to school support to meet the needs of children with high need SEN and BESD.

1.3 In October 2013, the Council commissioned a post implementation review of the operation of EMS. The aims of the review were to assess the extent to which EMS are achieving their intended aims and objectives and make recommendations which will embed best practice and improve performance and efficiency.

2.0 Key Findings

2.1 EMS are providing good specialist support to enable more children and young people with high need SEN to remain in mainstream education and provide choice for parents. To a large degree they are achieving the aims and objectives which were originally set out for them. An analysis of key ITEM 5: Appendix 2

performance data collected across EMS indicates that at the end of 2013, over 1000 children and young people were being supported across the EMS network. EMS provision is contributing to the aim that more children and young people with complex needs are supported closer to home.

2.2 There is evidence that many individual EMS are working very effectively to meet the needs of individual children and young people with high needs and there are examples of good outcomes for individual children and young people and effective practice. However, there is still more progress to be made to maximise the effectiveness of the EMS network and improve consistency of performance and delivery across the network. The lack of robust key performance indicator data means it is difficult to draw a definitive view about the impact of EMS and the network as a whole.

2.3 Overall feedback from schools, parents and families has indicated broad support for the concept of EMS, whilst acknowledging that there remains a lack of clarity amongst some key stakeholders of the core role and purpose. One of the most significant issues in embedding a collective understanding of the role of EMS has been the variations across the four types of EMS (i.e. the four specialist areas of need). The original design and set up for each type of EMS was different, and subsequently each network has developed different approaches and practice. This has diluted the original core purpose, led to a lack of clarity about what support EMS provide and how it can be accessed, and the perception that EMS support is not consistent across North Yorkshire.

2.4 The different numbers of EMS by type, and therefore the variable geographical spread and coverage of EMS across the specialisms, makes the concept of an integrated network of EMS operating together in localities more challenging. Whilst there are examples of good joint working across EMS in localities, the reality of an integrated network of EMS working together and offering a coordinated and consistent service across specialisms is not fully established, which means that the needs of some children and young people are not being identified and met as effectively as they could be.

2.5 Over the period, EMS have developed and are becoming embedded as part of the range of specialist support services within the continuum of provision for SEN and BESD. Equally this integration as part of a wider network of specialist support to schools, children and families is not established consistently across the area and there remains a lack of clarity about the unique role of EMS within the network.

2.6 There are examples of where EMS have established good local working with a range of agencies and are contributing to the wider network of local provision for all children. However, again, the concept of a local network of ITEM 5: Appendix 2

provision does not appear to be fully developed nor is there a clear understanding across stakeholders of what is available and how the various services fit together.

2.7 Since they were established, EMS have successfully met the needs of a wide range of children and young people with high needs. However, it is apparent that there has been an increase in the complexity of needs of some children and young people. There is also evidence that some needs are not currently being met and there are gaps in provision in some localities.

2.8 There are a small number of children with complex/multi needs, predominantly at primary level, who do not appear to fit with the EMS model as originally set up; EMS have been supporting a number of these children on a full time basis. This has, inevitably, tied up significant levels of resource and, in a number of cases, distracted EMS from their core purpose of supporting children in their home school.

2.9 The capacity of mainstream schools and the provision they are able to offer also has an influence on the work of the EMS. Whilst some mainstream schools are working effectively in meeting universal needs, this is not consistently the case. Some schools are more inclusive than others or better able to manage without additional support. This can mean EMS undertaking a larger proportion of work at the universal level and therefore limiting their ability to focus support on those children and young people with defined high needs. Different approaches and thresholds adopted by schools, particularly around behaviour, have a significant impact on the resources and capacity of EMS.

2.10 The EMS network was funded initially on the basis of allocating a similar level of funding, resources and staffing across each EMS by type. The overall funding model has remained the same, although there have been some changes at individual EMS level to reflect school needs. The funding model is now in need of urgent review given differences in the size of area covered, the nature of the cohorts of children and young people, and the needs served by the respective EMS. Similarly, there is limited flexibility in how EMS are able to adjust structures and roles and use funding and resources to fit local demographics, circumstances and needs.

2.11 There is strong and committed leadership and management of many EMS and this commitment is a key component of successful and effective EMS. Equally, there is strong and committed leadership of EMS specialist networks in the LA. Whilst there is recognition that both EMS and the LA have key roles to play, sometimes the respective responsibilities for leadership and management are not clear and distinct. ITEM 5: Appendix 2

2.12 Under current arrangements there is no designated officer within the LA with lead responsibility for the whole EMS network and responsibility is split between two different service areas. Whilst there is evidence of joint working across teams, inevitably this has led to different approaches to the development of the networks in the respective specialisms. This in turn has been a contributory factor in the development of diverse models and practice across the EMS network as a whole and also a barrier to the evolution of a more integrated network.

3.0 Headline Recommendations

3.1 The following recommendations set an expectation and ambition to further improve and enhance EMS provision over the short and medium term, building on the foundations already in place and maximising on the investment made.

3.2 The vision is for a mature, collaborative and integrated network of EMS delivering high quality support for children with high needs. Individual EMS should become whole school ‘centres of excellence’ sharing specialist skills and knowledge with schools in their locality and working in partnership as part of a coordinated and cohesive EMS network. There should be a ‘no wrong door’ approach to accessing support in EMS.

3.3 The core purpose of EMS should be confirmed as specialist support and capacity building in mainstream schools to enable them to better support children and young people with a wide range of high needs in their home school; and ensuring individual children and young people with defined high needs access appropriate support. For the model to work effectively, the focus for EMS support would include early intervention and preventative work. A major communications exercise will be needed to re-launch EMS to key stakeholders including schools, parents and families, partner services and agencies and LA staff to ensure collective understanding of the role of EMS.

3.4 At the same time, it will be important clarify expectations of mainstream schools in meeting universal needs and supporting children with high needs, including how they use the resources they have available. This will need to reflect the ‘Local Offer’.

3.5 EMS should be clearly linked and integrated as part of the network of specialist support services within the continuum of SEN and BESD provision and their role clarified alongside other specialist support services. It will also be important to establish EMS’ role as part of the local pattern of preventative services and network of support to schools and families, as well as their ITEM 5: Appendix 2

contribution to delivering major strategies (e.g. Behaviour Strategy, Preventative Service Strategy and Mental Health and Emotional Well Being Strategy). There should be greater clarity about how all services interface at the local level so that schools and families are able to easily identify and access the support available. There are also opportunities for joint location of services with EMS to maximise the capital investment made in EMS.

3.6 In the short term (1-2 years) the network should be developed as follows:

 Maintain the broad structure of the EMS network including the four current specialisms, but with some changes to the scope and brief of each individual specialist EMS to enable flexibility to address changing needs and gaps in provision  Maintain the current pattern of geographical coverage of individual EMS in the short term, to ensure schools have clarity and continuity of EMS support  Revise the models of delivery within each specialism to reflect the core purpose of EMS and to support greater consistency of operational delivery across the network and across localities  Pilot models of cross specialism/cross phase provision to meet particular specialist needs and/or to meet the needs of particular localities and to support the concept of an integrated network of EMS  Pilot EMS ‘partner schools’ or satellite centres’ to meet gaps in provision in particular localities, to further build capacity in schools and as a means of enhancing the specialist network  Develop model(s) for a small group of children at primary level with complex/multi needs who need more intensive, holistic, long term support across education, health and social care and set in the context of their family environment. To be focused in cross agency, multi specialism hubs in areas of greatest need with links and access to other provisions including special schools  Develop a new set of key performance indicators based on the revised model of provision and key outcomes at individual child and school level, to include value for money and impact measures

In the medium term (3-5 years) develop the network as follows:  Develop approaches which facilitate the move to greater oversight of a network of local high needs provision by groups of schools, and within that, commissioning of EMS on a locality basis in line with the vision and moral purpose set out in school led ‘Commissioning Group’ proposals  Establish bespoke models to meet the needs of particular localities which may include joint location for specialisms/EMS, hubs and satellite centres ITEM 5: Appendix 2

3.7 There should be a redistribution of resources across the network to better meet needs and demands in particular localities and to support the development of the network. Funding should be recalibrated both within specialisms and across the network to reflect areas served by each EMS, cohorts and needs, prevalence and priorities. This should be a phased approach to avoid destabilising provision. In parallel, there is opportunity to introduce greater flexibility for EMS to deploy funding and resources to meet local needs, including through alternative staffing structures.

3.8 The respective leadership and management roles of the LA and EMS Heads should be clarified to differentiate the LA commissioning role from the role of EMS to lead and manage the delivery of provision.

3.9 The LA should bring together within the LA the leadership and management of Behaviour with other specialist support services for SEN. The LA should also identify a lead officer with senior management responsibility for commissioning across all EMS provision and establish a clear framework within the LA for joint working across EMS specialisms, to ensure consistency of approach and consistency of communications across the EMS network.