Invitees

Deborah McMillan, Corporate  Director – Education and Transformation

Cllr Huw David, Cabinet Member Children & Young People

Nicola Echanis, Head of Strategy Commissioning and Partnerships

Michelle Hatcher, Group Manager - Inclusion

The Scrutiny Officer reported that in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17 of the Constitution, three Members of the Committee had requested that the decision made by Cabinet on 28 April 2015 to cease one Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) learning resource centre provision at Pencoed Primary School be Called-In.  The decision had been Called-In on the basis of: 

·              Insufficient information on the effects on standards;

·             Evidence not provided on the change in the profile on children’s     needs;

·             Lack of evaluation of the impact of closure on pupils affected;

·             No evidence of the impact on other schools with MLD provision;

·             Inadequate responses to some of the consultees questions.

The Monitoring Officer informed the Committee of the Call-In process in that the Committee, following it’s examination of the Cabinet decision, has the power to recommend that the decision be re-considered by Cabinet or request that Council review the decision.  He advised that in this case the matter which was the subject of the Call-In is a Cabinet function.

The Corporate Director Education and Transformation reported on a strategic overview of Additional Learning Needs (ALN) and stated that a review of the Learning Resource Centre provision had been undertaken at Pencoed Primary School including the re-structure of the inclusion service, to make it more robust.  She stated that there is a changing profile within schools in that staff are trained in schools to support pupils with moderate learning difficulties. 

The Group Manager Inclusion informed the Committee of the proposal to cease one Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) Learning Resource Centre at Pencoed Primary School.  She stated that the number of pupils attending the resource had declined, with 16 surplus spaces at the school in 2014-15.  The Committee was informed that criteria had been developed in order that the correct pupils received the most appropriate provision for their needs. 

The Committee referred to statements not being carried out by the authority and asked whether the profiling of pupils was being undertaken properly as some pupils’ needs may not be identified which could lead to the number of pupils who require specialist support could increase quickly.  The Corporate Director Education and Transformation informed the Committee that the authority was previously ranked 22^nd out 22 local authorities for statementing pupils but was now ranked first.  She re-assured the Committee that robust procedures are in place to ensure transparency and clarity and that a clear set of criteria had been developed.  Pupils were able to access additional provision without the need for a statement.  Applications are received a year in advance and information is collated from parents and schools on pupils for the LRC to make an assessment and every pupil is offered a place.  The Committee expressed concern at the conflict in evidence provided by Officers to that presented in the consultation report, in that from the consultation with parents and staff it suggested schools were having difficulty in securing visits from the Educational Psychology service which suggested there could be more pupils in need of a diagnosis of MLD.  The Inclusion Service was not aware of a pupil being disadvantaged and not given access to the Educational Psychology service.  The Committee also considered that from the evidence in the consultation from parents and staff which suggested that the MLD criteria had changed and pupils could no longer access the class and its provision.  This conflicted with the response of officers who had stated in the report that the criteria was often reviewed which conflicted with the response by officers that the criteria had not changed.  The Committee was informed by the Officers that the Inclusion Service would be liable to challenge if a pupil was wrongly diagnosed as having MLD. 

The Committee questioned what would happen to the projected savings of £45k from the closure of one MLD Learning Resource Centre at Pencoed Primary School.  The Cabinet Member Children & Young People commented that it was the intention to ring-fence the £45k savings within the service to support pupils with communication disorders in the County Borough who require support from Learning Resource Centres.  He stated that a class for pupils with communication disorders had been opened at Maesteg Comprehensive and that provision was needed in the west of the County Borough and that the savings would be used to meet that need. 

The Committee expressed concern that the consultation process had not been followed correctly in that the School Organisation Statutory Code which sets out the Principles for Consultation.  Concern was also expressed that Estyn had not been consulted on the full Equality Impact Assessment which should be separate to the Child Impact Assessment, in that Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that it be addressed in terms of impact or potential impact.  The Group Manager Inclusion informed the Committee that Estyn had recognised that the correct consultation process had been followed.  The Cabinet Member Children & Young People commented that some responses to the consultation had not been received but that he would confirm whether the ABMU had responded to the consultation process. 

The Committee questioned the Authority’s view on the response from Estyn on the proposal.  The Cabinet Member Children & Young People commented that a decision had not been made to close MLD provision at Pencoed Primary School as yet, but that the public notice had been issued. He recognised that Estyn is an important consultee.  He informed the Committee that he met regularly with the Group Manager Inclusion and confirmed that numbers attending the MLD Learning Resource Centre had fallen.  He stated that all schools were in a better position to meet MLD needs and that pupils needed to be supported at their local primary school, but the Authority was aware that demand for pupils with communication disorders will increase. 

The Committee was disappointed at the lack of a statement from the Chair of Governors on the consultation proposals.  The Group Manager Inclusion informed the Committee that the consultation responses were not a verbatim account of the process meeting that they are a summary of the conversation.  The Cabinet Member Children & Young People informed the Committee that the local Members had been briefed on the public notice proposals and that future need and demand had been considered and that an explanation as to the ring-fencing of the £45k saving had been given. He indicated that comments had been articulated by the Governing Body on the proposals and that the pupils currently in receipt of ALN provision at the school were to go to comprehensive education shortly.  Officers informed the Committee that provision existed for pupils with complex learning difficulties and that numbers of pupils with ALN at Pencoed Primary were falling but a rise had been identified in pupils with other needs.             

The Committee commented that the Estyn report needed to be revisited due to the negative comments made by Estyn.  Concern was also expressed by the Committee at the difficulties parents expressed in accessing the Educational Psychology service for their children in order to diagnose MLD.  The Officers informed the Committee that it’s data over a two year period showed a decline in the numbers of pupils with ALN and MLD but an increase in pupil numbers with complex needs around ASD.         

Conclusions

Following its examination of the decision, the Committee decided to recommend that the decision be re-considered by the Cabinet within 5 working days for reasons outlined below:

1.   Cabinet is asked to revisit the consultation outcome report with particular regard to Estyn’s response to the proposal.  It is recommended that a full investigation into the Estyn response is carried out to ensure that all their queries regarding the proposal are addressed.  Following this, it is also recommended that a further response is received from Estyn prior to a final decision being determined.

2.    Concerns were expressed by the Committee in relation to the Consultation process and the responses provided within the Consultation report.  Members queried whether the Consultation had correctly followed the School Organisation Statutory Code which sets out the Principles for Consultation including a list of those who must be consulted with.  It is therefore recommended that Cabinet ensure that the correct process under the Statutory Code has been followed and provide evidence as such in the Outcome of Consultation Report.  This should incorporate details of all responses, including those who did not respond, as well as key information such as the statement given by the Chair of Governors; in order to ensure that a robust, informed decision can be made.

3.    The Committee also expressed concerns over the Equality Impact Assessment and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  In relation to the former, it was reported that Estyn may not have received the full EIA and thus it is recommended that they are provided with this as part of the Directorate’s response to their queries.  In relation to the latter, Members noted that Article 29, of the UNCRC, which states that the education of the child shall be directed to ‘The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential’, has not been addressed in terms of impact or potential impact, despite its relevance to the decision.  The Committee therefore recommends that the EIA be revisited to ensure all aspects of potential impact are dealt with.

4.   The Committee expressed concern that there appeared to be conflicting evidence from that presented in the consultation outcome report and that provided by Officers in the meeting.  For example, the evidence gathered from the consultation with parents and staff suggests that schools are experiencing difficulties in securing visits from the Educational Psychologist, thus suggesting that there could be more pupils who are in need of a diagnosis of MLD.  Likewise, the responses from parents and staff state that the MLD criteria has changed and therefore pupils can no longer access the class and its provision which Officers responded in the report stating that the criteria are often reviewed  and was revisited a couple of years ago.  However, this conflicted with information during discussions with Officers whereby it was stated that the criteria has not changed. 

The Committee therefore recommend that:

a)    The evidence from the consultation responses be explored further with the view to clarify such points in order to inform the decision of Cabinet and to provide clarification for the school; its staff and parents;

b)    Officers seek to find out whether other schools with Learning Resource Centres are also experiencing issues with securing EP visits in order to confirm whether there are potentially more pupils with MLD than are currently recorded.

5.    The Committee expressed concern over the reported indication of a decline in numbers of pupils in the Resource Centre being based on two years’ data, given that the five years data reported at the meeting showed more of a fluctuation in numbers. The Committee therefore recommend that the five year data be incorporated into the proposal in order to provide a greater understanding of the situation.