London Borough of Bromley Report No Title PART I

London Borough of Bromley Report No. DE05149 Title: PART I - PUBLIC Agenda Item No. XX SEN STRATEGIC PLANNING PHASE 2: PROPOSALS FOR RECONFIGURING SPECIAL SCHOOLS IN BROMLEY: OUTCOMES OF CONSULTATION Executive Non-Urgent Within policy and budget Director of Education and Libraries Gillian Pearson, Assistant Director of Education and Libraries (Pupil and Student Services) Tel: 020 8313 4146 E-mail: gillian.pearson@bromley.gov.uk David Pearson, Head of Special Educational Needs Tel: 020 8313 7633 E-mail: david.pearson@bromley.gov.uk Rob Carling, Head of Education and Libraries Finance Tel: 020 8313 4807 E-mail: rob.carling@bromley.gov.uk Executive Decision Date: 10 October 2005 Key Decision Maker: Decision Type: Budget/Policy Framework: Chief Officer: Contact Officer: Ward: Boroughwide 1. 1.1 SUMMARY The Council has adopted a three-phased approach to reviewing and reconfiguring aspects of special educational provision in Bromley: · · · Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 (2003-05) (2004-06) (2005-06) Special Opportunity/Infant Units Special Schools Specific Learning Difficulties (SpeLD) Hearing Impairment (HI) Speech/Language Difficulties (SpaLD) 1.2 At the meeting of 16 May 2005 the Executive gave approval to the Director of Education and Libraries to consult on Phase 2 proposals to reconfigure special school provision in the Borough. 1 1.3 This report details the outcomes of that consultation, together with conclusions and recommendations. These were considered by the Executive Working Party (SEN) on 12 September 2005. Members of the Working Party support the recommendations in this report (with the exception of Councillors John Getgood and Denise Payton who recorded their dissent with recommendation 2:3.). The Working Party also agreed that a further recommendation (2:4) regarding the alternative use of Woodbrook accommodation/site be added for consideration. RECOMMENDATIONS Members are asked to: 1.4 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 consider and comment on the outcomes from the consultation on Phase 2 proposals; consider and comment on the Director’s comments in response to the key issues raised and his conclusions in response to the outcomes from consultation; approve, in principle, the proposed amalgamation of Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock Schools on the Rectory Paddock site to create a new school, subject to a further report to the Executive detailing completed design plans and costings; authorise officers to investigate possible alternative educational or Council uses for the Woodbrook site and accommodation and report back at a later date; approve, in principle, the proposals to: · · 2.4 2.5 improve the access and overall suitability of the Glebe School building; develop places and enhanced facilities for students with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (including post-16) and severe/complex learning difficulties at the School subject to a further report to the Executive with completed plans and detailed costings; 2.6 approve that Marjorie McClure School be sustained as an all age special school and to extend its remit to support more pupils with severe and/or complex learning difficulties within its pupil roll but to keep under review the age-profile of the pupil roll in respect of primary-aged children; approve the proposal that 16-19 provision be managed as part of an overall consortium across the special schools within the framework of the Bromley 14-19 Partnership; note and agree the revised timetable attached at Appendix 8. COMMENTARY Background and Purpose of the Phase 2 Proposals 2.7 2.8 3. 3.1 3.2 The background and purpose of the Phase 2 proposals are attached at Appendix 1 for information. Consultation: Process Details of the Consultation process are attached at Appendix 2 for information. 2 3.3 Consultation: Responses · · · 242 people responded in writing. A total of 224 people attended one or more of the public meetings. A petition signed by 2,312 people against the proposal to close Woodbrook School was received. A detailed analysis of the consultation responses is attached at Appendix 3. 3.4 Key issues and Director’s Responses. The Consultation exercise has raised a number of key issues which are detailed at Appendix 4 together with the Director’s response. 4. 4.1 POLICY IMPLICATIONS These proposals have been developed in accordance with the Authority’s agreed SEN Policy/Strategy – “Learning Together” and represent activities that support objectives eight and nine of that Plan: Objective 8 To review and develop specialist provision to meet the more diverse and complex needs of Bromley children and young people without recourse to the use of out-of-borough placements. To improve the use of monitoring and financial information to secure more effective use of resources and planning of provision more closely matched to the changing needs of children and young people with SEN. Objective 9 - 5. 5.1 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Capital 5.1.1 As previously reported, preliminary estimates of the capital costs associated with the consultation model for the review of special schools identify an estimated cost of the amalgamated school being established on the Rectory Paddock site of £3.9m. There would be additional capital costs of necessary improvements at Glebe of £0.7m. The total estimated cost is £4.6m. This represents a saving of £0.3m on the original proposals, as a result of dropping the proposal for a resourced primary school and sustaining Marjorie McClure as an all-age special school. These figures are still desktop estimates based on floor area calculations and preliminary site visits only. Subject to Members agreeing the recommendations in this report, it will be necessary for a feasibility study to be commissioned from external architectural consultants so that an actual scheme can be drawn up that can be fully costed. 5.1.2 There are a variety of options to be explored to determine the most appropriate source of funding: use of capital grants, capital receipts or borrowing. In the long term, there remain significant funding problems with the Education capital programme, particularly as a result of decisions by the DfES to convert £3m per annum of capital grant into borrowing approval without necessarily guaranteeing the revenue stream to support this. The appropriate funding method for this initiative cannot be determined until the wider picture is resolved. However, should no other option become available then the fall back option described below could be used. 3 · The capital funding available is a potential capital receipt from the sale of the Woodbrook site estimated to be £1.4m and the balance of the invest to save funding in the capital programme - £0.5m (the capital programme contains £1.050m for the review of special schools and units of which approximately half is earmarked for the building works associated with the review of the units attached to mainstream schools). Since the last report to Members on this issue, the Government has made available an additional £8.569m of Capital Modernisation Grant to be paid through Standards Fund. £0.7m of this funding has been identified to fund the improvements at the Glebe. The remaining capital cost is therefore estimated to be in the region of £2.0m (previously £3m). The proposal is to make this remaining cost self-financing through borrowing and with the capital repayments and interest payable from the Dedicated Schools Budget (DSB). Should an alternative use for the Woodbrook site be found (see para. 2.1 (iii)), then the amount to be borrowed may have to be increased by up to £1.4m. The first meeting of the Member Working Group looking into Capital Programme/ Asset Management issues was held on 31 August, primarily to agree terms of reference. The issues of borrowing, charging the costs of borrowing to the Schools’ Budget, and the Council’s debt free status will be presented to this Member Group later in the Autumn Term then reported to the Executive as part of the 2006/07 budget setting process. · · · 5.2 Revenue 5.2.1 Based on current demand data, if the special schools were to be reconfigured as proposed in this report there would be estimated savings to the schools’ budget (from the 2005/06 budget) in the out-of-borough placement budget of £2m at the end of a five-year period. This more than satisfies the regulations governing charging the cost of prudential borrowing to the schools budget. 5.2.2 As in previous years, the Government will regulate the increase in the Central Schools’ Budget in 2006/07 and beyond in that it (the Central Schools’ Budget) must not increase at a faster rate than the funding delegated to schools. Current consultation papers detail additional powers to the Schools’ Forum to allow the forum to waive this regulation. However, it remains prudent to take every opportunity to alleviate the pressure on the out-of-borough placement budget. 5.2.3 If no reconfiguration takes place then pressure would continue on the out-of-borough placements budget and substantial growth would be needed in 2006/07 and beyond. 5.2.4 Although the demand data will need constantly updating as children enter pre-school services and then on to SEN services, the revenue financial implications are: · · If no reconfiguration takes place, an increase in costs of £2.0m above the current budget. If reconfiguration does take place, a reduction in costs of £2.0m below the current budget (see also para 5.2.8 regarding possible increased Council costs associated with respite care). 4 All these costings are based on the ‘end state’ of reconfiguration and will need recalculating once a more detailed timetable for change is in place. 5.2.5 It should be stressed that any efficiency savings in the out-of-borough placements budget will remain within the schools’ budget and invested in other services either in the delegated funding to schools or in centrally based Pupil Support Services. 5.2.6 Preliminary figures would suggest that as a result of the amalgamation of Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock Schools, the direct costs of running the special schools could reduce by £300,000 at the end of the reconfiguration exercise. 5.2.7 The Council’s medium term plan includes SEN savings of £650,000 above the 2005/06 budget by the end of 2007/08 (a two year period). This will need to be found from a combination of a reduction in the direct running costs of the special schools and the reduced use of out-of-borough placements. From the figures above this level of saving could be achieved but the timing would need to be reviewed once a detailed timetable for any reconfiguration is developed. 5.2.8 An intended outcome of the reconfiguration proposals is to reduce over time the numbers of children and young people placed out-of-borough. This may result in additional social care and respite costs to support parents and their children. Work is in hand to develop estimates of these likely costs. The Director of Education and Libraries is exploring the possibility of using any savings arising from the reconfiguration (see para 5.2.1) to fund any additional Council costs of respite care (within the proposed regulations governing the Schools’ Budget). This will be reported to Members as part of the 2006/07 budget setting process. 5.3 Consultation Costs 5.3.1 The estimated cost arising from this consultation exercise is £10,000. The main items of expenditure are as follows: · · · Transport costs, hire of venue. Design, printing and distribution of leaflet. Translation costs – to translate the consultation leaflet and questionnaire into four different languages. Overtime costs of support staff who were involved in the organisation of the public meetings and analysed the responses. Consulting young people via Bromley Youth Council. · · 6. 6.1 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Education Act 1996 (Part IV) places a general duty on Local Education Authorities to identify those children in the area with learning difficulties where it is necessary to determine the special educational provision called for by those difficulties (Education Act 1996 para 321). The same Act also requires all Local Education Authorities to keep under review the particular arrangements they make for special educational provision (Education Act 1996 – para 315). 5 6.2 6.3 7. 7.1 The proposals outlined in the report ensure that the LEA is fully able to discharge its statutory duty in accordance with the paragraphs detailed above. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS In the event of amalgamation of Rectory Paddock and Woodbrook, there will be personnel implications for staff currently employed in the two schools arising from the statutory processes. There may also be some cost implications. This will be the subject of a separate report if this option is pursued. It will be important to ensure that sufficient consultation is arranged with staff of the two schools. This is reflected in the provisional timetable attached to this report. CONCLUSIONS In light of the key issues raised through consultation, the Director of Education and Libraries has concluded that: · 7.2 8. 8.1 Woodbrook/Rectory Paddock Significant concerns have been raised regarding specific aspects of the proposal for amalgamation of Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock Schools on the Rectory Paddock site. However, on balance there remains a strong educational and business case in favour of amalgamating the two schools to create a new flagship special school. This will require significant capital investment to extend the existing accommodation and facilities as part of the overall development. The LEA must address the widely acknowledged issue of accommodation constraints and deficiencies at Woodbrook School in a way that ensures children have equitable access to a high quality learning environment and specialist facilities. The proposal to amalgamate the two schools was developed in partnership with Special School Head Teachers and remains a recommended option which focuses on the needs of children. · Glebe School Good support for Glebe School proposals is evident in the consultation outcomes. There are attendant queries over whether the £0.7m identified is sufficient to achieve the stated outcomes. It is imperative that the proposed building improvements and related plans proceed in order to ensure that pupils’ needs are met appropriately. The £0.7m will be reassessed through the process of developing completed design plans and more detailed costings for subsequent reporting to Members. The proposals relating to Glebe School should also be progressed in consultation with the South London Learning and Skills Council and Bromley 14-19 Collaborative, in respect of the Post-16 developments. · Marjorie McClure School Significant concerns have been raised through consultation over the proposals for Marjorie McClure to move from an all-age school to become a school for secondary-aged students. The Director of Education and Libraries concludes that the school should continue to be maintained as an all-age special school but that the numbers of KS1/2 children on roll be kept under review in terms of future viability and efficient use of resources. 6 Support is evident within the consultation responses for Marjorie McClure to be formally designated as supporting a proportion of pupils with severe and/or complex learning difficulties in addition to physical and medical needs. Such diversification is already evident within the existing cohort of pupils on roll. The proposal for Marjorie McClure to extend its remit to support more pupils with severe and/or complex learning difficulties within its pupil roll should be approved and implemented. · Primary Resourced Mainstream School The recommendation to retain Primary places for children with Physical Difficulties (PD) at Marjorie McClure School coupled with the trend for some parents of children with PD to seek places in their local mainstream school, suggests that the notion of a Primary Resourced Mainstream School for approximately 15 PD children no longer seems appropriate or tenable. Views on this issue expressed through consultation were mixed. It is, therefore, concluded that no further action or planning be taken with regard to a Primary Resourced Mainstream School for children with Physical Difficulties · 16-19 Special School Consortium There is clear evidence of support for this proposal in the consultation responses. It is, therefore, concluded that this proposal be further developed in discussion with Special School Head Teachers, the South London Learning and Skills Council and Bromley 14-19 Collaborative. Non-Applicable Sections: Background Documents: (Access via Contact Officer) N/A (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) “Learning Together” – Policy and Strategy for SEN in Bromley Committee Report : 08.03.04 – Executive Meeting (ref DE04051) Committee Report : 26.07.04 – Executive Meeting (ref DE04125) Public Consultation responses Papers for Member/Officer Working Party (SEN) – 01.12.04 Committee Report 10.01.05 – Executive Meeting Papers for Member/Officer Working Party (SEN) – 23.03.05 Papers for Member/Officer Working Party (SEN) – 04.05.05 Committee Report 16.05.05 – Executive Meeting Consultation Leaflet and Covering letter to Key Stakeholders. News Release and ‘Borough Briefing’ article and poster advertising availability of Consultation leaflet. Public Notice advertising the schedule of consultation meetings. Records from all of the Consultation meetings. Presentation slides shown at the Consultation meetings. Consultation Responses. 7 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Background and Purpose of Phase 2 proposals Appendix 2 Consultation: Process Appendix 3 Consultation: Responses Appendix 4 Key Issues Raised and Director’s Response Appendix 5 Distribution of Consultation Leaflet Appendix 6 Consultation Leaflet Appendix 7 SEN Strategic Planning 2004-2006 – Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley – Phase 2 Proposals for Special Schools Appendix 8 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley – Phase 2 : Special Schools – Provisional Timetable APPENDIX 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF PHASE 2 PROPOSALS During 2004 the LEA undertook a review of Special School provision as Phase 2 of the Council’s phased approach to reconfiguring specialist provision in Bromley. The review identified some key issues that require addressing. The Issues that need to be Addressed 1. Changing Nature of Pupils’ Needs in Special Schools The LEA keeps under review the number of pre-school children and children in our Special Schools with SEN and the nature of their individual difficulties. What we have identified is that: · a higher number of pre-school children identified through Phoenix and Pre-School SEN Services with more severe/profound needs are likely to require Special School places in the future; an increasing number of children are being identified and diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD); an increasing proportion of children attending Glebe School (for pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties) have more Severe/Complex needs; the proportion of primary aged children at Marjorie McClure School is reducing, as families prefer to seek places in local mainstream schools; our Special Units in Primary Schools are increasingly supporting children with more Severe/Complex needs, which is having an effect on the number of primary aged pupils in our Special Schools. · · · · 2. Accommodation Constraints at Woodbrook School Woodbrook School occupies a compact site in the Beckenham area. The site does not offer any scope for further expansion or development. The building was erected in the sixties by the Health Authority as a Junior Day Training Centre. While the quality of education provided at Woodbrook has been judged by OfSTED to be very good, the last two successive inspections have highlighted concerns about the constraints arising from the overall accommodation, the layout of the building and overall site capacity. 3. Provision for Secondary Aged Students with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) A significant number of children with Autism transfer to schools outside the Borough as they reach secondary age due to a lack of appropriate local provision. While there are up to ten places for Autistic students at Langley Park School for Boys and some places in our Special Schools, there are not enough to meet existing and anticipated future demand. 1 4. Access and Suitability of Accommodation at Glebe School Glebe School provides for secondary aged students with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) in a school situated in West Wickham. The building was originally designed as a mainstream Secondary School and requires some refurbishment and upgrading to improve access and suitability for children with SEN including Autistic Spectrum Disorder. 5. High Reliance on Out-of-Borough Provision Compared with similar authorities, Bromley currently places a higher proportion of children in Special Schools outside the Borough. It is clearly in the best interests of families and children for them to be able to go to school locally. In reviewing Special School provision and consulting on these proposals, the LEA is looking to develop and enhance local opportunities for children to attend schools in Bromley and reduce over time the need to seek placements outside of the Borough. The Proposals that were consulted upon are: · · · · · Amalgamate Rectory Paddock and Woodbrook Schools on the Rectory Paddock site, to create a new school. Invest money to extend the existing accommodation and facilities at the Rectory Paddock site, as part of developing the new school. Provide investment at Glebe School, to improve the access and overall suitability of the building. Glebe School to develop places and enhanced facilities for students with ASD (including post-16) and severe/complex learning difficulties. Marjorie McClure School to become a school for secondary aged students and to extend its remit to support more pupils with severe and/or complex learning difficulties. Consider developing a Primary Resourced Mainstream School for approximately 15 children with Physical Difficulties. 16/19 provision to be managed as part of an overall consortium approach across the three schools. · · Note: The proposed changes do not affect Burwood Special School. 2 APPENDIX 2 CONSULTATION PROCESS The Consultation period ran from 7 June (the date the Consultation leaflet was issued) to 22 July (the closing date for consultation responses). The Consultation leaflet (‘Learning Together – Proposals for Reconfiguring Special Schools in Bromley’) was sent to key stakeholders and its availability was widely promoted. A programme of 12 meetings across the Borough has facilitated extensive and informative consultation. The meetings were fully recorded and the records published on the Council’s website. Information about the Consultation was published on the website and this was updated during the course of the Consultation period. This included a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section. All of the Consultation returns and the records from the public meetings have been made available to Council Members to view in the Members’ Room and these are also available for public scrutiny. 1. 1.1 Process Consultation leaflet Distribution The Council’s Consultation leaflet was issued to Key Stakeholders on 7 June. The list of stakeholders is detailed at Appendix 5 and a copy of the leaflet is attached at Appendix 6. The leaflet invited recipients to respond to the Consultation in a number of ways: · · · · · · · Completing the Questionnaire enclosed with the leaflet (Freepost return) Letter (Freepost return) E-mail (via a dedicated e-mail address) A Feedback Form on the Council’s website Fax Telephone Making their views known at public meetings Availability Availability of the leaflet was publicised through: · · · · · The local press The Council’s website (including the use of a ‘banner’ headline on the Home Page which draws attention to the item) Bulletin Board (the Education and Libraries internal electronic news service on the Schools’ Intranet) Posters Mention at meetings and other forums 1 Copies of the leaflet could be requested by phoning the Council’s Customer Services Centre (this telephone number was well publicised). Copies of the leaflet could be picked up from: · · · · Council Offices Central and Branch Libraries Schools Consultation Meetings An electronic version of the leaflet could be viewed on the Council’s website, with the facility to respond electronically. 1.2 Recording and logging systems Views and comments received through all communication avenues have been systematically registered and a full record taken of questions and comments made at the public meetings. In this way, full account has been taken of the views and comments arising from consultation. 1.3 Meetings Public Meetings Meetings were targeted as follows: (i) (ii) Meetings for special school parents held at Woodbrook, Rectory Paddock, Glebe and Marjorie McClure. Meetings for all other stakeholders held at Royston Primary, Bromley Civic Centre, St Paul’s Cray CE Primary, Warren Road Primary and the EDC. Significant planning went into the organisation of the meetings and into the delivery of the Officer presentation at meetings. Factors taken into account include the following: · Venues for the ‘open’ meetings (ie all stakeholders) were selected for size (some of the meetings could have attracted large audiences) and location to ensure that all areas of the Borough were covered. Provision of microphones, hearing loops and stewards at majority of venues. Preparation of high quality PowerPoint presentation (copy attached at Appendix 7). Independent chairing of each meeting, where possible. A careful balance was planned in the programme for the meetings to facilitate the provision of information and the opportunity to receive public comments and views and to respond to questions and provide clarification. · · Same Core Officer Team presented at each of the meetings to ensure consistency of approach. The meetings were fully and systematically recorded. · · · · The LEA has received a number of positive comments from different stakeholders and Councillors regarding the high quality and professionalism of the presentations. 2 Details of Public Meetings Date Mon 13/6/05 Tues 14/6/05 Wed 15/6/05 Thurs 16/6/05 Mon 20/6/05 Tues 21/6/05 Tues 21/6/05 Wed 22/6/05 Thurs 23/6/05 Mon 27/6/05 Wed 29/6/05 Venue Woodbrook School Royston Primary School Woodbrook School Rectory Paddock School Rectory Paddock School Council Chamber, Civic Centre Glebe School St Paul’s Cray CE Primary School Marjorie McClure School Warren Road Primary School Bromley Education Development Centre Target Group Parents of Woodbrook School Public meeting – open to all Stakeholders Woodbrook parents Rectory Paddock parents Rectory Paddock parents Public meeting – open to all stakeholders Glebe parents Public meeting – open to all stakeholders Marjorie McClure parents Public meeting – open to all stakeholders Public meeting – open to all stakeholders Duration 1:50 hrs (7.00 pm – 8.50 pm) 1:10 hrs (7.00 pm – 8.10 pm) 1:45 hrs (1.45 pm – 3.10 pm) 1:30 hrs (7.10 pm – 8.40 pm) 1:10 hrs (1:50 – 3:00 pm) 1:40 hrs (2.00 pm – 3.40 pm) 1:35 hrs (7.00 pm – 8.35 pm) 1:15 hrs (7.00 pm – 8.15 pm) 1:40 hrs (7 pm – 8.40 pm) 1:30 hrs (7.00 pm – 8.30 pm) 1:40 hrs (7.00 pm – 8.40 pm) Attendance 31 8 14 29 6 24 28 1 23 9 39 212 Staff Meetings Meetings with the staff of affected schools were held on: 9 May 9 May 13 June 21 June 19 July Rectory Paddock Woodbrook Glebe Marjorie McClure Woodbrook – additional meeting The key issues raised at these staff meetings are reflected in the detailed points recorded at Appendix 4. 3 Partner Agency Meetings Where possible the proposals have been discussed with Partner agencies at regular forum meetings so their views can be canvassed and reported. The following are examples of such meetings: · · · · · · · · Disability Strategy Group Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) Strategy Group Joint Teachers’ Liaison Committee (JTLC) Primary and Special Head Teachers Primary and Special School Cluster Group Chairs Children and Young People Strategic Partnership Bromley MENCAP and Bromley Autistic Trust (BAT) South London Learning and Skills Council – scheduled for 15 September Meetings with Young People Special Schools’ Pupils The Head Teachers of Woodbrook, Rectory Paddock, Glebe and Marjorie McClure made arrangements to consult their pupils through meetings with pupil representatives on School Councils. Bromley Youth Council David Pearson, Head of Special Educational Needs, and Kevin Gerred, Planning and Communication Officer, attended a consultation meeting with members of the Bromley Youth Council on 21 July at the EDC. 1.4 Keeping Consultees Updated and Informed 1.4.1 Local Press Local press interest has been generated by this consultation. Reporters from three main local newspapers attended a briefing session convened by the Director of Education and Libraries on 12 May 2005. 1.4.2 Council's Website Information about the consultation was published on the website and this was updated during the course of the consultation period. This included a "Frequently Asked Questions" section. 4 APPENDIX 3 CONSULTATION RESPONSES 1. Quantitative Analysis Approximately 2,700 consultation leaflets were distributed directly to parents/carers of pupils in special schools, additionally resourced primary units, out-borough and preschool provision; staff in special schools and additionally resourced primary units; individuals and agencies on the Education and Libraries consultation database (this includes Council Members, Chairs of Governors, Head Teachers, partner agencies, etc see Appendix 5 for full list). Leaflets were made available for other stakeholders to pick up from the following outlets: · · · · Council Offices Libraries Schools Consultation Meetings Copies could be requested by telephoning the Customer Services Centre (the telephone number has been well advertised) and an electronic copy of the leaflet was available to view on the Council's website. A Questionnaire was enclosed with the leaflet for completion and return (see Appendix 6). Quantification of all responses to the Consultation is as follows: Type of Response Questionnaire Returns Letters Electronic Mail Fax Total Number 184 43 14 1 242 In addition to the above: (i) 212 people attended 11 Consultation meetings and detailed records were made of their comments (this information has been analysed as part of the process of identifying outcomes from Consultation) and (ii) a petition signed by 2,312 people was received against the closure of Woodbrook School. A response rate of 9% is deduced by using the 2,700 figure for the number of leaflets distributed directly to stakeholders, and 242 as the figure for the number of written responses received from stakeholders. 422 leaflets were distributed to families of special school pupils at Woodbrook, Rectory Paddock, Glebe and Marjorie McClure. Sixty-four parents responded in writing (56 questionnaire returns, 6 letters and 2 emails) which represents a 15% response rate. Note: Consultation responses from four Woodbrook School families for whom English is not their first language are awaited. The consultation leaflet has been translated into the first language of these families: Punjabi, Bengali, Somali and Russian. It has been necessary to extend the response deadline for these families to enable them the opportunity to respond to this consultation. 1 2. Analysis of Questionnaire Returns A total of 184 Questionnaires were returned. The findings following analysis are: Summary of Overall Findings · · Approximately a quarter, responded 'Not Sure' to the proposals. There was space at the end of the questionnaire for respondents to make comments on the proposals - respondents were invited to continue on a separate sheet if necessary. Respondents who agreed with proposals tended not to support their reasons further by making additional comments. Respondents who disagreed with the proposals tended to support their reasons by making additional comments. Parents who responded tended not to support proposals affecting their school (with the exception of Glebe parents) but tended to agree with proposals affecting other schools. More respondents are in agreement with proposals 2 (Glebe places), 3 (Glebe Post-16), 4 (Primary Resourced Mainstream School for PD), 5 (Marjorie McClure places) and 7 (Post-16 Consortium) than against, particularly so with proposal 3. More or less an equal number of questionnaire respondents agree and disagree with question 1 (Amalgamation). However, taking all consultation responses into account (ie letters, emails and comments made at the Public Consultation meetings, this tips the balance of response towards opposition. A petition signed by 2,312 people, against closure of Woodbrook was received. More or less an equal number of questionnaire respondents agree and disagree with question 6 (Focus on Secondary Provision at Marjorie McClure). However, taking all consultation responses into account, (ie letters, emails and comments made at Public Consultation meetings), this tips the balance of response towards opposition, not least from the parents, staff and Governors of Marjorie McClure School. Special school parents/carers questionnaire returns: - 14 Woodbrook (school roll as at June 2005 - 63) - 11 Rectory Paddock (school roll as at June 2005 - 91) - 16 Marjorie McClure (school roll as at June 2005 - 84) - 15 Glebe (school roll as at June 2005 - 184). · · · · · · · In addition to the above, there were five letter responses from Woodbrook parents and three email email/letter responses from Marjorie McClure parents. · Breakdown of category of questionnaire respondents: Parent/Carer of Affected Special Schools Other Parents/Carers School Governor Staff of Affected Special Schools Other School Staff Other 56 20 19 37 35 17 2 Rectory Paddock School/Woodbrook School 1. What do you think about the proposed amalgamation of Rectory Paddock and Woodbrook to create a new school on the Rectory Paddock site, with extended accommodation and improved facilities? Strongly Agree No of Respondents 8 Agree 56 Not Sure 46 Disagree 21 Strongly Disagree 41 No Response 12 Question 1 Proposed amalgamation of Rectory Paddock and Woodbrook 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 56 46 21 8 12 41 Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree No Response Analysis Overall, more or less, an equal number of respondents agreed and disagreed with this proposal. Respondents who disagreed with this proposal did so strongly. The vast majority of Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock parents who responded are strongly against this proposal. All Woodbrook staff are strongly against this proposal. All Rectory Paddock staff support the proposal, but they do have concerns that £3.9m will be insufficient to resource the new school and that children's play space will be lost through development of the Rectory Paddock site. Note: While statistically an analysis of questionnaire returns shows that more or less an equal number of respondents agree and disagree with this proposal, letter and email responses received from Woodbrook parents, residents living in the vicinity of the school, the West Beckenham Residents Association and some local churches are against the proposals. This, coupled with a petition signed by 2,312 people against the closure of the school, and comments made at the Public Consultation meetings indicates opposition overall to this proposal. 3 Glebe School 2. What do you think about the proposals to develop more places at Glebe School for students with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Severe/Complex Learning Difficulties? Strongly Agree No of Respondents 28 Agree 57 Not Sure 47 Disagree 17 Strongly Disagree 23 No Response 12 Question 2 Proposal to develop Glebe for more ASD and Severe/Complex Learning Difficulty students 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure 28 17 57 47 23 12 Disagree Strongly Disagree No Response Analysis More respondents (85 = 46%) agree with this proposal than disagree (40 = 21%). Glebe parents who responded tended to agree or are unsure about this proposal - three disagreed. The parents of MLD children who responded are concerned about the reducing MLD provision at the School – they feel that this provision is not replicated in other specialist provision and there is a lack of confidence that secondary mainstream schools can deliver the provision MLD pupils require. Glebe parents, staff and Bromley Autistic Trust (BAT) have serious concerns about the current poor state of the buildings and that £0.7m will be insufficient to fully fund the implementation of the proposals for Glebe School. 3. What do you think about the proposals to provide Post-16 places at Glebe School? Strongly Agree No of Respondents 34 Agree 74 Not Sure 45 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree 12 No Response 14 Question 3 Proposals to provide Post-16 places at Glebe 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure 34 12 14 74 45 5 Disagree Strongly Disagree No Response 4 Analysis Significantly more respondents (108 - 58%) agree with this proposal than disagree (17 = 10%). The majority of Glebe parents who responded agree with this proposal - two disagree. Glebe parents, staff and BAT have strong concerns about the current poor state of the buildings and that £0.7m will be insufficient to fully fund the implementation of the proposals for Glebe School. Marjorie McClure School 4. What do you think of the proposal to develop a designated mainstream Primary School for some children with Physical Difficulties? Strongly Agree No of Respondents 32 Agree 54 Not Sure 38 Disagree 21 Strongly Disagree 30 No Response 9 Question 4 Proposals to develop designated Primary School for children with PD 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 54 32 38 21 9 30 Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree No Response Analysis More respondents (86 = 46%) agreed with this proposal than disagreed (51 = 27%). Marjorie McClure (MM) parents who responded strongly disagree (2 agree), as do MM staff and a number of MM School Governors. This is on the grounds that the Primary Resourced Mainstream School (PRMS) will not provide the same quality and range of facilities as that provided by MM and that there will be little demand for places at the PRMS as families will be likely to continue to request places either at MM or in their local mainstream primary schools. Note: This result is at odds with the outcome from Q6 (see below). Both proposals entail the closure of MM’s primary department. While there is support for a PRMS there is much less support for MM to focus provision on secondary aged pupils only. 5 5. What do you think of the proposal for Marjorie McClure School to extend its remit to support more pupils with Severe/Complex Learning Difficulties? Strongly Agree Agree 60 Not Sure 37 Disagree 19 Strongly Disagree 31 No Response 13 No of Respondents 24 Question 5 Proposals to develop Marjorie McClure for Severe/Complex Learning Difficulty students 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 37 24 19 31 13 Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree No Response Analysis More respondents (84 = 46%) agreed with this proposal than disagreed (50 = 27%). MM parents who responded strongly disagree (3 agree), as do MM staff and a number of MM School Governors. This is on the grounds that the school is not geared up to sufficiently meet the needs of these pupils, that these pupils would have to be able to access the school’s curriculum (otherwise they should be being admitted to the new school), and that there might be adverse implications for other MM pupils. 6. What do you think about the proposal for Marjorie McClure School to focus provision on secondary aged students because of parental preference toward supported mainstream places at Primary Schools? Strongly Agree No of Respondents 11 Agree 49 Not Sure 49 Disagree 24 Strongly Disagree 38 No Response 13 Question 6 Proposals to develop Marjorie McClure to focus on Secondary age students 100 80 60 40 20 0 11 49 49 38 24 13 Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree No Response 6 Analysis Respondents who disagreed with this proposal did so strongly. Overall, more or less an equal number of respondents agree and disagree with this proposal. MM parents who responded strongly disagreed (3 agreed), as do MM staff and a number of MM School Governors. This is on the grounds that MM provides high quality provision for primary pupils, that there is demand for primary school places at MM and that it is important that the school maintains its whole school ethos. Note: While statistically an analysis of Questionnaire returns shows that more or less an equal number of respondents agree and disagree with this proposal, it is important to note that letter and email responses on this subject are against this proposal. This, coupled with comments made at the public consultation meetings, clearly demonstrates opposition overall to this proposal. Post 16 Provision 7. Do you think that the proposal for 16-19 provision to operate as a consortium across the three schools will enhance learning opportunities for students? Strongly Agree No of Respondents 23 Agree 70 Not Sure 49 Disagree 13 Strongly Disagree 16 No Response 13 Question 7 Proposals for 16-19 provision to operate as a consortium across three special schools 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure 23 13 70 49 16 13 Disagree Strongly Disagree No Response Analysis Significantly more respondents (93 = 50%) agreed with this proposal than disagreed (29 = 16%) on the basis that it provides students with a wider choice of options post-16 and allows a more flexible response to course requests. Parents of pupils in special schools who responded tended to either agree (particularly Glebe parents) or were unsure. However, 7 Marjorie McClure parents and the staff of Marjorie McClure had concerns about this proposal on the basis that it would not be possible to provide the specialist facilities required by individual students at each of the 3 schools. 7 3. Analysis of Letters, Emails and Fax A total of 57 written submissions (comprising letters, emails and a fax) were received. The findings following analysis are: Parents and Residents · The majority of this correspondence is from parents of Woodbrook School pupils and supporters of the school (ie residents living in the vicinity of the school, the West Beckenham Residents Association and some churches in the Beckenham area). They are opposed to the school’s closure and want either the school developed on its existing site or rebuilt on another site in the north of the Borough. This, coupled with the petition signed by 2,312 people against the closure of the school, indicates opposition to this particular proposal. Correspondence from parents of Marjorie McClure School pupils against the proposal to establish a Primary Resourced Mainstream School and against focusing provision on secondary-aged students which would entail the closure of the primary department. Support for continuing out-borough placements for ASD pupils. Concern about the possible adverse impact of additional numbers of SEN pupils being admitted to mainstream schools. Addition of Speech and Language/mild high-function ASD provision/unit for secondary-aged pupils at the new school. Retention of MLD provision at Glebe School. · · · · · Staff and Governors at the Affected Schools Woodbrook Head Teacher response received: Although the Head Teacher of Woodbrook School, Mr Gillow, initially supported the proposals his response now indicates a contrary view. Mr Gillow stresses that this is his “personal” response to the proposals. His preferred option is to relocate Woodbrook School on a mainstream school site or adjacent to a mainstream school site on the Woodbrook side of the borough. Mr Gillow has many concerns and questions about the current proposals and “at present I disagree with the proposal to amalgamate Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock Schools”. Response from Deputy Head Teacher received against closure of Woodbrook School. Governing Body response received: Takes the form of a list of questions which require an answer before the Governing Body will agree to the proposals being taken any further. The questions incorporate comments by parents and staff. The Director, Assistant Director and Head of SEN met with the Chair and Vice Chair on 26/7 to answer the questions in detail. A letter from the Director summarising the content of the meeting was sent to the Chair of Governors. 8 Staff letter received: The staff have expressed concerns about the proposal to amalgamate Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock Schools. They list 22 concerns. The Director and the Head of SEN met with the staff and Governors on 19/7 to respond to these concerns. Rectory Paddock Combined Head Teacher and staff response received - they see many benefits for the children of both Rectory Paddock and Woodbrook Schools in the proposed amalgamation. The amalgamation presents an opportunity to provide a more balanced and diverse pupil population, which is seen as desirable in terms of teaching and learning, peer models and social interaction. It presents exciting opportunities for curriculum development and the opportunity to facilitate integrated service delivery from Health, Education and Social Services around the needs of the child and family based on the model so successfully implemented at the Phoenix Centre. However, the staff had two major concerns: · · £3.9m might be insufficient to fund all of the new school’s requirements. Further building development will lead to a loss of play areas for the children. Chair of Governors response received - he aligns himself fully with the views expressed in the letter from the Head Teacher and staff. Glebe School Head Teacher response on behalf of the school received – this is fully supportive of Glebe proposals. Students and parents will be offered rationalised, quality provision if the proposals are fully realised. However, major concern that the proposed £0.7m is not nearly enough to make Glebe fit for purpose and able to support post-16 students. The reality is that the school has had little real investment in 20 years. Mr Seed hopes that the Council takes the opportunity to invest and fully fund its proposals. Responses from the Deputy Head Teacher (Student Welfare) and Head of Food Technology about the poor state of the buildings. Marjorie McClure Head Teacher response received – Mrs James-Mason has completed the questionnaire by ticking the box ‘not sure’ for the questions concerning the establishment of a Primary Resourced Mainstream School and the focusing of provision on secondary aged students at Marjorie McClure. Mrs James-Mason’s letter attached to her questionnaire return has been analysed and key issues arising have been included in Appendix 4. The letter expresses concerns about: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) How the current proposal was put together. Conducting a consultation in three separate stages. Lack of detailed evaluation about the impact on mainstream schools. Lack of focus on developing inclusion programmes with mainstream partners, eg Coopers Technology College. 9 Response from Curriculum Access Co-ordinator – comments on all of the proposals and highlights concerns with the MM proposals in particular. Marjorie McClure Staff - a questionnaire return from the staff of Marjorie McClure School strongly disagrees with the proposals affecting Marjorie McClure. Governing Body – Chair of Governors responded by email. Reservations around the proposed closure of the primary department and the establishment of a Primary Resourced Mainstream School. Staff at other Schools Balgowan Primary School’s Inclusion Co-ordinator, supported by the School’s SENCo, opposes the closure of Woodbrook. Balgowan has developed very close pupil inclusion links with Woodbrook which would be lost with closure. Balgowan’s Chair of Governors has also written, on behalf of the Governing Body, against the closure of Woodbrook on the same grounds. Public Sector Organisations Bromley Primary Care Trust (PCT) The PCT welcomes the proposals and supports the Council in its aims of improving services for children with disabilities and providing services for children within Bromley where possible. The PCT particularly welcomes the amalgamation of Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock Schools on the Rectory Paddock site, as this will lead to more equity of opportunity for the children in terms of facilities and greater flexibility for appropriate class groupings. It is also likely to impact positively on the therapy services as there will be more opportunity for joint working and less isolation for staff. The PCT considers that the biggest impact arising from implementation of the proposals will be on therapy services – the letter from the PCT gives a detailed response on this subject which includes a number of questions/concerns that will need to be addressed for the strategic vision to be realised with good outcomes for children. The PCT’s Intensive Behavioural Intervention Service (IBIS) comment that many of the children who are currently placed out of borough have challenging behaviour. For such children to stay in-borough in the future their families will require additional support in terms of: · · · Advice on managing behaviour Residential respite care Additional ‘hands on’ support at home IBIS believes that there is a need for in-borough residential provision for those families who need it. 10 Social Services and Housing – Bromley Council · · The proposals are strongly supported from a Social Services perspective. The intention, over time, to increase the numbers of children with SEN and learning disabilities to be educated in-Borough is strongly supported, and the proposals to reconfigure special schools in Bromley will assist this to take place. There will be a need to invest in additional Social Care Services, including respite care to support parents and their children, as more children and young people are enabled to stay within their family homes, rather than attending out-Borough residential schools. It will be important that the potential costs of this expansion of Social Care and the respite provision is not overlooked. · Pre-School SEN Services/Phoenix Children’s Resource Centre Detailed comments contained in letter from Helen Norris, Head of Pre-School Services SEN. Summary of key points: · Extra resources and increased accommodation urgently required to meet increased demand for services. This should be considered alongside Phase 2 proposals as it concerns the same group of children. The support to units and schools in Bromley as they take children who would previously have been in special schools must continue. As there are no nursery specialist places in special schools and units, Phoenix/Pre-School SEN Services requires additional funding to support increased needs. Sensitive transition arrangements for the Phoenix Children and families needs to be built in to the Phase 2 proposals. Parents do not want children being admitted to Woodbrook and then changing to the new school. Parents are asking if their children can remain at the Phoenix Centre until the new school is built. The support available via the ‘Pre-School Social Inclusion Project’ should be expanded to allow equitable access for disabled children in their local communities, now there are no nursery places in special schools and units. Additional transport for parents who have expressed concern about the distance children with SLD will need to travel. Most parents of pre-school aged children with physical disabilities are now seeking, on entry to school, supportive places in their local mainstream school. If the proposal for a Primary Resourced Mainstream School goes ahead, it should be strongly supported by Marjorie McClure, with access to some of their excellent facilities (eg hydrotherapy). The Glebe School will require considerable investment to develop the current premises to support severe/Complex Learning Difficulties and ASD. 11 · · · · · · · · Voluntary Sector Bromley Autistic Trust (BAT) BAT has made specific comments relating to the proposals and these have been included in the Key Issues section of the report – Appendix 4. BAT broadly welcomes much of the planned reorganisation of special schools but is disappointed that the proposals stop short and fail to deal with other key areas of SEN provision such as high-functioning autists. BAT requests a “rethink” so that Asperger Syndrome pupils in mainstream, the paucity of investment in the Glebe, lack of provision for MLD/ASD pupils not able to cope with mainstream and no proposal for residential provision within Bromley are addressed. “These proposals cannot be revisited for many years, so invest now and save later”. Other Teacher Unions Professional Association of Teachers and National Union of Teachers: both unions have responded specifically against the proposal to close Woodbrook and amalgamate the school with Rectory Paddock to create a new school – fear of job losses. NASUWT: The Union has responded against the proposals as a whole and against closure of Woodbrook and amalgamation with Rectory Paddock in particular. NASUWT does not believe that the proposals will improve special school provision in Bromley. The Union asks for serious consideration to be given to retention of Woodbrook as a centre for secondary aged children. West Beckenham Residents Association The Association has written on behalf of its members against the closure of Woodbrook. The Association asks for imaginative solutions to keep the school open. Concerned that closure would result in no special school provision in the north of the borough. Prospects Youth Services Should Woodbrook School close could consideration be given to the site being used for Youth Service provision. 4. Analysis of Consultation with Young People Special Schools’ Pupils The Head Teachers of Woodbrook, Rectory Paddock, Glebe and Marjorie McClure made arrangements to consult their pupils through pupil representatives on School Councils. Summaries of these views have been received from all of the schools except Marjorie McClure. Key points arising: Woodbrook · Mostly, the pupils wanted to stay at Woodbrook, rather than join with Rectory Paddock to make a big school. 12 · · Mostly, the pupils didn’t want the new school to be in Orpington. Mostly, the pupils wanted a new school, same size as Woodbrook but in a new place, but still being able to use the Leisure Centre and Beckenham High Street and transport. Rectory Paddock · · · Building works will be noisy and distracting. Possible loss of playground space. The opportunities for making new friends that increased pupil number brings, but conversely perceived disadvantages such as increased difficulty in accessing facilities, potential for bullying and the school becoming too large and more impersonal. Need for more school buses. · Glebe · · Concerns from MLD pupils about moving into mainstream school placements – isolation, bullying, lack of help from teachers, large classes and large settings. Concerns about the present poor state of the school buildings and general environment. Bromley Youth Council 12 members of Bromley Youth Council (BYC) attended a Consultation Meeting with David Pearson, Head of SEN, and Kevin Gerred, Planning and Communication Officer, on the evening of 21 July at Bromley Education Development Centre. BYC is a forum through which the views of young people in Bromley can be canvassed. The meeting followed the same format as the public Consultation meetings, with a presentation and questions and answers session. The meeting lasted 1¼ hours and was very useful in eliciting the views of young people. There was broad agreement for the proposals but there were concerns about: · · · · · · · · The large size of the new school. Whether this was purely a cost cutting exercise. How out-borough placements would be affected. How implementation of the proposals would be financed. Whether the resources would be sufficient for the successful implementation of the proposals. Whether class sizes in the new school would increase. Where the proposed Primary Resourced Mainstream School would be sited. Whether these proposals would be helpful for autistic pupils. 13 Learning and Skills Council A meeting was held on 15 September 2005 involving David Pearson (Head of Special Educational Needs), Don King (Head of Young People’s Learning 16-19, London South Learning and Skills Council (LSC)), Beverley Johnston (Director of the Bromley 14-19 Collaborative), Rob Carling (Head of Education Finance), Kevin Gerred (Planning and Communication Officer); apologies were received from Jay Mercer (Executive Director, London South Learning and Skills Council). The meeting followed the same format as the public consultation meetings with a presentation and question and answer session. Mr Don King was happy to indicate the support of the LSC to the proposals, in particular those affecting Glebe School. It was agreed that a further meeting involving College Principals, Special School Head Teachers and the Director of Bromley 14-19 Collaborative be arranged. 14 APPENDIX 4 KEY ISSUES RAISED AND DIRECTOR’S RESPONSE The following information summarises the key themes arising from an analysis of the comments received through this consultation exercise, ie comments recorded at the public consultation meetings, school staff meetings comments included with the questionnaire returns and comments made in written submissions (letters, emails and fax). 1. Woodbrook/Rectory Paddock Amalgamation (i) Retain the existing Woodbrook School Director’s Response: Woodbrook School occupies a compact site in the Beckenham area. The site does not offer any scope for further expansion or development. The building was erected in the sixties by the Health Authority as a Junior Day Training Centre. While the quality of education provided at Woodbrook has been judged by OfSTED to be very good, the last two successive inspections have highlighted concerns about the constraints arising from the overall accommodation, the layout of the building and overall size capacity. Status quo for Woodbrook School is not an option that the Head Teacher and Governors have been advocating and there has been ongoing dialogue with the LEA for some time regarding the accommodation constraints. Revised guidance from the DfES regarding special school accommodation (Building Bulletin 77) highlights these existing deficiencies. The current proposals would ensure that pupils have equitable access to good quality specialist facilities. (ii) Develop the school on its existing site: · · either as a primary or secondary phase school or by adding a second storey to the existing building (plans for a second storey addition have been received) Director’s Response: The site does not offer any scope for further expansion or development. The building does not offer scope for sufficient development as either a primary or secondary phase school. There are many difficulties with the viability of the two storey proposal. The restricted nature of the site would certainly mean that adding a two storey building to the existing building will give a clear impression of overdevelopment and is unlikely to receive approval from the planners. An analysis has been carried out of the accommodation that would be needed to bring the current Woodbrook School up to the standards now set out in Buildings Bulletin 77 (revised) the latest DfES design guidance on the requirements for special schools. The accommodation that would be required to bring the School up to standard would be a minimum of 1541m² if it were to include a hydrotherapy pool and 1368m² if a pool were not included. Friends of Woodbrook School have provided a sketch plan showing how it might be possible to locate some additional accommodation on the site. However, the total extra accommodation appears to be in the order of around 200m² at the most and the School would therefore be left seriously under-provided for against the latest DfES standards. A more immediate practical concern would be how to achieve this without major disruption to the school community. It would not be achievable without moving the school temporarily to another location. Apart from the cost of temporary accommodation, there is the issue about where it might be sited. 1 (iii) Purchase the cottage at the back of the school in order to extend the school site Director’s Response: The property is unlikely to be purchasable at market value and therefore might well only be available by compulsory purchase order. These are very difficult to get confirmed for school development and the process is very time consuming. (iv) Relocate and rebuild the school on an alternative Council-owned site Director’s Response: The Council has looked in detail at this particular option, but there is not another existing school site that has the necessary land and space to make this possible. A detailed review of secondary school pupil capacity undertaken by the Council in the Autumn Term 1999 concluded that there was no scope for further expansion at individual secondary schools. There are no primary school sites that offer the necessary land and space. The former site and buildings of James Dixon Primary School in Anerley Park were considered as a possible site for relocation of Woodbrook School. The site is sloping with the school building and play facilities being on different levels. Also, the building itself has a number of internal level changes with a series of sets of steps along the main corridor. This configuration would have provided some severe challenges in providing a site for a relocated special school, even with a complete rebuilding. The other factor that was considered was the need for sufficient space for the bus movements that would be needed. The site constraints make this virtually impossible to manage. Putting a new building on the site in a way that enables level changes to be adequately addressed would have left insufficient space for both the play areas needed for the pupils and the manoeuvring space that would have enabled buses to safely operate on the site. The Council has previously committed itself to at least a partial disposal of this site as the works to the building to which James Dixon Primary School was relocated were paid for from the anticipated capital receipt from this site. For all these reasons, it was decided that this site would not be appropriate for the relocation of Woodbrook School. Arising from consultation, land at the rear of Alexandra Junior School has also been considered. This land is shared between Alexandra Junior School and Cator Park School for Girls and forms their playing field areas. Cator Park School does find it hard to make full use of the part of the field that it occupies because of its detached nature. Nonetheless, the school needs this area to meet the DfES Guideline requirements for team games areas. This would make it very difficult to get a Section 77 approval from the Secretary of State to change its use to an alternative educational facility. In planning terms the land is Urban Open Space which has a lesser test than applies to Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land. However, although it would be for the Council to determine any planning application, any proposal for the development of the land would be highly controversial given that all the residents that back onto it had become used to this being an open space. The land is currently accessed by a narrow opening that would be insufficient as a school entrance. It might therefore be necessary to purchase either voluntarily or by compulsory action, a residential property to create this access. The land that is occupied by Alexandra Junior School is in excess of the needs for the school for playing field area. However, it is Urban Open Space and it is virtually land locked. These two factors would again militate against its development for a Special School proposal. It might be possible to create an access way through the Alexandra Junior School site. However, again, it might require a purchase of the residential property to create a better access 2 way. The planning issues for the land at the rear of Alexandra Junior School are more pronounced than those for the further development of the Rectory Paddock Site. (v) Relocate and rebuild the school on land purchased from the open market. Director’s Response: The estimated cost of purchasing and developing a suitable site from the open market in Bromley is £13m – this is considered by the Executive Working Party (SEN) to be prohibitive. Conversely, it is estimated that £3.9m capital expenditure would be needed to create the new school at the Rectory Paddock site with sufficient accommodation and specialist facilities to meet the needs of the pupil populations of both existing schools. (vi) If Woodbrook has to close, retain the site as a Council asset through the establishment of: Life Skills Centre (similar to Wood Lodge) Further Education Unit Autistic Unit Youth Service Provision Director’s Response: The Council would consider alternative uses for the site. Only after exploring this option would the Council then consider declaring the site surplus to requirements. This could raise an estimated £1.4 m, which could be used as a contribution to the capital costs arising from these proposals. (vii) Lewisham has recently built a special school for about £6.0m – why can’t Bromley do the same? Director’s Response: There has been one recent special school development in Lewisham with another planned. Watergate School is a primary school for pupils with Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD) with an age range of 2-11. It has 65 places and was completed three years ago. It is situated in Lushington Road, Bellingham. The school has a full range of specialist facilities including a hydrotherapy pool. The total cost of the development was £5.7 million including fees, furniture and equipment and specific site costs. The floor area of the new school is 4090m² compared to the approximate 2700m² that is thought to be needed as additional space for the proposed amalgamated school. Taking account of buildings inflation in the past three years, the cost of the School at today’s prices would be approximately £7 million. Reference has also been made to Greenvale School. This development is some 2-3 years away from fruition. It will be a 100 place school for SLD pupils with an age range from 11-19 including 6th form provision. The school will be procured through a PFI and the cost at current prices is anticipated to be £6.5 million. In both cases the sites are in the ownership of the London Borough of Lewisham and therefore site acquisition costs did not arise. 3 (viii) Could the LEA purchase Coney Hill School or Holy Trinity School for the purpose of re-locating Woodbrook School? Director’s Response: Holy Trinity School Holy Trinity School is a listed building sited on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). Although the school as a commercial entity will no longer exist, the disposal of the site will be managed by the School’s Trustees who will continue to perform this function. It is our understanding that it is their intention to maximise the potential value of the land in any disposal. By this means they would seek to settle as much of the School’s debt as possible. There would be a number of practical difficulties in seeking to use this site as an alternative location for Woodbrook School. Given the objectives of the Trustees, the Authority would need to match the best price that the Trustees are likely to realise for the site on the open market. Any developer would be looking to residential development as yielding the maximum value. As a consequence the Authority might have to compete with residential land values in order to obtain this site. The existing buildings would be unsuitable for use by a special School and are therefore likely to have to be replaced. The listed status of the main building would also be an obstacle in this respect. There is currently no timescale for the sale of this site. Coney Hill School The Coney Hill School site is owned and managed by the Shaftesbury Society. Since the School closed, the Society has been considering the alternative uses for this building. The site is shared with Nash FE College for students with special needs. The accommodation of the College is under severe pressure and the Society has plans in the short-term to utilize the accommodation of the former Coney Hill School to increase the amount of teaching and learning accommodation available for the College. In the longer-term the Society hopes to be able to re-locate the College onto alternative premises in the Borough. However, there is no timescale for such a move. As a consequence, it is unlikely that the School or any part of the site could be made available as an alternative location for Woodbrook School. (ix) Travel times for pupils · Longer travel times for Beckenham/Penge pupils being transported to and from the new school – implications for the transportation of medically dependent/very fragile/presenting severely challenging behaviour/prone to epilepsy children. Request received that the Council confirms that the LEA policy on travel times for Special Educational Needs children will be strictly adhered to. Director’s Response: The current pattern of distribution of Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock pupils across the borough is quite widespread. Many children are already travelling the width of the borough to get to their Special School. While there will be transport implications for a small number of children, the Council will ensure that sufficient vehicles are operating to minimise travelling times for them. The Council’s current transport policy stipulates a normal maximum travel time of 1 hour 15 minutes in 4 each direction. All contractors are currently operating well within this expectation and the LEA is confident that this would still be adhered to if the proposed amalgamation is implemented. (x) Transport implications for some parents Parents living in the Beckenham/Penge area relying on public transport will face a difficult journey to the new school (ie to pick up a sick child, attend annual reviews and open evenings). Director’s Response: The LEA acknowledges this and will work with Governors to determine arrangements that could assist parents in these particular circumstances should the proposals be implemented. (xi) Transport implications for some Woodbrook Staff Existing Woodbrook ancillary staff who live a long distance from the new school will be put off applying for new jobs in the new school because of the longer more difficult travel implications. Director’s Response: Where existing ancillary staff are reluctant to apply for a position in the new school due to distance/travel issues, the LEA will assist in facilitating redeployment to similar opportunities in local schools. Where staff do incur additional travel costs as a consequence of the proposed amalgamation, the Council will assist with these expenses within current policy. (xii) Specially equipped vehicles with trained and qualified staff needed to transport medially dependent/very fragile/presenting severely challenging behaviour/prone to epilepsy pupils. Director’s Response: Existing arrangements for transporting children with these particular needs are working well. There is close dialogue with the PCT over the needs of individual children to ensure safe and timely transport arrangements particularly at the point of transfer from Phoenix Pre-School Services to Special School. Parents are routinely involved in discussions and arrangements for transport. The LEA continues to monitor such arrangements and keep them under review in the interests of pupil welfare. (xiii) There might be more pupils living in the closer vicinity of Woodbrook School in five-ten years’ time. Director’s Response: The analysis that has been undertaken regarding transport implications is based on the current pupil rolls of Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock Schools. It is difficult to predict with any certainty whether there are likely to be more special school pupils living in the Beckenham/Penge area or the Orpington area in ten years’ time. 5 (xiv) Parents living in the north of the borough will choose to send their children to schools in Lewisham and Croydon as travel will be easier. Director’s Response: There are currently a number of cross-border placements in both ways with Lewisham and Croydon. These numbers are small and it is envisaged that the significant benefits to the quality of provision and accommodation arising from these proposals will represent an attractive option to the majority of Bromley parents seeking a special school placement in the future. (xv) Social Inclusion Opportunities for Pupils Current easy access from Woodbrook School to community based facilities/ amenities eg shops, library, sports centre, trains and tram. These can be reached by foot on a daily basis. This helps to facilitate the inclusion of pupils into the community and aids the development of personal and social skills. The same opportunities will not be as easily accessible at the new school due to its location away from local facilities/amenities. Director’s Response: There will be similar and different opportunities available from the new school site. Rectory Paddock pupils do benefit from similar opportunities and are taken by bus to community facilities/amenities in Orpington. It may be necessary to ensure that the new school has sufficient minibuses to facilitate good access to community resources and the LEA will ensure that this is the case through the proposed new school’s formula funding arrangements. (xvi) Mainstream Links Woodbrook has close links with a number of mainstream schools in its area and has developed good inclusion opportunities for its pupils in these mainstream schools. This work has been recognised nationally. The same inclusion opportunities will not be available to pupils at the new school. Director’s Response: Rectory Paddock School has also developed very good inclusion links with a number of local primary and secondary schools. The proposed new school will sustain these links and develop new ones with other schools in its area to maximise inclusion opportunities for pupils. (xvii) Local Community Links · Woodbrook has an important place in the local community. The school and its pupils are well supported by its local community. This includes a large pool of volunteers drawn from the local community. The new school will not be able to draw on the same strength of community support due to its location on a trading estate. Well developed community links with local churches will be lost as will work experience placements for pupils in local businesses. Closure will mean the loss of a local amenity. This is on top of respite provision having recently been moved from the Beckenham to Chislehurst area, and medical services having been moved from Beckenham Hospital to the Princess Royal in Farnborough. These facilities are now not so easily accessible to the Beckenham community. 6 · Director’s Response: It is acknowledged that initially the change of location implied by these proposals may present some immediate challenges. It is important however to balance these aspects against the significant improvements that will follow to the quality of provision and accommodation at the proposed new school. Those benefits are clearly in the best interests of pupils in terms of equitable access to good quality specialist provision. (xviii) Small School Ethos · The intimacy of the close relationship between the school and its pupils, a key feature, will be lost on closure. This intimacy cannot be replicated at the larger new school. Director’s Response: When developing these proposals, Special School Head Teachers and Officers were clear that the close relationship between staff and pupils evident in both Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock Schools can be sustained within an overall structure of distinct Primary, Secondary and Post-16 phases within a well managed and organised new school. There are many examples nationally of special schools with pupil numbers in the region of 150. The number of primary-aged pupils has declined at Woodbrook School in recent years and these proposals will enable more effective groupings of pupils to be achieved according to age, aptitude and ability at the proposed new school. (xix) Parental Choice · There will be a reduction of parental choice through closure of the school. Director’s Response: Although the proposed amalgamation will result in one less Special School in Bromley, the Council is confident that the significant improvements to specialist facilities, coupled with the changes already taking place in Primary\Special Units, will increase capacity and enable more children to attend Bromley schools. Current arrangements do not ensure that special school pupils at Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock have parity of access to high quality specialist facilities within the Borough. These proposals are intended to rectify that imbalance. (xx) Staffing Implications · · Threat to existing jobs as a result of closure Loss of expertise and knowledge if existing staff are not employed at the new school. Director’s Response: The proposed amalgamation will result in the pupil populations of both existing schools being accommodated on one site. There will still be a requirement for a similar number of teachers and assistants, and existing staff will be given preference for posts in the new school through a ‘ring-fence’ procedure. The Council will seek to redeploy any individual member of staff who is unable to secure a post in the new school. It is important to recognise that the proposals under consideration have a clear focus on meeting the needs of pupils within an excellent learning environment. 7 (xxi) Pupils · Many present Woodbrook pupils are borderline Severe Learning Difficulties/Moderate Learning Difficulties – their needs will not be met in the new school. Director’s Response: The new school will continue to meet the range of needs currently being supported at both Woodbrook and Rectory Paddock within the context of a new and significantly improved learning environment. 2. Proposed New School (i) Facilities · £3.9m may be insufficient to fund all of the new school’s requirements. Suggestion from Rectory Paddock staff that a Project Manager be appointed to take forward detailed planning with the Head Teachers of Rectory Paddock and Woodbrook to clearly identify and cost the new school’s requirements to meet the needs of 150 pupils. The staff have listed in detail proposals that would “guarantee that the infrastructure and specialist facilities of the new school remains as effective in enabling access and entitlement as it currently is”. (Letter signed by Dr Hinchcliffe dated 20/7 refers). Director’s Response: The £3.9 million estimate has been based on a desk-top exercise only and will need to be confirmed by a fully costed feasibility study. The brief to the architects uses Buildings Bulletin 77 (revised) as the benchmark for the standards that should be achieved. The details would be the subject of full consultation with the temporary governing body. The Authority will provide support to this process through the Education and Capital projects Team who will appoint a project officer to oversee the Capital Scheme. Final costs will be confirmed at the end of this process. (ii) The existing facilities at Rectory Paddock eg, hydrotherapy pool, are currently fully utilised. These will need to be duplicated or at the very least upgraded/extended to cater for 150 pupils. Director’s Response: The pool provision will be assessed as part of a formal feasibility study. Pool provision for the amalgamated school will be made to the standards laid down by the DfES in their design guides for special schools. This may require enhancement or extension which would be included in the final plans if this proves to be necessary. (iii) Building configuration for new school Proposed development at the Rectory Paddock site to meet the new school’s requirements is likely to result in a loss of play area space. Suggestion from Rectory Paddock staff and parents that the school grounds could be extended (10 metres quoted) into the adjoining Recreation Ground to resolve this problem. 8 Director’s Response: The DfES’s Buildings Bulletin 77, recently revised, establishes the site and building requirements for special schools. The desk-top analysis that has been carried out suggests that the site area requirements for the proposed amalgamated school could be met within the site that is currently available to Rectory Paddock School. An increase in the buildings on the existing site is unlikely to be a controversial issue in planning terms locally. Increasing the site size by incorporating some adjoining land would be would be much more likely to generate concern amongst local residents. The adjoining site is a local park and is heavily used by local residents for dog walking and other recreational activities. Experience shows elsewhere that the potential loss of such areas is likely to generate a significant amount of objections. The Council will however keep this matter under review. (iv) There will be disruption to pupils as a result of building work. Director’s Response: Disruption to pupils will be kept to a minimum, with the building works phased in such a way as to ensure that any noisy and disruptive work is confined to school holiday periods. (v) Specialist facilities that were judged to be lacking at Woodbrook by OfSTED (ie rooms dedicated to Science, Art and Design Technology) need to be included in the new school, together with a dedicated library and ICT suite and a hall big enough to accommodate all pupils for the act of Daily Collective worship. Dining facilities must be provided that are sufficient to stop the current practice of secondary-aged pupils at Rectory Paddock eating their lunches in classrooms. Director’s Response: The brief to the consultant will require the proposed amalgamated school to have the full facilities, including specialist teaching spaces, that are recommended in the DfES’ Building Bulletin 77 (revised). (vi) Size of proposed new school · The large size of the new school will be a disadvantage to pupils: creation of an ‘institution’ rather than a school loss of intimacy with staff more difficult for pupils to access resources autistic children struggle in large settings · Mary Warnock is now advocating small Special Schools. The creation of a large school does not seem in line with current thinking. Director’s Response: There are many examples nationally of special schools with 150+ pupils who are judged to be effective. With the appropriate management and organisation structures, it is felt that strong pupil-staff relationships will be sustained in a school of this size. The needs of autistic children are well recognised and supporting them appropriately can be arranged through the effective use of teaching space within the context of the overall school setting. 9 Baroness Warnock’s comments reported recently in the press were to do with the wasteful bureaucracy that the statementing process represents. Her comments about special schools were related to their future role. Her comments have caused much controversy and could not be described as being representative of current thinking. (vii) · Difficulties in delivering and picking up larger numbers of pupils: increased number of school buses enlarged school bus pick up and drop off points · Local traffic difficulties: traffic associated with Sainsbury’s Homebase increase in traffic levels in the area through possible further development of the trading estate. · Sufficient parking facilities will be needed for school buses, staff, visitors and parents. Director’s Response: The architect’s brief for an amalgamated school will include additional provision for school bus movements including providing adequate space for safe drop off and pick up of pupils. The additional traffic movements generated by having a larger school on the Rectory Paddock site are not expected to place undue strain on the junction between Main Road and Sevenoaks Way. Planners have confirmed that no further industrial development on the industrial site opposite the School is anticipated. The industrial estate is hemmed in by land with a Green Belt designation and therefore any future proposal to expand the existing industrial estate is highly unlikely to succeed. Whilst there are other potential commercial developments elsewhere in the Crays, none are close enough to the School to have any potential impact on the proposed amalgamation. (viii) Amalgamation · Integration of the two pupil populations will prove to be a difficult process. Director’s Response: The LEA acknowledges that the amalgamation process will need to be carefully managed in close partnership with parents, Governors, and staff. The LEA has significant experience of successfully managing school amalgamations in a way that ensures minimum disruption and maximum benefit to children and young people. (ix) New School Name · It is important that the new school is given a new school name. Director’s Response: The name of the new school will be a matter for the new temporary Governing Body should these proposals be implemented. Governors will be drawn from the Governing Bodies of both existing schools and there will be discussion and consultation over the issue of a new name. 10 3. Glebe School (i) Proposed investment in building · £0.7m insufficient to: – – – raise the standard of the condition of the buildings develop an autism specific environment for Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) pupils provide sixth form facilities for post-16 students Director’s Response: The £0.7 million will need to tested through the completion of a fully costed feasibility study. A list of works will be drawn up that seeks to meet the School’s requirements and to ensure that the objectives of the organisational change affecting Glebe School are met. There will be full consultation with the School during this process and final costs only confirmed when this has been completed. (ii) Buildings · The buildings are currently in a very poor condition. Director’s Response: Particular emphasis will be placed on addressing the School’s deficiencies in terms of its condition through the Planned Maintenance Programme. More than £200,000 is currently allocated to the School to deal with infrastructure issues. (iii) Provision for Pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) · MLD children are being pushed out of Glebe School in favour of children with more complex needs – MLD children require the specialist provision provided by Glebe School. Parental choice to choose Glebe over a mainstream school placement for a MLD child will be removed. There is insufficient specialist provision outside of Glebe School for secondary age MLD children. Mainstream school placements are inappropriate for most secondary age MLD children. Insufficient support within mainstream secondary schools to maintain MLD placements. MLD unit provision provides a safety net for unsuccessful mainstream placements – all secondary schools should have MLD unit provision attached. The proposal to place SLD children with MLD children at Glebe is inappropriate for a MLD child. 11 · · · · · · Director’s Response: The majority of MLD children are already in mainstream secondary schools within the Borough. Successive SEN Audits have shown that the nature of pupils’ needs at Glebe School is continuing to change and that a growing proportion of pupils are exhibiting more severe and/or complex difficulties. It is increasingly the case locally and nationally that pupils with straightforward MLD have been and continue to be successfully and appropriately included in mainstream schools both with and without statements. It is acknowledged however that some children may experience MLD and other additional difficulties (eg sensory, medical, autism, communication, etc.) and are likely to require specialist provision of the sort available at Glebe School. All children are unique and decisions around placement will continue to be made on an individual child by child basis in close dialogue with parents. All children with special educational needs (SEN), including those with MLD, have their needs identified, assessed and responded to within the framework set out in the national SEN Code of Practice. All of Bromley’s secondary schools have an identified Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCo) and implement the Code of Practice framework to ensure that children’s needs are met appropriately for pupils with MLD. In a national context where mainstream schools have become increasingly more experienced at comprehensively meeting the needs of a wider ability range, including MLD, Unit provision maintained by the LEA for MLD children has either been reconfigured for children with more complex needs or closed. Against this context, it would be a retrograde step for Bromley to now seek to establish and fund MLD Unit provision in secondary schools. Any funding for such a development would need to be drawn against the Dedicated Schools Budget and would consequently result in an adverse impact on schools’ delegated budget shares. There are already a proportion of children with more severe difficulties attending Glebe School; it is not appropriate to make an arbitrary distinction between MLD and SLD and assume that children with differing needs cannot be successfully educated within the one school. (iv) Provision for Pupils with more Complex Needs · There is broad support for the proposal to develop more places at Glebe School for students with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Severe/Complex Learning Difficulties. Lack of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) provision at primary and secondary level. Recognition that greater provision for children with Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD) is required. ASD pupils do not thrive in large settings – they do better in small settings eg the unit currently operating at Glebe School. Unit provision is required as a safety net for ASD pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties who have had unsuccessful mainstream placements. 12 · · · · · Replicate the Sunil Centre model at Langley Park School for Boys in other mainstream secondary schools for children with Asperger Syndrome/High Functioning Autism. Provision of high quality ASD provision at Glebe could reduce the number of out-borough placements. Out-borough placements are very expensive and this money could be used elsewhere in the SEN system. Out-borough placements will continue to be needed for those pupils whose needs cannot be met in-borough. There is an urgent need to consider in-borough residential provision, particularly for ASD children. · · · · Director’s Response: I am pleased to note the broad support for a proposal to develop more places at Glebe School for students with Autism and severe/complex learning difficulties. The Authority has acknowledged that there is a greater demand for ASD provision than places available at secondary level. These proposals are in part designed to address that particular issue. At Primary level there is good provision available ranging from special school placements to special unit places through to support in mainstream schools and the issue about ensuring sufficient ASD capacity to meet demand is currently more focused around the secondary phase. I do acknowledge that ASD pupils generally respond more positively within small group/individual arrangements but this can be organised within the context of a large setting (eg Sunil Centre at Langley Park School for Boys). Should these proposals proceed, the needs of ASD pupils will be taken into account when developing accommodation plans for the school. I also acknowledge that where a child has MLD and another associated difficulty, eg Autism, they are likely to require a specialist placement in either a Unit or Special School. The current proposals are focused on the reconfiguration of existing special schools that do not currently make provision for high functioning ASD children. Consideration of this particular aspect of provision would more appropriately be pursued via a different workstream and should involve liaison with the Bromley ASD Standing Forum, which is a multi-agency co-ordinating group dealing with policy, planning and provision for ASD children. I concur with the points made that the development of ASD provision at Glebe would reduce out-of-borough placements in the future which would release funding that could be re-invested in local SEN provision. I also agree that there will continue to be a need for out-of-borough placements for some pupils with very complex difficulties. On the issue of in-borough residential provision for ASD children, this will increasingly be an issue for joint agency consideration within the context of the developing integrated Children’s Service Agenda (Every Child Matters). 13 (v) Staffing Implications · Staff training will be required to meet the needs of children with more complex needs. Director’s Response: I agree that the proposal to develop more places for secondary age students with Autism at Glebe School will need to be supported with relevant training opportunities for teaching and non-teaching staff. Should the proposals be implemented, appropriate arrangements will be made to secure the necessary training opportunities. (vi) Development of Post-16 Facilities · There is broad support for the development of post-16 facilities at Glebe School. Desire on the part of Bromley College of Further and Higher Education to be involved in post-16 consortium developments. · Director’s Response: I am pleased to note the support for this aspect of the proposals. Any Post-16 developments will certainly need to be progressed in close dialogue with South London Learning and Skills Council, Bromley 14-19 Collaborative including Bromley College. A meeting with the Chief Executive of the Learning and Skills Council has already been scheduled for early September to discuss the Post-16 aspects of these proposals in more detail. OfSTED judged the Bromley 14-19 Collaborative to be particularly effective and the prospect of special school consortium arrangements within the strong framework of the 14-19 Collaborative is particularly positive. (4) Marjorie McClure (i) Primary Resourced Mainstream School (PRMS) · Marjorie McClure staff, existing parents and a number of Governors are strongly against the creation of a PRMS and the closure of Marjorie McClure’s primary department. The PRMS will not be equipped with the facilities currently available at Marjorie McClure eg, hydrotherapy pool, physio room and riding for the disabled. Parents choosing a mainstream school will want a place in their local mainstream school rather than travelling to the PRMS. There is still a demand for the primary places provided by Marjorie McClure – these parents choose specialist education for their children. Uncertainty over the location of the PRMS. · · · · 14 · If the PRMS is for pupils with physical difficulties who are cognitively able, what alternative provision will there be for current Marjorie McClure pupils, all of whom have physical difficulties/medical needs, learning difficulties and any combination of visual impairments, speech and language difficulties and social and communication difficulties. Currently, speech and language therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and wheelchair services are delivered on site at Marjorie McClure. Should this proposal go ahead, then these services will be split between the PRMS and Marjorie McClure. This will prove more costly. It will also be inefficient in terms of staff travel time. This could result in a reduction in the amount of provision per pupil. More costly to accommodate individual pupils in mainstream primary schools due to duplication of facilities and support services – more efficient and cost effective to accommodate pupils at Marjorie McClure where the necessary facilities and support services are already provided on site. Mainstream schools require significant support in meeting the needs of children with Physical Difficulties/Medical Needs and additional Complex Learning Difficulties to ensure the success of the placement. Training implications for mainstream teachers. Mainstream school buildings tend to be unsuitable to cater for pupils’ physical requirements. A need for the LEA to evaluate how successful the placement of pupils with complex needs in mainstream schools is progressing. Non-verbal, cognitively able pupils have very distinct needs which will be very difficult to meet in mainstream. Against the closure of the primary departments because there is no demonstrated plan or commitment to meet the needs of cognitively able pupils with complex physical disability and in particular, nonverbal pupils. Training implications for PRMS teachers and Learning Assistants and concerns about their lack of knowledge in how to deal with children’s complex needs. More information required on how the intake of the PRMS would be structured. The trend towards mainstream education for children with physical disability is beginning to turn – mainstream placements are not always successful. Needs further debate. Marjorie McClure provides a safety net for failed mainstream school placements of PD children. Many parents are “pushed” into mainstream and are not made aware of the alternatives eg, a place at Marjorie McClure. 15 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · The culture of the PRMS would have to be such that it fully embraced the integration of pupils with Physical Difficulties. The idea for a PRMS makes sense in terms of resources. £0.3m insufficient to fully equip the PRMS. The 15 places to be provided at the school will not be enough – Marjorie McClure’s current primary pupil roll is in excess of this number. A SCOPE Representative at one of the public meetings said that there was a need for such a resource and she hoped that the inevitable objections from current Marjorie McClure parents would not detract from this need. · Director’s Response: The concept of a Primary Resourced Mainstream School (PRMS) is clearly one that has elicited mixed and often opposing views. This development is interrelated with the proposal to consolidate provision at Marjorie McClure for secondary aged pupils and needs to take account of: · · · · Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA) Inclusive Schooling, Children with SEN (DfES Statutory Guidance) Education Act 1996 Part IV and associated SEN Code of Practice Consultation responses submitted to the LEA Many of the points made in the consultation responses are acknowledged, although it is certainly not the case that parents are being “pushed” towards mainstream or are not being made aware of the excellent facilities available at Marjorie McClure. There is clearly a degree of opposition to the notion of a PRMS and a move to consolidate provision of Marjorie McClure for secondary aged pupils. I am mindful of these views and have reflected them in my conclusions outlined at Para 8 of this report. (ii) Supporting More Pupils with Severe/Complex Learning Difficulties · · · · Some Marjorie McClure staff, existing parents and a number of Governors are against this proposal. The Head Teacher has indicated support for this aspect of the proposals. If more pupils with medical difficulties are to be admitted, there needs to be more effective joint working with the Health Authority. Pupils with Severe/Complex Learning Difficulties will have to be able to access the school’s curriculum, otherwise Marjorie McClure will become a copy of the proposed new school and that is not going to extend Bromley’s ability to cope with a wider range of special educational needs. Goes against the current remit of the school. · 16 · · · Will complicate the teaching process. May require adaptation to buildings. Will result in additional problems with transport/access. Director’s Response: There is already a broad range of pupil needs being met at Marjorie McClure School, including pupils with varying combinations of Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD), Physical Difficulties (PD), Medical Needs (MN), Speech and Language Difficulties (SpaLD), Social/Communication Difficulties (SCD), Visual Impairment (VI) and Hearing Impairment (HI). The current proposals to allow Marjorie McClure to support a slightly higher proportion of children with Severe/Complex needs should not have any immediate adverse impact on the school including transport issues. In terms of curricular access, a school’s curriculum is tailored and modified to suit the needs of pupils rather than vice-versa. I do acknowledge the need for effective joint working with the Primary Care Trust in meeting the needs of children with complex medical/health difficulties. I am mindful of the Head Teacher’s support for this aspect of the proposals and have reflected this in my conclusions in this report. (iii) Focusing Provision on Secondary Aged Students · Marjorie McClure staff, existing parents and a number of Governors are strongly against the proposal to focus provision on secondary aged students which would entail the closure of the school’s primary department. It is important that Marjorie McClure retains its whole school ethos. As a whole school, there is an ease of transfer from the primary to secondary phase – this is of particular benefit to children with degenerative conditions. Primary and secondary children benefit from their interaction. Parents would no longer have the choice of admitting their children to the primary department at Marjorie McClure. Primary provision at the school appears to be viable for the foreseeable future. Figures given to support closure are not convincing and there is no projected date as to when numbers will no longer be viable – too much guesswork involved. Loss of primary teaching expertise if primary department closed – this takes years to develop and cannot be easily replaced. Loss of therapy expertise and provision – therapy needs are never adequately met in mainstream schools. · · · · · · · Director’s Response: I appreciate the views expressed opposing the loss to Marjorie McClure of the primary phase provision and acknowledge the points made during the consultation process. Accordingly I have reflected these in my conclusions in this report although it will be important to keep the age profile of pupils on roll under review in terms of future viability and efficient use of resources. 17 (iv) Out-Borough Admissions · Marjorie McClure has a high number of out-borough admissions. Suggestion that the possibility of enhanced funding arrangements from the home local authorities of out-borough pupils attending the school should be investigated. Director’s Response: There is legislation and guidance that prescribes the detail of the recoupment process and nature of charges to be levied. There is no scope within that framework to charge neighbouring authorities more than the costs incurred by Bromley for educating their children. (v) 16-19 Consortium Arrangements · Support for Consortium arrangements in terms of resources and choices for young people. Director’s Response: I am pleased to note the support for developing a consortium approach across special schools for 16-19 provision. It will be important to progress this further in dialogue with Special School Head, Bromley 14-19 Collaborative and the South London Learning and Skills Council. 18 APPENDIX 5 Parents/Carers of Pupils in all Special Schools Staff of all Special Schools Parents/Carers of Pupils in Primary Units Staff of all Primary Units Parents/Carers of Out-Borough SEN Pupils Parents/Carers of Pre-School SEN Children Secretary of State for Education, DfES Members of Parliament: Mrs J Lait MP, The Right Hon E Forth MP, Mr J Horam MP All Council Members and Co-opted Members of the Council Community Associations Secretaries of Staff Associations All Head Teachers of Bromley Maintained Schools Head of Pre-School Services, SEN (Phoenix) Principals of Orpington, Bromley and Ravensbourne Colleges Principal of Bromley Adult Education College All Chairs of Governors of Bromley Maintained Schools All Independent Schools All Bromley Council Chief Officers Neighbouring Authorities: (Lewisham, Greenwich, Bexley, Southwark, Lambeth, Croydon, Surrey, Kent, Sutton) Bromley Youth Music Trust Prospects Youth Service Pre-School Learning Alliance Early Years Development & Childcare Partnership Executive Pre-School Providers: Day Nurseries Out of School Clubs RC and Anglican Diocesan Bodies Fire Service Bromley PCT Police Service Broomleigh Housing Association Learning & Skills Council Bromley Youth Council Bromley MENCAP Bromley Autistic Trust Bromley Branch of National Autistic Society Named Persons Co-ordinator (SEN) North Kent Dyslexia Association Attention Deficit Hyper-Activity Disorder Support Group SCOPE Bromley Cerebral Palsy Group for Children Bromley Association of People with Disabilities Bromley Racial Equality Council Bromley Refugee Network Carers Bromley Community Links All Education & Libraries Services Managers – ELMT and ELMF Social Services & Housing Assistant Director (Children & Families) Social Services & Housing – Children and Families Teams (Walnuts & Civic Centre) Bromley Children Project Youth Development Officer, Bromley Council Connexions Manager, Bromley Also sent to: Executive Member for the CYP Portfolio – Cllr Graham Arthur Chairman of the CYP PDS Committee – Cllr Mrs Anne Manning Education & Libraries – Secretariat Education & Libraries – Office Manager Customer Services Manager, Bromley Council Communications Manager, Bromley Council Head of Community Renewal, Bromley Council Head of Regeneration, Bromley Council Reference Section, Bromley Central Library Senior Lawyer (Education), Bromley Council Senior Committee Administrator (Education), Bromley Council 1 APPENDIX 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 APPENDIX 7 SEN STRATEGIC PLANNING 2004-2006 – POWERPOINT PRESENTATION Slide 1 Slide 2 Special Educational Needs in Bromley Ø Ø Ø Primary Schools Secondary Schools Additionally Resourced Mainstream Schools (Units) Primary Secondary Special Schools Primary Nurture Group (non-statemented) Phoenix Pre-School Services (SEN) SEN Pupil Support Services Behaviour Service/Pupil Referral Unit Specialist placements out-borough 77 18 17 3 5 SEN STRATEGIC PLANNING 2004-2006 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II – Proposals for Special Schools Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Slide 3 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Pupils with a Statement of SEN Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Mainstream Schools Additionally Resourced Mainstream Schools (Units) Bromley Special Schools Out-of-Borough Others 707 345 408 210 83 ____ 1753 (Figures at Jan 2005) Slide 4 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Ø Phase I (2003-05) Special Opportunity/Infant Units Ø Phase II (2004-06) Special Schools Ø Phase III (2005-06) Specific Learning Difficulties (SpeLD) Hearing Impaired Speech/Language Difficulties (SpaLD) Slide 5 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II: Proposals for Special Schools Current Organisation Woodbrook Special School (4-19) Rectory Paddock Special School (4-19) Glebe Special School (11-16) Marjorie McClure Special School (4-19) Burwood Special School (10-16) Key: SLD MLD SCD PD PMLD EBD MN Slide 6 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II: Proposals for Special Schools Ø Special Schools in Bromley are successful and well regarded by parents. Ø Special Schools have experienced and committed staff who are providing an excellent service for children and families. Ø Strategic review undertaken 2004/05 has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed. SLD/SCD/PMLD (65 places) SLD/SCD/PMLD (94 places) MLD (SCD Unit 15 places) PD/MN EBD (174 places) (82 places) (54 places) Severe Learning Difficulties Moderate Learning Difficulties Social/Communication Difficulties (including Autism) Physical Difficulties Profound/Multiple Learning Difficulties Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties Medical Needs Slide 7 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II: Proposals for Special Schools What Issues has the Review highlighted? Ø The changing nature of pupils’ needs in our Special Schools. Ø Accommodation and site constraints at Woodbrook School. Ø A lack of local provision (including Post-16 for secondary-aged students with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Ø Access and suitability of accommodation at Glebe School. Ø A need to reduce reliance on out-borough provision. Slide 8 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II: Proposals for Special Schools What are the Proposals? Ø Amalgamate Rectory Paddock and Woodbrook Schools on the Rectory Paddock site, to create a new school. Ø Invest money to extend the existing accommodation and facilities at the Rectory Paddock site, as part of developing the new school. Ø Provide investment at Glebe School, to improve the access and overall suitability of the building. Ø Glebe School to develop places and enhanced facilities for students with ASD (including Post-16) and Severe/Complex Learning Difficulties. Slide 9 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II: Proposals for Special Schools What are the Proposals cont’d? Ø Marjorie McClure School to become a school for secondary-aged students and to extend its remit to support more pupils with Severe and/or Complex Learning Difficulties. Ø Consider developing a Primary Resourced Mainstream School for approximately 15 children with Physical Difficulties. Ø 16-19 provision to be managed as part of an overall consortium approach across the three schools. The proposed changes do not affect Burwood Special School. Slide 10 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II: Proposals for Special Schools What will the proposals cost? Ø Co-location of Rectory Paddock and Woodbrook on the Rectory Paddock Site Ø Improvements to Glebe for access and Post 16 Ø Other capital costs to improve school access Total £3.9m £0.7m £0.3m £4.9m Slide 11 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II: Proposals for Special Schools What will the benefits be? Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø More equitable access for children/young people to high quality educational opportunities and specialist facilities. Opportunity to address accommodation constraints at Woodbrook. Enhanced local provision for secondary-aged ASD students (including Post-16) at Glebe School. Opportunity to address access/suitability issues at Glebe School. Enhanced and more flexible Post-16 opportunities via 16-19 consortium approach across three special schools Improved local special school capacity that will reduce reliance on out-borough provision and offer flexibility. Slide 12 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II: Proposals for Special Schools What happens next? Ø June – July 2005 Ø 22 July 2005 Ø September 2005 Wide-ranging consultation Closing date Report outcomes to Executive Working Party (SEN) Report to Executive for decision on next steps Ø October 2005 - Slide 13 Your Questions/ Comments and Feedback Slide 14 Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II – Proposals for Special Schools Reconfiguring Specialist Provision in Bromley Phase II – Proposals for Special Schools For further information, please contact: David Pearson, Head of Special Educational Needs APPENDIX 8 RECONFIGURING SPECIALIST PROVISION IN BROMLEY PHASE 2 : SPECIAL SCHOOLS PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE · Report Working Party recommendations to Executive. Seek approval to consult on Special School proposals. Boroughwide consultation exercise. Analyse consultation outcomes and develop report for COE/Working Party/Executive. Report to Chief Officers’ Executive (COE). Report outcomes of consultation to Working Party (SEN). Report outcomes of consultation and Working Party recommendations to Executive. Subject to Executive decision, complete design plans and detailed costings. Provide further report to Working Party/Executive to include plans and detailed costings. Subject to Executive decision: - preparation of Statement of Case and Public Notice. Publication of Notice and Statement of Case Objections and comments to School Organisation Committee (SOC). Consideration by SOC. Pre-construction tendering processes followed by Capital Scheme implementation. Opening of new school 16 May 2005 · · 9 June – 22 July 2005 August 2005 · · · 7 September 2005 12 September 2005 10 October 2005 · November/ December 2005 December 2005 · · December 2005/ January 2006 January 2006 January/ February 2006 March 2006 May 2006 – August 2007 September 2007 · · · · · This timetable will be kept under review and may be subject to revision.