CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

BATH SPECIAL PROJECT

R.U.H. SCHOOL

Summerfield School

CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

BATH SPECIAL PROJECT

CONTENTS

SECTION ONE: THE PROPOSAL

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Vision and Preferred Option

4. Educational Issues

5. Aspirations for Early Years

6. Implications for Staff

7. The School Budget

8. Capital Budget Implications

9. The Feasibility Study

SECTION TWO: OTHER OPTIONS

10. Other Options Considered

11. Other Options Considered - Location

SECTION THREE: THE WIDER CONTEXT

12. The Context of the School Organisation Plan

13. The Inclusion Strategy

14. SEN Provision in Bath and North East Somerset

15. Use of Neighbouring LEAs and the Independent and Non-Maintained Sector

SECTION 4: THE CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS

16. List of Consultees

17. Process

18. Timescales

19. Arrangements for Consultationmeetings and Submitting Comments

20. Phone Link

APPENDICES

Statutory Guidance on the Factors to be considered in Deciding Proposals for theRe-organisation of Special Schools.

Draft Plan

Two plans are included showing the possible location and facilities.

SECTION ONE: THE PROPOSAL

1. Introduction

1.1 This consultation document has been written for the wide range of people and children who, for one reason or another, have an interest in the special school provision in Bath & North East Somerset.

1.2 The most important consultees are the parents and, where possible, their children and the staff and governors in the LEA's special schools.

1.3 A good deal is being asked of consultees. It is easy to comment on how things are today. It is much harder to imagine how things might be (and more importantly - should be) in ten, twenty, fifty years time. But that is the task. The outcomes of this consultation, whatever they might be, will have an impact on the opportunities available to children with special educational needs for many years to come.

1.4 This consultation document explains why we are where we are, what might be possible and how all those contributing to the debate can share their ideas and thoughts.

2. Background

2.1 Nationally, the future role and viability of special schools must be kept under review. The needs of the children in the schools change over time, most notably in schools which historically catered for children with moderate learning disabilities.

2.2 Generally speaking, mainstream schools are becoming more skilled at dealing with, and addressing successfully, moderate cognitive learning needs, social development, communication, physical disabilities and sensory impairments.

In considering the future we must also take note of two other national developments which stem from the revised SEN Code of Practice and the SEN & Disability Act 2001. These are: strengthened parental rights to a mainstream school place if this is what they wish for their child; the disability provisions of the Act, which came into force from September 2002, which places a requirement on LEAs and schools not to discriminate against disabled pupils by treating them less favourably than pupils who are not disabled.

2.3 Most LEAs are witnessing a gradual fall in the number of pupils placed in special schools but an increase in the level of need of the pupils who are on the roll of special schools. In part this has come about not only because of mainstream schools' contribution but also because of LEAs' reluctance to use expensive places in the independent sector unless absolutely essential.

2.4 Locally, in Bath & North East Somerset this change in the school population was an important feature of the Local Management of Special Schools (LMSS) Review which was completed in January 2000. This Review revised the way in which budgets are allocated to each of the special schools. The new formula is designed to meet levels of need, regardless of placement, rather than simply allocating funds on the basis of the label attached to a particular special educational need.

2.5 However, the LMSS Review also resulted in two schools requiring supplementary support as small schools (RUH and Lime Grove). The small school factor, in effect, subsidises the management costs in order that the desirable level of teaching and non-teaching support can be provided to the children. The Education Committee granted this supplementary support for three years i.e. it is due to cease in March 2003. Elected Members expected the longer-term future of these schools to be reviewed in this period.

2.6 For their part, the schools were keen to see the LEA taking responsibility for their long-term future. It would not be regarded as acceptable to have a situation where there was a perception that special schools were simply being left to "wither on the vine".

2.7 Informal and exploratory discussions began with the headteachers of the three schools in Bath in early 2000 i.e. Summerfield, Lime Grove and RUH Schools. Wansdyke School was excluded because it specialises in emotional and behavioural difficulties, is regarded as a school with a secure long-term future and is highly regarded by all partners. Fosse Way School was excluded partly because of its location in Norton Radstock but mainly because past amalgamations had already served to create a highly regarded special school, with a substantial number on roll, that meets a wide range of needs. This approach has since been endorsed during the consultation process in the production of the LEA's inclusion policy (see 2.15 below).

2.8 These informal discussions followed a conference which had been organised by B&NES in 1999 but to which all special school heads in the ex-Avon area were invited. This conference provided participants with the opportunity to take stock of the role and contribution of special schools as they approached the 21^st Century.

2.9 Some of the conclusions drawn at the end of this conference have contributed significantly to the development of this document:-

2.10 In 2001, a special project group was established in order that the Headteachers could further develop ideas and work alongside elected Members. Ideas were shared with staff, governors and parents at informal meetings and a discussion paper was drafted.

2.11 Most usefully, the Headteachers began to arrange visits to a variety of special schools around the country which had undergone re-organisations. Feedback from these visits was very positive, particularly in schools where detailed attention had been given at the planning stages to quality of design, construction and accessibility. New partnerships with mainstream colleagues, (to enhance inclusion), health and social services had been successfully established, due to the commitment of all parties.

2.12 In November 2001 the discussion paper was shared with members of the Education Committee and in January 2002, the Committee gave the special project group permission to go ahead and prepare for a consultation exercise.

2.13 In May 2002 officers and Headteachers met with representatives from the Department of Education and Skills (DfES) who confirmed that the special project group's ideas were sound and that obtaining borrowing approval for a major capital investment was not `pie in the sky'. DfES representatives advised that, in order to ensure that it was quite clear what is being consulted on, the consultation document should emphasise the LEA's favoured option whilst ensuring that consultation responses that favoured other options were given proper consideration.

2.14 It was at this point that the special project group felt it was well worthwhile preparing to move forward to the more formal consultation process.

2.15 Although the informal discussions were positive and productive, they ceased to progress during the latter part of 2000 and early 2001. In part this was due to other pressures on the LEA but also in part to the establishment of the Inclusion Partnership. Work commissioned by the Partnership relates to the development of an inclusion strategy for Bath and North East Somerset. However, it confirms the longer term need for specialist provision in the Bath area mirroring, to a certain extent, the type of provision already available in Norton Radstock.

2.16 Staff and Governors at Fosse Way School have well-developed ideas on building a 'centre of excellence' and a working group has been established in liaison with the LEA to develop these ideas further. It would make sense for the children of Bath & North East Somerset that such developments proceed in both Norton Radstock and Bath in a complementary way.

2.17 Once this conclusion was reached, it was appropriate to return to the discussions about the long term future of the three schools in Bath. The Royal United Hospital's request that the RUH school vacate the premises by the summer of 2003 (now 2004) made the debate more sharply focused and essential.

2.18 A Project Group comprising the Headteachers of Lime Grove, RUH and Summerfield, elected Members and officers from B&NES was organised and met for the first time in September 2001. The Group has held a further five meetings.

3. Vision and Preferred Option

3.1 Even in a situation where there is widespread commitment to inclusion, an LEA has a clear responsibility to ensure that specialist provision is properly resourced, all staff are appropriately qualified and accessing opportunities for on-going professional development and training, the pupils' range of learning needs are effectively met and relationships with other providers, whether statutory or voluntary are sound. We have acknowledged that there are some concerns regarding the process of inclusion in Bath & North East Somerset and recognise our responsibilities to the special schools.

3.2 Two factors appear to be important considerations in this period of development for B&NES.

3.3 A third factor should not be overlooked in B&NES. Its special schools have an excellent reputation with neighbouring LEAs and the families who live there. We need to continue to provide placements and support networks which remain attractive to our neighbours.

The Vision for Bath

3.4 Whilst there are numerous debates to be held, hurdles to overcome and difficult decisions to be made, it is now time that a vision for the longer term future of the three schools in Bath is more clearly articulated so that discussions can move forward. Without this, we will not be in a position to plan the future of the RUH School or make sufficient progress in implementing our Inclusion Strategy.

3.5 Early and informal discussions looked at the possibility of `fusing' the three schools into a single purpose built centre catering not only for the pupils on roll but also for their families, the wider community and the training needs of the educational community in B&NES as these relate to SEN.

3.6 This would create a new provision of which B&NES could be truly proud. Any such development must be in the context of real improvements to what already exists.

3.7 The fact that this consultation paper focuses on the `fusion' of the three Bath schools into a new centre of excellence, does not mean that the Project Group did not consider other options. A good deal of time was devoted to exploring a number of options before the Group concluded that `fusion' would be the best option. Some options emerged from the discussions held at the informal meetings.

The Advantages

The Children: a larger school means larger peer groups and greater stimulation for the children. It does not mean larger classes.

· Pre-school provision could be developed.

· RUH children could continue at the school beyond KS2.

· A generic school should result in every child having access to a wide curriculum appropriately designed for individual needs.

· Progress from one key stage to the next would be well-tracked and well-managed.

· We have good experience of a multiple needs school working well within the Authority

· A higher proportion of the school's budget could be spent on teaching and learning and a smaller proportion on management and administration.

· It should be possible to provide greater support to children in mainstream schools.

A purpose built school: whilst the three schools make excellent use of the facilities currently available, none can be described as ideal. A purpose built school would have the facilities to meet the needs of the full age range and the full range of need.

· play and recreation areas in designated areas for age groups

· sensory rooms

· provision for therapies

· facilities for parents

· teaching areas appropriate for curriculum delivery

· swimming/hydrotherapy pool

· fully accessible

· the building would be more efficient again increasing resources for teaching and learning.

Professional Development: a new school would be designed as a centre of excellence providing initial teacher training and in-service training opportunities to local higher education establishments and schools.

· The existing expertise of the staff would be enhanced by the creation of a larger team.

· A larger school provides opportunities for staff to develop a wider range of skills and creates promotion/career opportunities within the management structure.

Multi-disciplinary approaches: as proposals develop, it should be possible to negotiate with Health a more strategic approach to the provision of therapies. A new style of partnership between therapists and school staff could be developed.

· The school could be a home base for other support services such as SSEN, Portage, EPS etc.

· Facilities could be available to Social Services. The need for residential/respite provision could be explored.

· The local community could benefit from the facilities and the notion of a one-stop shop for parents of children with SEN could be developed.

Finally, a new provision should be attractive to other LEAS and we need to continue to encourage placements from neighbouring authorities.

We have to grasp the nettle in a changing world. Trying to maintain the status quo threatens the long term provision available to children in the Bath area.

The Disadvantages

Disadvantages relate to the management of change.

· Staff will be anxious about job security and the potential need for vacancy management.

· There will be suspicions that the 'vision' will not be realised and everyone will end up with second best.

· The ethos of the three individual schools will have to be replaced by an ethos for the new school. This cannot be developed overnight and will require expert and patient management.

· Existing networks will be disrupted and it will take time to establish new partnerships.

· A fear that the passion, commitment and expertise that exists today will be dissipated.

· An anxiety that a single organisation will not recognise and respond to a wide range of needs.

· An anxiety that the children will not mix well.

· Some parents will not be happy with the overall idea and many will worry through the inevitable period of uncertainty.

· A new school will represent a huge investment (people as well as money) and there will be high expectations of success and achievement which will bring their own pressures.

· The project management will be extremely complex and challenging.

· Impact on Fosse Way - may create an uneven pattern of demand towards Bath

· Can two separate special schools really be sustained?

4. Educational Issues

Contribution from Summerfield School

Summerfield School is, by any measure, a successful school. Indeed, it was described by OFSTED (Sept. 2000) as a "very good school", where standards of teaching and learning had continued to improve. The school has shown a commitment to a changing pupil population, who have diverse and complex needs. In 2001 the school was recognised by a DfES Achievement Award and in 2002 completed a successful re-assessment for Investors in People. There exists a culture of improvement and development.

However, we recognise that there are factors which we need to take into account in preparing ourselves for the future and developing a clear vision in a changing education arena. We realise that we may have to think differently and acknowledge limitations and blocks to further development. They are:

Inclusion

The funding for Summerfield is essentially led by the number of pupils we have on roll and the complexity of their need. It is anticipated that, over time, we will see increasing numbers of pupils with moderate learning difficulties being taught with their peers in mainstream schools. We very much want to be part of the process and feel we have experienced staff who could support these students in the mainstream, whether it be full or part-time.

We need flexibility in our funding to release staff to work in the mainstream without detriment to our existing pupils. This has been achieved in other LEAs, through dual registration. We look forward to enlarging our remit and supporting the wider community of children with special educational needs. In order to fulfil this objective, we need to retain our existing funding, so that we can create flexibility in both staffing and pupil movement. However, without sensible changes made to funding, we would become a smaller school with decreasing staffing and consequent flexibility.

Summerfield School Site

Our current site, unless changes are made, is unsuitable for pupils who have access

or mobility difficulties. The site is not level and there are several sets of steps, which

make movement around the school for disabled users almost impossible. This

inhibits our ability to reach out to a wider range of pupils to secure staff development

opportunities and the momentum for school improvement.

Integration of support for pupils and the wider community

There are a wide range of services and user groups who would gain from closer integration for the benefit of both the local community and, more importantly, the pupils. Service level agreements vary considerably, with many changes in personnel. Parents would value having experienced and familiar personnel to provide support and continuity for their children and more joined-up thinking about identifying need and provision and support.

With more pupils with complex needs in the mainstream schools, more effective training of teachers, LSAs, etc, will be essential. Creating a learning environment where multi-professionals worked from one centre would have real benefits. Schools and parents alike would clearly know how to access such provision, particularly those pupils requiring multi-disciplinary approaches and therapies, as indeed is the case for those with severe/complex learning difficulties.

The staff and Governors of Summerfield School have demonstrated already their commitment to our pupils in an ever-changing environment. We feel that our track record is very positive in accommodating change for the benefit of our pupils. We are supportive of the possibility of a fusion of the three special schools in Bath for pupils with learning difficulties, and we think there could be real benefits for pupils and staff and the opportunity to set up a purpose built centre to enhance multi-disciplinary working and contribute to inclusion. We realise that, unless substantial changes could be made to the existing site at Summerfield, our vision could not be realised.

Of course, there are anxieties from staff and parents about a possible change, which have been documented and, if these can be addressed, then we remain supportive of the idea of a well-designed, purpose-built resource, serving the future needs of pupils, staff, parents and the local community. If change is inevitable, it needs to be effective, resourced to deliver high standards, and attract support from user groups within an emotionally charged area of work. Second best should not be an option.

Contribution from RUH School

The present

The staff members of Royal United Hospital School strive continuously to create and maintain a warm and welcoming atmosphere. Parents, carers and governors are secure in the knowledge that educational, pastoral and care standards are high and pupils enjoy coming to school. Whilst members of the school community knew so already, the recent OFSTED inspection confirmed RUH is a "very good school with a dedicated and committed staff."

We have seen a significant change in the special needs of the pupils in recent years, these having become much more complex and diverse. Teachers and learning assistants have been required to extend their knowledge and widen the focus when working with the children. It has been a challenge they have met successfully.

The school is recognised as an Investor in People, has been innovative in its approach to developing curriculum responsibility and is committed to continuous development of all aspects of school life, including the professional development of staff.

The future

In the short term, it seems certain we shall have to leave the current RUH School building. Undoubtedly there will be sadness if and when this happens. At the same time, we recognise those qualities that currently, and in the past, have made RUH a very good school are to do with the people involved - the children and their families, the staff and governors. We are certain those positive qualities will endure regardless of the building in which the school is sited.

Staff and governors at RUH share the vision of a centre of excellence that will provide the very best in contemporary knowledge, facilities, standards and forward thinking for young people with special educational needs, their families and community. We recognise that longer-term changes are seemingly inevitable for this school and understand, too, that introduced sensitively and for the right reasons, change could be beneficial. We have recently made some improvement to our provision, but we are likely to be limited in our future development by our being a small school. The fusion of the three special schools in Bath we consider likely to combine a centre of excellence with the ethos of a small school and is our preferred option for the future.

We would welcome the opportunity to work in co-operation with our colleagues in the other Bath special schools and the local education authority to establish the new centre. The setting up may be fraught, initially, and groups of people feel vulnerable. However, we are confident the vast expertise, knowledge and working practices of all involved in the three schools would result in the difficulties being swiftly eradicated and give the greatest promise for the venture to be successful.

Contribution from Lime Grove School

Lime Grove School offers a challenging and motivating environment that values personal development and achievement.

`FUSION' - A HEAD'S PERSPECTIVE

When the idea of fusion was mentioned I had very mixed feelings. My first thought was how it could improve on what we already had for the pupils within this school.

I began to think about the possible benefits - there are many - a purpose built, well designed building which would include all the extra things which we would like but haven't had the space for, a science lab, food technology room, a flat where pupils could build on self-help skills, interactive areas within the outside playgrounds, light and dark sensory rooms, wide corridors and plenty of storage space. The list could go on and on - resident therapists - what luxury!

What might we lose?

The ethos, remarked upon by visitors, the warmth, family atmosphere, each person being equal and views listened to, mutual respect - child to child and child to adult - certificates, good self esteem and caring for each other.

On reflection I decided the things we value highly need not be lost, in fact should not be lost at all.

I feel that:-

· Parents need to have input into this venture, to tell the authority what they value and want to see in the new school.

· The new Head Teacher needs to have a vision which will encompass all those values and a plan, that strategically, will take the new school towards that goal.

Unfortunately I will not be involved in this venture but will take great interest in its development and wish it every success.

5. Aspirations for Early Years

5.1 We envisage many advantages for pupils and staff in the early years department in a newly built Special School for Bath. We believe that with a clear vision of what is required to provide the best opportunities for our pupils' development, an excellent department will be created. It will be bigger than any special needs early years department at present and will lead to more opportunities for pupil interaction and create a team of specialist foundation stage staff. This team may also have a role as part of a wider specialist support team for the Early Years Development & Childcare Partnership as a whole.

5.2 We can create a purpose built provision, well planned with plenty of space to provide uncluttered, convenient work areas. Hoists and lifting apparatus will be built in and there will be plenty of space for all the extra furniture/wedges etc. required. All classroom furniture, display areas, toilets, eating areas etc. will be at the correct height and of good quality for early years pupils. Play areas will be designed to meet the needs of all the pupils and encourage independence and exploration.

5.3 We will be able to create a department to meet the needs of all pupils in B&NES who have learning difficulties. It will be possible to work very closely with mainstream colleagues to create opportunities for integrating pupils into mainstream schools and to give support to pupils in mainstream schools who would benefit from this.

5.4 Having the Speech Therapist, Physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist and nurse on site would be a tremendous advantage for early years pupils at the assessment stage of their education, it may even be possible to incorporate the Portage Team. It would also be very beneficial for there to be a parent's room where new parents can meet to discover more about their child's learning difficulty and how best to help them. They would also get support from knowing that there are other with similar experiences.

5.5 With a purpose built school it will also be possible to have well planned sensory areas to help pupils develop to their maximum potential using a multi-sensory approach. We will have a light room, a soft-play room, a hydrotherapy pool, sensory garden, appropriately sized P.E equipment, a music room, computer with appropriate programmes, switch access, touch screen etc. The outdoor area will provide a safe and secure environment where all children will have opportunities to be creative and take risks. It will include a range of surfaces/paths; a variety of challenges at a range of heights and levels e.g. a low-level maze which could accommodate children with mobility difficulties; a raised bog garden; and areas for free play and construction of dens, for example.

5.6 If all this happens it can only be of benefit to all pupils in Early Years.

6. Staffing Implications

6.1 Any review is unsettling for staff, who will understandably be concerned about their future. If it is decided to close the existing schools and create a new school, staff in the existing schools are potentially at risk.

6.2 A meeting involving all school staff will form part of the consultation process and the Authority will ensure that staff are kept informed during the review process. Meetings will also be held with the Trades Unions to discuss the steps that would be taken to safeguard the interests of staff who are at risk as a result of the review.

6.3 Under Local Management of Special Schools, the appointment of staff at new schools is the responsibility of a "temporary governing body". There is a legal duty to advertise the posts of Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher on a national basis.

6.4 The LEA will seek employment stability for staff affected by the proposals. For all posts other than Head and Deputy, the LEA would give strong advice to the temporary governing body to give prior consideration to staff at the existing schools. The LEA would advise that the temporary governing body seeks to appoint those staff subject to the essential curricular, budgetary and management needs of the school.

7. The School Budget

7.1 In 2000 the Education Committee agreed a new method of funding the council's special schools. At the root of this change was the principle that an individual child should be funded on the basis of need rather than a 'label' of need or a particular school placement. Six levels were introduced with Level One representing the minimum level of support and Level Six the maximum. Each child is allocated a level which is reviewed annually. Each level represents a certain level of resource and, when all are aggregated, this represents the largest element of the delegated budgets to the schools.

7.2 This method of funding means that children moving into a new school would not have their allocations altered in any way. The level of support available to them would be protected.

7.3 Some of the smaller delegated items would need to be altered. For example, the Floor and Grounds allocation would be re-assessed.

7.4 In this financial year, £54,646 is provided as an additional allocation and is divided equally between Lime Grove and RUH as a "small school" factor. This was agreed for a three year period (April 2000 - March 2003) to provide additional support for the management and administration in the two smallest schools. Officers believe that Elected Members will continue this allowance until such time as the long-term future of the schools is determined.

7.5 The total delegated budget for the three schools (2002/03) is £1,380,773 (excluding the small school factor).

7.6 Funding a new generic school would realise some savings due to the economies of scale but without altering the level of support available to the children. To realise the Vision, which would involve more extensive services, it is proposed that the overall formula is subjected to some minor amendments. Such changes, if agreed, would apply equally to Fosse Way School.

7.7 If the consultation exercise results in a broad consensus in favour of 'fusion' and if capital resources become available to take the vision forward, it will be necessary to ask Elected Members to set aside some additional revenue resources for the twelve month period leading to the opening of the new school. It will be a complex project requiring dedicated time from a project leader (hopefully recruited from one of the schools) and the headteacher would need to be appointed well in advance of the actual opening.

8. Capital Implications

8.1 We intend to bid to the Government under the Targeted Capital Fund. We have had discussions with the Department for Education & Skills (DfES) who tell us that, on the face of it, the probable scheme meets some of their criteria for success. This does not guarantee anything of course and the Fund was

8.2 The costs of building a new special school are substantial. Depending on the exact facilities needed we will need between £4.25 million and £7 million in order to provide the right sort of school for the future.

9. The Feasibility Study

9.1 The Education Committee instructed officers that a feasibility study be undertaken as part of the background work to establish whether a new Special School should be provided to serve the Bath area. The study was: -

9.2 A second part of the study concerned the potential capital receipts to the

SECTION TWO: OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

10. Other Options Considered

Advantages/Disadvantages of Options Other Than Fusion

10.1 The advantages and disadvantages of fusing the three schools have been

10.2 It is very important that consultees feel able to put forward any other options

10.3 Three special schools close. Fosse Way School is expanded as the

single complex needs centre for B&NES

10.4 RUH closes, Fosse Way School meets the need of children with physical disabilities and there is no change at Summerfield or Lime Grove.

Advantages

Disadvantages

10.5 Three special schools close. Satellite/resource centres open at various mainstream schools, each managed by the host school

10.6 As 12.6 but satellites managed by a special school senior management structure - a virtual special school

Advantages

10.7 Lime Grove provides for primary age pupils with complex needs. New school is for secondary and post 16 only.

Advantages

Disadvantages

10.8 Close three special schools and Fosse Way and open one new single school for complex needs

Advantages

Disadvantage

10.9 Close three schools. Open new school for secondary age pupils. Provide for primary satellites as in 2 or 3 above.

Advantages

Disadvantages

10.10 Replace RUH. No change at the other schools

11. Other Options Considered - Sites

11.1 As none of the existing three sites is capable of expansion, the Project Group spent time considering alternative sites. Readers familiar with the City of Bath will appreciate that this represents one of the greatest challenges.

11.2 The possibility of using the Summerfield site was visited and revisited. The problems are described in Section 6. In addition, there are covenants associated with the site which severely limit the opportunities for development in order to protect the Georgian environment and neighbours' interests.

11.3 The possibility of "swapping" Summerfield School with Wansdyke School was also considered. Managing young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties on the Summerfield site presented problems which could not be overcome.

11.4 A site search of possible appropriate locations for a new school was undertaken using the following criteria: -

11.5 A total of seven sites were examined that fulfilled the criteria. Initial desk-top studies of each of the sites lead to a decision that the preferred option would be to proceed with a proposal to locate the new school on a site at Frome Road, Odd Down. Two potential sites at Frome Road were seen as being worthy of further investigation; Hayesfield Playing Field and the site of the existing Social Services offices.

SECTION THREE: THE WIDER CONTEXT

12. The Context of the School Organisation Plan

12.1 The first School Organisation Plan (6.1.00) described the range of specialist

12.2 Crucially, the SOP went on to say, "This could mean a period of uncertainty for special schools that will need to be addressed. If, as suggested in the Government's SEN Action Programme, special schools are encouraged and supported by the LEA in identifying roles for themselves in promoting inclusion, it will be possible to retain the skills and expertise of special school staff to the advantage of mainstream schools and the children themselves." The Plan concluded that the LEA should, "Examine the viability of special schools in order to ensure both the best possible provision for children and value for money."

12.3 The second School Organisation Plan (16.07.00) outlined the LEA's Access Strategy for children with disabilities. This was a phased approach with secondary schools being identified in each of the three main areas of population (Broadlands, Keynsham; Ralph Allen, Bath; Norton Hill, Norton Radstock). The second phase was to identify a "barrier free" primary school in each primary cluster. The Access Strategy is of relevance to this Review because of the potential role the new school could play in providing support and advice to these schools and a network for families.

12.4 The third School Organisation Plan (17.07.01) developed the theme of inclusion as the LEA's inclusion strategy was being developed at that time. Whilst it was recognised that the strategy could have implications for special schools, the draft also recognised the need for the LEA to continue to maintain specialist provision. The School Organisation Committee was also alerted to the fact that the LEA had been asked to vacate the buildings used for the Royal United Hospital School on the hospital site. The future pattern of provision had to be reviewed.

12.5 The fourth SOP was issued for consultation in May 2002. By this time the Education Committee had agreed that a formal consultation on the future of special schools in Bath should commence. Elected Members left it to the Project Group to decide when best to take this forward.

13. The Inclusion Strategy

13.1 In January 2002 the Education Committee agreed that inclusion for the Education Service should be defined in terms of:-

13.2 The Committee went on to define an inclusive school: "An inclusive school is one that recognises, celebrates and plans for diversity. It actively strives to minimise barriers to access, learning and participation for all members of the community."

13.3 Also included in this definition was the Ofsted Guidance for Inspectors and Schools: "An educationally inclusive school is one in which the teaching and learning, achievement, attitudes and well-being of every young person matter. Effective schools are educationally inclusive schools. This shows, not only in their performance, but also in their ethos and their willingness to offer new opportunities to pupils who may have experienced previous difficulties. This does not mean treating all pupils in the same way. Rather it involves taking account of pupils' varied life experiences and needs."

13.4 These definitions are of critical importance to this Review. We are in no doubt that they apply to special schools as much, if not more, than to mainstream schools. Our vision for the two generic schools in Bath and North East Somerset is founded in the belief and assumption that, properly developed, these schools will support mainstream schools recognise, celebrate and plan for diversity and excellence.

13.5 Whilst the Statement of Intent recognises that the inclusion strategy should be

13.6 The proposals contained in this consultation paper have been developed with the Inclusion Strategy very much in mind. In essence, we need to seek consensus around proposals which:-

13.7 An example of such support links these proposals to the Council's access strategy for schools. As a small LEA, it has not proved possible to provide a desirable level of central support for mainstream schools including children with physical disabilities. We see the new school filling this gap. This might well include responsibility for liaison with Health in terms of early identification, establishing a support network for families, advising on and procuring specialist equipment, providing the necessary training for school staff, contributing to the assessment of individual children's needs and evaluating their progress etc.

13.8 We also believe that two generic schools in Bath & North East Somerset would be capable of making a significant contribution to the on-going analysis of what is required locally to reduce dependence on residential school places some distance from children's homes. Even where such residential places are agreed, we believe the local special school network should continue to be used to maintain the child's links with their local community.

13.9 The Inclusion Strategy recognises the potential role of special schools in

supporting mainstream schools in becoming more inclusive. The Standards

14. Specialist Provision in Bath & North East Somerset

14.1 The majority of children with special educational needs have those needs met in a mainstream school. Of these children, most do not have statements of special educational needs but will receive regular support and will have their progress monitored. This consultation paper does not provide details of these children.

14.2 Five mainstream schools have specialist units or resource centres for children with statements of special educational needs.

14.3 There are five special schools maintained by Bath & North East Somerset. Details of all are included here so readers gain an overall picture of the specialist provision available.

14.4 As can be seen, pupils from all neighbouring authorities are placed in special

14.5 There is a common funding model for special schools based on children's actual needs. (See Section 8 for details.) The diagram below indicates the range of levels and the proportion of children at each level for the five schools.

15. Use of Neighbouring LEAs and the Independent and Non-Maintained Sector

15.1 In June 2002, 12 children were placed in special schools and units maintained

15.3 Placements in special schools and units maintained by neighbouring LEAs

15.4 Placements in the Independent Non-maintained sector

SECTION FOUR: THE CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS

16. List of Consultees

· Headteachers, SENCOs and Chairs of Governors of all schools in Bath & North East Somerset.

· All Governors and members of staff in the three Bath Schools.

· Parents of children on roll at the three schools and at Fosse Way (Sept 02).

· Neighbouring LEAs and all other LEAs with a child on roll at one of the schools at September 2002: City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire Council, North Somerset Council, Somerset County Council, Wiltshire County Council, Swansea Council

· United Bristol Healthcare Trust

· Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

· Bath & North East Somerset Primary Care Trust

· Learning & Skills Council

· Children's Services Liaison Group

· Disabled Children's Strategy Group

· All Elected Members

17. Process and Timescales

Consultation Process

17.1 The Council is rightly obliged to consult widely on proposals for changes to special education. The consultation process should take place well in advance of the actual publication of proposals. The Secretary of State would normally expect consultation to take place during the 12 months before formal proposals are made. The law sets no maximum limit on the time between the publication of a proposal and its date of implementation. Clearly, however, circumstances may change significantly if too long a period elapses. In general, therefore - with the possible exception of proposals for major authority-wide reorganisation which may have to be phased in over a period - the implementation date for proposals should be within five years of their publication. We will be expected to have good reasons to propose a longer timescale.

17.2 The aim of the consultation document is to ensure that the intentions of the Council are clear so that potential objectors are able to make an informed decision as to whether to object and in what terms. It is acceptable for a number of options to be considered before a final decision is made but the Council needs to make sure that in the course of the consultation the emerging choice is sufficiently well identified to enable those being consulted to focus on it. Where an entirely new option emerges from the consultation process the Secretary of State expects the Council to broaden the consultation to take account of that option.

17.3 The law requires that a period of two months is allowed after the date of publication of proposals for objections to be made. Any objections to a proposal would be sent to the LEA. If there are no objections then the decision can be made by the Council. If objections are received we then have one month from the end of the objection period to send the objections, and our comments on them, to the School Organisation Committee (SOC) who will then be responsible for making the decision. The SOC are not permitted to approve any proposal unless they are certain that any necessary capital funding is available. If the SOC are unable to reach a unanimous decision, or if no decision has been taken within four months of the date of publication of the notices, then the matter is referred to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. The Schools Adjudicator is a Government appointee and her/his decision is final with no right of appeal.

18. Timescales

A possible timescale for this project is as follows:

If the Executive agrees to the publication of notices then:

Implementation

If the proposal is approved by the SOC or LEA we are required to implement the proposal.

19. Arrangements for Consultation Meetings

19.1 Throughout this document we have referred to the absolute necessity of

19.2 In order to assist with this process we have arranged meetings at each school. These meetings will take place as follows:

Staff & Governors 4 p.m.

Summerfield School

Staff & Governors 4 p.m.

Lime Grove School

Wednesday 16th October 2002

Staff & Governors 4 p.m.

19.3 Submitting Comments

20. Phone Link

Some parents may not be able to attend the meetings or would prefer to express

their views or voice their concerns on a more individual basis. They will be welcome

to contact Maureen Glynn, our Parent Partnership Officer on 01225 394288.

Maureen will record all comments made in this way and they will be included as part

of the formal response to the consultation.

APPENDIX 1

STATUTORY GUIDANCE ON THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DECIDING PROPOSALS FOR THE REORGANISATION OF SPECIAL SCHOOLS

These should not be taken to be exclusive. All proposals should be considered on their individual merits.

Standards of provision

· will the proposals enable pupils' special educational needs to be met?

· will the proposals help improve educational standards in the area?

· will the proposals support increased inclusion?

· will the proposals improve standards of accommodation?

· will the proposals ensure the delivery of a broad, balanced curriculum including all the elements of a basic curriculum?

· will the proposals address any specific health, safety and welfare requirements and if so, how?

· how will the proposal contribute to the efficient use of resources?

· what will be the impact of the proposal on other special education provision in the area?

· If, as a result of the implementation of the proposals, some pupils will have to change school, what arrangements have been made to ensure that the right kind of full-time education is available to all these pupils?

Need for provision

· is a need for a particular type of special educational needs provision in the area?

· is there surplus special educational needs provision in the area?

· how long and difficult are journeys to alternative provision?

Finance

· will the proposals represent cost effective use of public funds?

· can the capital resources required be found?

· is the necessary revenue funding available?

· will the proceeds of sale of redundant sites be made available?

· will disposal of these sites require the Secretary of State's consent?

Views of interested parties

· the views of parents of pupils at schools affected by the proposals

· the views of governors and staff of schools affected by the proposals

· the views of any Local Education Authorities affected by the proposals

· the views of the Learning and Skills Council (if the proposals affect the provision of post-16 education)

· where appropriate the views of the Health Authority or local NHS Trust

· the views and concerns of other parties affected by the proposals e.g. other schools in the area, local residents, where appropriate, local social services departments

· the level of objections

Other issues

· any sex discrimination issues

· whether statutory consultation and publication procedures have been properly carried out

To inform the decision making process School Organisation Committees and Adjudicators may also wish seek professional advice on the educational or accommodation aspects of a particular proposal. This could take the form of written advice.

SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE ON SEN PROVISION

The following sections provide further guidance to assist School Organisation Committees in considering and reaching decisions on proposals for the reorganisation of provision to meet special educational needs, whether in special schools or within mainstream schools. Although statutory proposals are not required to enable mainstream schools to adopt a more inclusive approach to catering for special educational needs, we expect that as LEAs implement their inclusion policies there will be ever increasing co-operation between special and mainstream schools. The School Organisation Committee should consider carefully the development of mainstream provision where this is linked to the reorganisation of special schools provision. In particular, the Committee may need to consider the role of Local Education Authority specialist support services, e.g. visual impairment, hearing impairment and behavioural support services, in providing support to mainstream schools. Nursing / medical requirements, access to therapists and other professionals may also require consideration.

The School Organisation Committees and Adjudicators should seek to ensure:

· that, where appropriate they can draw upon expert advice on the educational and other aspects of a particular proposal;

· that any reorganisation proposal fits within a clear strategic framework set by the Authority for meeting the full range of special educational needs and for promoting inclusion;

· that the pattern of specialist provision that results, and the way schools operate, should support the development of a more locally inclusive system of education.

Evidence from OFTSED inspections reveals few hard and fast rules about what approach to organising special schools makes for the most effective provision. The Authority's strategy should:

· be based on the educational needs of pupils within the local area, and where appropriate region, taking account of the needs of other LEAs,

and how these can be provided for in an appropriate organisational setting;

· focus on the establishment of flexible systems of provision and support that can respond to the needs of individual pupils, rather than establishing broad categories of provision according to disability and / or medical need;

· take account of the advantages and disadvantages of making provision and providing support for pupils with a range of special educational needs within the same school setting. Where schools provide for pupils with a variety of needs, the Authority, governors and staff will need to give careful consideration to internal organisation. The Authority and schools may need to give particularly careful consideration to the arrangements for supporting children with challenging behaviour when they are placed with other pupils;

· take full account of other educational considerations, in particular the need to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum with appropriately trained staff, to enable individual pupils to achieve to the maximum extent possible;

· be consistent with and support the Authority's plans for greater inclusion within a mainstream setting. The Authority may be providing for some pupils in special schools who, with appropriate support, could be accommodated in mainstream schools;

· take account of the need to improve the accessibility of schools (both in terms of physical access and access to the curriculum) for disabled children;

· take account of parental preference for particular styles of provision or education settings;

· contribute to the requirement to ensure appropriate provision for 16-19 year-olds, taking account of the role of local LSC funded institutions and their admissions policies;

· take account of the need to ensure appropriate accommodation, day and residential provision, and specialist equipment and resources to meet the needs of individual pupils. In the case of residential provision, the Local Education Authority may need to involve other authorities e.g. health and social services;

The resulting patterns of specialist provision will depend to a large extent on local circumstances; a widely shared local understanding of the roles of special schools, mainstream schools and specialist support services; and the criteria for referral and admission.

Evidence from OFSTED inspections suggests that, in considering particular proposals, particular attention should be given to the following issues:

· What is the most appropriate range of special educational needs that can be catered for in a particular special school? OFSTED's Four Year Review of Special School Inspections notes that some schools which provide for pupils with a very wide range of special educational needs deal less well with management and curriculum issues.

· What is the most appropriate age range for a particular special school? OFSTED evidence suggests it is almost always educationally and socially beneficial for pupils if special schools cover just the primary or secondary phase, or a narrower age range. However, the benefits need to be weighed against the possibility that a school may need to cater for a wider range of special educational needs as a result. If a school is all age there are benefits in making clear distinctions between the provision that is made for nursery and early years, primary, secondary and post-16 pupils.

· What is the most appropriate size for a particular special school? There is no conclusive evidence on this. Some small special schools are very effective. But smaller schools may find it more difficult to provide a balanced curriculum particularly if they cater for a wide range of ages and special educational needs. On the other hand, larger schools tend to draw from a wider area, giving rise to access and transport difficulties, and may also cater for a wide range of needs.

· Whether a particular proposal provides effectively for both boys and girls. This is particularly important in proposals affecting residential provision, and pupils who show challenging behaviour.

· How to provide effectively for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD)? The Authority will need to be very clear about the role of special schools designated as catering for such pupils, and the circumstances in which pupils will be referred to them, taking account of the Secretary of State's policy on pupil exclusions. The evidence points to the difficulty of catering effectively for severe EBD cases alongside pupils with other kinds of special educational needs.

· Some pupils have challenging behaviour which may pose major health and safety risks, and so access to therapists and other professionals who will advise on management of each pupil will need to be considered.

The following documents will provide further background and detail on particular aspects of special educational needs organisation and proposals for change:

Planning and strategy

the Local Education Authority's SEN policy;

the SEN Annex to the Local Education Authority's EDP;

the Local Education Authority's Behaviour Support Plan;

SEN pupil population projections;

Asset Management Plan;

Early Years and Childcare Plan;

Health Improvement Plan;

Children's Services Plan;

Quality Protects Management Action Plan.

Standards

Social Services Department reports for residential schools, where applicable;

recent OFSTED inspection reports; and in the case of schools that are in special measures or have serious weaknesses, letters to the school from HMI;

OFSTED's Annual report on Quality and Standards in Education for 1997/98;

Accommodation (including nursing / medical requirements)

Building Bulletin 77 - Designing for Pupils with Special Educational Needs: Special Schools;

Building Bulletin 84 - School Boarding Accommodation: A design Guide;

Building Bulletin 91 - Access for Disabled People to School Buildings: Management and Design Guide

The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999;

DfES 1997 Constructional Standards

The Children Act 1989, Parts VI and VII;

Medical needs

Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs in School, Circular 14/96;

Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs: A Good Practice Guide, DOH / DfES 1996;

Staffing

Circular 11/90.

Social Exclusion

Circulars 10/99 and 11/99 on social inclusion and pupil support

APPENDIX 2

Draft Location and Layout