Cabinet Member: Cllr. Gareth Thomas
To
consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Education on the above.
2.00 p.m. – 2.45 p.m.
Minutes:
(a)
The
report of the Cabinet Member for Education was submitted outlining the draft
strategy for changes to the additional learning needs and inclusion service.
(b)
It
was reported on a letter received from the Isle of Anglesey County Council
expressing disappointment and discontent that there had not been sufficient
consultation and discussion with Anglesey officers and they had not been
convinced of the need to decommission the Additional Learning Needs Joint
Committee structure in order to achieve the proposed outcomes within the
revised ALN strategy.
(c)
In
response, the Head of Education stressed that there was no intention not to
collaborate with Anglesey and it was proposed to consult fully with Anglesey
Council once the Council’s formal opinion had been scrutinized and the Cabinet
had come to a conclusion on this. It
was explained that the project had initially focused on the needs of the
Gwynedd residents. The Senior Manager for Additional Learning Needs and
Inclusion explained that discussions had taken place with approximately 400
stakeholders during September/October.
It was recognised that the shortcomings with the existing arrangements
that came to light were not a shock for the officers, namely:
·
Inconsistency
within the system
·
Traditional and
complicated system
·
Quality of
performance
·
Relationship with
other services
·
Growth in
specific needs
·
Lack of
communication
(c) Attention
was drawn to the clear aim of the strategy namely “Ensure that children and
young people (aged between 0 – 25) with additional learning needs take
advantage of the opportunities and gain experiences that are effectively planed
for them, to enable them to progress according to their ability”.
(ch) Members
were guided through the action plan that would achieve the following outcomes:
clarity regarding appropriate
provision for every disorder
combining the
central workforce. The saving would be
based on the new provision but also a change in the working pattern of the
workforce and offer permanent opportunities but for a fewer number of
individuals.
(d) Members were given an opportunity
to scrutinize the draft strategy before them and the following observations
were highlighted by individual Members:
(i) It was asked if the attainments of
additional learning needs pupils contributed to the performance targets of
secondary schools or would different indicators be presented.
In response, it was explained that
every pupil should be part of the key society of schools and that a national
taskforce was considering an alternative way of measuring the attainments of
pupils with vulnerable behaviour – namely the children who may make more
progress but the targets were not recognised.
It was further noted that the system was based on attainments rather
than achievements.
(ii)
That
the range of users was wide from 0 to 25 years and often a great deal of
children that fail fell into trouble and it was asked how much collaboration
was there with the Gwynedd and Anglesey Youth Justice Service as it was vital
that there was an awareness of this service to assist individuals.
In response, it was explained that
funding the group of young people between 19-25 was not clear in the new act
and the discussion regarding this would be quite a challenge.
It was ensured that initial
discussions had taken place with the Youth Justice Service regarding the person
centred focus method that meant that one plan would be available for the
individual and therefore it would be a more effective service.
(iii)
Concern
that the system would take the place of the 3* system and would dispose of
statements that had statutory legal requirements and gave assurance to
individuals and their families. Whilst
accepting that the system was available the view was that there was no
assurance available and the existing system was accountable by law.
In response, it was explained that
there was a national change in legislation and statements had been abolished
with the Welsh Government seeking to present the same system for additional
learning needs with an effort to make the system easy to understand. Whilst accepting the need to be clearer in
terms of the responsibilities of schools and the authority, they were trying to
present a structure to respond to this.
The challenge was to create a central multi-disciplinary Team that would
give families confidence. In terms of the
new model, it was ensured that support would not be withdrawn from children who
were already statemented.
It was added that it would be
necessary to be clear in terms of local criteria by looking at individual
plans, the wording of the plan etc.
(iv)
Concern regarding
how much assurance there was that schools would pay for the additional support
from their budgets considering the climate of cuts that existed and that they
would decide to maintain the support themselves.
In response to the above, it was
explained that in terms of the model, finance had not been devolved to schools
with the intention of establishing a central service. The intention was to devolve classroom
assistants to the largest schools and at a catchment-area level to slightly
smaller schools.
(v)
Whilst
accepting that the most profound children in the primary sector would be
identified in accordance with the previous system, concern was expressed
regarding children with less obvious needs such as the pupils assisted by the
literacy supporters. It was asked how
these children would be monitored and their needs identified.
In response, it was confirmed that
the new system would identify the needs of children earlier in numeracy and
literacy skills and it was assured that it would be possible to continue with
the expertise.
Regarding monitoring, perhaps there
was a role for Coordinators at a catchment area level for the ages of 0 to 25
and to be a regular point of contact for schools with a specific role to
monitor progress or the lack of progress.
(vi)
Reference and
concern was made to the risks with the workforce and it was asked how confident
was the project team of ensuring the workforce’s ownership over the proposed
changes.
In response, it was recognised that
there was a risk but part of the work was to try and get better knowledge of
the workforce in terms of improving the system.
From the discussion held with the workforce, opinion was divided with
half recognising that there was a need to improve provision and the other half
stating that no need was required.
Whilst accepting that less workforce would be required, it was confirmed
that the contracts would be permanent and offer a better career path for
individuals.
(vii)
The
importance that the authority communicated with the schools and stakeholders.
Resolved: (i) To convey to the Cabinet the Scrutiny
Committee’s approval of the draft strategy subject to seeking to address the
following matters:-
·
To offer the same level of assurance
to pupils and parents as that under the existing system
·
The need to address less profound
needs and to undertake this soon
·
The danger that schools would not be
able to cope sufficiently with additional pressure as a result of the
strategy's emphasis on schools doing more
·
The risk that the comparatively lower attainments of
some pupils with additional learning needs would lead to an unwillingness by
schools to include them
·
Financial concerns as a result of the
likely cost to extend the provision up to 25 years old.
(ii) To request that the Project Team conducts a full discussion soon
with the Isle of Anglesey County Council, once the strategy has been adopted.
The meeting commenced at 1.15 pm
and concluded at 3.30 pm.
Supporting documents: