Agenda item

(CSP: BEC, P&S, HQL, MEC)

Purpose: To approve the configuration of alternative provision in West Berkshire from September 2017.

Resolved that the 2 current services, Reintegration Service and Alternative Curriculum should merge to become a single Alternative Education Provision. Reduce the number of sites from 6 – 4, thus reducing duplication of management, building and administrative costs. To provide a single unified service which can offer consistent support and provision for pupils and schools.

To approve the savings that were to be delivered by scaling down the size of the Service from 84 to 66pupil places thus delivering efficiencies in costs across budget lines, including staffing reductions; and by removing the Council contribution (centrally retained DSG) to the cost of pupil places. All savings will be within the DSG.

The council has traditionally funded places at the PRU’s but over time funding had shifted to the schools. The proposal means that the Council would no longer contribute to placements commissioned directly by schools, thus making a saving to the High Needs Block, which would help reduce the pressure in this block.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 27 January 2017, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning the restructuring of the Pupil Referral Units from two services, Reintegration Service and Alternative Curriculum, into a single service providing Alternative Education Provision.

Councillor Lynne Doherty commented that bringing the services together would result in a more cohesive and robust service and would also generate savings.

Councillor Anthony Chadley welcomed the efficiencies that would be generated and queried what would happen to the affected buildings. Councillor Dominic Boeck stated that both the Riverside and Moorside buildings were community assets. Both had been funded by s106 monies and there were agreements in place in respect of retaining them as community assets. The Property Team were currently appraising the options  available to the Council which included transferring the assets to the Clay Hill Residents’ Association and Thatcham Youth, leasing them to other organisations or leasing them to a commercial organisation whilst still adhering to s106 requirements.

Councillor Lee Dillon noted that in section 47 (page 57) it stated that in determining the level of provision consideration had been given to the alternative provision that schools might establish and the potential for a range of interventions and approaches.  Later on in point 50 it stated that the Council would develop a delivery method more able to meet the requirements of schools. He felt that the statements seemed to be the wrong way round. He was concerned whether the Council had adequately considered alternative provision that the schools might establish if the Council had not yet worked with schools to identify the strengths and assets. He queried when this work would take place given that the Council had 78 schools to cover.

Councillor Doherty explained that in 2014 a group had been set up which comprised Members, providers and a number of head teachers. A consultation document had also been issued to schools and so they had been very involved in the process. The West Berkshire Local Safeguarding Children Board had also been involved and the exclusion figures and the needs of those pupils had also been taken into consideration.

Councillor Dillon queried what oversight the Council would have in order to ensure that the pupils that stayed with their schools were achieving the same outcomes as they would have done under the current arrangements. Councillor Doherty noted that outcomes would be measured across the board and any needs would be highlighted. Head teachers and governors would also be involved with scrutinising arrangements.

Councillor Dillon noted that section 83 on page 63 stated that the line management of the Home Education Service currently sat with the Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). In future it was proposed that the Home Education Service would be managed by the Council. On page 71 it stated however that as a result of the consultation the Home Education Service would remain as part of the Alternative Education Provision Service for 2017/18 but that this would be reviewed again to ensure efficient use of resources and best outcomes for young people. Councillor Doherty commented that this demonstrated that the Council listened to comments made during consultations but that this situation would be kept under review.

Councillor Dillon stated that he was pleased to see that The Riverside and The Moorside Community Centres were recognised as community buildings and that their future would be discussed with the relevant communities. He noted the comments about alternative education providers and queried what these providers would charge for a day rate when compared with the Council’s charge of £90 per day. Councillor Doherty agreed to provide him with a written response to this query.

RESOLVED that: the 2 current services, Reintegration Service and Alternative Curriculum, should merge to become a single Alternative Education Provision. The number of sites be reduced from 6 to 4, thus reducing duplication of management, building and administrative costs. A single unified service be provided which can offer consistent support and provision for pupils and schools.

To approve the savings that were to be delivered by scaling down the size of the Service from 84 to 66 pupil places thus delivering efficiencies in costs across budget lines, including staffing reductions; and by removing the Council contribution (centrally retained DSG) to the cost of pupil places. All savings will be within the DSG.

The Council has traditionally funded places at the PRUs but over time funding had shifted to the schools. The proposal means that the Council would no longer contribute to placements commissioned directly by schools, thus making a saving to the High Needs Block, which would help reduce the pressure in this block.

Reason for the decision: The Council could no longer afford to deliver Alternative Provision in the same way.  The proposed Alternative Education Provision would provide a budget saving to the DSG High Needs Block which would help to reduce pressure on this block.

Other options considered: We have previously considered leaving the service, which was seen by OFSTED as good, unchanged but this is not financially sustainable in the current climate.

The Management Committee of the two services discussed the possibility of establishing an Academy but voted not to proceed down that route at this stage.

We considered passing all of the funding to schools to deliver Alternative Provision themselves, which would have removed the Council-maintained PRUs, and rely on the use of alternative provision providers from a range of sources. However, it was felt this would not provide the best arrangement for West Berkshire students and would not guarantee meeting the Council’s statutory duties. This was also the view expressed during the pre-consultation exercise with secondary headteachers in Summer 2015.