Agenda item

(To receive a presentation from Dave Thompson, Solutions 4 Manager, on Solutions 4 and the Committee will have the opportunity to provide verbal feedback from visits undertaken to Solutions 4 providers)

Dave Thompson, Solutions 4 Manager, gave a presentation to the Committee which detailed the transition of the Lincolnshire Teaching and Learning Centre (LTLC) from Lincolnshire County Council as an independent maintained school and had been undertaken in a way to ensure that LCC could meet its statutory duties for children not in full time education. 

The presentation also asked Members to consider the role of Solutions 4 in meeting the needs of pupils excluded or at risk of exclusion in Key Stage 4.

During discussion, the following points were noted:-

·       It was reported that there were currently 400 "other authority" Looked After Children in Lincolnshire, some of which were looked after by Solutions 4.

·       The referring authority was now being challenged as a child would not be accepted into the county without the appropriate funding being apportioned to the child in relation to higher need SEN.

·       Funding was received from Central Government based on the October count.

·       The Local Authority was not in a position to refuse a child in to the county but there was a responsibility to have the relevant health and education plans in place.  Legislation which would include this had not yet been finalised so discussions with other authorities was being held tentatively at present.

·       If a child was resident in Lincolnshire, even if they were from out-of-county, but placed with foster carers for example, the local authority was legally obliged to provide an education for that child although element 3 funding for SEN would be for the placing authority.

The Chairman invited Committee Members, who had visited Solutions 4 facilities, to update the Committee with their experiences.

·       Councillor Mrs Ransome advised that she had visited two centres and had been impressed with both.  Bridge House was found to be academically orientated while Opportune Engineers were more "hands on".  Staff and children had embraced her and were enthusiastic in telling her what they do at the centre.  Councillor Mrs Ransome asked the Committee to note her concern about the short notice of the notification that funding had been received.  It was felt that the security of staff in these centres was essential as to lose them would be detrimental to the children.

·       Added Member, Mr Rudman, had visited the Gelder school and found it to be outstanding despite some of the pupils having been excluded from more than one establishment within the county.  Mr Rudman had been made to feel very welcome and had been provided with some background details of the pupils, some of which were from difficult families.  It was stressed that the centre tried to provide a safe environment for the pupils and then look at the education element.

·       Councillor Churchill visited Opportune Engineers and stressed that these children are challenging but have the ability to succeed.  The issue for this centre was that the funding was not available to heat the building and it appeared that there was considerably less spent on the upkeep of these facilities.  Councillor Churchill advised that she was scheduled to visit Gelder also.

·       Councillors R and L Wootten had been warmly greeted when they visited Bridge House in Boston, who catered for 40 pupils aged 14 to 16.  Core subjects were taught to students and most students were expected to gain either a B or C result.  Pupils were very much included and they felt that it was an excellent facility.

·       Councillor Aron visited Build a Future in Horncastle where he found the staff to be very enthusiastic with some excellent ideas for the future.  Funding was also an issue at this centre and he felt the building was also an issue.

·       Councillor Dodds also visited Build a Future in Horncastle and felt that the relationship between students and staff seemed rigorous and strong.  There was an informal atmosphere but it was clear that there was a mutual respect between staff and students.  Transport was an issue especially for post 16 children and Councillor Dodds asked that post 16 travel solutions be seriously considered.  She was also concerned regarding capacity at the centre and whether the local authority should be giving consideration to increasing work with these schools as she felt the financial implications of doing so would far exceed the moral and financial cost of allowing these children to fail.

·       Added Member, Mrs Olivier-Townrow, visited the Gelder Group and had been extremely impressed with the centre and the children there.  Two teachers were with a group of six children but she felt that there was a real challenge to provide the variety within the curriculum for only two teachers.  Having talked to pupils individually, they had hinted at the frustration of being actively involved in workshops.  Subsequently, Mrs Olivier-Townrow had contacted a production company who offered to undertaken some workshops and to provide bursaries also.  Mrs Olivier-Townrow felt that this was something which could be further developed.

·       The Chairman advised he had also visited Build a Future in Horncastle and, like Councillor Dodds, raised the issue of transport problems for Post 16 pupils.  The other issue raised had been budgets.

In response to Members' comments, the following points were noted:-

·       In terms of the buildings, health and safety reviews were carried out every 12 weeks and all premises met the minimum legal requirements.

·       LCC had changed the transport arrangements in relation to taxis to revert back to 12 month leases for transport.  Work was currently ongoing with taxi firms to ensure that they were working directly with Solutions 4 but with support from LCC.

·       Concern remained that if there was no assurance of funding flow, the centres would continue to be unable to make significant capital investments.  Solutions 4 had written to the providers to advise that funding had been extended for a further year but agreed that a plan of less than three years was not acceptable. 

·       As long as standards were maintained, there was a plan to roll the contracts on for an additional year and that LCC intended to reprocure Solutions 4 under a framework arrangement for providers but acknowledged that this would need to be longer than on a yearly basis.  Members were reassured that funding arrangements were currently being considered although advised that the capital issues raised had not been.

·       There was a dedicated grant available from the DfE, of which the majority was spent on the sufficiency of places available.  All other issues raised would be considered in the reprocurement.

·       Although facilities were made available by the individual providers, Solutions 4 managed the centres overall.  The six week deadline was a target, an aspiration, to move pupils out of the system but it was acknowledged that this was not always possible but it gave both Solutions 4 and the pupils a target to work to.  Once the children embarked on courses, it was difficult to find a mainstream school providing that particular course.  Bridge House, for example, had qualifications in line with mainstream schools.

·       At the Gelders Centre, it was reported that there are currently six highly complex students who could have been placed in out-of-county placements at a cost in excess of £100k per placement.  It was felt, therefore, that by providing facilities such as these in-county, it would save the authority money.

Councillor Mrs C A Talbot asked that it be noted that she was personal friends of the owner at Hill Holt Wood at Norton Disney.

Councillor B W Keimach also asked the Committee to note that, in relation to a Solutions 4 provider and their ongoing discussions with West Lindsey District Council, he was a District Councillor with WLDC.

In summary, the Committee requested the local authority to consider longer contracts to give more certainty for providers, address the issue of transport including taxis and transport provided directly by providers, general funding and the potential to increase the daily costs.

RESOLVED

That the presentation and updates be noted and officers be asked to consider the commissioning arrangements for Solutions 4.

At 12.55pm, Councillor B W Keimach left the meeting and did not return.