Agenda item

Proposed Changes to Enhanced Resource Provision Units Supporting Children with Hearing Impairments

(To receive a report from Andrew Hancy, County Manager Business Support, which provides feedback on the consultation document during the consultation period)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report from Andrew Hancy, County Manager Business Support, which provided feedback on the public consultation which proposed alternative options on the future provision of Enhanced Resource Provision (ERP) units supporting children with significant hearing impairments across Lincolnshire.

 

It was reported that in June 2017 a review of the Enhanced Resource Provision (ERP) units had taken place to ensure that children with a hearing impairment were being provided with the highest quality support in schools, and that they were receiving support when they needed it, from a school as close to their home as possible.  The Committee noted that the review had evidenced that the number of children accessing support through an ERP had reduced significantly over recent years; and that the units were currently underutilised.  It was highlighted that the review had concluded that many parents and carers preferred to have their children attending local schools as they had confidence that the needs of their children were being met.  Further feedback indicated that parents and carers preferred not to have their child travelling excessive distances to a dedicated ERP unit; and that they preferred their child going to a local school with family members and their friends.

 

The Committee noted that as well as the ERP units, the council employed a Lincolnshire Sensory Education Support Team (SEST), which was staffed by specialist qualified teachers who provided learning support to children with sensory impairments.  It was noted that SEST currently supported 545 children across Lincolnshire with a sensory impairment from birth to school leaving age.  It was noted further that 98% of these children were supported within their local mainstream schools with outreach support being provided from SEST. 

 

It was reported that depending on the level of the child's need they were likely to have an Education, Health and Care Plan in place, which provided any additional support or resources required to meet their needs within a mainstream school setting or specialist setting.

 

The Committee was advised that at present there were four schools (two primary and two secondary) across Lincolnshire who had a ERP unit providing targeted support to nine children with significant hearing impairments.  It was highlighted that specialist teaching at the units was provided by SEST. The Committee noted that those children who were educated in schools with an ERP, the majority of their time was spent being supported in main stream classes with their peer group.  Then dependent of the level of support required the children would then spend time in the ERP unit receiving targeted teaching and being supported by Teaching/Learning Assistants.

 

In conclusion, as a result of the feedback received a number of alternative models for service provision had emerged, the four options were summarised at the bottom of page 18, with further details of each of the options being shown in the consultation document at Appendix A 'Proposed Changes to Enhanced Resource Provision Units Supporting Children with Hearing Impairments, Have your Say'. The Committee noted that the consultation had commenced on 18 October 2017 and was due to close on 29 November 2017.  The Committee was advised that the proposals were not about reducing the level of provision from SEST, the intention was to enhance it by providing targeted support where and when it was needed.

 

The Committee was advised that a further report would be presented to the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee at its 19 January 2018 meeting. 

 

During discussion, the Committee raised the following issues:-

 

·         One member enquired if Option 4 (Decommission the ERP Units and support children in mainstream school setting) was adopted, who would fund it? Officers advised that it was the local authority's responsibility.  A further point raised was whether option 4 removed parental choice, particularly in cases where children had a hearing impairment, as well as other complex needs;   

·         The cost of the classroom – Officers confirmed that the exercise was not a cost reduction exercise.  The main driver was to ensure that the service provided was meeting the needs of the service users.  Officers clarified that there was not a separate unit in the physical sense.  The definition of a unit in this particular instance was; children in a mainstream classroom environment that would spend an allotted period of time, (dependent on the level on need) with a Specialist Teacher or Support Teaching Assistant in a separate area;

·         One member felt that Option 3 (No further placement of children into the ERPs – all new placements into local mainstream school) should enable the child currently at the units to continue to access education in that school;

·         Some members felt that a further option should be to maintain provision at Ruskington Primary School  and Thomas Cowley High School;

·         It was further suggested that there should be a fifth option that provision at Ruskington Primary School should be maintained (as this school had the highest number of pupils – six in total).  Officers advised that the primary school was supportive of the proposals.  It was further noted that the schools who had been spoken to had indicated that they preferred having children in a mainstream environment, with the children attending their local school in their local community.  A further suggestion was made to having the option of one ERP at Ruskington as a variance to Option 2 – Reduce the number of ERP units from 4 to 2 across Lincolnshire.  One member enquired as to whether the children in mainstream would be subject to bullying.  Officers reassured the Committee that children were currently in mainstream classes mixing with their friends and colleagues; and were also socialising at break times; the only time the children were separated was when they were having one to one time with their Specialist Teacher/Teaching Assistant;

·         One member expressed concern at the lack of modern research comparing mainstream education to individual units.  It was highlighted that some schools were equipped to deal with children for example with the provision of hearing loops; and staff being trained to deal with communicating with children with hearing impairments.  Some members of the Committee highlighted their personal experiences relating to the provision of equipment in schools available to children with hearing impairments to help them in a mainstream environment;

·         Clarification was given that the SEST provided support to children with sensory impairment, which included hearing, visual and multiple sensory impairment.  The Committee noted that Thomas Cowley did employ their own specialist teacher.  Officers advised that the proposals were in line with the national direction of travel;

·         The use of Google URL shortening service for any website addresses to help feedback on line; and

·         The Committee agreed that when the report was presented to the January 2018 meeting an Appendix should be included to say what the impact was for the children currently in ERP.

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That the report presented be received.

 

2.    That the feedback on the options as detailed above be considered by officers.

 

3.      That the report presented to the 19 January 2018 Children and Young People Scrutiny meeting should contain information relating to the impact of the proposals on the children currently in Enhanced Resource Provision units.

Supporting documents:

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: