Issue - items at meetings - Self Managed Learning College (SMLC)

Report of the Executive Director, Children’s Services (copy attached)

Two separate amendments were put and a vote was taken on each of them in turn.

The first which was put by the Conservative Group was lost by a vote of 3 to 7 (Conservative for, Labour and Green against), the second amendment which was put by the Green group was upheld by a vote of 7 to 3 (Conservatives and Greens for, Labour against). This second set of amendments was then incorporated and became the substantive recommendations on which a formal vote was taken. The amended recommendations were rejected by a vote of 6 to 4 (Greens for, Conservative and Labour against).

Following a brief adjournment the Committee reconvened and it was determined that following rejection of the recommendations the default position was that the status quo applied. This meant the current policy as to funding the attendance of children in receipt of home education at the SMLC remained as it was prior to the vote.

RESOLVED – No decision was taken.

26.1         The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Children’s Services which provided information regarding the funding of pupils at the Self Managed Learning College (SMLC) in Brighton who had been home educated at parental request. The report provided details of the consultation which had taken place with parents and pupils who had been attending the SMLC, also giving information on current and future funding arrangements for these children following advice received from the Department of Education (DfE) and setting out options for Members to consider for future funding for these placements.

26.2    The Head of Behaviour and Attendance explained that as the children who attended the SMLC were not registered at a school and were not on a school roll they were classified as” home educated” as parents have assumed responsibility for their educational provision, even if this was delegated to someone else. New guidelines issued by the DfE stated that the local authority was now no longer able to access funding through the Alternative Provision Census and that such providers must apply directly to the DfE, local authorities were not able to do this on their behalf. The local authority would instead need to give consideration to funding home educated pupils directly through the High Needs block within the Dedicated Schools Grant. The same DfE guidance went on to explain that local authorities did not receive funding to support home educating families. These changes had come into effect for the 2013/14 financial year. It was reiterated that the current arrangement had been agreed on the basis these students had been withdrawn from school to be educated at home, or had always been home educated, and that the local authority were able to act as a conduit to central government funding. As the SMLC was not a registered school it was not able to access the funding directly and required the LA to fulfil this role on their behalf. Now that the LA could no longer access this funding a consultation process had been undertaken to determine whether the LA could assume these costs from within its own funds.

26.3    The Acting Assistant Director, Education and Inclusion responded to issues raised by the Deputees who had queried the accuracy of the data set out in the report that this had been uploaded from the original admission forms received from parents. Every effort had been made to ensure that the information provided was accurate. An inspection of the college had not taken place as the college was not a school and was therefore not subject to Ofsted. Two visits had been paid by the LA and it was noted that the SMLC was registered with East Sussex County Council as an alternative provider. The value of this offer as an alternative was not questioned, however in view of the changes referred to above the officer recommendation was that funding of placements to the SMLC should cease. The Acting Assistant Director stated that the local authority took allegations of bullying very seriously and would work with individual parents where this was considered to be an issue, where children were considered to have special needs or instances where they wished to explore alternative educational provision for their children. One of the report recommendations was that the Committee considered proposals to support the SMLC in pursuing routes to enable it to continue to provide its current levels of provision. It was important to note that the existing arrangements did not apply to all SMLC students. 11 were funded at present via that arrangement and of those, 2 would be in the equivalent of Years 10 (entering GCSE’s) and 1 would be in the equivalent of in Year 11, Key Stage 4. It should be noted that unlike DfE registered schools the SMLC is not required to deliver the national curriculum, there was no evaluation against key stages, students were only entered into examinations if they choose to be. The SMLC was not an examination centre, did not offer full time provision and had shorter terms than maintained schools.

26.4    Councillor Wealls stated that it was his understanding that as provision had been made from the Dedicated Schools Grant, should a decision be made to provide funding for SMLC pupils for a further period, the Conservative Group amendment suggested until the end of the 2013/14 financial year (July 2014), he enquired whether this could be funded from the High Needs Block or from elsewhere, bearing in mind that provision had already been made to roll the existing arrangement forward for a period. If that was the case he queried whether the necessary budgetary provision already existed. The Executive Director, Children’s Services responded that moving monies between dedicated budgets was complex. The High Needs Block covered funding provision for high needs pupils and students from birth to 25 and was managed by the local authority within the parameters set down by the Government. As part of this process officers had investigated the extent to which any of the current cohort met the criteria for funding under the High Needs Block and it had been established that none of the pupils currently attending the SMLC met the criteria for funding to be applied in that way.

26.5    Councillor Lepper enquired regarding the numbers of children who were home educated in Brighton and Hove. The Head of Behaviour and attendance responded that there were 169 young people of whom the authority were aware, however this figure was not necessarily accurate (the actual figure was likely to be higher as in instances where parents chose to make alternative provision for their children they were not obliged to notify the local authority. The Legal Adviser to the Committee confirmed that this was the case.

26.6    Councillor Lepper also sought clarification of the financial implications for other children across the city if the local authority continued to fund this provision directly, noting that the majority of “home educated” children across the city sought alternative provision which was not funded by the local authority. It was clearly stated in the report that there was no legal requirement for the local authority to pay fees for pupils to attend the SMLC or any other private education provider and that no budget was available to make such a payment. Parents who chose to home educate their children were responsible for ensuring that they received an appropriate education. To continue to fund such provision could have a negative impact on other children attending local authority schools.

26.7    Councillor A Kitcat stated that she remained of the view that the language used in the report was in places inappropriate, was not sufficiently clear and did not reflect the situation as it stood. Prior to the decision taken in 2012 provision for these young people had not been funded via the local authority. It was also important to make the distinction that funding had been made via not by the authority.

26.8    Councillor Buckley noted that the SMLC was now listed as an alternative provider querying how any such alternative provision had been funded in the past. The Head of Behaviour and Attendance explained that this had been discretionary and would have taken account of a number of factors including statements of special educational needs and medical needs. Councillor Buckley referred to the waiting period for a CAMHS assessment, currently 13 weeks plus seeking confirmation whether this might impact on funding available for some students currently attending the SMLC. The Acting Assistant Director, Education and inclusion explained that this would not have changed the levels of funding available as within officers’ review of the current cohort of pupils it had been established that none had been assessed as requiring a Statement of Special Educational Needs. The Legal Adviser to the Committee stated that there was a need however to satisfy the authority that they had high needs which would merit such funding.

26.9    Councillor Pissaridou stated that she remained of the view that the current situation was unsatisfactory. It did not appear that the decision to fund in 2012 had been subject to a Committee decision, at that time it had been considered that the college provided educational provision to an acceptable standard and met the necessary health and safety and child protection criteria. That position appeared to have changed and it now appeared to be suggested that might not be the case, notwithstanding that the SMLC was acknowledged as an alternative provider by East Sussex County Council. The Acting Assistant Director explained that the previous arrangements had been made on the basis of this local authority acting as a conduit to DFE funding in the terms set out in the report. The visits that had taken place were not formal inspections as the college was not DfE registered as a school and did not therefore fall within the criteria for Ofsted inspections. The SMLC had been utilised by maintained schools as an alternative provider of education and schools could choose to use this provision to support young people where it is felt appropriate. Schools would be responsible for funding the alternative provision and for ensuring that the provision is appropriate and that all necessary safeguarding and child protection procedures were in place.

26.10  In terms of involvement with other Local authorities, the SMLC was registered as an ‘approved non commissioned training provider’ with East Sussex County Council. Under this arrangement schools in East Sussex can directly refer and fund their students to attend the college. East Sussex County Council had advised that they had commissioned 3-4 places directly in 2008/09 but that they had not commissioned any places directly since then. The college also appeared on this local authority’s list of alternative providers.

26.11  Councillor A Kitcat sought confirmation as to whether the SMLC would be able to apply to the DfE for direct funding and the Acting Assistant Director, Education and Inclusion explained that although there was provision for that by the DFE in order to do so they would need to meet criteria as a school/academy. The SMLC was not a school under the law and did not hold itself as such. It was an institution offering private education to children who were educated at home. It described itself as a college providing educational programmes for 7-16 year old’s who chose not to be at school.

26.12  Councillor Wealls referred to the proposed Conservative Group amendment, seconded by Councillor Simson stating that their group had concerns about the potential adverse impact on students, funded under the current arrangement, particularly those in Years 10/11, Key Stage 4. He considered that the amount of money required to fund 11 students (16 students in total were registered at SMLC), to the end of the summer term 2013/14 was relatively small and would provide them and their parents with a reasonable timeframe within which to access alternative provision and for the local authority to work with the SMLC and to support it to pursue routes to enable it to continue to provide current levels of provision. Councillor Brown also concurred in that view.

26.13  The Chair, Councillor Shanks referred to the volume of correspondence received via e mail and by other means in relation to this issue. Her group did not feel able to support the Conservative Group amendments in full and were therefore putting forward proposals of their own. They considered that it was appropriate to fund those students (3 in total) who were at Key Stage 4 to the end of their studies. Councillor Buckley stated that they considered their amendment to represent a reasonable way forward and Councillor Powell concurred in that view.

26.14  Councillor Wealls expressed disappointment that the Green group did not feel able to support his group’s proposed amendment in full, considering that to do so would remove the current uncertainties and provide a reasonable timeframe for alternative options to be exploredt little cost to the authority.

26.15  Councillor Pissaridou stated that she considered it inappropriate for additional amendments to be in effect “tabled” from the floor without the Committee having the opportunity to consider their implications properly. She was very concerned regarding the manner in which this matter had been dealt with, in her view inconsistent and muddled. If either of the proposed amendments were approved she confirmed that her group would request that the matter be called in for consideration by the Scrutiny Committee.

26.16  Councillor Lepper concurred in that view stating that in her view the amendments put forward would result in public money being used to fund a private education establishment. The local authority was charged with providing a good standard of education for all children within the city and private provision should not be funded at their expense.

26.17  Following debate on the matter the Committee then moved to consideration of the recommendations set out in the report and the two amendments which had been put forward.

26.18  The Recommendation set out at Paragraph 2.1 of the report was as follows:

2.         RECOMMENDATIONS:

2.1       It is recommended that:

(i)                 the committee notes the issues raised and the consultation with the affected parents and pupils;

(ii)               a decision is made to cease the funding of placements at the SMLC;

(iii)       the committee consider the proposals to support the SMLC to pursue routes to enable it to continue to provide current levels of provision;

26.19The Committee then proceeded to consider the two amendments put forward:

Conservative Group Amendment: Proposed by Councillor Wealls and seconded by Councillor Simson

2.         RECOMMENDATIONS:

2.1       It is recommended that:

(iii)             the committee notes the issues raised and the consultation with the affected parents and pupils;

(iv)              a decision is made to cease the funding of placements at the SMLC;a decision is made to continue funding the students who have begun Key Stage 4 (from September 2013) for two years as it is accepted that these pupils would not have had an opportunity to select their GCSE options elsewhere;

(v)                the committee consider the proposals to support the SMLC to pursue routes to enable it to continue to provide current levels of provision;

(vi)              a decision is made to cease funding for all non-KS4 pupils currently financially supported by the authority at the SMLC with effect from the end of the current academic year 2013-2014.

Green Group Amendment: Proposed by the Deputy Chair, Councillor Buckley and seconded by Councillor Powell:

                        2.         RECOMMENDATIONS:

(i)                 the committee notes the issues raised and the consultation with the affected parents and pupils;

(ii)        a decision is made to cease the funding of placements at the SMLC with the exception of those students who have begun Key Stage 4 (from September 2013) for two years as it is accepted that these pupils would not have had an opportunity to select their GCSE options elsewhere;

(iii)       the committee consider the proposals to support the SMLC to pursue routes to enable it to continue to provide current levels of provision.

26.20  The Two separate amendments set out above were put and a vote was taken on each of them in turn.

26.21  The first which was put by the Conservative Group was lost by a vote of 3 to 7 (Conservative for, Labour and Green against), the second amendment which was put by the Green group was upheld by a vote of 7 to 3 (Conservatives and green for, Labour against). This second set of amendments was then incorporated and became the substantive recommendations on which a formal vote was taken. The amended recommendations were rejected by a vote of 6 to 4 (Greens for, Conservative and Labour against).

26.22  Following a brief adjournment the Committee reconvened and it was determined that following the rejection of the recommendations the default position was that the status quo applied. This meant the current policy as to funding the attendance of children in receipt of home education at the SMLC remained as it was prior to the vote, with funding  agreed until the end of December. The Chair stated that in order for the Committee to determine the matter unequivocally it was anticipated that a further report would be submitted to the next scheduled meeting of the Committee on 18 November 2013.

26.23  RESOLVED – (1) That no decision was taken.