Library Reading Scheme presentations On 17 September I presented awards to all those children who successfully completed the Woodbridge Library Reading Challenge 2017. This year 212 children completed, to gain certificates and medals. I also funded a poster competition and a magic show from my locality budget.
Suffolk’s Cabinet decision on controversial school transport policy changes called-in by LDGI Group A decision made by Cabinet on 12 September, to go to public consultation on proposed changes to SCC’s school transport policy, was ‘called-in’ to scrutiny by opposition councillors from the Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent Group (of whom I was one).
The call-in cited several problems with the report that informed Cabinet’s decision, and argued that to go to public consultation without a comprehensive impact assessment would be premature. The councillors questioned the expected savings and stressed the need to fully research how changes might impact on educational attainment, increased car use, and school viability.
The call-in was examined by the Scrutiny Committee on 28 September, who determined determined that the subject should be referred back to Cabinet again. Watch this space!
Consultation on Woodbridge Thoroughfare September 25- 1October saw the Thoroughfare Working Group’s public consultation in Woodbridge Library on changing the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in the Thoroughfare. A stall was staffed in Woodbridge Library for a full 7 days (I personally worked 44 hours staffing it).
The consultation is to ensure it more accurately reflects current usage and to make the provisions more enforceable. Three options were provided. Approximately 600 questionnaires have been received, and the information will now analysed and used to establish the basis of a new TRO.
Impact of Woods Lane development on A1438 The astonishing and unacceptable closure of Woods Lane for a prolonged period ( 3 weeks shortly and then three months in early 2017) to install utilities for the 180 house Bloor Homes development will divert heavy traffic between the A12 and Wilford to the B1438 (Ipswich Road) in the south and the Old Yarmouth Road through Melton to the north. I am one of many lobbying to ameliorate this situation, not least because of the number of schools and sheltered housing along the route. When I recently was able to secure permission for 20mph zoning in Woodbridge, a significant rationale was the impact of heavy traffic on our medieval town , the number of pedestrians and cyclists inconvenienced or endangered, and to discourage rat-running on the B1438 instead of A12/Woods Lane usage.
This diversion now underlines why the scheme is necessary. I am very concerned on the impact this will have on Woodbridge’s traders, students, and residents
Search for a new SCC Chief Executive continues A full day of interviews and assessments took place on Monday 11 September in the search for a new Chief Executive for Suffolk County Council to succeed Deborah Cadman. The interview panel included five councillors from across the three main Groups. (3 Conservative, 1 Labour, 1 LDGI)
Although the field of candidates was strong it was decided that there was no clear candidate that met the expectations for the role. Therefore no appointment was made, and the recruitment process will begin again in the coming months. In the mean time Sue Cook will contine as interim Chief Executive, supported by other members of the corporate management team.
PCC ‘not pursuing’ plans to take control of Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Suffolk’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Tim Passmore, has announced that he will not be pursuing plans to take control of Suffolk Fire and Rescue Services.
Earlier this year the PCC commissioned PA Consulting to undertake an options appraisal to consider the future governance of the Fire and Rescue Service and a potential shift of governance from the County Council to the PCC. This review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that a governance change would be clearly in the interests of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; or public safety.
Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service launches ‘escape plan’ campaign The Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service has launched a new safety campaign and website highlighting the importance of fire escape plans. The campaign addresses the fact that every year there are 40,000 accidental house fires in the UK. Having an escape plan will allow Suffolk residents to escape the fire quickly and safely. Please
Visitors to the campaign website will be able to:
- Take a quiz to test how prepared they are to escape a fire
- Create their own escape plan for everyone in their household
The ‘escape plan’ fire campaign will run until 31 October 2017. More information can be found at fire.suffolk.gov.uk.
October Surgery Cancellation I will be cancelling my monthly surgery this month (21 October) because of family commitments on the other side of the world. The remaining surgeries for 2017 are:
- 18 November 2017
- 16 December 2017
These changes are profound. Most importantly, the proposal is that free travel will only be provided where a qualifying school student attends their nearest school. Currently it is available for qualifying students attending their catchment school, nearest school, or transport priority area. Between the schools organisation review and the the advent of free schools, these may be three different schools in some areas. ‘Not fair’, according to the administration who oversaw this chaos.
Such a decision will impact specifically on rural families, and those from families with single parents, limited incomes and few travel choices. Additionally, the last shreds of subsidised travel for 16-18 year olds will no longer be provided.
If, after the consultation, the decision were made to adopt the proposal, it would be implemented for all students across Suffolk with effect from September 2019, without consideration for decisions made in good faith by families before this date.
The intention is to make savings. However the preconsultation has been unable to identify any specific proposals or indeed the savings that might be intended to be made.
And why are these changes being made? Simply, Suffolk can’t afford the transport we have provided up till now. Costs – we are told sorrowfully- have gone up. But gosh, not our Council tax – which the leader is so proud of having not raised for seven, yes SEVEN, years. No wonder the county can’t afford to provide the transport that rural Suffolk students need!
To add insult to injury the proposals are being cynically marketed as “unlocking capacity to benefit Suffolk residents, not just the small proportion of school children” because the abolition of school-specific bus services ‘may’ allow private companies to come forward to offer services! (Not that any have to date. That was another question I asked.)
So, having comprehensively annihilated scheduled rural bus services (because of the cost), Suffolk County council now complains that it has to rely on expensive closed buses and taxis to meet its statutory obligations to the students of this county – and expresses surprise that this provision is not open to the Suffolk residents it deprived of buses in the first place.
I think the expression is No shit, Sherlock.
Why on earth, ( I asked the Cabinet) having previously stopped funding various public and community bus services across the county on the grounds that they were ‘not financially viable’, are you now contending that there will be a market solution to the school transport budget problem?
“Because we are getting rid of the closed buses that we replaced the cancelled scheduled services with“, was the Topsy Turveyland reply. You couldn’t make it up…
The young people of Suffolk are worth investment. Instead of further penalising rural residents by moving the goalposts once again, I call on Suffolk County Council to make proper provision for the rural families of this county by once again subsidising rural bus services, retaining current Home School travel provision, and funding student travel right up to the new de facto statutory school age of 18 out of our ever-increasing reserves.
You will be pleased to hear the LibDem, Green and Independent Group has ‘called in’ this Cabinet decision, which means it will now have to go to the Scrutiny Committee to be investigated properly before it can be implemented.
Watch this space.
Update: Im glad to tell you that the LDGI Group call-in (proposed by LibDem Councillor Penny Otton , and seconded by Green Councillor Andrew Stringer) was successful. Cllrs Otton and Stringer persuaded Scrutiny of the justice of their argument – citing Essex where the same proposals ended in very little actual savings. The proposals now have to be re-examined by Cabinet
The first tranche of Suffolk’s review of its special educational provision – the consultation -finished last Sunday. I responded jointly as councillor and as parent as the form allowed.
We were told that the review was focusing on the following three types of current specialist educational provision:
1) Specialist Support Centres (SSCs) (I am in favour, indeed I would like Suffolk to establish another one in the north west of the county); 2) Residential provision in Moderate Learning Disability (MLD) Special Schools (I felt this needed discussion with parents as best placed to define wants) and
3) Alternative Provision (AP). Alternative Provision was used in the consultation as a catch-all for ‘any provision that provides education that is not a mainstream school or academy’. It includes all provision for young people with specialist health issues, for example autism, and epilepsy which is often provided out of county at great expense (and now to age 25 because of recent legislation). AP was also used to include PRUs (Pupil Referral Units): facilities offering a part time or full time education for pupils who exhibit challenging behaviour. Typically pupils spend 2 terms in a PRU before being reintegrated back into school.
We were told
Currently the county council is experiencing considerable pressures with the number of learners with additional needs (236 currently) needing to be educated in non – Suffolk settings, with learners requiring access to Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) and Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) provision accounting for 151 of the 236 learners
However, in the consultation, despite these remarks on the cost of out-of-county placements in general the AP question focused entirely on PRUs (see below)!
Now, as regards PRUs, I would not throw the baby away with the bathwater and would definitely ensure that excellent provision in Suffolk is not lost in any rationalisation we undertake, and I was happy to respond saying as much.
HOWEVER, I concentrated most of my response on the hidden question of what Suffolk is doing, or rather not doing, for students – like my own child – who was fortunate enough eventually to be sent out of Suffolk because Suffolk SEND education so completely failed to provide an education for them (despite costly but unstructured, unquantified and unthought-out ‘interventions’ ).
This is not because of my personal interest but because of my understanding of the cost involved on the one hand, and the reasons for the cost on the other.
SEND covers a hugely wide range of conditions; individual schools seem to provide pretty much what education they choose to these (clearly second-class) pupils and SCC, the statutory authority for education and social care, often has to pick up the costly pieces of their cherry-picking failure. Why should this be the case?
Looking at this SEND consultation it seems that there may be a tendency to view the cost of premises and salaries as where cost-savings and rationalisation could be made. I therefore urged SCC to look at the often inappropriate delivery of SEND education itself.
For a start , why should (as ever) the needs of young people with social and behavioural problems be asked to conflict with those with health issues and cognitive deficits?
As example, my own child with a physical disability was educated away from her peers in a unit along with those with anger issues and other behavioural problems. Why? You tell me. Seemingly for the same reason as her current education establishment (a specialist college outside Suffolk dedicated to her medical condition) is conflated with PRUs in the reply box for this consultation.
(And even then, PRUs who educate short-term those who can be reintegrated into mainstream school are given the whole of Box 3 in a 3 box consultation document supposedly dealing globally with educational provision for Special Educational Needs and Disability. The disabled once again become second-rate citizens? You couldn’t make it up). It is neither fair or reasonable to either group.
So, redressing the balance and talking specifically about educating specifically disabled young people – Suffolk’s continuing failure in the field of SEND teaching and curriculum delivery is expensive and an essential part of our problem. It is an area that this consultation document seemed reluctant to address.
Let us not beat about the bush – I’ve heard stories of parents who treat SEND provision as if it were ‘childcare’ but I would contend that there is a lot of Suffolk SEND provision that is arguably little better than childcare: with ‘educators’ seeing little responsibility for the future of their students; setting challenges that do not challenge and awarding gold stars and pats on the head instead of a robust and rigorously constructed syllabus looking realistically towards their future after education.
SEND education – if it is NOT to be childcare – should be looking at the longterm future of the pupil. If it is to be effective and cost-effective , it should explore possibilities of independence, expect the possibility of paid employment, work for realistic integration with employers’ needs , not be dismissive and patronising of pupils’ potential, skills, capacities. ( Here, the education, employment and discrimination sections of this blog post (click for link) although epilepsy-specific, have universal relevence. Suffolk produced a strategy document 2015-18 last October. But non-specific optimism is no good without teeth and this was toothless. Just like Suffolk’s current Inclusion and Equalities strategy which completely excludes having to contemplate the situation of all the disabled people in Suffolk and their inability to find work because they have not received adequate or even appropriate training or education (see link). Disabled people and their problems seem remarkably invisible to the policymakers of Suffolk).
Yet not educating, or mis-educating these young people is at the short- and long-term expense of the taxpayer as well as the young person. And failure to address the need of provision in-county has greater ramifications now we have a statutory duty to provide to age 25. We have an absolute need to question and query and qualitatively analyse the outcome of what is taught to young people with disabilities in the same way as we assess and monitor mainstream provision.
Will Suffolk now improve the SEND offer so that disabled young people can expect the same quality and monitoring of education as their able-bodied peers get by right? Not, you might say, a very big ask. And a damn sight cheaper ask then sending them out of county, like nineteenth century black sheep to the colonies.
We wait for the next stage of the consultation to see whether these issues have been taken on board.
Suffolk County Council are currently consulting widely and with a completely open mind about the future of specialist education provision in Suffolk.
Opposition councillors were naturally sceptical that this was cover for money-saving, but very clear and open answers to our questions from officers have reassured us that this is not a cost-cutting exercise (the money is ring-fenced) but about spending it to best advantage and with better outcomes.
At the moment, Suffolk has 256 young people sent out of county at the cost of £11m a year for educational provision that Suffolk has not been able or willing to provide in county; some of our PRUs ‘require improvement’ (one is in special measures) and are more expensive and produce worse outcomes than Norfolk’s (which are rated outstanding), and all the SSCs (specialist support centres) are located in one quadrant of the county because historically they were only sited in schools that declared themselves willing to house them. This means there is no provision in the north and west of the county and some children are making two 75-minute journeys a day to reach them.
Suffolk is is now wanting your input to find the best way to address these issues and others.
From 11 January – 7 February 2016 people have the opportunity to give your views on a range of options Suffolk are looking at, and you can also suggest other ideas for Suffolk to consider. (We have been assured that nothing has been predetermined or decided. This is genuinely a consultation )
After this, 14 March – 24 April 2016 there will be a formal consultation on the proposed changes: a 6 week formal consultation period where you can make representations to the Council – both expressions of support or objections to the proposals.
So, whether you are concerned or worried, or simply want to add your voice to the debate – please respond and add your views! They will be valued You can find the documents here