1 / 14

The Need for a service review (Agents for Change)

The Future Development of Access Responsibilities (Section 19) and Alternative Provision in Somerset PRU Management Committee Update & Consultation. The Need for a service review (Agents for Change). Local needs & impacts

livingston-aron
Download Presentation

The Need for a service review (Agents for Change)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Future Development of Access Responsibilities (Section 19) and Alternative Provision in SomersetPRU Management Committee Update & Consultation

  2. The Need for a service review (Agents for Change) Local needs & impacts The development of the Somerset Compact and its influence of service development The influence of the academy programme Need to improve educational outcomes for C&YP across Somerset. Need for more even distribution of provision of PRUs in Somerset (currently there are big gaps in certain age ranges and in certain geographical areas Increased of diversity and level of provision required as identified by schools LA (not school) Financial savings will continue to have an indirect impact • Govt. Legislation - impacts 2012 - 2013Move away from LA’s delivering services • Move towards schools owning, finding and funding Alternative Provision • PRU’s - freedom to gain academy status • Management Committees to gain delegated powers/budgets • Freedom for PRU’s to innovate without LA intervention • Impact of increasing voluntary and private sector (inc free schools) in the Alternative provision market

  3. Option 2 – Trading within an open market All existing PRU would become fully traded units for those pupils at risk of permanent exclusion as referred by schools. Section 19 for, Medical Tuition, Fair Access, Day 6 would continue to be delivered by the LA for monitoring & safeguarding purposes. (Option Rejected) Option 3 – Internal Commissioning All existing PRU units would become schools in their own right jointly commissioned by the Compact and the LA to meet Section 19 responsibilities and provide alternative provision for all of the compact schools. (Identified as the Preferred Option) Option 4 – External Commissioning All existing PRU units would become schools in their own right. The contract to run and provide alternative provision could be put out to tender by the Compact and the LA. This could be bid for by private organisations, individual schools or groups of schools. Alternatively externalisation may provide the opportunity for PRUs to become academies under new Government legislation (Cabinet and Compact wish Management Committees to consider at a later date) Option 5 – Reduce the Service Reduce the service to provide Section 19 responsibilities only. School and academies find and fund their own alternative provision (Option Rejected) Option 1 – Don’t Change All existing PRUs remain as 13 separate units managed within a LA area structure. Reallocate funding to support enhanced satellite provision All Section 19 responsibilities remain with the LA. (Option Rejected)

  4. Through Consultation with all partners Recommendation for a delivery model • To develop four integrated (cross phase and function) PRUs three of which would ‘support’ smaller, satellite provision in Frome, West Somerset and ChardEach of the four main PRUs would exist as a school within its own right and be self managing, but work closely as a partner with defined clusters of schools, retaining the ability to offer provision and support outside the defined area. • Each PRU school would have a delegated budget, a newly formed statutory management committee body and a single management structure under a Headteacher. Partner members and agencies would take an active role in the governance of the school and the Headteacher would belong to the same professional bodies as other Heads. • The PRU school could ‘potentially’ act as both commissioner and provider through partnership working with schools and the voluntary and private sector. • Each PRU school could provide in-reach and out-reach programmes for schools within their cluster through the management and deployment of specialist support staff. • Key Stage 1 support; SEN provision for pupils with statements and support for vulnerable learners within the integrated PRU schools need to be considered in close relation to other service reviews for these areas. (Developing through service reviews)

  5. PRU coverage by September 2013 Increases capacity in the centre 3 1 ‘Compact’ Commission/invest in Satellite ‘provision’ a b Develop four stand alone PRU Schools 2 4 PRU schools can offer support/knowledge/outreach to satellites KS4 Provision KS2/3 Provision and Outreach c LEC Medical Tuition Funding for Nurture Groups/other AP Alternative Provision Centre (APC)

  6. Process of Restructuring Project Team: 5 Workstreams Finance and Governance – building the budgets and accountability protocols Provision– Including, satellite developments, Outreach, In-reach Commissioning Section 19– hard to place pupils, area budgets, referral processes and panels Transfers– HR, Finance, Legal, Buildings APC – Virtual Classroon (Social Inclusion, Medical and SEN) Communication - Website Website on SLP by Sept 2012 High level page open to all Tabs on 5 workstreams – finance and transfers will be protected Project Officer Support FAQs section

  7. Pre-April 2013 July • Compact and Cabinet Approval • Staff, Management Committee and Partners Consultation • Meetings • Budget model approved by Compact and Schools Forum (9th / 12th ) • Establish Website Sept - April • Revisit the constitution of the Management Committees • Determine any training requirements for Management Committees and deliver. • Establish new governance structures/timetables • Establish area structure and communicate with schools • Design staffing structures for the inclusion of SEBBS/T4 • Realign APC and Tone Education within new PRU structures • Appoint to Headteachers posts • Develop 4 delegated budget structures • Design and implement new business support model • Design new satellite arrangements and accountability structures

  8. Executive Headteachers • It is planned that the Executive Headteachers will be in post by the end of October • Process • Has to adhere to SCC HR Protocols • A generic JD has been written and will be released before the end of the Summer term • An ISR (Individual School Range) is being developed determined by pupil numbers on a Special School Model • Round 1 • Expressions on Interest will be taken from Access Managers • Competency based interviews will take place • Round 2 • JD and ISR info will be released to the resource pool • Expressions of interest will be taken from eligible candidates • Interviews will take place • Round 3 • JD and ISR will be released to current Heads of Centre • Expressions of interest will be taken from eligible candidates • Interviews will take place • NB: Once in post the Executive heads will take on the responsibility for next phase of the restructuring linking to the LA & schools as members of the Compact and other professional 0rganisations

  9. Transfers (Most staff and centres will transfer in April as per current structures)

  10. SLA linking to work of Satellites 1 year buffer zone Commissioned places £8000 Specified Commissioned work non place led Panel Top up Emergency short term funding for section 19 inc hard to place Place led funding Standard PRU Top up based on Expected ave. Occupancy and Provider costs Funding model for the first year

  11. Post April 2013 - Transfer • Heads will carry out area analyses as per setting up any new school. • The process below is only illustrative to indicate a move towards new structures for September 2013 • Heads will continue to work as a project team with Compact and LA to ensure PRU schools operate as an • integrated service April 2013 New budgets, governance and business support processes in place Existing processes and protocols continue to operate during this period May 2013 Area Self Evaluation and Development Planning May/June 2013 Area Consultation on any potential new structures April 2013 Area Visioning with Staff and Partners (LA & Schools) July 2013 Establishing and refining new structures, protocols and procedures Developing Links, QA and lines of accountability to LA and Compact Developing Links, QA and lines of accountability of satellite provision

  12. PRU Academies • Cabinet and Compact have requested that Management Committees consider Academy Conversion at a later date. • Certain elements of the new schools operations must be secure before consideration is given: • Budget Model - must work and be sustainable • Business Support – must be in place • Governance Structures – must be secure • Buildings and Premises – issues with buildings must be resolved • Pupil Referral Service – ensure all areas are working in a coordinated and coherent way • There are different models of academy trusts that give a wide range of flexibility • Collaborative Partnerships • Multi-Academy Trusts • Umbrella Trusts

  13. Secretary of State Has a master Funding Agreement with the Multi Academy Trust; and a separate supplementary Funding Agreement with the Multi Academy Trust for each Academy. Multi Academy Trust Operates at a strategic level with a board of directors. The Multi Academy Trust is a single legal entity. Academy 1 AP Academy The Academy Trust could establish a local governing body for the Academy, appoint the members of it and decide what powers to delegate to it. It However, control always remains with the central Academy Trust. Academy 2 AP Academy The Academy Trust could establish a local governing body for the Academy, appoint the members of it and decide what powers to delegate to it. It However, control always remains with the central Academy Trust. Academy 3 AP Academy The Academy Trust could establish a local governing body for the Academy, appoint the members of it and decide what powers to delegate to it. It However, control always remains with the central Academy Trust. Academy 4 AP Academy The Academy Trust could establish a local governing body for the Academy, appoint the members of it and decide what powers to delegate to it. It However, control always remains with the central Academy Trust. Illustration 1 – Multi Academy Trust

  14. Secretary of State Has an individual funding agreement with each academy trust Agrees the governance model with each academy laid our in their articles UmbrellaTrust Established and controlled at member and governor level by the key stakeholders – For eg Could be the Compact. School 1 AP School The AP School would have a delegated budget in agreement with the Trust and could establish a local governing body School 2 AP School The AP School would have a delegated budget in agreement with the Trust and could establish a local governing body Academy 1 AP Academy Is a single legal entity with an individual funding agreement with the Secretary of State. Members and governors appointed by umbrella trust. Academy 2 AP Academy Is a single legal entity with an individual funding agreement with the Secretary of State. Members and governors appointed by umbrella trust. Illustration 2 – Umbrella Trust

More Related