Agenda item

Gill Weston introduced the report which was for noting.  Gill explained that the Traded Service Offer was essentially for primary schools but sits alongside the work with the Behaviour Partnerships in secondary schools.

Gill reported that Oakfield had received a successful inspection a year ago and the removal of behaviour services and changes to behaviour forums in the primary sector resulted in a need to look at interactions and support mechanism in the system, to ensure that the pressure on Oakfield was not increasing and that children are well supported in schools.

The proposal in paragraphs 6 and 7 to develop a Traded Offer to schools, alongside a strong school-to-school support system to ensure children are getting the best possible chance and reducing permanent exclusions.  Consultation took place with groups of headteachers to create an Offer which they felt met their needs and was viable and affordable.

In order for the proposal to be viable a percentage of schools are required to take-up the service in order for it to run.  Information to go out to schools to obtain an indication of interest, viability to take the service forward to the next academic year.  If not enough take up would then have to reconsider.

Karen Allen raised the following points from Oakfield Management Resources Committee:

·         One of the strategic risks is that Oakfield is a Local Authority service but also a school, as a service if it was not to be viable and there was a loss, that would have to be picked up by Oakfield.  However, if a profit was made, that would have to go back into the ‘big pot’, Oakfield would not keep profit.

Karen commented this was a very difficult and challenging position to be in.

·         Oakfield has appointed a Deputy Headteacher in order to get this service up and running from September 2015. 

Tim Moralee referred to Paragraph 18 and commented that buying into the Traded Service may be an issue for primary schools where budgets are so tight.

Karen Allen reported that a pay as you go system had been discussed but this would be too difficult to sustain in terms of staffing.

Brian Myatt reported there had been good evidence in the secondary sector where schools felt they could manage without support, by using their own funding, until they have to deal with one pupil.  Once that happens…one student could turn that around, and he therefore advised schools to pay into the service.

Karen Allen reported that LEEP had provided some funding for this year as part of the school to school capacity building. 

Jean Lewis raised concerns about the speed of response.  Agreed that there needed to be an efficient response to ensure that the right support is available which might require SEN support. 

Tony Gelsthorpe asked about the volume and capacity and take up - has any work been done exploring that provision across teaching school alliances?  Yes this is part of a system wide approach.

Gill reported one of the successes of the pilot work was linking into Secondary Behaviour Partnerships and the Early Help teams, like Supporting Leicestershire Families.  Oakfield not intended to be the only place for support, but enhancing what is already in the system.

David Thomas raised concern about financial issues, based on 63% take up - if some schools are charged £4,000-£5,000 what is the incentive to sign in?  Karen reported that timescales were a concern.  Based on LPH briefing, 55 returns out of 200 headteachers, 85% said they would buy in to the service, which is a good indication there is a need.

Karen raised a concern from headteachers on the edge of the City where children may require support but Leicestershire does not have the funding from the City.

Tony queried whether there is any differential between different types of primary schools in the area?  Are we charging different from mainstream and academies?  No, the charges are the same.

Tim commented that this needed to be a piece of joined up thinking between primaries and secondaries so that everyone could see the collective benefit.