We are currently going through a re-structure at North Yorkshire. The proposed new Inclusion Service does not include Advisory Support Teachers for Physical Medical (there are currently three of us doing this job part time). We don't have long to submit comments in the hope that this might be reviewed.
Any comments/advice or information on other authorities that have done this with the outcome would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Liane Nixon
I am sorry to hear this. The authority have statutory responsibilities to meet the needs of this group of children so how are they going to do this? are they commissioning other services to provide support? This would be my initial thought.
Sorry to hear about this, Liane. (I used to work with Liane!). I have sent some info to AF. Apparently Phys/Med is not statutory, where as VI and HI are. However, I know there are lots of children with a variety of Physical/Medical Needs in your LA and a constant stream of EHCP requests and reports for the process. Someone will need to write the reports from an education point of view -OTs and physios and even paediatricians cannot always relate the pupils condition to the type of support they need in school! Also, who will speak for your LA at Tribunals? Children with progressive conditions need ongoing support, and many children need support around transition/as the amount of recording required increases/post op etc. It certainly kept me very busy for the 10 years I worked there!
I hope there is a rethink. When LAs are short of cash, Phys/Med seems like an easy team to remove. However, support via Special Schools, which other LAs provide, can be more expensive.
It would be interesting to know how LAs square removal of support services to CYP with PD, with their obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. This relates directly to the EA, and so has a statutory aspect. So it would be entirely legitimate in this case to ask the LA to produce an Impact Statement on the rationale leading to its decision to delete the P/M post, and the impact this is likely to have on outcomes for the CYP.
Any recommendation on this type of consultation should have gone via the council legal team for a view before proceeding. Ask and talk to all trade unions in educational services local and national about this and alert them as national and local officers NAHT policy team may offer advice and support in this. I would also suggest you alert the press and parent voice groups to draw this to the public interest. I suggest also the SEN call for evidence receives a copy of their proposal as it will detriment young people and families by debuting access to an essential service. A sad state of affairs in this country.
