Community Impact Assessment Form
For a summary of this Community Impact Assessment, click here
Title of Community Impact Assessment (CIA): Inclusive Learning Service
Directorate: Children’s Services
Date of assessment: August / September 2012
Sue Woodgate / Lorraine Stephen
Next steps:
The Assistant Mayor for Children’s Services has agreed that a new Learning Support Service should be constructed from the budget
currently available for the Inclusive Learning Service. The Assistant mayor has recommended that a full consultation exercise be
undertaken against models 1 and 2 of the proposal. The consultation has been undertaken during the autumn term 2012-13.
Section A – What are you impact assessing?
(Indicate with an “x” which applies):A decision to review or change a service
A strategy
A policy or procedure
A function, service or project
X
X
Are you impact assessing something that is?:New
Existing
Being reviewed
X
1
Being reviewed as a result of budget constraints
Describe the area you are impact assessing and, where appropriate, the changes you are proposing?
The current Inclusive learning service provides support at School Action Pus and Statutory levels to pupils who have Sensory
Impairment. It also provides support at School Action Plus to pupils with Autism and Behavioural needs. It provides assessment against
standardised tests for pupils with Specific learning Difficulties. There are currently 9.8 FTE teachers working with pupils with Sensory
Impairment and 2 teachers and 2 consultants working with pupils with other needs. The service also employs a number of teaching
assistants. The total budget for the service is just short of £1.5million. The service has no single reference point in terms of leadership
and describes itself as rudderless. As well as the teams described above the service have recently been joined by the EMTAS team a
team of a service leader, a teacher and Teaching assistants.
.
The proposal is to create from within the current budget a Learning Support Service which is designed to:
- Meet the needs of the pupil population across the city in all four PLASC Categories. (Learning, Communication and
Interaction and Sensory)
- Support schools in meeting their duties through the National Curriculum statement which entitles all pupils to Quality First
Teaching,
- Support schools in meeting the needs of pupils at School Action and School Action Plus.
- Focus on improving outcomes for children and young people.
- Support settings and families where sensory / physical impairment is identified below statutory school age.
The model/s suggested for the new service which will allow it to meet all the recommendations of the commission is/are:
Model 1
Number of Staff
1
2
Group 1
1.5
1.5
Role
Manager L13
Teachers TLR 2 + SEN 2 (1 Teacher QTVI / HI)
Specialist Teachers of Communication and Autism
Specialist Teachers of Speech Language and
Communication
2
1
2
2.5
0.5
Group 2
4.5 or 5
Speech and Language Therapist
Specialist Teachers of Pupil and School Support
(Learning and Cognition) (SLA)
Teaching Assistants
Teaching Assistant 1
0.5
Teachers of the Deaf including Early Years (4.5 if TLR is
QTHI)
Audiologist (SLA)
2.0 or 2.5
1 / 0.5
0.8
6.5
0.5
1.5
Teachers of the Visually Impaired (2.5 if TLR is QTHI)
Teacher / professional (OT)(SLA) for Physical Difficulties
Mobility Officer
Teaching Assistants TA 3 & SEN
Teaching Assistant 1
Admin
The total funding available is £1,200,000 this model requires £1,139,543 at the highest point on the scale for all staff. This would give for
£70k to commission AHP support.
Contact Hours available – 14.610
7,422
2,778
800
Teacher hours per annum.
Teaching Assistant hours per annum
AHP Hours
Mobility Officer Hours
Evaluation of the Model
This model has minimal risk attached to it.
There were 8 managers, 6 teachers and 2 consultant posts in the old model giving a total of 16 posts in the new model there are 3
managers and 12.5 teachers.
There were 11.9 TA’s in the old structure there are 10 TA’s in the new structure.
The level of mobility officer is maintained.
In the old structure the only Associated Health Professional was a 0.5 Audiologist, the new structure has sufficient resource in it to
3
commission 2.0 full time equivalent AHP’s to cover, SALT, Audiology and Occupational Therapy.
The model will be fit for the new proposed education, health and social care plan and a good basis on which to move forward into a way
of working in partnership.
This model is flexible and covers all the needs groups currently identified in both breadth and depth.
This model responds to the comments which parents have made during the commission process.
This model does allow for future flexibilities such as joint venturing, joint commissioning and trading.
Model 2
Number of Staff
1
2
Group 1
1
1
1
2
7
1
Group 2
3.5
2.0
0.5
0.8
7
1
1.5
Role
Manager L13
Teachers TLR 2 + SEN 2 (1 Teacher QTVI / HI)
Specialist Teachers of Communication and Autism
Specialist Teachers of Speech Language and
Communication
Speech and Language Therapist
Specialist Teachers of Pupil and School Support
(Learning and Cognition)
Teaching Assistants
Teaching Assistant 1
Teachers of the Deaf including Early Years
Teachers of the Visually Impaired
Teacher / professional for Physical Difficulties
Mobility Officer
Teaching Assistants TA 3 & SEN
Teaching Assistant 1
Administration
Contact Hours available – 10,183
14,168
1,235
800
Teacher hours per annum.
Teaching Assistant hours per annum
AHP Hours
Mobility Officer Hours
4
The total funding available is £1,200,000 this model requires £1,098,987 at the highest point on the scale for all staff. This would give a
small contingency of approximately £90k to commission AHP support.
Evaluation of the Model
This model has some risk attached to it.
There were 8 managers, 6 teachers and 2 consultant posts in the old model giving a total of 16 posts in the new model there are 3
managers and 10 teachers.
There were 11.9 TA’s in the old structure there are 16 TA’s in the new structure.
The level of mobility officer is maintained.
In the old structure the only Associated Health Professional was a 0.5 Audiologist, the new structure has sufficient resource in it to
commission 1.0 full time equivalent AHP’s to cover, SALT, Audiology and Occupational Therapy.
The model is moving towards being fit for the new proposed education, health and social care plan but would need further revisions to
enable us to move forward into a way of working in partnership.
This model covers all the needs groups currently identified but is very thinly spread and may lead to the need to review how we identify
pupils with whom the service works.
This model responds to the comments which parents have made during the commission process in that it increases the number of
teaching assistants but at a cost to the number of qualified personnel either teachers or AHP’s .
This model does not allow for future flexibilities such as joint venturing, joint commissioning and trading.
New Service Final Specification
Number of Staff Role
1
Manager L15
3
Teachers TLR 2 + SEN 2 (1 Teacher QTVI / HI 5-16
years, 1 Teacher QTVI / HI 0-5 years 1 Learning /
Communication )
Group 1
1 or 1.5
Specialist Teachers of Communication and Autism MPG +
SEN 1+1
1 or 1.5
Specialist Teachers of Speech Language and
Communication MPG + SEN 1+1
1.5 or 2
Specialist Teachers of Pupil and School Support
(Learning and Cognition) MPG + SEN 1+1
3
Teaching Assistants
Group 2
5
4.5 or 5
Teachers of the Deaf including Early Years MPG + SEN
1+1
2.0 or 2.5
1 / 0.5
1
Teachers of the Visually Impaired MPG + SEN 1+1
Teacher MPG + SEN 1+1 / professional (OT)(SLA) for
Physical Difficulties
Mobility Officer
7.5
1
Teaching Assistants TA 3 & SEN
Sensory Service Technician
1.5
Admin
Commissioned
Speech and Language Therapist
Audiologist (SLA)
Occupational Therapy
Physiotherapy
6
Evaluation of the Model
This model meets the recommendations of the Cabinet Commission and responds to some of the comments made through the
consultation.
There were 8 managers, 6 teachers and 2 consultant posts in the old model giving a total of 16 posts in the new model there are 4
managers and 12.5 teachers giving a total of 16.5 posts
In the Group 1old model there were 3 teachers all with TLR’s or employed as consultants, in the new model there are 5.5 teachers and 1
manager (0.5) teaching commitment.
In Group 2 for the old model there were 3 teachers all with TLR’s, in the new model this is reduced by 1 to 2. In the old model there
were 4 teachers in the new model there is the equivalent of 5.5 FTE teachers. There is no Head of Sensory Services in the new
structure, this role would be covered the Service Manager supported technically by the TLR’s.
7
The Teaching and Learning Responsibility posts will be offered for specific service roles working with pupils aged 0 to 5 and 5-16.
There were 11.9 TA’s in the old structure there are 10.5 TA’s in the new structure.
The level of mobility officer is raised to 1Full Time Equivalent.
A new FTE role of Sensory Service Technician has been created in line with comments from members of the Sensory Teaching team
and RNIB.
In the old structure the only Associated Health Professional was a 0.5 Audiologist, the new structure has sufficient resource in it to
commission 2.0 full time equivalent AHP’s to cover, SALT, Audiology and Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy. Approx £85k is
available to commission this support.
Analysis of teaching / support time available.
Actual teaching time available for Learning Support in the old model 3,
Actual teaching time available for Learning Support in the new service 5.5,
Actual teaching time available for Teachers of the Deaf in the old model 5.7,
Actual teaching time for Teachers of the Deaf available in the new service 5.5.
Actual teaching time for teachers of the Visually Impaired in the old model 2 FTE (Full Time Equivalent),
Actual Teaching time in the new service 2.5 FTE (Full Time Equivalent),.
Management time is reduced by 1.3 FTE to accommodate this.
The model will be fit for the new proposed Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and a good basis on which to move forward into a
way of working in partnership.
This model is flexible and covers all the needs groups currently identified in both breadth and depth.
This model responds to the comments which parents have made during the commission process and to comments made by staff and
parents during the consultation
This model does allow for future flexibilities such as joint venturing, joint commissioning and trading.
The recommendations of the Cabinet Commission are clear about the focus on pupil achievement and learning outcomes this model
through a review of working practice will enable the new service to meet this recommendation.
Section B – Is a Community Impact Assessment required (Screening)?
Consider what you are impact assessing and mark “x” for all the statement(s) below which apply
Service or policy that people use or which apply to people (this could include staff)
Discretion is exercised or there is potential for people to experience different outcomes. For example,
planning applications and whether applications are approved or not
8
X
Concerns at local, regional or national level of discrimination/inequalities
Major change, such as closure, reduction, removal or transfer
Community, regeneration and planning strategies, organisational or directorate partnership
strategies/plans
Employment policy – where discretion is not exercised
Employment policy – where discretion is exercised. For example, recruitment or disciplinary process
X
X
X–
If none of the areas above apply to your proposals, you will not be required to undertake a full CIA. Please summarise below why a full
CIA is not required and send this form to your directorate equality link officer. If you have identified one or more of the above areas, you
should conduct a full CIA and complete this form.
Equality Areas
Indicate with an “x” which equality areas are likely to be affected, positively or negatively, by the proposals
Age
X
Religion and/or belief
Disability
X
Sexual Identity
Gender (including pregnancy and maternity)
People on a low income (socio-economic inequality)
Gender reassignment
Other (please state below) (For example carers, ex
offenders)
X
Race
If any of the equality areas above have been identified as being likely to be affected by the proposals, you will be required to undertake a
CIA. You will need only to consider those areas which you have indicated are likely to be affected by the proposals
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently monitor by the
following protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Age
Yes (Y) or
No (N)
If no, please explain why and / or detail in the action plan at Section E how
you will prioritise the gathering of this equality monitoring data.
Y
Details of pupils at all stages and phases of education will be used to inform
the decision. This information will be taken from the Area Needs Assessment,
the EMS database and the schools census returns. Other databases will
9
Disability
Y
Gender (including pregnancy and
maternity)
N
Gender Reassignment
N
Race
N
Religion and/or belief
N
Sexual Identity
N
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
N
Other (please state) (For example
carers, ex offenders)
N
support the understanding of the need base e.g. data submitted to CRIDE
and RNIB.
Details of pupils at all stages and phases of education will be used to inform
the decision. This information will be taken from the Area Needs Assessment,
the EMS database and the schools census returns. Other databases will
support the understanding of the need base e.g. data submitted to CRIDE
and RNIB.
10
Section C (continued) – Consultation
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals?
Yes
If “no”, please explain your reason(s) why
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
Staff consultation will take place
Parent consultation will take place
Presentation to Governors
Presentation to Primary Heads on
Stakeholder Group / Focus group
Consultation responses - Creation of a Learning Support Service for Salford
Range of responses via e-mail
Responses were received from
 Health Colleagues
 National Associations
 Teachers
 SHAPAS
 LA officers
 Parents
 Local Association - SDCS
The following are the responses to the statistical questions at the beginning of the questionnaire.
1. Are you a:
Primary Teacher / TA
9
11
Secondary Teacher / TA
Governor
LA Officer
Parents
8
0
3
0
2. The recommendations of the commission are to create a Learning Support Service covering sensory impairment, physical
impairment, communication and cognition and learning difficulties.
Do you think that the models created meet this recommendation?
No
Yes
5
16
3. Do you believe the professional staffing cohort of the new service should include:
Teachers
Yes
No
22
Teaching Assistant
Yes
20
No
2
AHP's (Allied Health Professionals – Speech and Language Therapists, Physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist,
Audiologist)
Yes
21
No
1
Mobility Officers
Yes
15
No
1
12
4. Which of the associated health professionals do you think should have a role in the new service?
SALT (Speech and Language Therapy)
Yes
19
No
1
OT
Yes
No
(Occupational Therapist)
16
4
PT (Physiotherapist)
Yes
16
No
4
Audiology
Yes
No
19
1
None of them
Yes
1
No
5. Do you think a service could be developed without a mobility officer being directly employed by that service i.e. the expertise in this
area would be commissioned from an external provider?
Yes
No
12
10
13
6. The proposed teaching assistant structure in both models allows for the use of a teaching assistant level 1 to undertake resource
creation as part of their job description. Do you consider this to be important in developing quality within the service?
Yes
No
13
7
7. Do you believe that model one can deliver the recommendations of the commission?
Yes
No
12
9
8. Do you believe that model two can deliver the recommendations of the commission?
Yes
No
5
10
9. Which model of delivery do you prefer?
One
Two
Neither
3
1
8
14
Overall the preference was for a model similar to the one proposed at model one of the consultation document.
Issues
Response
The responses below reflect all comments made during the consultation period
and the themes cover all aspects raised. Where issues / comments have come
from several respondents these have been combined to provide an overall
response.
1. The rationale for the
changes does not appear
to have been fully
explained.
The rational for all the changes sits in the evidence which was presented in full to the
Commission. Some of which is public is on the website, some of which is because of
its sensitive nature is being used as management information. The commission
members who have seen all the evidence are convinced of the need for change.
Evidence presented to the commission which is in the public domain is on the Salford
website.
2. The changes are being
portrayed as a solution to
efficiencies and funding
reduction.
This is not an efficiencies drive – all money stays in the system.
3. The need for a Visual
Impairment (VI) Resources
Assistant has been
highlighted by a number of
respondents.
The model recognises that there is a need for a ‘Resources Assistant’, since the post
became vacant the way in which Salford recruits to posts which are deemed
‘administration’ has changed. Therefore the way in which we approach this has to be
changed. One respondent has suggested that we should view this post as being a
technician post rather than resources assistant. This is supported by RNIB and is in
the final service model.
4. If there is no Head of
Sensory Service the
person leading this strand
will have no remit to take
initiatives forward.
All staff within the new structure will have the appropriate levels of responsibility to
initiate and take forward change. It is not about status and label but about staff feeling
empowered and supported to do the work.
15
5. There will be a significant
reduction of teachers in the
Sensory Team, especially
The Hearing Impairment
(HI) team.
*TLR – Teaching and Learning
Responsibility
* TOD – Teacher of the Deaf
* QTHI – Qualified Teacher of
Hearing Impaired
This has been the issue which has concerned respondents the most where they have
felt the need to make additional comments. Lack of accurate data still makes it very
difficult to assess.
The issue has been given serious consideration, in doing that the current staffing
model needs to be clarified. The model one proposal means.
Current HI Staffing
3 x TLR
4 x Teachers
= 5.5 TOD time
Model 1
= 5 QTHI
Actual reduction in model 1
0.5
Responses to the issue of the number of teachers of the deaf needs to be considered
alongside comments on the role of early years teachers of the deaf and how we can
meet the needs of pupils post 16.
In the final model the actual reduction is 0.2 FTE
There has been considerable discussion about the amount of time spent on TLR
responsibilities by post holders and whether or not they had a responsibility across
both Hearing and Visual Impairment. It is clear from the Job Descriptions of the TLR
Holders in the Current Service that there is an expectation that they have a role
across the Sensory Team. National Expectations would be that this was for 0.3 of a
teaching week.
Extracts from TLR Job Descriptions.
1. Teacher of the Hearing Impaired with responsibility for Early Years Delivery within the Sensory
Team.
2. Teacher of the Hearing Impaired with responsibility for ensuring Sensory Team awareness of
ICT initiatives in schools, the impact of these on children and young people with a sensory
impairment and consequences for their access to the curriculum.
3. Teacher of the Hearing Impaired with responsibility for ensuring that the Sensory Team is aware
16
of initiatives in social and emotional aspects of learning as they affect children and young people
with a sensory impairment.
Analysis of the actual current caseload allocations of support to individual pupils by teachers in the
Service shows that there will need to be no reductions in the amount of Teacher of the Deaf of
Teacher of Visually Impaired pupil time allocated to individual pupils in the transition to the
restructured service. The actual analysis based on sessions being 1.5 hrs shows that all sessions
can be accommodated with capacity to ensure that the needs of pupils joining the caseload can be
met. Parents will receive individual letters explaining their current allocations and projected
allocations going forward.
TA Session
Sessions needed
Total
5244
Actual Sessions
Difference
6591
1347
Teacher Analysis from Caseload Data April 2013
Sessions Needed
HI
VI
Supported
4135
1213
Monitored
MI
484
Total
5832
125
Difference
5957
6. There is no evidence to
show that pupils with
Physical Difficulties require
a service.
Sessions available
6451.5
6451.5
Sessions available by need
4554
1897.5
494.5
6451.5
Equipment assessment has previously been done by SEN Consultants. They have provided
information for schools in situations where a syndrome means that additional information is required
to allow pupils to access education. This is not consistent with either enabling positive responses
and provision or ensuring that we meet the needs of all pupils. What provision we have made
17
previously is no longer available therefore provision needs to be made elsewhere. It would also
make us very vulnerable in terms of Equal Opportunities requirements.
7. Physical disabilities are not
as much a barrier to
learning as Hearing
Impairment.
This conflicts with current legislation and thinking on Equal Opportunities.
8. There has been no impact
assessment on the
changes which are being
proposed.
Impact assessments on caseload, diary commitment, travel, impact on schools etc
has been looked at. Change in working practice should ensure continuation of service.
The full CIA has been completed and will be presented with this paper.
9. It is not clear from the
information given as to the
relationship between pupil
numbers and staffing. The
service has already been
restructured in 2007 and
therefore there should be
no change.
Accurate data would have been very useful in further determining provision. However
to argue that because there was a reduction in 2007- 2008 does not hold water. The
world of SEN and Disability has changed in the last 5 years as has technological
development. Analysis of data produced for the commission shows that there are
simple practical changes which can be made which will improve working practice.
10. Staff need mandatory
qualifications in sensory
impairment.
All staff employed to work primarily with pupils with HI/VI will either have the
qualifications already or be offered the opportunity to become qualified - even though
this is not mandatory.
11. There is a need for a
strong preschool provision
and this could be done
There is a need for someone with the relevant skills knowledge and expertise to
deliver the wide coverage required by stringent national requirements.
18
through the employment of
a Teacher of Learning
Responsibility (TLR) for
Early Years.
Recommendations are likely to suggest that we need the expertise at this level,
whether it is a Teacher of Learning Responsibility (TLR) post is still to be determined.
12. One of the foci for the new
service is increasing
capacity of schools to meet
SEND. The contention is
that the Sensory Service
already does this.
Evidence provided for increasing capacity is very limited. This element has to be
increased with the right people working and supporting at the right level.
13. Reduction in the number of
teachers of the deaf will
mean that they cannot
Support pupils in college.
College age pupils are funded differently. There are a number of ways in which this
can be done and this will need to be worked out with post 16 providers and through a
relevant plan with adults.
14. There is no money in
school budgets to support
the needs of pupils with
Sensory Impairments.
All schools have budgets to meet the needs of all pupils.
All teachers are teachers of all pupils (NC statement Professional Standards for
Teachers Care). Schools should be ensuring access to provision for all pupils from
normally available resources – Support Services are there to ensure this happens.
15. Only pupils with a
Statement will be
guaranteed support.
Support will be available at Early Years Action (EYA), Early Years Action Plus
(EYAP), School Action (SA) and School Action Plus (SAP) levels. There are
19
mechanisms to ensure this can happen and schools that are able to demonstrate it
are built into the proposals. The expectations of schools in this area in terms of
meeting the needs of pupils with Sensory Impairments have been in available to
schools for over a year.
16. The changes proposed will
not facilitate the
development of an
Education Health and Care
Plan (EHCP).
The joint working envisaged with the Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) is to
support educational attainment achievement and goals. Having commissioned AHP
time embedded in the service will support this as will working with health on their new
referral pathway (Child Development Forums). Consistent, co-ordinated planning is
key to success here.
17. Specialist Staff should be
employed to meet the
needs of Sensory Impaired
Children.
There is no expression of any intention in the proposal to stop using Specialist staff,
quite the converse.
18. Mobility Officer Role.
The inclusion of this role has been welcomed by all respondents. The query as to
whether this role can/should be expanded is being considered. Royal National
Institute of Blind People (RNIB) were keen to explore whether given the number of
potential Braille users and meeting their needs there was flexibility in the role of
mobility officers, which there is as we have 2 qualified mobility officers who are
currently employed full time in a combined mobility officer / TA role.
19. That is proposed to have a
salary capping at M2 for
teachers and not pay SEN
points.
This is not suggested anywhere in the proposal or possible under Teachers terms and
conditions. The proposal is very clear that all posts will be remunerated as required by
the Teachers Terms and conditions document with appropriate arrangements for pay
progression. SEN points will be awarded for future appointments on the basis of 1
20
SEN point mandatory, 2nd SEN point discretionary.
20. The union model and one
respondent have
suggested the Removal of
the Service Manager Post.
21. A previous service user is
concerned that teacher of
the deaf (TOD’s) will not be
available to replace
batteries and clean
Hearing aids.
The Service Manager post is needed because they will manage not just the Sensory
and Learning strands but Behaviour and EMTAS as well. They will also have a liaison
role with the Principle Educational Psychologist. To expect the Head of Service
Complex Needs SEN to take on another 4 direct line managements is untenable.
This is a role that can be done in school, by teaching assistants (TA) and by pupils
themselves. Teachers of the Deaf (TODs) need to be available to advise on
effectiveness of aiding but basic maintenance can and should be provided from
elsewhere.
22. RNIB were concerned that
pupils and families had not
been consulted during the
process.
A focus group of young people from a range of lead groups across the city was
brought together by the Integrated Youth Support Service (IYSS). All lead groups
were invited some were unable to provide representation, families have been involved
in the commission and in the focus groups. Throughout the Commission Process and
the consultation teachers in the service have been encouraged to engage with
families and service users and to get comments / responses from them. Salford Deaf
Children’s Society was offered a separate opportunity to contribute to the consultation
and sit on the commission. Salford Family Forum also sits on the commission. There
has also been a face to face discussion with an ex service user who wished to make
their views known.
23. RNIB were concerned that
the language and
assumptions in the
proposal did not meet the
requirements of the
proposed developments
There are no clear directions as yet as to what these would look like therefore this is
not possible. The current context for change including Education Health and Care
Plan (ECHP’s) and School Funding Reform (SFR), are assumed within the document
as a whole. The reason there are embedded Allied Health Professional (AHP’s) in the
proposal is to ensure that the relevant professionals are there ready when guidance
21
nationally.
24. RNIB suggested it would
have been helpful to have
full data on numbers of
pupils worked within the
proposal.
becomes clearer to support and develop the process going forward. We are also
working closely with the development of the Child Development Forums and meet
regularly with SRFT staff to ensure there is joint working.
No data is included in the proposal because after numerous requests and deadlines
accurate data on the number of pupils receiving/requesting the service was not made
available until after the consultation had closed. This is a management issue which is
being pursued separately. Data provided by service management on the 17th January
has now been accepted as being accurate and has been used to draw conclusions
about the number of pupils requiring the service this includes. Data produced by the
teachers, PLASC, Local Disability Data, and national prevalence information. By
triangulating these data sources we have confidence in the use of the data going
forward. As the database strengthens and improves there will be ongoing review to
ensure that pupil needs are met.
January 17th 2013 Data provided by the Head of the Service.
HI (Hearing Impairment)
NATSIP
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
C1
Number
20
26
28
26
18
10
Total
128
C2/3
Total
180
308
VI (Visual Impairment)
NATSIP
Number
22
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
C1
Total
C2/3
12
11
5
13
5
8
54
54
Total
108
MI ( Multi Sensory Impairment)
NATSIP
A1
A2
A3
C1
Total
Number
2
4
4
2
12
HI (Hearing Impairment)
25 Pupils are pre school
104 pupils are 5 – 16 years old
Year
Group
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Number
Total
64
2
2
5
2
3
11
10
10
16
3
Year
Group
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Number
5
8
6
12
12
5
5
5
2
60
23
141
VI (Visual Impairment)
Year Groups
Year
Group
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Number
Total
30
1
1
6
3
2
3
3
4
3
4
Year
Group
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Number
7
2
6
3
1
2
1
1
1
24
MI
Year Groups
Year
Group
-3
-2
-1
3
4
5
10
16
Total
Number
1
3
4
3
1
1
2
1
16
Pupils with Statements of SEN or at SAP from PLASC
24
Type
ASD
SLCN
SPLD
Hearing Imp.
Visual Imp.
Total
Primary
Secondary
123
571
158
38
21
911
69
219
43
12
10
353
25. RNIB commented that past
staffing models were not
within the document and
that this made it difficult to
compare with the proposed
model.
Both models are in the document which has been on the Salford website since
October 16th 2012. RNIB have withdrawn this comment.
Discussions about number of staff required and intensity of need is difficult to follow
when accurate caseload info is not available.
Validated CIPFA information tells us that 44% of pupils with VI with statements are in
Special Schools which is above national average.
What local information available indicates is there are 132 VI pupils, 18 of these are
post 16, 40 have Statements, 28 of these are in Special Schools and 25 of them in
local authority Special Schools. Assessment data has only been presented for 2 of the
132 pupils.
It has now been established on the 17th January that 54 pupils were receiving direct
support from the Service of which 2 are identified as Braille users.
26. RNIB commented that
Early Years provision is
specifically mentioned for
Hearing Impairment (HI)
but there is no specific
mention of Early Years
provision for Visual
Impairment (VI).
The consultation document specifically states that both the Education Psychology
Team and the Sensory Team would work with Children and Families from point of
diagnosis. Clearly as this is frequently in the early years they would be working in this
area. It has been agreed that documents going forward will be specific in this area.
There are currently 11 pupils under school age receiving support from the service.
25
27. RNIB were concerned that
the referral process could
become clogged by it
having to come through a
senior professional.
Referrals will be able to be made by any appropriate agency. As at present there is an
agreed/robust referral system for Sensory Support. It is important to establish the role
of the manager as the accountable person in the system. A new referral process
linked with health and other agencies has been developed with Salford Royal
Foundation Trust (SRFT) Child Development Forum; the Head of Service / Teacher of
Learning Responsibility (TLR) will sit on these panels and further develop working
practice through this.
28. RNIB were concerned that
the packages suggested
would limit access to
services.
The packages within the proposal are designed to help schools understand the
requirements of the notional SEN budget, enable access to central services and
ensure that pupils with sensory impairment do not become disenfranchised because
they are entitled to services from a centrally retained budget.
Planning has been raised as an issue at all levels and needs to be addressed as an
operational issue going forward.
29. Lack of planned
approaches is leading to
significant duplication /
ignorance of work being
undertaken.
30. Health professionals
raised questions about how
the Allied Health
Professional (AHP’s) was
to be funded and were they
additional to those already
there.
We currently have Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) professionals and an
Audiologist working in the service. These would continue and possibly with expansion
for Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) and enhanced by further Allied Health
Professional (AHP) support form Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy.
31. Clarity needed about ways
of working so that we have
agreed interventions being
used across the city to met
need.
The need for clarity of expectations from professionals is very clear. It is important
that all partners are agreed on the working parameters and work together to ensure
that recommendations are congruent.
This is doubly important because only through planned working can we reduce
duplication and make sure that we do it once – properly.
It is very clear that this is important, however what has come through is that Teaching
32. Both Teachers and
26
Teaching Assistants have
an important place in the
service.
33. One model suggested the
removal of Teacher of
Learning Responsibility
(TLR’s) from the structure.
Assistant (TA3’s) need to be working at a significant level and empowered to take
responsibility for their own work and develop a niche in terms of their unique
contribution.
This would remove strategic guidance on practice.
As part of the consultation a further model was offered for consideration. This was submitted on behalf of some members by
professional associations.
27
This model does not meet the recommendations of the Commission into Inclusive Learning Services as there is no provision for pupils
with Physical Disabilities and the cost of this model would be approximately £200,000 over the available budget for the service with no
funds to commission Health Services.. There is also less provision in this model for pupils with Autistic Spectrum Condition and Speech,
Language and Communication Needs than in Model 1. This model does not fit the management structure agreed by the City Council
and when considered alongside the other groups in the proposed service would increase the direct management posts for the Head of
Service SEN by 6. There are also equal opportunities problems in this model because by reducing the management element in Group 1
it could be perceived that the needs of the pupils covered by this group were of lower status than those in Group 2.
All issues raised have been considered carefully and have been used to review model one and produce a final model which will be
recommended for implementation.
Section C (continued) – Analysis
28
C3 What information has
been analysed to inform
the content of this CIA?
What were the findings?
Please include details of,
for example, service or
employee monitoring
information, consultation
findings, any national or
local research, customer
feedback, inspection
reports, and any other
information which will
inform your CIA.
Please specify whether
this was existing
information or was
specifically in relation to
this equality analysis and
CIA process
A Cabinet Commission was set up to inform the recommendations
Membership of the Commission
 Cllr. Margaret Morris (Chair) – Assistant Mayor
 Cllr. Derek Antrobus / Cllr Paul Dennett - Assistant Mayor
 Cllr. Norbert Potter
 Cllr. Ray Mashiter
 Cllr. Lisa Stone - Assistant Mayor
 Cllr. Jillian Collinson
 National Deaf Childrens Society – Hazel Badjie
 Committee member for Salford Deaf Children’s Society and parent of 2 young people
with different special educational needs – Lauren Walton
 Founder member of Salford Family Forum and parent of a pupil with a disability –
Deanne Shaw
Background and Scope of the Commission
On the 10th of January 2012 a proposed new structure for their team was presented to the
Inclusive Learning Service team members and the necessary consultation period began.
The response to this from some officers and the receipt of a petition submitted by Lauren
Walton and 5000 others led the Leader of the Council John Merry to agree to an extension of
the consultation process related to the review of the provision of services to children and
young people with hearing impairment within the wider review of Inclusive Learning Services.
He also agreed to the establishment of a Cabinet Commission containing elected members
and representative groups to support the process of consultation on, and future design of
services. It was also agreed that full participation from related focus and other groups with the
Commission be encouraged.
Evidence was taken from all stakeholders.
The Commission Process
 In order to carry out its role, the commission was required to determine the provision
for all SEN groups by:
o Establishing existing (as-is) practice of the specialist teaching arm of the
Inclusive Learning Service
o Establish statutory elements
 Benchmarking against local and national best practice standards, data and provision,
e.g.:
29


o Ofsted 2012 framework for inspection of schools
o Quality Standards for specialist teaching and support services for deaf people
and young children
o National Standards for school improvement professionals’
o Quality standards for special educational needs for support and outreach
services
o Other local authority data
o Consider implications of green paper “Support and Aspiration”
Determining models of provision based on the information gathered above. All models
will include:
o Community Impact Assessment
o SEN Impact Assessment
Consulting with partners and stakeholders
Questions the Commission worked to answer
The Commission set itself seven questions to answer by undertaking a variety of activities
and using a number of methodologies.
Activity undertaken on behalf of the Commission or by the Commission
In order to ensure that all relevant evidence was collected the Commission has used a range
of methodology.
Data Collection
In reviewing the data available to ascertain the number of pupils in Salford who may need
an intervention from the Learning Support Service a wide range of data sets were used:
a) The Area Needs Assessment: The Area Needs assessment is the single most
comprehensive analysis of need of Children with Disabilities in Salford. All the data
below except the CRIDE data and the caseload data have contributed to it.
b) The PLASC data for 2011 and 2012. This is the data collected by the Department for
Education in January every year. It is collected at pupil level and therefore reflects the
schools view of the 5-16 population.
c) The data produced from the Education Management System (EMS). This data is
taken from the LA system which is maintained by the Special Needs Team and
therefore accurately reflects the position with regard to pupils with statements of SEN.
d) The CRIDE data for 2009 – 10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. This is a data set relating to
pupils with Hearing Impairment and is internal data supplied by members of this team
30
to the National Deaf Children’s Society.
e) The caseload data produced by the Sensory Service. This is internal data
produced by the sensory service on the request of the commission.
f) The Statistical First Release this is the annual DfE report based on the nationally
available statistics on young people in England and Wales. It is a public domain
document.
Diary Logging
Between the 16th of April and the 27th of April all members of the current Inclusive Learning
Service undertook a comprehensive diary logging exercise against a series of predetermined
codes. This was designed to establish both the range of activity they are currently performing
and also where there are gaps in the offer which is currently made. The codes used were
from 16th April to the 27th April inclusive and recognised as covering the range of activities
which an Inclusive Learning Service should undertake.
Web Trawl
A web trawl was constructed and undertaken by a member of the commissioning team.
The purpose of the Web Trawl was to collect high level information about LA provision which
is made for pupils in mainstream schools as outlined on the public pages of the website of a
sample of 40% of Local Authorities.
From the information gained 12 LA’s were identified as needing further investigation, letters
were written to the Directors of Children’s Services in those Local Authorities and a series of
visits are underway. Visits have been undertaken to Lancashire, Staffordshire, Halton,
Stockport, and Blackburn with Darwen,
During the Open Session an additional Local Authority was identified as having good practice
in the area of support for Children and Young People with visual impairment, this Local
Authority was duly contacted.
Open Session
The open session met on the 9th May 2012. The following respondents gave evidence to the
commission and their contributions can be accessed through the Salford website.
http://www.salford.gov.uk/ilscommission.htm
Ms S Cusick / Ms Grundy
Dr J Muscutt – Principal Educational Psychologist
Adele Ross – JSENSE
Ms L Price EMTAS / ILS
Ms L Armstrong / Mr R Cobb - RNIB
Ms M Morris – SALT SRFT
31
Ms J Reeves - NDCS
Ms P Dutton – Parent
Dr A Pike – Consultant Community Paediatrician
Ms J Heath – Head of Sensory Services
Ms A Sharpe – Teacher of the Deaf
Ms H Shenton – Teacher of the Deaf
Ms A Bever-Warren – Head teacher New Park School
Cllr Balkind – Supporter SDCS
Ms S O’Neill – Parent
Focus Groups
Four Focus Groups have met three times, these focus groups were for National and Local
Lobby groups, Education Representatives, Partners in Salford and Parents, a fifth Focus
Group for young people has met twice. The focus groups were given structured tasks on
each date they met and were supported to consider and answer the questions which the
commission set itself.
Questionnaires
A series of questionnaires were developed for use with Schools and Settings and Parents
and Carers. The questionnaires were available both online and in paper form.
The response to the questionnaires was limited but those submitted were analysed and
recurrent themes were translated into the overall recommendations.
The Commission
The commission itself has met five times including the Open Evidence Session. At each
meeting, information collected since the previous session has been presented, and the
commission has discussed in detail the implications of what it has been told and requested
additional clarification / information.
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
32
differential impact relating to
age equality
Will people within certain age
ranges not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will people within certain age
ranges be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of age?
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain age ranges
will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
N
N
N
Y
Pupils within the need groups, Physical Difficulties, Learning, Communication will
get a service not currently available. In year 1 the provision for pupils with HI and Vi
will be protected.
Y
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
The proposals mean that more Salford Children will be educated in Salford in local
mainstream schools. More Salford pupils who have problems with their learning
will get support to achieve aspirational outcomes.
All Secondary Head teachers and members of SHAPAs have signed upto the
vision of the new service.
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
33
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
disability equality
Will people with a disability not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people with a disability be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of disability?
Will the proposals mean that
people with disabilities will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Yes (Y)
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
The proposals are not discriminatory on grounds of disability as the proposal is not
to remove the service but to align it appropriately across all need groups. This
means that the service will continue to be delivered but in a different way. There is
a minimal reduction of teaching time for pupils with Hearing Impairment and this
will be overcome by introducing more effective working practice.
N
N
Evidence shows that robust alignment of Support Services against the national
standards improves outcomes for clients in the focus groups.
Y
Clients who have needs in Physical Difficulties, Communication, Learning and
BESD will receive an enhanced level of service, with equity being maintained
across all need groups. Pupils with Visual Impairment will benefit from an additional
teaching capacity of 0.5 and the services of a sensory technician.
Y
The proposals mean that more Salford Children will be educated in Salford in local
mainstream schools. Therefore developing an increased understanding of people
in the wider community and their needs.
Section E – Action Plan and review
34
Detail in the plan below, actions that you have identified in your CIA, which will eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity
and/or foster good relations.
If you are unable to eliminate or reduce negative impact on any of the equality areas, you should explain why
Impact (positive or
negative) identified
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Required outcome
Service
Manager
Where will action
Target date
be monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate
Business Plan,
Service Plan,
Equality Action
Plan)
Business plan
September
2013
Reduce the teaching
capacity of the HI team
by 0.2
Sensory Technician
recruited
Review working practice
to ensure that pupils still
receive a service in line
with NATSIP
requirements
Undertake recruitment
process
HOS SEN
Business plan
September
2013
Effective working
sustained.
All staff moved into roles
in the new service
Undertake recruitment
process
HOS SEN
Business plan
September
2013
Effective working
sustained.
Service delivery design
complete and
communicated to schools
Delivery design agreed
and implemented across
current teams ASAP
AD and HOS
SEN
Business plan
September
2013
Effective working
sustained.
Effective working
sustained.
Could making the changes in any of the above areas have a negative effect on other groups? Explain why and what you will do about
this.
No
Review
35
Your CIA should be reviewed at least every three years, less if it has a significant impact on people.
Please enter the date your CIA will be reviewed January 2016.
You should review progress on your CIA action plan annually.
36
Section F – Summary of your CIA
As your CIA will be published on the council’s website and accessible to the general public, a summary of your CIA is required. Please
provide a summary of your CIA in the box below.
Summary of Community Impact Assessment
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
The CIA was undertaken through the data collection and consultation for both the commission and the consultation on the structure of
the new service. It was found that the perception of potential impact was more significant than the actual impact was going to be. It
demonstrated new issues which will need to be considered in the service going forward and confirmed things which we knew needed
to be dealt with.
What are the main areas requiring further attention?
Development of the New Service LSS
Summary of recommendations for improvement
Implement LSS from September 2013.
37
Section G – Next Steps
Quality Assurance
When you have completed your CIA, you should send it to your directorate Equality Link Officer who will arrange for it to be quality
assured. Your CIA will be returned to you if further work is required. It is important that your CIA is robust and of good quality as it may
be challenged
“Sign off” within your directorate
Your directorate Equality Link Officer will then arrange for your CIA to be “signed off” within your directorate (see below). Your directorate
Equality Lead Officer or other senior manager within your directorate should “sign off” your CIA (below).
Name
Signature
Date
Senior Manager
Lead CIA Officer
Publishing
When your CIA has been signed off within your directorate, your directorate Equality Link Officer will send it to Elaine Barber in the
Equalities and Cohesion Team for publishing on the council’s website.
Monitoring
Your directorate Equality Link Officer will also send your CIA to your directorate Performance Officer where the actions identified within
your CIA will be entered into Covalent, the council’s performance management monitoring software so that progress can be monitored
as appropriate.
38