Agenda item

 11.1

Candi Lawson, Strategic Commissioning Manager and Tim Armstrong, Head of Access and Inclusion, were in attendance to present the Alternative Provision Review.

11.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:That the Education, Children and Families Policy Committee:

-       Endorse the strategic intent to develop and implement appropriate changes to the citywide model of Alternative Provision in line with further consultation with schools, providers, parents, and young people.

-       Approve the commission of a new framework for providers to deliver alternative provision services for use by Sheffield schools and services within the children’s services portfolio, as set out in this Report.

-       Endorses that, in developing the new framework, work is undertaken to develop models of greater sustainability for providers on the framework and costs that support the appropriate placement of children on the framework.

11.3

Reasons for Decision

11.3.1

We are recommending that the Local Authority supports the further development of a citywide Alternative Provision model as this will create a clear strategy that delivers consistent and quality provision for which the LA has oversight.

11.3.2

The approach will enable the LA to develop the quality of provision and ensure that it is integrated to wider practice to support inclusion within the city. It will ensure that the LA is able to meet it’s statutory duties to arrange alternative provision in school or elsewhere under section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

11.3.2

It is recommended that the framework is procured as part of our work to ensure sufficient suitable provision is developed within the city.

11.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

11.4.1

Consideration has been given to remain with the current fractured Alternative Provision model. This has been rejected as it lacks a clear plan and direction and does not fit with local and national ambitions.

11.4.2

Consideration has been given to removing the AP framework, allowing schools to individually develop any offer they wish to utilise directly with providers. This has been rejected as it creates greater risk of poor practice. The lack of regulated provision within the city means that we continue to need a framework of provision to reduce risk of exclusion and provide appropriate interventions.

10.1

Candi Lawson, Strategic Commissioning Manager and Tim Armstrong, Head of Access and Inclusion, were in attendance to present the Alternative Provision Review.

10.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:That the Education, Children and Families Policy Committee:

-       Endorse the strategic intent to develop and implement appropriate changes to the citywide model of Alternative Provision in line with further consultation with schools, providers, parents, and young people.

-       Approve the commission of a new framework for providers to deliver alternative provision services for use by Sheffield schools and services within the children’s services portfolio, as set out in this Report.

-       Endorses that, in developing the new framework, work is undertaken to develop models of greater sustainability for providers on the framework and costs that support the appropriate placement of children on the framework.

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

We are recommending that the Local Authority supports the further development of a citywide Alternative Provision model as this will create a clear strategy that delivers consistent and quality provision for which the LA has oversight.

10.3.2

The approach will enable the LA to develop the quality of provision and ensure that it is integrated to wider practice to support inclusion within the city. It will ensure that the LA is able to meet it’s statutory duties to arrange alternative provision in school or elsewhere under section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

10.3.2

It is recommended that the framework is procured as part of our work to ensure sufficient suitable provision is developed within the city.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.4.1

Consideration has been given to remain with the current fractured Alternative Provision model. This has been rejected as it lacks a clear plan and direction and does not fit with local and national ambitions.

10.4.2

Consideration has been given to removing the AP framework, allowing schools to individually develop any offer they wish to utilise directly with providers. This has been rejected as it creates greater risk of poor practice. The lack of regulated provision within the city means that we continue to need a framework of provision to reduce risk of exclusion and provide appropriate interventions.