1. The Future Development of Access Responsibilities (Section 19) and Alternative Provision in Somerset Option Appraisals

2. Review – Key Design Principles 1.To further explore the Hub and Satellite model. 2.To increase diversity, provision and capacity of the existing PRU network 3.To ensure that any service meets the needs of all vulnerable young people. 4.To further explore the integrated PRU model in its widest sense – Cross phase and function - in and out of school support that is personalised and flexible. Integration with mainstream and special schools and academies. 5.To further explore new opportunities for in-reach and out-reach work delivered by specialist staff including for example SEBBS, adolescent support workers, PFSA’s 6.To ensure out of school provision for KS2, 3, 4, LEC Medical Tuition and Virtual Classroom day 6 provision is available in all areas. 7.To develop Key stage 1 provision/ support in conjunction with other service reviews. 8.The ensure there is adequate opportunity for specialist PRS staff to work closer with schools in order to share good practice and learn from each other through joint professional development. 9.To clearly recognise the geographic needs and differences across Somerset in planning a new service delivery model. For example the impact of the rural context in West Somerset and Frome and the urban contexts of Yeovil and Bridgwater 10.To ensure that there is proactive early identification and response to support the needs of pupils before they are excluded; i.e. closer tracking of need within schools. 11.To ensure that any service needs to be able to identify outcomes for the pupils and understand their experiences.

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

4. Section 19 LA Responsibilities Section 19 responsibilities for Local Authorities Include; Finding, funding and/or providing appropriate full time education for those permanently excluded from school. This could mean arranging transfers to another maintained school, providing places in a pupil referral unit, other specialist provision or through private providers. Providing appropriate full time education from day 6 of the permanent exclusion Ensuring robust access arrangements are in place including an agreed fair access protocol Making arrangements for school places for pupils deemed ‘hard to place’ out side of the normal admission arrangements within given statutory timeframes Ensuring appropriate education is in place for students with SEN awaiting the outcomes of statutory assessments Ensuring appropriate educational provision is available for pupils who are diagnosed as medically unfit to attend mainstream school This is an illustrative list only an is not intended to be fully comprehensive

5. 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. Benefits/Opportunities Current PRU provision is 75% good or outstanding Experienced heads of centre and access managers have built up good working relationships with schools within their local areas The infrastructure is already in place Section 19 responsibilities are currently fully covered by the LA Issues It does not address any of the issues raised by the schools consultation (e.g. lack of provision in some key stages, areas etc)

6. Option 2 – Trading within an open market All existing PRU would become fully traded units for those pupils permanently excluded or at risk of permanent exclusion as referred by schools. Section 19 for, Medical Tuition, Fair Access, Day 6 would remain with the LA for monitoring & safeguarding purposes. Benefits/Opportunities Proportion of existing PRU funding would be devolved to schools Schools would be free to choose providers Schools would be free to use funding to enhance their own internal provision Schools that do not use external provision would have an increase in their budgets (without a deprivation weighting factor = approx £5000 per 100 pupils) Schools could pool budgets within CLP’s or other learning partnerships Issues There is currently a lack of choice of private providers of Alternative Provision in Somerset Provision is expensive (e.g. ALC (£600 p.w. £22, 800 p.a.) (KS4 PRU £17 – £20 000 p.a.) Cost would be cumulative (e.g. child Pex’d in Y10 would incur 2 years of fees to the school potentially £40 000+ Some existing PRUs would be unsustainable and close therefore further reducing provision Schools would be responsible for risk assessing and monitoring the quality of providers

7. Option 3 – Internal Commissioning All existing PRU units would become schools in their own right commissioned (by the compact) to provide alternative provision for all of the compact schools. The schools would be funded either through CSB or through a conversion to ISB. Section 19 responsibility could become the shared responsibility of the LA and the Compact in this model Enhanced Maintained Schools (Satellites) in the East, West and South would be commissioned to provide support for the schools in their localities supported by the central PRU schools. Benefits/Opportunities The compact would have overall control of alternative provision which could then be developed locally Local development could lead to increasing diversity and capacity of provision/support Greater opportunity for schools/PRUs to work collaboratively as support would be cross phase PRUs would have greater control over staffing to improve the quality of provision. Greater opportunity for schools/PRUs to integrate and create centres of excellence Recognition of the geographic needs of the County Quality assurance would be with the schools but schools would not have responsibility for finding, funding or risk assessing provision Opportunity for PRU academy conversion Issues Funding would not find it’s way directly into schools ISB. Less choice than a traded model for schools to go elsewhere Schools who do not exclude or use alternative provision are potentially paying for a service they don’t use. There are staffing implications for HOC whose terms and conditions would change Funding agreement from DFE not yet agreed

8. Option 4 – External Commissioning All existing PRU units would become schools in their own right (with satellite provision either included or left outside the contract). The contract to run and provide alternative provision could be put out to tender by the compact. This could be bid for by private organisations, individual schools or groups of schools. Section 19 for, Medical Tuition, Fair Access, Day 6 would need to remain with the LA for monitoring & safeguarding purposes. Benefits/Opportunities Meets the design principles for recognising the geographic needs of the County The Compact holds overall responsibility for the contract and service delivery and can therefore hold contractors to account Could potentially bring in expertise from outside the County - A large contractor could potentially belong to a nationwide network with access to a wider expert staffing pool and resources Increasing competition could raise quality of provision Schools would set the terms of the Service Level Agreements for capacity and range of provision. Opportunity for schools to diversify into the alternative provision market Opportunity for PRU academy conversion Issues Funding would not find its way directly into schools ISB. Schools who do not exclude or use alternative provision are potentially paying for a service they don’t use. Less choice than a traded model for schools to go elsewhere. Service Level Agreements would need to be very carefully managed – who would do this on behalf of the Compact. New local infrastructures would need to be established Schools would have responsibility for risk assessing and quality assuring the provision Development of the service is in the hands of the contractor