Memorandum submitted by Priory Educational
Services
INTRODUCTION
Priory Educational Services is part of the Priory
Group Ltd, who are the largest independent providers of mental
health services in Europe. The wider range of services provided
by the company include general adult psychiatry, including addiction
treatment, adolescent psychiatry (Priory is the largest group
providing specific treatment for young people with eating disorders),
neuro-rehabilitation, semi-secure psychiatric care as well as
17 schools and colleges accommodating children and young people
with:
— Autistic Spectrum Disorders
— Social, Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties
— Specific Learning difficulties associated
with Dyslexia/dispraxia
Priory is predominantly a public service company
with the majority of students in the schools and colleges being
funded either by their local authorities (occasionally in conjunction
with the Primary Care Trust) or the Learning and Skills Council.
All young people prior to admission will have been assessed by
the local education authority as having special educational needs
(statements). All schools and colleges reflect the priorities
described in `Every Child Matters'.
ISSUE ONE: PROVISION
FOR SEN PUPILS
IN `MAINSTREAM'
SCHOOLS: AVAILABILITY
OF RESOURCES
AND EXPERTISE;
DIFFERENT MODELS
OF PROVISION
We believe that the best place for most children
to receive their care and education is in a secure and loving
family, with education being provided locally alongside their
own peer group. For many children, despite their special educational
needs, this remains the best option, provided that resources to
meet those needs is available in the school. For a small number
of children remaining at home is not an option due to various
circumstances (almost all the children and young people in the
seven schools Priory provides for students deemed to have SEBD
come from dysfunctional families). A lack of consistent parental/adult
support is reflected in levels of attainment and behaviour in
school, resulting in the children we care for having, on average,
more than double the number of school placements prior to coming
to one of our schools. A significant number have not been attending
school, or have not been allocated a place in a local school,
for over 12 months.
We believe that exclusive educational provision
should only be provided where it can be shown that better attainment
levels can be delivered in such an environment. Initially we find
that by offering intensive, sometimes one to one educational experiences,
we are able to move students on, so that they can attend colleges
or school local to our own school, or to return to their home
local authority area and to mainstream provision. We say that
one of our aims is to return young people to mainstream education
`one page ahead of the rest of the class/group'. This same philosophy
can be applied to special units in mainstream schools. However,
often behaviour in school reflects home circumstances, and six
out of the seven schools offer 52 week care since all too often
many of the problems in the classroom are a reflection of the
difficulties at home. Whilst we reflect the terminology used in
the Statements of Special Educational Needs, many of the children
seemed SEBD also reflect many of the characteristics of children
with aspects of Autistic Spectrum Disorders.
ISSUE TWO: PROVISION
FOR SEN PUPILS
IN SPECIAL
SCHOOLS
We are aware of much good work done in local
special schools. However, often this is undone because of a lack
of consistency between the school and the home (including local
authority children's homes). Only a minority of the day is spent
in school, therefore what goes on outside the school day is hugely
important. By ensuring that care staff and school staff work closely
together with shared objectives, good communication, and a common
understanding of the issues we can demonstrate the advantages,
which can be achieved in a residential special school.
ISSUE THREE: RAISING
STANDARDS OF
ACHIEVEMENT FOR
SEN PUPILS
Throughout all our schools we concentrate on
achieving measurable outcomes for our students, which will help
them, achieve independence in adult life. It is not enough for
us to describe ourselves as `good' and excuse the lack of measurable
outcomes because `our students do not have the ability to pass
exams or achieve other externally verified results'. We must live
in the real world, where education standards do matter and will
influence the young persons subsequent life and achievements.
All our schools offer the full national curriculum.
Students can access a wide range of examinations, including:
This year all our schools offered GCSE examinations.
In addition to regular Ofsted inspections we commission our own
independent termly inspections of both our education and care
facilities. Across all our schools and colleges we can report:
— One school obtained 100% passes in
GCSE A to C, whilst two others achieved 87% and 75%.
— One of our 6th form colleges with
50 students has 13 former students now in higher education.
Qualifications achieved in other schools include:
— BTEC Diploma in Public Services
— National Diploma for IT Practitioners
— Level 3 (University place offered)
— BTEC First Diploma in Performing
Arts
— (University place offered)
— NCFE Certificate in Multimedia Design
— NVQ Level 2 in culinary Arts.
Demonstrating the breadth of the curriculum
14 students at an SEBD school passed the basic training in tractor
driving. Students are measured using the Key Stage SATS, which
results comparing favourably with mainstream educational settings.
We celebrate success with our students. From
an initial start of perhaps `celebrating' that they achieved 100%
attendance at school we move on to them achieving `verifiable'
results which will allow them to compete for jobs and secure lifestyles
in their adult lives.
ISSUE 4: THE
SYSTEM OF
STATEMENTS OF
NEED FOR
SEN PUPILS (`THE
STATEMENTING PROCESS')
On the one hand we do not want our students
to feel that they are `labelled'. On the other hand the `statement'
is the passport to our specialist facilities. We have evidence
of a good level of consistency across the country in respect of
the statementing process. Where we are being asked for a 52 week
placement by a local authority the availability of a good social
enquiry report is very variable. In some local authorities statutory
reviews are very inconsistent.
Our big concern about the process of statementing
is not so much the statement but what happens next. All children
and young people admitted to any of our schools will have a statement
of educational needs. We are approached by the Education Officer,
Educational Psychologist or Social Worker. We do not take students
without a comprehensive assessment. We encourage the young person
and his parents to visit the school before making a decision.
Increasingly however another part of the LA/LEA refuses to fund
the placement and parents have then to apply to a Tribunal. We
are asked as part of that process to confirm the availability
of a place. Local authorities often ask for a delay in the hearing,
and this can go on for up to a year. We are declining requests
for other students because we have made a commitment, and the
child or young person often goes with no or minimal education.
Even when the request for the placement does not go to an external
Tribunal local authorities will delay decision making even though
it is their staff who have asked for the place in the first instance.
ISSUE FIVE: THE
ROLE OF
PARENTS IN
DECISIONS ABOUT
THEIR CHILDREN'S
EDUCATION
For many parents, they have reached or passed
the point of despair because of the behaviour of their child.
In over 90% of the cases where a pre-admission visit is made parents
are encouraging their son or daughter to accept the place offered.
With schools for students assessed as having SEBD parental choice
is often limited. For our other schools, and through organisations
such as the National Autistic Society, it is parents who choose
the school for their child. We encourage parents to attend all
`reviews' and give regular reports to both the student and the
family.
ISSUE SIX: HOW
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL
NEEDS ARE
DEFINED
We would like our schools and colleges to be
defined not by the students they accommodate but by the educational
and care services they provide.
If we think of our schools as Specialist Schools
defined by the type of education offered we begin to fit in much
more easily to the structures outline recently in the White Paper.
Just as there are secondary schools specialising in Maths or English,
we specialise in providing education for students who cannot survive
or progress in mainstream education. Who provides the school or
college is less important than what is provided. We offer like
any other school the core curriculum, but we have additional skills
to enable our students to succeed. The funding route for such
schools should be the same as for any other school. We welcome
our contact with Ofsted and CSCI and measurement of `best value'
or `value for money' should apply as much to us, as a private
provider as to a school independently managed by local governors
but within the public sector. (Just as every student will have
an individual education and care plan, our fee rates reflect the
level of individual education and care needed. One size fits all
is not appropriate. We have a fee banding system—with fee
levels potentially reducing as student's progress.)
ISSUE SEVEN: PROVISION
FOR DIFFERENT
TYPES AND
LEVELS OF
SEN, INCLUDING EMOTIONAL,
BEHAVIORAL AND
SOCIAL DIFFICULTIES
(EBSD)
We acknowledge that we are at the most acute
end of the spectrum. All our schools should only be admitting
students whose needs have been carefully assessed, and for whom
a neighbourhood solution is not possible. However, we believe
that the current system is unfair on both our students and their
families, because they have to pass additional `tests' to receive
the education and care they need. We are not critical of much
of the assessment process in respect of educational need. There
is a remarkable consistency in most parts of the country. We are
concerned that parents have to revert to Tribunals to challenge
decisions of local authorities, where financial policies are given
greater priority than educational and care needs. The principles
behind the `choice' directive should apply to this area of education
just as it does to mainstream education. Finally, we believe that
the assessment should embrace `the whole child'. We welcome the
bringing together social services children and families services
with education within Children's Services Departments in the hope
that social and educational needs will be comprehensively assessed
when considering a place in one of our specialist schools.
ISSUE EIGHT: THE
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
FOR SEN PROVISION
AND THE
EFFECTS OF
THE DISABILITY
ACT 2001, WHICH
EXTENDED THE
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
ACT TO
EDUCATION
We acknowledge that the needs of the students,
and those who teach or care for him or her should be paramount.
Our schools should be accessible to those students who have physical
as well educational and care needs. Currently only one school
would fully meet the criteria demanded in the Disability Discrimination
Act. One of the advantages of being a privately owned company
is that we can access capital to make alterations more easily
than a local authority can, and we can make decisions very quickly.
As a responsible organisation we would never put profit before
meeting need (if our shareholders did they should not be investing
in this type of industry). Our values reflect all those deemed
important by good local authorities and as such where there is
a need, be it a student or an employee, our buildings and services
should meet that need. However, to apply regulations regardless
of any unmet need would be wasteful and would take away from the
existing challenges.
CONCLUSION
We would like to be seen as a provider of specialist
education, not special education. All students, regardless of
need should be seen as special. Assessment of educational and
care needs, and the necessary funding streams should be part of
a total process. In this respect we commend the approach by the
Learning and Skills Council. Because we share the same values
and objectives, we believe that there should be far greater partnership
working between local authorities and ourselves. The old purchaser/provider
relationship is neither appropriate nor good enough. Increasingly
as local authorities move away from direct provision the expertise
in providing education and care for children and young people
with social, educational and behavioural difficulties is to be
found in providers such as Priory Educational Services. We want
to share that knowledge and experience in order to improve services
to those students, who without appropriate interventions are likely
to be a drain on public services into their adult lives.
October 2005
| 
