EQIA's - stirling.gov.uk · Stirling Council Priority Based Budgeting Contents Theme 1 – Education and Children EDU017 Move Playhaven to a Self-Sustainable Funding Basis EDU020

Stirling CouncilPriority Based Budgeting

EQIA's

Equality Impact Assessments

Theme 1

Education and Children

Stirling CouncilPriority Based Budgeting

Contents

Theme 1 – Education and Children

EDU017 Move Playhaven to a Self-Sustainable Funding Basis

EDU020 Review Commissioning - Music Therapy Services

EDU021 Review Commissioning - Art Therapy Services

EDU022 Withdraw from Commissioning - Riding for the Disabled (RDA)

EDU035 Increase Nursery Fee Charges

EDU037 Re-design of Nursery Teaching Provision (Pre -School)

EDU054 Review delivery of the Music Service in Primary Schools

EDU055 Review delivery of the Physical Education Service in Primary Schools

EDU065 Maximise Primary Class Sizes

EDU069 Transforming approach to Secondary Education

EDU073 Reduction of Additional Support Needs Teachers in Secondary Schools

SOC022 Introduction of Charging Policy for Children's Services

STIRLING COUNCIL: EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM (June 2014) The Guidance: Equality Impact Assessment Toolkit June 2014 should be used when doing an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) and completing this form and a link is provided to this. The term proposal used below is intended to include “policy, strategy, service, function, procedure or project.”

SUMMARY DETAILS

1. Title of Proposal: SERVICE PBB Ref (if applicable)

Move Playhaven to a self-sustainable funding basis

Education EDU017

2. Lead and Contact Officer Details.

Lead Officer authorising assessment Contact Officer/s undertaking assessment

Title Team Leader (Creche, Play & Out of School Care Services):

Title/s Team Leader (Creche, Play & Out of School Care Services): Janet Gowran

Name Janet Gowran Name/s Janet Gowran

3. Which other Council Services or Partner Agencies are / will be involved in the delivery of this proposal?

None

4. Have they been involved in the Equality Impact Assessment process and if so, how?

Not applicable.

5. What is the nature of the proposal? (Tick/complete all that apply)

Review of an existing policy/strategy Review of an existing service/function

Reduction in an existing service/function Removal of an existing service

Introduction of a new policy/strategy Introduction of new service/function

Other e.g. technical, progress, procedural report

PBB category e.g. transformational change Stop/Reduce Option

6. For proposals with implications for budgets complete the following:

Current expenditure on activity

(£ 000s)

In Council area as a whole £10K

In/for specific community/ies

Total anticipated savings or proposed increased spend

In/for Council area as a whole £10K

In/ for specific community/ies

Delivery Timescale and Phasing

Start date for savings/increased spend April 2015

End Date for savings/increased spend April 2015

Savings/increased spend Year 1 £10K

Savings/increased spend Year 2




OUTCOMES, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 7. What longer term outcomes is this proposal expected to achieve? Consider (a) the Single Outcome

Agreement 2013 – 23, (b) Council Key Priorities 2014, (c) the Council’s Equality Outcomes 2014 – 17 and any additional relevant strategies or policies. A link is provided to items (a)-(c).

OUTCOME SOURCE DOCUMENT

Improved outcomes in children’s early years. Improved support for disadvantaged and vulnerable families and individuals. Increased focus on early intervention to help families in need. Provide additional nursery and out of school care places

throughout the Stirling area to support working families.

Single Outcome Agreement Stirling Council – Key Priorities

8. What are the main aims of this proposal? If this proposal revises an existing policy have its aims

changed?

Playhaven Out-of-School Care makes provision for children whose parents are in employment, study or

training who live in the following areas with Stirling: Cornton, King’s Park, Raploch, Riverside and the Top of the Town. The Service operates during term-time and during school holidays. Provision is made for children of primary school age. Playhaven operates within Raploch Community Campus.

9. Who is most likely to be affected by this proposal? Consider current and potential future service users

including people with particular needs, specific geographical communities and current and prospective employees. Provide anticipated numbers affected by the proposal where possible.

GATHERING EVIDENCE 10. What evidence has been used to identify the potential impact of this proposal, where did it come from

and how it was obtained? Please list all the evidence used. (Examples may include research undertaken at local or national level and service delivery information about service users/customers and levels of satisfaction. Evidence may have been gathered routinely through regular engagement with service users, equality groups and communities; or through engagement specifically undertaken to improve understanding of the impact of this proposal.)

EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE

(Where it came from)

COLLECTION METHOD

(How it was gathered and when)

ResearchResearch (national/local)

Service delivery data/information including who receives the service Consultation/ engagement

National Play Strategy (2007) Early Years Framework (2008) In a local context, there are 8 Community led Out of School care providers operating a Voluntary management committee practice model. 6 of which are self funding organisations. Care Inspectorate Report, 2011 Annual service users questionnaires

Stirling Out of school care network - representatives meet 5 times per annum Provide regular updates on usage/ charges etc

ASSESSING IMPACT 11. What potential impact will this proposal have on people in terms of the “needs” of the public sector equality

duty i.e. the Council’s responsibilities to:

eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation

advance equality of opportunity

foster good relations - including the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding

Please consider each “need”, assess the impact of the proposal as positive (+), neutral (0), or negative (-) and summarise the reason/s for your response. See guidance for additional information.

EQUALITY DUTY “NEED” POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RESPONSE

Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation

0

The proposal is likely to have a neutral impact on all protected groups

Advance equality of opportunity

0


Fostering good relations

0


12. Will this proposal have a potential impact on people with protected characteristics? A more detailed

explanation of these is provided in the guidance. Consider which if any, of the groups below will be affected by the proposal and if the impact will be positive (+), neutral (0), or negative (-). Your response to Question 11 may help you consider the impact of the proposal on people in these particular groups. Please consider each “need”, assess the impact of the proposal and summarise the reason/s for your response.

PROTECTED

CHARACTERISTIC GROUP

EQUALITY DUTY NEED SUMMARY OF REASONS

Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)

Advancing equality of

opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Age (Younger / Older)

The proposal has the potential to impact on children of primary school age as it related specifically to them; however, this impact is neutral as the level of service to this group will be maintained under the proposal.

Disability

The proposal has the potential to impact on children of who attend Playhaven and have a disability; however, this impact is neutral as the level of service to this group will be maintained under the proposal.

Gender Reassignment

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Pregnancy and Maternity

Race

Religion and Belief

Sex

Sexual Orientation

IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES, HOUSEHOLD GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS VULNERABLE TO POVERTY

13. Will this proposal have a positive (+), neutral (0), or negative (-) impact on communities, household

groups or individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty. Guidance is available on those

communities, households and individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty. Please assess the impact of the proposal and describe those who will be affected.

THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT

Geographical

Community/ies

(Please specify)

0

The proposal relates specifically to those living in the communities of Cornton, King’s Park, Raploch, Riverside, Springkerse and the Top of the Town; Corton and Raploch are among the most deprived in Stirling. However, existing service levels will be sustained for them resulting in overall neutral impact.

Individuals or household groups

(Please specify)

The criteria for accessing services remains unchanged under the proposal; therefore, there will be neutral impact on household groups.

OVERALL IMPACT 14. Based on responses to Questions 11, 12 and 13, summarize the overall impact of this proposal

confirming if this will be positive, neutral, or negative and highlighting any particular groups affected.

The proposal will have a neutral impact on primary-aged living in the communities of Cornton, King’s Park, Raploch, Riverside, Springkerse and the Top of the Town as levels of service will be maintained at the current rate. The proposal relates to a specific age group of children, those of primary school age; however, the impact on this group will be neutral also. Playhaven makes some provision for children who attend Castleview School and have complex additional needs; again, the impact on these pupils will be neutral as they will still be able to access Playhaven under the revised arrangements.

MITIGATING POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT Based on your response to question 14:

if this proposal has any potential negative impact you must answer Questions 15 -18

if this proposal does not have any potential negative impact go directly to Question 19

15. Describe the potential negative impact/s of this proposal, the level of impact anticipated and the number

of people likely to be affected. If you are unable to confirm the actual number of people potentially affected please give an indication of the relative scale of this for example as a proportion of current service users. Please see the Guidance for additional information. Potential negative impact Level of impact (low-high) Number of people potentially

affected

16. Based on your response to Question 15, could this proposal, in its current form, discriminate against

people in a protected characteristic group – will it result in their being treated less favourably when compared with others not in a protected characteristic group? Please see the Guidance for additional information.*link Please answer Yes or No

If the proposal is considered to have the potential to discriminate against people in a protected characteristic group you should consider modifying it to remove or reduce its potential negative impact

If the proposal is considered to be discriminatory to the extent that is unlawful it must be rejected or substantially modified

The resulting modified policy requires to be re–assessed to confirm its impact as per Questions 11, 12, 13 and 14.

17. Describe in detail the actions taken to remove or modify any identified negative impact of this proposal

Not applicable.

18. Where negative impacts cannot be removed or minimised any further, clearly state your justification for

continuing with this proposal.

Not applicable.

MONITORING AND REVIEW 19. a) How will implementation of this proposal be monitored, how frequently and by whom?

b) How will the results of the monitoring be used to develop it in the future? c) What is the timescale for the reviewing the impact of this proposal?

a) The proposal will be monitored four times per year by the Team Leader (Creche, Play & Out-of-

School Care).

b) Results of monitoring will be used to inform future planning and to identify service priorities.

c) Not applicable.

PUBLISHING RESULTS

20 Please summarise the key findings of the EqIA. This statement is for publication in the relevant

Council report and requires to be authorised and signed by the Lead Officer responsible for the assessment.

Given that the proposal aims to maintain the same levels of service delivery to those families within the communities of Cornton, King’s Park, Raploch, Riverside, Springkerse and the Top of the Town, there is no negative impact on them. Whilst the proposal relates specifically to primary-aged children, some of whom may have a disability, the proposal will have a neutral impact on them.

AUTHORISATION BY LEAD OFFICER (Head of Service/Service Manager)

Title Sharon Johnston

Senior Manager: Children, Young People & Families

Signature Date 27 January 2015


SUMMARY DETAILS


Review commissioning - Music Therapy Services

EDUCATION EDU020



Title Senior Manager: Children, Young People and Families

Title/s Service Manager – Children’s Services

Name Sharon Johnston Name/s Elaine Murray


Nordoff Robins Music Therapy in Scotland and Inscape Therapies.


No


Review of an existing policy/strategy Review of an existing service/function √




PBB category e.g. transformational change Stop/Reduce



(£ 000s)







Start date for savings/increased spend August 2015

End Date for savings/increased spend August 2016









Improved support for disadvantaged and vulnerable families and individuals. Communities are well served better connected and safe. Improve outcomes for lowest performing 20% of children

in schools and nurseries.

Our approach to engagement and participation reflects the diversity of all our communities.

Single Outcome Agreement Stirling Council – Key Priorities Equality Outcomes


changed?

The service aims to deliver a programme of music therapy which promotes communication for those children with additional support needs who are in mainstream and supported by the Additional Support Needs team or are in specialist education.



This option proposes to review the Service Level Agreements for the commissioning of Music Therapy, and to re-negotiate the contract in order to reduce the cost of the service.



EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD


Research (national/local)

Consultation/engagement

User feedback e.g. on the quality of service received

The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Acts 2004 and 2009 (as amended). Scottish Government School Census Integrated Assessment Framework TAC (Team Around the Child) interface meetings The Education Service has two review meetings per year with each provider to monitor the Service Level Agreement and to analyse quarterly figures. As part of this process we liaise with the schools and the providers meet with stakeholders and their parents in order to provide feedback for the monitoring meetings. Outreach service and music therapy provider Inscape Therapy engage with young people, parents and staff and collate feedback. Staff questionnaires

Census - September 2014 Ongoing and regular intervals throughout academic session. Collected from individual school records and school Pupil Support Co-ordinators Ongoing process throughout academic year Ongoing process throughout academic year








(+) / ( 0) / (-)



0


- This proposal has the potential to negatively impact upon one of nine protected groups: disability.


12. Will this proposal have a potential impact on people with protected characteristics? A more detailed explanation of these is provided in the guidance. Consider which if any, of the groups below will be affected by the proposal and if the impact will be positive (+), neutral (0), or negative (-). Your response to Question 11 may help you consider the impact of the proposal on people in these particular groups. Please consider each “need”, assess the impact of the proposal and summarise the reason/s for your response.

PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 0 0

Disability

0 - 0

This option has the potential to impact negatively on children and young people with a disability as the Music Therapy relates specifically to them. Given that there is likely to be a reduction in the service provided currently, this is likely to result in either fewer children receiving the therapy or all of the children receiving the therapy on a less frequent basis than they do currently.

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0

Religion and Belief 0 0 0

Sex

0 0 0

Sexual Orientation 0 0 0





THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical

Community/ies

(Please specify)

-

This proposal has the potential to impact negatively on the children with ASD who reside in rural or remote communities. Currently, the therapy provided is delivered at a central rural location for young people with complex additional needs who are educated in mainstream schools and this may no longer be possible under the proposal.

Individuals or household groups (Please specify)

0



This proposal has the potential to impact negatively on children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) who currently meet the criteria for receiving Music Therapy. It is possible that a fewer number of children will receive the therapy or that the same number will receive therapy on a less frequent basis. The proposal may also impact negatively upon those children with ASD who reside in rural communities as delivery of the service at a centralised rural location may no longer be afforded under the proposals.






affected

Yes

Low

The number of children and young people with ASD amounts to a very small proportion of the total school population. The number of children with ASD amounts to 4% of the total number of children in Stirling schools for whom an additional support need is reported. (Source: census 2014)



Yes





As the proposal relates to renegotiation of the Service Level Agreement between Education Services and the providers of Music Therapy, there is potential to mitigate any impact by prioritising children with ASD and those in rural communities. It is also possible to renegotiate the service delivery to the groups of children who access the service.



This proposal will contribute to achieving Stirling Council’s Key Priorities - Priority R: Our Financial Strategy will reflect the current economic challenges by saving £24M (now revised to £29M over five years) whilst ensuring the delivery of quality services.



a) This proposal will be monitored routinely by the Education Service as monitoring of the Service Level

Agreement (SLA) happens routinely and is a feature of the agreement between Education and those providers who deliver the therapy.

b) Monitoring of the SLA enables the Education Service to identify impact of the therapy on children and

young people and to, where appropriate, prioritise individual children. c) Current SLA expires in June 15; this coincides with the renegotiation identified as part of this

proposal.

PUBLISHING RESULTS



This proposal has the potential to impact negatively on children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) who currently meet the criteria for receiving Music Therapy. It is possible that, under the proposal, that a fewer number of children will receive the therapy or that the same number will receive therapy on a less frequent basis. The proposal may also impact negatively upon those children with ASD who reside in rural communities as delivery of the service at a centralised rural location may no longer be afforded under the proposals; this is relevant for a very small group of young people (4% of the total number who have additional support needs). The Education Service will mitigate this impact through negotiating the Service Level Agreement to take account of these factors, by prioritising the needs of the children, and by negotiating service redesign.


Title Sharon Johnston Senior Manager: Children, Young People & Families



SUMMARY DETAILS


Review commissioning - Artlink Central

EDUCATION EDU021







Artlink Central


No






PBB category e.g. transformational change Stop/Reduce



(£ 000s)

















Improved support for disadvantaged and vulnerable families and individuals. Communities are well served better connected and safe. Improve outcomes for lowest performing 20% of children


Our approach to engagement and participation reflects the diversity of all our communities.



changed?

The service aims to deliver a programme of art therapy which promotes communication for those children with additional support needs who are in mainstream and supported by the Additional Support Needs team or are in specialist education.



This option proposes to review the Service Level Agreements for the commissioning of Art Therapy, and to re-negotiate the contract in order to reduce the cost of the service.



EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD



Consultation/ engagement


The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Acts 2004 and 2009 (as amended). Scottish Government School Census Integrated Assessment Framework TAC (Team Around the Child) interface meetings The Education Service has two review meetings per year with each provider to monitor the Service Level Agreement and to analyse quarterly figures. As part of this process we liaise with the schools and the providers meet with stakeholders and their parents in order to provide feedback for the monitoring meetings. Outreach service and music therapy provider Inscape Therapy engage with young people, parents and staff and collate feedback. Staff questionnaires

Census - September 2014 Ongoing and regular intervals throughout academic session. Collected from individual school records and school Pupil Support Co-ordinators Ongoing process throughout academic year Ongoing process throughout academic year








(+) / ( 0) / (-)



0


- This option has the potential to impact negatively on children and young people with a disability as the Artlink projects relate specifically to them. Given that there may be a reduction in the service provided currently, this is likely to result in either fewer children receiving the experience or all of the children receiving the experience on a less frequent basis than they do currently. It is also possible that there may be a reduction in the range of services provided by Artlink.


0


PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 0 0

Disability

0 - 0

This option has the potential to impact negatively on children and young people with a disability as the Artlink projects relates specifically to them. Given that there may be a reduction in the service provided currently, this is likely to result in either fewer children receiving the experience or all of the children receiving the experience on a less frequent basis than they do currently. It is also possible that there may be a reduction in the range of services provided by Artlink.

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0


Sex

0 0 0


IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES, HOUSEHOLD GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS VULNERABLE TO POVERTY 13. Will this proposal have a positive (+), neutral (0), or negative (-) impact on communities, household

groups or individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty. Guidance is available on those communities, households and individuals with a higher risk of experiencing poverty.

Please assess the impact of the proposal and describe those who will be affected.

THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical

Community/ies (Please specify)

-

The proposal has the potential to impact on children and young people with the communities of Fallin, Borestone, Callander, Cornton, Bannockburn, St Modans, Dunblane and Riverside as Artlink projects are delivered to these groups in particular.


0



The proposal has potential to impact negatively on children and young people within a particular age group: children and young people currently who are moving from primary to secondary and who are leaving secondary; and, who have a disability as the projects are directed to those with Autistic Spectrum Disorders or with other complex additional support needs. Given that there is likely to be a reduction in the service provided currently, this is likely to result in either fewer children receiving the therapy or all of the children receiving the therapy on a less frequent basis than they do currently. It is also possible that there may be a reduction in the range of services provided by Artlink.






affected

Yes

Low

Few – 182 children with additional support needs out of the total number 1621 (11%) experience Artlink projects; however, a proportion of this number will not be affected so the number will be lower. (Source: census 2014)



Yes





As the proposal relates to renegotiation of the Service Level Agreement between Education Services and the providers of Artlink, there is potential to mitigate any impact by taking account of these potential impacts. As Artlink is a charity, there is the potential for them to seek additional funding elsewhere to supplement the loss of income from Stirling council.






a) This proposal will be monitored routinely by the Education Service as part of the budget

implementation process. Monitoring of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) happens routinely and is a feature of the agreement between Education and those providers who deliver Artlink projects.

b) Monitoring of the SLA enables the Education Service to identify impact of the project experience on

children and young people and to, where appropriate, prioritise individual children. c) Current SLA expires in June 15; this coincides with the renegotiation identified as part of this

proposal.

PUBLISHING RESULTS



This proposal has the potential to impact negatively on children and young people with additional support needs who currently meet the criteria for participating in Artlink projects. It is possible that, under the proposal, that a fewer number of children (currently 182) will participate or that the same number will participate on a less frequent basis. The proposal may also impact negatively upon those children with additional support needs and who reside in an area of deprivation or in a rural community. There is also some potential for there to be impact on children who are moving from primary to secondary or are leaving secondary school, as currently there are programmes provided for children and young people in these age groups. Overall, the total number of children who are likely to be affected amounts to a very small number of the overall school population and to 11% of the population of those pupils who are recorded as having an additional support need. However, as two thirds of service will be maintained, the number directly affected will be very few. There is the potential to mitigate this impact through negotiating the Service Level Agreement to take of account of these factors. There is the potential for Artlink to seek additional funding to supplement the funding loss from Stirling Council. AUTHORISATION BY LEAD OFFICER (Head of Service/Service Manager)




SUMMARY DETAILS


Review commissioning - Therapy Services (Riding for the Disabled)

EDUCATION EDU022







Riding for the Disabled Association


No



Reduction in an existing service/function Removal of an existing service √



PBB category e.g. transformational change



(£ 000s)







Start date for savings/increased spend June 2015

End Date for savings/increased spend June 2015









Improved support for disadvantaged and vulnerable families and individuals. Improve outcomes for lowest performing 20% of children

in schools and nurseries. Our approach to engagement and participation reflects

the diversity of all our communities.



changed?

This policy offers horse-riding as an option when supporting an alternative curriculum for children and young people with Additional Support Needs. This option proposes to withdraw the Service Level Agreement for the commissioning of Riding for the Disabled with a view to withdrawing the service.



Young people, with Additional Support Needs , from learning establishments across Stirling.



EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD



Service delivery data/information including who receives the service



The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Acts 2004 and 2009 (as amended). Supporting Children’s Learning Code of Practice (revised 2010) RDA is no longer an operational group, therefore, there is currently no service provided Service Level Agreement (reviewed annually) RDA is no longer an operational group, therefore, there is currently no service provided

Supporting Children’s Learning Code of Practice (revised 2010) requires us as an authority to provide an appropriate curriculum for children with Additional support needs and we discharge our duty though the provision of Riding for the Disabled for those children with complex additional support needs. Locally, there are 1,621 young people with additional support needs in primary and secondary schools and 156 in early years settings. There are also approximately 200 looked after young people.








(+) / ( 0) / (-)



0


- Negative impact on one of nine protected groups which is disability Reduce the number of young people with ASN accessing opportunities for an alternative curriculum.


0



PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 0 0

Disability

0 _ 0

This option has the potential to impact negatively on children and young people with a disability as the Riding for the Disabled service relates specifically to them. Given that the proposal looked to withdraw this service completely, it is certain that children will not receive this therapy service through means of the Education Authority. This service is provided as a means to ensure that an alternative curriculum is offered to pupils whose needs are such that they cannot access a mainstream curriculum. As such this proposal will have a negative impact on advancing the equality of opportunity for children with a disability.

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0


Sex

0 0 0






THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical

Community/ies

(Please specify)


(Please specify)



This proposal has the potential to impact negatively on a particular group of young people with additional support needs. Under the proposal, these young people will not receive horse-riding as an option within their curriculum. Currently, a very small number of young people benefit from this service and some of them receive accreditation for their participation which they would no longer do under the proposal; thereby, having a negative impact on the advancing of equality of opportunity for this group.





of people likely to be affected. If you are unable to confirm the actual number of people potentially affected please give an indication of the relative scale of this for example as a proportion of current service users. Please see the Guidance for additional information.

Potential negative impact Level of impact (low-high) Number of people potentially affected

RDA is no longer in operation, therefore, not able to perform the support required.



NO



The resulting modified policy requires to be re–assessed to confirm its impact as per Questions 11, 12, 13 and 14. 17. Describe in detail the actions taken to remove or modify any identified negative impact of this proposal



MONITORING AND REVIEW 19. a) How will implementation of this proposal be monitored, how frequently and by whom? b) How will the results of the monitoring be used to develop it in the future? c) What is the timescale for the reviewing the impact of this proposal?

a) b) c)

PUBLISHING RESULTS



This proposal has the potential to impact negatively on children and young people with additional support needs who currently meet the criteria for receiving horse-riding as part of their curriculum. This proposal relates specifically to a very small group of children with additional support needs (0.1% of the total population of children with additional support needs) and therefore, it directly impacts upon them and is likely to impact negatively upon advancing equality of opportunity for this small group of children. Given that the proposal relates to a withdrawal of the service, it is probable that children and young people who receive the service currently will no longer do so under the proposal. However, it is possible that schools may wish to purchase this service directly. Alternatively, schools would be responsible for ensuring that children and young people have the same opportunities to achieve accredited awards and national qualifications as they have done previously by participating in horse-riding. RDA is currently not able to act as a service provider as they are no longer operating the charity. There are no immediate plans to make this service available in the Stirling area.





SUMMARY DETAILS


Increase Nursery Fee Charges

EDUCATION EDU035




Title/s (Acting) Quality Improvement Officer

Name Sharon Johnston Name/s Kirsteen Carmichael


None


Not Applicable


Review of an existing policy/strategy √ Review of an existing service/function







(£ 000s)

In Council area as a whole (£361k)



In/for Council area as a whole (£411k) –increase income



Start date for savings/increased spend April 2015

End Date for savings/increased spend

Savings/increased spend Year 1 (£50k)








Improved outcomes in children’s early years. Provide additional nursery and out of school care places throughout the Stirling area to support working families.



changed?

The Council has a duty to make arrangements for the delivery of early learning for all 3 and 4 year olds, and entitled 2 year olds. In addition, the Council makes additional provision for childcare through the provision of extended days in its standalone nurseries (of which there are 12) as well as an additional 3 nursery classes having provision to offer lunch. All standalone nurseries have provision for children under 3 years from which parents can purchase childcare places. The Council has an admissions policy under which criteria is applied for the provision of free childcare or extended hours to vulnerable families.



This proposal will affect all stakeholders who access extended day child care provision. It is likely that working parents/carers and parents/carers who are in full time education will be most affected by this proposal due, to the requirement for additional child care on a daily and weekly basis. The proposal extends throughout all Stirling Council Nurseries and Nursery Classes and will not specifically target one particular geographical location.



EVIDENCE (Subject/Title)

SOURCE (Where it came from)

COLLECTION METHOD (How it was gathered and when)



Consultation/ engagement


Scottish Government Local Authorities Scottish Government Census Data sheets 2014 Education Services Survey in October 2013 Care Commission PBB Community Conversation/Consultation process

Ongoing Benchmarking of Stirling Council’s pricing structure with other local authorities and private sector providers has indicated that Stirling charges are more than favourable and demonstrate a fee structure which is lower than available in other partner nurseries or local authorities. At October 2013, a total of 461 responses had been received. 144 responses came from parents whose children attend a nursery class (39%), 106 responses were received from Standalone Nursery (30%) and 92 Private Nursery (23%). Over 90% of respondents welcomed the additional hours and would use them. Responses received from Nursery Classes, all three options gained a good response, with Option 1: (5 sessions x 3 hours per day during term time plus 30 flexible hours of lunch provision) gaining 38% Option 2: “compressed hours” (16 hours over two and half days during term time ) gaining 35%, Option 3: 15 hours during term time with two weeks holiday provision getting 24%. Standalone Nurseries the favoured option is: Longer hours on selected days during term time, closely followed by extended hours during term time with 30 hours flexible over the year. Private (Partner) Nurseries the favoured option is by far: Longer hours on selected days during term time. Evidence is provided by the nurseries on staff engagement with children and parents. A survey of parents by Inspectorate Officers takes place to gauge their views on how the nursery is performing along with suggestions put forward by the parents and the children.








(+) / ( 0) / (-)



0 No instances of unlawful treatment have been identified.


0 The option has the potential to impact negatively upon 1 of the 9 protected groups: age.


0

The option has the potential to impact negatively upon 1 of the 9 protected groups: age.



PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC GROUP


Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 - -

The proposal has the potential to impact on preschool children (aged 0-5 years) as it relates directly to them. It is proposed to introduce different charges for the different age groups with the preschool stage; thereby, potentially disadvantaging one group over another.

Disability

0 0 0

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0


Sex

0 0 0






THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical


0

As part of the Council’s commitment to supporting vulnerable children and families and its aim of providing access to affordable early childhood services, a range of exemption from payment categories have been agreed. As this policy is not under review as part of this proposal, communities with higher levels of deprivation will not be affected.


(Please specify)

0 There are exemptions from payment in place which protect those within the vulnerable household groups from being impacted upon.



There is potential for one of the nine protected groups to be affected by this proposal: those children who are in the age bracket 0-5 years. There is potential impact further on the various age ranges within the option as hourly charges will apply differently in respect of age.





of people likely to be affected. If you are unable to confirm the actual number of people potentially

affected please give an indication of the relative scale of this for example as a proportion of current service users. Please see the Guidance for additional information.


Yes

Low Census data shows that there are under 115 children under 2 who receive childcare amounting to 26.7% of the total number who receive childcare and 7% of the total population. Census data shows that there are 190 children aged 2-3 years who receive childcare amounting to 44% of the total number who receive childcare and 10% of the total population. Given that not all of these children would be eligible for charges and that the majority of those under 2 years will be exempt from charges, the total number of people affected by the option is few in number.



No





The Council has benchmarked its pricing structure to be more competitive than the private sector and in line with charges applied within other local authorities. Benchmarking shows private sector rates for charging for children aged 3-5 years range from £2.80 to £5.40; £4.00 to £5.05 for 2-3s; and in excess of £5.00 for 0-2s. A sample of charges imposed by other local authority for children aged 3-5 years range from £3.00 to £4.60.



Our financial strategy will reflect the current economic challenges by saving 24M (now revised to 29M) whilst ensuring the delivery of quality services.


a) a) This proposal will be monitored routinely by the Education Service as part of the budget

implementation process. Charges are subject to annual charging review. b) The Education Service will monitor closely, particularly with the implementation of 600 hours of early

learning and childcare, the impact on revenue beyond August 2014. c) Annually.

PUBLISHING RESULTS



The proposal has the potential to have a negative impact on a small number of children who fall into the age range 0-5 years and whose families do not meet the criteria for exemption of nursery fees. However, the Education Service has set-out a pricing structure that is benchmarked with other providers, both locally and nationally, to ensure rates are competitive and stand-up to scrutiny.





SUMMARY DETAILS


Re-design of Nursery Teaching Provision

Education EDU037



Title Senior Manager: Children, Young People & Families


Name Sharon Johnston Name/s Kirsteen Carmichael


None


Not applicable









(£ 000s)








End Date for savings/increased spend Ongoing









Improved outcomes in children’s early years



changed?

A redesign of the delivery of specialised Nursery teacher access to children in nursery classes, stand alones and partner providers.



The proposal is to review the current service delivery of specialist nursery teacher access. This proposal

will impact on children in the 3-5 age range.



EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD


Research (national/local Consultation/engagement

Scottish Government review of the early years workforce (Not yet published) Consultation with nursery mangers and headteachers with responsibility for a nursery class.

Surveys and focus groups to be carried out during February and March 2015.





foster good relations - including the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding Please consider each “need”, assess the impact of the proposal as positive (+), neutral (0), or negative (-) and summarise the reason/s for your response. See guidance for additional information.


(+) / ( 0) / (-)



0


- Potential to have a negative impact if the deployment of staff is not well matched to needs of each service


0


PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 - 0

There is the potential for this proposal to have an impact on children by reducing their access to a specialist nursery teacher.

Disability

0 0 0

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0


Sex

0 0 0





THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical


0


(Please specify)

0



There is a small chance of a negative impact for children as this proposal will potentially reduce their access to a specialist nursery teacher.





of people likely to be affected. If you are unable to confirm the actual number of people potentially affected please give an indication of the relative scale of this for example as a proportion of current service users. Please see the Guidance for additional information.


There is the potential for a negative impact for children as this proposal will reduce their

low

All early years children are potentially affected.

access to a specialist nursery teacher.



No





Other staff in Early Years are qualified to a degree level. Currently no distinction is made between settings and their size, other staffing qualifications and level of need. This new proposal will help target support where it is most needed and can have the biggest impact on children.





a) The proposal will be routinely monitored by the Education Service as part of the budget implementation process. b) The redesign of the service and new model of access to a teacher will be closely monitored to review its impact. c) This policy will be reviewed in June 2017 following the first full session of the redesign of the service

PUBLISHING RESULTS



The proposal is to reduce the number of peripatetic nursery teachers within Stirling Council from 7 fte to 4.5 fte. The proposal also suggests that the team of peripatetic teachers will provide teacher access to standalone and partner providers only, and nursery classes would receive teacher access from within their school. The redesign of the service and new model of access to a teacher will be closely monitored to review the impact. The proposal has the potential to have a negative impact on a small number of children who fall into the 3-5 age range. However by careful monitoring of the service delivery, these risks will be minimal.





SUMMARY DETAILS


Review delivery of Music Service in Primary Schools

EDUCATION EDU054



Title Senior Manager: School Improvement Title/s Service Manager

Name Kevin Kelman Name/s Kim MacGillivray


None


Not applicable






PBB category e.g. transformational change Transformational Change



(£ 000s)

















Improved opportunities for learning, training and work

Single Outcome Agreement


changed?

This policy aims to support the delivery of a broad education to primary school pupils in respect of music within the Expressive Arts subject area of the curriculum.



The option proposes to review the central budget for visiting specialist teachers of Music and deploy the resource to primary schools & learning communities from August 2016. There are currently 3.2 FTE teachers who are permanent to the Service in the role of visiting specialist and 0.8 FTE who are employed on a temporary basis until June 2015.



EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD






Scottish Government – Curriculum for Excellence Scottish Government - School Census Head Teacher’s Reference Group (HTRG) . Parental Council representative consultation Head Teacher’s Reference Group, Parental Council engagement and PBB Consultation exercise

Each local authority has access to the legislative framework for delivering education in Scotland. The Authority has used this statutory paperwork as the foundation for any decision making. Each year, local authorities are required to submit school roll information to the Scottish Government as part of the census (SCOTXED) return. This exercise took place in September 2014 Education senior managers convened meeting with HTRG in October 2014 and outlined options. Education Service engaged Parent Council representatives during the Autumn of 2013. This proposal was one that was raised at this event, where some parents raised objection to the proposal. There were views expressed at the same meeting that Music could be delivered by non-specialist primary teachers. This option was one which was raised by the public during the PBB public meetings, held in November and December 2014; almost all views expressed in respect of this option were to raise objection.








(+) / ( 0) / (-)



0 There is no impact on any of the protected groups.


- The proposal has the potential to have a negative impact on 1 of the 9 protected groups on the grounds of age as it relates specifically to primary aged children.


0

There is no impact on any of the protected groups.


PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 - 0

As this proposal relates to most primary school children, there is a potential for negative on the grounds of age.

Disability

0 0 0

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0


Sex

0 0 0





THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical


0


(Please specify)

0



The option has the potential to have a negative impact on all primary aged school children.






affected

Yes

Low 6585 primary school pupils in establishments across Stirling

Council.



NO





The option to review visiting primary school music specialists has the potential to impact negatively on all primary school children; however, visiting music specialist teachers are additional to the core complement of all primary school teachers across the authority. The impact to deliver the current provision would be considered to be minor. The impact of this proposal will be reduced by the provision of training for those primary school teachers who believe that they are not able to deliver the primary music curriculum to a sufficient level. Evidence is available to show that schools can opt to buy in a visiting music specialist teacher to deliver the music curriculum should no class teacher be available to do so. In recognition of the qualification of visiting specialist teachers of music it would also be possible for learning communities basis (‘learning community’ is the term given to educational establishments (nursery, primary, secondary) that are linked due to their geographical proximity around the seven

secondary establishments) to deploy specialist staff accordingly across all establishments. This would require to be discussed and ratified by heads of establishments.



Music will continue to be taught in primary schools by qualified music specialists and primary class teachers.



a) Reviews of school performance will enable the Education Service to determine the quality of music teaching as delivered by class teachers;

this will also be done at school level by senior managers as part of their self-evaluation processes. b) Reviews of school performance will enable the Education Service to determine the quality of music

teaching as delivered by class teachers. c) There is no formal timescale for review as this will take place as per the Education Authority’s self-

evaluation calendar and schools’ self-evaluation calendars.

PUBLISHING RESULTS



While this proposal affects all primary school-aged pupils, with the exception of those children in Raploch Primary and Our Lady’s Primary, there is potential for the overall impact to be mitigated through delivery of music education by class teachers. The specialist staff will be redeployed, depending on their teaching qualification, to schools where they will fulfil a teaching role. The redeployment will be dependent on vacancies within primary and secondary. It is possible for schools to mitigate any impact further by deploying these staff towards the teaching of music within and across learning communities to which they are redeployed.


Title Kevin Kelman

Senior Manager: School Improvement



SUMMARY DETAILS


Review delivery of Physical Education in Primary Schools

EDUCATION EDU055



Title Senior Manager: Learning Communities, Performance & Resources


Name Alan Milliken Name/s Carolyne McDaid


None


Not applicable









(£ 000s)

















Improved opportunities for learning, training and work. Reduce risk factors that lead to health and other inequalities. Promote opportunities and support access to physical activity and sport for all.

Single Outcome Agreement Stirling Council – Key priorities


changed?

This policy aims to support the delivery of a broad education to primary school pupils in respect of Physical Education within the Health and Wellbeing subject area of the curriculum. In addition, the policy aims to support and deliver the two hour statutory physical education requirement for each child per week. The

option proposes to remove visiting Specialist Teachers of Physical Education from primary schools from August 2016. 5.45 full time equivalent posts will be affected.



According to the Scottish Government - School Census Datasets September 2014 there are 6585 primary school pupils in Stirling.



EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD




Consultation/engagement User feedback e.g. on the quality of service received

Scottish Government Review Group: Physical Education Standards in Scotland’s Schools Act 2000: Sport Scottish Government - School Census Head Teacher’s Reference Group (HTRG). Parental Council representative consultation Head Teacher’s Reference Group, Parental Council engagement and PBB Consultation exercise

Each local authority has access to the legislative framework for delivering physical education in Scotland. The Authority has used this statutory paperwork as the foundation for any decision making. Each year, local authorities are required to submit school roll information to the Scottish Government as part of the census (SCOTXED) return. This exercise took place in September 2014 Education senior managers convened meeting with HTRG in October 2014 and outlined options. Education Service engaged Parent Council representatives during the Autumn of 2013. This proposal was one that was raised at this event, where some parents raised objection to the proposal. There were views expressed at the same meeting that Physical Education could be delivered by non-specialist primary teachers. This option was one which was raised by the public during the PBB public meetings, held in November and December 2014; almost all views expressed in respect of this option were to raise objection.







EQUALITY DUTY “NEED” POTENTIAL

IMPACT (+) / ( 0) / (-)



0 There is no negative impact on any of the protected groups.




0

There is no negative impact on any of the protected groups.


PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 - 0

As this proposal relates to most primary school children, there is a potential for negative on the grounds of age.

Disability

0 0 0

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0


Sex

0 0 0





THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical


0


(Please specify)

0



The option has the potential to have a negative impact on all primary aged school children as the proposal relates specifically to them.






affected

YES

LOW

6585 primary school pupils in Stirling.



NO





The option to review visiting primary school PE specialists has the potential to impact negatively on all primary school children; however, visiting PE specialist teachers are additional to the core complement of all primary school teachers across the authority. The impact to deliver the current provision would be considered to be minor. In recognition of the experience and qualification of visiting specialist teachers of PE it would also be possible for learning communities (‘learning community’ is the term given to educational establishments - nursery, primary, secondary - that are linked due to their geographical proximity around the seven

secondary establishments) to deploy specialist staff accordingly across all establishments. This would require to be discussed and ratified by heads of establishments.



Proposal will retain physical education provision in primary schools through delivery by primary school class teachers and qualified PE specialists (after re-deployment). This proposal will contribute to achieving Stirling Council’s Key Priorities - Priority R: Our Financial Strategy will reflect the current economic challenges by saving £24M (now revised to £29M over five years) whilst ensuring the delivery of quality services.


a) Reviews of school performance will enable the Education Service to determine the quality of PE

teaching as delivered by class teachers; this will also be done at school level by senior managers as part of their self-evaluation processes.

b) Reviews of school performance will enable the Education Service to determine the quality of PE teaching as delivered by class teachers.

c) There is no formal timescale for review as this will take place as per the Education Authority’s self-evaluation calendar and schools’ self-evaluation calendars.

PUBLISHING RESULTS



While this proposal affects all primary school-aged pupils, the overall impact is mitigated through the delivery of PE teaching by class teachers. The Authority will ensure that the delivery of physical education in schools continues to be robust and will ensure the training needs of all staff are enhanced to ensure a structured and coherent programme is in place. The specialist staff will be retained with the overall complement of teachers and therefore, it is possible for schools to mitigate any impact further by deploying these staff towards the teaching of PE within and across learning communities.


Title Alan Milliken Senior Manager: Learning Communities, Performance & Resources

Signature

Date 27 January 2015


SUMMARY DETAILS


Maximise Primary Class Sizes EDUCATION EDU065



Title Senior Manager: Learning Communities, Performance & Resources

Title/s Service Manager

Name Alan Milliken Name/s Michael Boyle


None


Not applicable









(£ 000s)

In Council area as a whole £29,168K



In/for Council area as a whole



Start date for savings/increased spend End of School Year 2014/15










Improved opportunities for learning, training and work.



changed?

This policy aims to support the delivery of a broad education to primary school pupils and ensure that class sizes are maintained within legislative and contractual conditions



School class sizes would be increased to the most efficient levels while staying within the legislative and contractual conditions



EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD




Scottish Government School Census data sheets PBB Consultation Process

Each year, local authorities are required to submit school roll information to the Scottish Government as part of the census (SCOTXED) return. This exercise took place in September 2014. There are 6585 primary pupils across Stirling Council schools This option has not attracted any particular comment during the PBB consultative process during November/December 2014








(+) / ( 0) / (-)







0



PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 - 0

This option has the potential to impact negatively on children of primary school age as the proposal relates specifically to them.

Disability

0 0 0

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0


Sex

0 0 0





THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical


0


(Please specify)

0



The option has the potential to have a negative impact on all primary aged school children as the proposal relates specifically to them.






affected

Yes

LOW 6585 children across primary establishments in Stirling



No





Each individual schools staffing situation will be monitored to minimise the impact of any changes particularly in areas of higher deprivation






a) Reviews of school performance will enable the Education Service to ensure that there is no negative impact of increasing class sizes

b) There is no formal timescale for review as this will take place as per the Education Authority’s self-evaluation calendar and schools’ self-evaluation calendars.

c) The Education Service will continue to monitor school performance to ensure that there is no negative

impact of increasing class sizes

PUBLISHING RESULTS



The implementation of this proposal will be carried out in such a way as to minimise the impact on any schools in areas of higher deprivation


Title Alan Milliken

Senior Manager: Learning Communities, Performance & Resources

Signature

Date 27 January 2015


SUMMARY DETAILS


Transforming Approach to Secondary Education

EDUCATION EDU069



Title Senior Manager: School Improvement Title/s Ann Floyd

Name Kevin Kelman Name/s Quality Improvement Officer


None


Not applicable


Review of an existing policy/strategy √ Review of an existing service/function

Reduction in an existing service/function √ Removal of an existing service






(£ 000s)

In Council area as a whole £41,300K






Start date for savings/increased spend Start of School Year 2016










Improved opportunities for learning, training and work. Reduce risk factors that lead to health and other inequalities. Promote opportunities and support access to vocational qualifications and workplace based learning for all. Promote opportunities for collaborative teaching across Stirling and Clackmannanshire Secondary Schools.



changed?

This policy aims to support and transform the delivery of the senior phase curriculum within secondary schools



The option proposes to reduce the teaching staff allocation to secondary schools as a result of building in greater capacity; implementing more efficient timetables; and increase capacity for more collaborative working between schools.



EVIDENCE

(Subject/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD




Consultation/engagement User feedback e.g. on the quality of service received

Scottish Government Review group Wood Commission Report – Education Working for All, Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce

Scottish Government - School Census Datasets Secondary Head Teacher’s forum / Stirling Student’s Forum / Parental Councils Community Engagement Briefing Sessions

Report published June 2014. Additionally, most of Scottish Local Authorities have migrated secondary schools to a more efficient timetabling model (ie 33 period week) which ensures maximisation of staffing within a school. Stirling is one of the few authorities still to adopt this model. September 2014 there are 5,731 secondary school pupils in Stirling. All secondary head teachers have been consulted. Head Teachers have subsequently consulted their Parent Councils on the options. There have been numerous points of clarification raised by Parental Councils, however, no formal objections have been made to the Education Service on this option. The Director has consulted Stirling’s Student Forum and the proposal was generally well received by the young people. Most were in agreement that further opportunities could be borne out of the transformational approach, by ways of harmonising timetables across schools for the senior phase and also by building in capacity for a new timetabling structure. Through the public communication and engagement exercise for Priority Based Budgeting (PBB), the Education Service received only two written comments on part this proposal. However, after clarification to the chairperson of one school Parental Council, there was no further comments made or objections lodged. This option was one which was raised by the public during the PBB public meetings, held in November and December 2014. Mostly, the views expressed were items seeking clarification on the plan for changing the school week.








(+) / ( 0) / (-)




Advance equality of Opportunity

0

The proposal should have a neutral impact on 1 of the 9 protected groups on the grounds of age as it relates specifically to secondary aged children as there could be a positive and negative impact on this group.


0



PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


0 - 0

This option has the potential to impact negatively on children of secondary school age as the proposal relates specifically to them.

Disability

0 0 0

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Race

0 0 0


Sex

0 0 0





THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical

Community/ies

(Please specify)

0


(Please specify)

0



The option has the potential to have a negative impact on all secondary aged school children as the proposal relates specifically to them.






affected

Yes

LOW 5731 young people across secondary schools in Stirling



No





The option which will result in a reduced staffing allocation to secondary schools, which could have a negative impact on young people. The migration to a more efficient timetable model will build in capacity within school’s staffing and therefore will limit the impact of a staffing reduction to schools. Through more collaborative working between schools, young people, in the senior phase, will have more experiences with curricular options and should be able to elect for a more varied curriculum in fifth and sixth year.






a) Reviews of school performance will enable the Education Service to determine the quality of

secondary teaching as delivered by class teachers; this will also be done at school level by senior managers as part of their self-evaluation processes.

b) Reviews of school performance will enable the Education Service to determine the quality of teaching as delivered by class teachers.

c) There is no formal timescale for review as this will take place as per the Education Authority’s self-evaluation calendar and schools’ self-evaluation calendars.

PUBLISHING RESULTS



Whilst this proposal affects all secondary school-aged pupils, the overall impact is mitigated through the enhanced school week and ability to increase capacity in delivering, for example, enhanced participation in health & wellbeing activities within schools. The proposal should also open additional pathways for senior pupils, who will have increased opportunities of enhanced study and certification/accreditation in a variety of subjects and further opportunities for workplace study. The exploration of more IT based learning will create a positive pathway for pupils who are looking to access further and higher education which, in turn, should foster more responsibility for individualised learning for senior pupils.


Title Kevin Kelman Senior Manager: School Improvement



SUMMARY DETAILS


Reduction of ASN Teachers in Secondary Schools

Education EDU073




Title/s (Acting) Service Manager

Name Sharon Johnston Name/s Bryony Monaghan


None


Not applicable






PBB category e.g. transformational change Efficiency



(£ 000s)

In Council area as a whole £473



In/for Council area as a whole £40













Improve outcomes for lowest performing 20% of children


Single Outcome Agreement Stirling Council Priorities


changed?

Additional Support Needs (ASN) teachers in high schools provide specialist education to young people with high levels of need in mainstream secondary schools.



The proposal is to review the current deployment, including the approach to the deployment of this group of staff and to seek to more appropriately deploy the reduced staffing to address the current pattern of need across the authority. The change amounts to an overall reduction, of the equivalent, of 2 full time teachers across secondary schools in Stirling.



EVIDENCE

(Subjet/Title)

SOURCE


COLLECTION METHOD






The Education (Additional Support for Learning)(Scotland) Acts 2004 and 2009 Supporting Children’s Learning : Code of Practice (revised 2010) Scottish Government School Census GIRFEC TAC (Team Around the Child)

interface meetings Wider engagement has been carried out with parents and staff in relation to the PBB process in general HMIe reports on Secondary (Education Scotland) .

Census - September 2014 Ongoing and regular intervals throughout academic session. Collected from individual school records and school Pupil Support Co-ordinators Staff and manager briefings, which have been ongoing. Review of previous HMIe inspection reports on secondary schools, from 2007 to 2013





foster good relations - including the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding Please consider each “need”, assess the impact of the proposal as positive (+), neutral (0), or negative (-) and summarise the reason/s for your response. See guidance for additional information.


(+) / ( 0) / (-)



0


- Potential if the deployment of staff is not well matched to levels of ASN


0


PROTECTED



Eliminating

unlawful treatment

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


opportunity (+) / ( 0) / (-)

Fostering good

relations (+) / ( 0) / (-)


Disability

-

As this proposal is focussed on young people with ASN there is the potential for a negative impact.

Gender Reassignment



Race

Religion and Belief

Sex

Sexual Orientation





THOSE AFFECTED

POTENTIAL IMPACT

(+) / ( 0) / (-)


Geographical

Community/ies

(Please specify)


(Please specify)



There is a small chance of a negative impact for young people with additional learning or social, emotional and behavioral needs in secondary schools as this amounts to a reduction in the current level of service.






affected

Yes - A small impact in terms of specialist teacher contact resulting from the decrease is possible across the population of the identified group. It would not be focussed on any particular group of young people within that population

Low

A small percentage of secondary schools pupils who have a high level of additional support needs in mainstream secondary schools (stage 3 or 4 of staged intervention). This figure is currently 301.



No





Consideration of the approach to achieving this proposal has identified a number of mitigating factors. When the allocation of teaching staff was first deployed to schools, this group of learners did not benefit from a wider range of support. The young people now have access to support from, among others, Outreach staff. A network for ASN teachers now exists which is building capacity and skills in this group of staff. Current use of the teaching resource is varied across the seven secondary schools and improvements can be made to this model.





a) This proposal will be monitored routinely by the Education Service as part of the budget implementation process from 2015-2017. b) The allocation of staff and impact of reduction will be routinely reviewed as part of the annual staffing process c) The policy will be reviewed in June 2018 following the first full session of the reduced staffing.

PUBLISHING RESULTS



This proposal has the potential to have a small impact on equality of opportunity for young people with additional learning or behavioural, social and emotional, however this risk is fully mitigated by reviewing current provision against current need, and by the increase in outreach teaching staff.




SOC025

STIRLING COUNCIL: EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM SUMMARY DETAILS

1. Title of policy, strategy, service, function or proposal: SERVICE

Introduction of charging policy for children with disabilities Social Services

2. Lead Officer (Head of Service / Service Manager) responsible for undertaking assessment and Contact Officer details:

Lead Officer : Title and Name Contact Officer : Title and Name

Liam Purdie - Assistant head of service Sandy Sneddon – Service Manager

3. Which other Council Services or partner agencies are / will be involved in the delivery of this policy, strategy, service, function or proposal?

Clackmannanshire Council

4. Have they been involved in the Equality Impact Assessment process and if so how?

5. What is the nature of the change being proposed? (Tick all that apply)

Review of existing policy/strategy

Introduction of a new policy/strategy

X Removal of existing service

Increased budget

Review of existing service/function

X Introduction of new service/function

Decreased budget Other (please specify) e.g. technical, progress, or procedural report

6. For changes with implications for budgets, please also complete the following information:

Current expenditure on this service/ function (£’000s) In Council area

In/for specific community/ies (where known)

Total Anticipated Savings/ proposed increased spend (£’000s)

In/for Council area £15,000

In specific community/ies (where known )

Timescale for implementation Start date for savings/increased spend 2015/2016

End Date for savings/increased spend

SOC025

Phasing e.g. Year 1- £’000’s,Year 2 - £‘000’s Year 1 - £8000 – potential saving

Year 2 - £15,000 – potential saving




OUTCOMES , AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 7. What outcomes are the policy, strategy, service, function, revised policy or proposal expected to achieve? Consider the Single Outcome

Agreement, Serving Stirling (and Equality Outcomes from post May 2013).

Outcome Source

Our Financial Strategy will reflect the current economic challenges by saving £24M (now revised to £29M over five years) whilst ensuring the delivery of quality services

Serving Stirling – Key Priority – R

8. What are the main aims of the policy, strategy, service, function or proposal?

The service currently provides respite to children with disabilities

9. What are the main changes proposed to this?

Introduction of charges for this service based on am assessment of income and ability to pay for services similar to the charging policy in place within adult care already. There will be means testing to ensure parents ability to pay with a graduated charging policy similar to that already in place within adult services.

10. Who are the intended beneficiaries of the change/s proposed? (Geographical communities / particular service users / “protected characteristic

groups” - quantify numbers affected by the policy/ proposal and the changes proposed if possible).

Service Users and carers who meet this eligibility criteria will benefit as they will continue to receive a more appropriate service. Stirling Council will benefit by ensuring resources are allocated to meet key priorities.

SOC025

MEETING THE GENERAL DUTY - GATHERING EVIDENCE AND ASSESSING IMPACT GATHERING EVIDENCE 11. What evidence have you used to identify any potential positive or negative impacts of this proposal on meeting the needs of the General

Equality Duty (Q12), people within protected characteristic groups (Q13), and communities or individuals vulnerable to poverty (Q14)? Please amend/add to the examples of evidence sources listed as required.

Evidence Source Details


Consideration will be given to policies within other councils and comparison with charging policies within adult services.


To ensure the funds that are available to the families most in need.


CWD team workers Admin staff these are staff who currently provision this service. Families and service providers Finance staff to review the budget figures


As this proposal goes forward there will be engagement with service users and providers to ensure that future provision is being reviewed on an ongoing basis.

SOC025

ASSESSING IMPACT

12. What has the evidence obtained told you about the potential impact of this proposal on the key needs of the General Equality Duty listed below?

Eliminating unlawful treatment (discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Equality Act 2010)

Advancing equality of opportunity (between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not)

Fostering good relations - including the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding (between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not)

Please select the appropriate impact for each of the key needs listed:

General Equality Duty “needs” Positive(+) impact

Neutral(0) impact

Negative(-) impact

Summary of reasons for response

Eliminating unlawful treatment - Equality Strategy Maintained

Advancing equality of opportunity

- As the eligibility criteria is reviewed those who currently receive this service may no longer meet the criteria that will be set out.


_ Equality Strategy Maintained

13. What has the evidence obtained told you about the potential impact of this proposal on people in protected characteristic groups? Will this

policy, strategy, service, function or proposal have a positive (+), neutral (0), or negative (-), impact on those belonging to a Protected Characteristic Group? The impact of this proposal should be considered in terms of its potential for eliminating unlawful treatment, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations already considered in more general terms in question 12 above. Please insert + / 0 /- .

Definitions of the protected characteristic groups are provided at the end of this document.

Protected Characteristic Group

Eliminating unlawful treatment

(+/0/-)


opportunity (+/0/-)

Fostering good

Relations (+/0/-)

Comment

Age

0 - 0 As the eligibility criteria is reviewed those who currently receive this service may no longer meet the criteria that will be set out.

Disability

0 o - As the eligibility criteria is reviewed those who currently receive this service may no longer meet the criteria that will be set out.

Gender Reassignment

0 0 0 Equality Strategy Maintained

SOC025





Race


Religion and Belief 0 0 0 Equality Strategy Maintained

Sex


Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 Equality Strategy Maintained

IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES, GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS VULNERABLE TO POVERTY 14. Will this policy, strategy, service, function or proposal have a positive (+) or negative (-) impact on any other geographical communities, groups

or individuals - particularly those with a higher risk of experiencing poverty. Please insert + / 0 / - , detail the impact and describe the groups affected.

Refer to the notes at the end of the document for communities and groups of people who have a higher risk of experiencing poverty and see the link below for guidance on making poverty sensitive budget and service planning decisions. http://www.stirling.gov.uk/__documents/temporary-uploads/assets-_and_-support/stirling-tackling-poverty-framework.pdf

Those affected Positive(+)

impact Neutral(0)

impact Negative(-)

impact

Comment

Geographical Community /ies (Please specify)

- As the eligibility criteria is reviewed those who currently receive this service may no longer meet the criteria that will be set out.


-

As the eligibility criteria is reviewed those who currently receive this service may no longer meet the criteria that will be set out.

OVERALL IMPACT 15. Based on the response to questions 12, 13 and 14 please summarise the overall impact/s of this proposal – positive, neutral or negative;

highlighting any particular groups affected.

http://www.stirling.gov.uk/__documents/temporary-uploads/assets-_and_-support/stirling-tackling-poverty-framework.pdf

SOC025

This policy potentially will have a negative impact, as the criteria is being reviewed, as service users who currently receive this provision may no longer receive this in the future.

SOC025

MITIGATING POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT 16. If you have identified any potential negative impacts use the matrix below to help identify the level of this, the number of people potentially

affected and confirm this in the box provided below.

HIGH LOW

Your function or policy is likely to be

discriminatory.

Refer to the EqIA Toolkit on how to modify your function or policy.

(Page 11)

Your function or policy is likely to be directly

discriminatory.

You must reject or substantially modify your function or policy.

Consider ways in which you can minimise or

remove any low level negative impact that affects a small number of people.

Your function or policy is likely to be discriminatory.

Refer to the EqIA Toolkit on how to modify your

function or policy. (Page 11)

LOW

HIGH

LEVEL OF NEGATIVE IMPACT

Level of impact Number of people potentially affected

LOW

88

SOC025

17. Do you consider the policy / service function / proposal is a) directly or b) potentially discriminatory in its current form?

a) No b) No

If answering yes to question 17a) the policy must be rejected or substantially modified - See Section 16 of this form and Page 11 of the EqIA Toolkit If answering yes to question 17b) consideration should be given to modifying the policy – See Section 16 of this form and Page 11 of the EqIA Toolkit The resulting modified policy requires to be re – assessed to identify any potential positive or negative impacts as per questions 12, 13 and 14. 18. Describe in detail the actions taken to remove any identified negative impact

The service will review the respite provision and engage with current service users to help alleviate any negative impact.

19. For the final policy being proposed, where negative impacts cannot be removed or minimised, clearly state your justifications for continuing the

policy or function in its existing format.

The proposal is within the Priority Based Budgeting options to contribute towards the £29Million savings required over the next 5 years.

SOC025

MONITORING AND REVIEW 20. a) How will the implementation of this function or policy be monitored, how frequently and by whom ? b) How will the results of the monitoring be used to develop the function or policy? c) What is the timescale for reviewing the policy?

a) Children’s Social Services Management Team will monitor the implementation of this policy and is likely to be on a monthly basis b) The results will be used to inform any further changes / adapt to the function or service area. c) To be determined following implementation

21. Please summarise the results of the EqIA. In doing so it should be noted that the Council is committed to fulfilling its statutory duty to publish the

results of any assessment where the policy change/ proposal is to be implemented. This statement requires to be authorised and signed by the Lead Officer responsible for the assessment.

Service Users and carers who meet this eligibility criteria will benefit as they will continue to receive a more appropriate service. Stirling Council will benefit by ensuring resources are allocated to meet key priorities. This policy potentially will have a negative impact, as the criteria is being reviewed, as service users who currently receive this provision may no longer receive this in the future. The service will review the respite provision and engage with current service users to help alleviate any negative impact. The proposal is within the Priority Based Budgeting options to contribute towards the £29Million savings required over the next 5 years. The overall impact is considered to be negative. There is a concern that this proposal along with SOC12, SOC 13, SOC 26 and Welfare reform could further impact adversely on particular clients.

Authorisation by Lead Officer (Head of Service / Service Manager)

Name / Title JANE MENZIES – Assistant Head of Social Services

Signature

Date

Documents

EQIA's - stirling.gov.uk · Stirling Council Priority Based Budgeting Contents Theme 1 – Education and Children EDU017 Move Playhaven to a Self-Sustainable Funding Basis EDU020