Many thanks for including us in this consultation. I appreciate the challenges that IVC faces in terms of staffing/places etc. I would like to thank those involved in IDEAL over the years – it’s been a fantastic placement for dozens of our young people who would not have got the same provision/would not have coped at CRC. I am extremely concerned about the future for young people leaving Special schools who need a small, 5 day a week option as they will now have nowhere to go.

---

Having worked with Ideal/SPP for many years, I will be sad to see it go.

Nevertheless, I think the rationale behind the move is sound and can see how it would allow us to make better use of our resources in the SEND department at IVC.

When it comes to the crucial areas of interpersonal relationships, independence, life skills, and confidence, the interventions we make through key stages 3 and 4 are far more effective than anything we can offer to students who only arrive here at 16 years or older. The difference in how receptive students are to our efforts between year 7 and year 12 can hardly be overestimated, to the point where anything we do well in year 7 will probably have more effect in year 12 than anything we do well in year 12.

And, while the provision we have been offering at SPP has generally been very good, I do not believe that it stands out from those provisions offered elsewhere in the region to anywhere near the degree that our main school SEND provision does.

Finally, I have always felt that it was a weakness of Ideal/SPP that it did not integrate with our wider sixth form provision in any meaningful way. For my own part, I have very occasionally roped a handful of IIC students into working with an SPP class for a lesson, but it has always been on an entirely ad hoc basis. And while I think we could have done a little better in this regard, the gap between the needs and demands of SPP and IIC is always going to make it very difficult to achieve a meaningful integration. By contrast, in years 7-11 we have such a broad spectrum of students, and, while there are certainly ways in which we could do it better, their integration into a single student body is mostly very effective and advantageous to their development as learners and citizens.

To sum up, I believe that it makes sense to do more of what we do best and of what makes the most difference to the lives of our students, and that this proposal offers that prospect.

---

After looking into ALL local provisions for my son, the only suitable one for his specific learning difficulties is SPP at IVC and I find it absolutely disgusting that Cambridge County Council would close this down and ultimately exclude my son from society. I have only been informed of this information this morning and told about a consultation evening the day after it has already happened, even though I am on a list for a second taster session.

I read the consultation document with interest and it is clear that this consultation is just to pay lip service to people and a decision to close has already been made. The details clearly tries to cover every base why it should be closed from all areas and tries to leave no room for disagreement (the main reason seems to be lack of numbers but just incase parents argue there are the numbers the details also argue if there are the numbers, there is not enough staff).

This is just another way to discriminate against minorities and push them out of society to raise money for the majorities (you even say how you are going to better use the space and money for the majority). Shame on the County council for discrimination against young people in society who needs more help and for insulting their parents with comments such as "we will help find alternative provisions" when the main point is there isn't anything if IDEAL closes.

Please tell me why I should pay my council tax if the county will not provide schooling for my child? I wonder if the head of the council has a child who wanted to go to IVC IDEAL program or if they are looked after with the majority of people.

I will now be going to the local papers, news and MP today to explain the actions you have already decided to take and how you inform a prospective parent wanting a place in the IDEAL program of a consultation the day after it has taken place.

---

As a parent of a student who would apply to IVC for their special needs child to attend IVC in post 16 care, I was very pleased to see so many teaching assistants and staff present at the consultation, staying late after hours to participate. One teacher was on a school trip that day, and rather than miss the meeting, drove to and from the trip and got changed to be in attendance. All showing how passionate they are about the school.

Parents attended with their children and even one parent with a baby. All taking time off work, not having a chance to arrange childcare, showing how concerned we all are about the proposed closure of IVC post 16 special needs education.

Yet not one of the governors, who will be making the decision, chose to be their. That was very disappointing, especially when a representative of the local authority attended. This would not of reflected well to the local authority. Hopefully, the parents, teachers and teaching assistance's present showed how invested in the school we are.

Post 16 education varies throughout Cambridge, each offering different support. Their is no one size fits all, even more so with a student with learning difficulty. Each school provision for a special needs student across the area provides different support. Taking away a special needs school, limits the opportunity for the student to progress.

Their is no new school being built, just a reduction in the number of spaces available. A reduction of spaces available, when their is a substantial rise in the number of students with EHCP,s at IVC as shown in the consultation document.

In the document it states that due to staffing issues the intake was reduced to 4 places. The following year 7 of 8 places where filled, an increase of 75%. This was in a period of time (covid) when some of the most vulnerable people and those most at risk to the pandemic. An increase of 75%, clearly showing how important IVC is to these students.

7 out of 8 places filled, I think is fantastic coming out of the pandemic. Rather than focus on the unfilled space, focus on the uptake (again 75%) increase, and also note how difficult it is for our children. These are vary specialist provisions, each offering a different support. Choosing a post 16 place is difficult for any student, more so with a student with special educational needs - as the care of this child becomes the responsibility of the whole family, with many family decisions made solely around that one individual.

Funding seems to be an issue, as the space is already available. The local authority seems to be ignoring IVC as a school providing so much support for students with EHCP. Leah Cooper recalled during the meeting that a local authority consultant about the provision IVC provide for students with EHCP was extremely positive, the consultant was impressed what was achieved on 1/10 budget of a designated special needs school.

Strange how the local authority funded a consultant to review the school, yet did not forward the report to the school. The local authority knowing how well IVC does with so little funding, sits back and watches the closure of post 16 special needs education, with no intervention. The same local authority takes off £6000? a year from my Childs EHCP funding. The local authority knows the school is struggling to provide provision of its EHCP students.

The local authority representative said this was common throughout the country to take this money form EHCP funding. Is it common take this funding, while a school is taking on so much of the students with special educational needs because the local authority cannot provide provision for these students? Sitting doing nothing while a struggling school may close its post 16 provision while providing no additional spaces elsewhere?

Although I thank the representative of the local authority for being in attendance, I am concerned that the local authority as a whole is not allocating its funding correctly. Rather than underfunding IVC, the local authority should look to the future of IVC post 16 special needs educational provision. With more students coming through IVC with EHCP, surely they should be invested in providing more space in post 16 special education.

IVC has the space to take 12 students a year, and the staff on site all have experience with the needs of the EHCP students due to the nature of the school from year 7. Even the other students that attend the school have experience with special needs students, some with very complex needs, and interact and include them during school hours. This is not a new development, a new build, a new experience, all this happens on site at IVC all the time, everything is already present to increase the number of students in post 16 special special needs education.

Rather than the closure of post 16 special needs provision at IVC, the local authority needs to actually do something now, and provide funding to increase the spaces available to EHCP students within its authority.

Thank you for taking time to read my email.

Thank you also for taking time after hours to host the consultation and to all those who attended.

---

1) IVC has been very successful providing send provision for KS3/4 children– but it struggles on resources / space and staff.

• a. The fact that over a 100 SEND children in your 7-11 provision doesn’t get you extra funding or resources is crazy. Or does the ERB get some?
• b. Keeping these children from the special school system and helping them to keep integrated in a main school environment is amazing and should be funded and supported – NOT penalised.

 2) SSP as a Specialist Post -16 provision seems to have been a hidden gem – specially for less able children who will not get any traditional / GCSE type qualifications

• a. Even with a small intake, which gives limited resources – but some space and quality TA’s to teach. These children still grow and thrive.
• b. I’m sure a number children in your 7-11provsion now, would benefit for an SSP type of 6th form, and are really be ready for a 3 day a week college environment.
• c. The 5 day provision, in a nurturing but still main stream ‘vibe’ helps the young people gain more confidence before they attend an FE college.
• d. The role SSP is filling should be seen as a growth area to help young people transition from school to college / work with time to process – they can not adjust quickly from the structure of ‘school’ to the way colleges work and SSP helps gain this understanding on developing skills.

I can see from an IVC view point that SSP is under resourced for its students and its resource of staff and space would help the IVC provision continue to grow and thrive once it is shut, It makes sense

BUT where else can children who are still ‘maturing’ developing – learning to understand the world get support in this 1st big transition from school to a college space?

A lot of these young people on the edge of being able to live independent / working lives – they need a LOT of training and support. If this training is possible during this phase of their life they have a much higher chance of gaining a greater independence and less burden on social services . A full timetable over 5 days to help this young people develop into contributing adults, needs support and nurturing – not 3 days here / 2 days there.

They should be a more holistic view about what this type of 6 form should strive to achieve – getting these young people more independent.

---

It seems quite reasonable to close the SPP bearing in mind the context given. To paraphrase someone elses more eloquent response

It will be sad to the see the SPP go as it feels like a valuable resource however within the current environment the rationale behind the move is sound and it would allow the school to make better use of their resources in the SEND department at IVC and support far greater numbers of children.

---

Thank you for consulting over the changes to the specialist provision unit at IVC.

I briefly attended your July event and skimmed the literature.

I find this matter very hard to reply to.  I understand why the school feels the unit should close (as it serves mostly out of catchment students).  I can not comment on how good the unit is,  though the pupils I have seen seem happy.  It is good that students with such well, profound, challenges remain in the public eye.  Having visited The Castle (a privilege) and hospital unit I can confirm that often such individuals are very much "hidden away" from public view.  This can not be right for society, nor for the people nor their families.

I gather there is not much suitable provision for students such as these, particularly full term time provision.  This creates inequity for the pupils in FT setting and those not and thus unfairness amongst families.  There seems to be no answer to this as the root problem is probably cash!

However, I am also aware that there is a shortage of provision for pupils who present with other types of SEN, for example pupils who are high functioning who struggle in a mainstream environment or pupils with serious mental health challenges.  Moreover, there are pupils with social and emotional challenges who struggle to conform to mainstream behavioural norms and require a more creative, personal approach to ensure they thrive and contribute positively society.  This does not give a good picture in relation to the realisation of the comprehensive principle.

If the answer was simple we would have solved it by now!  However, all these students and their families require a voice.  Home-schooling is not, I believe, an active choice for many families.

Possibly wider society should be informed about some of these stories which are not, alas, success stories then we can have an open and honest debate.    I do not normally champion state-private partnerships but possibly this could help.

We need to craft a world where everyone is valued, feels as if they belong and has a place and, hopefully, can contribute.  We should all strive for this even in these hard times.  We owe this to our future generations but also to those in the past who suffered and even gave their lives.

I cannot believe I am reading a proposed consultation to close the SPP at IVC.

This in an invaluable resource for so many children and caregivers.

---

I am speaking as a parent of a child in mainstream IVC.

He is a bright child, but he has a lot of social anxiety and doesn't want to go to school. Everyday he asks "do I have to go?"

We have experienced many episodes of obsessive behaviours, panic and refusal to do certain activities that may involve socialising. He contains much of this at school but at home it is become more frequent and affecting his life.

We are on the cusp of seeking help from IVC and would expect that there is additional services to support our son and others in a similar situation if needed.

Honestly I don't think it's a question of if, more a when.

---

My son is not the kind of child to want to travel far for additional support. It takes much encouragement to get him to go to his local school at all.

---

I cannot imaging how hard it is for parents struggling with getting their child to attend any school, and to think this has been put in place to support those with additional learning needs, and may now be stripped away.

---

Please firmly reconsider your proposal and ask yourself - what would you want for your child if they were already attending ?

Would you want to have to move them away now ?

---

I would like to register my thoughts on the future of SSP provision at IVC.

I would like to begin by recognising that IVC has a real and ongoing commitment to those with additional learning needs within the school community. The fact that they have been able to provide a setting for SSP until now is testament to that commitment. However, it is my feeling, given the information I have received and having listened to representatives at the consultation meeting during the summer term that this is not a provision that can continue to be made at IVC.

As a parent of one of the 100 EHCP children attending IVC, I am very aware of the budget expenditure that the school uses to support these children. It seems to me that there is a need to narrow down the provisions offered at the school. I feel this would serve to better provide for the needs of the children within years 7-11, for whom IVC is their local secondary educational provider. Continuing to provide a very specialised setting for students who come from out of catchment seems unfair. Especially as it is clear that the cost of this provision is now affecting the ECHP provision for those children within the local community.

---

I was extremely sad to hear that the governing body are considering closing the SPP.

I have only worked in a secondary school setting for two years but in that time I have known two students come to attend the SPP  after leaving Year 11.  Yes, I understand that that number 'two students' is low in the grand scheme of things but the difference this placement has made to those two students is immeasurable.

---

These two students, although very different, would have been absolutely lost at a mainstream college or sixth form and I am confident saying that they would not have lasted the course.  I last visited SPP over a year ago (when Joan was there) and knew immediately that the small and nurturing environment of that space would suit so many of our students so well.  They will successfully last a sixth form/college course; something they would not manage in another setting.

---

I know we have at least one student per year group whose parents are interested in Impington SPP for their child when they leave us.  Again, I appreciate that these numbers are low, but I know the difference the SPP can make to individuals.

---

I write as a parent of a student with learning disabilities who accesses the SPP and also as someone who works in a mainstream secondary school supporting students with SEND. While I wholeheartedly agree that funding for SEND is woefully inadequate and resources are far too limited, I do not agree with the proposal to close SPP and redirect its funding to years 7-11. In my experience, while many children with SEND, including my daughter, can battle their way through mainstream secondary school, very few make it through the first year of a mainstream sixth form provision as they are unable to function as independently as they need to, to manage their timetables, transport and workload, or to access the learning effectively. These students need a full-time provision which helps to build independence and develops work and life skills, which is exactly what SPP offers them. In my opinion this is a provision which should be publicised more and more money should be invested in SPP and in additional similar settings for students with SEND who are not eligible for special schools but who are unable to access a mainstream Sixth Form setting. This is an area that needs more investment, not curtailment, and I find it astounding that it's closure is even being considered.

---

I hope that the governors will take the decision that SPP will remain open and continue to support those students who need it.

---

Thanks for requesting feedback as part of this consultation. I was extremely sad to hear that the post 16 specialist provision at IVC is under threat. As a parent of a child with Down Sydrome about to enter secondary education in mainstream within Cambridge I am already concerned that provision after she finishes will be limited and hard to come by. IVC would be one of choices and if this were to be removed I am not actually sure what we would do. Sending her outside of Cambridge would be traumatic for all involved. Please take this as strong support for keeping the provision at IVC open.