In 2003/04 the working practices of the Learning Centre were reviewed to ensure that it best met the needs of the schools it served. The outcome of this review was that:

 The staffing was reduced to a full time teacher and a teaching assistant.

 It involved the staff working with the children in their own setting, rather than them being brought to the Learning Centre, promoting inclusion.

 The Learning Centre became used as a resource base with all the feeder schools using it for staff meetings and loaning the resources for their work back in school.

The main objective of the Learning Centre is to remove barriers to learning, thus raising standards.

Current practice is that:

 The provision is delivered on a 2 yearly cycle.

 Each school receives one term intensive support with the teacher and teaching assistant working in school with target groups of children every morning. For the other 5 terms they receive one afternoon per week of support.

 The focus is identified by the DEP and for some schools their ISP priorities. MAGs are used to identify children who are not making 2 sub levels of progress but are not at SA+ on the SEN register.

 The provision is needs led through negotiation between the school and the Learning Centre Teacher, so as the needs and priorities of each school change, the provision and support changes. The programmes that were delivered in 2004 are very different to those delivered now.

 As Teacher in Charge, I liaise with BIP, LSS, BSS, EAZ staff and other agencies when we are working with the same pupils and I attend multi agency meetings when appropriate. I work closely with all the staff in school.

 The provision can also include support from the Learning Centre teacher for other staff in school. This can take the form of 1:1, leading staff meetings, leading inset or leading on a whole school priority identified in the DEP.

 The impact of the provision can be clearly identified, and is seen to be very good value for money by all the schools involved. All children make measurable and positive progress, usually greater than chronological age.

 There is a management group that meets termly and an annual EiC report is written and presented to the group by the Teacher in charge, thus ensuring monitoring and supervision from the schools and the LA.

 The budget does not currently meet the salaries and running costs of the Learning Centre. There has been no increase in budget since 2000, whilst the cost of running the centre has risen year on year.

Future provision

 The Learning Centre could continue to run as it does now. There is flexibility for the children to move in and out of groups depending on need, some children needing more support than others. All schools fully support this approach, and with all partners working together, the Learning Centre can continue as a peripatetic, inclusive unit. There would need to be a budget increase to enable this.

 Another option is to amalgamate the 2 Learning Centres into one provision. The service would be managed by the teacher in charge, with support to schools being offered within a peripatetic, inclusive framework. This would need the agreement of both management groups, but would offer value for money with a measurable impact. It could be a positive way forward.

 The provision could be rolled out to other schools, managed by the Teacher in Charge. This would involve a financial commitment from the schools and costings could be made available.

For further information, to read comments from the Headteachers of the schools involved, or to receive a copy of the full presentation to the ISSG or the 2006/07 Learning Centre report please contact:

Susan Brook – Teacher in Charge email: dfjisbrook@rgfl.org