Agenda item

(A)      DEPUTATION – DR ALISON MURRAY

The Committee heard from Dr Alison Murray, who advised that she was the chair of parent/carer support group ‘Autism and Other Conditions Aberdeen’.  She explained that she had asked to talk to Committee about the School Estate Plan update and what she considered was its failure to meet or acknowledge the Council’s obligations under the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupil’s Educational Records) (Scotland) Act 2002, and the associated guidance “Planning improvements for disabled pupils’ access to education: guidance for education authorities, independent and grant-aided schools.” She specifically highlighted what she felt was the Council’s failure to fulfil its statutory duty under section 1.(2)(b) of the Act, namely to prepare and implement a strategy for “improving the physical environment of the school, or schools, in relation to which the strategy is prepared for the purpose of increasing the extent to which pupils with a disability are able to take advantage of education and associated services provided or offered by such school or schools.”

Dr Murray stated that in September 2020, the Committee had approved an Accessibility Plan which she considered failed to satisfy this and other statutory duties, and which she added also failed to follow the accompanying Government guidance.  She added that she felt that the Council’s current Accessibility Plan omitted the Scottish Government guidance on this matter within its section on Key Legislation and Guidance.  Rather than considering, as required by the Act, how to improve the physical environment of schools to enable better access to education and associated services provided, Dr Murray said that the Accessibility Plan simply asked the question “can everyone access the physical environment?” with the answer focusing principally on wheelchair accessibility.  She added that she had subsequently heard of schools being misdescribed as ‘fully accessible’ when what was meant was ‘fully wheelchair accessible’ with no consideration having been given to for example, vision or hearing accessibility.

Dr Murray explained that Government guidance made clear that disability included sensory impairments and hidden disabilities such as dyslexia, autism and speech and language impairments, as well as physical impairments.  The pupil census data for 2021 reported that Aberdeen City had 443 pupils assessed or declared as having a disability.  However, Dr Murray stated that this considerably underestimated the number of disabled pupils: for example, she advised that there were 731 autistic children alone in mainstream schools in Aberdeen City last year.

Dr Murray noted that the Accessibility Plan stated that “Accessibility will be a key driver in the upcoming review of the School Estate” and the action plan stated that the Council would “involve disabled children, parents, specialists and services in the development of the school estate strategy including nurseries and preschool centres, by June 2021”.  She considered that it was at least doubtful whether a strategy to merely draw up another strategy could be said to fulfil the requirement to have a strategy for improving the physical environment, or whether drawing up a School Estate Plan could be said to have implemented such a strategy, without in either case the Council having done anything to meet the needs of disabled pupils in Dr Murray’s opinion.  Dr Murray however stated that as the Council had not produced a school estate plan at all, the question was moot as it was self-evident that the Council was failing to meet its obligations.

Dr Murray explained to Members that in terms of what should be included in the accessibility strategy regarding the physical environment, the Government’s guidance stated that improvements to arrangements would include:

·       physical access (e.g. installation of ramps, handrails, widened doorways, adapted adjustable furniture, sufficient space for manoeuvring etc.);

·       access for pupils with visual impairments (e.g. route finding systems, colour contrasting, adjustable lighting, blinds, tactile paving);

·       access for pupils with hearing impairments (e.g. induction loops, sound insulation for walls, floors and ceilings, evacuation procedures); and

·       access for pupils with other disabilities (e.g. requirements for space such as through the provision of pupil support bases, quiet rooms, sensory rooms, therapy rooms, way finding systems, lighting).

Dr Murray noted that since the publication of the Accessibility Plan, two new primary schools and many nurseries had been built.  She advised that she had visited Milltimber School recently which she noted was a brand new school, and felt that while it was obvious some consideration had been given to accessibility, she had been unable to see a way for a wheelchair user or walker user to access its grass field, nor any obvious consideration given to visual accessibility. 

Dr Murray stated that she felt many schools across Aberdeen were operating with unsatisfactory lighting, open plan classrooms, a lack of quiet rooms, or with classroom environments that were overwhelming to autistic children or too noisy for those with hearing impairment.  She noted that the School Estate Plan update in front of Committee made no mention of accessibility, nor whether it was included in the review of existing school estate, nor the involvement of disabled pupils, and their families, or consultation with occupational therapists as advised in the Government’s guidance for preparing the Accessibility Strategy.  She further noted that neither the Accessibility Plan nor the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupil’s Educational Records) (Scotland) Act 2002 was mentioned within the legal implication section of the report. 

Dr Murray concluded by stating that the School Estate Plan Update claimed that no equality assessment was required.  Dr Murray considered that the continuing absence of a Plan to improve the physical environment of schools to increase the extent to which disabled pupils could take advantage of education and associated services was disadvantaging Aberdeen City’s disabled pupils, and stated that she felt this was disability discrimination and a failure of the Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty Equality Act 2010.  Dr Murray therefore asked Members to implement a plan that met, at the very minimum, the statutory duties set out in the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupil’s Educational Records) (Scotland) Act 2002, and in so doing, reduce the disadvantages Aberdeen’s disabled children faced.

The Convener thanked Dr Murray for her deputation.

(B)      SCHOOL ESTATE PLAN UPDATE – REPORT

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Resources which provided an update on the development of the School Estate Plan.  The report advised that the draft Plan would be organised into three key themes: The Quality Of Our Learning Environments, The Sufficiency and Efficiency Of Our Estate, and Working With And For Local Communities. Through these themes, the draft Plan would set out the priorities and actions which are required to be taken in the short, medium and long term, in order to maintain and develop the school estate.

Members asked a number of questions of officers on the report, and it was noted that accessibility was being considered as part of the work on the school estate plan.

The report recommended:-

that the Committee -

(a)      note that there was unprecedented uncertainty and market fluctuation in

relation to construction costs and energy costs, and uncertainties relating to school roll forecasting following changes in patterns of school enrolment had led to challenges in providing an accurate and robust set of recommended actions within the School Estate Plan; and

(b)      instruct the Chief Officer – Corporate Landlord to report back to the next

meeting of the Education Operational Delivery Committee with a further detailed update.

The Convener, seconded by the Vice Convener, moved the recommendations contained in the report.

Councillor Malik, seconded by Councillor McLeod, moved as an amendment:-

That Committee:-

(a)            approve the report recommendations; and

(b)            instruct the Chief Officer - Corporate Landlord as part of any School Estate Plan to investigate the availability of land within the Northfield catchment area in order for the Council to be in a position should it wish, to progress with a new state of the art School for this regeneration area.

On a division, there voted:- for the motion (13) – the Convener; the Vice Convener; Councillor Delaney, the Depute Provost; Councillors Copland, Davidson, MacGregor, Radley and van Sweeden; and Mrs Cardno, Mr Crawford, Mr Murray, Ms Scott and Mrs Smith; for the amendment (5) Councillors Blake, Brooks, Grant, Malik and McLeod; declined to vote (1) – Mr Regmi; absent from the division (1) – Mr Paul.

The Committee resolved:-

to approve the motion and thereby approve the report recommendations.