School to close with 104 job losses

3:26pm Friday 8th February 2013 in News Photograph of the Author By Tom Jennings, covering Witney and West Oxfordshire. Call me on 01865 425403

Penhurst School Penhurst School

A SCHOOL for children and young people with profound disabilities in Chipping Norton will close, causing 104 job losses.

Action for Children confirmed this afternoon that Penhurst School, in Worcester Road, which supports 13 youngsters, some of whom also have complex medical needs, will shut its doors in May.

The charity launched a consultation with staff, families and the public about the proposed closure in October last year.

Barbara Street, Action for Children operational director of children’s services, said the full range of alternatives had been considered.

She said: “We fully understand that many people will be saddened by this decision, but despite our best efforts the school has become unsustainable.

“Nationally, there has been an increasing move away from this way of providing care, towards placing more children and young people nearer their local community.

“As a result the number of children and young people at Penhurst has been steadily falling and the school ran a substantial deficit last year.

“Based on current projections, there will only be five children and young people at the school within two years.”

She added: “We are deeply saddened to have to make this announcement. We would not have made this decision if we had any viable alternative.”

Ms Street said the charity was working with local authorities to find alternative placements for the children.

Related links

Comments (16)

3:31pm Fri 8 Feb 13

JanetJ says...

Are there really going to be 104 job losses?
Are there really going to be 104 job losses? JanetJ

3:52pm Fri 8 Feb 13

xjohnx says...

JanetJ wrote:
Are there really going to be 104 job losses?
Yup! Only 104 people making money out of the state (our taxes) for looking after 13 disabled kids.

These Conseervative cuts are driving our disabled citizens to the wall and making more workers unemployed at the same time.
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: Are there really going to be 104 job losses?[/p][/quote]Yup! Only 104 people making money out of the state (our taxes) for looking after 13 disabled kids. These Conseervative cuts are driving our disabled citizens to the wall and making more workers unemployed at the same time. xjohnx

6:13pm Fri 8 Feb 13

oafie says...

Something very wrong with 104 staff needed surely?
Something very wrong with 104 staff needed surely? oafie

7:19pm Fri 8 Feb 13

jimm says...

Surprise, surprise. Kneejerk reactions from people who don't know anything about Penhurst.

The clue is the bit about 'profound disabilities' in the first paragraph. The children need 24/7 support, which takes a lot of dedicated people.

But don't let the facts get in the way, will you?
Surprise, surprise. Kneejerk reactions from people who don't know anything about Penhurst. The clue is the bit about 'profound disabilities' in the first paragraph. The children need 24/7 support, which takes a lot of dedicated people. But don't let the facts get in the way, will you? jimm

8:47am Sat 9 Feb 13

xjohnx says...

Jimm,

13 kids :-
+3 carers each + 39.
+Teachers 13.
+Admin 5.
+Extra carers 20 (v generous)

Total = 77

Tax payers charged for 104. Why?

Where is the knee jerk reaction. I suspect jerk could be applied in more than one way.
Jimm, 13 kids :- +3 carers each + 39. +Teachers 13. +Admin 5. +Extra carers 20 (v generous) Total = 77 Tax payers charged for 104. Why? Where is the knee jerk reaction. I suspect jerk could be applied in more than one way. xjohnx

9:52am Sat 9 Feb 13

Man on the Green says...

xjohnx seems to forget that these profoundly disabled children also need to eat or be fed (so add in some catering staff), will almost certainly require proper nursing care and specialist therapists (not just the carers he lists), as well as at least a couple of doctors, not to mention cleaning, maintenance and gardening staff (the garden may well form part of the therapy provided) and above all that the school was intended for much higher numbers of children and young people, and that they simply aren't being placed in such care these days, partly as a result of cutbacks elsewhere. The model has clearly become unsustainable, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a valuable resource when operating at full capacity, and such numbers of staff could easily have been justified.

This is a charity, and subject to strict control by the Charity Commission, which will have regularly inspected and checked on the provision at Penhurst.

P.S. I do wish we could have these sorts of discussions without the invective that seems so often to be flung around. By all means ask the questions, express surprise at the staff / pupil ratios, etc. But if we really want answers, let's try to encourage people involved from the school to respond directly. They won't unless we ensure a modicum of courtesy.
xjohnx seems to forget that these profoundly disabled children also need to eat or be fed (so add in some catering staff), will almost certainly require proper nursing care and specialist therapists (not just the carers he lists), as well as at least a couple of doctors, not to mention cleaning, maintenance and gardening staff (the garden may well form part of the therapy provided) and above all that the school was intended for much higher numbers of children and young people, and that they simply aren't being placed in such care these days, partly as a result of cutbacks elsewhere. The model has clearly become unsustainable, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a valuable resource when operating at full capacity, and such numbers of staff could easily have been justified. This is a charity, and subject to strict control by the Charity Commission, which will have regularly inspected and checked on the provision at Penhurst. P.S. I do wish we could have these sorts of discussions without the invective that seems so often to be flung around. By all means ask the questions, express surprise at the staff / pupil ratios, etc. But if we really want answers, let's try to encourage people involved from the school to respond directly. They won't unless we ensure a modicum of courtesy. Man on the Green

10:31am Sat 9 Feb 13

jimm says...

xjohnx wrote:
Jimm,

13 kids :-
+3 carers each + 39.
+Teachers 13.
+Admin 5.
+Extra carers 20 (v generous)

Total = 77

Tax payers charged for 104. Why?

Where is the knee jerk reaction. I suspect jerk could be applied in more than one way.
Kneejerk reactions followed by back-of-a-fag packet calculations. I didn't call anyone names, just commented on what was said.

Previous stories about Penhurst make clear there were 25 children and young adults there just a year ago. How does that make your sums look?

Your initial comment suggested you didn't even think that 'taxpayers' should be doing anything to support some of the most vulnerable children and young people in this country. I happen to think we should, above and beyond what people donate to Action for Children and other charities working in this area.

The local authorities which paid fees to send those children to Penhurst will still be spending money on alternative provision, which will involve 'people making money out of the state' for years to come, as the need for specialist round the-clock care won't end with the closure of Penhurst
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Jimm, 13 kids :- +3 carers each + 39. +Teachers 13. +Admin 5. +Extra carers 20 (v generous) Total = 77 Tax payers charged for 104. Why? Where is the knee jerk reaction. I suspect jerk could be applied in more than one way.[/p][/quote]Kneejerk reactions followed by back-of-a-fag packet calculations. I didn't call anyone names, just commented on what was said. Previous stories about Penhurst make clear there were 25 children and young adults there just a year ago. How does that make your sums look? Your initial comment suggested you didn't even think that 'taxpayers' should be doing anything to support some of the most vulnerable children and young people in this country. I happen to think we should, above and beyond what people donate to Action for Children and other charities working in this area. The local authorities which paid fees to send those children to Penhurst will still be spending money on alternative provision, which will involve 'people making money out of the state' for years to come, as the need for specialist round the-clock care won't end with the closure of Penhurst jimm

10:40am Sat 9 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

my god the morons are out lets bring back the workhouse and let the cripples beg in the streets we can put down the severley disabled children in places like this some people dont know how lucky they are
my god the morons are out lets bring back the workhouse and let the cripples beg in the streets we can put down the severley disabled children in places like this some people dont know how lucky they are steve1955

11:09am Sat 9 Feb 13

xjohnx says...

Thats right, shout the people down.
Thats right, shout the people down. xjohnx

11:11am Sat 9 Feb 13

xjohnx says...

xjohnx wrote:
Thats right, shout the people down.
PS I have a long history in social services and know the type of staff rates that should be applied. The rate here are far to high. Thats why the place is closing.
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Thats right, shout the people down.[/p][/quote]PS I have a long history in social services and know the type of staff rates that should be applied. The rate here are far to high. Thats why the place is closing. xjohnx

1:30pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Paul Wesson says...

xjohnx wrote:
Thats right, shout the people down.
The 'people' is you. Your comments seem to be based on ignorance. You aren't being shouted down, you are being corrected. Your first post was unduly aggressive and failed to make a valid point. People aren't making money out of the state, they are providing a service that local authorities are obliged to purchase from somewhere. The workers are entitled to a wage that reflects their skills and the hours they put in. The school is run by a charity and I doubt they pay over the odds for anything. If the numbers on the roll make the school unsustainable then an alternative has to be found for the children and money will be spent elsewhere. The school might have closed regardless of the current government which is not a Tory government, but a coalition of Tories and LibDems.
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Thats right, shout the people down.[/p][/quote]The 'people' is you. Your comments seem to be based on ignorance. You aren't being shouted down, you are being corrected. Your first post was unduly aggressive and failed to make a valid point. People aren't making money out of the state, they are providing a service that local authorities are obliged to purchase from somewhere. The workers are entitled to a wage that reflects their skills and the hours they put in. The school is run by a charity and I doubt they pay over the odds for anything. If the numbers on the roll make the school unsustainable then an alternative has to be found for the children and money will be spent elsewhere. The school might have closed regardless of the current government which is not a Tory government, but a coalition of Tories and LibDems. Paul Wesson

1:55pm Sat 9 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Well stated paul no doubt xjohnx has no need for the srvices others do and looks at everthing as cash cost
Well stated paul no doubt xjohnx has no need for the srvices others do and looks at everthing as cash cost steve1955

6:40pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Man on the Green says...

Thank you, Paul, for your wise words, and helpful information on the context (which is precisely what one hopes will come out of such comments pages as these). I suspect most of us would rather do without the name-calling, and that it could well put others off from commenting at all, which is a great shame.
Thank you, Paul, for your wise words, and helpful information on the context (which is precisely what one hopes will come out of such comments pages as these). I suspect most of us would rather do without the name-calling, and that it could well put others off from commenting at all, which is a great shame. Man on the Green

7:03pm Sun 10 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Name calling i could call some people much worse from a caring society you would not expect people to treat those less fotunate than themselfs in the way some do.
To look after these Human beings yes they are costs a lot of time and effort i have seen first hand charities do the job that should be done by the state the numbers they choose to employ is for them to decide the money from the local care budget no doubt controlled ,
we can pay for wars quangoes and everthing else we dont need but some would wish people in real need in this country to rot ,
Oxfordshire is a very wealthy county but the attitudes of some is very poor.
Name calling i could call some people much worse from a caring society you would not expect people to treat those less fotunate than themselfs in the way some do. To look after these Human beings yes they are costs a lot of time and effort i have seen first hand charities do the job that should be done by the state the numbers they choose to employ is for them to decide the money from the local care budget no doubt controlled , we can pay for wars quangoes and everthing else we dont need but some would wish people in real need in this country to rot , Oxfordshire is a very wealthy county but the attitudes of some is very poor. steve1955

7:06pm Sun 10 Feb 13

upset22 says...

some of these comments are very upsetting to all involved, before critising get your facts straight up to a few months ago we had 28 students with very severe disabilities and im proud to say i have worked there like many staff over 10 years it has been a pleasure to have worked with the students their families and the other staff we are all deeply upset but we continue to give our students the very best until the last day. keep your nasty snide comments to your self. you have no idea what we are all going through.
some of these comments are very upsetting to all involved, before critising get your facts straight up to a few months ago we had 28 students with very severe disabilities and im proud to say i have worked there like many staff over 10 years it has been a pleasure to have worked with the students their families and the other staff we are all deeply upset but we continue to give our students the very best until the last day. keep your nasty snide comments to your self. you have no idea what we are all going through. upset22

8:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

upset22
i can see your point similar to mine others dont care is seen but comments trying to put it all in cash terms show there thoughts
upset22 i can see your point similar to mine others dont care is seen but comments trying to put it all in cash terms show there thoughts steve1955

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree