Agenda item

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education and Skills and the Interim Assistant Director – Education and Skills had been invited to the meeting to update Members on progress in relation to the Joint Local Area Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Written Statement of Action/Improvement Plan.

The Written Statement of Action/Improvement Plan was due to be discussed by Cabinet on 14 March and the Panel considered the draft Cabinet agenda report.  During the discussion, the following main points were made:

·       Concern was expressed that the Cabinet report was not clear in relation to action and timelines.  It also appeared that much of the action detailed relied on Babcock Prime for delivery.  This was a concern when many schools, especially academies, were choosing not to use Babcock Prime.

·       In response, Members were informed that behind this information was a more detailed report which included Red, Amber, Green (RAG) ratings and timescales.  It was agreed that this more detailed information would be shared with the Panel for future updates.  Members were informed that improvement work was not solely reliant on Babcock Prime, although Babcock were doing a very good job.

·       Further concern was expressed that the number of acronyms in the report made it difficult to read.  It was agreed that future reports should include a glossary of acronyms and terms.

·       In relation to the displacement of families from London due to local authorities looking for cheaper accommodation, it was confirmed that funding would follow the child.

·       The Chairman of the Panel reported her experience that there was a significant shortage of places within specialist settings in the County and expressed concern that this shortage had damaged parents’ and carers’ faith in the Local Authority.  She suggested that, when a new special school had been built in Wyre Forest, it was clear that it would not be big enough for future demand and this has proved to be the case.  Although it was acknowledged that some secondary schools were not sufficiently inclusive, at the same time there were not enough spaces in special schools.

·       The Interim SEND Group Manager reminded the Panel that nationally 1.4% of children attended a special school.  In Worcestershire this figure was 1.9%, representing an additional 386 children over the national figure.  In relation to funding, it was important to remember that that there was a finite budget and the system of decision making was very well-regulated.  The Council needed to look at demand management and re-balance the relationship between mainstream and special schools.

·       In response to a question about the proposal to establish an additional special school in the County, Members were informed that this was to accommodate children diagnosed with autism (covering difficulties with social skills, anxiety and communication) which was considered the hardest special need to meet.  A bid for the new school had been submitted to the Department for Education (DfE) and a response was expected soon.  The aim was to reconceptualise what good provision looked like via the ‘hub and spoke’ model.  It was confirmed that, if approved, the new special school would be situated in Malvern.

·       It was suggested that there were currently some gaps in provision which left parents frustrated and not trusting the system.  This was acknowledged and, in response, it was suggested that there was a need to build confidence and skills in the mainstream sector.  This was the biggest focus of the improvement plan, with Babcock leading in a very effective way, working with both maintained schools and academies.  The aim was to empower SENCOs in mainstream schools.

·       A recent training event had highlighted the lack of coverage of SEND issues in Initial Teacher Training (ITT) courses, meaning that new teachers were often inexperienced.  This had led to a commitment from the University of Worcester and Chadsgrove Special School to strengthen coverage of SEND issues in ITT.  Chadsgrove had also committed to discuss this with other teaching schools.  Although this was encouraging for the future, Members remained concerned about issues in the short term.

·       Local Authority leadership was important in taking this forward.  The current focus was on the graduated response and school self-review.

·       The Council had been very supportive in strengthening the SEND process, including a very aggressive recruitment campaign to fill vacant posts.  Work was also ongoing with SENDIASS (the Special Educational Needs and Disability Information, Advice and Support Service), with one aim being to prompt SENCOs in schools to seek advice and support.  There was a need for awareness across all staff in schools.

·       A Member of the Panel thanked the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills for visiting his local school to discuss issues relating to SEND.  He went on to ask about the Children with Disability Register which was in development.  In response, the Assistant Director acknowledged that the Local Authority should have had a Register previously.  The Register was now almost in place and had been built with the help of parents and carers.  It was confirmed that it would not link to the assessment and planning process.

·       In response to a question about whether schools were raising concerns too early and therefore contributing to high levels of demand, the SEND Group Manager reported that in her experience parents were more likely to be pushing for a diagnosis.

·       The new school inspection framework was positive news for more vulnerable learners as it looked for a greater balance between education and pastoral care.

·       With reference to young people who were NEET or young offenders, Members were informed about a West Mercia Project involving collaborative work between the Local Authority and the Youth Justice Service.  Work was also ongoing to support those young people who were most likely to become NEETs.  The tracking of outcomes was fundamental to success in this area and in establishing what difference the local offer was making.  A framework of indicators was being developed including health, education, and youth justice.  This was a work in progress although the DfE had been impressed with work so far.  The aim was to take this to school level so that schools could compare data.  Indicators would also include exclusions, attendance and persistent absence and would allow comparison between children with SEND and all young people.  It was suggested that this would be a big step forward, allowing the demonstration of the difference made at school level.

·       With reference to performance data for special schools, although Babcock prime collected data for Local Authority Maintained Schools, it was confirmed that collection of data from specialist academies would be based on goodwill.

·       It was confirmed that obtaining information from social care staff in relation to children with SEND could be done via the FFD and Framework-i and this was not necessarily delayed by a change of social worker.

·       It was confirmed that strategic leadership from the CCG had now improved including the appointment of SEND champions.  Strategic commissioning arrangements were now good and as were relationships with colleagues.

·       The number of looked after children with an up to date health assessment had shown a good improvement, although it was acknowledged that it could be a challenge to get looked after children to attend.

·       Members were informed that a stronger relationship with the organisation Families in Partnership (FiP) had improved communications with parents and carers.  The local offer website was also much improved.  Roadshows had been held by SENDIASS and these had been well attended and included good quality conversations. There was now a need for more focussed work to allow FiP enhanced capacity to extend its reach with support from the Local Authority.

·       In response to a question about when all schools’ SEND provision would be judged as good, the Panel was reminded that this was a very complex system.  Some schools showed excellent practice, but it was not clear why this did not diffuse to all schools.  A series of district briefings was now being developed which aimed to structure communication with schools via the district council pyramids building a system where schools had capacity to provide support to each other.  This system would need to be sustainable for the future.  Members agreed that inter-school relationships were crucial.

·       The Panel was informed that work was ongoing to simplify funding arrangements.  For example, it was not always clear who should pay for a child’s specialist equipment, ie the school or health services.  This would be difficult to resolve completely but proposals were being developed for discussion with special schools.  It was confirmed that all schools used the graduated response and managing the threshold between school provision and Local Authority provision was part of the Education, Health and Care Plan process, with a group of practitioners advising officers on decisions.

·       It was agreed that, when visiting schools, it would be useful for Members to ask how schools were implementing the graduated response.

·       It was confirmed that, where specialist toileting facilities were required, a capital budget was available.  A cost benefit analysis would be undertaken as part of the local authority’s duties to establish whether it would be possible for a child to remain in mainstream school.

·       The Cabinet Member confirmed that the transport review included SEND transport.

·       It was agreed that a structure chart showing staff working in SEND would be circulated to Members of the Panel.

·       The Cabinet Member for Education and Skills confirmed that the £675k additional funding agreed as part of the Council’s 2019/20 budget would fund approximately 15 different types of post.  An update on this would be included in the final Cabinet report.