Agenda item

The Forum revived an update report on the High Needs Block Review. Executive endorsement to implement the recommendations within the attached High Needs Block funding (HNBF) review report would be sought.

There had been a comprehensive review taken place which had considered key areas and as a result the report contained 4 broad recommendations for the future:

1.    Increasing strategic leadership by the school sector across the SEND system in Bracknell Forest

2.    Strong co-ordinated local authority leadership for planning of places and funding and commissioning

3.    Greater coherence to the SEND system designed with the child’s need at the centre

4.    A data-rich SEND system that understands the differences it is making through planning and commissioning.

As a result of the Member’s questions the following points were made:

• The report was in the Executive system and would be going to the Executive Committee on the 14 March 2016.
• The Independent Chair of the Strategic group had not yet been identified.
• The introduction of the Strategic group had been approved by DMT and would be set up prior to the Executive decision.
• There were concerns that the report had taken longer than expected to be produced, the report has been delayed but is now in the Council decision making process cycle.
• The SEN Strategic group would discuss the utilisation of any savings as it is important that costs currently met from this funding stream are reduced.
• The former over spend on post 16 provision was now under control.

Martin Gocke, Pupil Referral Unit Representative raised the following points and concerns:

• The report was helpful going forward however it highlighted the lack of LA data, knowledge, strategy and partnership working.
• It would be helpful if an action plan for delivery could be produced with timelines and responsibilities assigned.
• There had been a similar report produced in January 2015 and RISE had been the only action implemented.
• There were issues surrounding Kennel Lane School high needs which were still unresolved.
• In 2014 there had been a Peer Review undertaken which had recommended alternative quality provisions, there had been no feedback and nothing had happened since then.
• Concerns were raised whether the draft report had been circulated to Head Teachers, as drafting errors had been identified.
• The staffing structure for College Hall on page 45 of the report was incorrect as there was double counting and had not taken into account the teaching and learning allowance payments.
• Anne Shillcock commented that this was the same for the Kennel Lane figures.
• On page 66 of the report the role of the Management Committee at College Hall seemed to be ignored. It gave the impression that the changes could be done to College Hall rather than involving and working with College Hall.
• Previously there had been challenging discussions which had not been progressed.
• Mr Gocke questioned the validity of the review given there was no needs analysis undertaken to inform the future direction of travel.  He questioned the point in reviewing what was there.
• There were concerns that the table on page 62 was not the view of the Meadowvale Head Teacher. Ian Dixon confirmed that this would be something the Strategic Group would look at as if 4/5 pupils could be educated in mainstream schools. This would save approx. £75k.
• The outline action plan could be drafted and would be shared if approved by the Executive.
• The Strategic Group would be formed in March/April.

Keith Stapylton, Primary School Governors Representative raised the following points and concerns:

• The Partnership Groups need to know what is going on and be better informed.
• The Governors need to be more involved going forward.
• More reports and discussions were needed moving forward.
• There was a lack of data in the report. Kennel Lane data which showed good practice had been included, but more schools needed to be involved.

Ian Dixon emphasised that a communication plan would be put in place to maximise the exposure of the review.

The Forums involvement and role going forward was discussed. Forum Member’s wished:

• To have an important role to assist in achieving the outcomes of the report.
• Monitor and review the report and outcomes going forward, as Members felt that not enough time had been spent on this aspect of their work.
• Members wanted a more active role going forward including bringing items forward that they wished to go on the agenda.

Officers welcomed a more active approach from the Forum going forward. It was thought that the Strategic group would provide governance and drive the review work going forward but that did not preclude the Schools Forum being involved.