Agenda item

To provide an update on SEND developments and consideration of the implications of the SEND Green Paper proposals for the High Needs Block and to identify where it aligns with the long-term proposals of the Capital Place Planning and SEND Strategy.  Comments are being sought to provide input to the consultation document and therefore ensure that the Schools Forum’s views are captured.

The Forum considered a report providing an update on SEND developments and consideration of the implications of the SEND Green Paper proposals for the High Needs Block (HNB) and to identify where it aligns with the long-term proposals of the Capital Place Planning and SEND Strategy. Comments were being sought to provide input to the consultation document and therefore ensure that Schools Forum views were captured.

Cheryl Eyre highlighted that many of the Council’s proposals aligned with the SEND Green Paper proposals. This empowered and supported the department with a mandate to continue with the actions set out in the WSOA, as long as the Forum was also in agreement.

The Forum asked what the impact would be on families and what they would see in terms of improvement in quality of education. Cheryl Eyre replied that they would see a digitised system – Capital One would hold all the EHCPs and parents and teachers would have access to the EHCPs of the children in their care with the ability to monitor and input into the system. Parents frequently asked for updates, and, with the new system, they would be able to go into the portal themselves. The Council was also increasing the number of local SEND places and there would be more places by the end of the year. A SEND behaviour support team and extra specialist teachers have been recruited, developing a greater resource to schools and assisting with earlier intervention. Top-up funding would be available whether children have an EHCP or not and this should result in quicker intervention. The panels and processes have been reconstituted with parents and schools being notified of outcomes the day after panel. The communication strategy has been developed to ensure that parents are kept updated with phone calls rather than just emails. There was a longer-term aim for more local provision and better quality.

The Forum queried whether the Council was able to fund those improvements to the required standard given the financial pressures. Cheryl Eyre explained that there was no extra cost for the behaviour team or SEND team. There were plans to create two additional roles which may result in some slight increase in costs but that would be a discussion for the Council. The department was also aiming to create a post-16 role. Going forward, providing SRPs and local places would be significantly cheaper than having out of Borough placements so this would lead to an eventual saving. There were different funding streams for SEND capital builds and the Council was committed to using any funds available to invest. Any additional capital funding request would be made to the Government and would not come out of the HNB.

The Forum asked the following questions to be answered at the next meeting:

·       How many children are currently placed in primary SRPs?

·       How many children were expected to be placed in primary SRPs in September 2022?

·       What proportion of those children are attending the same school that they attended prior to the establishment of the SRP? I.e., what proportion of children effectively moved from being mainstream but supported within a mainstream setting and then became supported by an SRP but actually never moved school?

·       What have the costs been, both capital and revenue, for primary SRPs since their establishment?

·       What is the SEND team doing to direct parents to SRPs?

·       How many children are currently in mainstream schools awaiting placement either in a unit or in a specialist provision?

Action: Cheryl Eyre / Paul Clark

The Forum expressed concern about how children can be placed in an SRP if their school does not have one. There did not seem to be a clear system which was easy for parents and schools to understand.

Cheryl Eyre explained that, because the local authority commissioned these places, admissions needed to come into the local authority whether they were from within the Borough or out of the Borough. If places at SRPs were available and could meet the needs of the child, other local authorities could apply for places there as well. Only children with EHCPs could be placed in SRPs with the exception of one which had been set up for children with SEMH, with this SRP currently subject to review. Cheryl agreed that work needed to be done to educate parents. During the EHCP annual reviews, the SEND team looked at whether an SRP would meet their needs rather than escalating to another placement, but this required discussion with the SRP to see if they felt they could meet the child’s needs. Stuart Matthews asked Cheryl to ask the Chair of the SRP subgroup to provide an update for the next meeting of the Forum.

Action: Cheryl Eyre

The Forum noted that pupils would not be moved until they were at suitable transition points and asked whether that meant the places potentially would not be filled or that places would be filled by out of Borough pupils before pupils from our Borough were ready to transition. Cheryl Eyre replied that there was always that risk and that the department needed to mitigate that risk by having good planning, knowing the data, and having effective processes which were always looking ahead. The Forum asked if the department had a set number of children that were expected to transition. Cheryl Eyre confirmed that there was, and that the department should know who those pupils are.

Jenny Baker shared that members of the SRP subgroup who were present at the last meeting felt that there were some robust plans regarding SRPs and felt more confident about their use.  This was confirmed by Stuart Matthews who also attended the SRP subgroup.

RESOLVED

1.     to NOTE

i.        the capital build and provision of places;

ii.       the focus on early intervention and inclusive practice in mainstream settings;

iii.      the improved systems; and

iv.     the development of Alternative Provision plans and a refocus on reintegrating children and young people back into mainstream provision; and

2.   considering the consultation document, to AGREE to respond individually to the local authority collective response which will be organised centrally and a collaborative response from all stakeholders drafted and submitted to the DfE for the closing date 22 July 2022.