The Ofsted/CQC report on our SEND provision was damning and shameful. Despite the claim ‘children are at the heart of all we do’, we have clearly failed many of our most vulnerable children. Will the portfolio holder for Children, Young People & Learning explain how this happened on his watch and what could have been done to prevent it?
Councillor Temperton to Councillor Dr Barnard, Executive Member for Children, Young People and Learning
Which Bracknell Forest Schools have accepted students from other schools as a ‘Managed Move’ since September?
Councillor Bidwell to Councillor Heydon, Executive Member for Transformation and Finance?
This month Bracknell Forest residents will face increases to NI, doubling of the cost of energy bills and an increase in council tax, the maximum permitted. Although there has been social media advice on how to receive the £150 council tax grant can the responsible councillor advise:
· How much money was in the hardship fund?
· What has been the take up e.g. number of residents and amount of money given?
· How many residents who applied via the BFC website have been denied and why?
· What is the council’s strategy for broadcasting the availability of the hardship fund other than the BFC website?
Minutes:
The Ofsted/CQC report on our SEND provision was damning and shameful. Despite the claim ‘children are at the heart of all we do’, we have clearly failed many of our most vulnerable children. Will the portfolio holder for Children, Young People & Learning explain how this happened on his watch and what could have been done to prevent it?
In response Councillor Dr Barnard apologised to those parents, carers and children who had been let down in terms of the service provided for SEND provision in recent years and commended those who contributed to the Ofsted inspection. He requested additional time to provide context to his response. The changes to the service began in 2014 when the service moved from a system of providing a Statement of Special Education Need to developing Education, Health and Care Plans. He explained that he was initially shown data that demonstrated that plans had been moved forward in a timely manner and that, as found in the Ofsted inspection, outcomes for Early Years and overall outcomes were good. He advised the meeting that he initially became concerned in 2019 due to an increase in complaints being received. He reminded colleagues that a complaints dedicated email account was created last autumn to manage this. He advised that another reason was that when looking at inspection reports from neighbouring authorities to SEND they shared partners delivering specialist assessments.
During late 2019 and early 2020 the council put in place a self-evaluation and SEND framework to monitor outcomes and track progress of plan development. He reflected that although the council consulted with partners it had become evident that they did not undertake enough engagement with parents and carers at that time. He added that work with the Schools Forum also highlighted issues. The self-assessment framework was implemented. He asked colleagues to note that when Ofsted began their inspection it was identified that the council knew what was required to improve the service. He commented that it was impossible to know whether faster progress would have been made without the pandemic but, although not an excuse, it impacted on the ability to move plans forward as the council worked with schools in a different way during that period. He advised that operationally additional resources and capacity were introduced and the quality and timescales towards the 20-week schedule was known to be improving. He stated that the relevant data was reported annually in January so the impact would not been seen for another year. He reflected that 5 of the 6 Berkshire unitary authorities had also received challenging outcomes from their SEND Ofsted inspections. He believed that better performance data could have been shared and two new forums had been established in order to address this: SEND Partnership Board which would be co-chaired by a senior officer and a parent and also the People’s directorate Performance Board where data would be analysed in detail. He agreed that it was disappointing for a council professing to be child centred to have not got this right. He stated that he was confident with all the actions taking place this would not happen again. He acknowledged that the impact of the transition between Statements and ECHPs had not been fully appreciated and internal resources had not been developed. He added that work was now ongoing to highlight where there was capacity in the borough’s classrooms to try to keep more children within the borough. He concluded that it was his aim to ensure there was a SEND service fit for purpose to meet the needs of Bracknell Forest children.
Councillor Temperton thanked Councillor Dr Barnard for his full and honest response and asked whether relevant performance data would be published on a quarterly basis to ensure that progress could be celebrated or tracked. He confirmed that it was the intention for such data to be available and shared through the Quarterly Service Reports and Council Plan Overview Report reports. He concluded by thanking Councillor Temperton for her involvement in officer recruitment process which had focused on performance management. He concluded that as the aspiration had been for all schools within the borough to be assessed as good or outstanding it was also his aim to ensure the quality of the provision for all Bracknell Forest children with additional needs whether supported within or outside of the borough.
Councillor Temperton asked Councillor Dr Barnard, Executive Member for Children, Young People and Learning the following published question:
Which Bracknell Forest Schools have accepted students from other schools as a ‘Managed Move’ since September?
In response Councillor Dr Barnard stated that the council did not hold data from managed moves between schools in Bracknell Forest but did have data for moves between Bracknell Forest mainstream schools to College Hall. He explained that the managed move process was to avoid a pupil being permanently excluded. Discussions were held between the original school and an alternative school to see whether, with support, a child could move from one to another. He commented that it was an option to help students make a fresh start in a new school. He advised that for schools to receive pupils they needed to have capacity and the resources to provide appropriate support. He reported that since September 2021 College Hall had received ten transfers from Garth Hill College, three transfers from Easthampstead Park and two from Brackenhale Secondary School.
Councillor Temperton queried whether those schools which had pupils transferred were also receiving transfers into their schools, asking for clarification on the circumstances that a school could refuse a space and what happened when a placement failed. Councillor Dr Barnard replied that schools were autonomous and managed locally with some professional input from the local education authority. He advised that schools could refuse to accept a potential transfer if they did not have the space or if they did not consider they could meet the needs of that child. He confirmed that if a child had been moved already it was unlikely that they would be offered a place in a third mainstream school but it would be for the two schools to agree. He concluded that he was aware that some schools were disproportionately taking on more transferred pupils but they were considered to be in a good position to offer the appropriate support and were achieving good outcomes for those pupils.
This month Bracknell Forest residents will face increases to NI, doubling of the cost of energy bills and an increase in council tax, the maximum permitted. Although there has been social media advice on how to receive the £150 council tax grant can the responsible councillor advise:
· How much money was in the hardship fund?
· What has been the take up e.g. number of residents and amount of money given?
· How many residents who applied via the BFC website have been denied and why?
· What is the council’s strategy for broadcasting the availability of the hardship fund other than the BFC website?
Councillor Heydon, Executive Member for Transformation and Finance advised the meeting that the initiative was delivered within Councillor Birch, Executive Member for Adult Social Care, Health and Housing’s portfolio so deferred to him to respond.
Councillor Birch stated that the hardship fund was a discretionary local welfare scheme. He explained that in 2021 the Council had run two separate schemes for those in financial crisis e.g. The Home emergency grant and the Local Crisis Grant Scheme. He stated that recognising there was a gap in support, in October 2021, the new local welfare scheme was launched, and since that point take up had increased. The scheme existed to support those in financial crisis and who may not be able to meet their essential urgent living expenses such as gas and electric charges, basic white goods and furnishings. He reported that the core budget was £25,080 which had been supplemented since 2020 by one-off grant allocations from other government funding such as the Household Support Fund and a carry forward of £25k had been requested for the 2022-23 budget. He reported that more than £30k of emergency support had been issued by the welfare team since the new scheme had gone live. He commented that the council and its welfare officer team remained committed to ensuring that most vulnerable got the right support that they need. He thanked Sharon Warner, Head of Welfare and her team for their efforts. He expanded that the fund existed in addition to other forms of support and applicants may not qualify for this fund but may qualify for support. He explained that each application was considered on its merits against criteria of the scheme. He reported that details of the scheme had been promoted and shared with partners and stakeholders such as Pilgrim Hearts, Citizens Advice Bureau, Job Centre Plus and within officer teams supporting Bracknell Forest families and the most vulnerable. He added it had been shared with those who would be able to identify an individual or a household in crisis. He concluded that the fund would not be more widely promoted as it was targeted funding.
Councillor Bidwell asked to be provided with numbers as per his published question and Councillor Birch replied that the council had received 241 applications.