Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Ms J Hawkins and Ms B Hannon.

Mr M Dendor declared that he was a Governor of Kemsley Primary Academy.

RESOLVED that the minutes be approved as a correct record.

1)    Mr Love introduced the report. He explained that it discussed SEN inclusion in schools, and outlined the work being undertaken under the Accelerated Progress Plan’s Areas of Weakness 2 and 5.

· Area of Weakness 2: A variable quality of provision and commitment to inclusion in schools, and the lack of willingness of some schools to accommodate children and young people with SEND.

· Area of Weakness 5: Poor standards achieved, and progress made, by too many children and young people with SEND.

2)    In terms of provision and commitment to inclusion in schools, he explained that KCC could not change schools’ policies and practices, although it had the power of influence and it had implemented a number of activities to maximise inclusion in schools. For example, KCC provided local schools with training on inclusion.

a)    Christine McInnes added that, when the DfE’s Revisit took place in September 2022, the results for the academic year 2021-22 had not been published; the inspection team would have based their judgements about pupil outcomes on school data prior to or during the pandemic It is likely that they could have inferred outcomes from the attendance data which was poor and below the national average. When the 2021-22 data was published, it showed there were attainment gaps for pupils with SEN, although these were broadly in line with the national average. The first analysis of the unvalidated 2022-23 academic results indicated that this was also the case for that year. While there were aspirations and ambitions about closing the attainment gap, it was important to note that SEND pupil achievement was broadly in line with that of other local authorities.

3)    A Member asked a question about KCC’s collection of key data and indicators on schools’ inclusion. Christine McInnes explained that there was no legal definition of an inclusive school, or any single measure of inclusion, but there were a number of indicators that could be used to make a judgement about a school’s inclusivity. These included:

· Rates of suspension and permanent exclusion

· Attendance

· Level of Elective Home Education

· Proportion of pupils with an EHCP and on SEN support

· Level of requests for top-up High Needs Funding

· Achievement and progress of pupils with SEND

· Engagement in SEND Inclusion training and development opportunities.

4)    Each of these indicators was measured and considered independently. KCC had also developed the District Dashboard to bring together key data relating to inclusion. This was regularly updated. Each school could view its own data. The dashboard was rolled out during the summer term of 2023 and was being updated with data for the 2022-23 academic year. It was a key tool which would help schools, in their Locality Clusters, to better understand both local needs and variations, and to improve consistency in their inclusion practice across schools in Kent.

5)    In reply to a question about improving school attendance in Kent, Christine McInnes said that there were initiatives to support young people returning to school. For example, some schools had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.