Agenda item

Provisional item depending on the discussion at the Cabinet meeting.

Mrs Jenny Whittle, Deputy Cabinet Member For Children, Families & Education and Mrs Rosalind Turner, Managing Director Children, Families & Education have been invited to attend the meeting between 3.45pm and 4.15pm to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mrs J Whittle, Deputy Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education, Ms R Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families and Education and Mr C Feltham, Head of Additional Educational Needs & Resources were present for this item.

(1) The report considered lead school implementation and the evaluation of a new Special Education Needs (SEN) strategy informed by the lead school and SEN reviews. It proposed that the lead school programme not be taken forward past September and the pilot be terminated in March 2011, when the funding expired, and sought agreement to the SEN strategy, which included the development of new funding arrangements and a new communication strategy for parents. There was an SEN steering group and sub-groups, supported by mainstream and SEN headteachers, officers across the Council and colleagues in Health to take this forward, and meetings were currently taking place.

(2) The pilot met with challenges, including the shortage of occupational and speech and language therapists to make mainstream schools more inclusive. Over £1m had been invested in outreach centres to support mainstream schools with SEN children and there was further capacity to develop these. On the termination of the pilot, there was unanimous support for this decision given the evidence that had been collected during the process.

(3) In response to questions about how headteachers of lead and other schools would be involved in the consultation process, it was stated that the SEN steering group and sub-groups had headteacher representatives from the full range of schools, and they also had responsibility for representing the other headteachers not on the group.

(4) It was questioned whether the level of questionnaire responses (101 out of 1651 parents and carers contacted) was acceptable and what other efforts were made to engage. The response to this was that several meetings were held in each area, the voluntary sector were enlisted to help engage with people and Partnership with Parents were also involved in organising meetings.

(5) Questions were raised around budget implications, specifically: whether these would be made clear to consultees, the response being that they would be taken to the devolved formula funding group and relayed to the SEN steering group; and whether the pilot had failed due to insufficient funding, the response to which underlined that there had been an increase in funding over the last 5 years for SEN children, while the amount of children with statements in mainstream schools had fallen, and that there had been a 39% increase in funding for special schools while the number of children attending these schools had increased by 17% in the same period.

(6) In response to a query as to whether there would be an increase in special school placements including for those with behavioural difficulties due to increasing demand, it was suggested that the number of SEN children who had their needs met by special schools may increase, but this might also include children in mainstream schools who were supported by special schools.

(7) The subject of the cost of the pilot was raised, and it was confirmed that each lead school received £39,000 in start-up costs in addition to existing funding. It was emphasised that some of these schools were already meeting the needs of other children in the locality, and that the funding had been used in innovative ways to support children and this would need to be maintained going forward.

(8) It was questioned whether, due to a lack of moderation between schools, it was not possible to compare the level of SEN support they were delivering and that this could mean funding was not distributed effectively. The response to this question was that there was no requirement for this moderation to take place, since proxy indicators were used to distributed the £33 million that was delegated to mainstream schools to meet the needs of children at school action plus, and it was not related to the number that schools individually identify.

(9) In Kent, the number of statements had reduced by 12%. When asked whether this was a good thing, it was stated that this was factual and that this could only be answered from a parental perspective.

(10) A query was raised around the overview proposals on a possible funding option that would be presented to the schools funding forum in September 2010, specifically how the costs could be known before service provision had been agreed. The response to this was that the forum needed to be informed as soon as possible on matters of principle on delegated funding, and that options needed to be developed with finance colleagues for the schools forum to look at moving forward to January, particularly in relation to pressures arising from an increase in special schools places causing a transfer of funding from mainstream schools.

(11) A concern was raised about the reduction of residential places, to which the response was that the aim in recent years had been to look at meeting the needs in a particular locality and increasing capacity in day schools, rather than reducing residential provision.

(12) A point was raised around the challenge that had arisen due to the increase in children with autism and emotional difficulties in special schools, the negative effect on mainstream schools of those with behavioural and emotional difficulties and the effect of profound physical needs in special schools. Mr Feltham agreed that the Council needed to look at how needs could be met within mainstream schools when parents and carers want this, and how special schools support mainstream schools, and also raised the point that some autistic children are placed out of county, and that there was a need to look at how special schools in Kent met those needs.

(13) There was a discussion around the aggregation of GCSE results within schools with special units as a disincentive for them to take children with special needs because of the effect on national league tables. It was confirmed that there were some national challenge schools across the country that had not me the required 30% threshold of 5 or more good GCSEs because of this. Mrs Whittle confirmed that an approach had been made to the previous Secretary of State on this issue, and that a letter will be sent to the current Secretary of State. This was something that could be pursued if the impending green paper on SEN and disability did not deal with this issue. There was a suggestion that following the example set in adult social services around personalisation, direct payments and choice might be a suitable way forward.

(14) RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

(15) Thank Mrs Whittle, Ms Turner and Mr Feltham for attending the meeting and responding to Members’ questions

(16) Ask the Managing Director, Children, Families and Education to ensure that the CFE (Vulnerable Children and Partnerships) Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee was given a formal opportunity to monitor progress of the SEN review at all appropriate stages.

(17) Ask the Cabinet Member Children, Families and Education to ensure that during the formal consultation process, consultees were made aware of the budgetary implications associated with the proposals as well as the policy implications, and that all headteachers were engaged in the consultation process.

(18) Welcome the assurance given by the Managing Director, Children, Families and Education, that KCC would continue to lobby central Government to ensure that, where there were SEN units in mainstream schools, exam results of SEN pupils were disaggregated. This was to avoid these results affecting league table positions and dis-incentivising mainstream schools admitting SEN pupils.