Agenda item

To Follow

1.    The Chair noted that this was not the end of the scrutiny on this subject, but the end of a section of the work. The Scrutiny Committee had committed to quarterly reporting on SEND. He then asked for members’ comments. Comments were as follows:

2.    Members who had attended the evidence gathering sessions – commended the quality of the meetings.  The work undertaken by the group had been intense and valuable and the contributions were acknowledged despite time constraints to ensure the conclusion aligned with decisions due to be made by the Cabinet Member.     

3.    A Member commented on the impact of Kent's selective education model on the SEND offer that needed more clarity and information. It was considered that recommendation six could be more strongly worded to address concerns about special schools, particularly regarding physical buildings. Specific questions about plans for building adaptations, budget, and completion timeline before September 2026 needed to be answered.

4.    Concerns were voiced about Capital Funding and adapting schools for inclusive education. It was crucial to address parents' concerns and ensure their voices were heard, improving communication with schools, and recognising that this was just the beginning, requiring more detailed work.

5.    The Chair commented that this marked the beginning of ongoing work and continual review by the committee. Many people had felt unheard and forgotten but appreciated being listened to by the committee. Mr. Love would respond to the recommendations contained within the report in January. The committee aimed to proceed without further delays, continuing with deep dives and related work.

6.    A Member commented that the committee spent over 20 hours listening to often contradictory information. But agreed that the report identified areas for further examination, gave a voice to those involved, and highlighted people Members still wanted to hear from. It outlined a pathway for future work.

7.    One Member commented that the recommendations were insufficient to prevent the Council having to issue to S114 notice.   The 2014 SEND Act had increased EHCP demand, straining the budget. Kent had issued more EHCPs per 1,000 young people than any other local authority. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) had a significant, poorly monitored overspend. The Safety Valve agreement required balancing the DSG by 2028, necessitating urgent action. The government’s additional funding might have helped, but immediate steps were needed. The balance between mainstream inclusion and special school provision had been better in 2015-2016. Strategic and operational plans were essential to balance the budget, with concerns about mainstream inclusion's impact on special schools and the need for proper funding. Urgent financial modelling and planning were crucial to avoid financial ruin.

8.    A Member raised concerns about the lack of a business case for the special school transformation project. The number of commissioned SEND places was insufficient, and there were issues with capital investment, exemplified by Stone Bay School. There was no political consensus on the way forward. Both mainstream and special schools lacked necessary investment for SEND pupils. Urgent answers were needed, especially regarding financial and value-for-money data.

9.    A Member commented that report was underwhelming and did not reflect the seriousness of the situation. Their concerns included the lack of a full financial breakdown, an inadequate Safety Valve Agreement, insufficient Capital Funding for school adaptations, and a lack of forecasted pupil numbers. The Member added that there was conflict with head teachers of special schools in Kent, who were not allowed to ask questions during a recent meeting and were pursuing legal action against the County Council.

10.The Chair addressed the previous comments and stated that at the next meeting in January, there would be a report on progress made against the Safety Valve Agreement.

11.A Member commented on recommendation six, they emphasised the need for a review and adjustment mechanism by the Cabinet member and officers. In recommendation seven, clarity was sought on the processes, mechanisms, and budgets to support best practices for SEN. Regarding recommendation nine, the Member noted that theoretical arguments had been tested before, referencing Professor O'Brien's paper on inclusion. Finally, for recommendation ten, the Member suggested removing the line about promoting inclusion champions in special schools to avoid inflammatory language, acknowledging the existing inclusion quality marks and awards held by these schools.

12.A Member suggested that the increase in SEND provision moving outside of Kent may be due to the growth of Academy Chains in the area.

13.Mr. Cook clarified some procedural points including that the investigation and evidence gathering had been designed based on the committee's agreement in July to hear from external parties, including schools, parents, and experts. There had been significant discussion about financial information provided by the County Council, the Cabinet Member, and the service, with plans to provide additional information in future meetings. It was important to distinguish between external evidence from parents and professionals, and detailed information from CYPE and colleagues. The report included information from various stakeholders and aimed to balance the recommendations based on committee discussions and consensus. If the report was agreed upon, the Cabinet Member would need to respond to the formal recommendations and would have access to the meeting minutes capturing members’ views.

14.A Member considered the report to be neutral and condensed and that it should be seen as the end of the beginning.

15.The Chairman stated that the report is not the final time this committee will be looking at this subject, it is the conclusion of this section of work.

16.The Clerk added that the conclusion of the report allowed Mr. Love to respond to members’ comments and move forward with more scrutiny on this subject in future meetings.

17.Ms McInnes added some clarifications regarding the comments of one Member, it had been alleged that special school head teachers were not allowed to ask questions during a meeting. However, the meeting's purpose was to share recommendations, and due to the extensive content, heads were asked to submit questions in writing, with written responses provided. Thus, they did have the opportunity to ask questions. Additionally, the Member had mentioned one impacted academy, but there were actually two. Regarding Inclusion Champions, the equality inclusion mark achieved by several special schools required outreach work, aligning with the report's recommendations. A special school head teacher also volunteered to be an Inclusion Champion.

18.A Member proposed that the Committee approve the report for submission to the Cabinet Member.  The Chairman seconded this and members agreed.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee:

- APPROVE the report for submission to the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, and

- REQUIRE that a response, from the Executive to the recommendations contained within the report, be provided to the Scrutiny Committee meeting on the 29 January 2025.