Agenda item

1.    Mr Love gave an overview of the report sharing that the work was to continue and be constantly refined to get the best outcomes.

2.    The Cabinet Member and Officers responded to questions and comments which included the following:

a.    A Member questioned how feedback was taken on board. Mr Love shared that feedback could not be collected on issues such as funding until a direction of travel of the special school review was set. Feedback was carefully considered and learnt from. Ms Dann explained that there were various methods of receiving feedback that were used, all feedback was sent to the Quality Assurance Team, which assessed and acted on it.

b.    A Member asked if there were appropriate reviews in place of whether young people need to be placed in specials schools or if they could cope in a mainstream school. Additionally, questioning whether social services had moved residents on a temporary basis and how that would affect children’s schooling. Mr Love explained annual reviews of EHCPs were being implemented, two thirds of the annual reviews were completed on time in the last year which was an improvement on previous years. In terms of transport reviews were taking place, through these reviews savings had been found in the budget, such as renegotiating contracts with the information collected. Mrs Hammond added that every effort was made to place a child properly. Mr Chapman explained that the paper was in response to feedback received not to the work overall, there had been significant improvements to the phased transfer process which allowed for reviews to take place.

c.     A Member questioned the numbers of mainstream school headteachers who resisted taking SEND children into their schools and whether more stringent rules were needed. Mr Love shared that there was an effort to bring headteachers together to share best practice and encourage inclusive practices. Mr Adams added that it was important to ensure people had confidence that the service could meet requirements, identifying there was still work to be done.

d.    A Member emphasised the importance of support from school staff and the difficulties of recruiting and retaining staff. Mr Adams explained that there was a pressure on the high needs funding block, from the demand for 1:1 support, and questioned whether this approach promoted independence as children age through the system. There was work being done to give schools greater flexibility for how funding was used to support students.

e.    A Member highlighted the importance of parents being informed before EHCPs were amended. Additionally, questioning what conversations were happening in terms of funding following a child, to prevent reapplication. The Member emphasised the importance of transition processes being child centred, so they would be placed in the best school for their needs. The Member noted the importance of SEND children having a fair amount of choice for school settings. Finally, requesting transparency with Members on the outcomes of this report. Mr Love explained that there was a culture of continuous improvement within the directorate and that there was no simple explanation as to why EHCP numbers in Kent had increased. The Member was to request further answers to his questions from Officers outside of the meeting.

f.      A Member noted that the problem within the SEND directorate was self-created and that headteachers of special schools were not being consulted on council actions so far as they were considering taking the Council to a judicial review. Mr Love agreed that problems within SEND was internally created, but significant progress had been made. Detailed conversations with schools could not be had until KCC’s policy decision was confirmed. Mr Adams added that there were a lot of things to correct, there were more children in Kent with EHCPs than the national average, which caused budget pressures and capacity issues. Additionally, the directorate was aware that in Kent there were fewer, percentage wise, children with EHCPs in mainstream schools than the national average. The directorate understood these challenges and that issues need to be addressed, additionally understanding the importance of communication and collaboration with school leaders.

g.    A Member noted that the last special school review was 20 years ago, admission criteria had not changed since then. More SEND children had to be admitted into schools, head teachers needed to be challenged. Mr Love affirmed that inclusion was very important, there should be no barriers to education to children with physical disabilities. Mr Chapman added that the local area had failed in its SEND duties not KCC, the responsibility of this fell on everyone. There was no current framework of expectation for schools due to ambiguity until the outcomes of the consultations were confirmed, overall there was consistent work to aim for best outcomes for SEND students. Ms Dann explained that a chart had been created that could be shared with Members which would provide further detail, the SEN Partnership Board ensured the directorate was held to account. The board would report to the Health Senior Leader, the Assurance Board, the CEO of the ICB, the Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board Improving Outcomes and Experience Committee for Health. For KCC it would report to the Improvement and Safety Valve Assurance, the Strategic Reset Programme Board, the CEO of KCC and either the Cabinet or the Scrutiny Committee. Mr McDonnell, Head of SDLS, added that there was significant support for children in mainstream schools with physical disabilities, needs were being met.

h.    Mr Jeffrey clarified that the Council had not received an official judicial review over this decision.

i.      A Member questioned how the dedicated schools grant would be brought into balance and further information on the operation delivery of it. Additionally, highlighting that mainstream schools were struggling to support SEND young people in mainstream schools without adequate funding or appropriate support. Mr Love shared that 41% of Kent’s pupils with EHCPs were placed in special schools, the national average being 32%.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee noted the report.