Agenda item

1.    One of the call-in Members, Ms Dean, explained the reasoning behind the call in, stating that the decision was published before it could receive scrutiny from the Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee and the Scrutiny Committee. Additionally, it was believed there was a lack of information about timing and finance available.

2.    The other call in Member, Sir Paul Carter, emphasised that Kent’s special schools were an area of pride, believing that the special school review was unnecessary and had the potential to force children into home education. Sir Paul, explained the risk of categorisation and the detrimental effects of mixing children with different needs.

3.    Mr Love explained that this decision was ‘in principle’ and was in line with usual time scales. Mr Love expressed pride in all of Kent’s special schools and acknowledged the need for improvements within some. The decision to revise designations for seven out of the twenty-four special schools within this review was justified by evolving needs and circumstances since the last review 20 years ago. The changes would be gradual with proper consultation with special schools, any delays these decisions could impact the implementation and the 2026/27 budget. Additionally, this decision enabled Officers to sit down with special schools and work out the way forward collaboratively.

4.    In response to comments and questions it was said:

a.    When asked if any progress had been made with the special schools, Mr Love explained that there had been differences of opinion but he believed there had been positive work done with special schools. Mr Adams added that the special schools had been heavily engaged in the process, albeit school leaders may not have always agreed with that process, and that there had been transparency with schools. There were positive conversations and work being done with the SEMH head teachers to understand and work on the consequences of the decision. Mr Chapman shared that discussions of the amount of work to be done had taken place, there must be a balance of decision benefits and consequences.

b.    A Member questioned whether the financial issues within the special school review were critical in order to stay within budget. Additionally, questioning whether the Council’s relationship with special school head teachers were recoverable from any animosity. Finally, asking whether the Cabinet Member agreed that it was important to first understand why there was such a demand in Kent for special school education. Mr Love explained that financial considerations played a part in this process as a part of the high needs block. This enables the service to have the right number of special schools available locally. There has been positive conversations and work conducted with special schools, sharing that 41% of Kent students with EHCPs were placed in special schools which was higher than the national average of 32%.

c.     A Member questioned the meaning of an ‘in principal’ decision. Mr Love shared that it gave the go ahead for the resources to be spent so conversations could be had with special schools to work out how to get to what was needed.

d.    A Member questioned how the review could be accurate if there were 30% of special schools that had not been reviewed. Mr Love accepted that more needed to be done, there was an unfilled demand for places, in response to this new special schools were being built and more places were being created at existing special schools.

5.    Mrs Dean explained that judicial review may not have been served on KCC but special school heads were still prepping a case. Additionally, sharing that schools were not allowed to be in deficit without a special order.

6.    Sir Paul believed it to be more appropriate that Mr Love meet with special school leaders and discuss this with them, rather than to bring this item to a meeting of the County Council.

7.    Mr Love was open to meeting with special school head teachers and was willing to take feedback on board. Additionally, explaining that special school head teachers should evaluate the use of high needs block funding on court cases.

8.    Mr Streatfield clarified that the special school head teachers were not using high needs block funding on any court cases.

9.    The Vice-Chair proposed and Mr Webb seconded the recommendation that ‘The Scrutiny Committee express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision’.

10.Members voted on the motion. The motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee expressed comments but not require reconsideration of the decision.