Agenda item

1. Mrs Fordham, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, introduced the item, providing the Committee with background information about the school. Additionally, sharing that she was impressed with her recent visit to the school.

2. Ms McInnes, Director of Education, assured the Committee that the outcomes of the consultation were not a reflection of the quality of the provision.

3. Mr Watts, Assistant Director Education – North, provided the Committee with an overview of the content of the paper and advised the Committee that the decision had been carefully considered and would not impact the education of those attending the school. Negative feedback was received from those directly associated with the school which was to be expected as the provision was rated outstanding. This decision would lead to a financial saving as the day rate for pupils was cheaper than the residential cost, there was the possibility for that saving to be redirected to other priorities.

4. In response to comments and questions it was said:
   1. Mr Watts explained that the school was undergoing a consultation to expand its designated number of students from 318 to 490, most additional places were planned for the North Hextable site. The expansion involved investing in new buildings to create modern educational facilities. By repurposing existing buildings the school aimed to support a wider range of student needs including more complex educational requirements. The consultation was set to conclude by the end of the term and formal proposals for the expansion were to be reviewed in the autumn.
   2. The school maintained the same staff and opportunities for both day and residential pupils, focusing on local provision to ensure appropriate care. Final financial details were still being confirmed but the cost estimates for creating 105 additional places through the new build and conversion was favourable compared to standard benchmark costs.
   3. Kent had shown commitment to keep provision in place before this decision. There was a significant cost each year for this provision, KCC had carefully tested the need for this provision overtime, it was believed that it was appropriate to end the residential provision. Ms McInnes added that historically children with hearing or visual impairments were sent to boarding schools, presently these needs were successfully met through mainstream education with support services. The boarding school did not meet social care thresholds and was part of a national trend of reducing residential school placements. With the limited Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) budget, KCC preferred to invest in local special school provisions that enable children to live at home and attend school daily.
   4. In terms of the cost effectiveness of moving away from boarding school placements, it was said that there was a lack of SEND places in north Kent , the Local Authority was seeking local day placement options to reduce long distance travel for students. Whilst no comprehensive cost benefit analysis had been completed, the low student numbers made a direct comparison difficult.
   5. Any unused buildings that were to come from the residential provision would be difficult to convert for the extra cohort due to them not being classroom space. This would afford the school the opportunity to use this space for intervention, as break-out space and admin space. The appropriate teaching areas were to be provided with the new builds.

RESOLVED that the Committee considered and endorsed the proposed decision.