Agenda item

1.    The item was introduced by Beverley Fordham, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, who outlined the report’s focus on why Kent was an outlier nationally in relation to higher numbers of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). She highlighted limitations in available data, the lack of standardised targets or comparable datasets and the wider national increase in EHCPs as potential constraints of the report’s analysis and summarised their approach in relation to national research. 

2.    Mrs Christine McInnes, Interim Corporate Director of Children, Young People and Education, emphasised the significance of Appendix 2 of the report that addressed national challenges with the identification and use of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) data. She also outlined updates within the SEND sector in relation to wider ongoing policy changes. 

3.    In response to questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following: 

a)    Further research to identify the relevant factors and gaps regarding numbers of EHCPs would require additional resourcing and could face challenges in drawing firm conclusions and improving service delivery due to the breadth of existing evidence.

b)    Craig Chapman, Assistant Director - Fair Access and (Interim) SEN Processes, acknowledged that the paper reflected a long- standing history of work on SEND and assured the Committee of the depth of knowledge and focussed activity taking place to deliver significantly improved service delivery compared to previous years. He highlighted that the challenges discussed arose from wider educational and demographic factors beyond the local authority SEND service and that the paper aimed to explain why, despite these national issues Kent’s local context has resulted in different outcomes. He emphasised that while these historic factors continued to be monitored, the priority was addressing current need and meeting statutory duties. 

c)    Mrs?McInnes outlined recent practice in Kent regarding neurodiversity, including the purchase of an Autism Education Trust licence. She explained that Kent had brought together the “This is Me” programme and the Department for Education (DfE)- funded Promoting Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools (PINS) initiative. This enabled a combined approach that targeted organisations including staff training and also supported early identification and prevention within families. She added that this included specific work with young girls, which could be shared upon request. 

d)    Alice Gleave, Assistant Director for SEN Statutory Service, recognised the national challenge of identifying autism within young girls due to “masking” that potentially presented more subtly than outwardly dysregulated behaviour. She also confirmed a renewed systemic focus on recognising “masking” behaviours in girls, reflected in a significant increase in the number receiving a diagnosis. 

e)    Mr Chapman explained that EHCP data on neighbouring Local Authorities (LAs) in the paper were included as part of a routine comparative analysis for the Committee to consider. However, he established that due to a range of unknown factors, it would be difficult to determine whether any correlation existed between the number of grammar schools and the number of EHCPs across these authorities. 

f)     The Specialist Teaching and Learning Service provided a statutory service supporting children and young people with visual impairment, hearing impairment, and physical disabilities. Mrs McInnes explained that a non-statutory service, delivered through 12 specialist schools, had recently been brought inhouse in order to ensure a consistent service was offered across Kent.  

g)    Mr Chapman acknowledged the growing national discussion regarding the consumption of ultra- processed foods and the potential links with increased numbers of EHCPs. However, as the availability of food products in Kent did not significantly differ from other areas, this was unlikely to be the cause of a localised increase in EHCPs. 

h)    Kent continued to have a higher number of out-of- county school placements, partly due to previous regulations financially incentivising other LAs to place children in Kent without contributing to the associated costs. Following significant lobbying from KCC, DfE guidance had changed and this would be reflected in the Council’s savings proposals. Mr Chapman stressed Kent could not control numbers of pupils from other LAs placed in its schools, and while it affected available capacity, the report related specifically to Kent pupils and decisions made for them. 

i)     There was ongoing national research into the relationship between socio- economic factors and numbers of EHCPs, with families in lower socio- economic groups being less likely to obtain an EHCP, whilst potentially being more likely to have special needs requirements. It was stressed that rising EHCP numbers was complex, with needs varying widely and national definitions remaining unclear. Mr Chapman also confirmed that the data was focussed on children that had a postcode in Kent.  

j)     Mrs McInnes explained that the reference to “gap narrowing” in the report related to a change in Kent’s trajectory for agreeing and issuing EHCPs. Whilst numbers continued to increase, the rate of growth had slowed since 2022 compared with the steep rise between 2018 and 2022, reflecting changes in SEND management and the assessment processes. These changes included reviewing the thresholds for ECHP decision- making, intensive staff training, a consistent, graduated approach and referring complex cases to a newly introduced panel process. The financial impact of these changes were minimal, as they had been delivered primarily through existing staff and part- time secondee leaders.   

k)    The term “toxic environmental influences” in the report referred to factors such as emissions, pesticides, and screen time, for which research on a national level was taking place. 

l)     Mrs McInnes explained that various parenting practices had been identified as a contributing factor for higher demand for EHCPs. She referenced the age at which children are weaned, due to the effect on oral muscle development which could affect speech, language and eating skills. It was also highlighted that an increasing number of children were starting school wearing nappies. Public Health had worked with health visitors and family hubs to develop comprehensive parenting support though family hubs, training sessions, support groups and online resources. 

m)  A Member raised the concern that the reporting could imply financial incentives were driving some parents to seek an EHCP, referencing the lack of evidence for this in Kent and the citation in the report to a newspaper article. Mrs McInnes clarified that the purpose of the report was to present the data and to highlight that Kent’s position differed significantly from national trends. Therefore, she advised that including certain information was relevant in order to raise important considerations for the Committee. Mr Chapman explained that the inclusion of the article was to provide context within a broad, impartial discussion about potential pressures on the system, not in order to express an opinion. 

n)    Mrs McInnes explained that Kent had historically taken a different approach towards SEND, with a focus on placing children with special educational needs into special schools rather than mainstream schools and this was reflected in the data and KCC’s current position. She also highlighted that mainstream schools had been on a journey to become more inclusive, in line with longstanding statutory requirements and that Ofsted had improved their inspection of SEND inclusion.  

o)    Mrs McInnes confirmed that Kent had the highest proportion of selective schools in the country, with approximately a third of its secondary schools being selective schools. Despite extensive work with selective schools, as children with SEND were less likely to access selective schooling, non- selective schools had taken a disproportionately high number of pupils with ECHPs. 

p)    Mrs Gleave outlined the structure and processes of the panel system, including how information and reports were compiled, how panels interrogated that information, the code in which they were bound by and how the panel determined whether to assess and issue an EHCP in order to support a child’s progress. Improvements were focussed on strengthening the quality of decision- making and ensuring a clearer understanding of the professional reports. Extensive training had also been provided to officers and social workers to assist in their understanding of the information required in reports to support effective decisions. Mrs Gleave asserted that Kent’s panels may not necessarily act differently to other LA’s, but their judgement was dependent on the levels of training and expertise. They were also monitored by the DfE in relation to decision- making, timelines and quality assurance with other LAs. 

q)    Mrs Fordham explained that as the system transitioned away from the assumption that children with special educational needs were best placed predominantly in special schools, mainstream schools were in the process of addressing ongoing issues and ensuring that these children’s needs could be met in mainstream settings. The Committee was assured that there would be further reporting concerning this topic. 

r)     It was highlighted that Covid-19 had disproportionately affected children from lower socio- economic backgrounds, who had missed early socialisation opportunities and were now demonstrating related developmental impacts in schools. SEND services were working closely with Children’s services and family hubs to provide targeted training, outreach and support. Furthermore, the uptake of government- funded childcare was being monitored with relevant action being taken in areas of low participation. The Committee was also reminded of both the relevant Short- Focussed Inquiry (SFI) and other early- years initiatives operating, including free SEND training through Dingley’s Promise and the Balance speech and language programme.  

s)    In response to a Member’s concerns about whether funding arrangements for primary schools might contribute to increased EHCP requests, Mrs McInnes agreed to provide supplemental information in a future report and emphasised that solutions involved not only additional funding but broader use of existing resources. She stressed that some of these challenges were mitigated through collaborative working within communities of schools, enabling shared use of resources. Furthermore, schools also had access, at no cost, to multi- agency Professional Resource Groups, including educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. 

4.    Following the questions, the Chairman welcomed comments and views from the Committee about the report. These included: 

a)    A Member observed that the reasons for Kent’s higher numbers of EHCPs remained unclear with several possible contributing factors but no certainty on their relative impact. The Member acknowledged the resource constraints, but suggested further research and potential collaboration with other LAs to jointly fund future work could provide meaningful insight and support long- term improvements. 

b)    A Member commented on the wide range of factors that contributed to children’s additional needs, including early years development, parental support, environmental influences such as overstimulation and increased screen usage, and the ongoing social impact of Covid- 19. They emphasised the importance of supporting parents as well as children, exploring preventative approaches and strengthening the role of family hubs in engaging families and providing scalable early support, encouraging Members to visit their local hubs. 

c)    Concerns were raised regarding securing investment for SEND, considering funding cutbacks from Central Government.  

d)    A Member stressed the need for a light- touch and timely approach to current pressures, raising concerns about delays in progressing EHCP cases. The Member supported detailed investigations for future scrutiny yet highlighted that some evidence may take years to develop and therefore suggested involving knowledgeable experts to help accelerate work. 

e)    A Member challenged the premise that increased EHCP numbers in Kent were linked to financial incentives for parents and encouraged the Committee to provide clarification on their views on such matters. Instead, the Member suggested that previous decisions to under- invest in mainstream provision, alongside investment in special schools may have contributed to parents of children with complex needs feeling inadequately supported and subsequently believing that they required an EHCP or other specialist provision. The Member welcomed the renewed focus on inclusion and investment in mainstream settings and supported reviewing the pace of change to ensure that children’s needs are appropriately met. 

f)     A Member reflected on the Council’s previous focus on special schools, acknowledging that some mainstream schools had struggled to provide a suitable environment for pupils that had the capacity to have their needs met in a mainstream setting. The Member requested data showing numbers of pupils with EHCPs across different secondary settings, including grammar schools. 

g)    A Member highlighted the deterrents for parents with children with complex needs to send their children to special schools. They also suggested that families experiencing significant financial pressures may be more inclined to explore alternative routes for support, including though the EHCP process. 

h)    It was argued that current funding restrictions limited the ability to provide a full range of educational pathways, making it harder to match provision to pupil need. They suggested that the scale of demand, combined with insufficient grant funding to expand or develop schools early enough was contributing to Kent’s position as an outlier. 

i)     A Member concluded by arguing that obtaining an EHCP was not necessarily the sole route to receiving support within a mainstream school setting. 

5.    The Chairman called on the Cabinet Member to provide comments and clarifications on the Member’s points of debates: 

a)    Mrs Fordham stressed that EHCPs should be viewed within the wider SEND system and that support should be focussed on understanding and meeting a child’s needs at every stage of development. She stressed that budget pressures required a gradual shift of funding away from high- cost independent placements towards early intervention and strengthened mainstream provision.  

6.    The Chairman summarised the discussion, beginning by recognising that KCC remained under an improvement notice, which reinforced the need to deliver effective SEND support whilst also understanding the causes behind current challenges. He also reflected on parental experiences of seeking support, acknowledging the ongoing work and further progress requires to ensure needs were met. The Chairman also highlighted the importance of understanding the relationship between social deprivation, SEND and access to EHCPs, including the potential barriers that families may face in securing support. Finally, he referenced that there was no national findings of fraud relating to Personal Independent Payment (PIP) or Disability Living Allowance (DLA), emphasising the importance to rely on clear evidence rather than anecdotal reporting. The Chairman proposed to note the report and this was agreed by the Committee. 

7.    RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the report.