Agenda item

1. Mrs Fordham introduced the decision, explaining that it proposed the implementation of legally binding agreements for Kent’s specialist resource provisions (SRPs), specialist post-16 institutions (SPIs) and pupil referral units (PRUs). She explained that there were 76 SRPs, 22 SPIs and 6 PRUs and that the agreements would support oversight of quality and standards.

2. Ms Holden, Assistant Director for CYPE Commissioning, advised that the establishment of SRPs, SPIs and PRUs was governed by statutory Department for Education processes and that the number of commissioned places was set annually through separate key decisions. She explained that the proposed agreements would not create or close provisions but would provide a consistent framework for managing quality, standards and performance across providers. She added that bringing the three service types into a single decision would support a more consistent and effective approach to monitoring and improvement.

3. In response to comments and questions it was said:
   1. A Member raised concern that the report did not adequately explain the proposed decision. Mr Adams explained that both SRPs in maintained schools and PRUs were established through school organisation legislation and registered with the Department for Education and that any removal of such designations also followed statutory processes. Placements in SRPs and special schools were normally made through the EHCP process, which created legal duties to secure and fund provision through the schools funding framework. He added that as academy trusts are essentially companies, the Council had limited powers to intervene on quality beyond withdrawing placements. He stated that the proposed agreements were intended to set clear expectations for quality, curriculum, staffing and inclusion, and to enable the Council to monitor outcomes, attendance and provision for children with EHCPs. Additionally, this would allow officers to visit settings, review performance and require improvement where needed and ensure consistent standards across maintained and academy providers.
   2. A Member asked for more detail on how quality and effectiveness would be measured through the agreements. Mr Adams gave examples of likely contractual requirements, including the expectation that SRPs would have, or develop, a teacher with an appropriate postgraduate specialism in the relevant area of need. Additionally, there would be requirements for tracking pupils’ progress, outcomes and attendance and sharing this data with the Council. It would include provision for specialist officers, such as SEN Inclusion Advisers, to access settings to observe practice.
   3. A Member asked that the detailed contractual framework be shared with the Committee once available. Ms Holden agreed to circulate further information and confirmed that only the front pages of the Equality Impact Assessments for SRPs and PRUs had been provided within the agenda pack but confirmed to Members that the full versions would be available alongside the Proposed Record of Decision when published.
   4. When asked about the planned creation of 889 new SRP places, how many SRPs this represented and whether they would be ready for September, Mr Adams explained that these places formed part of the SRP programme previously agreed by the Committee, funded by an additional £20m investment. Some secondary SRPs would open in September to support phase transfer, with other primary provisions opening during the academic year or in 2027 where new buildings were required.
   5. A Member questioned whether it would be more cost effective to expand in-house provision instead of funding SPIs, given the high cost of some independent specialist placements. Mr Adams advised that SPIs generally offered different post-16 pathways from those available in Kent’s special schools, for example for young people with social, emotional and mental health needs. He stated that many SPIs were relatively cost-effective compared to non-maintained and independent special schools. He emphasised the importance of a range of pathways to promote independence and appropriate transitions for young people leaving special schools.
   6. A Member raised concerns about national proposals associated with the Safety Valve programme and SEND reform and asked whether Kent’s plans to create around 600 further special school places by 2030 were compatible with Government expectations. Mr Adams explained that part of the planned growth related to two new special schools, which the Department for Education had already agreed to fund. He added that national reforms emphasised greater inclusion in mainstream settings but recognised that special school numbers would continue to rise until reforms were fully embedded. He advised that without increased maintained capacity, more pupils would need placements in independent special schools, which would be unsustainable and not cost effective. Mr Adams confirmed that Kent was delivering nearly 900 new SRP places in mainstream schools, in line with the national direction of travel.
   7. A Member asked whether the specific schools for SRPs listed only by area in the Commissioning Plan had been identified.  Mr Adams explained that many of these were being firmed up with individual schools, in some cases, schools were awaiting clarity on future funding models following the recent White Paper.

4. In accordance with paragraph 16.31 of the Constitution, Mrs Russell wished for it to be recorded in the minutes that she voted against endorsing the proposed decision 26/00014 - New Agreements for Specialist Resource Provisions, Specialist Post 16 Institutions and Pupil Referral Units.

RESOLVED that the Committee considered and endorsed the proposed decision.