Agenda item

1.    The report was introduced by Beverley Fordham, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, who provided an overview of major ongoing reforms to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) system, KCC’s assessment and Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) processes and potential alternative models of provision in light of the Government’s SEND White Paper and subsequent announcements. She also explained that the cost of a financially sustainable SEND system depended on the chosen policy direction, with KCC working towards a balanced approach aligned with national reform.

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

a)    Craig Chapman, Interim Deputy Director for Education: Access and Inclusion, advised that Central Government anticipated SEND numbers to rise for approximately 5 years before returning to current levels over a ten?year reform period, driven by increased support within mainstream schools. He recognised that Kent remained an outlier in specialist placements, raising the question of whether it would align with national trends by 2035. He further stated that Central Government’s proposals broadly reflected the approach Kent had been pursuing, aiming to redirect resources from specialist to mainstream provision to reduce escalating costs.

b)    Christine McInnes, Interim Corporate Director for Children, Young People and Education, emphasised that the White Paper did not propose removing specialist schools, rather it sought to rebalance the proportion of children placed in specialist and independent provision. She explained that special schools remained essential for children with complex needs, with some highly specialist provision continuing in the Independent sector.

c)    It was emphasised that the paper could not provide costed scenarios without clearer expectations from Members on the preferred model of a ‘sustainable SEND system’ as different models would generate different financial outcomes. It was also highlighted that KCC had to produce reform plans modelled on Central Government proposals, meaning further detail could only be provided once this full funding information was released.

d)    Mr Chapman advised that if Kent continued operating at its current capacity, the SEND budget would reach an overspend of around £100 million in 2027. Central Government’s deficit plan only addressed historic overspend, meaning that ongoing annual deficits would still rise unless there were reforms. He explained that while KCC was working with the Department for Education (DfE) on reform plans, the financial risk and potential future overspend ultimately sat with the Council.

e)    Mr Chapman stated that tribunal decisions had a clear financial impact by potentially directing pupils into high- cost independent provision. He explained that KCC supported the proposed SEND reforms, which aimed to reduce conflict in the system and to ensure limited resources were benefitting the greatest number of children. He also outlined that previous increases in spending did not necessarily improve outcomes and contributed to an unsustainable model. It was added that a detailed report on the tribunal system was published the previous year and could be updated for Members. It was also highlighted that Kent performed better than the national average, with approximately 96% of tribunal cases decided in favour of the parents.

f)     Mr Chapman advised that it was too early to assess whether Central Government’s national estimates for a sustainable SEND system was accurate as KCC was still awaiting significant clarification on expectations and funding. Mrs McInnes also reminded Members of the proactive action taken, including £20 million of capital assigned to expand specialist resource bases and create nearly 900 additional places. The investment was informed by detailed mapping which showed that some pupils moved into the independent sector at secondary levels due to gaps in local provision.

g)    Mrs McInnes highlighted that evidence showed significant increases in SEND and mental health spending did not lead to improved outcomes for children, with mental health indicators continuing to decline. She added that both national and local data indicated that spending and decision- making had diverged from the national average since 2017 without improvement, raising concerns about the effectiveness of existing arrangements if future levels of support were reduced. She also outlined that wider societal considerations about appropriate support for children with SEND needs, particularly in preparing them for adult life, were central to decisions on future spending and investment.

h)    Mrs McInnes confirmed a focus on early identification and support for children with additional needs at the nursery stage. This included specialist nursery staff providing outreach support in mainstream settings, reducing the need for children to move into special schools, with early feedback reported as positive. Work on neurodiversity in mainstream schools, focused on early identification, reasonable adjustments and closer partnership with parents, was also delivering positive outcomes without necessarily increasing costs.

i)     Mr Chapman explained that the costs of scaling up current pilot initiatives across the county could not yet be quantified. He advised that costs depended on strategic and political decisions about where limited resources should be prioritised, as increasing investment in one area would require reductions elsewhere without necessarily meeting the provision required. Different approaches, such as investing in earlier identification pathways or in upskilling mainstream schools to meet needs without formal diagnoses, could use these same resources in different ways. He stated the direction set out in the white paper would shape these decisions and their associated financial implications.

j)     It was confirmed that current government policy encouraged schools to bid to include nursery provision, indicating an expectation that more primary schools would have attached nurseries. It was highlighted that outcomes for early years children were improved when they had access to qualified teaching staff. SEND projections were also published annually in the Kent Education Commissioning Plan, with data broken down by district and updated each year using a range of data sources.

k)    Mrs McInnes confirmed that the High Needs Funding Block would remain frozen for the next financial year. While further Government announcements suggested that additional funding may be forthcoming, details had not yet been confirmed. It was stated that any additional funding was expected to be directed to schools, and that for the next financial year Kent had applied a small uplift to school budgets. Government guidance also indicated that schools were expected to review their budgets, including managing expenditure and considering the use of reserves.

l)     Mr Chapman confirmed that the Safety Valve agreement had ended and that a write?off of the accumulated deficit had been applied, taking account of the Council’s contributions, meaning Kent was not disadvantaged. He advised that future SEND reform plans remained uncertain, as Central Government expectations and funding arrangements had yet to be confirmed. It was stated that Central Government anticipated continued growth in demand for approximately five years before reforms took effect, with funding expected to reflect this period of growth followed by longer?term reduction. Mr Chapman also confirmed that the write?off of 90% of the accumulated deficit was conditional on KCC reaching agreement with Central Government on the reform plan.

m)  It was explained that home to school transport costs were being considered as part of the wider SEND system. Work to improve the efficiency of transport delivery had resulted in significant savings over recent years while maintaining provision. Although transport was taken into account alongside SEND decision?making, decisions remained primarily driven by pupil need, with transport considered as a contributory factor.

n)    Mrs McInnes confirmed that cost- benefit modelling had been undertaken to assess the balance between local specialist provision and associated transport costs. This modelling supported the successful bid to the DfE for two new special schools. The Council was also continuing to develop a wider continuum of provision, including a £20?million investment in Specialist Resource Provisions (SRPs), and also investing in improvements to accessibility within mainstream settings, such as hoists and ramps.

o)    ?It was confirmed that provision planning took geography into account and sought to locate services closer to families where possible to reduce transport. Where children were already settled in placements, particularly historic ones, changes were avoided to prevent disruption to education.

p)    Mr Chapman reported that, in recent years, some Local Authorities (LAs) placing looked- after children with EHCPs in Kent provision had refused to meet the associated costs. However, the DfE had consulted on and was reverting to the previous position in which the placed LA retained both financial and corporate parenting responsibilities.

q)    Mr Chapman explained that strengthening early support and intervention could reduce the likelihood of parents progressing to appeals or tribunals. Whilst the right to appeal remained with parents, the current system potentially pushed cases towards a more adversarial process. He asserted that shifting focus and resources earlier could improve support and parental confidence in the system. It was also stated that tribunal outcomes did not necessarily reflect poor LA decision- making, as tribunals operated under different criteria and did not consider wider system impacts or affordability. Cost figures could be circulated to the Committee outside of the meeting.

r)     Mrs McInnes added that access to specialist support for mainstream schools had been simplified through professional resource groups, giving each school named professionals and faster access to services which was expected to reduce long waiting times. She outlined that programmes such as This is Me and Partnership for Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools (PINS) aimed to build parental confidence and support early intervention in mainstream settings, though the impact would take time to embed.

s)    Mrs McInnes explained that she could not provide a definitive cost for a “sustainable” SEND system as KCC was required to deliver a statutory SEND service within the funding made available by Central Government and this future funding allocation was currently unknown. She also highlighted that clearer information from Central Government would support future planning, particularly in three areas: a clear definition of complex need, clearer expectations of what provision mainstream schools should provide and wider public debate about the role and level of specialist provision for children with additional needs.

t)     In response to a question on the definition of a “good” SEND system, Mrs McInnes acknowledged the answer was complex and outlined examples of inclusive practice where schools worked in partnership, challenged each other constructively and met needs through shared resources, rather than additional funding. She highlighted the Council’s aim to achieve greater consistency across mainstream schools and the challenge of establishing a clear baseline of what all mainstream schools were reasonably expected to provide.

u)    Mrs McInnes emphasised that defining SEND thresholds was a critical and challenging issue, frequently subject to differing expectations and challenges. She continued by explaining that delivering sufficient SEND provision relied on professional judgement and approach rather than easily visible outcomes. She confirmed that a future paper could be brought back to the Committee, subject to guidance from Members on these parameters.

3.    Mrs Fordham, suggested a more structured approach be taken to define what constituted a good and sustainable SEND system before seeking a cost analysis. She advised that agreed evidence, outcomes and principles be developed in advance to support informed debate based on logic and a rational flow.

4.    The Chairman summarised the discussion by referencing the critical Ofsted reports and the multi- agency SEND planning that had preceded the item coming to the Scrutiny Committee. He highlighted that the paper usefully set out recent improvement activity within current resources, whilst acknowledging the key tension between a needs- led SEND system and the requirement to maintain a balanced budget amid rising demand. Members were reassured that further opportunities would be available, both publicly and privately, to continue this work. The Chairman proposed the Scrutiny Committee note the report. This was agreed by the Committee.

5.    RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the report.