To receive a report from the high needs task and finish group.

The head of additional needs introduced the report. He reminded the members of the forum that the high needs task and finish group was one of four established some time previously. Its purpose was to look at pressures and possible solutions relating to provision for pupils with high needs. A paper had been circulated at the January 2017 schools forum for reading and feedback. The paper before the forum at this meeting was broadly the same but reworked to make it easier to follow.

It was noted that no specific funding was allocated to this task, with resources needing to be found from savings elsewhere or by making a specific business case to the forum. However most of the actions identified by the task and finish group require time and thought only.

The head of additional needs highlighted the growth in special school places in Herefordshire of 38% over 5 years, compared to 12-15% growth nationally. This rate of growth could not continue. The task and finish group was split into smaller working groups to consider 5 key areas:

a)    the number of special school places needed

b)    the provision in mainstream schools

c)    improving the offer for young people with SEND post 16

d)    preventing the need for high cost residential placements, particularly for ASD/LD and challenging behaviour

e)    improving early years provision to prevent later underachievement and cost

The head of additional needs thanked his co-chair, Sara Catlow-Hawkins, and those who had participated in the task and finish group.

The proposals from each of the 5 key areas were then considered in turn. The following key points and comments were made:

Section A – the number of special school places needed

·         a figure of a maximum of 1.2% of the predicted overall 2-19 school population for 2021 was proposed to determine the number of special school places required, this reflected the national average and was close to the existing number of places

·         this would allow growth room to 2021

·         it was difficult to predict what demands would emerge, for example improvements in medical technology had led to better survival rates for premature babies and this was now reflected in the number of two and three year olds requiring support

·         advances in medicine only accounted for a proportion of growth, considered to be around 5% nationally

·         mainstream provision needed to be considered alongside special schools and ensure that pupils were in the right setting for their needs and that mainstream was meeting need appropriately

·         there was engagement with the child and adolescent mental health service but some input was later than officers would like, work was taking place across the board on mental health strategies to provide earlier intervention as well as the CAMHS Tier 3 service.

Section B - the provision in mainstream schools

·         there had not been a recent focus on an inclusive ethos in schools and it was proposed that a restatement of this approach should take place

·         the SENCO network had been reinvigorated and was more active in sharing good practice

·         the Herefordshire local offer pages were in need of updating, this information was a statutory requirement to inform families, young people and professionals, it was proposed to allocate 6 weeks of officer time to prepare new materials and update the website

·         a member of the forum commented that the financial challenges faced by mainstream schools made it more difficult to be inclusive

·         it was noted that the fair access panel was struggling to place some children when they moved around the county

·         special schools had provided support to mainstream schools in the past and were willing to continue to do so, failure in mainstream could impact on a pupil’s confidence which then manifested in poor behaviour

·         a document setting out the minimum offer expected from all mainstream schools would be published and used to challenge those schools not meeting the standard

·         a minimum commitment of experience in SEN would be sought from teacher training institutions.

The head of additional needs stated that the annual review system did not work particularly well as a vehicle for active monitoring of pupil progress. It was not realistic with current funding constraints to expect all reviews to be attended by an SEN Officer. Ways needed to be found to get the best out of what was available.

The provision of outreach services was discussed. The head of additional needs commented that it was difficult to place children in absolutely the right setting for their needs every time because their needs change or emerge. Some pupils were placed in special schools who, with hindsight, might not have needed to be placed there. Conversely some pupils in mainstream school might have been better placed in a special school. The question was posed how to draw on the expertise in both special schools and mainstream schools to provide support to one another and to ensure that pupils were placed in the most appropriate setting.

There were different models of outreach that could be used. The success of the intervention model used by Brookfield School was being assessed. It was noted that about half of children over the past 3 years who attended the intervention class did not revert into the ‘behaviour system’.

The squeeze on funding meant that the special schools could no longer provide outreach support for free as they used to. Special schools reported that when charges were introduced the demand for the service significantly reduced, yet the need remained. There would be a cost implication for any outreach support and this would need to be funded. It was suggested that around £50k would provide the equivalent of one teacher for a year to be released for outreach support. It was noted that support and training needed to be available to all teaching staff, not just to NQTs or trainee teachers, and that it was beneficial if training was based around the need of individual pupils actually on roll rather than training being one-off events on a theoretical basis.

Section C – improving the offer for young people with SEND post 16

·         it was noted that a lot of progress had been made in preparing students for work, schools were being proactive and some internships had commenced. Good use would be made of the one off grant which was being co-ordinated through Barrs Court and which would support the co-ordination of internships. There was concern about what would happen to this role when the funding ran out.

·         it was noted that young people with SEND also needed supported housing, close to suitable employment to boost their independence, the local authority was working on an accommodation strategy to deliver sufficient stock of appropriate housing

·         the importance of co-ordination between education and adult social care to support those with severe and complex learning difficulties was highlighted, work would commence shortly to identify gaps in provision particularly for those with more moderate learning difficulties

·         the post 16 NEET project supported by schools forum for 2016/17 had been successfully implemented, there was a desire to see this work continue but other funding would need to be secured in the order of £30k per annum. The head of additional needs highlighted that the only other funding currently available required claims for individual students and considerable bureaucracy.

Section D - preventing the need for high cost residential placements, particularly for ASD/LD and challenging behaviour

·         It was noted that schools forum approved funding in 2016/17 for a project to explore ways in which children with a high risk of needing out-of-county residential provision could have their needs met locally. The project had identified some suitable pupils and work was underway. One successful case was identified at Westfield School that had resulted in cost savings. Progress of the full project would be reported later in 2017/18.

·         The importance of identifying at an early age those children likely to end up in high cost places was noted, as was the need to provide a whole package of support, not just the education component, to the child and their family.  

Section E – improving early years provision to prevent later underachievement (and cost)

·         the cross over with work undertaken by the early years task and finish group was noted

·         the increase in diagnoses of autism in children in the county was noted, the comment was made that earlier diagnosis requires earlier support and that children often presented with a combination of issues in need of unpicking

·         the good partnership between agencies was recognised in the recent inspection of children’s services, however it was noted that there was always room for improvement

·         the value of SALT advice clinics was noted, funding needed to be identified to expand capacity on an ongoing basis. The early years forum representatives indicated this was to be funded for the next 3 years via the 2-year old underspend.

·         it was reported that speech and language issues were an increasing issue but that communication within the authority with specialist provision and early years provision was excellent. Good communication made sure that settings had the information and support needed to deliver the best outcomes for the child.

It was noted that the planned review of the SEN matrix had not progressed due to lack of capacity. The importance of this piece of work was acknowledged.

Resolved that:

a)    the schools forum’s views on the individual proposals outlined in Table A of the report be noted;

b)    the head of additional needs, in consultation with the high needs task and finish group, provide an update on progress to the schools forum in October 2017; and

c)    the head of additional needs present a detailed business case for any additional funding sought, to be consulted on during the autumn term 2017 for implementation in the 2018/19 budget.