Minutes:
Jane Moore thanked
the Forum for meeting at short notice.
The purpose of the meeting is to share the overview of the current SEND
and LA position and to share the DfE program the LA is being pulled into
because of the scale of the difficulties.
A presentation was shared with the meeting.
Jenny Lawrence
spoke of the financial challenges corporately, saying that that it is widely
reported in the media that the levels of inflation at 9% and expected to rise
further, was having a significant effect on the LCC budget and the financial
gap in the MTFS is expected to rise from £40m to £70m. Therefore, immediate actions are taking place
to look at where more savings can be found.
LCC as a relatively low funded authority will feel the hit more quickly
than other areas. In addition, the High
Needs deficit is continuing to grow and the LCC have invested £25 million
pounds to increase local specialist provision and try and stem the flow into
Independent Specialist Schools. Looking
at the medium term with delays in savings and a need to work with an external
partner the deficit could rise to £99 million.
National and Technical accounting changes will require the deficit will
have to be covered by revenue which will mean service reductions.
Jenny said that
funding alone is not a solution to the problem although part of the solution
may have to come back to future school block transfers. The level of EHCP requests in Leicestershire
is much higher than other LA’s both nationally and in the East Midlands.
Jane Moore then
spoke about the DfE position and the launch of the SEN Green Paper. The DFE
have launched a 3 tiered intervention program.
The first tier being the Safety Valve where the DFf
enter into rigid agreements with local authorities requiring specific actions take
autonomy away from the LA and the schools. LCC are in the second tier,
Delivering Better Value. The DFE are
offering delivery support diagnostics and support with implementation with a
small grant of £40,000, full details of the support are currently under
discussion and yet to be fully identified. LCC has done the diagnostic work the
DfE are delivering in phase 1 already and are looking to jump straight into the
implementation stage as the timing is now critical in order to avoid moving to
a safety valve position. The third tier is support from the Education Skills
and Funding Agency.
Jane Moore went on
to talk about the work already being done to support the changes. There has
been a 54% increase in requests for EHCPs from schools and parents. Over half of this growth cannot be explained
by population growth nor is it reflective of children requiring SEND
support. The LA is not funded per head
so the block of money does not grow as EHCP numbers rise. The SENA service has buckled under the weight
of the workload and user satisfaction levels are at the lowest they have ever
been.
There has been
investment in local sufficiency with new SEMH and C&I places being made
available and also investment in a new case management system with a self-serve
element for parents and schools as increasing queries are adding to the
workloads.
The Transforming
SEND and Inclusion Program is already working on the findings of the diagnostic
work and is looking at the whole system and why the disproportionate demand.
Alison Bradley then
spoke about the Transforming SEND and Inclusion Program, talking of the
notional SEND budget given to schools which is equivalent and that 38% of the
LA placement budget is spent in schools.
Alison spoke of the
need to work collectively with all stakeholders and to have clear roles and
responsibilities. It was reiterated that SENA is the administrative part of the
process.
Alison spoke of the
ambition should be having the right support at the right time in the right
place, meeting the needs of SEND across the system.
The role of schools
and Schools Forum are very important in this and the DFE are looking at views
and the collective voice.
The proposed
changes were then highlighted around decision making and ways of working,
developing capacity and autonomy which would promote inclusive and early
intervention and redesigning and integrating effective interventions to support
schools. Skills and expertise is within schools and should be used. Digital and
performance and communication and engagement which promotes engagement with all
stakeholders and involving school leaders and parents will be key.
Alison finished by
saying that the LA is keen to hear from school’s forum any and all ideas in
terms of change.
Jane Moore
concluded the presentation by saying that the present system doesn’t work in
the best way for children. There need to be changes to the system and a
different way of using the current funding. At the moment schools are limited
with what they can do for their children. The LA is looking to redesign the
system so that schools can do what they need to do to keep the children in
mainstream. Jane said that the LA and partners need to step into the space and
do things differently. She said it wasn’t just about cutting funding and not
spending but finding the place to operate within the budget. This has brought to the forum to engage
school leaders from the beginning and work for the best outcome.
The Chair thanked
Jane for the presentation and opened the floor for questions and comment.
Liam Powell asked
that as there was an increased emphasis on schools, forum and stakeholders to
be a part of this, without having had time to absorb everything, is the LA
saying the money will come from schools to manage the deficit?
Jane Moore
responded by saying that there was no defined answer. The Green Paper is about
keeping children in mainstream and this may mean movement of funding come from
the High Needs block to the Schools Block. The money needs to go to schools. It
is a case of using the High Needs Block differently.
Jane Dawda asked
about the SEN notional budget saying that some schools have a higher proportion
of plans than others, is there a suggestion of removing the notional budget
from schools and giving it to where it is needed.
In response Jane
Moore said that the DFE money to schools and the SEN Notional funding is about
the whole child and is for the school to manage the educating of the child. The
notional funding will need to be looked at and be clear what it is for. The
data is difficult because does a school with a higher number of EHCP’s mean it
is more inclusive or does it mean that those schools with a fewer number are
utilizing SEND support. The general consensus is if the funding is according to
number of EHCP’s the finding would go up. Jenny Lawrence also said that the DFE
have made a conscious policy decision not to use the number of EHCP’s as a
driver for funding. The SEN notional budget will stay but standardised
nationally and the £6000 threshold is believed to be under review.
Graham Bett then
observed that schools need to be aware of the context. The LCC has realised
that spending is not sustainable and the DfE is also coming in saying this is
going to be dealt with. With rising costs and rising inflation in schools, this
is not the moment for the LCC to say we have a problem and we will take money
from the schools block. If the DFE is interested in the schools and the Forum’s
views how will this be communicated?
School leadership
will want to work in partnership and this should not be around money coming
from schools. There should be professional input to get a better system. Graham
Bett felt that going to other authorities and school leaders was the best way
to find out.
Jane Moore answered
Graham Bett by saying that the purpose is to make the right money is in the
right place. Putting the LCC deficit in
context, it is not the imperative but is an imperative. The department have been working on this
since 2017 and none of this work has impacted the budget. Schools need to be fundamentally involved and
the LA will ask the DfE how they want to capture the information. Whilst
talking to school leaders is a good idea, it should be remembered that Nottingham
City schools are better funded.
Karen Allen said
that the notional budget in her school is eaten up with high needs
children. The EHCP can be more costly
than the SENIF funding. Parents are not interested in the provision only in the
hours. It is the hours that trigger parents. As the provision is there and can
be provided without the hours, concentrate on the provision. Majority of
children can be helped in a different way without putting hours in the plan.
Karen also said that there are more children with complex needs coming to mainstream
and if this is where they are to be then there needs to be more support and
less jumping through hoops to get that support otherwise it becomes a
babysitting exercise and the child is not benefiting.
Jane Moore thanked
Karen for her comments and agreed that moving from an hour’s based to an
outcome’s based resource allocation within an EHCP could be an answer but this
has been discussed many times in the past but it hasn’t been possible to move
to implementation. The LA will need help
from schools to move this forward. Schools are able to end plans which are not
suitable at the annual review and the parent’s expectations can be collectively
managed at that point. There are
children who shouldn’t be in mainstream but the special schools have children
who maybe could be in mainstream.
Kelly Dryden
commented that all specialist school plans are provision led plans are in place
already so it would be culture shift and then judgements made on the support
level to achieve the outcomes. A blended
approach maybe to start with to help parents.
Alison Ruff said
that parents think they are entitled to the hours and the funding. She asked what other authorities do around
this. Maybe work with a scoring criteria list i.e. are able to toilet alone,
feed themselves or move around the school alone. Children who maybe come to
school with low ability would not meet the scoring for an EHCP.
Karen Allen agreed
and said a lot of children come into school with plans in place and then they
thrive in school. The plans are not necessary but parents are loathe to give
them up. Perhaps say that it is SENIF
funding until the end of Key stage 1 unless the child has very complex needs.
Deborah Taylor
added a link to Government research which she said was very interesting
Kirk Hayles asked
whether there was any monitoring or policing in places as has been mentioned
some schools are more open than others to taking children with a high level of
need.
Graham Bett then
asked about timelines and when any notification would come into schools
particularly in respect of a Schools Block transfer.
Jane Moore answered
him by saying that there were multiple timelines, already working on reducing
costs in independent placements but they have the monopoly and the power. She said that the conversation at this Forum
had been extremely useful on the best way to stem demand and any other
solutions would be welcomed.
Both Jane Moore and
Deborah Taylor reiterated that whilst the school block transfer action would
not be taken off the table it is not being looked at, at the moment, as it is
not a solution to the deficit but could be part of a solution. If it is needed
then the LA will come to the Forum in the usual way, there is a defined process
set out by the DFE to pursue a transfer. Mrs Taylor finished by saying we need
a system shift and not just throw money at it.
Karen Allen said
that talking to other authorities about how they do things differently would be
a way forward.
The meeting was then closed