Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services which provided an update on the Government’s Schools White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving and the associated SEND Reform proposals. The report summarised the national policy direction, outlined the implications for the County Council and its partners and highlighted key risks and opportunities.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 13’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)           It was noted that the proposals represented the most significant set of reforms since 2014 and that a key aim was to strengthen support for children and young people within mainstream education.

(ii)         Members emphasised the importance of translating national legislation and guidance into arrangements that would work effectively for Leicestershire children, young people and families.

(iii)        The Committee noted that there were currently over 9,000 Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) in Leicestershire and that numbers had grown significantly in the last year. It was further noted that under the Government’s current proposals existing Plans would not change.  It was understood that EHCPs were likely to be reserved for children attending special schools or those with the most complex needs, while children in mainstream schools who did not meet that threshold might instead have an individual support plan put in place. Members were advised that the principal distinction appeared to be that EHCPs would be local authority-led and funded, whereas individual support plans would be school-led and school-funded.

(iv)       Members considered it important to reassure parents that children who currently had an Education, Health and Care Plan would retain it under the proposals as presently understood. Members also asked how the reforms would affect the Council’s responsibilities, school funding arrangements and routes of appeal. Officers explained that the funding position was not yet clear. Current funding arrangements included school funding, the notional contribution and local authority top-up funding, but it appeared likely that more funding would be passported to schools in future. The mechanism for doing so, and the extent of any additional funding, remained uncertain.

(v)         In relation to appeals, the Committee was advised that the proposals did not appear to remove the ability for parents to challenge decisions relating to ECHPs. However, it appeared that tribunals might in future only be able to make recommendations rather than binding decisions. The position in relation to appeals or complaints about individual support plans was less clear, with early indications suggesting that these might be considered through the school complaints processes and escalation to Ofsted.

(vi)       Members raised concerns about the lack of fairness and consistency of funding, noting that similar levels of need could be funded differently depending on the school or area a child lived. Leicestershire remained one of the lowest funded county councils nationally for high needs funding per pupil, meaning that a child attending a school in Leicester City could attract more funding than a child attending a Leicestershire County Council school. The Director assured members that the Council continued to work through the F40 Group to campaign for fairer funding arrangements.

(vii)      The forecasted Dedicated Schools Grant deficit had reduced from £117 million to £99 million, which was considered a positive local position. It was also noted that the Government’s proposed arrangements included reimbursement of a proportion of the net deficit, although the precise detail of how much this would be was yet to be confirmed.

(viii)    The direction of travel within the reforms was generally considered to be right, particularly the focus on building capacity in mainstream schools, but there remained risks around timing, funding and implementation. The Director reported that work had been undertaken with schools and partners to identify gaps in confidence and capacity within mainstream provision and to develop a plan to address those gaps over time.

(ix)       Members asked about the potential cost of individual support plans compared with EHCPs, and whether reducing reliance on EHCPs would, in practice, improve outcomes for children. The Director advised that the cost of individual support plans was not yet known and would be a matter for schools. It was estimated that, based on current patterns, around 60% of EHCPs related to children in mainstream provision and around 40% to children in specialist provision, although the final criteria for individual support plans had not yet been confirmed.

(x)         It was noted that children with EHCPs in mainstream schools tended to achieve stronger academic outcomes, while those in special schools often achieved stronger social outcomes.  Overall, outcomes for children with an EHCP in Leicestershire were considered to be good.

(xi)       Members expressed support for mainstream inclusion in principle but raised concerns about variations between schools and multi-academy trusts, including differences in access to educational psychologists and other specialist support. It was suggested that this could create a postcode lottery for parents.

(xii)      A Member commented that there needed to be clarity about how the success of mainstream inclusion would be measured, when concerns would trigger review, and how the Council would intervene if arrangements were not working effectively. The Director confirmed that the Council in its response to the Department for Education’s consultation had emphasised the same concerns, the need for checks and balances and a role for the local authority where provision was not found to be effective.

(xiii)    Members noted the Experts at Hand model used a locality-based approach to bring together specialists that could provide support on education, health and social care matters. Schools had responded positively to the model, and work was underway to develop measurable key performance indicators.

(xiv)    A Member questioned whether there would be enough qualified staff to deliver the proposed changes across a wider range of mainstream schools. Leicestershire was considered an attractive area in which to work and did not generally experience the same recruitment difficulties as other areas.  However, it had been acknowledged that workforce capacity could be an issue and it was therefore a key area being considered locally through partnership working.

(xv)     Members also raised concerns that schools were already under considerable pressure and that a greater emphasis on mainstream provision could place additional burdens on schools unless the necessary funding, support and specialist expertise were in place.

(xvi)    A member asked that future reports include a list of abbreviations, given the technical nature of the subject matter.

RESOLVED:

That the update on the Government’s Schools White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, and the associated SEND Reform proposals be noted.