Issue - meetings

To receive any questions or petitions.

Notes:

1.    The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (1 April 2022).

2.    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting(31 March 2022)

3.    The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.

The public retain their right to submit questions for written response, with such answers recorded in the minutes of the meeting; questioners may participate in meetings to ask a supplementary question. Petitioners may address the Committee on their petition for up to three minutes Guidance will be made available to any member of the public wishing to speak at a meeting.

Witnesses:

Rachael Wardell, Executive Director – Children, Families, and Lifelong Learning

Liz Mills, Director – Education and Lifelong Learning

1. Four questions were received from Fiona Davidson.

2. As a supplementary question, the Member sought clarification that the Safety Valve agreement contained requirements from the Department of Education (DfE) that were not just financial.

3. The Executive Director clarified that there were measures that were non-financial, as they would drive financial outcomes and followed the direction of travel of the SEND Transformation Programme. These included measures such as increasing the number of SEND children educated in mainstream schools. The Director added that the agreement focussed on early intervention and support, as well as being in keeping with the council’s overall vision to keep children closer to home. This included partnership working with schools to drive them towards inclusive environments. The accountability across education, health and social care would remain.

4. The Member asked about the Education Service’s greatest concerns regarding the agreement.

5. The Executive Director acknowledged that there were many ways that the agreement could go wrong, however, the council put themselves in a position to walk away if there were no advantages to the agreement. The financial benefits were carefully calculated and there were benefits to having consistent and rigorous evaluation of the Transformation Programme. An agreement would not have been reached if it was not for the benefit of the children.

6. As a final supplementary question, the Member asked how the Service was planning to incentivise academy schools to increase their intake of SEND children.

7. The Director responded that academy schools and trust leaders had been part of the driving force of the work around inclusion focused on enabling SEND children to thrive alongside their peers. The Director noted that they needed to think about the ways in which they would work together. The Team Around School pilot was a successful example of pooling resources and expertise to make it possible for children to remain in their mainstream setting. The Director explained that the vast majority of children would start their schooling in a mainstream setting; therefore, it was often about maintaining that environment rather than moving them back into a mainstream environment.