Issue - meetings

To receive any questions or petitions.

The public retain their right to submit questions for a 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.

NOTES:

a.    The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (8 November 2024).

b.    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (7 October 2024).

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

There were two questions received from members of the public and two received from Members of the Committee, in writing, prior to the Committee meeting. The questions and answers were provided in the first supplementary agenda circulated prior to the meeting.

a. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Both individuals who submitted questions had supplemental questions.

1.    The first supplementary question came from Sarah Moran, who asked  what changes were made to the EHCP panel meetings and decision-making, given that pre-action letters indicated significant weaknesses. A written reply would be provided.

2.    A second supplementary question, from Amanda Lazenby, questioned if EHCPs issued were fit for purpose, and whether quality had been compromised by the recovery plan, given the rise in appeals since last year and the success rate of these appeals. The Assistant Director – Inclusion & Additional Needs clarified the difference between quality concerns – such as missing information or misunderstandings, addressed through direct complaints and potential revisions – and tribunal cases which in contrast involved decisions relating to assessments or provisions that parents dispute. Quality issues were resolved via complaints, while tribunals addressed disputes over decisions.

b. MEMBER QUESTIONS

Both Members who submitted questions had supplementary questions.

1.    Cllr Essex asked for a more detailed written response to his Member question, addressing each of the six areas he had originally submitted. A written response would be provided by the Assistant Director of Inclusion and Additional Needs.

2.    Cllr Townsend asked about discrepancies in the quality grading of EHCPs, specifically why fewer were rated as good or outstanding, and about the assessment tool used for EHCPs. It was clarified that earlier reports excluded plans if any section was not rated "good" or "outstanding," while current reports evaluate individual sections, which has shown improvement. It was explained that Envision is used to evaluate EHCPs based on specific criteria, with 56% of sections rated good or outstanding, and 82% rated satisfactory or higher. Envision is used by over 60 local authorities, allowing for benchmarking. There is no national quality measure beyond whether they meet statutory requirements.

3.    The Member asked about the increase in refusals to assess from 2022-2023 to 2023-2024 and the link between refusals and cases going to mediation. The Assistant Director of Inclusion and Additional Needs explained there was a surge in requests, and a lack of understanding of new guidance led to many not meeting legal thresholds, with difficulties in gathering information from parents and schools. The SEND County Service Planning and Performance Leader described the mediation process, noting that some cases are resolved before tribunal.