Agenda item

SEND STRATEGY 2020

Purpose of the report:  To update the Board on progress to date in regard to development of the SEND 2020 Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Strategy, development plan and SEND inspection framework. 

Minutes:

Witnesses:

 

Julie Fisher, Deputy Chief Executive

Frank Offer, Head of Commissioning for Young People

Sue Roch, Area Education Officer (South East)

 

Linda Kemeny, Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement

Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate

 

Robert Evans left the meeting at 11:27

 

Key points raised during the discussions:

 

1.    The Head of Commissioning for Young People introduced the item and outlined the context for the strategy. He advised the Board that the council faced a number of challenges; cultural issues, building a customer centred system, reshaping the local offer with partners and development of inclusive practice. The Board learned that the council faced SEND pressures that exceeded demographic growth for a number of reasons and an over reliance on the non-maintained independent school sector.

 

2.    A needs analysis had been undertaken by the service to better understand the needs of Surrey children and they were using this information to model provision for future years. Officers were asked if they had also visited other authorities to learn from their practice. The Board were informed that officers had been to Hertfordshire to understand their low use of NMIs and Gloucestershire for the timeliness of their SEND assessment process.

 

3.    The Board expressed strong concerns at the level of need in Surrey and how this compared with other authorities. The Head of Commissioning for Young People explained that other areas make greater use of alternatives to SEN statements such as support through Speech and Language Therapy and Child and Adolescent Mental Health services. The Deputy Chief Executive commented how this situation highlights the need for a well articulated early help offer which would impact how children are assessed in Surrey.

 

4.    Witnesses were asked if the council understood where children with SEND lived and where they went to school to help develop a local offer. The Head of Commissioning for Young People confirmed that they do and that they have a software tool to aid the modelling of provision to meet need. This has, for example, led to a bid for a free school in the west of the county to meet a gap in provision there in relation Communication and Interaction Needs (COIN).

 

5.    The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement emphasised the significance of inclusion in meeting needs of children with SEND. Promotion of inclusive practice was happening through a pilot in 53 schools, examples of good practice in Surrey Heath were referred to and how these needed to be scaled up across the county. Further to this, all of Surrey’s special schools are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted and this should be more widely communicated to parents and carers. The Cabinet Member also commented that more could be done to meet need through the creation of free schools with support from the Regional Schools Commissioner.

 

6.    A Board member stated that school governors, local MPs and councillors should be mobilised in support of this strategy. The Cabinet Member told Members that two meetings are held each term with governors and typically had 70 people in attendance and recently she had presented the SEND transformation agenda and that it had been positively received by governors.

 

7.    The witnesses were asked what impact the strategy and the needs analysis would have on the Schools & Learning budget. The Head of Commissioning for Young People advised that some modelling was already included in budget projections. What needed more work was the impact of growth post-16 resulting from Children & Families Act, integrated working to develop local solutions and early help. The Deputy Chief Executive added that there were further savings in the Medium Term Financial Plan that have not been quantified as yet including the impact of using the Hertfordshire model of provision in Surrey.

 

Recommendations

 

None.

 

Actions/further information to be provided:

 

            None.

 

Board next steps:

 

None.

 

Supporting documents: