Agenda item

To consider a report of the Head of Strategy, Planning and Performance.

The Chairman opened the item by referring to a number of visits to the respective special schools which had been undertaken by Councillors prior to the meeting. All those who attended agreed that the visits had been interesting and enlightening and wished their thanks to be noted and passed on to the Headteachers.

Fintan Bradley, Head of Strategy, Planning & Performance, attended to give a presentation on the background of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Review. In providing the context, he reported how much the Council spent on SEN (£27.6m) and how this was allocated to particular services and pupils.

Fintan Bradley reported that there were six work streams contributing to the SEN Review and that these were as follows:

1)    Development of a specialist Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC) specific School  

2)    Resourced Provision

3)    Funding

4)    Current pathways for access to Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) services.

5)    SEND Policy

6)    Early Years and Settings.

For the purpose of this meeting, attention was drawn to the SEND Policy. Fintan Bradley explained that there was a legal requirement to produce such a policy and therefore the Council were currently consulting on the proposed draft. As part of this consultation, the Committee were asked to submit their comments in order to help shape the final document.

Members made a number of comments on the draft SEND Policy document.

·         Regarding the penultimate bullet point on page 39, beginning ‘Out of Borough Placements’ - it was suggested that it was necessary to look carefully at the wording of this point in order to protect the Council from legal challenge. It was agreed that it was important to state clearly that the Council would have the final say on whether a child’s assessed needs could be met appropriately in a Cheshire East setting or not.

·         In terms of the fourth bullet point on page 39, beginning ‘Parents/Carers’ – it was suggested that the wording of this be changed to reflect the following: “Parents/carers will be listened to and their views treated with respect. Their expertise will be valued and help to inform the provision put in place for children and young people”

·         It was stated that in terms of the ‘principles’ outlined on p.21, it was suggested that there needed to be a clear definition of ‘special educational needs’ that all stakeholders would sign up to and agree.

·         It was suggested that it would be useful to put ‘the pledge’ at the beginning of the document as this was easy to understand and helped put the rest of the policy in context.

A number of queries were also made. Firstly, it was asked whether the proposed implementation of the pupil premium would have an impact of the Individual Pupil Funding. Fintan Bradley explained that the Pupil Premium was to be aimed at Cared for Children, pupils on free school meals and army children. Having said this, he noted that the service were looking to see if there would be any overlaps and if convergences could be made in order to prevent double funding.

Secondly, it was questioned who would be responsible for the monitoring of the efficacy of SEN funding in light of the removal of School Improvement Plans (SIPs). Fintan Bradley confirmed that the assessment and monitoring team would be responsible for this and that SEN funding would be reviewed on an annual basis. He also noted that this process needed to be made more robust and that work was being carried out to make improvements.

It was queried how many places would be available in the proposed Autistic Spectrum Condition specific school? Fintan Bradley confirmed that there would be 50-60 places available for children and young people aged between 2 and 19.

It was questioned how much of a school’s budget was set aside for SEN. Fintan Bradley explained that the Direct Schools Grant included a recognition of SEN in the formula. There was also a separate SEN budget that the Council held which schools could bid into.

With regard to the section on planning, it was queried whether it was risky not to insist that schools write Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for children and young people with SEND. Fintan Bradley confirmed that whilst IEPs had their place they were not always useful as they often were a barrier to inclusion and tended to be reactive. It was asserted that personalised learning led to better integration and helped schools be reactive.

As a final point it was suggested that it would be useful for the Committee to receive a training session which would explore how ‘the pledge’ stated in the policy was practically articulated with service users. It was stated that the use of case studies could assist with this.

Additionally, it was suggested that the Committee receive a review of the consultation responses at a subsequent meeting.

RESOLVED –

a)    That the following comments be considered in the formulation of the final SEND Policy document:

a.    That the wording in the penultimate bullet point on page 39, beginning ‘Out of Borough Placements’ be considered in order to protect the Council from legal challenge. Important to state clearly that the Council would have the final say on whether a child’s assessed needs could be met appropriately in a Cheshire East setting or not.

b.    That the wording in the fourth bullet point on page 39, beginning ‘Parents/Carers’ be changed to the following: “Parents/carers will be listened to and their views treated with respect. Their expertise will be valued and help to inform the provision put in place for children and young people”

c.    That a clear definition of ‘special educational needs’ be added to the ‘principles’ section that all stakeholders would sign up to and agree.

d.    That ‘the pledge’ be put at the beginning of the document as this was easy to understand and helped put the rest of the policy in context.

b)    That a training session be arranged which, with the aid of case studies, would explore how ‘the pledge’ stated in the policy was being practically articulated with service users.

c)    That a review of the consultation responses be brought to a subsequent Committee meeting.