Agenda item

To provide an overview of services for Brent children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and a summary of the SEND Review Green Paper and the new Ofsted / CQC inspection framework. The report sets out Brent’s readiness for the implementation of the Green Paper, the new Inspection Framework, the current position of High Needs Block funding for children with SEND, and potential future funding implications in light of future national policy directions.

Councillor Gwen Grahl (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools) introduced the item, explaining that the report was in response to the recently published Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Green Paper, which was released in March 2022 as a response to the recent increase in the SEND cohort nationally. In terms of the Green Paper, she felt that the paper offered some positive improvements around standardisation and digitisation of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), as well as acknowledgement that place-led funding of alternative provision had become unworkable and was causing problems for young people with SEND. However, the report also emphasised academisation and did not include information on any additional resources that might be going forward into the specialist provision for SEND, mental health and behaviour. She felt this may introduce challenges for local authorities. The report presented to the Committee responded to those challenges, and highlighted that the department were likely to face an increasing deficit projected to be over £14m by 2026. Despite those challenges, the local authority were likely to be inspected by Ofsted over the coming years and the council’s preparedness for that would be essential in demonstrating it had been able to make the changes and continued to provide very good services for children and young people with SEND.

Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) made the point that the 2015 SEND Code of Practice was broadly a positive statement around the importance of integrating education, health and social care for children. The 2015 Code of Practice had given more of a voice for parents and carers and was very ambitious, promoted integration and preparing for adult life. The unforeseen implications of the Code of Practice, which had been experienced in Brent, across London and nationally, had been a large increase in demand. In Brent, there had been a 50% increase in the number of children with EHCPs compared to 5 years ago. This created a strain to the system. As a result of the national challenge, the government had put forward the Green Paper to better manage the issues. The Green Paper did not necessarily change the direction of policy or position, as the sector agreed that the ambitions of the original 2015 reforms were still meaningful.

In terms of Brent specifically, the Committee were advised that the local authority was last inspected by Ofsted and CQC in 2019, where the services being provided were judged to be operating at an effective standard.  In addition, 97% of schools in Brent were judged ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, and therefore the department felt confident in the local system. The department had been particularly proud of the encouraging growth of the Parent Carer Forum where there were over 500 parents involved, who provided both challenge and support. As a result, a lot of co-production work had been done with parents and carers which was integral to the work being done locally. The challenges that were being faced were the demand in the system, and the challenge of early identification of need and meeting that need at an earlier stage for children. Another main factor was the financial strain on the High Needs Block. Nigel Chapman advised that the report set out how the department planned to address those challenges.

The Chair thanked councillors and officers for their introduction and invited the Committee to raise comments and questions, with the following issues raised:

The Committee asked how prepared the department were for the challenges ahead and implementing the reforms in the Green Paper. Nigel Chapman highlighted that the effectiveness of the local school partnership in Brent had been demonstrated, for example through the RISE partnership who were doing peer to peer support in mainstream schools, and Compass, who were doing similar work in community schools. He felt that the biggest challenge would in in the early years sector due to the greater need in that area, and the Council was focused on getting prepared for that.

The Committee asked what plan was in place to ensure the voices of parents and carers were magnified so that they were meaningful and lead to tangible outcomes, including at an Integrated Care System (ICS) and Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) level. Nigel Chapman advised that there was an intention to set out an action with ICP colleagues regarding the 4 priority areas in the children and young people ICP workstream by the end of October, which would include a plan to include the voice of parents and carers. From a Council perspective, the voice of parents and carers was embedded but work now needed to be done to ensure it was amplified across all of the health economy locally. 

In relation to whether support was provided to families and parents of children with SEND, Sharon Buckby confirmed it was. If a child came through to the EHCP procedure they were supported by a dedicated case officer to help them through that and were then signposted to a range of different provisions available in Brent and through the Family Wellbeing Centres.

The Committee highlighted section 4.1 of the report, which stated that 43% of those with an EHCP were autistic. They asked whether there was data available for the number of children in mainstream schools with an EHCP who were autistic. Sharon Buckby (Head of Inclusion and the Virtual School Headteacher, Brent Council) highlighted that there had been significant progress over the last 2 years, with 69% of children recently provided with an EHCP now in mainstream schools compared to 48% two years prior. She attributed this to the close working relationship with parents, carers and schools in Brent, who had worked closely with the Council in relation to the SEND review.

In supporting schools to be better able to deliver, the Council had started a graduated approach framework 2 years previously with the allocation of specific funds through the SEND Intervention Fund from the High Needs Block. This aimed to support and develop the capacity of schools to be able to support, grow and enable children and young people to achieve the best they could in schools. In further supporting children with SEND to be in mainstream schools, each school cluster now had a special school. This year the Council was also working on further peer to peer support work with specialist ASD teachers, who were going into specialist schools for 2-3 weeks to further develop their skills. It was agreed that officers could provide a breakdown of needs across the full categories listed in the Code of Practice to the Committee. As a snapshot, the Committee were advised that children and young people with ASD made up the largest proportion of children with additional needs, followed by speech, language and communication needs, and thirdly children and young people with social, emotional and mental health needs. It was added that within those categories there was a large range of diversity in need.

In relation to training for staff in mainstream schools working with children and young people with SEND, Sharon Buckby advised the Committee that autism awareness training was being rolled out across all schools. There was also a Universal Targeted and Specialist Intervention Training Programme available at a universal level across all schools, and  a specialist communication methodology being rolled out across schools. The next stage would include specialist ASD training programmes, using the Autism Education Trust and other specialist providers to deliver that. The department had commissioned that provision to work with all schools, as well as specifically those with children with autism in their schools. This would also be targeted to those that would be delivering the additionally resourced provision. It was agreed that the training programme could be shared with the Committee.

Of those children with SEND placed in mainstream schools, the Committee queried whether that was with the consent and co-operation of the child’s parents or carer. Nigel Chapman confirmed that parental preference determined where a child was educated. When a child was placed, if they had an EHCP this put them at the top of the priority level to admittance to a certain school. It was very rare that a child would be placed against a parent’s preference, and this was part of the messaging being put out to parents, particularly currently with secondary transfer beginning soon.

The Committee asked how many children with SEND were placed out of borough and whether there were plans to bring those back into Brent. Nigel Chapman advised that the majority of children with SEND were educated within Brent, and the majority of those children were in mainstream schools within Brent. For those children with a higher level of need, there were specialist schools within Brent to support them, but there was a certain group of children where there was no capacity to place them locally who were placed in out of borough special schools, and a very small number of children whose needs were very specialist and required independent specialist schools which were usually outside of the borough. It was highlighted that Cabinet had approved an additional capital spend of £44m in January 2022 to increase the number of special school places within the borough and places within mainstream schools to 430 extra places. With that extra investment, which included the new special school being built in Wembley, the department felt more confident that a greater number of children would not have to travel long distances to school every day. It was always the intention of the Council that, wherever possible, children were educated as close to home as possible, but Nigel Chapman highlighted there would always be children with needs that were so specialist that they could only be met in specialist provision which was not always available in borough. The increase in places would give the Council more choice and reduce the number of children travelling out of borough.

In relation to post-16, that was an area of development for the department and officers would be bringing forward through council processes the intention to develop a post-16 education and training centre for children and young people. In terms of measuring success post-16, the Committee were advised that there was a 0-25 service provision and engagement with young people in education, employment and training was vital as that was measured every month.

The Committee asked about the outcomes and impact of the work undertaken so far and how that would be measured going forward. Sharon Buckby highlighted that there was much better identification of need now through Early Years and schools. There was support being provided through the graduated approach framework to children and young people with a SEND Support Programme (those identified as not requiring an EHCP), and that support had improved since it was implemented 2 years prior. As a result, there had been fewer numbers of EHCPs requested over the past 12 months and the number of young people remaining in mainstream education was increasing. She felt that the training and development programme on offer was also making a difference for children and young people. She added that it was a constant journey to get better as more was understood about the needs of children and young people and the gaps in provision. Joint working and partnership working would bring increased benefits across all areas of work within the education, health and care environment, including more visible active young people in communities. For example, as a consequence of a piece of work undertaken with parents, carers and young people with the Parks Service, parks had been developed to become more SEND friendly. Another piece of work being done was a public artwork in Dollis Hill which would be SEND friendly. Nigel Chapman added that the School Standards and Achievement Report due in March 2023 would have further outcome data and analysis.

In relation to funding, the Committee highlighted details in the report that Brent were one of the local authorities that continued to lobby central government for funding increases that matched the levels of need, and asked what impact the level of funding had for children with needs. Councillor Grahl confirmed that the projected funding deficit was £14.3m and that if there was no more funding becoming available it could impact on the support children in Brent could receive. Nigel Chapman advised that, in the short term, the Council had spent on a needs led perspective, which was why the department was carrying an overspend that it was currently able to carry forward. Some areas had considerably higher overspend. However, if the Council was moved into a position by central government where it was no longer allowed to carry a deficit forward then this would have an immediate impact in terms of cuts to services. He added that, regardless of the current financial pressures, there were delays in access to therapies due to recruitment issues in the health services leading to long waiting times, for example to CAMHS.

Officers confirmed that they worked with charities and schools to support early identification of students with SEND. A piece of work the Council had done this year had been with the Council of Disabled Children, which worked with Brent Parent Carer Forum, schools, settings and health colleagues on the development of a new Neurodiversity Pathway Programme. As a consequence of that, the Council would be looking to see how the third sector could be further engaged to support the roll out of that programme.

In response to a query about the CAMHS waiting lists, Nigel Chapman advised the Committee that waiting lists were coming down and were now at around 8-10 weeks for a referral, compared to 18 weeks 6 months previously. There was a preference to focus not just on the most acute level of mental health need, so a thrive model was being used to identify emotional health and wellbeing needs in children at an earlier stage. This emphasised the importance of healthy living, provided young people with recreational opportunities, and encouraged healthy diet and living.

The Committee queried why the number of children identified as requiring an EHCP had increased over time. Nigel Chapman advised this was likely due to a greater awareness and a recognition of parents and carers in terms of how to access support. He felt there was also an element of more children with more severe needs surviving longer into childhood due to medical advances, leading to an increase in children who might need support in the longer term. He highlighted this as a positive but advised the Committee that it led to a greater demand in the system.

In relation to type of need, the Committee queried whether the early identification of ASD had moved focus away from dyslexia and dyspraxia if the same resources were being used. Sharon Buckby advised that the early identification of ASD had not moved the focus away from dyslexia and dyspraxia because the service had moved to a neurodiversity approach rather than looking at specific conditions. This enabled the Council to consider how one characteristic might be displayed and misinterpreted as another characteristic. For example, very often dyspraxia and dyslexia displayed as ADHD characteristics, and it would be wrong to go down that line if the needs of that child could be addressed earlier. The Council was working with colleagues across schools to ensure that understanding was clear, and to ensure resources and mechanisms for assessing needs were in place within schools and available for parents, carers and young people to understand. This was done through the new section of the local offer which focused on neurodiversity.

The Chair invited a representative of Brent Youth Parliament to address the Committee. In addressing the Committee, the representative of Brent Youth Parliament highlighted that a child’s development was not always consistent, and the child may develop a Special Educational Need or Disability during their time in education. Brent Youth Parliament queried whether mainstream schools were equipped to deal with new cases, support diagnoses, and how CAMHS and schools worked together to do this. Sharon Buckby agreed that SEND was not linear. She advised that all schools had a referral process and were clear about the procedure for that. There was an expectation that the school should demonstrate what additional support had been put in place by the school for a child during an academic year, in order to give a detailed view on what a child’s needs were. This meant that when children came through to secondary school, or a child moved schools or moved from another borough, their needs could be assessed. In response to how children with mental health and wellbeing issues in schools were supported, Shirley Parks (Director of Safeguarding, Performance & Strategy, Brent Council) advised the Committee that schools had access to a number of different pathways for referral. Some schools when they had early identification of need commissioned support services themselves, and some schools had their own specialist workers within schools. Brent Council had a commissioned contract for vulnerable groups that schools could refer children to for early intervention and prevention, and through CAMHS there was a range of different projects including mental health support teams in specific schools aimed at early identification.

The Chair thanked those present for their contributions and drew the item to a close. He invited the Committee to make recommendations, with the following RESOLVED:

To recommend the following key areas for improvement:

i)              That an event takes place at Brent Civic Centre showcasing the work the Council had done on SEND.

ii)             That the SEND Green Paper is circulated to all relevant stakeholders, including all school staff.

iii)           That there is a framework developed for more joined up working with the Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) on SEND.

Several information requests were made during the course of the discussion, recorded as follows:

i)              For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to receive the training programme for staff who work with children with autism in mainstream schools and additional needs settings.

ii)             For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to receive data on the diversity of level of need for children with an EHCP.

iii)           For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to receive the number of young people and children receiving CAMHS in Brent.

iv)           For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to receive information on how the recommendations of the transitional safeguarding task group will feed in to the SEND Strategy.