Agenda item

To provide an overview of services for Brent’s children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), including Brent’s readiness to implement the DfE SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan and Brent’s position in relation to a future inspection by Ofsted / CQC on the effectiveness of local SEND partnership arrangements.

Councillor Gwen Grahl (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Schools) introduced the report which updated the Committee on the SEND Strategy, which was an important obligation of the local authority. The report highlighted several positives including; the additional 427 placements that had been introduced across the borough in both mainstream schools and the brand-new school being built; that the 22/23 had not added to the existing deficit in the High Needs Block from which SEND support was funded and; the waiting times for accessing an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) had improved significantly. The Council had invested in the provision of post-16 skills and was building 2 centres for that in Welsh Harp and Airco Close. She highlighted that there was further work to do in this area given the huge increase in demand recently.

Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) added that there were now over 3,000 children in Brent with an EHCP, compared to this time last year where there was just under 3,000. The continued growth was a national position, but it was putting strain on the system. He highlighted the positive that there were now more children being educated within mainstream schools, but there remained pressure for the Council to build special school places and the Council were making progress there.

In relation to readiness for a Joint Ofsted / CQC Inspection, the Children and Young People (CYP) department had been working closely with colleagues in health to ensure it was as ready as possible. The new inspection framework had been introduced in January 2023 and only a handful of inspections had taken place so far, with feedback from those areas showing that it was a much more granular inspection process than the previous version and looked more in depth at the experience of children and young people. Those that had completed an inspection had fed back that it was a tough process. There were 3 possible narrative judgements from the inspection; that the experience and outcomes of children and young people was generally consistently good; that the experience and outcomes for children and young people were inconsistent or; that the experience and outcomes for children and young people were generally poor. The local authority and health colleagues were being realistic about their position and believed that most children and young people generally did receive positive outcomes, however there were areas that needed focus and improvements such as waiting times for services. The importance of evidencing that action was being taken was highlighted.

Jonathan Turner (Borough Lead Director – Brent, ICP) had been working with CYP in preparation for the inspection in order to know where there were issues. He agreed that outcomes were generally good but that there were areas where plans to improve the experience of children and young people were needed, for example around waiting times for ASD and ADHD assessments. The Brent Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) would be bidding to NWL Integrated Care Board (ICB) to level up some of Brent’s services, but that would not be resolved by the time of the inspection so those plans also needed to be evidenced during the inspection. Another area needing focus was the Special School Nursing Service provided by Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust (CLCH) as demand for that service would increase when special school places increased. The ICP was looking at producing a business case to invest more into those services, but in the short term the ICP had released some Section 256 funding to support CLCH to recruit on an interim basis. The ICP had also put forward a business case for Children’s Continence Services but this had been rejected as it only affected one borough. In response, the ICP was now working with other boroughs to resubmit that business case on a NWL basis.

The Chair thanked colleagues for their introduction and invited comments and questions from those present, with the following issues raised:

The Committee asked about the deficits projected in table 2 of the report. Olufunke Adediran (Head of Finance – Children and Young People, Brent Council) explained that, over the years, there had been a deficit built up within the High Needs Block due to the rising number of children with EHCPs. The DfE required councils to model what that demand would look like going forward, so there was a need to make assumptions around growth based on trends from previous years in the budget. There was a current deficit of approximately £13.8m, and the table showed what that deficit would look like if no action was taken or what it would look like taking into account all of the mitigating actions taking place such as managing demand, improving sufficiency of places and improving financial management. She highlighted that the funding received from DfE was essential to bring down the historic position of the deficit. Last financial year was the first year in many years that the High Needs Block had almost broke even, but when the Council went into year 2024-25 there remained a challenge and risk to the local authority due to cost increases. Nigel Chapman added that, at the moment, a ‘statutory override’ allowed councils to carry forward a deficit in the Dedicated Schools Grant but this was only in place until 2026. After that, it was not clear what would happen so there was a risk to the general fund that all councils may have to cover their Dedicated Schools Grant deficit once the statutory override ended, unless that deficit was written off or the override was continued.

In response to what was being done to mitigate the pressures in the funding, Sharon Buckby (Head of Inclusion and Brent Virtual School) highlighted that the Council had increased the number of school places for pupils with SEND. The number of specialist places had been increased in Brent following councillors agreeing to invest £44m in specialist provision within the borough. This meant the Council did not need to place children into expensive out of borough or independent provision, where costs had increased on average by 9-10% and in some cases 15% for in-year provision. Building and delivering specialist provision within the borough was also the most effective way to ensure children’s outcomes could be improved, which was CYP’s primary focus. Investment had also been made into developing the skills and capacity of schools, particularly the development of Additional Resourced Provision within mainstream schools and the training alongside that. Another area of focus was thinking about how children’s needs could be met earlier, and the Council had recently started a new programme called ‘Intervention First’ which looked to meet the needs of children earlier in terms of chronological age and target specialist intervention.

The Committee asked whether the rising SEND costs had been a significant factor in any of the recent Section 114 notices in other Council’s. Olufunke Adediran explained that Section 114s had been a result of several issues. The Dedicated Schools Grant was a ring-fenced pot of funding, with a national deficit of around £1billion. Those Councils who had issued Section 114 notices had not done so as a result of the DSG necessarily, but due to issues in the general fund and debt.

The report showed that the proportion of students with an EHCP placed in mainstream schools had increased, and that some mainstream schools had concerns as to how much they could support those students. The Committee asked what support, such as training, was available to tackle those concerns. Nigel Chapman highlighted that schools wanted to be inclusive and take children where possible. There was anxiety amongst headteachers as to whether their school had the right skills and capacity within the school to meet the needs of a particular child in relation to ensuring teachers were delivering effective lessons for individual children whilst also meeting the needs of everybody in that class. To provide support to schools, Brent had an Outreach Autism Team which was a  team of specialist teachers who went into schools to develop the skillset of teachers to support children to thrive educationally. The Specialist SEN Advisory Team also went into schools to work with SENCOs and review provision maps and support training programmes. In addition, the Inclusion Support Team worked with children who had particular challenges around emotional regulation, and the Anna Freud provision through WEST assisted with cognitive behavioural issues. Sharon Buckby highlighted that schools were well resourced in relation to their EHCPs and Brent resourced higher than other local authorities.

The Committee asked whether young people aged 16-25 with SEND were being picked up late in relation to their need or whether they were new to the borough. Sharon Buckby explained that the reason there was a growing proportion of 16-25 year olds with SEND was because the regulations changed in 2015 to extend support for those with a SEND statement up until the age of 25. Before 2015 that support was only provided up until 16. She highlighted that the biggest growth area was actually in the cohort of under 7 year olds, where there had been significant growth with 62% of children with an EHCP being in that cohort. The Council had received £1m from the DfE and invested £1m from its own SEND support programme within the High Needs Block to support those needs.

The Committee recalled that the Council was making provision within the borough and asked whether this would minimise out of borough placements substantially. Sharon Buckby confirmed that the 427 additional placements would be significant in terms of its impact. With the growth in placements, Additional Resourced Provision, and support and development of specialist teaching staff, more children would stay within the borough as their parents would be confident their child was getting the educational support they required. Already, the Council had slowed the number of children going to independent provision because they had been given mainstream placements, and some young people had returned from independent provision back into mainstream schools, demonstrating the effectiveness of the Additional Resourced Provision.

The Committee were pleased to hear about the positive work being done with the Harlesden cluster of schools and asked how that would be broadened to ensure good practice across the borough. Shirley Parks (Director of Education, Partnerships and Strategy, Brent Council) highlighted that there were 5 school clusters in Brent which had been developed during Covid by headteachers as support networks. The Harlesden cluster were working with the Council on the Delivering Better Value (DBV) Programme because they were the most cohesive in the way they worked together and also because, as a cluster, the children in those schools had particularly high needs. The alignment work being done with Brent Health Matters, Family Wellbeing Centres and the Intervention First Teaching Programme would make a real difference in the way localities worked together to support children. The intention was to learn and grow from that and develop cluster by cluster, targeting the next group of schools with additional needs through the next 2 academic years. The Council were now developing a more formalised relationship with other school clusters in order to work with them to develop local programmes. In the forefront needed to be the knowledge that every locality may have different needs that they needed to serve and that was important to recognise in the way that the council worked with those clusters. Jen Haskew (Head of Setting and School Effectiveness, Brent Council) was now having regular meetings with cluster leads so there was a mechanism to cascade good practice.

The Committee asked what Harlesden cluster had been doing that was working particularly well. They heard that both primary and secondary schools were coming together regularly to meet and recognise the key issues for the communities and parents in their areas and how those needs could be met. With the funding the Council had rolled out to clusters, the Harlesden cluster had developed a curriculum called ‘my world’ which was about adjusting the curriculum to relate to the experiences of the pupils in their school. The cluster also had a good practice model of how schools could work well together across phases with a common language in the curriculum.

The Committee asked what the reasons a child might not have a school place were. Shirley Parks explained that for mainstream primary schools there were lots a spare places with 20% spare across the borough, meaning there was no problem allocating an offer of a mainstream primary school place, and this was also true for secondary schools. The issue was around parental preference and choice, where parents could make a preference but it may not always be possible for that choice to be met. Placements were made in line with the admissions code, and whilst there were a lot of parents who preferred particularly popular schools, there were a limited number of places in those schools and therefore admissions policies ensured that spaces in those schools were fairly allocated. This meant that sometimes admissions could not meet the parents’ aspirations of the place they wanted their child but they would be offered another place.

The Committee asked for more information about ‘Project Search’, which was an internship programme within Brent Council. Nigel Chapman highlighted that the interns undertaking this programme were very integrated into the Councils work and it had been a true success story as a whole council approach, but it was felt that more could be done in that space. Part of the work being done around post-16 provision was to provide more opportunities for young people and their families to feel that having a disability was not a barrier to having a full life, being able to have a job, being able to live independently and support themselves. Sharon Buckby added that further post-16 provision work included working with Brent Works and working alongside employers across Wembley to develop the disability confident standards and increase the number of employers who were supporting young people to not only have real life work experience but also progress on to paid employment. The Council was also looking at providing a horticultural facility, a digital media centre and a cultural development skills resource centre to expand opportunities further, working alongside the national development programme for improving SEND provision to expand the internship.

The Committee asked how the challenges around waiting times were being addressed. Jonathan Turner advised the Committee that there were specific areas that proved more challenging than others with regard to waiting times, particular ASD and ADHD assessment waiting times. This was a national issue but was acute in Brent. Tom Shakespeare, the Managing Director for the ICP, had set up a workstream focused on this with Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (CNWL) and GPs, with various stakeholders inputting into that workstream. The ICP was looking to bid against a £3m funding pot in NWL ICB to bring additional support either into that service or into third sector providers that could provide support to CNWL for that service. The ICP would be advocating for as much resource as possible within that pot to reduce those waiting times. It was not clear whether this would be successful but the ICB sounded positive about it at the moment and had a willingness to work with Brent ICP and recognise that Brent’s mental health services, particularly for children and young people, did need to be levelled up.

Shirley Parks added further information in relation to mental health and wellbeing. There were around 300 children waiting for CAMHS treatment currently, but assessment timeliness had greatly improved. This was still a focus for the mental health and wellbeing subgroup within the ICP Executive, bringing partners together to look at levering more funding, monitoring and tracking current performance, and looking at a range of other initiatives to support young people. The subgroup met monthly and reviewed data across all issues involving SEND, including CAMHS data. Partners were working across the system to ensure young people were ‘waiting well’, so if a child was waiting for treatment they had access to support from other parts of the system while they waited, such as through the voluntary sector or WEST. Another piece of work within Brent was Thrive, a model that looked to increase early intervention and prevention services so that young people did not get to the point of needing specialist CAMHS in the first place. Partners were focusing on shifting the system to that approach to take the pressure off specialist CAMHS and move support earlier in that young persons’ life to avoid them reaching a crisis point. A working group chaired by the Director of Public Health had been established around Thrive, developing services that supported young people’s needs.

The Committee highlighted the focus Pan London on joining up SEND in relation to health inequalities, and asked what activity had been done in Brent to join up that work with health partners. Jonathan Turner highlighted that the local NHS partnership and CYP were connected up regarding their understanding of the health inequalities experienced in Brent. Brent Health Matters (BHM) were looking at a range of different issues through the health inequalities lens, which had began with looking at covid, diabetes, and more physical health areas and had now evolved and expanded into the area of children’s health, including neurodiversity. BHM had been successful in a business case application for funding from NWL ICB to focus on health inequalities for children and young people, and a steering group would lead that piece of work, made up of Shirley Parks, BHM, CNWL, and the CAMHS provider. There were various workstreams within that, such as childhood immunisations and mental health and wellbeing. There was also funding to recruit a number of different professionals, such as Speech and Language Therapists, and the opportunity to recruit to several positions focused solely on health inequalities.

The Committee asked how much the activity on health inequalities paid attention to communities in the most deprived areas, highlighting that this would rely on how much was known about communities and how much information could be accessed. Nigel Chapman highlighted that it was recognised Harlesden had higher numbers of children with identified SEND and was also an area with higher levels of deprivation, so it was expected that the work of BHM would help to understand what was driving that inequality and help target services in that area. There was a higher proportion of children from certain backgrounds who were getting an EHCP at a later stage, so it was also important parents and carers had an understanding of how to access support at an earlier stage. Work was ongoing to develop indicators that would track that information and this could be incorporated into future reports.

The Chair concluded the meeting by asking how ready for a joint inspection Brent was. Nigel Chapman explained he had been chairing regular meetings to ensure the paperwork was in order, including their self-evaluation. The inspection was a three-week process and very intensive so required good co-ordination. One key learning from self-evaluation was that there had been variability in outcomes for children in terms of waiting times for certain therapies. The key to addressing this was to take action now to ensure that when children were waiting they were waiting well, and ensuring that was demonstrated during the inspection.

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:

i)              To recommend that the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee heard directly from a member of the Harlesden cluster.

ii)             To recommend that the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee received a report detailing the success of the activity of the Harlesden cluster and how that was being replicated across the Borough.