A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Council and councillors

Agenda item

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITIES (SEND) HIGH NEEDS FUNDING

To receive Report No.55/2019 from the Strategic Director for People.

 

Minutes:

Report No. 55/2018 was received from the Strategic Director for People.

 

Mr Wilby, Portfolio Holder for Lifelong Learning, Early Years, Special Educational Needs & Disabilities and Inclusion, introduced the report the purpose of which was to update the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel on the challenges within the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system and the subsequent pressure on the Designated Schools Grant High Needs budget.

 

The report also provided the Panel with detail on the current system challenges as a result of growing demand and the new legal burdens placed on Local Authorities and outlines the steps in place to address these and reduce the pressure on the High Needs budget.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         Although there were pressures, the funding situation in Rutland was much better than compared to neighbouring authorities. Action was still needed however in order that the offer could be further improved and developed.

·         The numbers of children with SEND was increasing because of a number of factors; more children where surviving and moving into education, more families were aware of the support on offer, more children were being diagnosed at an earlier stage and more children had multi-faceted complex problems.

·         Additional pressure was placed on funds because reforms had meant that the Council now had a duty of care to support children beyond the age of 19 and up to age 25.

·         There was a need to shape provision so that it allowed young people to get used to the society that they would grow up to be adults in. It could be advantageous to children to be educated in mainstream settings as it would help with their socialisation and preparation for adulthood and independence.

·         Ideally, SEND provision needed to be flexible and supportive with children being able to step in and out of mainstream education.

·         It was difficult to show a comparison between the Rutland figures, shown in the table at 3.2.1 of the report, and national statistics as other authorities often had different systems. Officers who had attended conferences had heard from Directors of Children Services that other authorities were facing bigger pressures however this may not have been published information. 

·         One of the challenges in planning provision was that Rutland had small numbers of children with SEND spread over different year groups.

·         Sometimes children were placed in other Local Authority schools but the Council’s aim was to have provision that was the least restrictive and that was as close to possible to where they grow up in order that children would have a local peer support group.

·         There was an increasing number of parents requesting assessments for their children. Officers considered the needs of each child and family and balanced that with the cost to the public purse. The cost of a tribunal could be significant and was considered carefully when deciding whether to go to appeal. Officers would challenge costs of placements which had a huge implication for the Council but consideration of the child’s needs was always foremost.

·         There were highly motivated teachers and teaching assistants who had taken up training to help and support children with SEND.

·         There were young people peer educators who acted to support the emotional health of others in schools.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The Panel

 

1.    NOTED the challenges within the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system and the subsequent pressure placed on the Designated Schools Grant High Needs Block.

 

2.    NOTED and provided direction on the future action outlined to address the High Needs funding pressures.

Supporting documents: