Agenda item

To review the Experts At Hand delivery model and provide advice on implementation and delivery.

 

Consideration was given to the report which detailed how the School’s White paper (2026) required all Councils to build an Experts at Hand (EAH) multi-disciplinary teams for children and young people aged 0 to 25 years of age. The EAH teams should include educational psychologists, specialist teachers, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and local special schools. This report, therefore, provided an overview of the development and implementation of the EAH model in Rotherham as part of the local SEND reform programme.

 

Councillor Cusworth, Cabinet Member and Deputy Leader, introduced the report and highlighted how the proposed changes represented a significant shift in how children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities were supported and that there had been considerable discussion on this nationally.

 

Reference was made to representation on the LGA Children and Families Committee, which had enabled engagement with ministers during the consultation process and the opportunity to provide feedback, including on workforce challenges. This was seen as beneficial in informing local understanding, with relevant updates being shared where appropriate.

 

It was explained that the model focused on early intervention, ensuring that schools and settings could access the right expertise at the right time, preventing needs from escalating. Through a coordinated, multi-disciplinary approach involving education and health professionals, the aim was to strengthen inclusive practice in mainstream settings, improve consistency of support, and achieve better outcomes for children and families.

 

It was emphasised that the model was not intended to replace existing services, but to enhance them by adding an additional layer of support. This would help schools build confidence, capability and capacity enabling more children to thrive within their local school communities.

 

The report set out the overall ambition and outlined a phased approach to implementation, allowing for targeted support while enabling learning and refinement over time. It was also noted that significant work had already been undertaken in Rotherham to improve accessibility and inclusion, including investment in resource bases and early years support following the SEND inspection. The additional support from the new model would further strengthen this provision through enhanced professional input into schools.

 

By way of a presentation Niall Devlin, Service Director for Education and Inclusion, shared with the Commission:-

 

·              Purpose of the report.

·              An overview of the Experts at Hand (EAH) model.

·              Rationale for SEND system reform.

·              How the model will work in Rotherham.

·              Expected impact on inclusion and outcomes.

·              Feedback on implementation approach.

·              National and Rotherham Context.

·              SEND system reform set out in Schools White Paper (2026).

·              Introduction of national Experts at Hand model.

·              £1.8 billion investment over three years.

·              Focus on early intervention and mainstream inclusion.

·              Existing strong universal SEND support infrastructure.

·              Includes education, health and specialist services.

·              Access to support is uneven.

·              Capacity often focused on statutory activity.

·              Limited early intervention in some areas.

·              Current System Challenges.

·              Capacity tied up in statutory processes.

·              Variability in early intervention.

·              Reliance on traded services.

·              Reduced support post-16.

·              Imbalance across phases.

·              Too much reactive support at point of crisis.

·              Not enough early, preventative intervention.

·              Inequitable access to specialist expertise.

·              Pressure on EHCP’s and specialist placements.

·              Need to strengthen mainstream inclusion.

·              Experts at Hand and what it was.

·              A non-statutory, consultation-based model

·              Provides access to multidisciplinary expertise.

·              Focus on whole-setting improvement.

·              Additional to existing SEND services

·              Does not replace statutory duties.

·              Multidisciplinary Teams of Educational Psychologists, Specialist Teachers, Speech and Language Therapists and Occupational Therapists.

·              Integrated, coordinated delivery model.

·              Core Model Principles.

·              Early intervention.

·              Whole-setting approach.

·              Workforce development.

·              Consultation rather than referral.

·              Focus on capacity building in schools .

·              Consultation with education settings.

·              Staff training and development.

·              Coaching and modelling of practice.

·              Advice on adapting environments and teaching.

·              Ongoing follow-up and review.

·              How the EAH model would work and expected outcomes.

·              What Expected Impact and System-Level Impact EAH would make.

·              Improving Lives consideration whether the phased approach was right for Rotherham?

·              Whether to prioritise highest need or universal access

·              Whether to manage fairness and expectations in year one.

·              Any risks or unintended consequences needed to be addressed?

 

The Deputy Leader pointed out that these proposals represented the most significant changes to children’s education reforms in many years. While Rotherham was considered to be in a strong position, it was acknowledged that there remained substantial work to be undertaken, particularly in the context of wider national challenges within the SEND system.

 

It was recognised that the volume and pace of guidance issued by the Department for Education had been considerable, requiring significant time to interpret and implement and that some elements appeared complex or, at times, inconsistent.

 

The approach was likened to the “Me in Mind” model, emphasising a whole-school approach to inclusion and support.

 

It was suggested that Improving Lives may benefit from visiting specialist provisions at some point, particularly in early years settings, to better understand how funding had been utilised through accessibility improvements and resource bases and to provide practical context to the developments being discussed.

 

A discussion and answer session ensued with Improving Lives Members and the following issues were raised and clarified:-

 

-               Clarity was sought regarding the proposed timeline, noting that the phased approach currently appeared unclear.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion explained that, alongside this work, a SEND Reform Plan was being developed in response to a Department for Education requirement to submit a three-year strategy by 19 June. This plan would set out how SEND provision would be shaped over that period.

 

It was noted that funding for the “Expert at Hand” model was expected imminently, with an expectation that initial rollout would begin from September. In preparation, steps had already been taken to recruit additional specialist teachers and to review the deployment of educational psychology resources. Work had also been undertaken with health partners to explore access to speech and language therapy provision, with contingency arrangements being considered if required.

 

It was highlighted that, although the plan covered the period from April 2026 to April 2027, implementation timelines were compressed, with monitoring scheduled for January 2027 before full feedback on the plan was expected.

 

In response to the question, it was confirmed that a deliverable initial phase would be implemented from September 2026, with the aim of the full “Expert at Hand” model being operational by September 2027.

 

-               In relation to the options presented, whether options one and four overlapped. It was suggested that, while option four referred to a data-led approach, the data would already be informing the priorities identified under option one.  A further point was raised regarding early intervention, with a request for clarification on how the success of early intervention measures would be assessed. It was noted that, while the term was widely used, there was a need to define what constituted “early” in practice. Concern was also expressed about how parental expectations would be managed, particularly where improvements may not be realised as quickly as parents might anticipate.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion emphasised that an “Expert at Hand” model would need to be both data-led and informed by professional judgement, with an appropriate balance between the two approaches. While option four described a fully data-driven model and option one a more practitioner-led approach, it was acknowledged that data would need to underpin decision-making in all cases.

 

It was noted that further development of data models would be required. Measures of success had been identified within the SEND Reform Plan, including an increase in the proportion of children supported at SEND Support level rather than through EHCP’s, reductions in suspensions and exclusions, improved attendance among children with SEND and a decrease in elective home education.

 

It was highlighted that progress would be assessed against a range of KPIs at the first monitoring meeting in January, 2027.

 

It was also acknowledged that, in the short term, the number of EHCP’s may rise due to parental concerns and a desire to secure access to resources and specialist provision, despite assurances that existing support arrangements would not be withdrawn.

 

-               Concern was raised regarding the interface between the service and schools, particularly the reliance on schools to identify and request support. It was noted that some academies may be reluctant to seek assistance, as this could be perceived as a sign of failure, despite the need for support.

 

It was also highlighted that, given the number of academies and differences in resources, some schools might be more likely to pursue EHCP’s due to associated funding implications.

 

Clarification was also sought on how these challenges would be managed, including how schools would be encouraged to engage with the model where there may be perceived disadvantages and how the transition would be effectively supported.

 

The Deputy Leader suggested that schools would be likely to welcome additional support that did not place further pressure on their budgets. It was noted that, while schools received funding for EHCP’s, these often required additional resources, meaning they were not always financially advantageous.

 

Reference was made to the “Me in Mind” programme, which had achieved approximately 90% uptake across the borough since its phased introduction from 2016–17, demonstrating schools’ willingness to engage with similar initiatives.

 

Furthermore, relationships with schools across Rotherham were strong, including with academies and that there were no significant concerns regarding engagement. These relationships had been further strengthened during the pandemic, when support from the Council’s education team helped to build and reinforce effective partnerships.

 

Overall, it was considered that schools would be receptive to the proposed model and likely to engage positively with its implementation.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion noted that these concerns were recognised at a national level and that the Department for Education was exploring reforms to school funding. This included modelling options to redistribute high needs funding directly to schools through a formula-based approach, with longer-term proposals indicating that Councils may no longer retain responsibility for high needs block funding from around 2028–29.

 

It was reported that further work was ongoing to consider clustering arrangements and financial mechanisms to support this transition. However, it was acknowledged that these changes remained some years away, while the “Expert at Hand” model needed to be implemented in the immediate term. As a result, growth in EHCP’s was expected to continue in the short term.

 

In response to concerns about school engagement, it was reiterated that the majority of schools had strong, constructive relationships with the Council and were likely to engage positively. It was added that, where issues were not directly raised by schools, these could be identified through data monitoring, enabling early intervention and direct engagement where needed.

 

-               Clarification was sought on how it would be assessed whether the advice or training provided translated into meaningful change within the classroom environment.  It was noted that, in many schools, the SENCO could act as a bottleneck for training delivery and may not always have the capacity to cascade learning effectively to all staff.

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion acknowledged that a strong offer of support was already in place for SENCOs, including network meetings, training, and provision, with training having been made free over the previous two years to remove barriers.

 

However, it was recognised that a key challenge was ensuring that training translated into effective practice within the classroom. It was emphasised that the “Expert at Hand” model addressed this by providing ongoing engagement rather than one-off interventions, including follow-up support, learning reviews and regular contact from specialist staff.

 

It was further noted that impact would be monitored through termly engagement and strengthened data collection, supported by key performance indicators. Regular reporting to the Department for Education would ensure accountability and provide assurance that the significant investment was delivering measurable outcomes.

 

It was confirmed that the approach applied to all school staff who engaged with children, including classroom staff. It was noted that support would be targeted according to identified needs, including issues such as behaviour, exclusion, or engagement.

 

Unlike previous arrangements which focused primarily on children with Education, Health and Care Plans, this model extended beyond that group. While existing support for those children would remain in place, the new provision was intended to support a broader cohort.

 

-               What safeguards would stop this becoming another referral system rather than an early intervention?

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion pointed that a key challenge was shifting schools’ understanding from a system focused on individual referrals to one based on wider, system-level support. To address this, investment had been made in dedicated engagement activity, including meetings with school leaders and practitioners to help embed this change.

 

It was recognised that this represented a significant cultural shift, with funding now directed towards early years, schools and post-16 settings, rather than solely individual children. This also marked a change in emphasis, with increased priority given to early years and further education provision.

 

It was reported that, alongside updates to documentation and the local offer, a programme of engagement and training events would be delivered to ensure schools and partners understood the new “Expert at Hand” model and how it would operate from September onwards.

 

-               Early intervention included nursery provision, representing the earliest opportunity to provide support. It was acknowledged that references to “schools” should be understood to include early years settings. Increased priority was now being given to early years and post-16 provision, although concerns were raised about workforce challenges within nurseries, including recruitment and retention, particularly given that many providers were privately operated.  Clarification was, therefore, sought on the extent to which nurseries would benefit from the model and what support could be offered by the Council, given their independent status.

 

Questions were also raised regarding the role of Education, Health and Care Plans including whether there was a national intention to reduce reliance on them and how the new model would operate alongside existing arrangements. Was the approach intended purely as an additional layer of support or also as a means of managing demand and associated costs, particularly in the context of early years provision.

 

The Deputy Leader reiterated the work on SEND sufficiency had begun around 2018, following a positive Ofsted judgement, and had continued through subsequent phases after 2021. However, significant challenges in SEND remained, particularly following the issuing of a Written Statement of Action.

 

It was explained that a stronger focus on early years had developed, influenced by training and evidence highlighting the importance of early intervention, particularly for children aged 0–5. In response, an Early Years Education Strategy had been developed, which had been recognised nationally as best practice by the LGA.

 

It was noted that early years provision had since become a key priority within the borough, supported by improved leadership and a strengthened focus on education. Work was ongoing to meet statutory sufficiency requirements, expand workforce capacity, and respond to changes in entitlements.

 

It was acknowledged that, while activity could appear fragmented, a range of co-ordinated initiatives were in place across different age groups and stages, all contributing to an overarching strategy focused on improving outcomes, including achieving a good level of development in early years.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion went on to report It was reported that early years provision had become more prominent over the previous twelve months, driven in part by the introduction of national targets for achieving a Good Level of Development, with a local target set at approximately 73%.

 

Reference was also made to the Best Start Plan, which provided the closest framework to a strategic approach for improving early years outcomes.

 

It was noted that the local early years landscape comprised maintained nursery schools, childminders, and a large number of private, voluntary and independent (PVI) providers. Performance was strong overall, with around 99% of PVIs rated good or outstanding by Ofsted and support arrangements were in place to address areas of concern where required.

Support for children with SEND in early years settings was delivered through mechanisms such as the Early Years Inclusion Fund, alongside specialist teacher input, enabling timely provision based on assessed need.

 

It was explained that the “Expert at Hand” model would build on existing early years support and include additional capacity, in line with Department for Education expectations.

 

Furthermore, the wider reforms aimed to reduce reliance on Education, Health and Care Plans by providing earlier, more accessible support within mainstream settings, while still maintaining specialist provision where needed.

 

-               Concern was raised about the ongoing provision for individual children requiring one-to-one support, particularly in relation to waiting times for services such as speech and language therapy, educational psychology, and neurodevelopmental assessments.

 

The Deputy Leader confirmed that existing services and entitlements would remain in place, and that the new model would not replace direct work with individual children. While waiting times for some assessments, particularly autism and ADHD diagnoses, had been lengthy, these had reduced over time, although pressures remained.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion emphasised that the “Expert at Hand” model was intended to complement existing provision by building capacity within schools. This included supporting staff to deliver interventions, enabling more frequent and consistent support for children while awaiting specialist input.

 

Overall, the approach aimed to mitigate the impact of waiting times by ensuring that appropriate support could begin earlier, rather than relying solely on access to specialist services.

 

Concern was also expressed about the potential for substituting specialist professionals with lower-paid staff, noting that teaching assistants were not trained to deliver the same level of support as qualified practitioners such as speech and language therapists.

 

It was highlighted that children requiring specialist intervention should receive it directly from appropriately trained professionals and that there were also workforce implications, with staff potentially being asked to undertake responsibilities beyond their training and pay grade.

Assurance was sought regarding how the quality and effectiveness of such support would be monitored, and whether sufficient oversight would be in place to ensure that children were receiving the level of support they required.

 

The Deputy Leader further confirmed that children requiring speech and language therapy would continue to receive this through existing specialist services.

 

The model focused on enhancing the wider classroom environment through approaches that supported communication, such as increased visual use of vocabulary. This would benefit both children receiving specialist input and those who did not meet referral thresholds, but could still benefit from inclusive practices.

 

It was noted that school staff, including higher-level teaching assistants where appropriate, would deliver structured support within classrooms as part of planned approaches, rather than replacing specialist roles. Examples were given of whole-school initiatives, such as emotional wellbeing programmes and trauma-informed practices, which supported all children.

 

It was emphasised that the intention was not to replace specialists with lower-cost alternatives, but to complement existing provision and improve overall inclusion. Specialist support would remain in place for those children who required it, including access to special school placements where appropriate, while enabling more children to be supported effectively within their local school communities.

 

The Service Director agreed that specialist roles, such as educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, would not be replaced and that their expertise remained essential.

 

Assessments carried out by specialists would identify specific needs, such as limitations in receptive or expressive language, including the number of words or information a child could process.

 

School staff would then use this professional advice to adapt teaching and support strategies within the classroom. This included translating technical recommendations into practical interventions, such as structured activities, visual aids and communication supports, enabling children to practise and develop their skills in everyday learning.

 

This approach focused on embedding specialist guidance into classroom practice, allowing children to access learning more effectively and engage with lessons with the appropriate level of support.

 

-               Clarification was also sought on the extent to which the “Expert at Hand” offer would free up the existing Specialist Inclusion Team (SIT) capacity for individual screenings and child-led work.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion confirmed that this additional capacity within the system would enable specialist teachers, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists to focus more on individual work, as they would no longer be required to divide their time between two different roles.

 

-               Observing from both a parental and governance perspective, it was asked whether a focused or light-touch approach was adopted, effective stakeholder engagement with parents would be essential. Concern was raised that perceived inconsistencies in support between schools could lead to dissatisfaction among parents, highlighting the need for strong and consistent communication.

 

It was suggested that a significant level of community engagement through schools would be required to support implementation and for those with reservations about a whole-school approach, positive outcomes had already been demonstrated through programmes such as “Me in Mind,” including a reduction in short-term suspensions, illustrating the potential benefits of this approach.

 

The Deputy Leader was keen to point out that engagement with the Rotherham Parent Carer Forum would support effective communication with parents and help address potential concerns. It was suggested that highlighting the broader picture across the borough, including previous investment through accessibility funding and resource hubs, may help manage expectations.

 

It was also recognised that provision would not stand still, and that, as with other initiatives such as “Me in Mind”, implementation could be delivered in phases, allowing opportunities for wider rollout over time.

 

Furthermore the approach would require a high level of engagement and effective communication to bring parents on board. It was suggested that further discussions would be needed with the Parent Carer Forum and with schools to consider how best to engage with parents and ensure that unnecessary barriers were avoided.

 

-               Concern was raised about how inclusion would be measured and whether the approach would genuinely improve outcomes for children, rather than simply maintaining placement in mainstream settings without appropriate support or discouraging EHCP’s.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion emphasised that parental choice remained a key safeguard, with a continued need to ensure that parents retained a meaningful role in decisions about their child’s education.

 

It was noted that national policy was seeking to rebalance provision towards mainstream education, while maintaining assurances that no child would be required to leave a special school or have their EHCP removed. It was also acknowledged that plans for additional special school places would require strong justification, reflecting this shift in emphasis.

 

It was highlighted that a balanced system would continue to be required, incorporating mainstream provision, specialist settings, and inclusion units. Investment in local provision, including funding for inclusion bases, was intended to strengthen support within mainstream schools.

 

Children should be educated within their local communities alongside their peers, while recognising that some children would continue to require specialist settings with access to highly trained staff and specialist facilities.

 

-               Concern was raised about how the changes would be mapped and monitored to ensure that no children were missed or unintentionally displaced during the transition.

 

Clarification was also sought on how a comprehensive overview would be maintained, particularly in relation to children with potential or pending EHCP’s and how decisions would be informed at a system level rather than solely on an individual basis.

 

The Deputy Leader confirmed that systems were already in place to track and monitor children with additional needs, including those with EHCP’s and those supported within mainstream and resource base settings. However, it was acknowledged that maintaining this level of oversight during the transition would present capacity challenges.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion further explained that effectiveness would be assessed through key indicators, including attendance, exclusions, elective home education and emotional wellbeing. These measures would help determine whether the reforms were reducing barriers or, conversely, highlighting areas where the system was not working effectively.

 

It was recognised that high rates of exclusion and absence among children with SEND indicated the need for change. Monitoring arrangements, including defined targets, had been built into the SEND Reform Plan, and progress would be tracked and reviewed to assess overall system impact.

 

-               Were the Head Teachers of all schools aware of this new initiative?

 

The Deputy Leader confirmed most schools already had some awareness of the reforms, given the level of national coverage and anticipation. Reference was made to the earlier SEND Green Paper, which had not progressed, contributing to uncertainty within the sector.

It was recognised that schools were under increasing pressure and in need of additional support and were, therefore, closely monitoring developments. Guidance from the Department for Education had been issued incrementally, at times frequently, and schools were actively keeping informed while awaiting greater clarity on implementation.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion pointed out that while full operational details of how the model would function in practice were still being developed, initial engagement with schools had already taken place.

 

A survey had been issued to all Head Teachers as part of a maturity assessment process and feedback had been gathered. Presentations had been delivered to primary Head Teachers, outlining the “Expert at Hand” model and the SEND Reform Plan, with further engagement scheduled with secondary Head Teachers.

 

Updates had also been shared through the Schools Forum and the Rotherham Education Partnership, including dedicated sessions focused on the reforms.

 

It was recognised that awareness would vary and,, therefore a programme of ongoing engagement was planned from September, including further meetings with Head Teachers and school staff to ensure understanding of the model and its implementation.

 

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion took the opportunity to thank members of Improving Lives for their contributions and questions raised which had helped to bring greater clarity and focus to the proposals. Key areas identified for further development included strengthening the emphasis on early years, improving the use and alignment of data, enhancing parental engagement, and refining communications to ensure clearer understanding among Head Teachers and staff.

 

It was also  recognised that greater clarity was needed in articulating how the model would add value, how impact would be measured and how progress would be tracked and monitored.   It was also noted that communications should more clearly set out the phased approach and intended outcomes.

 

The model represented a significant shift in thinking about provision, focused on increasing capacity and supporting schools, rather than replacing specialist expertise.  These reflections would inform ongoing development of the service.

 

Resolved:-  That the EAH delivery model be received, reviewed and the contents endorsed.