Agenda item

 

Background information:-

 

o     SENDIASS Annual Report (2015/16).

o     Case Study Rose.

o     Children and Young People’s Plan (See Outcome 2).

 

 

Paula Williams, Workforce Development & Quality Assurance Co-ordinator, gave the following powerpoint presentation:-

 

The Rotherham Context

-          There were 43,882 children and young people attending Rotherham’s maintained schools as at January 2016 School Census.  7,124 children are identified as having a Special Educational Need (16%)

-          2.8% have needs met with support of an Education Health and Care Plan

-          21.8% have needs met by a graduated response

 

Current Provision – what constitutes the current offer

-          Family Advice and Support

-          Special Schools

-          Enhanced Resources

-          Local Authority Alternative Provision

-          Post-14 Transitions

-          Private and Voluntary

-          Earl Years Support

-          The Mainstream Inclusion offer

-          Social Care Provision

-          The Health Offer

 

Special Schools (total capacity 595) – current offer

-          Hilltop – PMLD – age 2-19 95 places

Redwood Early Years Resource

-          Abbey (designation under review) 7-16 90 places (110 from September)

-          Kelford (SLD, PMLD) age 2-19 100 places

Kimberworth Primary Resource

-          Milton (Autism and Complex Needs) age 5-16 120 places

Canal Side Resource

-          The Willows (MLD) age 7-16 100 places

-          Newman (Physical needs) age 2-19 102 places

Newman Enhanced Resource (highly complex needs and autism 20 places)

 

Enhanced Resources

-          Hearing Impaired Resources

Bramley Grange Primary age 5-11 11 places

-          Hearing Impaired Resources

Wickersley age 11-16 11 places

-          Primary Speech and Language Resource

Anston Hillcrest Primary age 5-11 15 places

-          Secondary Autism Resource

Swinton Secondary School age 11-16 20 places

 

Local Authority Alternative Provision

-          Aspire

Primary (19) and secondary (60 places plus 30 in partnerships)

Sites currently being reconfigured

-          Rowan Health Alternative Provision

42 places age 5-19

-          Home Tuition

19 places age 5-19

-          Private and Voluntary

Morthyng

Really Neet Co.

-          Post-16 Providers

 

RMBC CYPS – SEND/Inclusion within Education and Skills

-          Education Health and Care Assessment Team

-          Educational Psychology Service

-          Inclusion Support Services: Autism Communication Team, Education Other than At School and Central Register, Hearing Impairment Team, Learning Support Service, Social Emotional and Mental Health Team, Visual Impairment Team

-          Special Educational Needs and Disability Information Advice and Support Services (SENDIASS)

 

Close liaison with:-

-          Rotherham Parents Forum

-          Virtual School for Looked After Children

-          Elective Home Education

 

Demographics in Rotherham

-              Evidence suggests that the population of Rotherham will increase by 1.7% from 2016 to 2021 from 261,400 to 265,800.  A growth of 4,400 people

-              We can assume that although the overall population is growing at 1.7% the adult population is producing a higher ratio of children

-              There is a greater predicted increase in pupils aged 3-19.  If realised, there will be a corresponding increase in the number of school age pupils from 44,626 to 48,858, a growth of 2,231 (an increase of 5%)

-              It is predicted that the number of pupils with SEND will increase from 7,253 (2016) to 7,616 by 2021 which is an increase of 363 pupils (5%).  This represents the total increase in SEND and includes pupils with EHC Plans and those pupils receiving SEN Support in mainstream schools

 

Education Health and Care Planning – Local Picture

-          Overall Rotherham have 1,570 statements and Education Health and Care Plans (EHCP)

-          2.8% of the population (2.8% national average)

-          As of February 2016 we have 545 Statement conversions to complete (DfE target date 31^st March 2018)

-          Conversions target 2016/17 – Y6, Y9, Y11, Y14 = 255 (in total)

-          Conversion target LDAs December 2016 – fully met

-          Average number of new EHC assessment referrals 24 per month

 

National Picture May 2016

-          Education Health and Care Plans issued within 20 weeks in May 2016

-          Rotherham 66.9% - national average 59.5%

-          Rotherham Tribunal Cases 2016/17 – one – national average 4.34%

 

Genuine Partnerships

-          National work of Rotherham Charter Team launched June 2016

-          Local Authority (Educational Psychologist) and Parent Forum Co-lead

-          Diverse team of parents, carers, young people and practitioners modelling genuine co-production, appreciative approaches

-          Consultation, training packages, tiered packages of support leading to Gold Accreditation

-          Influential to SEND reforms 2014, wider than SEND

-          NATIONAL INTEREST – Voices: National Alliance for Local Area Partnership Working

-          Partnership for NDTi (“inspirational”), Shropshire, more to follow

-          Four Charter Principles to be adopted nationally as ‘Cornerstones for Participation’, starting with four Local Authority pilots (pending DfE formal statement and funding arrangements)

-          Rotherham described by Voices as a “Mothership” Local Authority

-          Grant funding (Awards for All and Comic Relief): Parent and Practitioner Induction Programme and Young People’s Project

-          University of Sheffield regional project

-          Rotherham Forum 600+ members, positive relationships in main with young people and families, tribunals rare

-          Hybrid of Local Authority, trading and grant funds – three year Business Plan, seeking continued Local Authority financial partnership post-2017 as important social investment raising Rotherham profile and saving money for Council

 

SEND Governance Arrangements

-          Children’s Progress Board

-          CYPS Transformation Project Group

-          Children and Families Strategic Partnership

-          SEND and Inclusion Senior Management Group

-          SEND Data Dashboard

-          Education and Skills Senior Leadership Team

-          CYPS DLT – Children’s Transformation Board and Children’s Resource Board

-          Joint Commissioning Strategy

-          Health and Wellbeing Board

-          SEND Area Inspections

-          SEND Assurance

-          Children’s Improvement Board

 

Rotherham SEND Strengths

-          Excellent nationally recognised relationships with parents/carers and a high level of co-production

-          Drive and determination from all practitioners to ensure provision is matched and personalised to need

-          High take up of traded services by educational settings

-          Ability to provide high quality training bespoke to a diverse audience

-          Newly appointed stable leadership improving the whole system

 

Rotherham SEND main areas for development

-          To continue to improve and achieve timelines for Education Health and Care Plans, Annual Reviews and Statement conversions

-          Reconfiguration of provision for Social Emotional and Mental Health and Autism needs

-          Co-location of services within a SEND Hub

 

The Select Commission welcomed Catherine who was a Service user and Kerry Taylor, Service Lead, SENDIASS.  Catherine explained her family circumstances and her experience of using SENDIASS. 

 

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/clarified:- 

 

-          How good were the schools that specifically focussed on  an area of specialism able to support children with multiple and complex needs – Most schools supported children with a range of needs; even though a school may have a resource e.g. Speech and Language Resource, it would only be for up to 15 children - the rest were in mainstream school.  The School would also have a Special Needs Co-ordinator who had the experience and knowledge of the graduated response to deal with the whole range of needs of the remainder of the school.  It was very rare for children with Special Educational Needs to have just one difficulty.   The Service endeavoured to always put the child at the centre and personalise around that child. 

 

-          What was the process of reviewing children who had entered special school provision at an early age and if possible helping them access mainstream school? – A child entered into a specialist provision via an Education Health Care Plan (EHC).  The EHC, which legally had to be reviewed annually but could be done sooner, would look at the child’s provision.  It was common to have children moving from one specialist provision to another but there was not enough children moving back into mainstream provision.  Often emotional, social and health needs were of a temporary nature and the Service was investigating how services could be personalised around the children with those needs with regular reviews taking place to ensure that provision was adapted and de-escalated if needed with the child returning to mainstream as and when appropriate.

 

If a parent wanted a child to stay in mainstream school then the Service would make the appropriate provision through the EHC for them to be maintained in a mainstream school. 

 

-          How were the wishes and feelings of the young people and children captured? – Work had commenced on what needed to be developed with one of the self-assessments taking regard to the voice of the young person.  Rotherham had “Child Centred Reviewing” with some young people leading their own review.  Every attempt was made to involve children and young people in the strategic work.

 

SENDIASS had a Moderating Group that looked at its services and included representation from different Service users including children and young people and considered what it needed to offer them.  There was a Children’s Information Officer who worked with children 0-16 around SEND and a Young People’s Information Officer who worked with the 16-25 age within the Team.  The work also covered many different issues such as the annual review process, the EHC work that took place to make sure wishes, hopes and feelings were captured and they could support any SEN matter in school.  It was new to the Service and still developing but had already seen a doubled amount of children accessing the Service.

 

-          Nationally the statistic for young people accessing the Service was three boys to one girl.  Were there any thoughts as to why that particularly happened in Rotherham as well and what was the Service’s approach?  Work was taking place on establishing a better understanding of all the data to enable to address any issues necessary.  Rotherham was in line with the national position. 

 

-          The report to a approximate overspend of £30,000 overspend, £14,000 to be carried over and £16,000 to be recouped by the Local Authority.  Was the £16,000 from other agencies?  SENDIASS had been allocated £30,000 from the SEND Reform Grant when the 2015/16 annual report had been prepared.  However, at that time the Service had changed significantly due to the loss of staff.  Some of the funding had been utilised to recruit a Referral Officer for parents but the lengthy recruitment process had resulted in the underspend.  It was a similar position for the current financial year.     

 

-          Why had the provision of advice, information and support to young people moved from the Integrated Youth Service to sit within Rotherham SENDIASS?  It had been as a result of restructuring within CYPS, the development of the Early Help provision and in order to ensure that SENDIASS was appropriately placed as they who had the expertise within special education needs and disability to support families and young people.  However, the relationship between Early Help, Health and Social Care was very close.  It was hoped that parents and the young people did not see a division and that they had the appropriate specialists around the table who were working together to support the family rather than acting as independent organisations.

 

-          There was a special schools total capacity of 595 but only 20 places in the highly complex needs and Autism.  What happened if there was a need for more than the 20 places? A Sufficiency report was being compiled looking at the growth in population, the type of/how much future provision was needed and bringing the special schools together, along with providers, to look at how to plan to increase provision.  

 

-          Were there any barriers preventing Services getting into schools?  On the whole Rotherham Academies were working with Services and in most cases the SEND provision and services were well established and working before they were academised.  Through the work of the School Improvement Service the Head Teachers regularly met and shared the knowledge of what services were available.  As part of the approach to Social, Emotional and Mental Health issues, there were now partnerships of schools working together and look at how to address those needs in their localities more strategically.

 

-          What position would the Local Authority be in if a school decided it could/would not to buy in services?  Certain areas of the work were statutory such as the Educational Psychologist who had to provide a report for an EHC Plan.  The EHC Plan, once written, was a legal document which would state the type of support that was necessary which necessitated schools having to bring in the required specialists.  Schools/academies were legally bound to deliver an EHC Plan and could be directed to accept a child with an EHC Plan.

 

-          With regard to the case study, did schools buy into training and more education to stop others having to go through the same experience?  SENDIASS were there to listen, help and support the family. 

 

-          Was there genuine buy in from partners e.g. CAMHS?  Rotherham was ahead of other areas with regard to the Authority’s relationship with Health Services and CAMHS and there was a good and developing relationship with the CCG who commissioned services.  The SEND hub would be in the same building as CAMHS, health therapists and the Social Care Disability Team bringing the three areas together to develop communication and improve the EHC process and the offer that was available to families.  The CAMHS Transformation Plan had brought a team together consisting of Education, Health and Social Care staff to support parents after a child has been diagnosed. 

 

-          Were there any checks to establish if Pupil Premium was spent on the child for the benefit of the child?  Pupil Premium information had to appear on a maintained school/academy’s website.  The Council had responsibility for the allocation of Pupil Premium for a Looked After Child and had to evaluate its effectiveness. 

 

-          Traditionally there were problems on the transition from Children’s Services to Adult Services and work had taken place in this area.  Were there any particular problems being commonly encountered on the seamless life journey?  The Transition Group and Plan had brought together Adult Services and Children Services from across Education, Health and Care.  The Group was looking at a number of actions some of which had already happened.  There was now a Transitions Team in Adult Social Care that worked very closely with colleagues in Children’s starting their work with children of 14 years to commence the preparation of, not only what they needed to do as a Service, but also to prepare the young person for being an adult and part of Adult Services.  It also helped the families to understand some of the expectations around Adult Services and what was/was not provided. 

 

-          Was the Transition Team involved in the commissioning cycle looking at future services?  The Team would be involved in the outcome of the Sufficiency plan as well as the SEND hub and some of the strategic groups.  It was the intention that they be involved in every strategy for SEND that covered Children and Adults’ education, health and social care.

 

-          Governance arrangements – what role did Elected Members play?  Elected Members attended many of the meetings. 

 

-          There had been a reduction in the number of referrals to the Service followed by a noticeable sharp increase.  Was there any particular reason for that or just natural fluctuation?  The reduction in the number of referrals had been at the time of the staffing issues at SENDIASS.  So far this year, there had been a massive incline in numbers - as of 14^th March there was a 25% increase in referrals compared to the same period last year. 

 

There had also been an incline because of the change from Statements to ECH Plans.

 

-          What additional safeguarding training/checks were carried out because of the vulnerability of these children?  The starting point was that the children had to be and must be safe.  Safeguarding was a key element both in terms of staff training, commissioning of places and the monitoring of any place.  The focus on safeguarding was the first piece of work that had to be carried out.

 

The Chair thanked Paula, Karen and Kerry for their presentation.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the presentation be noted.

 

(2)  That once complete the Sufficiency Strategy be submitted to the Select Commission for discussion.

 

(3)  That the Select Commission given consideration to the establishment of a Working Group to discuss the case study

 

(4)  That consideration be given to a joint meeting with the Health Select Commission with regard to Transitions to Adult Services.