Agenda item

Consideration was given to the report presented by Jenny Lingrell, Joint Assistant Director of Commissioning, Performance and Inclusion, which was submitted to Improving Lives Select Commission for pre-decision scrutiny prior to consideration by Cabinet at its meeting in May, 2019.

 

The reports set out the proposed second phase of the Council’s plans to increase and develop special educational needs provision in Rotherham and outlined the available capital budget allocated by Central Government to enable these developments to be implemented.

 

The report, therefore, recommended that the Council consult with providers in relation to new provision to meet the needs identified within the sufficiency strategy with allocation of the capital funds to develop this provision.

 

Mary Jarrett, Head of Inclusion, gave the following powerpoint presentation on SEND Sufficiency:-

 

High Needs Budget

-          £36.5m budget - £5.31m pressure

-          Out of Authority provision (£4.4m pressure)

 

Forecast – EHCP Growth

-          The number of children and young people (CYP) on EHCP was currently 2,095 (as at 11^th February 2019)

-          Forecasting over the next 10 year period would see a potential increase of over 700 EHCPs in the next 2 years

-          Forecast projection for the next 4-5 years would see a potential rise of over 1,000 additional CYP on ECHPs

-          Long term, 8-9 years ahead, the number of CYP on EHCPs could potentially double in numbers to over 4,000

-          Over the 10 year forecast this was an increase of 105%

 

Forecast – Population Growth Age/Key Stage Groups

-          Children and young people aged 8-11 years old (covering Key Stage 2 phase) and CYP who were of Post 16+ age were the most affected cohort now and would continue to be the most affected young people that required support

-          Aged 5-7 years (Key Stage 1) cohort indicated an increase from 233 to 452 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period seeing an increase in need of 93%

-          Aged 8-11 years (KS2) cohort indicates an increase from 523 to 984 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period seeing an increase in need of 88%

-          Aged 17-26 years (Post 16) cohort indicate an increase from 535 to 1,679 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period seeing an increase in need of 213%

 

Forecast - Primary Need Growth

-          Visual Impairment

-          Speech, Language, Communication Difficulty

-          Specific Learning Difficulty

-          Social, Emotional and Mental Health

-          Severe learning Difficulty

-          Profound and Multi learning Difficulty

-          Physical Disability

-          Other Difficulty/Disability

-          Multi-Sensory Impairment

-          Moderate Learning Difficulty

-          Medical

-          Hearing Impairment

-          Autism Spectrum Disorder

 

Primary needs

-          Autism Spectrum Disorder – 651 CYP – 32% of 2019 cohort

-          Moderate Learning Difficulty – 447 CYP – 22% of 2019 cohort

-          Social, Emotional and Mental Health – 373 CYP – 18% of 2019 cohort

-          Analysis on forecasting projections of Primary Needs shows that within the next 10 years the number of CYP with a Primary need of ASD, MLD, SEMH increase as follows:-

·           MLD cohort indicates an increase from 447 to 999 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period seeing an increase in primary need of 123%

·           ASD cohort indicates an increase from 651 to 1,399 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period seeing an increase in primary need of 114%

·           SEMH cohort indicates an increase from 373 to 789 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period seeing an increase in primary need of 111%

·           These needs are our largest Primary needs now and projected for the future

-          Further analysis indicates that for children with MLD the potential increase in need will be most significant at age 8-11 years KS2 and Post 16

-          For children with ASD the potential increase in need would be most significant at KS1, KS2 and Post 16

-          For children with SEMH the potential increase in need will be most significant at KS2 and Post 16

 

Forecast for School/College Provision

-          ‘Rotherham Special Schools’ and ‘Post 16+ places in Higher/Further Education’ were the most affected provisions with the highest number of children attending these school types

-          Growth in demand for School/FE places for children with ECHPs was projected as follows:-

·           Post 16 provision – currently 392 to 1,262 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period an increase in demand by 879 (2215)

·           Special School provision – currently 678 to 1,069 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period an increase in demand by 391 (57%)

·           Rotherham School/Academy – currently 583 to 992 CYP with an EHCP over a 10 year period an increase in demand by 409 (70%)

 

Forecast for School/College provision Out of Authority Area

-          Out of Authority – Post 16+ and Special School types were the Authority’s largest provision that CYP with an EHCP attended outside of Rotherham

-          The forecasted projection continued for the future

 

Phase 2

Projects	Project, estimated cost and funding stream
Wales High School (2019/20 financial year)	10 secondary ASC places £166k – DfE Grant (Year 2) £34k – Approved Capital Programme – Invest to Save
Aspire (site TBC) (2019/20 financial year)	15 High Level SEMH therapeutic places (primary and secondary) £75k – approved Capital Programme – Invest to Save
Milton School (2020/21 financial year)	10 Complex Needs Primary/Secondary places £166k DfE Grant (Year 3) £34k – approved Capital Programme – Invest to Save
Waverley Junior Academy 2021/21 financial year)	10 primary ASC places £tbc – funded from Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act developer contributions

 

Phase 3

SEND/SEMH Phase 2 report to be submitted to Cabinet May 2019 seeking approval to consult	£0.9m Basic Need Funding (allocated early to local authority from DfE for 2019/20 and 2020/21 allocations) £116k from DfE initial announcement of additional £50m SEND funding £223k from DfE additional announcement of additional £100m SEND funding £100k Remainder from previous unspent money for partnerships
	Total = £1.348m

 

A 5 Year Plan

-          Sufficiency for children with complex needs within Special Schools – Phase 1 of project (2018/29)

-          Children who were within the mainstream ability range but who had an EHCP and need higher levels of support were integrated within mainstream learning settings able to differentiate for specific subjects and there was a developed offer of a range of Inclusion units – Phase 2/3 of project (2018/20)

-          Specific outreach teams with specialisms in Autism and SEMH at both primary and secondary level were developed to support schools and develop the graduated response – Phase 4 of project (2019/21)

-          A range of high quality post-16 options with increased capacity for supported internships and work placements – Phase 5 of project (2019/21)

 

Increase use of Inclusion Units: 50 Places

-          2 x 10 pupil Primary School Inclusion Units one of which to be Autism specialism and one to be SEMH

-          2 x 15 pupil Secondary School Inclusion Units one of which to be SEMH and one of which to be combined MLD

-          Develop new ASD secondary provision at Wales at existing Swinton provision

 

Criteria for Business Case

Evidence of

-          Reduction in Permanent Exclusions across Trust/Academy

-          Inclusive Practice

-          MAT/Academy investment in Project

-          Clear business plan and project lead

-          Deliverable outcomes from September 2019

-          Borough-wide approach (consideration of feeder schools and geography)

-          Developing good practice and expertise in SEN

-          Multi-agency working and development of partnership approaches

-          Proven track record of delivering at least good or outstanding education

-          Financial stability

 

Timescales

-          Expressions of Interest and Business Cases to Mary Jarrett by 31^st May 2019

-          Shorting Panel and follow-up completed by 30^th June 2019

-          Cabinet report requesting permission to consult in relation to successful projects timetables for May 2019

-          New provision to Cabinet for approvals August 2019

-          Units have staggered start from September 2020

 

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/clarified:-

 

·           Phase 2 was a one year plan to lead to a further year’s delivery

 

·           SEND Sufficiency was not just about school places but all the services that wrapped around children with disabilities were in place

 

·           Rotherham had seen the highest and steepest growth of children with an EHCP in the country.   The Authority had an escalating level of need and was adapting to  the new code of practice. Under this code EHCPs applied up to the age of 25 compared with the previous Statement of Special Educational Needs which applied while a child was of statutory school age

 

·           There was huge growth in children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, multiple learning difficulties and SEMH difficulties nationally however, there was a higher prevalence of Autism in Rotherham together with higher levels of deprivation. The work that had taken place on developing the All Age Autism Strategy would hopefully provide some understanding as to the reasons why Rotherham had such a high prevalence of Autism

 

·           Additional Special School places were required for those children who had the ability to learn at mainstream level but needed additional support

 

·           Within the 5 Year Plan Outreach Teams would be developed who would have specialisms to work with children who had complex needs and vulnerable

 

·           A potential behaviour pathway would align services to intervene much earlier with families.  There were concerns that needs were not met early enough with the present system and escalated to the point where parents were keen for their children to have a diagnosis; their perception was that if they had a diagnosis it would unlock additional resources.  It was recognised for some children and families a diagnosis was helpful as it could  help young people understand why they felt different from others

 

·           An analysis/benchmarking exercise had not been done recently. If one was to be undertaken, it would need to be done across the whole system  e.g. health

 

·           The report had been presented to the Rotherham Education Strategic Partnership.  Rotherham schools wanted assistance to support this cohort of children and young people, particularly those that did not fit/meet the threshold for specialist provision

 

·           The Schools Forum had also considered the report and had been equally supportive

 

·           The focus of the presentation on the SEND Sufficiency was the allocation of Capital funding to create additional resources to meet the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities but at the same time the Service would like to consult with schools on their ideas for wider provision i.e. those children that did not have an EHCP or even have SEN support identified but where there might be a risk that they may not be fully engaged with the mainstream curriculum and possibly at risk of exclusion

 

·           It had been taken into consideration that not all disabilities experienced in childhood carry on into adulthood but there were also children living longer with complex needs.  Part of the issue was around transition from childhood to adulthood

 

·           Rotherham was a net importer of children into its Special Schools by a marginal number.  Rotherham had LAC from other authorities placed within the Borough or its periphery as well as Rotherham children accessing education placements in other local authorities particularly around SEMH

 

·           The Government required local authorities to place children and young people in a category relating to their primary needs to count them however, it was recognised that often the child or young person may have multiple needs which may not be reflected in the  data

 

·           The financial and procurement implications had been completed by the Head of Finance in Children and Young People’s Services, therefore, confidence that the figures were robust

 

·           It was difficult to know how realistic the case for prudential borrowing might be until the specific business case had been developed.  It would be an Invest to Save model

 

·           If Capital funding was released as described it would create a delay as to when the places were available for the children and young people; it may be in the Authority’s interests to speed up that process by having a short term Invest to Save plan if it meant that the children could remain within the Borough.  There was a risk that if children went out of the Borough and were settled in their placement, it may not be appropriate to end the placement

 

·           It was the intention to share the information presented to the Select Commission with Schools and Academies and seek their views on the proposals outlined

 

·           As a matter of urgency there was a need to increase the specialist provision hence the drive to develop the inclusion places.  The initial Capital investment was still to be realised.  Also, whilst that was taking place, the development of services to intervene much earlier was required to avoid the escalation in the projected data

 

·           Rotherham had a relatively high number of special schools that were extremely good.  In the first instance expansion of the existing provision would be considered rather than building new schools

 

·           It was noted that an out of date Equality Impact Assessment template had been used and some of the protected characteristics were listed incorrectly.

 

·           Further clarification was sought about the options put forward in the proposals as it was felt that Option 1 to retain SEND sufficiency at current levels was not realistic or sustainable. It was outlined that the only other option available was to build more special schools and special school places.  The Local Authority had taken the view that the solution was to create resilience and good practice within mainstream academies rather than building further special schools.  Special schools were very important for children with complex needs but the majority of disabled children that attended special school provision would go on to live in mainstream society. Provision needed improving for this group

 

·           Option 1, as described in the report, was not a realistic option.  A 3 year plan had to be submitted to the DfE on how the Authority was going to recover its position on the High Needs Budget.  It was obliged to show the activity and the actions that were being taken to reduce that budgetary pressure and overspend; to do nothing would not allow the Authority to submit that plan in any realistic way because without additional in-Borough provision, whether mainstream or special, it would not be in position to meet the needs of the children and continue to rely on out of authority provision which cost much more money

 

Resolved:-  (1)  the report and recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report and supports the recommendations to Cabinet as set out in the report submitted.

 

(2)  That consideration is given as to why Option 1 to retain SEND sufficiency at current levels has been included as a viable option.

 

(3)  That discussions take place with regard to possible work with partners to look at the high prevalence within Rotherham of Autism.