Agenda item

Purpose: This report provides information on the High Needs Block (HNB) deficit and outlines the work that is being undertaken through the Delivering Better Value (DBV) Programme and beyond.

Councillor Heather Codling (Executive Portfolio Holder – Children and Family Services) and Neil Goddard (Service Director – Education and SEND) presented the report on SEND High Needs Block and Delivering Better Value (DBV) (Agenda Item 9).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Officers explained that SEND was a complex area, and it could be difficult to find precise ways of measuring the impacts. Since the publication of the delivery plan, officers had continued to refine the impact measures and associated data. It was confirmed that the delivery plan did not contain the full range of performance measures, and a detailed SEND dashboard was in development. It was proposed to bring this to a future meeting to demonstrate progress.

Action: Bring the performance dashboard to a future Scrutiny Commission meeting.

·       It was confirmed that the aim of reducing the number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) would only be achieved where they were not considered necessary to improve outcomes for affected children. Lots was being done to create early help services and support schools to be as inclusive as possible. This would help parents to feel confident that their children’s needs were being met and reduce calls on EHCPs. These would still be put in place where needed.

·       Officers indicated that the Council was in the ‘developing solutions’ phase of the DBV programme. It was acknowledged that there had not been much sharing of findings/best practice between local authorities, but this would be raised with central government. The programme was focusing on improving services and outcomes for children and young people and their families, which would in turn help to reduce costs. However, this was not a quick fix.

Action: Officers to suggest sharing of findings/best practice between local authorities to central government.

·       Clarification was provided regarding the accumulated deficit. It was explained that this would be affected by clawback, but it was expected to be around £7.5 million.

·       It was confirmed that Susan Tanner’s team was funded for one year to deliver transformation activity after which time this would become core business and Neil Goddard’s team would take over. Restructuring would be necessary to reflect proposed changes to roles (e.g., commissioning would be taken out of the SEND role). The restructure would also provide an opportunity to work in a different way and create a more coherent offer to schools (e.g., around mental health support) which would help them to better support their pupils.

Action: DfE Regional Director to be invited to the Scrutiny Commission meeting on 13 March 2025.

·       Officers highlighted significant differentials between schools in their use of exclusions and suspensions. Officers were seeking to challenge schools and to understand what could have been done in advance to support them and deliver a different outcome (e.g., alternative provision or behaviour related services). One school was recognised as an outlier in terms of the number of exclusions - officers indicated that they would raise their concerns with the Department for Education (DfE).

·       In relation to funding, it was explained that the aim was to achieve a fair, consistent and transparent system, so schools understood what support was available, and what funding was allocated to individual pupils.

·       Members noted that the Council had lost a number of educational psychologists. These roles were in high demand nationally, but there was a shortage in the market. Also, they were able to work privately and trade directly with schools, which could be more lucrative than working for a local authority. The Council had stopped offering traded services to schools in the autumn term to focus on statutory services. Interim resource had been increased, which was very expensive. However, recruitment was underway, and it was hoped to be able to offer traded services again in the New Year, including a Principal Education Psychologist. In addition, the Council was exploring different ways of working, such as greater use of specialist teachers. It was noted that only 200 students were being trained nationally as Education Psychologists each year and it took eight years for them to be trained.

·       Officers refuted the assertion that a shortage of Education Psychologists was a way of reducing spend and reiterated that current resources were being allocated to statutory work.

·       It was confirmed that the Exclusions Officer and the Education Welfare Team got involved with academies to understand the reasons for exclusions. While the Council could challenge these, it had limited powers to intervene.

·       An example was mentioned of an exclusion appeal that had lasted 9.5 hours. This was considered very unusual.

·       Members noted that statutory reviews at transition had not been completed. It was confirmed that each EHCP was reviewed annually and was led by the schools, with involvement from the Council. The Council currently lacked the resource to support this work, with officers being allocated to supporting new EHCPs. However, interim resource had been put in place to support annual reviews and consideration was being given to permanent resource through the budget process.

·       It was noted that an Ofsted Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services (ILACS) and Local Area SEND inspection were expected imminently.

RESOLVED to note the report.