Agenda item

7.1

The Committee received a report of the Director of Education and Skills.

7.2

The Director Education and Skills, Andrew Jones, agreed to circulate a glossary for the acronyms referred to in the report.

7.3

The Committee were informed that the Council’s special educational needs (SEN) service was last inspected in 2018, in which 7 areas of significant weakness were identified. The service should then have been re-inspected 2 years after, although the pandemic delayed that from happening.

7.4

The SEN service had now recently been re-inspected, in February 2022 although the inspectors had not yet published their findings. Therefore, information presented to the Committee was following the 2018 inspection, and the service’s self-evaluations carried out prior to the 2022 inspection.

7.5

The SEN service’s self-evaluation believed that progress had been made across all the services. Although, it was added that more work is yet to be done.

7.6

It was mentioned that progress had been made to 6 of the 7 significant areas of weakness. Although the 7^th area, which was multi-agency transitions, was still a weakness for the service and will be a main area to target and improve. The service will still continuously improve the remaining 6 areas.

7.7

The Interim Head of SEN, Rosemary Ward, highlighted there was approximately 4041 children and young people that had Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) within the City. That constituted to approximately 5% of the child population in Sheffield.

7.8

In May to July 2021, the compliance within the 20 weeks Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA) process dipped from 32 to 18%, with 102 plans exceeding the statutory 20 weeks’ timescale. (National average compliance for plan completion is between 55-65%). It was mentioned that had now risen to 61.8%.

7.9

The Committee were informed the SEN service had increased their staffing from 16 to 22 full time equivalent Inclusion Officers. There had also recruited to the 3 vacant manager posts therefore there was now 5 locality managers in post. They had recruited 2 new leaders, 1 for the Autism Team and 1 for HI/VI services. A new Principal Educational Psychologist were also now in post. They had also recruited a Post 16 Manager.

7.10

The SEN service had reviewed how they audited EHC plans. Following the Audit, they had decided to trial a buddy system where 3 members of staff would audit EHC plans on a triangulation system. 

7.11

The SEN service did not have sufficient specialist places for children who need them, despite ongoing work with commissioners. It was added that commissioners had increased the amount of specialist places given to children over the previous year.

7.12

The Interim Head of SEN highlighted the new performance management structures put in place to ensure performance did not dip in the service again.

7.13

Members of the Committee asked questions and the key points to note were: -

7.14

A Member of the Committee raised the importance of understanding the acronyms and localities mentioned in the report. It was suggested that mapping areas of deprivation and affluency to where EHC plans had been issued in city would be welcomed. The Interim Head of SEN stated it was a known statistic, that the more affluent areas of the city had more EHC plans issued compared to the more deprived areas.

7.15

A Member thanked the Officers for the report although it was added the report needed to be more honest. The Member stated that being honest would allow the Committee to review and comment in detail, to help the service improve and ultimately support young people in the city.

7.16

A Member of the Committee suggested that a SEND update report appeared at a future Audit & Standards Committee.

7.17

It was suggested that Officers in service travelled out to schools and worked more closely with them around support and delivering EHC plans. The Interim Head of SEN mentioned that the service did offer extensive training for schools which explored many processes in depth. They had also carried out lots consultation with schools to develop how the team around the schools operated.

7.18

A Member mentioned that a previous issue was around not having consistency between what the SEN service was saying in Committees and what parents in the city were saying to Councillors. Although now, it seemed that there was a lot more consistency happening, which was good to hear.

7.19

The Director of Education and Skills explained the funding for SEND came from a budget called the high needs block. This funding was not evenly distributed across the city. Different areas in the city would receive different amounts of funding depending on their level of priority. It was added that this could be highlighted in a future report to the Committee.

7.20

A Member of the Committee explained that it would be useful for the Committee to be informed when other Policy Committees were reviewing the same topics. It was added that it would be useful to have sight of the reports that went to Policy Committees, so that this Committee could identify areas that needed further consideration, or to inform them that certain areas had been looked at by Audit & Standards Committee, which did not need to be explored further by the Policy Committee.

7.21

The Director of Education and Skills informed the Committee that the localities referred to in the report, were set out that way due to a historic grouping of schools in the city.

7.22

RESOLVED: That the Committee (1) Noted the information set out in the report and appendices (2) Requested any further information or briefing on SEND (3) Supported and challenged regarding SEND development; and (4) received a further update report on SEND in the next municipal year.