Agenda item

In July 2021, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) conducted a joint inspection in Warwickshire to judge the effectiveness of the local area in implementing the SEND reforms as set out in the Children and Families Act 2014. This item looks at the effectiveness of the local area holistically in delivering the desired outcomes.

Duane Chappell, Strategy and Commissioning Manager for SEND and Inclusion introduced this item, along with Rachel Barnes from the Change Hub. In July 2021, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) conducted a joint inspection in Warwickshire to judge the effectiveness of the local area in implementing the SEND reforms. The report set out the organisations included within this inspection and other groups from whom views were sought. A copy of the inspection report was provided with the covering report outlining both the positive findings, together with five areas of weakness to be addressed:

·       The waiting times for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessments, and weaknesses in the support for children and young people awaiting assessment and following diagnosis of ASD

·       The fractured relationships with parents and carers and lack of clear communication and co-production at a strategiclevel

·       The incorrect placement of some children and young people with an education and health care plan (EHCP) in specialist settings, and mainstream school leaders’ understanding of why this needs to beaddressed

·       The lack of uptake of staff training for mainstream primary and secondary school staff to help them understand and meet the needs of children and young people withSEND; and

·       The quality of the online local offer.

There was a requirement to produce a Written Statement of Action (WSoA) by 24^th December 2021, that outlined how improvements would be made. Progress would then be monitored over the next 18 months by the Department for Education (DfE) and NHS England (NHSE). For each area of weakness, the WSoA detailed how the concerns would be addressed. The draft plans had been circulated. A steering group had been established to oversee development and delivery of the WSoA and the future actions needed. Progress would be reported to the SEND and Inclusion Change Programme Board. The strengthened governance arrangements and communications plan were outlined. Several areas identified in the inspection were being responded to as part of the SEND and Inclusion Change Programme. Some areas addressed in the WSoA were outside the SEND and Inclusion Change Programme. The financial implications were reported including the one-off funding to support delivery of the WSoA in the sum of £98,750.

Questions and comments were invited:

• Councillor John Cooke referred to the area of weakness on waiting times for ASD assessments. He sought context on the comparative performance data for Warwickshire to that of other areas. This information was available from a performance dashboard. The aim was to improve Warwickshire’s performance to be in line with statistical neighbours. Currently, there was a lot of data which could be refined into a format useful for members, including comparators to statistical neighbours.
• It was confirmed that the information was available for each district and borough area.
• The Chair noted that the preceding item from CWPT did not include a lot of data. This would be a useful area for follow up by the overview and scrutiny committees. Similarly, the new SEND group could look at the assessment process and how early intervention work was included.
• Councillor O’Donnell pursued points from the previous item about upskilling school staff to meet the targets for improvement and monitoring the implementation of actions. She was concerned that whilst looking to support children who may have Autism, they could be moved away from the programme of support associated with an EHCP. Ensuring a consistent level of good support across all Warwickshire schools and take up of the training offer were further points.
• Duane Chappell responded on the Ofsted inspection findings that some children were placed in specialist schools when their needs could have been met adequately in a mainstream school. Some schools had not accessed the skills training available to equip their staff. There were 247 schools in the County. Prior to the inspection workforce development plans were being progressed. She spoke about the education challenge board as a tool to both support and challenge schools, to ensure that children with SEND were a priority. Duane explained the change processes being used to assist schools, with an example involving 21 schools in Rugby. This wraparound support provided expertise from educational psychologists and the specialist teaching service on a needs’ led basis. Reference also to the schools’ improvement service and other services to establish a skills audit, to understand the additional support required. Funding of £250k had been secured from the Schools Forum to provide for staff training. There were a lot of services available, but a key aspect was coordination of the service offers. Information gleaned from the Rugby pilot would provide a good baseline to roll this out across the county. It was about moving to a needs’ led system with a multi-disciplinary approach.
• Duane Chappell then spoke on establishing a baseline, the importance of ensuring that children’s needs were met, and the better outcomes achieved with early intervention. Information sharing and empowering families were further areas raised. There were good working arrangements across different services within the County Council. It was important to measure the impact for children from the activity undertaken. Data was provided on growing service demands and pressures using the example of medical needs. Capturing this data to show how a difference was being made and feedback through surveys and other mechanisms would also give evidence to inform Ofsted and DfE. There was currently a lack of confidence in the system. All of these areas were included in the WSoA to show how the impact would be measured.
• A request for members to have access to the data dashboard. This was agreed and there were two dashboards which could be shared.
• Sometimes young people had multiple challenges. If they were disruptive Councillor Matecki questioned whether they should be excluded from school and what alternate provision was made for them.  Duane Chappell confirmed that the number of exclusions had reduced significantly over the last five years and there were a range of options considered before resorting to exclusion. Endeavours were made to provide alternate education as soon as possible. An outline was given of the range of services available. Reference to the fair access protocol, a joint WCC and school led approach to place some children and consideration of an exceptional circumstance approach based on a needs’ assessment. For children with a fractured education, it was often difficult to assess their needs. The main aim was to get the child back into school as quickly as possible, with the right level of support. The Councillor responded that excluding a child where additional needs had been identified seemed contradictory and a backward step. Officers confirmed the processes which would be followed in such circumstances including a review by a multi-disciplinary team and dialogue with the child’s significant adult to identify potential underlying issues.
• The Chair commented on the complex issues within the modern day education system, with different school structures and decision making powers. There was a realisation that education could not work in isolation.  The quality of schools varied too.
• Councillor Humphreys considered that schools needed to bring in resources rather than exclude children who had additional needs. She asked when information from the Rugby pilot would available. Duane Chappell confirmed there was a baseline for the project, that it would run from January to June 2022 with the aspiration being to roll out by September, for the start of the new academic year. During the same period, an Education service review would take place with the aim of integrating services.
• Councillor Baxter Payne sought information on the provision made at nursery level. With the current delays, a formal diagnosis could take many years and so it was better to start the process as early as possible. Duane Chappell confirmed that a needs-led pathway was required, and a diagnosis did not change a child’s needs. There was an early identification pathway and an outline was given of the range of checks which could be undertaken even before birth and during the child’s early years. The services covered were for the age range 0-25 with a dedicated team for 0-5 years. Reference also to the partnership working, information sharing, aligned provision and support. Warwickshire had a good early help offer. Further issues touched on were signposting people, building capacity within the workforce and ensuring robust transitions between different settings. From personal experience, the councillor agreed that early help had been the key to helping a family member. As context, officers advised that approximately 10,000 Warwickshire children received SEND support and 4,500 had EHCPs. The benefits from this service for children could be immeasurable.
• Councillor Beetham spoke about care led pathways and schools accessing funding, asking if a diagnosis was needed for the school to access the funds. Duane Chappell gave an outline of the three elements of funding for schools, including that for specialist funding, which was often linked to an EHCP. Schools made a return detailing the number of SEN children taught but that funding was not ringfenced. The high-level funding for element three was for a specific child. Other funding streams were available such as children’s continuing healthcare funding. To provide further clarity, examples were given of the types of support the general SEN funding could be used for. This was a notional amount withing the dedicated schools’ grant. The Chair added that sometimes schools needed to be reminded of this funding provision when parents sought additional help for their child.
• Discussion about the shortage of health visitors for the 0-5 service presently and the impact this would have for early identification. There had been a downturn in the number of visits, which could in part be attributed to staff shortage and the different working methods during the pandemic. This information was important to enable children requiring support to be identified. Pathways were being established to ensure effective information sharing across agencies. Consent was obtained so that clinicians were able to share the information required to map the education support services needed. An EHCP referral could also be made by the clinician. Points about the wider service offer that could be provided for children with profound additional needs including up to 15 hours of childcare each week. The conversations with the family could be initiated by health or council professionals.
• Councillor Simpson-Vince noted the improvement area around children who were not in an early years’ setting and the challenges found around observations to accept referrals. Duane Chappell responded that these findings were not quite correct. An outline was provided of the early years’ pathway, ensuring support was in place, links through the early help offer to provide portage into other services for education or developmental support. There was good liaison and coordination between the key county council services.
• Councillor O’Donnell asked if the needs-led approach could mean that some children did not receive a diagnosis and EHCP. From experience it could be difficult to access assessments, with there being reluctance from schools to release information. It had been stated that evidence could be sufficient for an EHCP without a formal diagnosis. However, the process involved was considerable and members needed clarity on this point in order to be able to respond to residents. The new SEND member panel would similarly need guidance on terminology and funding eligibility.  Duane Chappell responded that some schools were doing well and there was a need for context, that the county council couldn’t control the schools, only give advice and training. It was an aspiration that parents would not feel the need to go for an EHCP in order to get support. Quality teaching and good strategies would benefit all children. Officers were trying to put the best service in place for schools free of charge. SENCO was an advisory role in schools, but they could upskill the school staff and make the best use of teaching assistants. 
• Councillor Barker had found the discussion useful as a chair of an academy trust. In terms of neurodevelopment, she asked a question around children that were born prematurely and the potential for those children to have additional needs that could go unnoticed. Duane Chappell responded that this was an area where the exceptional pathway may be appropriate. The data could be examined to research this question. A point that in early years the difference between youngest and eldest in a year group was more significant. 
• In response to a question from Councillor Hammersley, an outline was provided of the specialist service provision for the travelling community and for people whose first language was not English.
• Councillor Kerridge summarised the new approach where assessment was seen as a method of last resort. For councillors and the public, diagnosis had been seen as the key to getting support. There was a need to educate the public on the revised approach and he asked how that would happen. If people called the county council how were they assisted, and their details ‘held’ for future reference and support.
• As context, there were 80k children in Warwickshire. This change would take time and require a partnership approach to embed. Some duplication had been identified with an example given of training for SENCOs. Some children would continue to need an assessment. This approach required ensuring staff had the correct skills and felt capable of supporting those with additional needs. A lot of work was required with families, to give them support and hear their voice. The Warwickshire parent and carer voice had been recommissioned and would have an extensive role in a number of strategic partnerships. Communications aspects were also raised, with reference to social media, that provided through schools and thanks were recorded to the inhouse communications team for their support.

In closing the item, the Chair referred members to the report recommendations. He proposed additional recommendations on providing members with access to the performance dashboard, having a guide for elected members on the terminology used, an outline of the system and quick reference guide on who to refer enquiries to. At a future date, it would be useful for the SEND member panel to report its progress back into the scrutiny committees.

Resolved

That the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

1. Notes and comments on the outcomes from the Ofsted and CQC local area SEND inspection, as set out above.

2. Endorses the progress made to date to deliver the Written Statement of Action ahead of the submission to Ofsted and CQC by 24^th December 2021.

3. Requests that members are provided access to the data dashboard and that a guide is produced for elected members on the terminology used, an outline of the system and quick reference guide on who to refer enquiries to.

4. Requests the SEND member panel report its progress back into the overview and scrutiny committees after six months.