EXECUTIVE – 26 NOVEMBER 2002

SCRUTINY REVIEW OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS: RESPONSE BY THE ACTING CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER

Report by Acting Chief Education Officer

R1) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to investigate ways in which nursery/early years provision can work better in identifying SEN at an early stage in the maintained and non-maintained sectors, and to produce an action plan.

The SEN Development Plan (2001) included an action plan entitled "Early Identification and Support for Early Years Children with SEN". Much work has been done to ensure compliance with the SEN Code of Practice by private and non maintained early years settings. A draft Early Years SEN Handbook has been produced. Five area SENCos for early years have been appointed. An extensive programme of training for all providers is being delivered by the Pre School Teacher Counselling Service.

An Education Officer (Early Years SEN) has been appointed, from December 2002, to enhance the LEA’s work in relation to SEN support in early years. A new action plan will be produced by April 2003.

R2) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to request of the Education Directorate that measures be taken to:

The LEA Post Ofsted Action Plan includes actions for improving timescales for statutory assessment which are being implemented. The proposed reorganisation of the Department to create a Children’s Services Branch will ensure a clearer focus on SEN improvements. Guidance has been issued to schools on Y5/6 preparation for transition to secondary schools in line with the Code of Practice.

R3) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to request of the Education Directorate that measures be taken to achieve higher quality statement writing. It is suggested that more specific terminology should be used and additional targets covering quality be added to the SEN Development Plan.

The proposed reorganisation of the Department to create a Children’s Service Branch will create specialist Education Officers and Assistant Education Officer for SEN. Training and guidance in writing statements will be provided for specialist officers. This will incorporate most recent advice from the DfES, including advice on SEN Toolkit and High Court judgments. Arrangements to monitor the content and style of statements will be strengthened.

R4) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to clarify the funding arrangements for schools regarding the first 5 hours and to ascertain a clear mechanism for allocating more resources to schools.

The 5 hours of LSA time or equivalent is a requirement explained in the new SEN Handbook and Moderation Handbook published in August 2002.

More funding to schools would be welcome, but funding for SEN in Oxfordshire is not out of line with other LEAs. However, there is a case for further delegation of funding for SEN to schools. The Acting Chief Education Officer will be bringing forward proposals about this.

R5) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to instruct the Education Directorate to diversify away from the currency of LSA hours and to consider a wider range of resources for meeting assessed need. Specifically the Executive are asked to encourage the Education Directorate to improve funding for specified Speech & Language Therapy and to improve links with the NHS for the purchase of such provision.

If further delegation takes place the decisions on most appropriate provision will lie, in most cases in mainstream schools, with Head and Governors. It would lead to a reduction in the need for statements and the inflexibility criticised within this report.

The Moderation Handbook published 2002 moves schools away from the 1:1 LSA mould and provides advice on a broad range of actions for meeting assessed needs. Currently statements reflect the reports received as part of the assessment process, including parental contributions. They do tend to be seen as adding 1:1 hours rather than allowing schools to develop a better all round provision for SEN.

Links with the NHS are strong at the managerial level but additional resources, either from Health or Education, put into nursing and other paramedical services would enhance inclusion and improve provision for pupils with SEN.

R9) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to instruct the Acting Chief Education Officer to produce an Action Plan to improve communication and to establish standards for good communication (e.g. supply written reasons for refusal), which could be monitored in the Development Plan.

Written reasons for refusal to assess or statement a child are now provided for parents and schools as a matter of routine. Communication with parents and schools should be improved as a consequence of developing a specialist SEN Service under reorganisation proposals.

R10) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to ensure that if there are particular court cases, judicial review or otherwise, involving Oxfordshire Education Directorate, then such cases are brought to the attention of the Learning and Culture Scrutiny Committee.

The Acting Chief Education Officer would be pleased to inform the Executive or any committee designated by the Executive.

R11) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to instruct the Education Directorate to enhance transparency by producing a clear document on the revised Panels’ workings, composition and powers under the new streamlined system (or the old system if retained).

The process is now explained in the SEN Handbook and a leaflet for parents is in preparation.

R12) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to instruct the Chief Education Officer to have the SEN Development Plan reviewed annually and monitored more robustly.

The SEN Development Plan is monitored through the Department’s SEN Management Team. SMT receives twice yearly monitoring evaluation reports about special educational needs. It is proposed that this process could culminate in an annual report to the Learning and Culture Scrutiny Committee.

R13) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to ask the Education Directorate to work with Social Services and the NHS Learning Disability Trust to explore how best together, they can meet individual child’s needs (e.g. by establishing a multi-agency support team).

The Executive has already requested officers to produce a report on improved working between Social Services and Education, including relationships with Health. The reorganisation of the Education Department, including the development of a Children’s Services Branch, is a priority for the Department.

R14) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to request more emphasis be given to training for SENCos and Governors.

An extensive range of courses and training opportunities is already available to SENCos through OQSA and other providers. Ofsted (2001) noted that advisory support for SENCos is good and a good range of training support is available. SEN training is available for governors as part of the governor training programme. Every school has received SEN Code of Practice training and funding was made available to facilitate this. The Acting Chief Education Officer would be pleased to ensure training opportunities are increased, though this would have funding implications.

R6) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to investigate the use of the matrix, ensuring that it is widely published, clear, transparent and open to public scrutiny.

There exists a draft resourcing matrix which has never been seen as a set of rules or criteria but simply a reference point. For that reason it was not finalised or published. Each case for central support is considered on its merits and as a response to reports received in the Statutory Assessment. The view of the Solicitor to the Council would be welcome.

R7) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to consider introducing a more streamlined system which would involve restoring individual case officers’ powers to make decisions on statements and resources, including placement, in accordance with the Education Directorate’s criteria and statutory guidance.

Currently 17 people are involved in this area. It would be irresponsible of the Acting Chief Education Officer if he did not insist on proper line management of these officers including some means of ensuring consistency of decision taking and adherence to county policy and budgets as directed by the Executive. The "peer group plus other professionals" panel system causes no more delay than any other management technique. Panels meet weekly.

R8) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to consider the panel’s future role, such that:

Oxfordshire’s use of an assessment panel was commended by District Audit as "effective in reviewing the application of criteria for statutory assessment and ensuring consistency between schools". The resources panel is a key mechanism for ensuring consistency of decision making in relation to resource allocation for children with statements.

While Health and Social Services could be invited to join the panel it is unlikely they would see it as a priority. They can be invited if the Executive so wishes. Confidentiality issues make the involvement of the voluntary sector inappropriate. No reason has been provided explaining why the Headteacher should be to be dropped from the panel. The transparency which their involvement brings is a great asset. A legally trained chair would be very expensive and is not needed as, in any case of dispute where legal issues are of concern, the Solicitor to the Council is involved as a matter of course.

R15) The Committee RECOMMEND the Executive to consider the financial and staff implications of the 3 options referred to in paragraph 105 of the report when formulating the Special Educational Needs budget for the next financial year.

The delegation of the statementing budget to schools (option 3) is under consideration and a report about this will be presented to the Executive for their view in the new year. There is currently no "cap" to the number of statements (option 2). This is evidenced by the steadily increasing percentage of pupils with statements and the significantly increased expenditure through the statementing budget over the last three years. Assessments are made and statements are written on the basis of the number of individual pupils who meet the Authority’s criteria. Resources are allocated sufficient to meet the needs identified (option 1). The aim, in line with Government policy, is to reduce the percentage of pupils who need to have statements through the development of increased SEN support normally available in mainstream schools.