High Needs Review Consultation with Stakeholders

1. High Needs Review Consultation with Stakeholders Response to High Needs Review (Peter Gray Spring and Summer Term 2018) Review Proposals

2. Nottinghamshire County Council’s Vision We want all children to attend good schools, where they can enjoy their learning and achieve their potential regardless of their background. We will continue to support children and young people who have special educational needs and disabilities. We will help to break down barriers and encourage greater independence, by working closely with families, schools and partners in the health services. (Your Nottinghamshire Your Future 2017-2021)

3. Aims of the consultation meeting • To outline the rationale and early thinking on the proposed re-shaping of high needs funded services and provision • To outline proposed new ways of working in response to the impact of the Children and Families Act 2014 and the resultant challenges on budgets and services. • To share information about the scope of the consultation process • To receive initial feedback arising from consultation discussions

4. Quality and Outcomes • State-funded special schools have better inspection outcomes than non-association independent special schools (92% compared with 78% good or outstanding). • State-funded special schools are far more likely to be outstanding (38% compared with 18%) and less likely to be inadequate (3% compared with 7%). • The average cost of commissioned alternative education provision in the 18/19 financial year was £32,278, compared with the average cost of special school provision of £21,600 • Data indicates that in the East Midlands region commissioned alternative education provision currently costs above the national average

5. What are our choices? • Having a budget out of control will damage us all. The need to bring the budget under control is an imperative • The choice is between collective responsibility and decision-making for the High Needs budget, or a free-for-all • We can develop a sense of collective responsibility by enabling more local decision-making • We need sustainable and effective SEND services

6. Other related action: • the Director of Children’s Services and the CYP Committee make a case for fair funding with politicians

7. The Damian Hinds letter 17 December 2018 “Our ambition for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is exactly the same as for every other child – to achieve well in school and college, find employment and go on to live happy and fulfilled lives”

8. Underlying contributing factors to the current over spending • A prevailing ‘mind-set’ that mainstream increasingly cannot provide sufficient support • Assumptions about future provision, especially at key transition points • Nudging to EHE as alternative to school • Insufficient • Demands for commissioned alternative education provisions • Off rolling and Exclusions

9. Challenges facing schools • Ofsted accountability • DfE Targets • Individual school budget pressures

10. What are the possible solutions? How can we build in the structures and processes that require key professional stakeholders to work together to make informed, principled, proportionate decisions about High Needs funding?

11. Proposal 1District Locality Working 1. The development of District Locality Working by: • putting children, schools and parents at the heart of each Locality • re-imagining services to meet the needs of CYP with SEND in Localities, in partnership with schools • working towards Locality held, managed and monitored HN budgets

12. Pressure on High Needs Funding • Nottinghamshire County Council is experiencing significant and growing pressures within the High Needs Budget. • For 2018/19 there is a forecast overspend of £707k against the High Needs Budget (£63.977 million). This is despite a £2.3 million transfer from the Schools Block of the dedicated schools grant (DSG) and mitigating actions • For 2019/20 NCC is currently projecting expenditure of £70.596M against an indicative High Needs Budget allocation of £66,527M • Nottinghamshire’s Schools Forum agreed the transfer of 0.5% (£2.4 million) of the Schools Block to the High Needs Block for 2019/20 in order to reduce the projected overspend. Despite this transfer there is still an overspend of £1.669 million forecast.

13. Locality Model funding proposal • It is proposed that monitoring High Needs budgets at a district level would help to manage future expenditure as decision makers would be more accountable and see the financial consequences of decisions they make. • NCC would retain funding for existing central services such as SFSS, PSED, HRET, commissioning and divisional costs • NCC would use the additional funding (from the increase in HN allocation to be received for 2019/20) to develop new ways of working in Localities including development of enhanced provisions and a pilot special school hub. • The remaining funding would be devolved to localities on a percentage basis, calculated using the same proxy indicators as used by the ESFA for calculating Local Authorities’ high needs allocations (next slide)

14. Locality Model Funding Proposal (continued) The chart below illustrates the % of attributable expenditure notionally incurred by each district in 2017/18 (blue) and the percentage of devolved funding that would be attributable to each district in 2018/19 (orange):

15. The case for inclusion Inclusive practice secures: • early access to additional funding for additional provision without the need for an EHC plan • LA delegation of additional funding (such as AFN and HLN) to schools • support for children with SEND to live and be educated in their own locality

16. Proposal 1 – consultation questions 1.1 Do you support the proposal to strengthen district working in 3 localities (Mansfield/Ashfield; Bassetlaw/ Newark; Broxtowe/Rushcliffe/Gedling) to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND within their district? 1.2 Do you support the proposal to notionally allocate elements of the high needs budget to districts (overseen by the locality) to manage, and monitor the provisions and outcomes for CYP with SEND within each district?

17. Proposal 2 – Parental Confidence 2. The development of parental confidence in locality provision to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND by: • engaging with parents at the earliest stage to better understand their hopes, aspirations and expectations of the SEND offer in Nottinghamshire • working with school leaders and parents to develop appropriate curriculum pathways and provision which will meet the needs of their children and young people with SEND

18. Proposal 2 consultation question 2.1 Do you agree that engagement with parents of CYP with SEND, needs to be a priority for schools and district teams at the earliest stage? (This would be through the development of a county wide strategy to ensure that CYP with complex SEND have their needs met in local settings, so that they can enjoy the same opportunities as other children and available funding is used effectively, fairly and transparently)

19. Proposal 3 – Mainstream Enhanced Provision 3. To develop enhanced provision in mainstream schools, with support from central SEND services: • initially in 3 localities (pilots) • making use of current available accommodation • primarily for secondary aged pupils • using best practice to develop new provision

20. Proposal 3 – consultation question 3.1 Do you agree with the proposal to develop and pilot 3 enhanced provisions in mainstream schools, which will support localities to ensure that there is sufficient high quality and cost effective provision to meet the needs of some CYP with SEND?

21. Proposal 4 – Special School Transitionary Hub Pilot To explore and possibly pilot the development of Special School hubs to provide transitionary high quality provision, whilst the most appropriate provision is agreed to possibly: • move a child from special to mainstream • move a child from mainstream to special school • move a child from commissioned education provision to special school

22. Proposal 4 consultation question 4.1 Do you agree that the LA should explore and pilot with publicly funded schools the development of ‘special school hubs’ as outlined above.

23. Proposal 5 – Preparing for adulthood To ensure that preparation for adulthood starts early so that young people are supported to lead healthy, happy and productive adult lives by • developing pathways to adulthood that reflect the diversity of needs and aspirations of children and young people with SEND • encouraging more young people to access programmes of study, including work experience and for those with EHCPs, Supported Internships, which develop skills for employment • increasing the number of post 16/18 SEND accessing work related opportunities, whilst in a mainstream, special school, or commissioned, alternative education provision or FE, so that more 18 year olds are integrated into work/community

24. Proposal 5 – consultation question 5.1 Do you agree that the LA should seek to work collaboratively with publicly funded schools, early years settings, FE colleges, commissioned alternative education provision, parents, and other partners including health and social care to proactively seek new ways of working to increase independence and integration into employment, and independent/semi independent living where at all possible?

25. Proposal 6 – Develop the role of locality/district SENCOs • To develop a new role of District SENCos (within 3 localities) to support the interface for schools, parents, health and social care professionals in relation to children and young people with SEND to: • support publicly funded schools to implement the graduated response effectively • contribute to the discussions around provision and support needs (financial and advice) • be a member of the locality team within Schools and Families Specialist Services

26. Proposal 6 consultation question 6.1 Do you agree that we should strengthen the current Family SENCo model by developing a new role of District SENCo (7 in total) in 3 localities, to support the interface for schools, parents and health and social care professionals in relation to CYP with SEND in each district?

27. Proposal 7 New ways of working for SFSS To develop the role of SEND Locality Leads (drawn from the existing SFSS Senior Practitioners) to lead and coordinate a range of SEND functions and responsibilities within localities. This could facilitate a range of locality discussions and decision making with key partners (special school headteachers, District SENCos, EPS, Family Service, Health, CSC) in relation to: • appropriate provision and resourcing funded by the high needs budget • promoting inclusion in mainstream provisions, by leading the collaborative work with the District SENCOs, and the locality SFSS teams • coordinating locality statutory assessment meetings (ENAPs) working alongside ICDS locality leads and other education professionals • coordinating locality placement monitoring, drawing on information from EPs, ICDS, commissioning and placements group and partnership team

28. Proposal 7 – consultation question 7.1 Do you agree that we should review the current SFSS structure to develop a new role of SEND Locality Leads (3 FTE) as described above?

29. Proposal 8 Continue to provide the statutory sensory team as a county resource To maintain a county wide sensory team comprising qualified teachers of the visually impaired and of the deaf, supported by TAs, a habilitation officer and a sensory technician. (no change)

30. Proposal 8 – consultation question 8.1 Do you agree that we should maintain a county wide sensory team to continue to provide support, advice and guidance to all publicly funded schools and placements?

31. Proposal 9 To retain an early years TA team within localities To further strengthen locality working by: • allocating early years TAs to each locality, alongside TAs from Communication & Interaction, Cognition & Learning teams in SFSS • continuing to provide support for children with severe and complex needs within localities in PVI and maintained early years settings • supporting the transition into statutory education for children with severe and complex SEND within localities To redefine the role of the senior practitioner early years to focus on safeguarding across SFSS and to be the coordinator for initial referrals and assessments in early years

32. Proposal 9 – consultation question 9.1 Do you agree that we should retain TA teams within localities drawn from the existing Early Years, Communication & Interaction and Cognition & Learning TA teams? 9.2 Do you agree that the TA senior practitioner role should retain responsibility for safeguarding across SFSS and oversee county wide early years referrals and additionally carry out initial assessments?

33. Proposal 10 – SFSS staffing and new ways of working in locality teams To deploy 5.5 Teachers and 7.8 TAs to each locality with a range of specialist expertise drawn from existing SFSS teams for cognition and learning, communication and Interaction and early years. Their role will include: • working alongside the Locality Leads and District SENCos to develop a strategic overview of the SEND needs and the effective allocation of funding, resources including placement allocations and placement reviews • the development of advice and guidance for SENCOs in meeting needs of children with severe and complex SEND • engaging in research to provide strategic advice, training and guidance including resources • Supporting new developments such as the proposed enhanced provision enhanced provision

34. Senior Teachers Senior teachers will be maintained in the proposed new structure • 2 posts to be unchanged (Dyslexia & ICT) • 1 post to be changed to leading a county wide Autism Strategy

35. Proposal 10 – consultation question 10.1 Do you agree that SFSS staff should develop new ways of working within locality teams working alongside all publicly funded schools and settings, parents and other partners to provide detailed advice, training and guidance particularly for SENCOs to meet the needs of CYP with severe and complex SEND? 10.2 Do you agree that the 2 of the 3 Senior Teachers roles are unchanged (Dyslexia and ICT) with the 3rd post changing to lead a county wide Autism Strategy

36. Proposal 11- Development of a SFSS sold offer To develop a mixed model of traded work to include: • training on quality first teaching for SEND • Paid SEND bespoke consultancy including SEND Reviews

37. Proposal 11 – consultation question 11.1 Do you agree that SFSS should develop a traded service offer available to all publicly funded schools and settings and other partners in order to maximise capacity in schools without increasing the budget required to sustain SFSS?

38. Consultation Timeline • Full meeting with SFSS on 12th November • Briefing for members before 28th November • Briefing for Education Trust Boards in Oct, Nov and Dec • Paper for NCC Chief Executive Officer by 9th December about £7m predicted overspend on HN budget • Report to Schools Forum • Trade Union consultation in December 2018 • Departmental SEND staff consultation January 2019 and other stakeholders, schools, parents, CYP, PVI and commissioned alternative education providers • Consultation with Nottinghamshire Parent Carer Forum 18th January 2019 • 4 week Consultation with all stakeholders January 18th – 15th Feb 2019 • Consultation with commissioned alternative, education providers 6 February 2019 (including FE)

39. Any initial feedback?