Special Educational Needs (SEN) Review

1. Special Educational Needs (SEN) Review Facts, Background, Desired Outcomes and Required Outputs

2. Why undertake a full review of SEN?

3. SEN ReviewSome background facts and figures In 2009 pupils in first/primary schools with a statement of special educational need. Northumberland 1.8% England 1.4% Statistical Neighbours 1.3% Overall we have a higher percentage of pupils with statements than any of our statistical neighbours However at School Action + Northumberland 4.8% England 6.4% Statistical Neighbours 6.5% And at School Action Northumberland 9.4% England 11.8% Statistical Neighbours 10.6%

4. SEN ReviewSome background facts and figures In 2009 pupils in Year 7 - 11 with a statement of special educational need. Northumberland 2.7% England 2.0% Statistical Neighbours 2.0% Overall we have a higher percentage of pupils with statements than any of our statistical neighbours However at School Action + Northumberland 5.0% England 6.2% Statistical Neighbours 5.3% And at School Action Northumberland 10.2% England 12.8% Statistical Neighbours 11.5%

5. Narrowing The GapNational Indicator 104 – The SEN/Non SEN Gap – end KS2 - % L4+ in both English and Maths • In 2009 78.9% of Northumberland pupils with “no identified SEN” reached L4+ in both English and maths at the end of key stage 2. • 22.3% of pupils with SEN reached this level of attainment • The “gap” therefore in 2009 was 56.6% • Nationally the figures were 84.4% (non SEN), 33.5% (SEN) giving a • gap of 50.9%, • and amongst our statistical neighbours the gap was 53.3%.

6. Narrowing The GapNational Indicator 105 – The SEN/Non SEN Gap – end KS4 - % 5+ A*-C inc both English and Maths • In 2009 62.7% of Northumberland pupils with “no identified SEN” achieved 5+ grades A*-C including English and maths. • 11.1% of pupils with SEN reached this level of attainment • The “gap” therefore in 2009 was 51.6% • Nationally the figures were 61.0% (non SEN), 14.5% (SEN) giving a • gap of 46.5%, • and amongst our statistical neighbours the gap was 47.8%.

7. Northumberland has significantly higher than average levels of spending on SEN. Amongst our statistical neighbours we are the equal highest spenders (with Stockton), and spend more than twice that of the lowest spender (Nottinghamshire). We are easily the highest users of out of county provision, with more than four times as many out of county placements as Nottinghamshire. SEN Finance

8. An approach and systems that is considered to be strategically and operationally out of date last reviewed in 2003 and does not accommodate new developments such as - Academies, Federations, Provision Management, Common Assessment Framework, Integrated Children’s Services has ill defined Principles, Values and Expectations and incorporates perverse incentives High and rising level of costs with poor value for money being achieved Despite high level of investment in prevention and early intervention – yet over-reliance on statements of SEN a Post Code Lottery of provision and support due to the rigidity of current systems and service delivery BackgroundThe review has been undertaken as a matter of urgency - concerns relate to:-

9. A range of issues: High spending on SEN in some areas Distribution of central support is it fair and/or effective? Formula funding of ‘SEN’ is it a help or a hindrance? Statements and ‘out of county’ placements Roles of mainstream & special schools + the ‘centre’ in relation to Outcomes for young people Scope of the SEN Review

10. Findings and Recommendations

11. Issues Lack of early intervention funding fuels demands for statements Statements can be over–prescriptive & access to specialist provision is over -dependent on statements SEN funding may be not well managed or understood in schools; some double funding of ‘exceptional needs’ pupils Suggest: Increase early intervention & relax statementing conditions Look at 3 year funding models; revise ‘exceptional needs’ Improve information and focus monitoring on evaluating pupil progress Promote collaboration between schools Mainstream funding for SEN

12. Issues: Variable support and access to services unclear Type of support not always what schools want Suggest: Support for area based approach being developed by NCC Need for clear SLAs and better customer focus Consider progressive delegation Reconfigure SEN funding and provision towards school led management locally – SEN clusters, Northumberland school partnerships, Berwick Model Services

13. Issues Doubts over the Matrix system of funding Current place bands limit the ability of special schools to take more pupils with more complex needs A number of anomalies in funding different settings Issues over Outreach; Dual Placements; and Places Suggest: Consider reform of Matrix arrangements and funding anomalies Create additional place category(ies) Develop Outreach and dual placements Assess school based developments and empty places Special Schools and Units

14. Issues High level of statementing, though this is being addressed Monitoring and challenge schools’ provision for SEN Inadequate in house capacity for EBD Quality of some independent provision unclear Suggest: Shift moderation to school level Improve monitoring Develop more in-house mental health support Partnerships for therapeutic support Statements and ‘Out of County’

15. Issues Geography is only part of the explanation for high SEN transport costs Policy, practice and charging explain much more Suggest: Free transport only when need requires it Transport implications of statement decisions be considered Don’t offer spare places free of charge SEN Transport and Costs

16. Through: An Invest to Save strategy Recycling savings from Transport independent placements reductions in statements Simplifying the structure of central support services Funding and implementing future provision