Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
88
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Panel - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 17th June 2024
2:30 PM
Monday, 17th June 2024
2:30 PM
End:
Monday, 17th June 2024
6:30 PM
Monday, 17th June 2024
6:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
17 Jun 2024
17 Jun 2024
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Guest
Georgina Lightfoot
UNISON
Absent
Co-Optee
Bernadette Nesbit
Diocese of Hallam Roman Catholic Church
Apologies
Chair
Councillor Leanne Hempshall
Present, as expected
Vice-Chair
Deputy Civic Mayor
Committee Member
Councillor Laura Bluff
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Susan Durant
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Charlie Hogarth
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Tracey Moran
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Rob Reid
Present, as expected
Co-Optee
Antoinette Drinkhill
Church of England Education Representative
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Steve Cox, Councillor Laura Bluff, Councillor Tracey Moran, and Bernadette Nesbitt.
2
To consider the extent, if any, to which the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.
Minutes
There were no items of business where the press and public were to be excluded from the meeting.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any.
Minutes
There were no declarations made.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on 14th March 2024
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 14/03/2024 Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Panel 07 Jun 2024
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 14th March 2024, agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
5
Public Statements
(A period not exceeding 20 minutes for statements from up to 5 members of the public on matters within the Panel’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be considered or contribute towards the future development of the Panel’s work programme).
Minutes
There were no public statements made.
6
Equity and Inclusion and Dedicated Schools Grant and High Needs Block Funding Update
Attachments:
- Document 170624 07 Jun 2024
Minutes
The Service Director for Education and Skills presented a paper updating the Panel on the progress of plans as part of the SEND Transformation Programme. The report also outlined steps being taken to manage pressure on the Dedicated Schools Grant High Needs block and the progress and next steps in the delivery of our strategy to improve the local provision for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).
The Panel held a discussion which addressed the following areas.
Deliverability of the Plan - In terms of how achievable the plan was in meetings its aims; Members were informed that although Officers were as assured as they could be, there were no guarantees. The Service Director of Children Young People and Families continued to say that as a directorate they were very confident in the group that they had, where the spend was and how things were being addressed.
It was felt that engagement had been positive, with most schools being included. It was explained that the SEND partnership board was multi-agency and had been well-attended, demonstrating the genuine recognition and commitment across place and helping to drive this agenda forward.
It was explained that in terms of the broader partnership, we were closer to where we had ever been before both on a strategic and operational level. Members heard that several projects had been successfully taken through the joint commissioning strategy.
It was added that representation of health agencies was good and that the understanding of the education system by health agencies (and vice versa) had come a long way. It was added that there was no differentiation in respect of schools and academies in relation to this work.
Concern was raised around capacity for services such as speech and language and pre-school support. It was recognised that although these services were going well, they continued to represent two areas of challenge. It was acknowledged that engagement all-round had improved although need and demand was also changing. It was viewed that the thinking around this needed to be more agile and for us to be able to take partners on that journey.
It was felt that children were being better engaged with though steps undertaken such as training provided, the SENCo network (which was working well) and improved Safeguarding Designated Lead conversations.
Capital Grant – A question was asked whether the £5.58m high needs capital grant would be best used to facilitate SEND provision within existing buildings where appropriate within academies rather than costly new building with more risk and delay when considering planning permissions.
It was explained that for the last period the capital funding had been about making adjustments in existing schools, such as expanding provision. It was explained that sometimes this was about a modular or about classroom change or could be both. It was about refurbishing existing sites where there was no alternative or otherwise would be new.
It was acknowledged that there were constraints on school estates concerning physical space and that conversations were already taking place. In relation to 4 new Social, Emotional, and Mental Health (SEMH) enhanced resource provisions and extended ‘early intervention’ support into a number of primary schools’ resources, it was explained that 3 were fully functional and working and the remaining provision would be opened in September.
It was questioned whether a separate building to facilitate children and young people with SEND were still places for learning. Members were assured that this was an educational provision and not a substitute for the curriculum experience. Members were assured that all young people who were placed in these provisions would have an appropriate and challenging curriculum. It was continued that there would be sufficient challenge as part of the Council’s quality assurance role and as part of contractual arrangements and it would be ensured that those young people would be involved in mainstream activities, lessons, and provision wherever possible. Members were told that from where provisions had been opened, it could be seen that young people who had not accessed mainstream provision for some time, now formed part of the local community and checks were in place to make sure that was happening.
Budget Pressures – Members were informed that over the last 2 years, the Council had top-sliced school budgets by 0.5% to support the high needs block (and this could be increased even further). It was clarified that this had applied to both mainstream and academy schools. Members were assured that as part of the principles of the partnership, signed up to by schools, it was the collective responsibility as a whole and that work was being driven through the school’s forum.
Concern was raised regarding the requirement for schools to increase ‘notional’ SEND funding from 8% of school budget to 11%, before resorting to the High Needs Block. It was recognised that this was one of the most complicated areas of guidance and explained that there were essentially 3 waves of funding that schools had for children. This consisted of 1. pupils’ money going into schools on a per-pupil basis, 2. the part of the school budget that was nominally designated to special needs and finally 3. where a child’s level of needs was seen as exceptional the local authority would provide that funding. An explanation was provided on issues around the part of the budget designated to special needs and how there was a planning guide in place for Headteachers. It was explained that the amount was based on a formula that did not have deprivation factored in within it, meaning that the amount, notionally for Headteachers to spend, was lower than within most local authorities. There was a brief discussion around funding structure issues, notional funding and what it meant for schools and young people.
GHDA Pathways – Concern was raised that although numbers had improved around GHDA pathways, young people were being missed as they presented as fine when at school.
Members were told how the reduction in the GHDA pathway waiting times and numbers were due to the hard work of the multi-agency team and by creating a system that was more agile and electronic. Members were told how a piece of work was being undertaken around girls and awareness and that training and guidance had been rolled out to schools to address this. There was also a piece of work being carried out with the primary sector to look at the identification of needs when not visible and obvious. Members were informed of work on coaching schools with identification, informing new needs descriptors to ensure that we can work with school through a consistent practice in spotting those needs. It was commented that historically there had been a challenge with that level of awareness and being able to identify needs at the right point. Members were informed of the work being undertaken with health agencies to be able to put in an early level of an assessment report to ensure that needs were identified at the right point with the right action in place. It was noted that that it was a fast-moving agenda in terms of the way children’s needs were being presented within the system.
Members were assured that the process and route to EHCPs were clearer, tighter, and more robust. Reference was made to what had been put in place including the professional and parental tool kit.
Members heard that although more requests were being seen for EHCPs, none of the Council’s thresholds or continuation of needs had changed and that families were still being supported at the right level and with the right opportunities. It was explained that an increased number of applications were coming through that did not meet those criteria, which was something that should be supported lower down as well. Reference was made to the broader idea and ambition that children should be supported as part of being an inclusive city, regardless of whether a support plan was in place.
In terms of parents having the correct knowledge and being better informed, it was explained that the following had taken place.
· That there were surgeries with parents every six months with around 300 parents in attendance helping to shape the future (a parental toolkit was developed from this).
· That the SEND partnership had a parent forum that helped inform next steps.
· That there had been a good uptake from a survey undertaken through social media.
It was felt that these examples demonstrated how effectively the Council and partnership was now engaging with parents. An explanation was provided how the strategy had been predicated on the voice of families in the system and how this was working going forward including accountability on progress against the strategy’s priorities.
Reference was also made to the value of information received through the performance clinic and quality audits being completed around EHCsP and were seeing young person’s voice which was encouraging.
Improving Efficiency - It was questioned how the new price review process would reduce the costs of external placements given that this was a significant area of overspend. Members were told how service placements had been joined up with commissioning, and it was explained how commissioning regularly reviewed and challenged providers. An example was used where there would be a further discussion if the provider put in for an annual uplift. It was considered that there was something about the quality assurance of placements versus the cost of placement and transparency and through building in professional relationships, meant that the uplift was not necessarily there by default. It was continued how instead of individual placements; a block purchase of several placements was required to provide economies of scale. It was seen that this was a wider piece of work to be undertaken locally and nationally as we did not have complete control over this area.
Going Forward – Concern was raised about the reported funding pressures in mainstream schools and the impact on support for SEND pupils, targets set for attainment and results around inclusivity. It was commented that this concerned many on a national level and was about the balance of influences in the system that meets the needs of children and young people. It was explained that this was viewed as a challenge that needed to be met locally and behind why the level of partnership engagement had so been important and why a strong set of principles and an inclusion charter had been developed. It was added that there was also a challenge about the resources, knowledge, and level of expertise required to reach that point. Members heard how the Council was committed to ongoing work with schools to support and challenge to help them with making good decisions, high quality teaching and interventions. It was felt that the combination of legislation and challenges around funding have led schools and local authorities to difficult place. It was noted that a great deal of work was needed over a sustained period. Reference was made to the important work of policy shaping and the key work being undertaken to influence policy.
Resourcing - In terms of resourcing, it was explained that most additional high needs spending was used on staffing. It was continued that support and advice was being given to schools and providers around recruitment and retention over the course of the next year.
Members were informed that whilst the plan set out a clear estimate of the support that was needed, it was not necessarily around the cost element. It was felt that it would be helpful for all partners around the table at the annual review to ensure that there was a robust conversation about whether resources were being delivered. It was continued that there were three layers of checks in place including 1. across health, 2. the local authority and schools undertake a quality assurance process tested with families and 3. as before but on a case audit basis. It was explained that when areas were identified as being not where they needed to be, they were reported back to the SEND board (who have a strategic and operational responsibility) and escalated to make sure that those services did what they needed to do.
Costs Per Child – In response to why it cost double the amount per child annually (at £18,198 per pupil to attend a special school rather than £9,079 in mainstream), Members were told that there was a continuum of need. It was explained that for pupils in mainstream schools, there was a certain level of support that comes from the school budget up to £6,000, and above that, provided by the local authority to meet significant need. Members heard that with specialist provision, the more complex needs required a higher level of staffing, resourcing and equipment that was specific to the needs of those children and therefore resulted in higher costs.
It was questioned whether a young person needed an EHCP to attend a special school. It was responded that where a young person’s needs were complex enough to warrant a special needs place, it was important that the statutory process worked for them as early as possible in the system. It was felt that there should be a local array of specialist places for young people in the city and work was being undertaken with the specialist estate to make sure that the places on offer would anticipate the needs of young people.
The Chair made a statement that the report had many positives and demonstrated how Doncaster performed well and was in many ways ahead of the trend. It was continued that there were solutions to the deficit and that we were not a city short of ideas to ensure that future finance regarding SEND was healthy. The Chair shared her concern that the emphasis needed to be brought back to the children and young people and although the impacts on the public purse were understood, her interest was to know more about the impact on Doncaster children and young people with SEND.
Resolved that the Panel.
a. Note the progress that the local system in Doncaster is making, despite escalating challenges.
b. Note and support the strategic intent in terms of future sufficiency, noting how this will contribute to future cost avoidance.
c. Note the new High Needs Capital grant of £5.58m, from the Department for Education.
d. Note and considered all information provided.
The Panel held a discussion which addressed the following areas.
Deliverability of the Plan - In terms of how achievable the plan was in meetings its aims; Members were informed that although Officers were as assured as they could be, there were no guarantees. The Service Director of Children Young People and Families continued to say that as a directorate they were very confident in the group that they had, where the spend was and how things were being addressed.
It was felt that engagement had been positive, with most schools being included. It was explained that the SEND partnership board was multi-agency and had been well-attended, demonstrating the genuine recognition and commitment across place and helping to drive this agenda forward.
It was explained that in terms of the broader partnership, we were closer to where we had ever been before both on a strategic and operational level. Members heard that several projects had been successfully taken through the joint commissioning strategy.
It was added that representation of health agencies was good and that the understanding of the education system by health agencies (and vice versa) had come a long way. It was added that there was no differentiation in respect of schools and academies in relation to this work.
Concern was raised around capacity for services such as speech and language and pre-school support. It was recognised that although these services were going well, they continued to represent two areas of challenge. It was acknowledged that engagement all-round had improved although need and demand was also changing. It was viewed that the thinking around this needed to be more agile and for us to be able to take partners on that journey.
It was felt that children were being better engaged with though steps undertaken such as training provided, the SENCo network (which was working well) and improved Safeguarding Designated Lead conversations.
Capital Grant – A question was asked whether the £5.58m high needs capital grant would be best used to facilitate SEND provision within existing buildings where appropriate within academies rather than costly new building with more risk and delay when considering planning permissions.
It was explained that for the last period the capital funding had been about making adjustments in existing schools, such as expanding provision. It was explained that sometimes this was about a modular or about classroom change or could be both. It was about refurbishing existing sites where there was no alternative or otherwise would be new.
It was acknowledged that there were constraints on school estates concerning physical space and that conversations were already taking place. In relation to 4 new Social, Emotional, and Mental Health (SEMH) enhanced resource provisions and extended ‘early intervention’ support into a number of primary schools’ resources, it was explained that 3 were fully functional and working and the remaining provision would be opened in September.
It was questioned whether a separate building to facilitate children and young people with SEND were still places for learning. Members were assured that this was an educational provision and not a substitute for the curriculum experience. Members were assured that all young people who were placed in these provisions would have an appropriate and challenging curriculum. It was continued that there would be sufficient challenge as part of the Council’s quality assurance role and as part of contractual arrangements and it would be ensured that those young people would be involved in mainstream activities, lessons, and provision wherever possible. Members were told that from where provisions had been opened, it could be seen that young people who had not accessed mainstream provision for some time, now formed part of the local community and checks were in place to make sure that was happening.
Budget Pressures – Members were informed that over the last 2 years, the Council had top-sliced school budgets by 0.5% to support the high needs block (and this could be increased even further). It was clarified that this had applied to both mainstream and academy schools. Members were assured that as part of the principles of the partnership, signed up to by schools, it was the collective responsibility as a whole and that work was being driven through the school’s forum.
Concern was raised regarding the requirement for schools to increase ‘notional’ SEND funding from 8% of school budget to 11%, before resorting to the High Needs Block. It was recognised that this was one of the most complicated areas of guidance and explained that there were essentially 3 waves of funding that schools had for children. This consisted of 1. pupils’ money going into schools on a per-pupil basis, 2. the part of the school budget that was nominally designated to special needs and finally 3. where a child’s level of needs was seen as exceptional the local authority would provide that funding. An explanation was provided on issues around the part of the budget designated to special needs and how there was a planning guide in place for Headteachers. It was explained that the amount was based on a formula that did not have deprivation factored in within it, meaning that the amount, notionally for Headteachers to spend, was lower than within most local authorities. There was a brief discussion around funding structure issues, notional funding and what it meant for schools and young people.
GHDA Pathways – Concern was raised that although numbers had improved around GHDA pathways, young people were being missed as they presented as fine when at school.
Members were told how the reduction in the GHDA pathway waiting times and numbers were due to the hard work of the multi-agency team and by creating a system that was more agile and electronic. Members were told how a piece of work was being undertaken around girls and awareness and that training and guidance had been rolled out to schools to address this. There was also a piece of work being carried out with the primary sector to look at the identification of needs when not visible and obvious. Members were informed of work on coaching schools with identification, informing new needs descriptors to ensure that we can work with school through a consistent practice in spotting those needs. It was commented that historically there had been a challenge with that level of awareness and being able to identify needs at the right point. Members were informed of the work being undertaken with health agencies to be able to put in an early level of an assessment report to ensure that needs were identified at the right point with the right action in place. It was noted that that it was a fast-moving agenda in terms of the way children’s needs were being presented within the system.
Members were assured that the process and route to EHCPs were clearer, tighter, and more robust. Reference was made to what had been put in place including the professional and parental tool kit.
Members heard that although more requests were being seen for EHCPs, none of the Council’s thresholds or continuation of needs had changed and that families were still being supported at the right level and with the right opportunities. It was explained that an increased number of applications were coming through that did not meet those criteria, which was something that should be supported lower down as well. Reference was made to the broader idea and ambition that children should be supported as part of being an inclusive city, regardless of whether a support plan was in place.
In terms of parents having the correct knowledge and being better informed, it was explained that the following had taken place.
· That there were surgeries with parents every six months with around 300 parents in attendance helping to shape the future (a parental toolkit was developed from this).
· That the SEND partnership had a parent forum that helped inform next steps.
· That there had been a good uptake from a survey undertaken through social media.
It was felt that these examples demonstrated how effectively the Council and partnership was now engaging with parents. An explanation was provided how the strategy had been predicated on the voice of families in the system and how this was working going forward including accountability on progress against the strategy’s priorities.
Reference was also made to the value of information received through the performance clinic and quality audits being completed around EHCsP and were seeing young person’s voice which was encouraging.
Improving Efficiency - It was questioned how the new price review process would reduce the costs of external placements given that this was a significant area of overspend. Members were told how service placements had been joined up with commissioning, and it was explained how commissioning regularly reviewed and challenged providers. An example was used where there would be a further discussion if the provider put in for an annual uplift. It was considered that there was something about the quality assurance of placements versus the cost of placement and transparency and through building in professional relationships, meant that the uplift was not necessarily there by default. It was continued how instead of individual placements; a block purchase of several placements was required to provide economies of scale. It was seen that this was a wider piece of work to be undertaken locally and nationally as we did not have complete control over this area.
Going Forward – Concern was raised about the reported funding pressures in mainstream schools and the impact on support for SEND pupils, targets set for attainment and results around inclusivity. It was commented that this concerned many on a national level and was about the balance of influences in the system that meets the needs of children and young people. It was explained that this was viewed as a challenge that needed to be met locally and behind why the level of partnership engagement had so been important and why a strong set of principles and an inclusion charter had been developed. It was added that there was also a challenge about the resources, knowledge, and level of expertise required to reach that point. Members heard how the Council was committed to ongoing work with schools to support and challenge to help them with making good decisions, high quality teaching and interventions. It was felt that the combination of legislation and challenges around funding have led schools and local authorities to difficult place. It was noted that a great deal of work was needed over a sustained period. Reference was made to the important work of policy shaping and the key work being undertaken to influence policy.
Resourcing - In terms of resourcing, it was explained that most additional high needs spending was used on staffing. It was continued that support and advice was being given to schools and providers around recruitment and retention over the course of the next year.
Members were informed that whilst the plan set out a clear estimate of the support that was needed, it was not necessarily around the cost element. It was felt that it would be helpful for all partners around the table at the annual review to ensure that there was a robust conversation about whether resources were being delivered. It was continued that there were three layers of checks in place including 1. across health, 2. the local authority and schools undertake a quality assurance process tested with families and 3. as before but on a case audit basis. It was explained that when areas were identified as being not where they needed to be, they were reported back to the SEND board (who have a strategic and operational responsibility) and escalated to make sure that those services did what they needed to do.
Costs Per Child – In response to why it cost double the amount per child annually (at £18,198 per pupil to attend a special school rather than £9,079 in mainstream), Members were told that there was a continuum of need. It was explained that for pupils in mainstream schools, there was a certain level of support that comes from the school budget up to £6,000, and above that, provided by the local authority to meet significant need. Members heard that with specialist provision, the more complex needs required a higher level of staffing, resourcing and equipment that was specific to the needs of those children and therefore resulted in higher costs.
It was questioned whether a young person needed an EHCP to attend a special school. It was responded that where a young person’s needs were complex enough to warrant a special needs place, it was important that the statutory process worked for them as early as possible in the system. It was felt that there should be a local array of specialist places for young people in the city and work was being undertaken with the specialist estate to make sure that the places on offer would anticipate the needs of young people.
The Chair made a statement that the report had many positives and demonstrated how Doncaster performed well and was in many ways ahead of the trend. It was continued that there were solutions to the deficit and that we were not a city short of ideas to ensure that future finance regarding SEND was healthy. The Chair shared her concern that the emphasis needed to be brought back to the children and young people and although the impacts on the public purse were understood, her interest was to know more about the impact on Doncaster children and young people with SEND.
Resolved that the Panel.
a. Note the progress that the local system in Doncaster is making, despite escalating challenges.
b. Note and support the strategic intent in terms of future sufficiency, noting how this will contribute to future cost avoidance.
c. Note the new High Needs Capital grant of £5.58m, from the Department for Education.
d. Note and considered all information provided.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in