A period of 30 minutes has been set aside for members of the public to ask questions on the agenda for tonight’s meeting.
Minutes:
The following questions were received in advance of the meeting:
Question 1:
Ms Garbett
A number of Bury Primary Schools have been awarded funding for resource provisions starting Sept 2023.
Please confirm the procedure followed for identifying suitable schools to develop resource provision and hence entitlement to funding.
From information published, some schools received very significant amounts of funding for these provisions - how was this funding calculated and what measures are in place to monitor how this funding is used?
How will the success of these resource provisions be monitored?
Answer 1:
Councillor Smith
The Resourced Provision unit is a well-established arrangement, with a number of mainstream schools having hosted a unit for many years. The Council is now increasing the number of RP units in order to create capacity to meet increasing demands. The Council has identified the needs that need to be met through new RP’s, primarily ASC and SEMH, and the level of additional capacity required.
All schools were asked in 2020/21 to express an interest in hosting an RP, and the Council is now working with a number of them to develop new provision. In 2021 the DFE approved a number of the programmes but did not approve others which impacted on decision making. Schools have subsequently been selected based on existing evidence of meeting need, capacity to establish the provision, and a geographical spread across the borough.
Prior to formal establishment, the schools is required to consult widely on the proposal, and then, depending on whether it is a maintained school or an academy, there is a formal legal process to be followed. A specification has been produced that schools are expected to work to in relation to how the RP functions. This specification sets out amongst other things the referral pathways enabling admission to an RP place, and also the funding profile.
Whilst there are a number of historical differences, going forward all RP will be funding on the same basis. All RP will receive a fixed sum for the number of places available, and this will be topped up by an agreed amount for each place taken up. This recognizes that the school must meet certain costs regardless of whether all places are taken up throughout the year. The per pupil funding for each RP place, falls on a continuum between the cost of a mainstream school place and a special school place.
Ongoing monitoring of RP will look at how effective the provision meets outcomes set out in EHC plans, wider educational outcomes for the school, and inspection judgements. Resource Provisions are subject to Ofsted as the regulator and will be inspected when the host school is being inspected. In addition to that existing QA arrangements will extend to Resource provisions.
Question 2:
Ms Wilson
My question relates to the LA’s bar graph representing selected statistics on EHCPs in Bury. I would like clarification on a few points where the graph and statistics appear misleading or lacking. Firstly, in relation to the percentage of EHCPs agreed/refused after assessment, can you confirm that the bar at the bottom of the graph does does not correctly reflect the actual percentage split of 97% agreed and 2% refused?
Secondly, the middle section of the graph provides the percentage split of requests that are agreed and requests that are refused. Can you clarify whether these statistics reflect initial responses by the LA or whether they take into account requests that were initially refused but are subsequently agreed after mediation or tribunal. If they only reflect the LA’s initial responses, can you provide the missing information, ie the percentage of requests which are initially refused but which are subsequently agreed via mediation or tribunal.
Answer 2:
Councillor Smith
The figures are an accurate reflection but we agree that the visual chart is not and would like to extend apologies.
This will be rectified on the next report. To confirm as of 1st August we had 260 cases go through an EHCP assessment pathway and of these we had 7 refusals that were subsequently issued as Support plans rather than EHCPs. This is where the 2.7%.figure came from
In regard to the supplementary question, these are initial responses to the requests as this is what we have to provide for our statutory returns. Tribunal and mediation information is then reported separately on the annual SEN2 return. While LAs aren't required to consider a further request for EHC assessment for 6 months following a decision to decline an assessment, in Bury, we will accept a re-submission at any time with additional advice, which means some of the refusals may have come back in as a further request. These requests are reflected in the figures as they are treated as formal requests.
In terms of Tribunal and mediation turnaround, as at 1st August (as per date of report): Please note to GDPR regulations we cannot give an exact figure other than it is below 5
Mediation: There have been less than 5 mediations on the issues of refusal to assess and the decision to be turned around and an assessment then subsequently carried out.
Tribunal: There has been under 5 appeals to the tribunal on the grounds of a refusal to assess .
In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules, Councillor Boles invited questions from other members of the public present.
Question 3:
Ms Kinloch
Is the Council aware of its failings to correctly respond to and deal with complaints made in accordance with its own policy? Formal complaints are frequently not being acknowledged or responded to, what are the routes you would suggest parents take to have their concerns addressed?
Answer 3:
Councillor Smith
This refers back to our last Scrutiny Committee about how many complaints and questions we were receiving and the inundation that we were trying to deal with too much in the system. We have now recruited more staff to deal with that workload and in addition we are trying to separate the complaints into complaints about staff and teams with complaints about service delivery.
Isobel Booler
The Chief Executive of Bury Council is very aware of the complaints in relation to SEND and is taking a personal interest in what they are about therefore thematic learning is being done including timeliness of responses. It does sadden me that this is a question but know there is a large amount being done to improve SEND provision across the local area and the commitment and partnership seen at the SEND Board today has the commitment to operationally improve the service. We have also got a corporate central team to look at what is happening with the phones.
Councillor Boles
In addition Councillor Boles added that this is an issue that has been brought to the Committees attention and hasn’t been able to be covered in the depth that the Committee would want so later in the meeting we will discuss the proposal of establishing a task and finish group covering SEND.
Question 4
Ms Marek
At the Scrutiny Committee in June I asked a question relating to parents financing EOTAS provision while awaiting payments to be received. I was told at that Committee meeting I would be contacted with a response however three months later I have still not had any contact regarding that. My question today is parents being left in the position to finance their children’s education due to the delays from the local authority in taking action when children are unable to attend school and there are delays in personal budgets or EOTAS payments. I would like to know what is being done to ensure children who are not able to access school are being provided with appropriate education and what is being done to ensure that timely payment of personal budget is being made to parents because where there a delays parents are impacted financially and missing more education.
Answer 4
Isobel Booler
It is really unusual circumstances where a child cannot attend school, there are two parts to this question. Bury is looking at its attendance processes and to strengthen them. Where it is that the placement is not suitable then that has to ben done on an individual basis though an EHCP review. Once we then enter an EOTAS package and a personal budget they go through funding panels. An EOTAS policy is scheduled to be progressed by the end of October.
Isobel Booler made a commitment to meet with Ms Marek following the meeting to review the individual case to get a resolution.
Question 5
Ms. Hampson
As you are aware I have attended regularly, raised concerns and been given empty promises. I have followed the correct processes and procedures, I have also gone through the complaints process up to ombudsman which have been upheld and I have met with you, but still no accountability is held for children out of education. In addition there is no accountability for the legal framework to be followed with regards to EHCP’s. I want to know who is the SEND team accountable to?
Answer 5
Councillor Smith
The SEND team is accountable to the Executive Director for Childrens Services and they are accountable to the Chief Executive of Bury Council. There is also a tribunal process that can be followed if unhappy with the decision of the Council.
Question 6
Ms Delaney
After tribunal, why are the orders not being followed, specifically for full time education and those out of school.
Answer 6
Councillor Smith
Orders should be followed and if there is a specific issue this should be picked up outside the meeting.