Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families.

In October 2024, the Children, Schools and Families Scrutiny Committee was presented with the final report of the SEND Provision Scrutiny Panel, which, which investigated the effectiveness of provision for meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND in Camden. The Scrutiny Panel was made up of elected members and co-opted members from the Committee. The Committee requested that the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families prepare a response to the Scrutiny Panel’s recommendations from the investigation and to report back to the Committee.

The findings of this investigation revealed that there were areas where provision was not meeting families’ needs and expectations. They found that many of the issues faced locally are national and driven by insufficient resource and increases in demand and need. The report recognised that Camden has worked creatively within its budget but that there is still work to be done to improve local provision. The report made recommendations to improve practice on a local level as well as recommendations for changes that are needed national. This report contains the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families’ response to these recommendations.

The Scrutiny Panel’s investigation was gratefully received. Officers have been drawing on the evidence in the report to shape our local area partnership SEND strategy implementation plan and our priorities. The majority of the recommendations are agreed upon and included in our work plans.

Consideration was given to the report of the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families.

Councillor Boyland (Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families) summarised the report which contained responses to all of the recommendations made by the SEND Provision Scrutiny Panel’s investigation, which were gratefully received. The following points were made:

·       The Cabinet Member highlighted the following several areas of development: Schools Forum had established a high-needs group to focus on Education Other Than At School (EOTAS), Alternate Provisions, and cluster working; the SEND Inclusion Board, chaired by the Cabinet Member, was reviewing needs assessment pathways as an key outcome of the investigation; the ICB had improved funding to increase assessments, with data expected to reflect this progress; and Camden Learning was also working more closely with the Council on SEND provision.

·       At a national level, it was recognised that despite increased funding and EHCP assessments, outcomes remained stagnant or had worsened. Camden had contributed to the Government’s Education Committee’s inquiry into the SEND crisis and the Curriculum and Assessment Review, with indications that Camden’s approach might influence national policy. The Children and Wellbeing Bill would introduce statutory registration for elective home education and unique identifiers to track children's progress.

·       The Cabinet Member highlighted several key challenges and areas for improvement, including: low achievement for SEND children in Camden schools compared to London averages; underrepresentation of SEND diagnoses among certain groups; weaknesses in transitions between education settings and parent-school engagement; the need for better post-16 support and work experience opportunities; and the role of health partners in supporting SEND services, with concerns about NHS engagement in EHCPs.

·       Despite these challenges, progress had been made in early SEND identification through initiatives such as Camden Kids Talk and the Welcome Kit in nurseries. A £1.3 million investment had led to a restructuring of the SEND team, including new leads for quality assurance, communications, local offer management, and commissioning. Other developments included the Centre for Relational Practice, the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Coordinator (SENDCo) Hub, and enhanced support for schools.

·       The Cabinet Member emphasised that while improvements were ongoing, further work was needed to enhance Camden’s SEND provision. The Council remained ambitious and committed to making continual progress for children and families.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for the report and firstly invited the former Chair of the SEND Provision Scrutiny Panel to speak. Councillor McNamara (Committee Member and Chair of the SEND Provision Scrutiny Panel during the investigation) responded by outlining the local focus of the Panel’s work, resulting in 32 recommendations aimed at local improvements. Despite the local focus, the broader national context, including funding and educational philosophy, was acknowledged. The Children and Wellbeing Bill, currently progressing through Parliament, was welcomed, with the expectation that it would lead to increased funding for special needs. The £7 billion allocated to SEND was also expected to eventually reach Camden. Hopes were expressed that the National Curriculum Review would result in more oracy and group work, which would benefit children with special needs. They raised concerns regarding staffing, specifically the sufficiency, retention, and training of teachers, teaching assistants, and specialist staff such as speech and language therapists. They emphasised that specialist training in areas including ASD, SEMH, speech and language communication needs was a key concern. Retaining staff with this knowledge and understanding was also highlighted as a critical issue. Councillor McNamara also raised specific points in response to the recommendations:

·       Recommendation(R)2: The sentence regarding the number of sessions planned between February and June was unclear, and further clarification was requested. In response, officers clarified that the sessions in question were planned between February to June 2025. These were related to developing and strengthening mainstream inclusion sessions, which had already begun. The first session had taken place that afternoon with school headteachers, with additional sessions scheduled for health and social care professionals, SENCOs, and parent carers. The aim of these workshops was to define what an inclusive system looks like in Camden. They sought to work collaboratively with schools, parents, SENCOs, and professionals to understand what resources and support are necessary for consistency across both primary and secondary education.

·       R3: The notional funding for Early Years was unclear whether it referred to the April 2025 or April 2026 budget. In response, officers clarified this funding referred to the 2025 budget.

·       R4: They did not agree with the statement that the Exceptional Needs Grant (ENG) application was significantly simpler and more streamlined than the EHCP, instead noting that teachers and SENCOs felt it is still a lengthy, bureaucratic process and needed further streamlining.

·       R9: The requested acknowledgement of the Early Years Intervention Inclusion Team’s positive impact on transitions from nursery to Year 1, with a request to explore extending similar support from Year 6 to Year 7, despite funding constraints.

·       R10: They requested an update on current wait times, as the report previously identified a 96-week wait. Also, Clarification on the impact of the additional funding was sought.

·       R11B: They highlighted the impact of staff retention issues, particularly in speech and language, calling for more speech and language staff who could remain in post and train Teaching Assistants (TAs) effectively.

The Chair invited questions and comments from the Committee. The following was discussed:

·       A Member raised the point that SEND was a much broader issue than just schools, highlighting its complexity, which often involved housing, healthcare, and family support. They stressed that SEND support tended to focus on the children, but in reality, the entire family needed support. In relation to ARPs, while ARPs had been introduced in several schools and were seen as a promising option, some schools had found it challenging to establish them effectively, particularly in terms of creating the right cohort of pupils. The Member noted that many parents preferred their children to attend mainstream schools, yet some pupils in ARPs may not have been suited for mainstream education. The Member questioned whether Camden’s current approach to ARPs was the right solution or if there were other types of provisions Camden could have explored to better meet the needs of pupils who may not have been suited for mainstream schools. They suggested that Camden consider expanding ARP provision or explore alternative settings that might have provided more appropriate support for these students. The Cabinet Member stated that a range of different offers was the right approach, advocating for more integration between mainstream and specialist classes. While they believed having more options was beneficial, they acknowledged that it came with challenges. Some schools in the borough, known for being good at supporting SEND, were becoming overwhelmed as demand increased.

·       Officers stated that Camden was participating in the SEND Change Programme, which might help inform national policy and support the development of a strong, inclusive school system.

·       A Co-opted Member requested further detail on R15 regarding new commission places.

·       A Co-opted member noted a misunderstanding relating to the response to R18, emphasising that the discussion was not only about outlining provision but also explaining the rationale behind it. They highlighted the need for Camden to clarify its inclusive approach for parents, schools, and possibly the Council itself. The Cabinet Member agreed, acknowledging that the team was aware of the need for clarity. They noted that this issue was linked to the discussion on ordinarily available provision and stressed the importance of defining what inclusion meant in this context and the team was working to address this.

·       A Member welcomed the progress on identifying autism in girls and noted that the gap in diagnosis was narrowing. They asked whether this work resulted from points raised by the Committee 18 months ago or if it was already underway. The Cabinet Member stated that it was a combination of factors, including wider recognition of the issue, conversations with schools, teachers, parents, and governors, as well as research conducted by the Committee. The gap had been acknowledged across multiple discussions.

·       A Member referred to R21 and the autism journey map, stating that it had been discussed previously and was distinct from the local offer. They said that the local offer provided information on available support but did not necessarily guide individuals who had received a diagnosis and were unsure of their needs. They emphasised the importance of advising on typical pathways and helping those who did not know what questions to ask. An officer confirmed that the local offer website, released in November 2024, aimed to provide both aspects. It would outline available provisions while also supporting individuals at the start of their journey. The website would include case studies and videos to offer further guidance.

With agreement from the Chair, the Cabinet Member proposed that the team returned in four to five months' time, once more work had been undertaken. They acknowledged that many responses referred to future sessions and training and activities, and while some actions had already been implemented, others remained as future commitments. The Cabinet Member suggested that further discussions could take place via email in the interim.

RESOLVED – 

THAT the Committee note the report.