A progress report on the SEND and SEHM reviews
was presented, Document KE, by the Intelligence and Sufficiency
Manager and the Deputy Director, Education and Learning. This
report responded to the requests made by Members at the last
meeting for clarification on alternative provision review and on
the SEMH continuum. An update was also provided on work taking
place to address the sufficiency of SEND places.
Following from matters arising, Members agreed
that the methodology that the DfE has used to distribute high needs
capital funding should be challenged in the strongest terms
possible. The Deputy Director responded that elected members would
support the Forum’s concerns that the methodology has
resulted in a disproportionate and insufficient capital allocation
for Bradford. The Deputy Director advised that she will speak
further with the Deputy Leader on this and that the Schools Forum
could write directly to the Minister on this matter. The Chair
agreed that the Forum should do this.
In responding to the update in Document KE,
Members made the following main comments and asked the following
main questions:
- What is the status of the new SEMH Free School? The Intelligence
and Sufficiency Manager responded that no decision has yet been
received from the DfE in response to the options document we have
submitted. It was reported additionally that we have just been
notified that our bid for an ASD Free School has been unsuccessful
due to a lack of identified site. A Member expressed his
significant disappointment at this news, offering his view that the
DfE appears simply not to be providing the level of support around
places creation that we could reasonably expect.
- Will the intended move to require schools to pay for alternative
provision in the PRUs (top up and place funding changes) lead to a
tendency towards permanent exclusion to avoid the cost? How will
this change affect the process for managed moves? The Deputy
Director responded that the Authority is currently working with the
BACs on a transition and new whole system approach, including a
clarification of financial responsibilities and processes that will
prevent ‘off rolling’ practices (‘illegal’
permanent exclusion). This is a matter that is coming under
increasing scrutiny nationally. The Authority is seeking to develop
a more integrated system where schools continue to control their
alternative provision decisions and have a clear understanding that
PRU provision is short term provision.
- The
Primary Behaviour Centres currently support some pupils that are
not on a roll of any school. This issue needs to be resolved as a
priority. The Deputy Director responded that conversations are
already being had to resolve this; the intention is that the pupils
at the Behaviour Centres will come onto the roll of Primary PRU
going forward. The Member who asked the question requested that the
Behaviour Centres are given more information on this and the Deputy
Director agreed to speak to them.
- The
volume of review of alternative provision currently taking place
provides a good opportunity to look at the whole system including
issues related to ‘off-rolling’ and
‘informal’ pupil selection. The Deputy Director
responded that the Admissions Manager is currently reviewing our
Fair Access Policy (FAP) and is working with other local
authorities to capture strong practice, including that which
supports the fair distribution of in year admissions. It is
anticipated that there will be changes to our FAP as a result of
this work.
- What is the status of Ellar Carr?
The Deputy Director responded that there are a number of incorrect
rumours. The Authority will be meeting with the Management
Committee to correct these rumours and to confirm the number of
places we wish to commission.
- The
Member representing the PRUs stated that the new intended model for
alternative provision is very positive. However, critical to the
successful establishment of this model is the
‘unblocking’ of PRU provision through the creation of a
sufficient number of SEND places. The blocking of the PRUs with
long-term EHCP placements is an acute problem, which is affecting
young people currently in the system and decisions now about
placements. The Deputy Director responded to agree with the
Member’s comments about the importance of the development of
SEND provision. She reminded Members that ‘sufficient’
places creation is an iterative process, which will require regular
review. The movement to the new alternative provision model will
take time to achieve and will need transition. One of the
complicated issues that needs to be unpicked is that Bradford has
incorrectly ‘blended together’ its SEND / SEMH
provision with its PRU provision.
- It
will be helpful for the Forum to be presented with a diagrammatical
representation (a map) of what the Authority is aiming for in
respect of the future shape of the District’s alternative
provision.
- It
was identified that the Forum, through its sub-groups, has the
option to discuss, in more detail, and with wider representation,
the strategic developments set out in this report. This option will
be considered as further information is presented to the Forum in
future meetings.
Resolved
–
(1) That the information
contained in Document KE be noted.
(2) That the report to
the next Schools Forum meeting on 22 May incorporates the information requested by
Members, as recorded in the
minutes, including diagrammatical presentation of the
current SEMH continuum of provision, and the current structure
of
alternative provisions, and of what the Authority is working to
establish.
(3) That the Schools
Forum, via an initial letter from the Chair to the
DfE, requests further explanation, and challenges the
appropriateness and fairness, of the methodology used by the
DfE to allocate high
needs capital funding, where Bradford has
received only £1.1m of a £365m national
pot.
PDF 88 KB