A progress report on the SEND and SEHM reviews will be presented.

Recommended –

The Schools Forum is asked to consider and to note the information provided.

(Marium Haque – 01274 431078)

Primary Behaviour Centres & District PRU

The Deputy Director, Education and Learning began this item by presented a report (tabled at the meeting), which responded to questions and concerns raised at the last meeting on future arrangements for the Primary Behaviour Centres and District PRU.

Regarding the Primary Behaviour Centres, the Deputy Director explained that the current funding arrangements will remain in place up to the end of the 2019/20 academic year, to support a transition to the future arrangements.  From September 2020, the funding from the High Needs Block for Behaviour Centres, under their current delivery model, will cease. She explained that discussions have begun with the primary schools that have Behaviour Centres to look at the potential options going forward.  In effect, there are 4 options for each of the primary schools to consider individually depending on their circumstances.

Regarding District PRU, the Deputy Director explained that the current funding of 80 places - where the High Needs Block meets the cost of the £10,000 place element only (the BACs or individual schools using the places will be responsible for the top-up element associated with these 80 places) - will remain in place up to the end of the 2019/20 academic year to support a transition to the future arrangements. Discussions have begun with the BACS Heads and the District PRU to look at potential options going forwards, with the main focus for District PRU being to develop a financially viable “buy back” model for step out provision that secondary schools choose to invest in using a collaborative purchasing model. If a financially viable position is not developed then the Local Authority will need to consider the future viability of District PRU, which will involve discussions with the RSC, as District PRU currently has an Academy Order.

Members asked the following questions and made the following comments in response to this report:

• The Chair asked what is meant by ‘step out’ provision in terms of a length of time. The Deputy Director stated that it is for schools to agree the nature of the offer but national models typically operate on the basis of 6-12 weeks as these are seen to be the most successful for the pupil and also the most financially viable.
• Responding the update on the Primary Behaviour Centres, a Member representing maintained primary school headteachers expressed his concern about the value that will be lost should these centres close; value in terms of respite and the part these centres currently play in supporting the duty of care that schools have to other pupils and to staff. The Member also asked how the future arrangements are going to be consulted on and how the Authority will ensure that the proposed changes are more widely understood.
• Responding to the update on District PRU, the Vice Chair expressed his concern, raised at previous meetings, that there is a significant amount of work to be undertaken to develop and implement a new collaborative delivery model. He explained his concern that District PRU will close due to ‘running out of time’ against the Authority’s planned timeline and that we will lose District PRU as a valuable provision that sits between supporting pupils that have been permanent excluded and those with EHCPs.

Reinforcing these comments, a number of Members expressed their concerns about the potential for growth in the numbers of permanent exclusions and that we could lose the support currently provided by the Behaviour Centres and by District PRU before we properly re-shape our provision model.

Members concluded from a quite detailed and wide-ranging discussion that a working party should be brought together with the remit of exploring the options for future arrangements, which should include the possibility of collaborative financing. It was agreed that this should be a cross-phase group. This resolution was supported by the Deputy Director. The Director re-stated a ’non-negotiable’ part of this work, which is that, from September 2020, the High Needs Block will not be involved in the financing of these as alternative provisions. She added that the working group could however, for example, look at the options for how the Schools Block could be used to support collaborate financing.

Specialist Places Development and Sufficiency

The Deputy Director provided an update verbally on the development of specialist places. She stated that the Executive yesterday received a report, which set out in detail the development of places. The places in academies have now largely been approved by the RSC and the places in maintained schools have been agreed by the Executive without ‘call in’ to enable capital works to take place over the summer. Across maintained schools and academies, in a mixture of additional DSPs, new ARCs and expanded special school places, it is expected that the capacity for 289 of the 354 places will have been developed by September 2019 and the remaining 65 places developed by January 2020.

Members asked the following questions and made the following comments in response:

• A Member asked the Deputy Director to confirm that the 40 additional places at Oastler School will be available from September. This was confirmed.
•  A Member asked whether 354 places are sufficient. The Deputy Director responded that this is a 1^st tranche to meet immediate need and that the Authority has previously stated that 354 does not provide future proofing. We know that we need more SEMH places especially.
• The Chair asked whether any final decision has ben taken by the DfE on options for our SEMH Free School. The Deputy Director confirmed that this free school has been ‘lost’ as the DfE is not willing to give us a 3^rd go at finding a sponsor. We currently await the details of the next wave of free schools and we will consider whether we submit a bid. Expressing her extreme disappointment, the Chair asked why we have lost the school. The Deputy Director explained that this was due to a lack of suitable sponsor and that we are not the only authority that has found itself in this position.
• An Academies Member stated that we must learn from mistakes that we have made in previously rounds of free school applications to ensure that we maximise our chances of securing essential capital investment.
• The Chair asked whether the capital investment in the new resourced provision was protected i.e. a school could not close its provision and use the capacity for something else. The Deputy Director confirmed that this capacity is protected and also that any proposed closure would need to pass the SEND improvement test (it isn’t the case that a school could just close its resourced provision).
• A Member commented that schools hosting DSPs currently subsidise their costs. The Deputy Director agreed, adding that this is one of the reasons why the Authority is pursuing the development of the central managed ARC resourced provision, as the cost of this provision sits with the Authority not with the school.

Resolved –

(1)       That the information provided in the update be noted.

(2)       That the briefing note on the development of the Primary             Behaviour Centres and District PRU, tabled at the meeting, be             published on Bradford Schools Online.

(3)       That a cross-phase working party is brought together in September to discuss the options for the future development of     the Primary Behaviour Centres and District PRU.

Action: Deputy Director, Education and Learning