To receive an update on delivering better values from Kelly Nash.

Kelly Nash introduced the item by informing that RBWM had a deficit (alongside 55 other local authorities). As such, it was part of Delivering Better Values (DBV), a programme to improve understanding on improving support for children and young people in the Borough, notably around decision making and finances. She added that the other 55 local authorities (LA) which were part of the programme feeding back to the DfE on what could be potential common challenges across all LAs. Kelly Nash hoped this could lead to changes to policy from central government rather than LAs making their own independent decisions.

There were three parts to the project:

·       Module 1: Baselines and Forecasts

·       Module 2: Root Cause Diagnostics

·       Module 3: Implementation Planning

Based on a survey to parents and carers, the underlying themes from the results were clarification of goals and understanding of needs in EHCPs and the utilisation of existing services. She also showed a pie chart showing the results of a survey to parents on whether their children’s needs were leading to the ideal outcome as well some individual parent comments.

Kelly Nash then discussed the Opportunity Matrix which highlighted key areas which would mitigate the deficit in the services. These included:

·       Supporting the goals and aspirations of the child can be achieved without the need of an EHCP,

·       Supporting the goals and aspirations of the child through RP/SEN Unit rather than INMSS (independent mainstream specialist schools),

·       Supporting the goals and aspirations of the child through a mainstream setting rather than INMSS,

·       Supporting the goals and aspirations of the child through a mainstream setting rather than post-16,

·       Supporting the goals and aspirations of the child through a mainstream setting rather MSS,

·       Supporting the goals and aspirations of the child can be achieving by ceasing EHCP earlier (post 16).

Based the Opportunity Matrix, Kelly Nash explained that AfC had narrowed down three themes: inclusive mainstream, post-16, and the right place and the right time. From this, AfC had produced a draft Inclusion Improvement Programme with its key elements:

·       Allocate money to an inclusion strategy and resources to support this,

·       Expand the dashboard to prioritise focus and give visibility of progress,

·       Appoint an Associate Director to oversee change in programme and inclusion work,

·       A project manager to head up inclusion audits,

·       Involvement from seconded heads and SENCOs (Special Educational Needs Coordinator),

·       Implementation of a team of a range of specialities.

Kelly Nash mentioned that DBV had given positive feedback of this and was hopeful that the Borough would receive a bid of £1 million.

Councillor Wilson asked what was meant by numbers under ‘Steady state’ in the context of the Opportunity Mix. Kelly Nash replied that they were total reductions as a result of certain changes which could lead to savings. David Griffiths suggested that the accountants could give a more in-depth explanation of the Steady state’. Councillor Wilson suggested that this could be offline.

ACTION: David Griffiths and Kelly Nash to arrange an in-depth explanation of ‘Steady state’.

Councillor Wilson then asked about the meaning of the pie chart on one of the presentation slides. Kelly Nash replied that they reflected surveys and case studies of children who had an EHCP. It was to analyse whether children did not require a EHCP when they reached 16 years of age. Alasdair Whitelaw added that it also explored whether children would have gone through the education system without an EHCP if AfC’s resources and strategy were implemented.

The Chair asked what AfC hoped future policy from central government would be. Kelly Nash answered that funding had been a challenge for the schools because many schools were stretched in providing the finances to support SEN children. Therefore, AfC and LAs were hoping for more funding. In addition, LAs hoped for more guidance and clarity on which children should be SEN-K (i.e., which children should be getting provisions without a plan in contrast to those which required an EHCP).