Agenda item

For the Sub-Committee to receive the March 2024 Cabinet Report and relevant action plan in response to the recommendations of the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. The Sub-Committee is asked to monitor the implementation of the Council’s action plan.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 17 to 42 of the agenda, which provided the March 2024 Cabinet Report and relevant action plan in response to the recommendations of the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. The Children & Young People was asked to review the Cabinet Paper on the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman Decision Finding of Fault Causing Injustice to monitor the Action Plan and to ensure lessons learned were embedded. The Director of Education introduced and summarised the paper, and the SEN Tribunal Manager took the Sub-Committee through the action plan at Appendix 2. The Director of Education highlighted that the Council had apologised to the parent and also highlighted that processes around the responsibilities of schools had been strengthened through regular ongoing conversations with head teachers, and distribution of the ‘children not being able to attend school due to medical needs or otherwise’ policy to all schools in the borough. The Chair enquired what else had been done and was informed that the Council was now also liaising with schools and that it was receiving some letters directly from parents applying under Section 19 of the Education Act.

The Vice-Chair asked how schools had been made aware of the policy and the Director of Education explained that it had been a topic during conversations with head teachers, and that the policy would be highlighted to all new head teachers during their induction. The SEN Tribunal Manager explained that the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Senior Leadership Team was working with most schools on a locality basis through Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCo), where conversations highlighting the policy were also taking place.

Members asked about follow up and ongoing support for the family in question, and were advised that the child was now attending school. The Sub-Committee asked how many other current requests under Section 19 of the Education Act there were and whether there were a sufficient number of staff to manage these. The Director of Education responded that there were sufficient staff, with the Access to Education team following up on all requests, and that she did not have the exact numbers to provide but the number of Section 19 cases directly applied to the Council were in the single to double digit range. The Sub-Committee were informed that, where there was a request under Section 19 of the Education Act, this was referred to ‘Springboard’ (an education service that provides educational support to children and young people of school age whose education has been interrupted for a period of time). Individual schools can and should refer to Springboard directly.

The Sub-Committee asked about the training provided to head teachers and queried whether there were a number of new or inexperienced head teachers in the borough who may not have experience with the Council’s ‘children not being able to attend school due to medical needs or otherwise’ policy . The Director of Education responded that there was not a high number of new head teachers annually, but that the Council was doubling in its efforts to spread awareness of the relevant policies and procedures.

Members highlighted anecdotal reports that there were a number of children ‘falling through the cracks’ due to the length of time required for a diagnosis who were being penalised by schools for non-attendance. The Director for Education responded that, for children with an Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP), attendance would be a focus for the school where the child was on roll and during the annual review process. The Sub-Committee heard that the Council has an Early Intervention locality SEN support model (CLSS), with three members of staff working with clusters of schools, to provide early intervention and support for children. Members queried what was being done for children awaiting a diagnosis or EHCP who were not able to attend school in this period, and the SEN Tribunal Manager highlighted that a diagnosis was not required for an EHCP. The Sub-Committee raised concerns that this was not what some parents were being told, and the SEN Tribunal Manager asked that Members inform the Council of these cases where they were aware of them. The Corporate Director of Children Young, People & Education (CYPE) suggested that a separate briefing be provided to the Sub-Committee around the locality SEN support offer.

The Sub-Committee asked for reassurance that the action plan was being effectively implemented in schools and highlighted anecdotal evidence suggesting there were areas where the issues raised in the report were ongoing. The Director of Education stated that they could look to provide evidence of the implementation of the specific points, but that the action plan was clear on which actions had already been delivered and which were ongoing. Members acknowledged this but raised concerns that the action plan did not show the impact for children and families where actions had been completed. The Director of Education responded that the Council’s response to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman Decision acknowledged that a mistake had been made and that the Council was following up on this; the evidence would be that there would not be a repetition of this mistake and that the Council had clear oversight of Section 19 requests. Members heard that school leaders were now familiar with the ‘children not being able to attend school due to medical needs or otherwise’ policy and that discussions on this were ongoing through the Locality SEN Support team and in a number of other forums.

Members highlighted the importance of incorporating the voice of the child and parents into the Council’s processes and the implementation of the action plan, and discussed the possibility of looking at how the lived experiences of children and parents had been incorporated into the Special educational needs and disability (SEND) Strategy at a later meeting. The Director for Education explained that there had been close work with Croydon Active Voices during the development of the SEND Strategy, and that the five priority areas of the strategy had been agreed in collaboration with parents. The Sub-Committee heard that the Council was looking at establishing a ‘Shadow Board’, comprised of children and young people, to provide a clear way to incorporate the voice of the child into governance processes alongside existing feedback from schools. Members heard that this work was being progressed by the Transformation Manager, and that a young people's panel had been used in the recruitment process for the new Head of SEND as an additional way to embed the voice of the child. The Director of Education explained that they were trying to seek the voice of the child wherever possible, and that the Council was open to any other suggestions of how this could be achieved. The Vice-Chair responded that the ‘Shadow Board’ was a positive idea and that they would be keen to see an update on this at a later date as the Sub-Committee monitored the implementation of the action plan.

Members raised some concerns that the actions in the plan were not sufficient remedy to ensure another child did not end up in a similar situation. The Chair highlighted that Child B had been outside of school for over a year and asked what timeframes were like for other children to be out of school where a Section 19 request had been received. The Director for Education explained that there was a difference between children who fell under Section 19 of the Education Act, where children could not access education, and a child not attending school. Where a child was not attending school, the school would take responsibility for attendance through an attendance officer; there were also a team of attendance officers within the Council who worked with families where children were significantly absent from school and additional support was needed. The Chair requested clarity on the timeframes for follow-up and support being put in place for children who were subject to a Section 19 request, and Members heard that referrals were put in to Springboard who then worked with the family to agree a bespoke plan to support the child as quickly as possible. The SEN Tribunal Manager added that Department for Education guidance stated that support under Section 19 of the Education Act should be considered after three weeks of consecutive absence from education.

The Vice-Chair asked about cases of school refusal as a result of mental health concern, and why this did not necessarily fall under Section 19 of the Education Act. The Director of Education explained that some of the responsibility for ensuring children attended school lay with the schools, with an expectation that additional support was provided where this was the case; after three weeks of a child not attending school, the parent could specify that they were unable to attend school for specific reasons and therefore they were making a request under Section 19 for alternative provision to be put in place. Members heard that it was dependent on individual circumstances and there was an expectation, that if a child is not attending school, that the school would follow up on that and look at ways of putting in alternative provision; there would be schools that would have their own ways of supporting children's mental health and well-being. The Director of Education stated that a number of Croydon schools were part of the ‘Trailblazer’, which provided universal support for children with mental health and well-being concerns. The Vice-Chair asked whose responsibility it was to ensure that the support offer was communicated to parents, and was informed that this was available on the Local Offer website which was promoted in the SEN newsletter, through Croydon Active Voices and Croydon's Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Information Advice and Support Service (SENDIAS). The Director of Education acknowledged that some families may not be aware of the Local Offer and explained that the Council worked with schools and members of the SEND Board to ensure that they had this information and could share it with parents and families. The Sub-Committee heard that the SEND Board was constituted of officers from across Council departments, as well as parents and external partners, which helped to spread this information as widely as possible.

Members asked how schools were monitored given that they all operated differently. The Director of Education responded that every school had a Link advisor who provided support and challenge, but highlighted that many schools were academies, free schools and religious schools who may operate under their own policies and procedures. The Council would follow-up where concerns were raised by parents directly or through the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED) and the Croydon Education Partnership has developed priorities in the borough to promote support for all children. The Director of Education stated that the Council had good working relationships with the borough’s schools, but acknowledged that mistakes had been made in this case and processes have since been strengthened. The Director of Education encouraged any Members who were hearing concerns from parents about SEN provision or access to education to share these with the Council.

The Sub-Committee raised concerns that some parents were not as informed as others about how to navigate systems around education and referrals, and that not enough support was in place to support these families. Members highlighted that mandatory attendance reporting would be in place from September 2024 and asked what checks and balances would be in place to ensure this data reflected the lived experiences of parents. The Director of Education explained that parents were interacting with schools on a daily basis and that schools passed on this information. Currently, not all schools were sharing attendance information and that the Council was focused on following up, using it’s the limited statutory powers and resources, with the schools and parents of the highest concern. The Sub-Committee heard that attendance was also something considered by the Link advisors and it was highlighted that schools had overall authority for ensuring that children were attending school but that Council oversight was in place where appropriate and where there were concerns.

The Chair highlighted the bullet point ‘ensure that any parent/carer whose child is not attending school due to medical reasons or other otherwise knows the provision contact and has a named council contact to check in with monthly’ from 4.16 in the report and action plan, and asked whether monthly was a sufficient frequency and for the definition of ‘check in with’. The Director of Education responded that the Council would be reaching out to families, but it was hoped that parents would also be in contact with the Council if this was not taking place. Once a referral had been sent to Springboard, Springboard would then be in regular contact with families to ensure that provision was in place; where there were any issues, it was expected that either the family or Springboard would contact the Council. The exact frequency of the contact with Springboard would depend on the bespoke offer put in place for each family and child. The Director of Education stated she could provide an update at a future committee meeting.

The Vice-Chair asked how often policies and processes around Section 19 requests would be reviewed to ensure these were fit for purpose, and heard that this would usually be annually unless there were changes to legislation or in response to a Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman decision.

The Corporate Director for Children, Young People and Education acknowledged that this was an area of significant interest to the Sub-Committee and nationally, and assured Members that where parents were raising concerns these were being addressed, with the Council seeking to be as responsive as it could be given the current demands and pressures on services.

Members highlighted that schools could give incorrect information to parents and that some parents often did not realise that they could seek support elsewhere. The Director of Education explained that schools had a responsibility to publish their complaints policies on the school website, and that parents did often speak to the Council on such matters. The Sub-Committee highlighted evidence that schools had strong working relationships with the Council, and noted that OFSTED did also review school websites. Some concerns were raised about the funding available for SENCos both in-borough and nationally.

The Chair thanked officers for attending the Sub-Committee and for their open responses to Member’s questions. The Director of Education offered to provide a briefing to the Sub-Committee on the SEND Strategy and SEN Locality offer.

Recommendations

1. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Attendance Data in the Education Standards 2024 report, scheduled for March 2025 meeting, should include information on ‘managed moves’ in the borough reported through the ‘Inclusion Network’.

Conclusions

1. The Sub-Committee thanked officers for their attendance and noted the report and Action Plan, and agreed to add an item to update the Sub-Committee on the implementation of the action plan to the Work Programme for 2024/25 to include the number of Section 19 requests.

2. The Sub-Committee acknowledged that it required some additional training on the SEND Strategy and Locality SEN Support offer in order to provide more effective scrutiny on these topics, and thanked the Director for Education for offering to provide this.

3. The Sub-Committee concluded that SEND provision in the borough needed to be a greater area of focus in its work over 24/25.