Agenda item

Officers gave an update on the Inclusion Strategy which had been marked as ‘to follow ‘on the agenda and had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting.  Officers drew the Committee’s attention to note that there had been many changes to schools since the recommendations on the Strategy following the Committee’s Review in 2009. There had also been a requirement to change the format over the last few years, as the targets set in 2009 were to have been delivered by the schools and could not be achieved by officers.

It was explained that strategic action groups had been set up to look at the new format of the Strategy, which had been linked together with the primary Schools Inclusion Strategy. The focus now had shifted to what was a priority for the Local Authority (LA) rather than the work in schools, particularly as the LA now had less influence in schools.

The Committee heard that the Progress Update on Inclusion Strategy, as at October 2011 had been best fitted to the recommendations as far as possible. It was highlighted that as the Academy programme was continuing to progress as schools became autonomous, many targets in the Inclusion Strategy would be based on the ability of the LA to influence practices in schools.

 During discussion, the following points were noted:

• The schools were responsible for SEN - the LA became responsible once there was a requirement for a Statutory Assessment (where a child was “Statemented”).
• The LA had a responsibility to provide “Parent Partnership” to give advice to parents in respect of SEN and the LA also had a responsibility to provide Education Psychology Services to support the identification of SEN.
• Schools were very secure in their knowledge of SEN and valued the support from the Council’s School Improvement Officer. This process had proved very successful prior to schools opting for academy status.
• That it was possible for schools with an academy status to not communicate with the LA if they so wished.
•  Ultimately, there was a responsibility placed on schools and would be judged through their regulatory bodies which examined processes (The Office for Standard in Education, Children’s Services & Skills (Ofsted)).
• The LA’s views would be taken into account in respect of schools in “special measures”
• The Admissions process remained the same for children with SEN (Statemented).
• Although no outcomes had been set out in the Inclusion Strategy update, it was noted that outcomes for SEN in Hillingdon remained higher than for children in other local authorities.  This data had been circulated as part of the Annual Standard Quality in Education report, which was reported at the meeting in February 2011.
• That there had recently been a significant increase in the number of

      children coming into the Borough, which had resulted in all special       schools taking well over their required numbers.

• Children were still being sent out of the Borough and there was no option but to use non-maintained schools.
• The increase had come about as a result of high numbers of children coming from abroad, as well as from across London (which may have been influenced by the cap on housing).  This increase did not include the young children coming through the system (which the LA was aware of and had planned for) and were different to the ‘in year’ mobility group as described above.
• It was stated that the LA had a duty to provide places for SEN children either within the Borough or outside the Borugh.

Resolved – That the report be noted.