Agenda item

Officers introduced the item on the proposed closure of the Specialist Resource Provision (SRP) for Physical Disabilities (PD) at Coteford Infant School.

Officers explained that the Local Authority was proposing to formally close the SRP at Coteford Infant School, which was an SRP for physical disabilities.

Historically, the SRP had 10 commissioned places, but due to declining demand, the number was reduced to seven, and currently, there were three children attending. Over the next year, only two children were expected to remain at the SRP.

The SRP at Coteford operated differently from a typical SRP, with no separate specialist resource provision room or facilities. The school operated as an inclusive mainstream school.

The proposal was more of a technicality, meaning no change for the children as they were already being supported in an inclusive mainstream environment.

The funding for the children would remain the same, with the place funding of £6,000 being replaced by exceptional funding of the same value to support schools that are highly inclusive.

This was about correctly commissioning places according to need. Historically, children may have been more likely to be part of an SRP for physical disability. Nowadays, there was an expectation on mainstream schools to accommodate these needs.

Many schools were DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliant.

It was noted that while the term ‘closure’ had to be used as per DfE requirements, there would be no change. There would only be a removal of the reference to an SRP.

An addendum had been published to correct an error in the report regarding including data in the report on children on the SEND register versus children with SEND support. Ordinarily, officers reported on EHCP and SEND support, and rarely reported on the SEND register.

A formal statutory consultation had been conducted from 25 September to 25 October 2024. The consultation included an online survey, a virtual event for families, and a face-to-face event at the school. The responses from the consultation were included in the consultation responses document. Officers acknowledged that there was some confusion and fear around the proposal.

Members sought reassurance that the proposed changes were purely technical and will not affect the children's experience or funding. Officers confirmed that the funding and support for the children will remain the same. There may be a difference in the provider of therapy, which would be agreed upon with the school, though the level of therapy would be the same as detailed in each child’s EHCP. Where therapy was provided in mainstream schools, this was commissioned through a contract with CNWL. SRPs tended to commission their own therapy. The funding mechanism would be slightly different but would be the same amount. There would no longer be ‘place funding’ of £6,000 for commissioned places, however officers committed to paying the same £6,000 of ‘exceptional funding’ where schools were over a certain percentage of children with an EHCP.  Coteford Infant School has a high level of EHCPs and were in receipt of this funding last year.

Members asked about possible concerns relating to the wider impact on special needs provision at the school and sought reassurance that the local authority will support any additional needs or concerns that the school may have. Officers highlighted that there were a range of challenging needs that schools were managing and supporting effectively.

Coteford Infant School was operating as an inclusive mainstream school and there would be no change to the children's experience at the school. Currently, the children in the SRP were in mainstream lessons full time, which was not the traditional SRP model. Usually in an SRP, children would be in a separate base for 15-50% of their timetable. The proposal would not change how the school operated. Officers reassured that the local authority was committed to supporting schools and families with SEND.

Officers added that EHCPs were legal documents which were then funded to ensure that the plan was reflective of the student’s needs. If needs changed or there was a need for different provision, the authority would work with the school.

Members asked about proactive measures to reassure parents that there will be no change. Officers acknowledged the fear and anxiety caused by the proposal and emphasised the importance of clear communication to reassure parents. Officers noted that there were no financial savings for the Council as a result of the proposal. It was the role of the authority to commission effectively according to the evidence and demand, as well as ensuring delivery of an inclusive agenda in all schools.

Members raised concerns about the accuracy of the report; the narrative of there being no change; and the need for an equality impact assessment. With regards to the equality impact assessment, officers noted that there was no change as the funding and support for the children remain the same therefore an equality impact assessment was not required.

Members asked if the SRP funding would be added to the EHCP funding so that children were not impacted. Officers clarified that this referred to the place funding of £6,000. Officers noted that there was place funding and top up funding. The top up funding would continue in line with needs, and the £6,000 place funding would be paid as exceptional funding, which the Council provided as a non-statutory funding stream to support schools that were highly inclusive.

Members questioned the communication process, given concern from parents. Officers were open to feedback. Officers noted that they had not expected such a negative reaction. However, there was a statutory process that had to be followed, which included the use of certain terminology such as ‘closure’.

Members asked what role the school had played in communicating the proposals. Officers explained that there had been ongoing engagement with the school and efforts to reassure parents through various forums. This had been part of a wider review. Part of this review highlighted the inclusivity for children with physical disabilities. SRP provision across the borough had increased in line with demand and there were 72 additional places provided during 2024, which were for children with ASD.

Officers further clarified that they had tried to offer reassurances to the school; there had been a lot of direct dialogue; and there had been a consultation with residents, the school and other interested parties.

Members asked if the decision to close the SRP had been made before the consultation started. Officers confirmed that the decision had not been made. There was a statutory process to follow and the conversation started almost a year ago with the school.

Members asked if it were possible for this item to be taken to Full Council before Cabinet. The Chair confirmed it would not go to Full Council and Cabinet would make the decision.

Members asked, if there was no change, why parents had been told in January that they could not access this provision. Officers noted that as far as the difference between a child who was considered as attending the SRP versus mainstream, there was no difference in delivery of provision, the only difference currently was the provider of the therapy. This was a key point. Officers reiterated that there were no children who would be missing out on anything or being denied anything. EHCPs do not specify who should deliver the provision, only that provision be delivered in order to improve outcomes.

Members further asked why funding mechanisms had not been explained to the school. Officers reiterated that they had explained the funding mechanisms on numerous occasions to the school. Exceptional funding was brought in last year. This was a non-statutory funding stream that was in place to support schools who were highly inclusive so that they were not financially disadvantaged by being so inclusive. Place funding was being replaced with exceptional funding because currently the exceptional funding did not include SRP children as they were funded through a different mechanism. If this proposal was to move forward, the SRP children would be included in the exceptional funding. It was reiterated that there was no financial saving to be made and no change to the support delivered, apart from potentially who delivered the therapy, which was for discussion with the school.

It was noted that comments to Cabinet would be delegated.

Members proposed that if Members had issues with reports such as inaccuracies, these could be raised prior to the meeting and this would aid scrutiny of the reports.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families and Education Select Committee:

1. Reviewed the proposed closure of the Specialist Resourced Provision (SRP) for children with Physical Disabilities (PD) at Coteford Infant School detailed in the report;

2. Noted the consultation in response to the proposed closure; and

3. Delegated comments to Cabinet to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair, and in consultation with the Opposition Lead