Reviews, reports and consultations SENCO Network November 2016

1. Reviews, reports and consultationsSENCO Network November 2016 Alison Weaver Ann Baldwin Judith Morgan

2. Aims of session National news: Rochford Report Lee Scott Report Local News Team around the school meetings Update from meeting with heads and SENCos Update re AP Review/support for SEMH Peer review outcomes

3. Rochford Report Published October 2016 Assessment of pupils working below national curriculum levels – focus on statutory assessment end of KS1 and 2 Future of P levels – remove/review/maintain Key recommendations submitted to DfE Consultation on recommendations in early 2017. Final decisions will be made following that consultation. In the meantime schools should continue to use the pre-key stage standards and P scales for the statutory assessment of pupils working below the standard of the national curriculum tests.

4. Rochford Report Inclusive assessment An inclusive system accommodating as many pupils as possible allows for progression within it and provides continuity across different educational settings. It also facilitates the development of shared good practice. Wherever possible, pupils should have access to mainstream statutory assessment arrangements. The Rochford Review’s interim pre-key stage standards were designed to align with, and complement, wider statutory national assessment arrangements. The interim pre-key stage standards assess pupils’ knowledge and understanding of English reading, English writing and mathematics. As these are the focus of statutory national assessment for the majority of primary school pupils, the group recommends that they should also be the focus of statutory national assessment for all pupils capable of, and engaged in, subject-specific learning, including those with SEND.

5. Rochford - Recommendations 1. The removal of the statutory requirement to assess pupils using P scales. 2. The interim pre-key stage standards for pupils working below the standard of national curriculum tests are made permanent and extended to include all pupils engaged in subject-specific learning. 3. Schools assess pupils’ development in all 4 areas of need outlined in the SEND Code of Practice, but statutory assessment for pupils who are not engaged in subject-specific learning should be limited to the area of cognition and learning 4. A statutory duty to assess pupils not engaged in subject-specific learning against the following 7 aspects of cognition and learning and report this to parents and carers: Responsiveness Curiosity Discovery Anticipation Persistence initiation Investigation

6. Rochford - Recommendations 5. Following recommendation 4, schools should decide their own approach to making these assessments according to the curriculum they use and the needs of their pupils. 6. ITT and CPD should reflect the need to have a greater understanding of assessing pupils working below the standard of national curriculum tests, 7. Schools should actively share their expertise and good practice with others. Schools in need of support should actively seek out and create links with those that can support 8. Schools should work collaboratively to develop an understanding of good practice in assessing pupils working below the standard of national curriculum tests 9. There should be no requirement to submit assessment data on the 7 areas of cognition and learning to the DfE, but schools must be able to provide evidence to support a dialogue with parents and carers, inspectors, regional schools commissioners, local authorities, school governors and those engaged in peer review to ensure robust and effective accountability. 10. Further work should be done to consider the best way to support schools with assessing pupils with EAL.

7. Implementation of recommendations Key issues: Moderation Consistency/Clarity of expectation Build on work of P level network Mainstream and special schools/support services working together to promote consistent implementation Working group/network Spring 2017?

8. Lee Scott report SEND: The schools and college experience Key themes: Communication Levels of support Funding Legislation Role of voluntary and community sector Link between education and health Age 19 upwards (PfA)

9. Key Priorities Resources: capacity of mainstream schools to meet need - HLN: level of funding/processes - specialist support/training available Specialist places – do we have enough? Early Years – identification and transition Health provision Support for pupils with SEMH

10. Key Priorities – action planned Resources: - HLN: Processes – feedback to steering group - Level of funding – HN review to inform funding available for continuum of support – mainstream/support services Specialist places – do we have enough? - planned expansions/place planning exercise - benchmarking Early Years – review of current model of service delivery – SEN support services/early years support to settings - commissioning review, public health and early help Health provision – as above and links with ICCYPH

11. Key Priorities – action planned Resources: - HLN: Processes – feedback to steering group - Level of funding – HN review to inform funding available for continuum of support – mainstream/support services Specialist places – do we have enough? - planned expansions/place planning exercise - benchmarking Early Years – review of current model of service delivery – SEN support services/early years support to settings - commissioning review, public health and early help Health provision – as above and links with ICCPYH

12. Key Priorities – strategic approach Data and views of other key stakeholders to inform future developments Key themes linked to SEND Reforms and Whole Life Disability review and work streams involving school reps - Workforce development and training - Outcomes – including broader impact measures - Preparing for adulthood SEMH AP review – SLA re secondary devolution Primary working group to explore potential ways forward

13. Peer review: Overall findings • The City has a clear vision and commitment to children & young people with SEND, articulated from elected members and the most senior leaders within the local area • There are effective policy frameworks in place, such as a joint commissioning plan, co-designed by agencies, which places this vision within a strategy for implementation

14. Overall findings • The SEF provides an analysis of the elements of SEND pathway implementation, which indicates that leaders know the City well, including areas of strength and areas which they intend to improve further • The co-production and delivery of the SEF to the team of peer reviewers would be even further enhanced through parental representation

15. Overall findings • There are some indications that the wider Nottingham City community- some parents/carers, and some providers, do not share the same perspective about • - SEN Support/graduated response • - parental engagement/participation at the individual level, within the Pathway • Communication is a key issue for families- including the Local Offer

16. EHC Pathway- strengths • Settings, schools and colleges noted a very positive relationship/partnership with the LA, particularly the SEND team • Providers feel that the LA listens and works with them to resolve challenges and seek to be flexible • Consistent-Person Centred reviews and methodology is highly regarded by parents and by providers • DCT Service Manager- accessible drop in clinic • IRIS newsletter – available on social media

17. EHC Pathway- strengths • Early Years Pathway is very positive and strong • Health contribution to 2 year checks; piloting of 3/3.5 checks • Parenting practitioners follow up using Forest programme- Pathway 1 – if generic parenting programme, go through SPA – Forest programme- or then refer to Community Paediatrician • Pre-school liaison meetings/HV, Portage etc in attendance • Personal Budgets are developing well, with opportunities to pool/merge budgets

18. EHC Pathway- issues • PCRs- some schools use this as an alternative to mediation/informal dispute resolution- which is a burden on the resource • EHC case worker and Plan writer- feedback after decision not to assess • Panel - scrutiny by SENCOs and other practitioners • Health advice does not yet reflect the aspirations of the EHC Pathway • The Pathway continues to be seen as more education driven – not fully co-produced with health • Parental perceptions of the EHC planning process • School highly value the traded and core services from LA- CEPs/BST/ IES/ASD - less confidence in therapy services- delays in referrals etc

19. SEN Support within the Pathway • Applications by parents appeared to increase the number of statutory assessment requests • Schools- clear understanding of the graduated response, knowledge of HLN funding, and support for the inclusive nature of schooling and service access in the City • HLN- less clarity for families and parents/carers • Success in keeping young people ‘in the City’

20. Preparing for Adulthood • Supported Internships are emerging, though employment opportunities are developing, this is a slow process • Opportunities are apparent in employment, which could be better accessed with the intended refreshed PfA strategy , and need a champion • Cross over transition Social Worker supports transition positively/ Transition nurse positively regarded • Futures very positively regarded • Plans with long term goals/SMART target- are they accurate for young people? • Developments emerging across 0-18/18-25 structures- Whole Life Disability

21. Preparing for Adulthood • There is inconsistent preparation for adulthood within education providers • Perceptions vary of preparedness for FE college access • Where young people are supported by Disabled Children’s Services, they are well supported across the transition- this is not replicated for those with SEN Support who move into adulthood- some parents noted many Social Worker changes • MCA training for staff, but not always evident in voice of young people • Aspirations- evidence of “aiming for employment” approach not yet recognised by young people and families and education settings

22. Areas for development • Parental engagement • Child and young person voice • Communication – service users and providers • Broader workforce training, including MCA • Support from targeted services including mainstream social care • Increased engagement with Public Health and CCG • PfA – capacity to quickly drive change

23. Next steps • - SEND Reforms board membership reviewed to reflect priorities • Action plan in place to address areas for development from SEF and Peer Review • Work streams: • Preparing for adulthood • Outcomes • Communication and workforce training • Inspection preparation – logistics • Schools briefing Summer 2017 to update?