Consultation on Review of Provisionfor Children and Young People withLearning DifficultiesZarah LoweProvision and Partnership Development Manager
Why Carry Out a Review of LDProvision? (1)• More than 5000 children and young people inSurrey have a Statement of SEN• Only 45% are being education in mainstreamschool provision• 10% are in SEN units and resources provision• 35% in maintained Special School provision• 11% are being placed in non-maintained andindependent – of which £35m of SEN budget isspent (22% of total budget)
Why Carry Out a Review of LDProvision? (2)• SEN Green paper – Support and Aspiration:• Single assessment process• 0-25 plan• Offer of a Personal Budget• Local Offer• 57% of young people in NEET have a learningdifficulty – highest numbers either haveModerate Learning Difficulties or Behaviour,Emotional or Social Difficulties
Why Carry Out a Review of LD Provision?(3)• More children and young people with LDaccessing local mainstream provision• Less children and young people placed out ofcounty, away from home• Mismatch between needs of Surrey children andSurrey provision• To improve educational outcomes for pupils withLD
Objectives of the Review (1)• Clear pathway planning, with focus ontransition and key stage transfers• Needs of more LD pupils met throughmainstream• Identify growing needs of pupils with moreComplex Learning Difficulties• LD Special Schools to meet current andprojected needs of pupils
Objectives of the Review (2)• Deliver integrated service with Care and Healthacross range of settings• Identify attributes required in maintained schoolsto reduce reliance on non-maintained andindependent schools• Identify role of extended and residential provision• Proposals are affordable and value for money
Key Findings (1)• No coherent structure for specialist centres• The most complex pupils are not always inspecialist centres• No LD centres in secondary schools• Inclusion in mainstream schools inconsistent• LD school places poorly distributedgeographically and potential over provision• Over specialism in LD schools
Key Findings (2)• Commitment at leadership level needed todevelop inclusion in mainstream• Funding issues• Variable experience and training forSENCo’s• Access to outreach unclear• Inconsistent use of provision mapping
Key Findings (3)• Inconsistent transition planning to colleges• Variable expertise in colleges• Historically poor funding mechanisms• Courses not full time• No access to extended day provision• Parents’ preference and expectations• Access to therapy services inconsistent
Key Areas for Change• Developing Local Provision• Early Planning and Prevention• Integrated Approach
Recommendations (1)• Improve inclusion in mainstream settings –leadership role• Clarify role and expectations of centres• Consider best way of describing pupil needs onstatements• In future LD schools should be “generic” ratherthan specialist to increase capacity• There is a place for a specialist primary school
Recommendations (2)• Clarify therapy provision• Set out clearly what our mainstream schools,centres and special schools provide• Clear programme of training for SENCo’s andraised status• Review outreach to channel expertise moreeffectively• Develop improved flexibility with FE collegesector and provision at 14-19
Recommendations (3)• Develop more employment opportunities foryoung people with LD
Timeline• Consultation process completed – July2013• Implementation of recommendations andactions – September 2015
Consultation Questions (1)• Do you agree with the recommendationsfrom the review?• Are there any recommendations you thinkshould have been included?• Do you agree that more mainstreamschools need to be inclusive? How couldthis happen?
Consultation Questions (2)• What actions do you think need to be partof the implementation plan to take theserecommendations forward?• Any other comments• Would you be willing to contribute further?