Transcript
streamed, recorded and uploaded for subsequent viewing of the Council's website in accordance
with the webcasting protocol detailed in the Council's constitution. Please start the recording.
Welcome all to this multi-location meeting of the Children and Young People's Scrutiny
Committee. Please can everyone ensure mobile phones are switched off or set to silent for
the duration of the meeting? For those joining us remotely today, please note, only use your
press to talk button when you wish to contribute to the meeting, but please wait until the
chair calls on you to speak. When the press to talk button is read, your microphone is
live. Once you have finished speaking, push the press to talk button to deactivate your
microphone. Please do not use the chat facility. The handset button is only to be used for
the point of order or a point of personal explanation.
Before we move on to today's agenda, members are reminded that since June 3rd 2024, we
are in a pre-election period. Although ordinary Council business is continuing, it is possible
that even business as usual may become increasingly politicised. Scrutiny by its nature is apolitical
and it is essential that this continues during this pre-election period. Guidance has been
circulated to all members and officers and this must be applied during this meeting to
ensure that questions are factual and that any opinions or discussions are not used to
influence public support for a candidate or political party. I would like to move to agenda
item 1. Agenda item 1 is appointment of chair and committee. I am pleased to advise that
Council at his annual meeting on the 23rd of May 2024, appointed myself as chair of
the committee and the following committee elected members are Councillor Salaad Ahmed,
Councillor Bowles, Councillor Davies, Councillor Gunter, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Humphries,
Councillor Melbourne and Councillor Singh. Agenda item 2 is terms of reference. This
committee's terms of reference were published on the website along with the papers of this
meeting. I ask that members familiarise themselves with these to ensure that our scrutiny stays
within these terms. New members, before we continue today's agenda, I would like to welcome
all returning members to the committee. I would especially like to welcome our two new
members and one member returning to the committee after a break. Councillors Gunter and Humphries,
welcome to your first meeting to the committee. Whilst you can't be with us today, I also
welcome Councillor Singh back to the committee. I hope you all find the work of this committee
interesting and proactive, productive. As my predecessor often said, you have joined
the best GroupMe committee around. Speaking of which, I think it would be very remiss
of me not to take an opportunity to say a few words about Councillor Bridgeman who chaired
this committee for seven years before taking up his new position in the Council's cabinet.
During his time as chair, he led the committee during fast-paced and turbulent times, particularly
during the pandemic. He oversaw scrutiny inquiries into out-of-county placements for children
looked after and mental health, child mental health services. He worked with committee
colleagues in scrutinising unprecedented risks and challenges for both children's services
and schools which has included increases in demand for services, continued predatory constraints
and increased complexity and vulnerability of some of our children and young people across
both areas. He was a leader in changing perceptions of what scrutiny is and how it is perceived.
Councillor Bridgeman's approach was to support Council services and partners during these
times and very much be a critical friend. He instils a culture of openness and inclusiveness
and made this committee not one to be feared. He enjoyed excellent relationships with cabinet
members, officers and everyone he met. He made his committee inclusive with equality
for members right across the board. He encouraged everyone to ask questions, work as a team,
be proactive and, very importantly, to read their papers. He was first in inviting a young
person representative onto the committee which is now extended across the majority of scrutiny
committees in Cardiff. Most of all, he was passionate about making positive outcomes
for children and young people of Cardiff. He leaves very big boots to fill and I will
do my utmost to build on the fantastic work that he and the rest of the committee have
done which I have been fortunate to be part of for the past two years. Thanks, Leigh,
we will all miss you but we know that you will do a fantastic job in cabinet. We know
that you will continue to champion scrutiny as you go forward and I'm sure our past will
meet again when you sit on the other side of the table at a future meeting. I will move
on to agenda item 3. Agenda item 3 is apologies. I wish to notify the committee that I have
received apologies from Councillor Claudia Bowes, Councillor Kaniyia Singh, Carol Covert,
Mel Godfrey, Emily Gio and who will be represented by Stefan Raynor-Owen who is not online yet
but who will be joining us remotely. Celeste Lewis as well is also given apologies. Alison
and Harry, have we received any further late apologies? No? Councillor Davis also. Thank
you. Thank you. We will move to agenda item 4. Agenda item 4 is declarations of interests
of members. I advise members that they have a responsibility in accordance with part 3
of the members code of conduct with the Council's constitution to notify at the start of the
meeting in general terms whether they have an interest in any of the items on today's
agenda. A declaration form must be completed for all declared interests. At the start of
the item, the interest should be fully declared specifying whether it is a personal or prejudicial
interest. If the latter, the member must leave the room. If the former, they may stay and
speak. If any member wishes to declare an interest, please use your press to talk button
now and I will come to you in turn. No? I will move on to the next item which is agenda
item number 5 which are the minutes. I seek arrangement of the minutes of the meetings
that are held on the 14th of May 2024 approved uncorrected as correct record. Do any members
have any amendments? If so, please switch on your press to speak button and I will come
to you in turn. Thank you for that. We will now move on to the next agenda item which
is agenda item is urgent items. I confirm there are no urgent items for us to consider today.
Agenda item 7 is provision for children and young people with additional learning needs.
This item will allow members to undertake a pre-decision scrutiny on any objections
received relating to the provision for children and young people with additional learning
needs prior to its consideration by cabinet on the 20th of June 2024. I would like to
welcome Councillor Sarah Mary, deputy leader and cabinet member for education. Richard
Porter, program director for the school organisation program. Brett Andrew Arthur, the school organisation
program planning manager and Jenny Hughes, head of inclusion, education and lifelong
learning. Councillor Mary, would you like to make a statement, please? Thank you, chair.
I will start by congratulating you of course on your promotion to chair of committee and
also welcome the returning members back and congratulating the new members on joining
what is clearly the best committee to be in because Lee said it was, so it must be. So
those of you who served on the committee previously, you will be very familiar with the proposals
before you. Each school organisational planning proposal goes through multiple stages, goes
out to consultation three times and this report is the final stage in determining the proposals.
So we go out to consultation, we publish a summary of any objections and then respond
to any objections. Committee is fully aware of the need for further ALM places across
the city and these proposals will give us additional formal places with new SRBs across
the city, some of which will be replacing existing wellbeing classes. The schools include
Baden-Powell, Fairwater Primary, Herbert-Thompson, Lakeside, Springwood, Plasmalwa, Coglas, Greenway
and 7 Primary School. We did receive one objection and it was only to one of the proposals relating
to the proposal to establish an SRB at Fairwater Primary School. The objection though relates
to mainly about securing, having a secure fence line along the site but that doesn't
actually relate to the proposals in that consultation, which are merely about replacing an existing
wellbeing class with an SRB. Obviously we expect to have a secure fence line along a
school site and also it relates to a separate proposal to expand the court school but it
doesn't relate to this one and neither does the comment about no MOPOT policies, that's
irrelevant to this particular proposal. So on that basis the recommendation when it goes
to Cabinet will be that the proposals progress. I don't know, I don't think we've got a presentation
because you've seen it before. I don't know whether anybody wants to add anything.
Councillor Richards, could you introduce the report to the committee. Thank you, Sarah.
Yeah, of course. Councillor Mary really went through most of it to be honest. I think just
for members of the committee that haven't gone through the process really with school
organisation we have to go through three Cabinet papers before we bring forward any statutory
proposals. So in doing so the first Cabinet paper outlines a proposal and asks Cabinet
to whether we can consult on it. The second Cabinet paper reports back on that consultation
and asks whether we can issue statutory notices and the third Cabinet paper determines the
proposal. So we're at the third stage here, so apologies for anyone that's been through
this twice already before. So yeah, as Councillor Mary stated, we've been bringing forward a
series of additional ALM places for some time now. This is our latest set of SRB proposals
and we've got over 100 places as part of this. Many of these projects are all at slightly
different stages. I think the reports generally outline that they'll be available either from
September 24, September 25. Some of these we've progressed already with the construction,
you know, the design side of things and we're already working up schemes. So already we're
gearing up to deliver a lot of these already. Others are slightly larger so will require
larger schemes and they're at the planning stages still. So yeah, a bit of a mixed bag
really in the Cabinet paper. Thank you, Richard. We will now ask questions to the panel. I
will go around the committee in turn asking if you have a question. For those committee
members joining remotely, I will check with you towards the end of the Q&A to see if you
have any questions. I will start with Councillor Melbourn. Do you have any questions? No, that's
completely fine. Patricia, do you have any questions? Yes, thank you. The draft Cabinet
report states that 4% of learners are now requiring specialist places. Could you give
us an idea of what this means in terms of numbers of pupils across the city? You've
mentioned just now 100 places. I just wonder what's the waiting list currently in numbers
because if you're gearing up, where are these children going to be and what will the support
be for them until everything gets into gear? Brett is probably the best person to start
on the numbers and then Jenny is probably the best person to talk about any waiting
list and then I can wrap up if we need to. We took a paper to Cabinet in May which set
out the annual report and within that there was a trajectory showing how the number of
pupils has changed over a period of time. The kind of stage of growth throughout the
moment, we're approaching 2,000 learners across all statutory age groups, give or take. In
terms of how that might change in coming years, we've got fall in roles entering primary school
but we've still got the very high intakes into secondary school and those high numbers
on rolling secondary will continue until towards the end of the decade. In terms of if there
was to be no further growth in the percentage, the number of learners who'd require placements
would be pretty static. However, what we've seen in recent years is that percentage has
gone up by around about 0.1% per year. The planning is taking account of that at this
stage and then new proposals come through the rolling programme. We'll respond further
to that.
So I don't have those numbers with me this evening and it tends to be something that
changes from day to day. We do still have children who, we have placed all children
for this September that we would have expected to from early years and from year six learners
transferring to year seven. We have seen an increase in the mid phase referral so this
year and so we do have around about 80 decisions pending and we've made schools aware that
in the immediate period we may not have places for all of those children but they will be
remaining of course in their current school with support and with specialist services
working with them and with their schools.
At a recent Alanko meeting, the Alankos were told 200 pupils were waiting. That was just
a few months ago.
No, I think that's a misunderstanding. We gave them the figures for how many referrals
there had been this year. There were not 200 pupils waiting. We did say that there were
around 90 cases at that time still pending a decision but there were not 200 children
waiting.
So you're happy with the support the schools who have lost support staff can still provide
with restricted budgets? Are you happy with that situation as it stands at the minute?
It's obviously a concern that we'll be tracking very closely and working very closely
with our schools because we do understand very well that our schools are feeling under
pressure at the moment with their budgets and with their support.
Thank you, Patricia. Rob, Councillor Hopkins, do you have a question?
Thank you, Chair. Yes, it's just a point of clarification really or a couple of points
of clarification. I think this committee has supported the move towards less reliance in
the future on out-of-county placements and with the figures given in the cabinet report
that's clearly a significant sum and we are fully in support of steps taken to reduce
that.
My question here really is the use of the independent sector, is that largely because
of a lack of places currently in the authority schools or is there expertise in the independent
sector that doesn't exist in the authority schools currently that means places in the
independent sector in the future are still likely to be needed? Thank you.
Yes, so a bit of a mixture there in reality. So we do know, you know, whatever provision
we bring forward, you know, in-house, we do know that there will always be a cohort that
may be better suited in independent sector rather than necessarily the local authority
provision or, you know, when you look at things like economies and scale, you need to be able
to make that financially viable if you're putting that on in-house. So there may well
always be a need for some element, but we do know that there's not enough specialist
places and that's why in the rolling programme we put forward the city-wide ALN proposal
where we are, you know, looking to make a step change in ALN provision which obviously,
you know, will be developed and brought forward in line with today's proposal but in line
with the other proposals we brought forward over recent years as well. So I think, you
know, we absolutely acknowledge that there isn't enough specialist places that we would
like and which is why we have a reliance on the independent sector. We do know that that
then applies pressure throughout the system as well, so there's a knock-on effect. So
having said that, you know, the independent sector, you know, we quality assure those
places and we do also, you know, work with those providers closely. So that provision,
you know, really has been really, really important for us over recent years and lots of other
local authorities are in similar positions as well.
Thank you. And then just one other point. In the papers that we had prior to the meeting,
the chair's letter to the cabinet member in March of this year, I think it's on page
150, it's paragraph 7 and 8 of that particular letter, there's quite a list there of issues
that arose from the formal scrutiny committee meeting on the 20th of March. I understand
that this meeting is largely concerned with the consultation and the response to that
and whether there were any objections, but I suppose what all I'm doing really is seeking
some reassurance that as the different elements of the program unfold, that we'll have more
insight into the extent to which those issues that were raised in that meeting are being
addressed. Thank you.
Trying to find those specific issues. Bear with me.
I remember it. I'm just trying to find it.
I'm struggling with internet, so.
Okie dokie, I can touch on each of those individually. So, yeah, land matters. So I think we're referring
to land matters staffing, SRBs, and the proof of referral unit, is that what we're talking
about here?
Well, it's a range of issues I've been covering. Get in sequence here. I wasn't expecting an
answer on every single one of those because there's quite a list. It was just really seeking
reassurance that we would have an opportunity to scrutinise the extent to which those are
being addressed as the program rolls forward.
I've got the list in front of me. I don't see an issue with that.
Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Councillor Gunter, do you have any questions?
Thank you, Chair. Please excuse me if I'm asking something that you've already explained.
This is my first time. So, looking at the papers and the sites proposed, I noticed that
there was one, I think, in the south and the rest dotted around. So how were the sites
originally identified? How was that decision made? The number seems small from what I can
gather from papers. How will unmet demand be measured? And should that be identified,
how will that be met, particularly relating to children who join in year or identify need
in year? And then how are you going to measure the impact? Because you mentioned that maybe
there wouldn't be enough for everyone. How are you going to measure the impact on the
current teaching performance and resourcing? So any of the pressures in schools, the impact
of not having enough spaces? And I guess, you know, a very basic one, you know, why
can't we have enough spaces? What's the limiting factor? Thank you.
Okay, so this is obviously the latest round of proposals that we've brought forward. So
the numbers might not seem large, but over the last few years we've brought forward well
in excess of 350 places, which is a huge number. Now, the school organisation team and inclusion
team work closely together. So we develop, you know, our plans behind the scenes, believe
it or not. So we have a number of workshops and meetings and things like that to look
at how we address some of the risks that we've got across our estate and the provision we
need to break. You know, obviously, when we're looking at sites, we're looking at where is
there space available as one of the criteria. We do look at a school's capacity to be able
to bring forward a base as well. And we also, you know, we want to try and reduce transport
implications where we can. So, you know, part of the strategy that we've brought forward
over recent years is to try and get that spread of places as well across the city. I think
we originally outlined this plan about two or three years ago in the cabinet paper that
said about how we were going to go about things. Now, we've known all along this is only part
of a phase. And actually, you know, we knew that we needed to bring forward more specialist
places in due course. But this has been an essential first phase of what we wanted to
do. So, you know, they're the sort of things that we generally consider in terms of, you
know, meeting meeting at demand. Brett mentioned the point one percent growth that we've had
over recent years. That's been pretty consistent. So we would anticipate that, you know, any
plans that we bring forward in future would be looking to, you know, at least address
a proportion of that growth. We do know that eventually, you know, we will get to a peak.
So we don't we've got to bear in mind and be careful that we don't over plan for places
and that we've got that flexibility in what we bring forward. So, yeah, as I said, those
school organizations side of things, you know, come together. We, you know, we're continuing
reviewing the positions of of of, you know, what we can bring forward. And we also need
to consider the policies that are coming forward, like the collaborations and federations and
strategy that came through a few months ago as well. And things like that are always considered
in the mix. And probably Jenny's the best person to speak to around the performance
of staffing and how we quality assure what we're doing. Thanks. In terms of monitoring,
you know, if there are if if there are children who are not able to be placed immediately,
obviously, as I said, that that is an emerging issue rather than it's not that we're holding
a long list at the moment. There's still placements being sought for a number of children currently.
And we know that there are decisions pending where we may not be able to place immediately.
So obviously, we'll monitor that very carefully, make sure that we keep track of those children
and that we continue to seek places for them, whether within our own schools or in the independent
sector. And that will partly look consistent looking at whether we can bring any of the
existing projects online earlier and move those things forward more quickly. In terms
of monitoring impact in schools, that's very much something that we will work on with our
schools in terms of being aware of the impact for children. But we have specialist services
that we will make sure we look at the capacity there and that we're identifying extra staff
or extra time to focus on those children and to make sure that schools are able to meet
those needs.
Just around the point about how will in-year measurement be done to manage demand there
and the question about what is the limiting factor in terms of why we're not looking at
a 100% coverage right now. What limits that?
Over the last few months, this is quite a new emerging issue, over the last few months
we had a surge in referrals that was more than we would have anticipated because it
was a bigger increase. And we don't yet know whether that's a random blip, sometimes that
you do get a surge, or whether that's a trend. So obviously we're monitoring that very closely.
So we are slightly out of step with the places that we're able to provide this year, even
though there has been a significant increase in the number of places. But that's to a certain
extent that was unforeseeable because it was an increase in referrals that we weren't immediately
expecting. We're also doing work of course, we'll be doing more work to actually look
at how we support our schools to further develop early intervention and support in school to
reduce the need for specialist placement and to reduce the incidence of ALN. And we will
be looking to put a lot more focus on that in the coming months.
Just one bit, sorry I meant to clarify earlier. You have certain populations who there is cultural
stigma around some of this stuff and they're still learning and programmes that the council
has put forward like the neurodiverse city and that will start to raise awareness. So
how are you managing or what are you looking at in terms of managing that demand? So where
parents may not have even sought a diagnosis or may not have recognised that it was something
that could affect their children and they maybe become a bit more aware and accepting
of it.
Thank you. Well certainly, I mean there are several issues there, not least that there's
a very long waiting list currently for neurodevelopmental assessment as well, it's running at three
years at the moment. So even where families are seeking an assessment, obviously it's
something that we need to address. And over the last several years we've been increasing
our work really to make sure that we are being, as far as possible, needs led rather than
diagnosis led. Obviously additional learning needs system is about needs, not about diagnosis.
So it absolutely does not prevent us from identifying and supporting a learning need,
whether it's part of a diagnosis or not. So if children are presenting with social communication
difficulties or emotional dysregulation, it shouldn't really matter whether there's
a diagnosis or not. And we're doing quite a lot of work currently to, as I say, further
equip and skill our schools and to build our capacity to meet those, to identify and meet
those needs. We're rolling out a lot of training at the moment, the framework we're
using is called CERTs, which stands for social communication, emotional regulation and transactional
support. And that's something which is very, which has proved to be very beneficial for
children with autism and with other neurodivergent conditions, but it's also got a much wider
application. So it's a good framework to use for a generality of need and regardless
of diagnosis.
Do you have a question? Thank you. I appreciate we're at the third stage of the consultation
here. And I'm just kind of still seeking a bit of reassurance from some of the questions
that have kind of been raised previously. And from my perspective, obviously, welcome
the proposal that was put forward, but I'm still cognisant of the current ALN crisis
that our schools are in and how we're going to try to meet the demands of where we already
are. So I'm just wondering in terms of the spike that we're seeing, is there any correlation
between the spike and the fact that schools ALN budgets have been frozen and that schools
are unable to meet the demand of children with IDPs and ALN in the school, given that
there aren't enough spaces? I do understand that. How has that been taken into account?
The budget pressure is very much part of a wider budget pressure, not just for ALN but
across school budgets generally. And so the freeze on it, the ALN support budget does
run at 10 per cent of the whole school's delegated budget. So it felt that it was important and
it was discussed with schools in advance that we needed to cap it at that level. And schools
have done a lot of work over the last two years since that was implemented to change
and develop and adapt the way they're working in school. We're seeing a lot of really innovative
practice in terms of moving away from a one-to-one support model to much more flexible, much
more fluid and much more beneficial approaches, actually. So we will continue to look with
our schools at efficiencies and other ways of working across the piece. So that's in
terms of the budget question you asked. I think you asked for something else as well.
It might be covered by my other questions, actually. It's just recognising that there's
a big emphasis on these new schools, which is great, but it really isn't forgetting that
we have schools full of children with IDPs that no longer have that one-to-one support
that they desperately need because the budgets are so tight. A couple of other questions
that I had looking at the Cabinet report. Again, it says around Council are committed
to ensuring high quality learning and that's quite difficult to do with funding being frozen.
And what about, as my colleague here had mentioned, about midterm moves? So when children are
coming into the school with ALN and an IDP and the budget doesn't actually account for
their needs, how do schools pivot and how can they be expected to provide high quality
teaching and learning without any additional funding to support those children?
I think what we're seeing is part of a wider budget issue and I don't know whether our
Councillor Mary or Richard would want to come in on that as well, but it's not purely an
ALN funding issue. It's about we've adjusted the way that we're delegating the budget to
schools and I think there's a general recognition that it is more useful to schools in general
to have a budget up front which they can use flexibly rather than small pots of money that
are attached to individual named children. In the past it was through a statement of
SCN. However, we're absolutely aware that schools and the local authority must make
sure that children's needs are being met, not necessarily in the same way that they
might have been under that statement in system, but their learning needs must be met and schools
are able to work with their budgets and to work with their staff allocations to adjust
things through the year. I recognise that there are challenges and that we continue
to work on that with our schools and monitor that.
Could I come in briefly there because I think we're going slightly away from the actual
proposals in the paper being considered by cabinet is in terms of the funding issues
is actually the budget for and plays a really important role in any conversation about how
we distribute the money allocated to education and on there we've got governors, we've got
heads from primary, special and secondary schools. So while admitting that there are
pressures on schools at the moment in terms of finances as there is across the local authority,
we have those conversations on the budget forum and in working parties within the budget
forum to try and develop the best way of distributing the funding available.
Councillor Humphries, do you have a question? Yes, thank you chair and I do apologise as
well in case this has been covered before, but going through this report I don't see
anything on the safety of children for accessibility. When they're dropped off at the where they
have to be to go to school, are they dropped off in a safe area so they can go straight
in and has any ideas been put in a print disabled parking base outside the school areas as well
because even in mainstream schools, there are children who are in wheelchairs. Thank
you. Yeah, that forms part of the capital projects
that we undertake as part of bringing the proposals forward. So what we what we don't
do is simply just open a class without the appropriate facilities and the appropriate
support as well. We do we have to look at it holistically. So you know, I can tell you,
for example, at Coie glass, we're we're looking at exactly that we're looking at disabled
parking, but you know, a lot of the children come come on in taxis as well. So we're looking
at the appropriate taxi drop off areas and stuff like that. So that naturally forms part
of each of our schemes that we bring forward. And, you know, that's that's that's a core
part of what we have to do. We probably haven't gone into any detail on this because we probably
would have done it a couple of papers already earlier. And as I said, those capital projects
are you know, we've we've developed some of those at risk already. So we're you know,
we're planning all of those in right now. Thank you very much. And there's no need to
go remotely because there is no one online. And so thank you everyone for your attendance
on this item. And we will consider this and the way forward and I will write to you to
inform you of the committee's observations, comments, and or recommendations ahead of
the cabinet on Thursday. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
We move to agenda agenda item eight, which is the way forward. And I invite Alison to
help determine the way forward arising today's meeting. Can I please remind members that
the way forward is a committee led discussion, and it is the responsibility of members to
specify on camera what goes into the letter. I will invite the scrutiny officer to briefly
outline the issues identified. I will then invite members to state what they wish to
include in the letter, please switch on your microphone and I will come to members in turn.
Please switch off when you have finished speaking. I'll hand over to Alison.
Thank you very much chair. Okay, and just to pick up on a couple of things that came
through from your q&a today, and you asked around the numbers of pupils with regard to
4% What is that in numbers, and you also asked around 100 places possibly on the waiting
list. And Brett came back to you and said that the May annual report that went to cabinet
said there were 2000 learners. And also when you pressed with regard to some more details
of how this looks and what it looks like, Jenny said she had no details. So maybe you
would like to ask for a bit more detail in terms of what you were asking. And you also
asked whether they were satisfied really whether there was the capacity, the staffs and the
budget to actually make the proposals go forward. You asked around out of county placements
and the use of the independent sector. You referred back to the March 24 chairs letter
and the number of things that you raised in that letter and you sought some reassurance
and some more insight. So again, you had assurance from Councillor Mary that she would look at
this, perhaps in the letter we reiterate this. So it's right there in front of them ready.
You asked a number of questions about proposals in the year. You asked around how sites were
identified that the proposal sets out relatively small numbers. How is unmet demand to be measured?
What about the in year changes and what kind of measurement is in place there? You asked
around measuring impact on current teaching and resources and any other limiting factors.
And again, there was lots of talk about monitoring, about emerging, about they are out of step
with numbers etc. So just to kind of flag that really in terms of whether you were satisfied
with what responses you had there. You asked around populations where there may be a cultural
stigma and how they're going to manage this demand, maybe as you said, Councillor Gunter
linking in with the neurodiversity city proposals going forward. So you heard a few things around
that regarding, but there is a three year neurodiverse waiting list on that at the moment.
You may have some comments to make on that. And you then asked, how are you going to meet
demand? Bearing in mind the ALN budgets are frozen and schools simply with pupils with
IDPs not getting the support. And again, you raised about mid year and how the school can
pivot and financially accommodate those pupils. You heard that this was a wider issue. 10%
of the school's budget is put by ALN. Schools can adjust their budgets. They've got a budget
for them. Again, were you satisfied with the response you had there? And then finally,
you asked around accessibility about safe drop offs and disabled parking spaces. And
Richard gave you the particular example of koi glass there. So that is what I picked
up in terms of the question and maybe some of the things that you may want to think about
to put in the letter. I'll throw it back over to yourselves to let me know what you'd like
to go in it back over to yourselves. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Thank
you, Chair. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Alison. I think that's a fairly comprehensive sweep
over the issues raised. I just wonder, I'm looking back at the letter again that we sent
in March, and I just wonder whether in this particular letter it's worth putting a particular
emphasis on the points that were raised today, particularly those around the ability of schools
to deliver and meet the needs in their entirety, given the current budget constraints there
are. I think that it would be worth highlighting that because the list in the letter is quite
an extensive list, and I think the discussion today is focused on just a few of those issues.
It's probably worth emphasising. Also, there's the money. I think it's probably the other
big issue is the capacity of schools to meet the diverse needs that this group of youngsters
presents in the context of the resources available, but also I think we've asked today as well,
it's not just the children who are clearly identified as requiring that support. It's
children on the edge of that support who may not have an IDP. Their needs are supposed
to be met within universal provision within the mainstream classroom, but I think what's
underpinning our questioning really is a concern that the pressures and the strain put on schools
in the current climate to meet that wide range of needs needs to be weighed very carefully.
We have asked previously as well about recruitment and retention and building the capacity of
schools to meet those needs given the increased numbers. We've had reassurances on that
in the past and we've also been referred to where there is expertise in the system
that can be drawn on, but I think it's tied in with the increase in demand, the increase
in need, and the ability of schools to cope with all of that, with the financial constraints
there are, but also you don't just magic that expertise out of thin air overnight.
It's got to build, so I think there are a number of issues that are sort of connected
there.
Thank you, Robert.
Just to add to that, far more eloquent than me rather than putting that together, but
I think something that I would really like, I still don't feel very reassured and I
understand that it's a bigger issue, but it's not specific enough, so there was lots
of we will do this, we will do that, but I've got no idea how they're going to do it.
There seems to be a lot of impetus put back on the schools, the schools are telling us
they're already struggling, so Jenny had mentioned a couple of times we'll be monitoring
this focus on schools early intervention, how are they going to do that, how are they
going to support the schools to do that? So that's what I would like more information
on is how we're going to support schools to meet a lot of this need.
Thank you. Patricia?
It's really linked to that, because they mention there's a surge in referrals, they're not
sure if it's a trend or a blip, should they not know if it's a trend or a blip and why
have they been caught unawares by this? If they're monitoring and tracking and doing
all of those things, how could that have happened and what are they going to do differently?
Basically to ensure that this is controlled. And three years waiting for an assessment,
who are the people, I basically have an idea who is involved in the assessment, but where
is the difficulty? Who are they short of in people to actually do it? Is it Ed Sykes,
they need more Ed Sykes? Who and why, basically, is that three years?
Thank you. Anyone else? Helen?
Thank you, Chair. So there was just two areas. Like many colleagues have already said, I'm
really not comfortable that unmet demand is understood or actually being considered enough
in terms of preplanning or modelling. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information around
it, particularly in relation to where there are populations in the city who don't engage
and maybe there may be demand there that nobody's even considering. So it would be good to put
something in the letter on that. I wonder whether the way to do that, and I'm not sure
if this is allowed, would be a task and finish group where we potentially have some site
visits or to see some suggestions, maybe site visits. And also then we would have the opportunity
to maybe ask the schools to reflect first hand on how has the change of the budget,
the way that the budget is done, has there been any reflection on how that is? What are
the positives and what are some of the challenges coming out of it?
Thank you very much. Anyone else? No?
Thank you, Chair. I've taken all those issues on board. Just to run it through the committee
then, would you be happy to start a task and finish group looking at some of this ALN information?
Maybe at that point you could start digging a little round about some of the questions
that maybe are not being answered in the detail you want. As you said, go and talk to schools
directly, go and do some site visits, et cetera. Would this be something the rest of the committee
would be happy to do?
Councillor Hopkins?
Yeah, I think Councillor Gunther's suggestion of having some first hand contact with schools
is a very good idea, actually. And we did have a little bit of an insight into that
in the step two of this process, where one or two of the schools had raised a number
of concerns. Coi Glass comes to mind, for example. And I think there is no substitute
really for trying to get some insight into how this is panning out on the ground. So
I would certainly support that, yeah.
Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.
I was going to ask the question then, but I felt I had asked enough. So I was wondering
something else that came up for me, and it would be really good to hear from other schools,
was one of the points in the cabinet report was that having an SRB based in a school has
no financial burden on the generic school. That's not our experience. So it would be
really good to find out if it's the experience of other schools. And are they aware of it
actually happening? Because it was quite a significant financial outlay from our school,
you know, from our budget that went to do something for the SRB base. So it can contradict
what's written in the report. So some clarity on that would be good. I'm happy to provide
it, but that's the type of stuff we could pick up on a site visit.
Councillor Humphries.
Yeah, thank you, Chair. I don't know if we'd be allowed to do this, but would it be possible
for maybe somebody from finance department to come in to visit us to explain how they
do the budgets for schools and how they allocate funds to different parts of the school? That's
okay.
Yeah, I don't know if they're really good suggestions.
Yeah, yeah. Okay. That sounds great. We'll certainly put that in place. Just to kind
of take a little step back then, that the main recommendation really for this report
is whether, you know, the current proposals go forward following the one objection that
they received, and they've obviously responded to that. So in a kind of, you know, in terms
of the process, which, you know, are you happy for the proposal to go forward in terms of
the objections received as part of this process? So I'll say that you commend the report to
cabinet to be agreed, but I think that exactly a big however, that there are still a lot
of unanswered questions and a lot of things you want to look at and a lot of things you
want some answers to, and that is going to be via the task and finish group where you
go out and do some site visits, speak directly to school leaders and etc. I will put that
in place and I will ensure that goes in the letter as well so they're aware of that. I'll
also ask them as well what their timescales are so we can ensure that anything that comes
from a task and finish group tallies up with the next stage of the proposals, okay?
Councillor Hopkins.
Yeah, I think that's been a very interesting discussion. I think it would be really helpful
if we could use a form of words like support the recommendation to cabinet rather than
commend the report, because we had a similar issue with the letter in response to the collaboration
and federation strategy and we suggested a different form of words rather than commending
the report there, and incidentally we haven't had a response to that letter yet.
Okay, thank you. I'll hand back over to you, Chair. Thank you very much. We now move on
to the final agenda item, which is agenda item. Apologies, Councillor Gunter.
Thanks, sorry, it was only in case it was said. Is it possible in a letter to say, you
know, we're supporting this report to go into cabinet, but clearly we don't think it goes
far enough. So would we normally ask for reassurance or ask them to commit to another visit back
to committee to tell us their future plans, you know, after this report?
Absolutely, absolutely, yeah. I'll put that in the letter and, yeah, no problem. Okay,
Chair.
No, perfect, thank you very much. Before I move on, any more? No? Fantastic. So agenda
item nine is date of next meeting. So thank you all for your attendance today. I formally
closed the meeting. The date of the next meeting is Tuesday the 10th of September 2024 from
4.30pm. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
[BLANK_AUDIO]