The Children's & Education Select Committee of Buckinghamshire Council met on Thursday 29 January 2026 to discuss the SEND Improvement Programme, the Placement and Homes Strategy for Children & Young People, and the School Attendance review. Key decisions included the agreement to revisit a 2015 report on child sexual exploitation and its recommendations, and the commitment to provide further information on the cost breakdown of new children's homes.

SEND Improvement Programme

The committee received an update on the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Improvement Programme. Councillor Carl Jackson, Cabinet Member for Education & Children's Services, informed members that the government's SEND reforms, initially expected in January, had not yet been published beyond a set of high-level principles.

A significant concern was raised regarding the funding for special schools. The council had been informed that promised funding for a new special school would be replaced with £8 million to expand existing provision. Councillor Jackson had written to Buckinghamshire MPs and the Minister for Children and Families to challenge this decision, and the Minister had confirmed that the council could continue making representations until 27 February 2026. Members requested to see copies of this correspondence.

Concerns were also highlighted about conflicting public statements regarding whether a new special school had ever been promised and whether £8 million was adequate given the forecast need for around 600 places by 2030. Officers noted that, based on the Department for Education's own cost estimates, expanding current schools to create 152 places would typically cost closer to £18 million. While expanding existing sites and developing SEND units in mainstream schools were seen as helpful, officers stressed that new special school places would still be necessary to meet the overall level and type of need across Buckinghamshire.

The Chairman commented on the ongoing confusion surrounding government guidance for SEND provision, particularly the push for more specialist units in mainstream schools, despite many schools lacking the physical space, funding, or staffing capacity to support them. This was exacerbated by schools facing tight budgets and reduced support staff. The Interim Corporate Director, Children's Services, added that creating ARPs, SEND units, or expanding special schools requires not only suitable space but also specialist staff and training, placing additional pressure on mainstream schools already working hard to be inclusive.

The Service Director for Education and Inclusion confirmed that significant work was underway to expand specialist provision across Buckinghamshire, including exploring expansion with existing strong providers and developing a continuum of support ranging from light-touch inclusion to full specialist settings. The Chairman acknowledged that despite financial constraints, the council was taking a proactive approach to planning future SEND capacity.

Members' Scrutiny focused on several key areas:

• High Needs Block Deficit: With the High Needs Block deficit projected to increase to £211.6 million by 2028/29, members questioned the specific measures being implemented to prevent serious financial instability once the statutory override ends in March 2028, particularly given the continuing rise in SEND demand and EHCPs. The Cabinet Member and officers explained that while the government had confirmed the statutory override would end, the handling of accumulated deficits remained unclear. Local authorities were lobbying for clarity, with further information expected with the upcoming white paper. In the meantime, the council was continuing to meet its statutory duties, including delivering the £3 million EHCP recovery plan to speed up assessments, although this did not reduce the growing deficit.
• Rise in EHCPs: The sharp national and local increase in EHCPs and the pressures this created were discussed. Officers attributed the rise to better identification of needs rather than an increase in children without genuine needs. Significant pressure on educational psychologists was highlighted. The council was attempting to manage demand through additional staffing, associate educational psychologists, and the £3 million EHCP recovery plan. Wider contributing factors, including increased mental health needs, post-COVID impacts, and rising levels of neurodivergence, were also noted. The importance of early identification and support was stressed, with work underway to strengthen mainstream support to potentially reduce EHCP applications. However, staff shortages, particularly in educational psychology, limited preventative work.
• EHCP Quality and Budgetary Influence: Members sought assurance that current EHCPs genuinely reflected each child's needs and were not being shaped or limited by budgetary pressures. Officers confirmed that EHCPs were not influenced by budget constraints, but acknowledged that the quality of plans could vary due to system pressures. The expanded team and the new EHCP recovery team aimed to improve both capacity and quality. The council's multi-agency quality assurance process was used to audit plans found to be below standard, identify learning points, and ensure staff received necessary training.
• Ofsted and CQC Inspection Findings: Members inquired how the partnership would ensure the findings of the joint Ofsted and CQC inspection in November 2025 were incorporated into the updated strategic plan and how the planned development day in 2026 would support this. The Cabinet Member stated that the council could not yet comment on the inspection details as the findings remained embargoed until the report's release on 13 February. Officers explained that a SEND improvement programme was already underway, and early feedback suggested alignment with the inspectors' observations. Once the final report was received, the partnership would review the recommendations at the planned awayday and integrate them into a unified multiagency improvement plan.
• EHCP Recovery Plan Outcomes: Members requested specific outcomes expected from the £3 million EHCP Recovery Plan at three, six, and twelve months, along with trigger points for intervention if progress was too slow. They also asked for the most up-to-date data available, given the low Quarter 2 performance figure of 7%, and whether emerging Quarter 3 statistics showed improvement. Officers explained that the latest EHCP timeliness figures were expected to be similar to the previous quarter due to the backlog, but the number of plans issued each month was increasing. Meaningful improvement was anticipated from Quarter 2 onwards. Internal metrics, such as the number of EHCPs issued each month (target of at least 175) and the average waiting time, would demonstrate progress in clearing overdue cases. These metrics would be shared with members.
• Annual Reviews and Audits: The status of reviews and audits for EHCPs was questioned, particularly regarding pressure on these areas and potential knock-on effects from the EHCP assessment backlog. While annual reviews were under pressure, they were not as delayed as EHCP assessments. Improvement work was helping to free up capacity for both. The recovery programme had added two extra annual reviewers to manage the workload.
• Support for Children Awaiting EHCPs: Concern was expressed that children waiting for EHCPs were not receiving adequate support, and questions were raised about how the council supported children who did not meet the EHCP threshold. Officers stated that schools had notional SEN funding to support children before an EHCP, and many received SEN Support. The council also provided limited funding during assessments. The High Needs Block restricted further funding to mainstream schools. The council was also exploring wider community and universal services for children not meeting the EHCP threshold, with family hubs being developed to offer drop-ins and peer support.
• Support for Children with High Needs: A scenario was presented regarding a child with extremely high needs who did not meet the criteria for exceptional support funding and had no EHCP, while the school supported several children with similarly high needs. Members asked what the council could do to help schools in such situations. Officers explained the need for proper evidence of notional SEN funding use and fair allocation of additional money. The difficulty of this process was recognised. Equality assessments regarding patterns in refusals or ineligibility for EHCPs were requested.
• SEND Improvement Programme Progress: An update was requested on the progress made against the KPIs for each workstream of the SEND Improvement Programme and the expected delivery timeline. This was described as a long-term programme, with not all workstreams having KPIs yet. However, momentum was evident, with improved data quality, a completed EHCP investment business case, and progress in team culture and wellbeing.
• Tribunal Appeals: Information was requested on the council's expenditure on tribunal appeals, the number of appeals, and the success rate. It was reported that 24% of appeals related to the council's decision not to carry out an EHC needs assessment, 61% to placement disputes, and 15% to EHCP contents. Information on the success rate was not available during the meeting.

My Home, My Future: Placement and Homes Strategy for Children & Young People 2026-2030

The Cabinet Member reported on the four-year strategy aimed at ensuring children in the council's care were placed in appropriate and supportive living environments. The goal was to rebalance placements by reducing out-of-county and residential placements where appropriate, and increasing the use of foster care to keep children closer to home, their communities, and familiar support networks.

Members' Scrutiny focused on:

• Reducing Distant Placements: With 73 children placed more than 20 miles from home as of September 2025, members questioned the realistic trajectory for reducing these placements and when the council expected to meet its KPIs. The Cabinet Member and Service Director for Provider Services explained that work was underway to bring more looked-after children back into county. Eight of the ten planned homes had been purchased, though delays in Ofsted registration were outside the council's control. Timelines had been adjusted due to challenges in recruiting registered managers and the pace of Ofsted approvals. The strategy aimed to reduce reliance on external placements from 85% to around 40% over the programme's life. Increasing in-house capacity and early-intervention edge of care work were central to improving this.
• Accountability of External Providers: Measures to ensure external providers were held fully accountable for the quality of their work were discussed. The Service Director for Provider Services acknowledged the need for strong oversight of external placements. Significant progress had been made in commissioning more intelligently, including building stronger relationships with local external providers, exploring block-commissioning, and ensuring providers worked closely with partners.
• Specialist Therapeutic Fostering: The importance of specialist therapeutic fostering for reducing complex out-of-county placements was highlighted. Members inquired if new in-house homes would be staffed and trained to support children with more complex needs and the expected timescale for this enhanced provision to be fully operational. The specialist therapeutic fostering scheme was designed to support children with more complex needs and facilitate their move from residential care into stable family homes. All foster carers and residential staff would receive aligned therapeutic and PACE training. The target was to train five specialist foster carers in the next full financial year.
• Financial Risks and Impact: The strategy's projected 367% return on investment over ten years and £7 million in annual savings by 2029 were discussed. The main financial risks identified were the long Ofsted registration process and recruiting registered managers. Mitigation strategies included reducing pre-opening staffing, dual-registration for experienced managers, and working closely with Ofsted. If delays continued, children would remain in external placements longer, further from home.
• Supported Accommodation and Housing Access for 16-18 Year Olds: The strategy's approach to improving transition pathways and securing suitable local housing for care leavers was questioned. Three supported accommodation properties were being refurbished, with a fourth parent-and-child step-down home opening soon. Children's Services and Housing were meeting fortnightly to plan move-on options and reduce delays. Work was also underway to improve access to social landlords, private rentals, and expand supported accommodation through smarter local commissioning. Young people receive support from a personal advisor until 25, with housing benefit and a leaving care grant provided.
• Longer-Term Vision for In-House Residential Provision: Clarification was sought on the longer-term strategic vision for in-house residential provision beyond the 2029 target of 45%, including the realism of aiming for 60-70% by 2035. It was acknowledged that predicting children's needs five to ten years ahead was difficult due to external factors. While the number of children needing care was expected to reduce slightly, some children would always require specialist or out-of-county placements.
• Capital Budget Breakdown: Clarification was sought on the £11.7 million capital budget for ten new children's homes, specifically the cost breakdown per home or per bed. This information was not available at the meeting, and officers were asked to provide a detailed cost breakdown once available.
• Engagement with Ofsted and National Bodies: Given the challenges with Ofsted capacity impacting the council's ability to open new homes, members inquired about engagement with the Local Government Association or local MPs to press for wider national action and support. A letter to the responsible minister had been drafted to highlight the problem, and discussions were taking place with other local authorities to present a collective case. Escalation through bodies like the Local Government Association or County Councils Network was also being considered.
• Safeguarding Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) and Care Leaver Transitions: Measures to safeguard UASC during periods of non-engagement and support for young people transitioning out of care were discussed. UASC receive the same support and entitlements as other care leavers, with enhanced support reflecting additional needs. Data comparing the outcomes of UASC with other looked-after children was requested.

School Attendance Review - Recommendation Monitoring

The Cabinet Member for Education & Children's Services presented an update on the series of recommendations previously made by the committee regarding school attendance. An outline of progress achieved and the Cabinet's responses confirmed that the recommendations were sensible and constructive, with most being fully acknowledged and acted upon.

Members' Scrutiny included:

• Campaign Fatigue and Engagement: Concerns were raised about avoiding campaign fatigue and improving engagement with harder-to-reach families. It was noted that running the campaign during the summer holidays limited school involvement, and future campaigns should be scheduled in term time. Officers agreed and committed to ensuring schools remained fully engaged.
• Impact of Recommendations: A question was asked about which recommendations had delivered the greatest measurable impact and which had shown little or no effect. Officers committed to providing this information later, outlining plans to evaluate the impact of soft start approaches, breakfast clubs, and transition programmes by analysing attendance data and seeking feedback from pupils, parents, and school leaders.
• Reaching Parents: The council's strategy for future school attendance campaigns to effectively reach and engage parents, particularly given mixed engagement levels during recent phases, was discussed. Future campaigns would analyse previous phases, avoid less effective timings, broaden communication methods through community groups and targeted social media, and tailor materials for non-English speaking communities.
• Understanding Root Causes of Non-Attendance: The council's understanding of the underlying causes of non-attendance, such as SEND, anxiety, parental factors, and wider vulnerabilities, was questioned. Schools and the council recognised the complexity of non-attendance, with schools identifying local patterns and the attendance team analysing county-wide absence data. However, more work was needed to formally assess and consolidate the underlying reasons for non-attendance across Buckinghamshire. The Corporate Director committed to reviewing current practices and reporting back.

Other Matters

• Public Questions: No public questions were received. However, Councillor Robin Stuchbury submitted a question regarding the revisiting of a 2015 report on child sexual exploitation. The Cabinet Member confirmed that safeguarding had developed significantly since 2015, with a coordinated approach through the Missing and Exploitation Hub. Ofsted had recognised the progress made. The matter of councillor training on child sexual exploitation would be addressed.
• Chairman's Update: The Chairman reported on a recent meeting with CAMHS, highlighting the increasing pressures on the service and asking for ideas to reduce waiting lists. An update on the Placement and Home Strategy for Children and Young People was also provided.
• Work Programme: The committee received the work programme for the rest of the year and requested that the SEND Ofsted Inspection Report be added to the March agenda.
• Q2 Performance - Children's Services Portfolio: The Q2 Performance Report was received for information.
• Date of Next Meeting: The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday 26 March 2026.