SFV SRP Presentation v3

This version of the presentation contains additional comments and questions from the meeting on 1 & 27 March

SEND Family Voices

Proposals to create additional specialist school places in Kingston and Richmond Tom Connor, Senior Educational Psychologist Sarah Herbert, Lead School Improvement Advisor (SEND) Matthew Paul, Associate Director, School Place Planning

The purpose of today’s meeting To explain: • How proposals have developed • What the proposals are To hear: • Your views about the proposals • Your ideas • What else you would like us to consider

The need for more places SEND Review undertaken in spring 2017: key finding: ‘More local places for children with SEND should be established so that families have more choice and so that more children and young people can be educated in their community. This should include more places in mainstream provision (maintained and academy schools), more specialist resource provisions based in mainstream schools, and more special school places.

Consideration should also be given to increasing the post 16 options available to young people with SEND locally.’

The availability of funding • £215m of ‘special provision fund’ provisionally allocated to local authorities in England • Allocations made on basis of population growth, adjusted by local build cost factor • £1.7m for Kingston • £1.6m for Richmond

• To be given and spent over three years

Additional notes based on questions at the meeting on 1 March (not part of the main presentation) Not all the money has been “earmarked” for provisions yet – so there is still the possibility to add to these proposals The DfE put in place a requirements that Local Authorities (LAs) must have a plan on their website by 14th March 2018 in order to access the funding. (this was not communicated very clearly – so LAs have only recently realised that this needs to happen. This is the main reason for the concrete plan that is being shared here. There is however scope to make changes and to refine the plan.16

The process for enabling more places • Spring 2017: schools invited to submit expressions of interest (EoIs) for hosting or expanding SRPs • EoIs assessed against a range of criteria: • • • •

Quality of teaching, learning and inclusion Popularity with parents/carers Availability of physical space on site Value for money

• Key criterion: Ofsted rating of ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’

Additional notes based on questions at the meeting on 1 March (not part of the main presentation) The quality of teaching and learning and the popularity with parents / carers is based on data and information that AfC collects via the school improvement team and SEN teams. Some of this is feedback from parents The need to find value for money (to make limited funds go as far as possible) where schools already have space (e.g. spare classrooms) this is a factor that has been considered) Teachers in SRPs are expected to be specialist teachers

The process for enabling more places (cont.)

• Meetings with headteachers to test willingness and assess availability of space

• Feasibility studies undertaken • Governors’ agreement sought • Service Level Agreements drafted

Next steps • Consultation: Friday 2 March to Friday 30 March • Further meeting?

• Responses by survey: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/SENDplaces/ • Responses analysed and publicly responded to • Feedback meeting • Implementation

Additional notes based on questions at the meeting on 1 March (not part of the main presentation) These notes were added to the presentation following comments and questions at the meetings on 1st and 27th March, where this presentation was shown At the meeting SEND Family Voices committed to collating any feedback received from the community via email or at the open meetings into a report that will be submitted to Achieving for Children by 30th March (end of the consultation period) SEND Family Voices sent out the link to the online consultation via their newsletter A feedback meeting has been organised that will be held on Tuesday May 10th 10:00 – 12:00 in the Wintergarden at York House in Twickenham. At this meeting parents will get the chance to hear how AfC have responded to the feedback received during the consultation.

There will additionally be a written report

Additional notes based on questions at the meeting on 1 March (not part of the main presentation) These places are all for Specialist Resource Provisions within mainstream schools. These provisions are distinct from the mainstream school, but sit within them, with the intention of enabling as much integration with the mainstream as is appropriate for the children attending the specialist resource provision These proposals do not cover new special schools. This is because the only way to open a new special school with current legislation is under the free schools programme. At the meeting Matthew Paul advised that the DfE had indicated that the next free schools round will be for mainstream schools only, meaning that in the short term there is not a window to look at opening a new free special school.

In order to access these specialist resource provisions the child will need to have an EHCP, or be undergoing an assessment process that looks very likely to lead to an EHCP The AfC team clarified that current policy is for all Specialist Resource Provisions to be reviewed every 2 years, and that the views of parents should be part of that. There is a standard questionnaire that can be used to solicit parent views and the review team will be looking for the school to provide evidence that they have consulted with parents

Kingston proposals • • • • • • • • •

Surbiton Children’s Centre Nursery: 2 more, ASD King Athelstan Primary: 6, SEMH Latchmere: 6 more, ASD/ACLN; possible further 18 Lovelace Primary: 12, SLCN (KS2; to be confirmed) Coombe Girls’: 6, communication needs, inc. HI The Hollyfield: 20, ASD with sensory/EH needs The Kingston Academy: 5 more, ASD/ACLN Tolworth Girls’: To be confirmed St Philip’s: 32 more, Yrs 5 & 6

Additional notes based on questions at the meeting on 1 March (not part of the main presentation) The Hollyfield school is a co-ed school (many of the Kingston secondary schools are single-sex) The AfC team clarified that although a provision may be targeted at “ASD” (autism) it would not be necessary to have a clinical diagnosis, the allocation of places should be based on the needs and profile of the child

AfC clarified at the meeting on 27th March that the provision at Lovelace primary may well be different to that indicated here – discussions are still ongoing.

The SLCN KS2 provision is now proposed to be at Castle Hill Primary

The Hollyfield school is building a 3 floor expansion and the SRP will be on the ground floor of this new facility

Richmond proposals • • • • • • • • • •

Windham Nursery: 4 more, ASD Barnes Primary: 14, ASD/ACLN East Sheen Primary: 3 more (KS1), SEMH Hampton Hill Junior: 3 more, SEMH Heathfield Infant & Heathfield Junior: 8 more, ASD St James’s Catholic Primary (GTC): 4 more, ASD Grey Court: 14 more, re-designation to ASD/ACLN Orleans Park: 4 more, SpLD Waldegrave: 2 more, ASD Clarendon @ Gateway: re-designation to ASD/SEMH

Additional notes based on questions at the meeting on 1 March (not part of the main presentation) The East Sheen primary additional provision is an extension down to KS1 (currently the provision only exists at KS2) St James Catholic Primary has an ASD provision, that will be extended down to reception The Gateway provision (within Twickenham Academy) is currently designated as being 80% inclusion in mainstream with support. AfC are looking to change this designation to provide more support within the SRP and less time within the mainstream, as this better fits the profile of the children that they need to place.

AfC explained that one of the issues in finding new SRPs in Richmond schools has been physical space. Richmond schools have already expanded a lot over the last few years (additional form entry in many primaries, new sixth forms in the secondaries) Update on Barnes primary proposals from 27th March meeting: during the Barnes primary consultation there was opposition to the school expanding to 3 form entry. Although this does not specifically impact the SRP proposal – the proposed expansion is currently on hold – but AfC are hopeful that there may be a way for the SRP to go ahead.

There is a current SLC (speech, language and communiction) SRP at Grey Court, but there are currently only 1-2 children in it – hence the proposal to redesignate as ASD / ACLN provision (associated complex learning needs) The Grey Court proposals will require a new build – so will not happen before 2019/ 2020

Accommodation / staffing / governance / outreach Each SRP would have: • Bespoke accommodation, including small space, therapy room, etc.

• A Teacher in Charge • Educational Psychology support • Therapies • A closely monitored service level agreement • A steering group, including parents/carers Teacher in Charge would: • Be responsible for day-to-day operation • Undertake some outreach to other schools • Lead training for whole-school staff

Additional notes based on questions at the meeting on 1 March (not part of the main presentation) The AfC team observed that there should be pathways in and out of a SRP (e.g. the Gateway) – a child may need that additional level of support only for a while during their school journey and may find that they are able to move back into mainstream, or start their school journey in mainstream but move into the SRP. The educational psychology input is there partly to help shape the provision and help it to evolve §over time to best meet need Parents asked whether SENCOs are properly qualified and trained. Sarah Herbert clarified that all SENCos must now be qualified teachers and that they must additionally complete the national SENCo qualification course within three years of being appointed.

The AfC explained that one of the roles of the teacher in charge of the SRPs would be to do outreach to support mainstream schools. Parents commented that this can lead to staff problems and a lack of on-site expertise. The AfC explained that the outreach would need to be carefully timetabled.

The intention of the SRPs is that they are part of the main school (so the teacher in charge should be part of the main school leadership team). They should not feel like “mini special schools”

Additional notes based on questions at the meeting on 27 March (not part of the main presentation) There is an intention to increase the number of Educatoinal Psychologists to better support the new SRP provisions

The therapy provision into the SRPs is currently assumed to work in the same way as schools currently access therapy. i.e. the therapists are not intended to be employed directly by the SRPs but will work within their health teams However the intention would be to aim for as much consistency and continuity as possible The steering group for the SRP must meet at least once per year. The SG will be made up of the Teacher in Charge, the school Head, parents, probably the SEN governor, a local authority officer The profile of the Teacher in Charge of a SRP in a secondary school was discussed.

AfC indicated that often these roles are filled by a teacher who has a more generalist approach (e.g. someone with primary training) – as the narrow subject focus for many secondary teachers is not necessarily appropriate for the role.

An interactive feedback session followed, based on the following: Comments / Concerns / Questions on 1) The specialisms defined in the proposals (are they clear? Do they cover the areas where you believe there is a need?, etc…)

2) The quality / content or type of support and provision (what would make these SRPs really good? What are key factors to consider when defining provision and support? etc…)

3) Location / numbers / coverage / schools (Do you see any gaps? Do you find the locations and provisions appropriate? etc…)

4) The consultation process and what happens next (How should AfC move forward from here? What is the most efficient way of getting parental views and involvement? What would you like to see happen? etc…)

The responses to this part of the meeting are captured in a separate word document

Questions / thoughts / ideas?