Special Educational Needs
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 16

Special Educational Needs (SEN) Review PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 47 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Special Educational Needs (SEN) Review. Facts, Background, Desired Outcomes and Required Outputs. Why undertake a full review of SEN?. SEN Review Some background facts and figures. In 2009 pupils in first/primary schools with a statement of special educational need .

Download Presentation

Special Educational Needs (SEN) Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Special educational needs sen review

Special Educational Needs

(SEN) Review

Facts, Background, Desired Outcomes and Required Outputs


Special educational needs sen review

Why undertake a full review of SEN?


Sen review some background facts and figures

SEN ReviewSome background facts and figures

In 2009 pupils in first/primary schools with a statement of special educational need.

Northumberland1.8%

England1.4%

Statistical Neighbours1.3%

Overall we have a higher percentage of pupils with statements than any of our statistical neighbours

However at School Action +

Northumberland4.8%

England6.4%

Statistical Neighbours6.5%

And at School Action

Northumberland 9.4%

England11.8%

Statistical Neighbours10.6%


Sen review some background facts and figures1

SEN ReviewSome background facts and figures

In 2009 pupils in Year 7 - 11 with a statement of special educational need.

Northumberland2.7%

England2.0%

Statistical Neighbours2.0%

Overall we have a higher percentage of pupils with statements than any of our statistical neighbours

However at School Action +

Northumberland5.0%

England6.2%

Statistical Neighbours5.3%

And at School Action

Northumberland10.2%

England12.8%

Statistical Neighbours11.5%


Narrowing the gap national indicator 104 the sen non sen gap end ks2 l4 in both english and maths

Narrowing The GapNational Indicator 104 – The SEN/Non SEN Gap – end KS2 - % L4+ in both English and Maths

  • In 2009 78.9% of Northumberland pupils with “no identified SEN” reached L4+ in both English and maths at the end of key stage 2.

  • 22.3% of pupils with SEN reached this level of attainment

    • The “gap” therefore in 2009 was 56.6%

  • Nationally the figures were 84.4% (non SEN), 33.5% (SEN) giving a

    • gap of 50.9%,

    • and amongst our statistical neighbours the gap was 53.3%.


Special educational needs sen review

Narrowing The GapNational Indicator 105 – The SEN/Non SEN Gap – end KS4 - % 5+ A*-C inc both English and Maths

  • In 2009 62.7% of Northumberland pupils with “no identified SEN” achieved 5+ grades A*-C including English and maths.

  • 11.1% of pupils with SEN reached this level of attainment

    • The “gap” therefore in 2009 was 51.6%

  • Nationally the figures were 61.0% (non SEN), 14.5% (SEN) giving a

    • gap of 46.5%,

    • and amongst our statistical neighbours the gap was 47.8%.


Sen finance

Northumberland has significantly higher than average levels of spending on SEN.

Amongst our statistical neighbours we are the equal highest spenders (with Stockton), and spend more than twice that of the lowest spender (Nottinghamshire).

We are easily the highest users of out of county provision, with more than four times as many out of county placements as Nottinghamshire.

SEN Finance


Background the review has been undertaken as a matter of urgency concerns relate to

An approach and systems that

is considered to be strategically and operationally out of date

last reviewed in 2003 and does not accommodate new developments such as - Academies, Federations, Provision Management, Common Assessment Framework, Integrated Children’s Services

has ill defined Principles, Values and Expectations and incorporates perverse incentives

High and rising level of costs with poor value for money being achieved

Despite high level of investment in prevention and early intervention – yet over-reliance on statements of SEN

a Post Code Lottery of provision and support due to the rigidity of current systems and service delivery

BackgroundThe review has been undertaken as a matter of urgency - concerns relate to:-


Scope of the sen review

A range of issues:

High spending on SEN in some areas

Distribution of central support

is it fair and/or effective?

Formula funding of ‘SEN’

is it a help or a hindrance?

Statements and ‘out of county’ placements

Roles of mainstream & special schools + the ‘centre’

in relation to Outcomes for young people

Scope of the SEN Review


Special educational needs sen review

Findings and Recommendations


Mainstream funding for sen

Issues

Lack of early intervention funding fuels demands for statements

Statements can be over–prescriptive & access to specialist provision is over -dependent on statements

SEN funding may be not well managed or understood in schools; some double funding of ‘exceptional needs’ pupils

Suggest:

Increase early intervention & relax statementing conditions

Look at 3 year funding models; revise ‘exceptional needs’

Improve information and focus monitoring on evaluating pupil progress

Promote collaboration between schools

Mainstream funding for SEN


Services

Issues:

Variable support and access to services unclear

Type of support not always what schools want

Suggest:

Support for area based approach being developed by NCC

Need for clear SLAs and better customer focus

Consider progressive delegation

Reconfigure SEN funding and provision towards school led management locally – SEN clusters, Northumberland school partnerships, Berwick Model

Services


Special schools and units

Issues

Doubts over the Matrix system of funding

Current place bands limit the ability of special schools to take more pupils with more complex needs

A number of anomalies in funding different settings

Issues over Outreach; Dual Placements; and Places

Suggest:

Consider reform of Matrix arrangements and funding anomalies

Create additional place category(ies)

Develop Outreach and dual placements

Assess school based developments and empty places

Special Schools and Units


Statements and out of county

Issues

High level of statementing, though this is being addressed

Monitoring and challenge schools’ provision for SEN

Inadequate in house capacity for EBD

Quality of some independent provision unclear

Suggest:

Shift moderation to school level

Improve monitoring

Develop more in-house mental health support

Partnerships for therapeutic support

Statements and ‘Out of County’


Sen transport and costs

Issues

Geography is only part of the explanation for high SEN transport costs

Policy, practice and charging explain much more

Suggest:

Free transport only when need requires it

Transport implications of statement decisions be considered

Don’t offer spare places free of charge

SEN Transport and Costs


Funding and implementing future provision

Through:

An Invest to Save strategy

Recycling savings from

Transport

independent placements

reductions in statements

Simplifying the structure of central support services

Funding and implementing future provision


  • Login