Meeting documents

To consider this report.

The Committee considered a report that provided details of a peer review carried out last May by Gloucestershire County Council of the Council and partners, as part of the preparation for a Local Area Inspection of Special Educational Needs and Disability 0-25 (SEND 0-25) by OFSTED and the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The resulting report (attached to the report as an appendix) acknowledged that there were some good practices and initiatives throughout the service but that a local area inspection would be likely to find ‘significant weaknesses’ in practice, based on progress to date in the implementation of SEND reforms and a lack of evidence to display the positive impact made in relation to outcomes for children across Somerset to date.

It was reported that the peer review had found an acknowledgement that there had been a delay in Somerset responding to the SEND reform agenda – which had been reflected by the reactive nature of the SEND work since 2015. This had meant that the local area had not made the level of progress that would normally be expected by the reforms in terms of showing improved outcomes for children and young people. Overall the peer review found there had been a slow pace of change and it was unclear why certain areas had been prioritised over others when looking purely at the measurable impact those had made for Children and Young People in Somerset with SEND.

The Chairman asked how the required improvements would be brought and monitored and the Director of Children’s Services replied that the peer review had recommended priority areas and a lead officer had been identified to drive through a rapid response. The priority area groups would meet fortnightly and focus on addressing the findings of the peer review and would report to a newly established multi-agency SEND 0-25 Intervention group. It was also noted that an Interim Head for SEND was now in post, and this would provide valuable capacity and expertise in the Council’s response to the peer review.

The report was accepted and it was suggested and agreed that an update be provided in a few months to give the Committee an overview of the progress.