Agenda and minutes

To note any changes in membership of the Panel made in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.3.

Apologies were received from Councillor Damani and Councillor Odgers and the Panel noted that in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 4.3 and 4.4, Councillor Thomas replaced Councillor Damani and Councillor Osmond replaced Councillor Odgers, for the purposes of this meeting.

In accordance with the Local Government Act, 2000, and the Council's Code of Conduct adopted on 16th May, 2007, Members to disclose any personal or prejudicial interests in any matter included on the agenda for this meeting.

NOTE: Members are reminded that, where applicable, they must complete the appropriate form recording details of any such interests and hand it to the Panel Administrator prior to the commencement of this meeting.

Members are invited to declare any prior participation in any decision taken by a Committee, Sub-Committee, or Panel of the Council on the agenda and being scrutinised at this meeting.

Councillors Morrell, Turner and Willacy declared non-prejudicial interests in relation to the scrutiny inquiry in view of their relationships with members of their family who were in receipt of or provided special educational needs.

Report of the Head of Corporate Policy and Performance, providing details on primary school educational attainment for children with special needs and attaching papers outlining the current definitions and strategies in place for special educational needs (SEN), attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Policy and Performance, providing papers outlining the current definitions and strategies in place for special educational needs (SEN), attached.

The Panel received a presentation from officers from Southampton City Council and Solent Healthcare highlighting key issues around the support, provision and commissioning for children with special educational needs as well as the local context of current performance with trends, national context and problem areas in relation to particular special needs or areas.

The Panel noted that:-

• the SEN Inquiry had been well-timed as the Southampton Strategy for Special Educational Needs was due for renewal and the Government’s SEN and Disability Green Paper on the revised guidelines and focus for SEN would be made public in November;
• one in five pupils – 1.7 million school-age children in England had been identified as having special educational needs and this was categorised by the 2001 Special Educational Needs Code of Practice into 3 categories.  School Action,  requiring additional support from within the school, School Action Plus requiring support from outside specialists and Statement of Special Educational  Needs requiring intensive support;
• there were two models of SEN which required different approaches:

*  medical model – the result of a medical condition which was fixed, unlikely to change and required early diagnosis to minimise the impairment through medical interventions and therapy; and

* social model – where children and young people were disabled/disadvantaged by socially created barriers in attitude, organisation and environment and which required the removal of barriers to learning;

• the social model highlights the need to build good models of language, the potential issues with labelling and the differences between impairment and disability;
• the allocation of resources for SEN in the medical profession and in education were different;
• Southampton had a good  range of quality provision for pupils with SEN and/or disabilities at mainstream schools with support and resourced provision and Special Schools, the latter which only catered for children and young people with statements;
• Springwell School’s specialist services can also be utilised by other schools;
• Ofsted reports on the Southampton schools providing SEN provision were on the whole very good;
• the Ofsted Special Educational Needs and Disability Review had highlighted a number of issues which needed to be addressed;
• wherever possible children were educated in mainstream schools rather than Special Schools, but it depended on the specific circumstances and requirements of the child and a thorough assessment was undertaken prior to moving a child to a Special School;
• all children were entitled to education and if a child had been excluded an appropriate assessment of their educational needs is undertaken so that the correct provision is made for them to return to school;
• difficulties at school were often inextricably linked to the pupil’s home environment
• Solent Healthcare and their commissioners, Southampton NHS, provided very early information on children with possible medical special educational needs issues, whilst behavioural and learning difficulties often came to light when children started school;
• children were more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.