A presentation about the recommendations from the Learning Difficulties consultation.

1. Consultation on Review of Provision
for Children and Young People with
Learning Difficulties
Zarah Lowe
Provision and Partnership Development Manager

2. Why Carry Out a Review of LD
Provision? (1)
• More than 5000 children and young people in
Surrey have a Statement of SEN
• Only 45% are being education in mainstream
school provision
• 10% are in SEN units and resources provision
• 35% in maintained Special School provision
• 11% are being placed in non-maintained and
independent – of which £35m of SEN budget is
spent (22% of total budget)

3. Why Carry Out a Review of LD
Provision? (2)
• SEN Green paper – Support and Aspiration:
• Single assessment process
• 0-25 plan
• Offer of a Personal Budget
• Local Offer
• 57% of young people in NEET have a learning
difficulty – highest numbers either have
Moderate Learning Difficulties or Behaviour,
Emotional or Social Difficulties

4. Why Carry Out a Review of LD Provision?
(3)
• More children and young people with LD
accessing local mainstream provision
• Less children and young people placed out of
county, away from home
• Mismatch between needs of Surrey children and
Surrey provision
• To improve educational outcomes for pupils with
LD

5. Objectives of the Review (1)
• Clear pathway planning, with focus on
transition and key stage transfers
• Needs of more LD pupils met through
mainstream
• Identify growing needs of pupils with more
Complex Learning Difficulties
• LD Special Schools to meet current and
projected needs of pupils

6. Objectives of the Review (2)
• Deliver integrated service with Care and Health
across range of settings
• Identify attributes required in maintained schools
to reduce reliance on non-maintained and
independent schools
• Identify role of extended and residential provision
• Proposals are affordable and value for money

7. Key Findings (1)
• No coherent structure for specialist centres
• The most complex pupils are not always in
specialist centres
• No LD centres in secondary schools
• Inclusion in mainstream schools inconsistent
• LD school places poorly distributed
geographically and potential over provision
• Over specialism in LD schools

8. Key Findings (2)
• Commitment at leadership level needed to
develop inclusion in mainstream
• Funding issues
• Variable experience and training for
SENCo’s
• Access to outreach unclear
• Inconsistent use of provision mapping

9. Key Findings (3)
• Inconsistent transition planning to colleges
• Variable expertise in colleges
• Historically poor funding mechanisms
• Courses not full time
• No access to extended day provision
• Parents’ preference and expectations
• Access to therapy services inconsistent

10. Key Areas for Change
• Developing Local Provision
• Early Planning and Prevention
• Integrated Approach

11. Recommendations (1)
• Improve inclusion in mainstream settings –
leadership role
• Clarify role and expectations of centres
• Consider best way of describing pupil needs on
statements
• In future LD schools should be “generic” rather
than specialist to increase capacity
• There is a place for a specialist primary school

12. Recommendations (2)
• Clarify therapy provision
• Set out clearly what our mainstream schools,
centres and special schools provide
• Clear programme of training for SENCo’s and
raised status
• Review outreach to channel expertise more
effectively
• Develop improved flexibility with FE college
sector and provision at 14-19

13. Recommendations (3)
• Develop more employment opportunities for
young people with LD

14. Timeline
• Consultation process completed – July
2013
• Implementation of recommendations and
actions – September 2015

15. Consultation Questions (1)
• Do you agree with the recommendations
from the review?
• Are there any recommendations you think
should have been included?
• Do you agree that more mainstream
schools need to be inclusive? How could
this happen?

16. Consultation Questions (2)
• What actions do you think need to be part
of the implementation plan to take these
recommendations forward?
• Any other comments
• Would you be willing to contribute further?