Agenda item

The Committee received the service report card for Support for Learning (SfL) Service, as detailed within the circulated report.

Members were informed that the Service focused on inclusion and support for achievement for children and young people with Additional Learning Needs (ALN) and sat at the heart of school improvement. The terms school action and school action plus were explained to Members. School Action was put in place when a pupil was identified as requiring additional support and a school education plan would be put in place. If concerns persisted then pupils would be placed on School Action Plus and this was where the Service would target more intensive support.

It was highlighted that there had been a significant reduction in referrals since 2013/14. Members queried what the reasons were for the decrease in referrals. It was explained that part of the reason was the increase of high quality training and capacity building to ensure schools met the needs of pupils. It was noted that a high percentage of referrals received were completed within the year and there was one pathway for referrals to ensure it prevented duplication of assessments. In addition, a recent restructure of the Service had resulted in more capacity in the behavioural team. Feedback regarding the Service had been positive with high percentages of schools and parents rating them as good or excellent.

Members noted that 86% of schools said the service provided by the SfL teams was good or excellent and asked what the 14% had been dissatisfied with. Officers informed them that there had been frustration with some waiting times for services due to capacity issues. Also there were some minor issues, such as the quality of venues for training.

Members highlighted that overall there was a reduction in referrals but there appeared to be evidence that there was an increase at Foundation Phase and queried why this was the case. It was explained that the data did reflect that there were now more referrals at Foundation Phase and Key Stage 2 and part of the reason was due to schools being better equipped to identify additional needs at an earlier stage. It was confirmed that Foundation Phase teachers were also seeing an increase in late developing speech and language skills.

Members asked if the services were delivered to Welsh Medium schools in Welsh. It was noted that there was a Welsh speaker in each team and they would carry out the assessments within these schools. Members asked if the speech and language services delivered a translated programme or used a different language specific programme. It was noted that a lot of work was undertaken with Welsh Medium schools to ensure that the services were fit for purpose. For example the “phonic rocket” was delivered in both English and Welsh. It was highlighted that the specific needs of the child would be addressed by the team.

Members noted that 72% of the referrals received by SfL were accepted and asked what would be the basis for the acceptance. It was clarified that the acceptance of referrals was based on professional judgement. Officers confirmed that the other 28% of referrals did not enter into the system and a graduated response would be put in place or they would be signposted to other services.

It was noted that 7.8% of referrals were referred to ABMU Health Board Services. It was highlighted that ASD team had been proactive providing additional support for those on the waiting list for these services. Members highlighted that the waiting times for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) were not acceptable. Offices explained that it was not a CAMHS Service and those waiting lists would not have an impact in this instance. The Chairperson highlighted that the Committee had not received a response to their letter highlighting concerns with CAMHS. The Committee would be considering its next steps in regards to this and possibly writing to Welsh Government and local Assembly Members.

It was noted that there had been an increase in the number of learners with ALN over the last three years and they continued to increase. It was highlighted that instances where pupils with Special Educational Need (SEN) did not achieve the Core Subject Indicators the data was analysed to identify the reasons why. Specific actions would be put in place to target vulnerable learners, for example, a lot of work was undertaken with the Looked After Children Education Services (LACES).

Members asked if the Service had been within budget and if they had delivered any savings allocated to them in the Forward Financial Plan. Officers highlighted that that it was a large and important budget area. It was explained that there were some areas that were overspent, particularly in the Education Other Than At School Service, which had been reported corporately. This had been part of the reason for the restructure of the Service to ensure that the budget was effectively utilised and to reduce exclusions. It was noted that overall, the section had been within budget.

Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.