Agenda item

The Director of SEND and Education submits a report to update the Commission on Leicester City Council's SEND Reform Plan, which was submitted to the Department for Education (DfE) in June 2026. The Plan sets out how Leicester's local area partnership, jointly led by Leicester City Council and the Integrated Care Board (ICB), will transform services for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) over the next three years in response to national reforms.

The Director of SEND and Education submitted a report to update the Commission on Leicester City Council's SEND Reform Plan, which was submitted to the Department for Education (DfE) in June 2026. The Plan set out how Leicester's local area partnership, jointly led by Leicester City Council and the Integrated Care Board (ICB), would transform services for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) over the next three years in response to national reforms.

The Assistant City Mayor for Children and Young People introduced the report and noted that the Department for Education (DfE) had responded well.

The Head of Service for Systems performance and Quality presented the report.

The presentation slides were attached to the agenda, additional points raised were as follows:

• There had been to DfE advisors, one on the financial aspect and another on the educational aspect.
• There had been a very tight turnaround to produce the plan.
• Potential changes to the legal framework for SEND had been looked at.
• It was aimed to co-produce the plan as much as possible, and the plan had been built through co-production workshops.
• Stakeholders had been involved in the delivery, including parents, children, the Integrated Care Board (ICB) and representatives form schools, colleges and nurseries.  There been a series of six locality events and two Children and Young People sessions had been attended.  The idea was to engage with partners about strategic engagements.
• Overall it was aimed for the plan to be ambitious.  DfE feedback had wanted the service to prioritise against the areas of greatest pressure. 
• The service had looked to build on strengths, much of this came from the Change programme which had been coopted into the plan.
• The City continued to invest in specialist services.
• It was understood that it was necessary to broaden the range of specialist provision.  Significant funds had been built in designated specialist and SEND units and alternative provision.
• It had been necessary to deal with significantly increasing demand.  Post-pandemic there had been an increase in demand in requests for assessment.  The service was working through this.
• Work had been done with the Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF) who had been a very active partner in the programmed delivered.
• The Council had a trusted relationship with schools and ongoing conversations and dialogues with schools.
• Proactive work was undertaken with inclusive practice, built around the Equality Act and Children and Families Act.
• It had been necessary to identify the core areas where there had been pressures, such as early years reception, where there had been a large increase in requests for assessments. Also in mid-Secondary, where there had been an increased need around children with communication and interaction need.
• Further demands in the implication of the 2014 Act led to growth in the use of independent specialist places.
• There was continued pressure around sufficiency.
• It was key to identify pressures with the DfE and bring additional resource to bear so it could have the most impact.
• There were five key workstreams as set out on the slides attached with the agenda pack.  Strength and inclusion and building the offer were emphasised.  A key priority was early years and early intervention and there was a big commitment to this. 
• There was additional Capital resource to build out DSP.  The DfE expected most schools would have some sort of specialist place.
• A large part of the plan was about reshaping and transforming existing services.  Part of this was about how services could be brought to bear to encourage inclusive practice.
• More speech therapy and language therapy was being brought to bear.
• Social health and increased interaction were being built up in secondary education.
• There was delivery through the locality approach to align with the Family First agenda and Family Hubs agenda.
• There were additional places in DSP units.
• An understanding of data was being built and the service was understanding the drivers of the data with schools, partnerships and families.
• This was not an improvement plan as it had been very clear that it was necessary to look at provision  It had also been clear that due to timescales in the plan over the three years, the plan could be amended and refocussed where necessary.
• Speech and language therapy, early intervention, a strengthening of post-16 and adding additional support at Key Stage 4 for where there was greatest need were the key drivers.
• Support would be based on the data from the relevant areas.
• Schools would have to deliver their own inclusion strategies by the end of this year.

In response to Young People’s Council (YPC) member questions and discussions, the following was noted:

• In terms of ensuring that Young People were involved, there had been good dialogue in developing the plan with a regional SEND group.  It had been aimed to include as many voices as possible, mainly in the post-16 transition, ensuring that the offer was as good as it was intended to be.  The voice of the pupil was very important.
• In terms of what was aimed for in the reform and what young people would get out of it, it was noted that the SEND Reform White Paper aimed to develop inclusion.  There was an idea that young people should have effective provision available in neighbourhoods.  It was also aimed to create inclusive environments and broaden the capacity of mainstream schools so that SEND pupils could participate in local schools.  Further to this it was aimed to use the plan and resources to try and support development so that there were schools in neighbourhoods to meet the needs of young people.

In response to member questions and discussions, the following was noted:

• The DfE were providing scrutiny on this, and reporting quarterly would provide a big picture and strategic numbers around this area.
• The locality model included dashboards around neighbourhoods.  It was aimed to support schools in a more personal way.
• It was aimed to provide data and analysis going forward and to extract the data where focus was needed.
• It was aimed to provide transparency and a proportionate amount of data where achievements were being made, and where things needed to be done differently.
• In terms of methodology to measure parent satisfaction, there was an annual parent survey as well as regular feedback from the parent and carer forum.  Clusters and locality demographics would also be used to inform the work.  Additionally, there was the Big Mouth Forum for SEND children, and the Youth Council could also inform in a more general was.  It was important to hear voices on experience.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That a matrix and analysis on clusters and locality be brought in a future meeting to see how locality and clusters were performing and the reasons behind it.

3)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account.