Headteacher Briefings March 2017

Headteacher Briefings March 2017
Education and Young People’s Services

Update on Progress, future priorities and service developments for 2017/18 Patrick Leeson Corporate Director Education and Young People’s Services

Key priorities and service developments
EYPS Vision and Priorities for Improvement Education Services Company Children’s and Young People’s Services Improvement Programme SEND Strategy Refresh NEETs and Strategy Early Help Strategy and Three Year Plan Education Commissioning Plan Update

Review of High Needs Funding and SEND Strategy

SEND Strategy Julie Ely Head of SEN

KENT SEND STRATEGY WORKING TOGETHER, IMPROVING OUTCOMES
ACHIEVEMENTS: More children attending a better school Support for schools through LIFT and Early Years LIFT High needs funding without statutory assessment 500+ ASD, 300 SLCN and 300 SEMH Largest group Y1, then Yr2. Secondary schools make fewer applications but 63% non-Grammar and 47% Grammar schools applied. We are tracking Y6 into Secondary school More places in Special schools and in mainstream specialist resourced provision (SRP) Support and for families; IASK, Local Offer

Refreshed aims for Improving outcomes; education, social, health and emotional well-being Meeting statutory duties; Children and Families Act 2014 Creating greater capacity; address the gaps in provision; quality and range

Vision Good local schools; core standards, earlier intervention and inclusion Partnerships; school to school, workforce development, outreach support Provision and places Co-production, providers engaged with changes Good progress for every Kent child and young person with SEN

KENT SEND STRATEGY Priorities for 2017-2019
Identifying the right children at the right time Creating capacity in schools through workforce development particularly for pupils with autism Improving attendance and inclusion Better transitions between pre-school and school, moving to college Ensuring assessment is effective and meeting needs

Ensuring provision is improving outcomes Effective use of High Needs Funding Specialist provision where it is needed locally, reducing transport Preparation for adulthood; post 16 provision, high quality work experience, internships and support for apprenticeships Fewer SEND NEETs

Increasing parent satisfaction and confidence Children and young people with SEND and their parents are involved in decision making Creating more specialist places, particularly Secondary age Reduce parents’ frustrations with delay or accessibility Continue to promote awareness of the Local Offer Have a high quality statutory assessment process which delivers to timescales and engages parents at each step Have embeded a culture of evaluating the impact of what we do to regularly monitor and review children’s progress and parents’ experiences of schools and systems

WE WILL KNOW WE ARE ACHIEVING WHEN
High needs funding has more impact on SEND progress and attainment Parents feel listened to and their views are acted upon and there is evidence of high levels of parental involvement in SEND assessment and review Young people are influencing decisions about them The local offer is informative, well known and used Parents are highly satisfied with SEND provision and have confidence in the support provided Fewer EHCPs needed in mainstream schools

Review of High Needs Funding

Future years outlook The Government is proposing to introduce a National Funding Formula form In relation to High Needs, based on current proposals, we are unlikely to see any increases in High Needs funding that Kent receives for the next 4 years ( ) But we are still going to have growth in High Needs pupil numbers We have commenced a review of High Needs

High Needs Funding The numbers of pupils supported by high needs funding have increased In relation to High Needs costs in mainstream schools, there has been an increase of £14m since Just under half of High Needs funded pupils do not have an EHCP But referrals for statutory assessment continue to increase

High Needs Pupil Numbers - By Institution
Actual Latest forecast Special Schools 3,272 3,349 3,572 3,688 3,733 Resource Provision 804 810 874 859 900 Mainstream Schools 802 860 1,475 1,916 2,129 Independent - pre 16 458 491 521 533 Independent - post 16 87 71 64 52 Independent 545 562 585 OLA Maintained 95 103 108 FE Colleges 467 570 636 845 SPI and CCP 55 141 TOTALS 5,985 6,254 7,229 8,001 8,299 This slide was shared with the Schools Funding Forum on 9 December and shows the year on year growth of High Needs pupils in Kent Main areas of concern are around the growth in Mainstream schools as well as FE colleges for post 16 pupils On mainstream, our new system was introduced in so you cannot compare with previous years Position on mainstream has increased further since this was produced – LA is looking at options for containing costs within affordable levels

Cost of High Needs (£'000) - By Institution Type
1000 £'000 Actual Forecast Special Schools 67,048 68,543 68,118 70,326 71,093 Resource Provision 13,118 14,919 15,274 15,938 15,658 Mainstream Schools 8,755 8,899 14,398 20,808 22,344 Independent - pre 16 17,581 19,840 22,588 23,661 Independent - post 16 6,000 5,359 4,281 4,665 Independent 23,581 25,199 26,869 28,326 OLA Maintained 2,295 2,531 2,661 3,247 3,948 FE Colleges 4,229 4,980 6,867 8,332 8,425 SPI and CCP 366 1,123 TOTALS 119,026 125,071 134,186 147,342 150,916 Increase from previous year 6,045 9,115 13,156 3,575 % increase from previous year 5.1% 7.3% 9.8% 2.4% And here is the costs of those High Needs pupils by type of institution

Balancing the 2017-18 High Needs Budget
DfE increased the budget by £3.4m Schools Funding Forum agreed to the transfer of £5m from Schools budget to meet growth in mainstream High Needs Schools Funding Forum also supported some changes to the Notional SEN top up, which will save an estimated £1.8m

High Needs Funding in Mainstream Schools

DfE Guidance on High Needs Funding
SEN Code of Practice 2015 section 6.99 states: ‘Schools are not expected to meet the full cost of more expensive special educational provision from their core funding. The local authority should provide additional top-up funding where the cost of the special educational provision required to meet the needs of an individual pupil exceeds the nationally prescribed threshold’. The DfE identifies High needs funding as the cost, over £6,000 incurred by a school, of more expensive special educational provision to meet the individual pupil’s needs. It is not for quality first teaching and the delivery of the differentiated curriculum. This includes generic TA support.

TA Support An adult can be the facilitator of an intervention but are not an intervention or resource themselves. Class TAs supporting in any adult/child ratio, during a teacher led class based lesson, is differentiated teaching and would not be considered a SEN provision required to meet the needs of an individual pupil. Further guidance can be found in the Education Endowment Foundation ‘Making the Best Use of Teaching Assistants’ There are too many applications stating that a child needs 1:1 TA support with no identifiable purpose. A teaching assistant can’t be an intervention, an adult is the facilitator of an intervention. Every effort must be taken to provide an inclusion curriculum and large amounts of 1:1 TA support will not be funded apart from in exceptional circumstances.

Total number of HNF applications per district April 2016 to February 2017
Area With EHCP % with EHCP Without EHCP % without EHCP Total applications Tunbridge Wells 58 36% 104 64% 162 Tonbridge & Malling 105 46% 125 54% 230 Maidstone 107 44% 137 56% 244 Shepway 55 33% 114 67% 169 Ashford 74 35% 138 65% 212 Dover 81 145 226 Thanet 110 51% 49% 215 Canterbury 119 40% 182 60% 301 Swale 39% 257 61% 419 Dartford 83 43% 108 57% 191 Gravesham 184 Sevenoaks 75 97 172 County 1103 1622 2725

HNF Pupils and Secondary School Destination
Year 6 HNF pupils and year 7 school destination in Sept 2016 Type of school Totals % Special school 80 49% Mainstream school 71 43% Other 12 8% Total 163 Mainstream pupils Number with HNF claims since Sept 2016 Number with EHCPs 43 (60%) 3 Number without EHCP 28 (40%) 2 5

Conclusion The % of CYP with EHCPs in mainstream schools drops by 20% from year 6 to year 7.

Conclusion Secondary schools’ HNF claims are more likely to be for an EHCP (58%-70%) than without an EHCP. E.g. Out of all the HNF claims for Year 10, 70% of the CYP have an EHCP and 30% don’t.

Provision provided by Secondary Schools for CYP who previously had HNF
16 secondary schools provided information on the provision provided for 34 students in this group. For 19 of these pupils the schools stated that the provision required was mainly being delivered by the differentiated curriculum and ability setting in core subjects and more individualised provision didn’t exceed the £6,000 threshold. For 5 of these pupils the schools stated that the provision required was being fully delivered by the differentiated curriculum and ability setting in core subjects. For 4 pupils the school is either in the process of applying for HNF or will be applying after the Annual Review and the provision plan is updated. 4 already had high needs funding in place (2 were agreed in principle prior to the pupil starting at the secondary school). 2 pupils have subsequently moved to a Special school or SRP.

% of CYP who received HNF and went on to be issued with an EHCP

Review of High Needs Funding
In partnership with schools we want to look at practice and provision where: There are more than 10 applications for high needs funding (will vary depending on size of school). Applications include a majority of 1:1 provision. Any HNF application that is over the Special school cost for that need type. There is evidence of poor quality provision plans, poor outcomes or limited evidence of ‘assess, plan, do, review cycle’. Lack of evidence of impact and/or progress at reapplication. Limited use of the LIFT process and the available support to increase capacity in the school

Education Services Company

OUR OBJECTIVES To increase the long-term sustainability of Education Services in Kent To maintain and enhance strong bonds between KCC and Kent schools, allowing schools to have a greater say in how services operate and continuing the focus on improving attainment and standards To realise the additional opportunities for growth and future investment in traded Education Services to better support the delivery of high-quality statutory services.

EDUCATION SERVICES COMPANY SCOPE
It is proposed that the Education Services Company will be a Community Interest Company - intended for companies that wish to use assets and profits for community benefit rather than for increase in shareholder wealth. The Education Services Company will be responsible for delivering directly a number of services that are currently delivered from KCC and will continue to act as an access point for other KCC provided services

Services in SCOPE IN the new Company REMAINING in KCC School Improvement incl. Governor Services Early Help & Preventative Services Outdoor Education SEN Schools Financial Services Fair Access, Admissions Early Years and Childcare Area Education Officers Education Psychology Provision, Planning & Operations Skills and Employability Academies Conversion Education Safeguarding Service Community Learning and Skills EduKent - marketing and billing No splitting of services - statutory and traded elements remain together. Strong alignment across all services.

Stakeholder & Commissioning Board:
GOVERNANCE The proposal has School involvement on both the company and KCC side Education Services Company KCC/Client Side Company Board: Executive Team (Chief Executive, Director of Finance and Director of Organisation and Business Development) Non Executive Directors - KCC Non Executive Directors - School/ HT Non Executive Directors/ Chair - Independent Stakeholder & Commissioning Board: KCC Members and Senior Officers Schools/ Headteachers Other stakeholders (FE/Early Years /Governors)

TIMELINE and NEXT STEPS
Business case is currently moving through the approvals process, with final decision to take place on 27th March 2017 Development of detailed implementation has started Plans are underway to set up the Company Board, and Stakeholder & Commissioning Board from April to support implementation and be ready for the company going live later in the year

LA Multi-Academy Trust Proposal Patrick Leeson Corporate Director Education and Young People’s Services

National Picture Education select committee report 28th February
MPs urged the government to allow local authorities with a strong track record in education to set up their own MATS Echoed councils' calls to be allowed to use their expertise to help boost performance in struggling academies Number of MATS in England has trebled from 391 in 2011 to 1,121 in 2016 Concerns about the performance of some MATS, and capacity of the Department for Education (DfE), and the Education Funding Agency Concern about small rural schools and “untouchable” schools with poor records that find it hard to attract a strong sponsor.

National picture The Department for Education said there was no legal framework to allow councils to run MATs as fewer than 20% of members and trustees are allowed to be "local authority influenced". KCC has proposed that the 19.9% cap on the involvement of Local Authorities in MATs should be lifted

Current Academy Landscape in Kent
There are 581 Schools in Kent, including 99 Secondary Schools, 452 Primary Schools and 23 Special Schools Of these, 212 schools (36%) are academies, including 137 Primary, 74 Secondary and one Special School A further 369 schools (64%) are KCC maintained schools, including 315 Primary, 25 Secondary and 21 Special Schools Of these 369 maintained schools, 89 are Voluntary Controlled (24%) and 54 are Voluntary Aided (15%) schools making 143 in total and representing 39% of all maintained schools

Academy Schools - breakdown by former designation
Number % of total conversions Community 80 44.7% Foundation 43 24% Voluntary Aided 38 21.2% Voluntary Controlled 18 10.1% Total 179

MAT Landscape in Kent Multi Academy Trusts MATs Schools
MATs Schools National/Regional MATs with 1 Academy in Kent 8 MATs with 2 Academy schools in Kent 14 28 MATs with 3 Academy schools in Kent 5 15 MATs with 4 Academy schools in Kent 4 16 MATs with 5 to 9 Academy schools in Kent 38 MATs with 10+ Academy schools in Kent 3 44 Total MATs 39 141 Currently there are 63 single Academy Trust schools and 39 Multi-Academy Trusts in Kent, with responsibility for 212 academy schools. As per the tables below over half of all MATs in Kent comprise four schools or less.

Feedback from schools Schools considering academy status recognise the DfE preference for developing or becoming part of a multi academy trust Some schools have expressed a desire for an alternative either to forming their own MAT or joining an existing MAT whose ethos they do not share At the same time a significant number of Church schools in Kent have the one governance option of becoming part of a church majority MAT Some Community and Foundation schools do not wish to join these arrangements because of the governance structures that accompany such a MAT

KCC response The Local Authority has responded to these concerns through exploration of the idea of developing Local Authority supported MATs which could provide the means for a proportion of remaining maintained schools, particularly those which are small, geographically isolated or vulnerable for a variety of other reasons, to become part of a MAT that has the formal involvement of the Local Authority The Local Authority has a track record of improvement and working collaboratively, and would help to further develop leadership capacity and values-led and evidence-led educational direction and practice

KCC Guiding Principles
Partnership and joint collaborative working between schools and with the local authority is critical for success. A school led system needs to operate with coherence and alignment to other key services in the system that support school improvement and support vulnerable learners. All schools have an interest in, and should be able to influence, the quality, effectiveness and performance of local services and systems that support education and contribute to improving outcomes for children and young people Schools should be part of the leadership, governance and ownership of our strategies, services and plans for education.

KCC proposed model KCC would become a DfE approved sponsor so that the MAT could take on schools in difficulty and promote new Free Schools Aim to pilot 4 Primary area based hubs with the option of a fifth Secondary phase hub that could operate county wide Maximum autonomy for schools balanced with the MAT’s ultimate accountability for individual school performance Recognition that every school has its own unique context and how the MAT works with its schools will be tailored on an individual basis which takes account of this Retention of Local Governing Boards within a delegated governance structure, granting maximum freedom to schools Transparency on centrally provided services and their cost to schools The MAT would encourage its schools to always explore ways of supporting others within the educational community

The picture across Kent with the addition of a LA MAT

School Budgets and the implications of the National Funding Formula

Headlines Another year of flat cash (7th in a row & more to come)
Therefore no increases to funding rates MFG set at -1.5% Change to primary low prior attainment to accommodate pressure on mainstream high needs funding Deprivation (IDACI) bandings revised by DfE No changes to Pupil Premium or UIFSM

Low Prior Attainment changes
Mainstream High Needs budget = £18m Latest forecast expenditure = £23m Funding rate for eligible Primary pupils has been reduced by 25%, a reduction of £ from £ to £ to cover this pressure This reduction is outside of the MFG Mainstream High Needs £18m £23m Schools Budgets (Notional SEN) £85m £80m £103m

Deprivation (IDACI) IDACI was updated in major turbulence (in Kent and nationally) - cost us £2m in MFG EFA have now reviewed the bandings for to more closely match the distribution before the 2016 update This resulted in further turbulence of £1.5m Agreed with the Funding Forum to amend the rates so that the total distributed is at the same level as last year

Schools National Funding Formula Government Consultation Stage 2

What is changing Current funding system is unfair and is not transparent Kent has traditionally been one of the lower funded LAs - Member of f40 group of LAs DSG Historically Based = Schools Block + High Needs + Early Years DfE are proposing to introduce a fairer National Funding Formula for schools Proposals also cover High Needs and Central Services for Schools

Headlines from the Proposals
In total, Kent schools are set to gain £29.5m (+3.6%) when the NFF is fully implemented Some of our schools are gaining 10%+ But 140+ schools are set to lose funding Lack of flexibility to move DSG between blocks in future National rates are based on current spending averages rather than an evidenced or needs led basis of the cost of running a school

Headlines from the Proposals
A new floor to limit the reduction to -3% per pupil (stability) Some schools therefore protected on historic funding levels for many years No reduction to our High Needs funding but also no increase for a few years Central services for schools block set to reduce by £570k or 8.2%

Schools block - How will it work?
= no change to methodology Funding given to LAs (Pupil No x LA rate per pupil) LA operates the local formula LA can move funding between blocks (with Funding Forum permission) = Soft NFF LA total is aggregate of NFF for each school Schools who gain - capped at 3% Schools who lose - MFG -1.5%

Schools block - How will it work?
= Soft NFF continued Greater restrictions on moving funding between blocks = Hard NFF EFA operates national formula Schools who gain - capped at 2.5% Schools who lose - MFG -1.5% and Floor -3% 100% of schools block goes to schools No LA discretion Future Funding Forum role to be confirmed

Constructions of the Schools NFF
In total there will be 13 factors in the NFF

Schools Block NFF Weightings
Kent NFF Basic per pupil funding 78.5% 72.5% Additional pupil need 11.1% 18.1% School led funding 10.4% 9.4% DfE are proposing to increase the amount of funding provided for additional pupil need (e.g. deprivation and low prior attainment) - targeting children from families who are just about managing

Winners and Losers in Kent - % movement
Selective schools

Schools Block NFF Impact for Kent Schools and Academies
Generally speaking . . . Schools in deprived areas gain Schools who have high numbers of pupils with low prior attainment gain Secondary non-selective schools gain Secondary selective schools do not gain Small Primary schools lose

District based illustration tool

Next steps Raising profile of consultation with Schools
Continue to work closely with f40 Consultation closes on 22 March but we are keen to get an early response submitted Government response expected Summer 2017

Early Help and wider integration for schools
Integration, Integration, Integration Education, Education, Education Location, Location, Location Key opportunities to develop all and to end service and reduce the need for acute high cost of service Early Help and wider integration for schools

Context of the Central Referral Unit
In 2011 the Central Duty Team (CDT) was created. In September 2014, a county wide Early Help Triage Unit was established. In July 2015 Triage was co-located with Specialist Children’s Services Central Duty Team in the Central Referral Unit to ensure that information sharing is effective and that there is ‘no wrong door’.

Rationale For Changes Ensure a more integrated process to reduce consultation, duplication and give clarity to the pathways to access support for vulnerable children and young people Increase prevention and reduce the number of referrals into Specialist Children’s Services through robust threshold application, ensuring that decision making is consistent Divert a higher proportion of cases to Early Help, enhancing their preventative impact upon social care while ensuring they work with the right families Work towards a whole system approach, to ensure children and families are supported throughout, and ensure the most effective decision making at the front door The co-location of CDT and Triage to form the Central Referral Unit, alongside other developments such as District Step Down Panels, provided improvements to ensure that children and young people are getting the right level of support, at the right time. The Front Door Demand Management Project was launched in September 2016, to investigate opportunities to make CRU more effective and fit for the purpose of a fully integrated Children and Young People Service.

CDT Rationale for Changes 984 contacts transferred to Early Help
824 contacts became CIN or subject to CP plan 1653 contacts were NFA’d, following statutory assessment In August 2016, a Deep Dive into CRU found that, of 5900 initial contacts into CDT between January and March 2016: 984 (17%) were transferred to Early Help (14%) became CIN or Subject to a Child Protection Plan following a statutory Child and Family Assessment 1653 (28%) were NFA’d following a statutory Child & Family Assessment (37%) were dealt with as Advise and Information A significant number of initial contacts coming into CDT (37%) require advice and support rather than further investigation to lead to a referral. Contacts coming into CDT were more likely to require early help than a statutory social work response. CDT and Triage use different models of enquiry CDT focuses on discussions with the family, referrer and, where needed, other professionals but makes only selective use of system based information to inform decisions. Once CDT decides that the threshold for an assessment has been reached, the expectation is that one will be undertaken by the district teams although there is some variation in application. Triage uses a more contextual model based on the use of systems coupled with limited conversations to find information to inform the assessment and intervention. Considerable effort is put into consolidating information, however although Triage recommends next steps decisions about whether the work should be allocated at intensive or additional level are made by District Managers. 2209 contacts required Advice and Information

Rationale for Changes Triage 2060 EHNs to Early Help Districts
5 EHNs Stepped Up to SCS 136 EHNs were NFA’d Of the 2411 EHNs received in the same time period: 2060 (97%) were sent to Early Help Districts where managers made threshold decisions about whether they required additional, intensive or commissioned services support 5 (0%) were stepped up to SCS (once in the District, a further 16; 1% of 2060 were stepped up to SCS) 136 (6%) were NFA’d 107 (4%) were Information and Advise CDT and Triage use different models of enquiry CDT focuses on discussions with the family, referrer and, where needed, other professionals but makes only selective use of system based information to inform decisions. Once CDT decides that the threshold for an assessment has been reached, the expectation is that one will be undertaken by the district teams although there is some variation in application. Triage uses a more contextual model based on the use of systems coupled with limited conversations to find information to inform the assessment and intervention. Considerable effort is put into consolidating information, however although Triage recommends next steps decisions about whether the work should be allocated at intensive or additional level are made by District Managers. Extra Info: Of the 2060 EHNs that were received in Early Help Districts: 53% went out for Early Help Assessment (Unit) 1% Stepped Up to SCS 10% went to Open Access 4% went on to be ‘closed’ under Information and Advise 27% went to Commissioned Services 107 EHNs required Advice and Information

Overview of One Front Door Proposals
A Single Integrated Team A phased period of learning through discussions, when there is variation what is deemed as suitable support Work on the premise that all interventions should be done at the least intrusive level Using a Signs of Safety Framework to enable robust decision making Processing all requests that meet the Intensive or Specialist Level of Support Making better use of our existing systems

Key Functions to Consider
Contact Act as first point of contact for professionals and the public Analysis Undertake system checks Speak to referrers, families and other professionals Make recommendations based upon professional judgement for decision by Team Managers Consult -ation Speak with professionals and potential referrers, providing support and advice Use Signs of Safety Methodology

Impact on Districts and Wider Partnership
Revised Threshold Document Signs of Safety based discussions with referrers to help them access more suitable support within the Districts A Single Request for Support Form 1 We will have the resource to undertake consultations A Signs of Safety Workforce Development Plan for the Front Door Team Written procedures to ensure consistency A revision of the threshold document will be required to reflect the new arrangements and ways of working. A single form for all professionals and other referrers to use. Staff in the Front Door will be trained on Signs of Safety, for its use in decision making and consultations. Discussions/consultations with referrers will be resourced and will be based on Signs of Safety to empower referrer to seek other support options within the districts. Procedure notes will be needed to provide consistency across all functions.

Impact for Schools One of the key tasks of the front door will be to work closely with schools and referrers to ensure that children, young people and families get the right service at the right time from the right team Once it is agreed that a case needs an intensive level of intervention the front door will decide the threshold and inform the referrer of the outcome This will mean discussing what has been tried, what you are worried about and what needs to change

10 What are you Worried About? What’s Working Well?
Thinking about a child/teenager in your life that you are worried about: What are you Worried About? What’s Working Well? What Needs to Happen? STEP ONE: START HERE, BACK AND FORWARDS STEP THREE What has happened, what have you seen, that makes you worried about this child/teenager? What do you like about ___ what are his/her best attributes? Having thought more about this problem now, what would you need to see that would make you satisfied the situation is at a 10? Who are the people that care most about ___? What are the best things about how they care for ____? What words would you use to talk about this problem so that ____ would understand what you’re worried about? What would ___ say are the best things about his/her life? What would ___ need to see that would make them say this problem is completely sorted out? When you think about what has already happened to ____ what do you think is the worst thing that could happen to ____ because of this problem? Who would ___ say are the most important people in his/her life? How do they help ___ grow up well? What do you think is the next step that should happen to get this worry sorted out? Have there been times when this problem has been dealt with or was even a little better? How did that happen? Are there things happening in ____’s life or family that make this problem harder to deal with? On a scale of 0 to 10 where 10 means this problem is sorted out as much as it can be and zero means things are so bad for the young person you need to get professional or other outside help, where do you rate this situation today? (Put different judgment numbers on scale for different people e.g., you, child, teacher etc). 10 STEP TWO: JUDGEMENT

Future Safety Harm Existing Strengths Danger Next Steps Existing
Thinking about a child/teenager in your life that you are worried about: What are you Worried About? What’s Working Well? What Needs to Happen? STEP ONE: START HERE, BACK AND FORWARDS STEP THREE What has happened, what have you seen, that makes you worried about this child/teenager? What do you like about ___ what are his/her best attributes? Having thought more about this problem now, what would you need to see that would make you satisfied the situation is at a 10? Future Safety Harm Existing Strengths Who are the people that care most about ___? What are the best things about how they care for ____? What words would you use to talk about this problem so that ____ would understand what you’re worried about? What would ___ say are the best things about his/her life? What would ___ need to see that would make them say this problem is completely sorted out? When you think about what has already happened to ____ what do you think is the worst thing that could happen to ____ because of this problem? Danger Who would ___ say are the most important people in his/her life? How do they help ___ grow up well? Next Steps Existing Safety What do you think is the next step that should happen to get this worry sorted out? Complicating Factors Have there been times when this problem has been dealt with or was even a little better? How did that happen? Are there things happening in ____’s life or family that make this problem harder to deal with? On a scale of 0 to 10 where 10 means this problem is sorted out as much as it can be and zero means things are so bad for the young person you need to get professional or other outside help, where do you rate this situation today? (Put different judgment numbers on scale for different people e.g., you, child, teacher etc). 10 STEP TWO: JUDGEMENT

Signs of Safety Assessment and Planning Form
What are we Worried About? Whats Working Well? What Needs to Happen? Existing Strengths Past Harm to Children Action/Behaviour – who, what, where, when; Severity; Incidence & Impact SafetyGoals: Future Safety/Protection What must the caregivers be doing in their care of the child that addresses the future danger? Existing Safety/Protection The Strengths demonstrated as protection over time. Must directly relate to danger. Danger Statements: Future Danger for Children Worries for the future if nothing changes. Family Goals: What does the family want generally and in relation to safety? Complicating Factors Factors which make the situation more difficult to resolve. Next Steps What are the next steps to be taken to move towards achieving the goal? Safety Scale: On a scale of 0 to 10 where 10 means everyone knows the children are safe enough for the child protection authorities to close the case and zero means things are so bad for the children they can’t live at home, where do we rate this situation? (If different judgements place different people’s number on the continuum). 10

Thank you for attending
Please continue to visit the Kelsi website for key legislation, guidance and latest news and events available to educational professionals.

Headteacher Briefings March 2017

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Headteacher Briefings March 2017"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Headteacher Briefings March 2017

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Headteacher Briefings March 2017"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback