Agenda item

SCHOOL ADAPTATIONS DUE TO COVID AND COVID RECOVERY ON SEND CHILDREN AND MORE ABLE CHILDREN

Report attached

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee received a report that provided a further update on the report presented at the November 2021, Children and Learning Overview & Scrutiny sub-committee meeting.

 

The report contained the adaptions schools made to both the content of their curriculum and most notably to the delivery of the curriculum in response to the impact of COVID-19. The report had now included an update on the specific impact on pupils with special education needs and/or disabilities (SEND), and more-able pupils.

 

It was reported that the impact on children with SEND had been significant. Schools were required to be flexible in their approach to remote learning when it was necessary, and there had been many examples of providing homework packs tailored to individual children’s needs.

 

Schools, particularly the special schools, had supported families with outreach work, provided support to the whole family and lent equipment for use at home, delivering activities, and even shopped particularly at the height of the pandemic.

 

Impact on staffing levels due to COVID illness amongst staff was significant. Vaccine uptake was good. However, staffing levels and need for self-isolation continued to affect the levels of attendance at school.

 

Schools had received support from the Local Authority consisting of health and wellbeing training and managing anxieties. The Educational Psychology service ran a parent helpline and regular support for SENDCos had been provided individually and through borough wide SENDco forums, to answer questions, share good practice to support school in maintaining their offer to children with SEND.

 

Schools included pupils with SEND in all their welfare call and welfare visits, enabling additional pastoral support to be provided where necessary. It was nationally documented that pupils with SEND or additional needs fell further behind in many cases during the pandemic, and (anecdotal) evidence from schools suggested that this was also true for Havering schools. This was due to both lower online/face-to-face attendance rates than others, and often they were in families that are more economically challenged, resulting in parents struggling to provide the support for home learning. There were often issues such as sharing technology with siblings, and schools worked very hard to mitigate those factors, as evidenced in the previous report.

 

It was also noted that pupils with SEND and other vulnerabilities were often slower to return to school following the various periods of lockdown and remote learning. In this initial ‘recovery’ phase, schools put on additional intervention groups to attempt to make up for lost ground where pupils had fallen behind. Many of the pupils with SEND and other vulnerable pupils were included in these interventions as schools focused their resources on pupils who were significantly below age-expected norms.

 

In terms of the more-able Pupils, no specific enquiries were made into the impact on their learning. However, many schools provided a core curriculum and additional challenges which would have enabled more-able pupils to take subjects and topics further. Take up was variable and not completely restricted to more-able pupils.

 

Schools reported, particularly in secondary schools, that some pupils, particularly boys, had related very well to the flexibility of remote learning and did well, making good progress, and in a small number of cases likely better than usual progress. More-able pupils generally had better remote learning attendance, and better work completion rates (as perhaps might have been predictable), therefore would have suffered less loss of learning.

 

Attendance rates/completion rates varied across schools, and the methods used for accounting these varied, as previously reported, and there was no awareness of any national/regional benchmarking for any of this.

 

Queries were raised regarding respite care, foster carer retention and recruitment. Officers confirmed that respite had gone back to pre-pandemic levels. There was an increased demand for foster carers and provisions had returned with an increased capacity. In turn, the increase in the assessment process would grow the market further.

 

Questions and concern were raised around the technology deficient for SEND pupils and what would happen in the future. Officers suggested that due to the government response of providing laptops etc. to schools during the pandemic many were now better equipped with technology. The situation was being monitored and special needs requirements would be specifically considered. Modelling and working with other authorities to increase academy performance and self-improvement would also be pursued. Letters were currently being drafted regarding this topic and would be sent to all school head teachers.   

 

The Sub-Committee noted the report.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: