AIC/16/06

Agenda item 10 16 February 2016

Meeting the post 16 educational needs of those with profound and complex needs

• This paper considers if we are adequately identifying the bespoke provision delivered to the profound and complex need cohort within the college sector and if the current provision is sufficiently meeting the needs of this group.

Recommendations

• The Committee is invited to agree to: o The key points of principle and SFC responsibilities that frame this paper

o Updating the outcome agreement guidance to seek out information in

relation to all bespoke provision including the volume and design of programmes designed for those with profound and complex needs

• The Committee is also asked to consider:

o Commentary on the current shape of and delivery of profound and

complex need provision within Scotland

o If the outcome agreement guidance should include the use of the GIRFEC well-being indicators as evidence of positive outcomes for this provision?

o The outcome agreement guidance should be updated to seek more assurances on regional and transitional planning and how our Outcome Agreement Managers could assist us in seeking that assurance from their regions?

• The Committee is invited to note the new flag in FES to monitor groups of

special interest including those with profound and complex needs

Financial implications

There are no financial implications at this stage.

1

Meeting the post 16 educational needs of those with profound and complex needs

Purpose

1. This paper considers if we are adequately identifying the bespoke provision delivered to the profound and complex need cohort within the college sector and if the current provision is sufficiently meeting the needs of this group.

Context

2. This paper has been informed by a focus group with agencies who represent people with a disability/ies and representatives from the College Development Network (CDN) and a Local Authority; a meeting with the Scottish Government team responsible for the implementation of the Doran Review; a visit and meeting with East Park school in Glasgow; a meeting with the Chair of Scotland’s Disabled Children and a meeting with ARC Scotland. It has also been informed by the Extended Learning Support (ELS) review which included consultation with all college regions and several stakeholders including Lead and other organisations who represent people with disabilities.

3. Our discussions with colleges and stakeholders in relation to how best to meet the needs of those with profound and complex needs (based on a definition of significant need and limited prior educational attainment) has identified many viewpoints but a common theme is that there is not enough consideration of post 16 provision for this group, albeit recognising that colleges are not always the most appropriate route.

4. Some of the viewpoints and discussions are summarised below and the AIC are asked to consider these.

What the shape of provision for those with profound and complex needs should look like across Scotland? Some discussions have outlined a perception that the merger reform programme has altered the shape of this provision across Scotland and it is suggested that the provision for this very discrete group of students may have reduced. Due to the limitations in our data and the definitional issues it is not possible to provide an absolute statistical analysis on this but we do know that whilst bespoke provision1 has been decreasing

1 Commonly referred to as DPG18 – now known as price group 5 in the new credit based funding model. For the benefit of non-college AIC members, this defines a way of teaching that is specialised and bespoke and is delivered to a much small group of students. The term merely refers to a weight which is applied to their activity and therefore enables a college to claim a higher proportion of their activity target when they are

overall (although not proportionately), bespoke provision credit rated at SCQF level 1 for those with a declared disability provision has been increasing. This suggests that this issue could be a perceptional issue. Other discussions have focused more on the benefits of the merger reform programme and the opportunity this brings to identify specialist colleges in this provision. It has been suggested that due to the number of agencies involved in assisting those with significantly profound and complex needs and the small numbers of people within this group, that this should be a possibility within Scotland. However, this is also caveated with some views which suggest that provision should be available locally to the student. Some discussions also suggest that the expectations of parents and carers in terms of what provision should be available and what the potential student should be entitled to in terms of provision and support has increased. At the same time, it is reported that the numbers of day centres who might have taken on part of that role in providing life skill education have reduced significantly over the years.

• How it is best delivered? What is the role of colleges in that? Most discussions have praised the role that colleges have played to date in meeting the needs of those with profound and complex needs and it is recognised that colleges are in a difficult position due to cuts in other services in their associated local authorities and indeed the pressures on their own resources. Some views suggest that college buildings are not the right place to deliver this provision but that college staff are often the right/best people to deliver it as they are skilled and the provision can be credit rated. On the other hand, some of our discussions suggest that a regional specialist college or national lead college - particularly in relation to profound and complex needs relating to autistic spectrum disorders - would enable the sector to: o Develop a better understanding of this provision within the sector to

ascertain if it is best meeting the needs of its users and their carers o Assess the future demands for this provision and advise accordingly o Advise on how to promote regional and national achievements and

outcomes

using this model. The higher weight recognises the higher costs involved and the lack of economies of scale in delivering activity in this way.

It has also been suggested that we could have multiple colleges leading in different areas e.g. communication disorders or autistic spectrum disorders etc.

• Individual needs have become more profound and complex

Some discussions have outlined that over the last decade more and more students who would have been referred to as profound and complex by colleges are - through better technology, inclusive practices and supports - successfully achieving in mainstream provision. This means that the students now receiving bespoke provision have needs that are much greater than their previous cohorts. It is also anecdotally reported from specialists in this area that there are now more people with significant profound and complex needs and a need to support their educational development which is often related to life skills. Similarly, some professionals we have spoken to have questioned our use of the term Profound and Complex and suggest that it should be profound and/or complex as one significant learning impairment can limit the learning and progression outcomes of an individual and similarly that one learning impairment such as Dyslexia on its own may not lead to a significant impairment but when combined with others such as autism it can lead to a complex learning impairment. This approach would seem to be in alignment with the Scottish Government’s review of the school system – the Doran Review. A summary of this review is provided in Annex A. However, this approach would be contrary to the work of the CDN who developed the definition we currently use in our OAs.

Recommendation – The AIC is asked to consider this commentary on the current shape of and delivery of profound and complex need provision within Scotland

5. Taking these discussions into account, this paper has been based on a set of key principles and SFC responsibilities in relation to people with profound and complex needs, these are shown in the following table.

Key Principles SFC Responsibilities All eligible students have the right, subject to places being available, to access Post 16 education to build on their school education and to enhance their skills It is not the sole responsibility of the regional college to ensure adequate provision is in place within the region and college provision will not always be the best option Colleges should provide a portfolio of products and services. This should be planned and agreed regionally and should reflect the needs in the region Where a college cannot meet a need this should be reported to Local Authorities and other relevant regional partners so that alternative transitional options can be considered

To assure itself that each regional college is adequately contributing to the regional requirements and that they have high quality transitional plans in place

To adequately resource and support colleges to achieve this

To understand what is on offer at a regional and national level and to seek out improvements where this offer does not reflect the need in the region To work with Education Scotland to assure ourselves that the provision in place provides adequate support and challenge for the learners and that processes are in place to evidence distance travelled To contribute to the outcomes of the Scottish Government’s Doran Review2 to facilitate a national discussion on how to best provide post 16 educational offerings

6. Recommendation – The AIC is asked to agree to these key principles and SFC responsibilities.

Defining what we mean by profound and complex needs?

7. AIC discussions in relation to the profound and complex need cohort have led to following paragraphs in our 2016-17 Outcome Agreement Guidance3 and the following Outcome Agreement measure. Measure Seven - The volume and proportion of Credits relating to learners with profound and complex needs enrolled on courses involving formal recognition of achievement4

2 A summary of the Doran Review is provided in Annex A. 3http://www.sfc.ac.uk/web/FILES/GUI_SFCGD152015_DeliveringCollegeOutcomeAgreementsAY201/College_outcome_agreement_guidance_201617.pdf 4 The technical guidance provided to support this also refers to SCQF level 1

Learners with Profound and complex needs

We are aware of a need to better define and understand the provision for those with profound and complex needs. This group of learners requires a specialist response within a college setting that recognises that profound and complex learners may be learning at SCQF level 1 (Access 1 Independent level5) or, SCQF level 1 (Access 1 Supported level) with the complexity of a significant additional impairment. Not a homogeneous group, learners have a variety of impairments and may require extensive and tailored support to remove barriers to their learning. Colleges are required to evidence how the needs of learners with profound and complex needs are met and how meaningful learning is supporting progression.

A full definition and characteristics of the learner group and information on meaningful learning, expected outcomes and learner progression can be found at: http://www.scotlandscolleges.ac.uk/profound-and-complex-needs.html

SFC wants all colleges to work with partners within a region to ensure learners with profound and complex needs are able to participate in meaningful further education. It is particularly important for SFC and the college sector to be able to measure how many learners from this group we are supporting in the college sector, to outline what support we are giving and evidence the impact that support has in terms of outcomes and progression. Colleges should provide this information in their Outcome Agreement and Outcome Agreement managers will discuss this in their engagement with each college region.

Programmes for learners with profound and complex needs should contain formal recognition of achievement, which should be based on initial assessment, profiling and target setting.

8. The 2016-17 Outcome Agreement Guidance also states that Colleges are required to evidence how the needs of learners with profound and complex needs are met, and how meaningful learning is supporting progression and positive outcomes.

9. We feel our approach to define provision for those with profound and complex needs is specific and accurate. We have compared this to approaches used by other agencies such the school sector, the health sector and voluntary organisations and feel it is in alignment with their current or evolving approaches. For example, our existing definition seems to fit with the general definition used by PAMIS who support people with profound and multiple disabilities and their carers.

“People with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD) are amongst the most disadvantaged in society. Although there is no nationally or internationally agreed definition of PMLD it is agreed that they have a range of complex needs, which include; a profound learning disability as well as a physical disability that seriously affects their ability to undertake everyday tasks and is likely to limit their mobility.” PAMIS website

5 This has since been replaced with national 1 and will be updated in the next OA guidance.

10. We have concluded that the outcome agreement guidance and the resources developed with the College Development Network (CDN) provided at the hyperlink are still very much fit for purpose.

What do the 2016-17 draft outcome agreements tell us in relation to provision for those with profound and complex needs?

11. We have compared the Further Education Statistics (FES) data relating to students with a declared disability, on a bespoke course, studying at SCQF level 16 with the figures provided by college. We feel this descriptor best meets the measure we asked for in the Outcome Agreement guidance and its associated technical guidance which specifically outlines SCQF level 17. However, we do recognise that some provision will not be credit rated (although it could possibly be benchmarked against SCQF level 1) and that many students might be working towards SCQF level 1.

12. The SFC’s ambition is for all provision to be credit rated wherever possible as that provides a level of quality assurance and we are therefore keen for the level of non-recognised provision within the sector to reduce. At present this sits at 24% of all enrolments within the sector. In relation to bespoke provision it is much higher at 38% of all enrolments.

Region

Credits delivered to SCQF1, DPG18 with declared disability

Total credits per region Proportion

Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire 1,194 143,092 0.8% Ayrshire 1,523 130,550 1.2% Borders 1,057 23,666 4.5% Dumfries and Galloway 333 31,582 1.1% Dundee and Angus 2,587 106,694 2.4%

Edinburgh and Lothians 3,039 201,062 1.5% Fife 2,135 134,447 1.6% Forth Valley 1,149 84,391 1.4% Glasgow 5,345 380,110 1.4% Highlands & Islands 2,182 111,032 2.0%

Lanarkshire 4,199 183,233 2.3% West 1,844 166,189 1.1% West Lothian 0 40,614 0.0%

6 Please note in some cases SCQF information is missing, we have undertaken an exercise to match it where possible 7 Linking the definition to a SCQF level ensures that each student is on a course with a recognisable outcome and achievement. More details on the SCQF Level 1 descriptor can be found here: http://scqf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Guidance-on-using-the-Level-1-Descriptor-FINAL-October-2012.pdf

Sector 26,586 1,736,664 1.5%

13. In all cases the college figures are nowhere close to our figures. Ten of the drafts provide figures that we could use to compare against FES and in these cases, half of them were significantly higher and the other half was significantly lower. The range of difference extended from 800 less credits to over 4000 more credits. These figures and a review of the contextual information provided suggest that there is little, if any, comparison between outcome agreements and our own figures and therefore a national picture is almost impossible at this stage. Unfortunately we cannot share the college analysis in more depth as we feel this would not be fair to colleges as they are draft documents.

14. Putting the definitional and comparability issues to one side, we felt that the drafts in this area were very good with eight of them having measures and excellent contextual information in relation to meeting the needs of students with declared disabilities (even if we feel that in most cases this is not the profound and complex cohort as outlined in our guidance). One other one had very good context but the measures were still to be confirmed. A lot of these outcome agreements outlined some excellent multi-agency approaches to employment outcomes for those with declared disabilities/additional needs and a couple of the drafts have very good indicators in them such as successful completion rates for those with a declared disability or employment outcomes. On the other hand, some were still lacking measures and context and one was overly generic in its contextual information at this stage.

15. As things stand, only two of the outcome agreements would from the contextual information match the description outlined in our guidance and the technical guidance associated with the guidance – which points to SCQF level 1 - with one more agreement providing evidence of pathways of which one strand would align. Even in these cases the data does not align. In all of these cases, the provision was part time which would suggest a need to track headcount as well as volume of credits.

16. The remainder of the outcome agreements included descriptors ranging from SCQF level 1 right up to SCQF level 5 and the contextual information pointed to agreements that are strongly aligned to unsupported employment outcomes. In some cases, this provision was very specific in its nature with a low credit volume.

17. All of this would suggest that this provision, although excellent from an outcome orientated perspective for students who have declared a disability, may not necessarily be the same as what we think we mean by the term profound and complex needs as outlined by our guidance, the CDN resources

and discussions with stakeholders. It is suggested therefore that we should update our guidance in relation to the profound and complex needs cohort. A possible approach is to seek out information and measures in relation to bespoke provision overall i.e. price group 5 and within that ask for the volume and design of programmes designed for those with profound and complex needs. At the moment we are capturing more of the former. This could form part of the proposed Access and Inclusion Strategy.

18. A possible unintended consequence of this approach is that it does not require colleges to focus on those with the most profound and complex needs but rather define what they do and not offer in their region. Some stakeholders fear that this approach will mean colleges will cease providing provision for those with profound and complex needs and direct resources to learners with additional needs who would benefit from bespoke provision to enable them to progress their education or enter employment.

19. Recommendation – The AIC is asked to agree to updating the outcome agreement guidance to seek out information in relation to all bespoke provision including the volume and design of programmes designed for those with profound and complex needs.

The data issue – measuring the profound and complex need cohort currently in the system

20. Prior to the Outcome Agreement Framework and approach being introduced in 2012, the SFC did not have any individual conversations with colleges on the level of their provision in this area. What we could measure was how much bespoke activity8 was delivered and there was a commonly held belief that this was predominately for students with profound and complex needs.

21. We did not have a specific data field within our data systems that enabled us to monitor and measure students who would be defined as having profound and or complex needs. This position has changed from 2015-16 onwards as FES now captures groups of special interest many of whom will currently benefit from bespoke provision. This includes a data field for colleges to record students as having profound and complex needs. The first data will be available in October 2016. Given our previous experience of data fields of this nature it may take some time for this flag to be fully utilised.

22. When Outcome Agreement discussions began we sought to improve our

8 Commonly referred to as DPG18 – now known as price group 5 in the new credit based funding model. For the benefit of non-college AIC members, this defines a way of teaching that is specialised and bespoke and is delivered to a much small group of students. The term merely refers to a weight which is applied to their activity and therefore enables a college to claim a higher proportion of their activity target when they are using this model. The higher weight recognises the higher costs involved and the lack of economies of scale in delivering activity in this way.

understanding of provision for those with profound and complex needs and to understand the representation of that cohort within the sector. However, as outlined earlier the data coming back is not comparable between regions and it is therefore still not possible for us to build up a national picture.

23. Recommendation – The AIC is asked to note the new flag for profound and complex needs.

24. It is our view that the best way of defining this provision through the datasets that we have at our disposal are that it will be a SCQF Level 1 course, delivered through DPG18 or Price Group 5, delivered to students with a declared disability/ies.

25. The final column of the following table shows the levels of profound and complex need provision in the sector over the last five years using that definition. Under that definition, only 17% of DPG18 provision would fall into this category and this would account for just under 0.9% of the sector’s total provision.

Year All Students

DPG18/ Group 5 Students

DPG18/ Group 5 students who are SCQF level 11

DPG18/ Group 5 students with a disability

DPG18/ Group 5 students on SCQF level 1 and have a declared disability

Proportion of DPG18/Group 5 made up of students with a declared disability of SCQF level 1

Proportion of all students who are DPG18/Group 5 with a declared disability who are on a SCQF level 1 course

2013-14 299,828 15,676 4,245 7,713 2,622 17% 0.9% 2013-13 297,586 16,066 4,018 8,134 2,463 15% 0.8% 2011-12 320,646 18,050 3,091 8,823 1,751 10% 0.5% 2010-11 383,005 21,202 1,983 10,368 951 4% 0.2% 2009-10 438,522 23,058 1,382 11,123 750 3% 0.2%

26. The Committee may also wish to note that from our definition 41% of these

students will reside in the 20% most deprived communities (overall all students undertaking bespoke provision are more likely to live in our 20% most deprived communities – 47% compared to 29% for all courses). This suggests that the students who are undertaking profound and complex need provision are overcoming multiple barriers in their efforts to undertake college education. It could also reflect that their parents/carers have a higher level of caring responsibilities which restricts the ability to work. This definition also suggests that despite the reductions in the overall volume of bespoke provision - which has consistently accounted for approximately 7% of all college provision - this provision (under this definition) is actually increasing.

27. A further analysis of these figures also shows that 40% of these students have a

disability not covered by our categorisations, 22% have multiple disabilities and 19% have a specific learning disability. This is consistent across all the college regions with the exception of Glasgow who had a higher number of students within this definition who defined their disability as a social impairment (11% compared to an average of 3% across the sector). We suspect that this might relate to autism spectrum disorders but more evidence would be required to confirm this.

28. The Committee may wish to note that some of our discussions with stakeholders has identified an element of surprise that less than half of the students receiving bespoke provision have a declared disability and that our guidance does not specifically state that this guidance be targeted to students with a disability/ies. However, the SFC executive feel that a range of disadvantaged students can benefit from this type of provision and we do not feel that we should limit this provision. It is also only an indicator of declared disability and that the decision to declare will normally lie (quite rightly) with the student.

Is this product meeting the needs of those with profound and complex needs and their carers?

29. When originally setting out this paper, we wanted to ascertain if the current provision is sufficiently meeting the needs of this group both nationally and regionally. This has been significantly more difficult to answer given the definition, comparability and reporting issues encountered but we have sought to identify if the regional distribution of this provision aligns with the geographical location of this cohort.

30. The Scottish Government have a wide source of data in relation to school pupils with additional needs in relation to what support they receive and their declared disability but this cannot be split down to provide an overview of pupils with profound and complex needs in each region although they can focus in on the most dominant need. This data outlines a specific issue in relation to the increase in the diagnosis and declaration of autism within the school sector which has brought with it challenges for the school sector in how they deliver the curriculum and reach these young people. This is also confirmed in our own review work and statistical analysis and suggests a need to work towards future proofing the college sector to best meet the need of the current school cohort.

31. We are also aware that the Additional Support for Learning Advisory Group are currently considering definitional issues and data in relation to additional support. The group is Chaired by Iain Nisbet, Head of Education Law at Govan Law Centre and the secretariat is provided by the Scottish Government.

32. Shown below is some data from the health sector which enables us to start to

understand the size of the group within Scotland and their regional distribution. NHS Scotland’s approach for defining children with exceptional healthcare needs (up to the age of 19) is shown in Annex B which, as you would expect, is based on high levels of healthcare interventions required namely feeding and breathing but is likely, to exclude those with communication difficulties such as those on the autistic spectrum whose conditions requires significant levels of personal care and support and/or those who have significant language/communication difficulties. This is problematic for us in terms of comparing their data with our outcome agreement definition for profound and complex needs provision as a significant amount of our students will fall into that category. It is also problematic as many of our students will be adult returners.

33. Despite that, what is particularly helpful about the definitional work of NHS Scotland is that they have used it to identify the size of this group which they have recently estimated to be 360 and they provide a regional distribution. They have also outlined what this means in terms of the NHS Scotland Boards across Scotland which suggests that a third of this group are within the Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Edinburgh and Lothian regions. This distribution across Scotland closely matches the distribution of children across Scotland.

NHS Board Area

Estimated number of

children who fit the NHS

Scotland definition

Proportion of children who fit the NHS

Scotland definition

Numbers of students who are DPG18,

declare a disability

and studying SCQF Level 1

Proportion of students

who are DPG18,

declare a disability

and studying SCQF Level 1

Difference between the proportion of college

students and the

proportion of pupils

Greater Glasgow and Clyde 70 19% 8159 31% 12%

Lothian 58 16% 189 7% -9%

Highland and Islands 44 12% 259 10% -2%

Fife 39 11% 343 13% 2%

Grampian 38 11% 91 3% -7%

Lanarkshire 37 10% 409 16% 5%

Ayrshire and Arran 27 8% 162 6% -1%

Tayside 17 5% 229 9% 4%

Borders 13 4% 68 3% -1%

Dumfries and Galloway 13 4% 21 1% -3%

Forth Valley 4 1% 43 2% 1%

9 Includes Glasgow and the West Regions

TOTAL 360 100% 2,622 100% Please note that seven college students are enrolled in more than one college. These students are only

counted once in the total but this means the sum of the regions will amount to 2,629 34. Whilst taking the definitional limitations of this data into account, this shows

that for all regions the numbers of college students exceeds the numbers of school pupils. It also shows that Greater Glasgow and Clyde are significant deliverers in this area with 815 students (633 in the Glasgow region and 152 in the West region) which represents almost a third of this provision within the sector.

Measuring outcome

35. So far we have focused on outlining the volume of this provision and its geographical distribution, but we also need to consider how best to evidence the outcomes. FES data shows us that students who are on bespoke SCQF level 1 provision and have declared a disability have very high successful completion and this is the case for both full time and part time provision.

Successful completion rates 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Full time FE Success Rates, 2009-10 to 2013-14 60% 62% 64% 65% 66% Full time FE Success Rates, 2009-10 to 2013-14, for SCQF1 DPG18 students with a declared disability 88% 84% 89% 87% 86% Difference 28% 23% 25% 21% 20% Part time FE Success Rates, 2009-10 to 2013-14 76% 78% 79% 77% 78% Part time FE Success Rates, 2009-10 to 2013-14, for SCQF1 DPG18 students with a declared disability 83% 87% 85% 83% 85% Difference 7% 10% 6% 6% 7%

36. This pattern is also consistently high across all the college regions. However, our discussions with stakeholders and colleges suggest that this is not an accurate means of measuring outcomes for this provision and a more meaningful approach would be to consider well-being indicators or personal progress as is captured in the Personal Learning Support Plans for this provision.

37. Our discussions to date to inform this paper confirms the importance of measuring outcome but stresses the need for guidance in this area to seek evidence of distance travelled (rather than a linear progression) which we might apply to students without the profound and complex need.

38. Our discussions have also confirmed that there are significant issues in applying traditional models of progression and success comparative to others especially others of the same age as it does not adequately take into account the impact of the profoundness and/or complexity of the person’s disabilities and learning

abilities and indeed their own personal journey, development and achievements. Finally, traditional models of progression do not consider how long a person may require to progress even within the same SCQF level. We feel all of these points are adequately covered in the OA guidance excerpt and the resources developed by the CDN but as outlined earlier this guidance is not being reported on in the ways we might have expected in the draft outcome agreements.

39. A possible development for our Outcome Agreement and/or Personal Learning Support Plan guidance in relation to personal development and time required to complete provision is the use of the SHANNARI well-being indicators in GIRFEC which are more person based and could assist us as we try to evidence the impact of the provision on a more consistent basis (see circle diagram). It is suggested that these may be more appropriate than anything akin to successful completions, progression or the CfE capacities, attributes and capabilities. A person centred approach also aligns well with the outcomes of the Doran Review. That said these indicators could only really be used on a case by case basis and we might struggle to use them on a national basis to set standards or seek improvements.

40. We are also aware that Education Through Care Scotland who are an umbrella

organisation for residential educational facilities is developing an Outcomes Framework for their children.

The transition arrangements from child to adult services 41. All children with exceptional health care needs should have an individualised

Child's Plan that includes plans for transition to adult services. They may also have a co-ordinated support plan. These plans have actions, outcomes, timescales and responsibility recorded and an allocated Named Person and Lead Professional. They also include transition planning from age 14 onwards. The professionals we have engaged with have commonly referred to transitions being problematic across LA areas and within them. It is recognised that logically it should be possible to plan transitions well in advance given the small numbers of people involved and multi-agency approaches but it is reported that this is not consistently applied across Scotland. It is also recognised that it

is the school’s responsibility to call a transitions meeting.

42. That said colleges have a significant role to play in proactively engaging with schools to understand the level of need of current children within the region and feedback suggests that in most cases efforts to secure that are happening across the sector. However, some colleges are also reporting difficulties in attending meetings due to time pressures particularly where staff are reporting to multiple local authority areas. Furthermore the ELS review suggests that some colleges struggle to secure representation at transitional meetings and some stakeholders feel that college management do not provide staff with the authority to make decisions on behalf of the college.

43. The Outcome Agreement Guidance outlined at the start of this paper includes a link to resources developed by CDN and this includes an excellent overview on transitions and planning. The issue appears to be more in how these are implemented regionally.

44. The AIC is asked to advise if the OA approach could do more to support and seek assurances of the college’s role in the regional and transitional planning for children with profound and complex needs. It is also suggested that this could form part of an Access and Inclusion Strategy proposal, subject to AIC advice, which has come out of our ELS review. This proposal will be covered by a presentation at the AIC meeting. A key point in any process that seeks assurance on regional planning is how colleges report back inadequacies in the systems to help support future improvements.

Recommendation – The AIC is asked to consider:

• If our Outcome Agreement Guidance should include the use of the GIRFEC well-being indicators as evidence of positive outcomes for this provision?

• If our Outcome Agreement Guidance should be updated to seek more assurances on regional and transitional planning and how our Outcome Agreement Managers could assist us in seeking that assurance from their regions?

Risk assessment

45. This paper is designed to inform future policy development and such there are no risks attached to this paper at this stage. If following the AIC discussion, this moves towards a change to our current OA approach then we will risk assess it at that stage prior to it being implemented through the 2017-18 OA approach.

Equality and diversity assessment

46. This paper is designed to inform future policy development and such we have not undertaken an EIA at this stage. If following the AIC discussion, this moves towards a change to our current OA approach then we will do so at that time prior to it being implemented through the 2017-18 OA approach.

Financial implications

47. There are no financial implications to this paper

Recommendations

48. The Committee is invited to agree to:

• The key points of principle and SFC responsibilities that frame this paper

• Updating the outcome agreement guidance to seek out information in relation to all bespoke provision including the volume and design of programmes designed for those with profound and complex needs

49. The Committee is asked to consider:

• The current shape of and delivery of profound and complex need provision within Scotland

• If our outcome agreement guidance should include the use of the GIRFEC well-being indicators as evidence of positive outcomes for this provision?

• If our outcome agreement guidance should be updated to seek more assurances on regional and transitional planning and how our Outcome Agreement Managers could assist us in seeking that assurance from their regions?

50. The Committee is asked to note the new flag in FES to monitor groups of special

interest including those with profound and complex needs.

Publication 51. This paper will be published on the Council’s website.

Further information

52. Contact: Fiona Burns, tel: 0131 313 6517, email: fburns@sfc.ac.uk.

1

Annex A: The Doran Review

Doran Review

What is it? • The Doran review is the strategic review of learning provision for children and

young people with complex additional support needs which was commissioned by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in 2010. The final Doran Review report The Right Help at the right time and right place, was published in November 2012, and provides a set of recommendations aimed at providing better outcomes and experiences for children and young people with complex additional support needs.

Relevant recommendations from Doran Review 1. Scottish Government should require all organisations working with children and

young people who have complex additional support needs to make public the values which underpin their policies and plans so as to ensure these are reflected in the way in which their staff go about assessing and meeting needs of children and young people with complex additional support needs and their families.

2. Education Scotland, working with the GTCS and relevant training providers in universities, further education colleges, voluntary organisations and local authorities should consider how to lead and develop learning communities of expert professionals at local, regional and national levels to advise, support and contribute to the professional learning of teachers and other school staff working with complex additional support needs. Particular consideration should be given to how GLOW can support this development.

3. In taking forward the advice of the National Partnership Group (NPG), Scottish Government should consult with the universities local authorities and accredited providers of professional development on how best to provide qualifications and courses for teachers of children and young people across the range of complex additional support needs.

4. The Scottish Government should consider ways of ensuring that sufficient funding is provided to universities and other agencies in order to maintain their research and development capacities in the education and development of children and young people with complex additional support needs.

5. The Scottish Government should lead COSLA and health boards in the development of a strategic planning and commissioning process to deliver, within a 5 year period, the national services and provision required to ensure that the complex additional support needs of children and young people across Scotland can be met.

Implementation of recommendations from review

The report Meeting the needs of Scotland's children and young people with complex additional support needs: The Scottish Government's response to the Doran Review sets out the Scottish Government's action in response to the recommendations.

• A Project Board was set up in June 2013 to oversee the delivery of the Strategic Commissioning Project (covering various recommendations from the Doran report) The Strategic Commissioning Project aims to:

o develop a national strategic commissioning approach for the provision of national education services for children and young people with complex additional support needs, by middle of 2015.

o To implement this approach to the allocation of national funding by 2017.

o To support local authorities and health boards across Scotland to develop a strategic commissioning approach to the provision of local/regional services by 2017.

o To support those organisations currently in receipt of national grant funding to prepare for the implementation of strategic commissioning, from May 2013 and until national strategic commissioning has been implemented.

o To provide better outcomes for children and young people with complex additional support needs, through an improved system of aligning services to needs, and efficient use of public funding.

Annex B: The definition used by NHS Scotland Llll

The definition of Children with Exception healthcare Needs http://www.cen.scot.nhs.uk/definition

• learning and mental functions • communication • motor skills • self-care • hearing • vision

A child or young person (up to the age of 19) is defined as having exceptional healthcare needs if they:

• have severe impairment recorded in at least 4 categories together with enteral/ parenteral feeding OR

• have severe impairment recorded in at least 2 categories and require ventilation/ Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) AND

• the impairments are sustained and ongoing or expected to last for more than 6 months.