(a)

the SEND Strategy covers the needs of the child and significant work within the new framework undertaken with parents gave an oversight of the presentations within different social situations and family life.  They do not go into detail within the business plan but do go into more detail within the SEND Strategic Plan;

(b)

this business plan sets out how we would work with schools that have the accountability and the responsibility on how they respond to Ofsted.  We do however work very closely with the schools but the business plan does not reflect the changes to Ofsted framework;

(c)

the Pledges do not exactly match the priorities for the department, but would be the best place for that Pledge to sit.  The Carers Pledge ensuring the right learning environment, support for children within the school help them take control and to become confident learners;

(d)

the legislation sets out that local authorities have the duty to be the champion of all children’s outcomes irrespective of the schools they attend;

(e)

through Careers SW they have the STEM Ambassador Programme, they also receive funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and higher education for the next STEPS Programme and 15 of the secondary schools were involved with the LEP.  They were making sure that the offer would be there for all young people;

(f)

the extent that early years was represented within the business plan  was through attainment outcomes within early years foundation stage.  In the Plan for Education there was a reference for place shaping, capacity etc but not detailed within the business plan.  As part of the next refresh would look at the 30 hours provision.  Children Centres would sit within commissioning strategies;

(g)

they had not attempted to list all of the statutory functions within the business plan but focused on the priorities.  SACRE if included would sit under attainment and raising aspirations;

(h)

the supported placement includes 4 to 5 very young people that they could not find placements for given their complexities of their behaviour.  This resulted in the local authority having to create placements for them which involved finding accommodation and around the clock staff for about 6 to 7 weeks at a cost of £980k.  One placement was jointly funded with the CCG costing the local authority £50k a week. This child was subject to a court protection order and no changes can be made without the agreement of the official solicitor and the court;

(i)

a recently published report on the mental health needs of young people highlighted that 25% of young people under the age of 18 years had the upper end of CAMHS.  This group of young people were evident within the looked after population, also the toxic trio of domestic abuse, substance misuse and mental health as well intergenerational issues had impacted on children being kept safe within their own family unit.  They were working with early help services with targeted support to prevent these young people coming into the system;

(j)

around 10 years ago Plymouth had one of the fastest falling school enrolments within the country and then 6 years ago had the fastest rising enrolment.  They were reviewing secondary spaces to meet the needs of the primary children coming through the system;

(k)

the local authority was supportive of the UTC being developed because of that particular STEM need within the city at that time but to note that there were STEM opportunities within secondary schools;

(l)

they were undertaking a lot of work on a peninsular basis and  work with Young Devon to create placements for 16 plus young people.  They try were possible to look for in-house, then a local placement but failing that would look further afield;

(m)

children in Plymouth can choose a school in Saltash likewise children in Saltash can choose a school in Plymouth.  The law requires each  local authority to have sufficient places for children who are resident within that local authority area;

(n)

they were looking at how they work with the family differently to stop repeated child protection plans.