school funding reform 2013-15
DESCRIPTION
School Funding Reform 2013-15. High Needs Block. High Needs Block – Requirements 2013. Determine Notional SEN Allocation included in Schools Delegated Budgets for low cost high incidence need Define the Local Offer - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
School Funding Reform 2013-15
High Needs Block
High Needs Block – Requirements 2013• Determine Notional SEN Allocation included in Schools Delegated
Budgets for low cost high incidence need• Define the Local Offer – Agree the number of places to be commissioned from April 2013 from
all specialist providers Special Schools & Academies, Special Units & Resource Provisions in Mainstream Schools and Academies
– Guidance to be issued to all schools and academies outlining what is expected through a ‘graduated response’ to SEN, linked to the current SEN Code of Practice for high need pupils with a statement (or Education, Health & Care Plan)
– Provide guidance and clarity on what types and ranges of support schools and academies will be expected to meet from their delegated budgets
• Review the existing banding system and values for funding pupils with statements in preparation for place plus funding approach and determine “top up values” to apply from April 2013
Notional SEN Included Delegated Budgets
• Schools and Academies will be expected to meet the additional cost of providing for pupils with SEN (Low Cost High Incidence Need - LCHI) up to £6,000 before receiving any additional top up funding from the high needs funding block to meet the cost of high need pupils.
• In December it was proposed that notional SEN included in schools and academies delegated budgets would be determined as follows:
– 2.7% Primary Basic Entitlement– 1.8% KS3 Basic Entitlement– 1.7% KS4 Basic Entitlement– 100% FSM Ever 6 (which included newly delegated SEN)– 100% Prior Attainment– 25% Deprivation
• The proportions broadly reflect the existing method for identifying notional SEN in schools delegated budgets, with one change to reflect the redistribution of funding between the elements within the deprivation factor
Notional SEN Allocations
• Using these proportions of funding resulted in a total notional indicative SEN allocation of £12.530m, representing 8% of the total schools block delegated to schools.
• This would result in funding per pupil in Sunderland for notional SEN of £344 and £387 for primary and secondary schools respectively. This is close to or above the national average is of £350 per pupil.
• If the measure of funding is based on using only school action plus pupils and those with a statement then funding would be an average of £3,287 per pupil
• To test the current assumptions around notional SEN further work has been carried out to analyse the incidence of SEN for those pupils identified with the other AEN characteristics used to distribute funding via the formula
Analysis of SEN Pupils
Indicator of Need
Total No Pupils with
SENFSM
Ever 6
% of Total SEN
IDACI score >0.20
% of Total SEN
EYFSP score <73 and KS2 result at
L3 or below
% of Total SEN EAL
% of Total SEN
School Action 3738 1869 50.0% 2663 71.2% 163 4.4% 214 5.7%
School Action Plus 2790 1488 53.3% 2037 73.0% 187 6.7% 62 2.2%
Statement of SEN 1022 471 46.1% 679 66.4% 100 9.8% 35 3.4%
Total 7550 3828 50.7% 5379 71.2% 450 6.0% 311 4.1%
Analysis SEN Data
• The data clearly shows that:– a significant proportion of SEN pupils (71.2%) also have an
IDACI index above 20%– FSM Ever 6 is not as significant indicator of SEN as IDACI,
however 50% of SEN pupils also trigger the FSM indicator • The DfE’s key indicator of LCHI need is prior attainment, but for
Sunderland the data would suggest that this is not a key factor in identifying pupils with SEN in schools, with only 6% of SEN pupils triggering this factor
• We already know that EAL has is a significant impact on a relatively low number of schools across the city and that only 4.1% of pupils with SEN also have EAL
• The total number of SEN pupils as a proportion of the population for each factor is set out in the next table:
Notional SEN – Incidence of SEN
Proportion of AEN Pupils with SEN Primary Secondary Total No SEN % SEN
% of FSM ever 6 Pupils that are SEN 7,071 4,820 11,891 3,828 32.2%
% of pupils with an IDACI score >0.20 that are SEN
12,648 8,751 21,399 5,379 25.1%
% of Pupils in Primary with EYFSP score <73 and Secondary KS2 result at L3 or below that are SEN
3,425 1,675 5,100 450 8.8%
% of Pupils with EAL that are SEN 581 72 653 311 47.6%
23,725 15,318 39,043 9,968 25.5%
Funding Implications of Changing Notional SEN
• Based on the revised Oct 2012 pupil numbers, the total funding allocation included in schools budgets based on the existing basis for calculating notional SEN would be a total allocation of £9.8m
• Funding based on the percentages identified in the previous table would be £4.5m, which would suggest less funding would be identified in the notional SEN block within schools overall funding
• However included in the FSM Ever 6 factor is £1.6m related specifically to newly delegated funding for pupils with statements and would increase the % of notional SEN for this factor from the suggested to 32.2% to 54.9%
• This would increase the total notional SEN to £5.651m and would reduce the average funding to £176 per pupil or £1625 per SEN Pupil (School Action Plus & Statements)
Decision Required
• In respect of the analysis of SEN do we continue to use the existing percentages used to identify SEN or do we alter them based on the outcomes of analysing the incidence of SEN.
• This has no financial impact as it does not affect the funding allocated to schools.
• It does mean that more pupils would be supported through the remaining AEN funding and pupil premium.
Determining the Local Offer
• Agreed the number of places to be commissioned for specialist SEN providers and reported to schools forum December 2012
• Guidance on the level of support schools are expected to provide at school action and school action plus has been issued to all schools and academies to support them in identifying low cost high incidence SEN in their school and provide a consistent approach across all schools and academies in Sunderland
• Draft guidance on the banding system is being developed and will be issued for consultation to all Schools and academies in early summer 2013.
Summary of Local Offer Provision for High Need Pupils
Type of Provider No of Places April 2013
Special Schools 640
Mainstream Resource Provisions 172
Mainstream Alternative Provision 30
Intervention Places 38
Total 880
Banding System – Pre 16 Pupils
• The Schools Forum Working Group have met to consider the information and data currently available in order to support the LA in deciding on a way forward for funding the top ups for high need pupils for from 2013 onwards.
• The existing banding system (based on staffing ratios) has been reviewed and we have also and sought the groups views in order to consider alternative options moving forward.
• Given the timescales available to introduce a completely new funding system for high need pupils it has been recognised that it will not be possible to achieve this by 1st April 2013
Options for consideration
• In light of the time constraints, three options have been considered in terms of changing the current basis for calculating SEN band values:– Option 1: Minimise turbulence in the current year and the use
existing banding system to determine top up values
– Option 2: Link banding system to current draft guidance and explore potential changes to band values that continue to differentiate between types of specialist providers and the mainstream sector
– Option 3:Explore single banding system to ensure that the value attached to each band is driven by pupil need only
Option 1 - Current Banding System
Band Teacher/ Pupil Ratio
Group Size Teaching
TA /Pupil Ratio
TA Group Size
A 0.50 1 to 2 0.90 1 to 1.1
B 0.30 1 to 3 0.60 1 to 7
C 0.20 1 to 5 0.40 1 to 2.5
D 0.20 1 to 5 0.20 1 to 5
E 0.12 1 to 8 0.30 1 to 3
Option 1 Current Band Values
Special Schools (Primary)
A B C D E
Value (£) 36,496 23,490 15,660 12,261 10,633
Top Up (£) 30,345 17,339 9,509 6,110 4,482
Special Schools (Secondary)
A B C D E
Value 36,743 23,776 15,851 12,423 10,766
Top Up 30,850 17,883 9,958 6,530 4,873
Option 1 – Current Band Values
Resource Provisions (Primary)
A B C D E
Value (£) 34,010 19,912 13,274 9,975 8,397
Top Up (£) 26,848 12,750 6,113 2,814 1,235
Resource Provisions (Secondary)
A B C D E
Value (£) 33,828 19,554 13,036 9,708 8,101
Top Up (£) 28,226 13,952 7,434 4,106 2,499
Option 1 – Current Band Values
MainstreamPrimary
A B C D E
Value (£) 34,010 19,912 13,274 9,975 8,397
Top Up (£) 28,010 13,912 7,274 3,975 2,397
MainstreamSecondary
A B C D E
Value (£) 33,828 19,554 13,036 9,708 8,101
Top Up (£) 27,828 13,554 7,036 3,708 2,101
Option 2 – Special Schools & Resource Provisions
Funding Bands
Teacher/Pupil Ratio
Group Size TA/Pupil Ratio
Group Size
Band 1 0.33 1 to 3 0.5 1 to 2
Band 2 0.20 1 to 5 0.4 1 to 2.5
Band 3 0.20 1 to 5 0.2 1 to 5
Band 4 0.125 1 to 8 0.3 1 to 3
Based on separate funding bands for specialist and resource provisions & pupils in mainstream schools
Option 2 - Band Values Special Schools
Special Schools (Primary)
1 2 3 4
Value (£) 24,050 16,766 13,114 12,478
Top Up (£) 17,899 10,615 6,963 6,327
Special Schools (Secondary)
1 2 3 4
Value (£) 24,197 16,913 13,262 12,626
Top Up (£) 18,304 11,020 7,368 6,733
Option 2 - Band Values Resource Provisions
Resource Provisions (Primary)
1 2 3 4
Value (£) 24,050 16,766 13,114 12,478
Top Up (£) 16,888 9,604 5,952 5,317
Resource Provisions (Secondary)
1 2 3 4
Value (£) 24,197 16,913 13,262 12,626
Top Up (£) 18,595 11,311 7,659 7,024
Option 2 – Mainstream Schools
Funding Bands
Teacher/ Pupil Ratio
Group Size TA/Pupil Ratio
TA Group Size
Band 1 0.33 1 to 3 0.5 1 to 2
Band 2 0.20 1 to 5 0.4 1 to 2.5
Band 3 0.20 1 to 5 0.2 1 to 5
Band 4 0.125 1 to 8 0.3 1 to 3
Option 2 - Band Values Mainstream
MainstreamPrimary
1 2 3 4
Value (£) 13,752 8,769 5,440 4,555
Top Up (£) 7,752 2,769 -560 -1,445
MainstreamSecondary
1 2 3 4
Value (£) 13,828 9,688 6,359 5,474
Top Up (£) 7,828 3,688 359 -526
Option 3 – Based on Individual Pupil Need
Funding Bands
Teacher/ Pupil Ratio
Group Size
TA/ Pupil Ratio
TA Group Size
Lunch Time Cover
Resource Weighting /
£1,000
Band 1 0.33 1 to 3 0.5 1 to 2
Standard Rate
Across All
Bands
1.00
Band 2 0.20 1 to 5 0.41 to 2.5
0.75
Band 3 0.20 1 to 5 0.2 1 to 3 0.5
Band 4 0.125 1 to 8 0.3 1 to 5 0.4
Option 3 - Band Values & Top Ups
Band Level 1 2 3 4
Band Value – All Provision Types (£) 23,983 16,449 14,982 9,227
Top Ups (£)
Special Primary 17,832 10,298 8,831 3,076
Special Secondary 18,090 10,556 9,089 3,334
Resource Provision – Primary 16,821 9,288 7,820 2,066
Resource Provision - Secondary 18,381 10,847 9,380 3,625
Mainstream (P & S) 17,983 10,449 8,982 3,227
Issues – Option 1
• Advantages:– Top up is calculated using existing baseline levels of funding
targeted for individual pupils in mainstream– Recognises both the current funding systems for the type of
establishment for mainstream and special schools– Minimises turbulence
• Disadvantages– Not been reviewed since 2004– Different banding rates apply for specialist provision in
mainstream schools and special schools – Number of bands is not in line with proposed draft guidance
developed so far
Issues Option 2
• Advantages– Bands reduced to 4 and more closely linked to draft guidance
– Takes into account both the needs of the establishment and the pupil
• Disadvantages– The guidance document, which is based on the support required at
individual pupil level would need to differentiate different types of provider, which would not be in keeping with the intentions for the original document
– In estimating the associated band values, those pupils at Band 4 in mainstream schools would not have received any top up funding
– Affordability as the band values for the specialist provisions increase beyond the level of budget available
Issues Option 3 - Preferred option - one banding system across all providers
• Advantages– Band levels are consistent with draft guidance and based on
pupil need rather than provider need– Staff ratios used are consistent across all types of provider– Top ups still reflect the different funding arrangements for
each provider
• Issues to resolve– Time required to review all current high need pupils and
assimilate each pupil to a new band level using the new criteria
– Difficulty in estimating funding outcomes as a result of the change from one system to another
Banding System – Final Proposal
• The local authorities preferred banding system is option 3, which would be implemented in April 2014
• As an interim arrangement the top ups based on the current system would continue for 2013/2014
• Each student would be assimilated to a new funding band, using the new criteria as part of their annual review. However funding would not change until April 2014.
• Annual reviews would be carried out in line with the existing review programme for all pupils.
Contact Details
• David May: 0191 561-1826– E-mail: [email protected]
• Karen Atkins: 0191 561-1412– E-mail: [email protected]
• Annette Parr: 07768507410 – E-mail: [email protected]