Review of Schools Forum Operation (11 June 2008 Meeting) s3

Schools Forum SEN sub group Agenda Item 3 Date: 24 September 2014

Increasing place provision for pupils with high-need, low incidence SEN Report by Chris Kiernan, director for commissioning, education and lifelong learning Contact details: Telephone (033301 30313); e-mail: [email protected] 1 Purpose of report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to set out for the schools forum the progress to date in planning the capital investment required to provide between 350 and 400 places for pupils with high-level, low incidence needs. These places are required for two reasons:  To meet the forecast demand for pupils with high levels of need, through increasing the numbers of high-quality places in Essex – expanding special schools and resourced provision in mainstream schools, and procuring new providers where necessary; and  To reduce the need for placements out of county in independent schools, and thus release resources to increase pupil funding in Essex schools for all pupils, or to fund the capital cost of the delivery of any additional provision that may be needed to achieve that. 1.2 This report has been discussed and agreed, with minor amendments, at the SEN sub group of the schools forum. One further proposal, regarding funding from delegated budgets, has been considered since the sub-group meeting. 2 Recommendations 2.1 The schools forum is asked to agree:  The development of a refreshed SEN inclusion strategy that takes account of the range of factors set out under paragraph 4.1 of this report;  project governance arrangements as proposed under paragraph 4.2;  project development involving capital and revenue expenditure as set out under paragraph 4.6;  the return to school delegated budgets of revenue funding to support the capital expenditure for a single year – the 2015/16 financial year – for the reasons, and under the conditions, set out in paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9 below; and  to receive a further report setting out options in terms of schedules of borrowing, repayment rates and recommendations of the most efficient and effective borrowing. 3 Relevance to strategic plans 3.1 We have a 2014/19 SEN strategy document. However, it does not locate within it:  the schools forum agreement to fund £42,000,000 for capital investment to provide the places outlined in section one (above);  the proposed movement towards funding clusters of schools to provide for the requirements of pupils with SEN in their area – to include the possibility of devolving or delegating all resources to the clusters;  an expansion / procurement programme to secure new additional specialist places; and  an analysis of out-county costs, including comparable costs with all English LAs, statistical neighbours and other east of England LAs. 3.2 The SEN strategy still stands as a highly effective and focused policy statement. However, it has been overtaken by the ECC’s commissioning framework, which has seven strands, three of which (a good start in life; education and increasing independence) are highly relevant to SEN provision, and require implementation plans. These are being finalised, with implementation plans at an advanced stage. 3.3 A capital investment of £42,000,000 should produce high-quality buildings for some of our most vulnerable pupils, who need the highest level of support. They will have a 40 to 60 year life-span. As such, we need to be very thoughtful about the design of the buildings and the needs they are meeting; the procurement of the most appropriate education providers; the opportunities for inclusion into mainstream provision; and the revenue funding required for effective use of the new infrastructure, including therapeutic support. 4 Report 4.1 This report sets out a proposed framework within which the planning, commissioning, construction and equipping of new high-needs, low incidence places in Essex should proceed. This takes into account, amongst other things, the following key issues:  the Children and Family Act, 2014, which came into effect, in part, in September 2014 – and, crucially, the local offer;  personal budgets: we now have to offer personal budgets, as a part of the local offer;  The LA’s commissioning framework;  accountability of schools cluster working;  the profile, age and cost of out-borough pupils, and the potential for reducing pupil outflows in future;  the need for more delegated and devolved funding, giving schools control of as much of the resource available as possible – most likely through clusters of schools, and in the context of individual pupil resourcing agreements (see note*);  the level of demand amongst parents of pupils with high levels of need for inclusion, and projected demand in future;  the needs of pupils presenting significant behaviour / conduct issues; and  the need for extra therapeutic /counselling staff and identification of resources required. 4.2 A large, complex project like that being considered here – which is in effect a significant capital programme, being put in place at the time of the biggest change in SEN legislation in over 30 years (since the 1978 Warnock Report and the 1981 Education Act) – requires:  a solid, clear and accountable governance structure;  a project officer, who is trained and qualified as a project manager, who manages the overall project plan;  professional leadership for the project planning process; and  a capital programme manager, responsible for all aspects of the programme, including liaison with head teachers and governors about all aspects of fitting out the resulting infrastructure, including fixtures and fittings, ICT and so on. 4.3 It also needs to form an integral element of a broader strategic approach, which must take account of:  the strengths and areas for development of current provision for pupils with special educational needs, including the percentage of pupils educated in independent schools, against all comparator groups;  action required to ensure all schools, in all areas in Essex, take responsibility for children with SEN, taking financial benefits when needs are met, but also the financial loss if pupils in their area are educated out-county;  the potential for special schools in Essex to co-ordinate and provide support; and  the increasing demand for a range of professionals to support the mental health needs of pupils, in particular at ‘tier two’ (single profession involvement) and tier three (professionals working together to meet complex needs). 4.4 It will take until the end of the current term (autumn 2014) to pull together a strategic document that takes account of the above issues, and will facilitate the development of a capital programme that will enable us to meet the needs of all pupils with special educational needs within the county. It must also be our ambition to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of pupils close to their homes, reducing the stress and cost of long journeys to school. 4.5 A strategic approach is imperative if the risks of major capital investment being ineffective are to be mitigated. As things stand at the moment, we are at risk of schools’ delegated budgets being reduced to make the annual payments required to repay the £42m loan, whilst placement numbers both within and outside Essex and costs continue to rise. 4.6 At the same time, we recognise the imperative to commence capital projects at the same time as we develop our strategic approach. We have identified the following possibilities:  new resourced provision in mainstream primary schools and – if we can get agreement – secondary schools for pupils with a high level of emotional and behavioural need;  expansion / rationalisation of pupil referral unit(s);  options for SEN places at the St Peter’s site;  the possibility of the creation of a small specialist unit to meet local need in Harlow, using either a part of the Passmores site (which is required for mainstream secondary provision) or Commonside (where Aspire occupies part of the site);  a feasibility study for relocation and expansion of Lexden Springs at the former Heath site;  a feasibility study for using the Wickford centre for alternative education provision (the possible relocation of the South CSS);  an examination of the possible use of part of the old Bishop’s Park school site for specialist provision;  the creation of ASD ‘hubs’; and  the expansion of specialist provision for pupils with a range of high-level needs, through the reconfiguration and expansion of special schools. 4.7 There are several of the above that have the potential for development fairly rapidly – for opening by the beginning of the 2015/16 school year, or during it. Examples are new resourced units in primary and secondary, ASD hubs, some alternative provision expansion and, possibly, the use of the old Bishop’s Park building. 4.8 At present, there is £5,800,000 available, comprising £1,800,000 from 2012/13 underspend, £1,000,000m from the 2013/14 underspend and £2,900,000 from schools’ delegated budgets in the current year. Given the stage we have reached, we will not expend over this amount by the end of the financial year 2015/16 (that is, by 31 March 2016). Neither are we at a stage where we can forecast accurately the borrowing that will be required. 4.9 Hence the recommendation under bullet four of paragraph 2.1 above. The work that can be undertaken over the next 18 months can be funded either without further borrowing, or if, in the unlikely event of project development being rapid enough to exceed the £5,800,000 available, part of this capital sum can be used for the first loan repayments, which must be made as soon as borrowing is agreed. Schools forum has agreed the £2,900,000 annual contribution (plus an extra £1,000,000 annually if the LA is unable to make a contribution from s central allocation in any year), which is unaffected should a one year contribution holiday be agreed. The advantages of this proposal are:  in the 2015/16 financial year, schools’ delegated budgets will increase by the percentage set out in the table under paragraph 5.1 below;  the SEN project development board (which includes LA officers and primary, secondary and special school head teachers) will develop and cost the capital programme, receive information about other possible sources of income – for example, capital receipts from land sales, and bring back to schools the level of financial contribution required, which will be capped at the level agreed, but might be lower; and  it allows time for the proper development of a detailed programme, plus ‘early wins’ in a period during which schools do not have to make payments in advance of the need to spend in advance or draw down lending. 4.10 There is a financial cost at the point at which borrowing commences. To give an example, if the programme for the 2016 and following years requires borrowing – the current estimate is that this might be £18 million – then assuming the £5.8 million has been spent, £17m will need to be drawn down, rather that £14.1 million. This would cost £2.25 million a year over five years, as against £1.9 million to repay £14.1 million. 5 Financial implications 5.1 The financial implications are significant. Essex schools must repay £3m a year for the next 10 years, whilst guaranteeing another £1m should the LA be unable to afford this level of repayment in any one year. The table below sets out the effect of the repayment on primary and secondary schools’ delegated budgets.

sector Pupil Total total budget Funding current New Percentage numbers (percent) reduction AWPU AWPU reduction primary 107,812 59.0% £411,133,942 £1,493,000 £2,686 £2,665 -0.78% secondary 73,133 40.0% £365,426,058 £1,464,000 £3,915 £3,894 -0.54% sec ks 4 £4,767 £4,742 -0.52% special 1,906 1.0% £37,126,863 £57,000 £6,245 £6,216 -0.46% 5.2 Special schools are place not pupil funded, and are therefore not included in the table. However, special schools are allocated one per cent of the total delegated funding through the LA’s formula – which is about £37m. The reduction is £57,000, which is almost a half of one per cent of the total. 6 Other resource implications 6.1 There are considerable other resource issues / risks to consider:  first, the availability and quality of therapeutic and / or counselling support for pupils with physical, intellectual, social and emotional needs is crucial – the level of need must be scoped out, and the resources to fund appropriate support, though bids for extra budget allocations from Essex’s CCGs, and schools forum secured;  second, the LA still has the legal responsibility for ensuring the needs of pupils with SEN, disability and emotional / behavioural needs are met – which includes a large number of staff currently involved with the drafting, finalising and maintenance of statement of educational needs, and who will in future manage EHC plans, the level of need for which has already been factored in to budget reductions based on a model of releasing ‘top up’ via clusters funding without the need for an EHC;  third is the lack of any alignment between schools meeting the needs of the range of pupils in their areas and budget increases or reductions that depend on their success or lack of it in doing so – this results in the interests of an individual school being seen as best met by pupils with high level needs going elsewhere;  fourth is the extent to which certain LA staff support schools who oppose the allocation of pupils to them on the basis of not being able to meet needs – this will, if it continues, function to increase the numbers and percentage of the most needy pupils who are not able to attend mainstream schools, even with considerable support, thus adding to the numbers admitted to special schools, and / or independent schools. 6.2 We must address and resolve these issues in advance or at least at the same time as developing a capital investment plan. 7 Consultation with stakeholders 7.1 LA officers will, as required by the Children and Families Act, 2014, co-construct the strategic approach with children with SEN and their parents, and with all head teacher groups and their executives. 8. Background / supporting papers. These are the:  commissioning strategies;  current 2014/19 SEN strategy, which is the basic policy document of the council;  governance structure within which SEN strategic planning is located;  constitution and terms of reference of the SEN project planning group;  job description of the professional lead officer for the project;  job description of the capital project lead officer; and  planned reductions to central SEN budgets note: From now, EHC plans will replace statements. There are over 4,000 children in mainstream schools with statements, most of which are in place in order to release additional funding. EHCs must focus on outcomes for a young person rather than hours or money to be made available to support their needs. We intend, in advance of a cluster funding model, to divorce funding from an EHC plan and instead have an individual pupil resourcing agreement (IPRA). This supports the outcomes to be achieved for the pupil set out in the EHC plan. We hope that IPRAs can be agreed with schools without the need for an EHC plan and will be piloting this across the county from now.