People and Communities Strategic Schools Forum
Date: 4th December 2019 9:30am Venue: Priory Community School - An Academy, Queensway, Weston-Super-Mare, BS22 6BP Agenda Action Lead Apologies and Declarations of Interest - SSF 1. 9:30 members are reminded that they need to declare an John Simpson interest in any item that is on the agenda
2. 9:35 Minutes of the previous meeting John Simpson
Matters arising: 3. 9:45 John Simpson Notification of AOB:
4. 9:50 Chair’s Business John Simpson
Governance: Information 5. 9:55 • None known in advance of John Simpson (Verbal) the meeting
Finance Report: Emma 6. 10:00 Information • 2019-20 budget monitor Whitehead
Dedicated Schools Grant 2020-21: Emma 7. 10:30 • Results of the Funding Decision Whitehead consultation for 2020-21
Education Inclusion Service Report: • Proposed Top Up Funding Consultation for 2020-21 • Specialist and Alternative Information 8. 11:15 Wendy Packer Provision review & Decision • Update on Educational Psychologists and EHCP’s • Update about statutory consultations to progress increases in provision. 9. 11:45 Evaluation of meeting – Date of next meeting- 15 January 2020 – Venue: TBC
Papers will be issued on the 8 January 2020 where possible.
People and Communities Strategic Schools Forum
Wednesday 6th November 2019 09:30am, Hans Price Academy
Member Title P – Present S – Substitute A - Apologies ACADEMY REPRESENTATIVES - vote
LOUISE MALIK Chief Financial and Operating Officer, Lighthouse P Schools Partnership
CHRIS HILDREW Academy Headteacher, Churchill Academy & Sixth P Form WILLIAM HARDING Academy Governor/Trustee of North Somerset P School in Bristol-based Cathedral School Trust MARK ANTOINE Academy representative – Secondary Business P Manager/Chief Operations Officer ADAM MATTHEWS Academy CEO, Extended Learning Academies P Network SUE ELLIOTT Academy Head Teacher, Worle Village Primary P School - Kaleidoscope STEPHEN WEBBER Academy Headteacher, Clevedon Learning Trust P
VACANT Academy Governor
MAINTAINED SCHOOLS HEADTEACHERS - vote SARAH HARDING Primary Headteacher Kewstoke P TRACEY TOWLER Special School Headteacher Westhaven School P EMMA GUNDRY PRU Principal, Voyage Learning Campus P MAINTAINED SCHOOLS GOVERNORS (PRIMARY) - vote WENDY FARRIER Maintained School Representative – Primary P Governor (Churchill Primary) NON-SCHOOLS MEMBERS – no vote JOHN SIMPSON Independent Community Representative, Chair P CLLR CATHERINE Executive Member for Children and Young Peoples P GIBBONS Services CLLR WENDY GRIGGS Chair of CYP Policy and Scrutiny Panel A
CLAIRE HUDSON Diocese of Bath and Wells A
PAUL TRAUBERMAN Early Years – Rainbow Smiles Nursery P
KAREN WORTHINGTON 14 – 19 – Weston College P
1
JON REDDIFORD RTPA A
OBSERVERS – no vote MIKE EVANS Special School Governor (Ravenswood School A (CoG)) IAN SCOTT National Education Union A SALLY VARLEY Service Leader – Strategic Planning & P Governance, North Somerset Council
PRESENTING OFFICER PRESENT – no vote WENDY PACKER Vulnerable Learners Service Lead and Virtual School P Headteacher NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES (FOR INFORMATION) – no vote SHEILA SMITH Director of People and Communities A KATHERINE SOKOL Finance Business Partner P EFION PRICE Assistant Director Children’s Support & A Safeguarding BECKI WONG PA to the Principalship A lCO-ORDINATOR – no vote EMMA WHITEHEAD Education Funding Manager P CLERK – no vote HANNAH CUSHEN Business Support P
2
Item Issue Action
1. Apologies and Declarations of interest (JS) JS welcomed everyone to the meeting
Apologies were noted.
There were no conflicts of interest reported.
2. Minutes of the previous meeting (JS) Approved for accuracy, subject to the following amendments:
Page 1 MARK ANTOINE: Correct title to read: ‘Academy representative- Secondary Business Manager/Chief Operations Officer’
Page 3, Item 5 INSERT: ‘JS welcomed Emma Gundry, who is the new Principal of the Voyage Learning Campus.’
First paragraph: DELETE: ‘…CEO of Voyage Learning Campus.’ INSERT: ‘… Chief Operations Officer of the Priory Learning Trust.’
Page 5, Item 6 INSERT AFTER FOURTH PARAGRAPH: ‘TT asked, as a result of KW’s presentation, for her to provide the college’s full financial figures for each work stream, so the SSF can have a clear understanding before passing judgement. Action: KW KW
Page 9, Item 9 DELETE: ‘The hours for supporting students in school have been drastically reduced, which means they are being sent out of county.’
INSERT: ‘This year the funding for supporting these students in school has been drastically reduced, which means that there is a higher risk of students being permanently excluded. This could well lead to an increase in the numbers of children being placed out of county.’
JS asked that all amendments to the minutes should be brought to the meeting for agreement to avoid confusion over version numbers.
3. Matters arising that are not on the agenda and notification of AOB (JS)
Matters Arising
Item 6: (amendment added) KW advised that this action was still open as
she would like to bring the most accurate figures to the meeting and more
time was needed to do this.
Item 7: JS asked EW for more information on the framework contact, she advised that it was in the process of being negotiated and she would like to
3
invite the contract manager to the SSF meeting to explain more about the contract. In brief, it gives economies of scale for places.
Item 8: TT advised that the sub-group mentioned in the last paragraph will now form part of the EEPB Board.
There were no notifications of AOB.
4. Chair’s Business (JS) JS advised that planning for the meeting had been difficult as information was still awaited from the DfE.
5. Governance – Welcome to new or changed members (JS) JS welcomed Louise Malik, who is the Chief Financial and Operating Officer for the Lighthouse Schools Partnership.
William Harding advised that he is now Academy Governor/Trustee to a North Somerset School that comes under the Bristol-based Cathedral School Trust.
JS reminded the meeting that there was still a vacancy for an Academy Governor, and he asked them to put suggestions forward. CH suggested that one of the trusts, not yet represented should be approached, such as Educate Together of the Bath and Wells Trust, which is a separate entity to the Diocese of Bath and Wells.
6. Finance Report EW explained that Government and Local Government are about to enter purdah. The Schools Block, Central Services Block, and High Needs Block have been released but the Early Years Block has not yet been released. The hourly rates to the Local Authority were published late last Thursday and an update on funding has been emailed to all providers and also published in the latest Noticeboard. The article will also be included in the next Early Years Newsletter.
The hourly rates into the Local Authority have increased by 8 pence from 2019/20 rates to £5.51 for funded 2 years olds and £4.38 for funded 3- and 4-year olds.
EW advised that any early year’s areas for consultation will be tabled at the next SSF meeting on the 4th December 2019, for SSF to approve.
The DfE Dedicated Schools Grant compulsory elements consultation has now, and the outcome will not be published until after purdah so it is assumed that it will be implemented as detailed in the consultation.
JS advised that the SSF needs to adapt as best it can in this shifting environment, but ultimately will have to keep to the same deadline as they have a statutory duty to consult as instructed.
JS referred to the letter previously distributed from the ESFA advising that they will be making a visit to develop the recovery plan.
The Finance Report was distributed prior to the meeting.
4
EW explained that the report covered monitoring up to the 30th September Noted by the 2019 and the SSF report is the same as that reported to the Council. SSF substatial increases are predicted by December.
The largest pressue is the Out of Authority Placements which has been fed back to the the DfE. There has been an increase of 20%. Noted by the JS asked the the SSF to note the financial data in the report. SSF
EW advised that the Deficit Recovery Plan was based on a 3-year period, but the DfE then asked for the 5 year plan, which was produced. EW advised that other LA’s have received letters which contradict on other live situations, for example school block movements, the recent SEND judicial reviews and live consultation on the DSG and Council balances. North Somerset welcomed the visit from the DfE to scrutinise the 5-year document.
There have been a number of SEN consultations and feedback was awaited from the DfE.
JS advised that given the direction of travel and interest in recovery plans, it is expected School Block transfer funding will not be required for the High Needs Block. EW advised that demand for EHCP plans is increasing, and that the she did not anticipate the funding in the High Needs Block to be sufficinet in ongoing years to meet the increases in demand.
TT asked if the growth within area will be accounted for, EW confirmed it would and she would bring the figures to the December meeting. She did not anticipate an increase in the Base funding.
It was felt that JS should be present at the visit from the DfE.
There were concerns raised that members of the SSF were being blamed personally for decisions made at the meeting, by schools. JS advised that all decisions made by the SSF are as a result of schools consultation requests and often approximatly a third of responses are received. Revised DSG Arrangements consultaiton it was noted that the consultation Noted by the was intended to clarify the ring-fenced status of the DSG and that the LA SSF would be submitting a response.
JS acknowledged that at the moment all are in aa difficult positon..
5
7. Dedicated Schools Grant 2020-21 (EW) The report was distributed prior to the meeting.
EW advised that she would have liked to have brought the whole consultation paper to the SSF, but this had not been possible as the information had not been received.
The consultation is to be released on 13th November 2019 and the deadline for responses is 27th November. It will go into Noticeboard in the week commencing 11th November 2019 and to the Directors meeting on 14th November 2019. A red Noticeboard was suggested, EW agreed to ask Sheila Smith but felt it may not warrant it.
The SSF JS asked if the SSF approved the timetable as set out in item 3.7 of the approved the report, this was confirmed. timetable
The main areas of consultation were discussed as set out in item 3.11 of the report:
• Transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block EW advised that the High Needs block consultation will be a minimum of 0.5%, and she hope to be able to bring detailed figures to the December meeting but that they would be available for the January meeting if not. WF asked that it is made clear to schools in the consultation that there is a 5-year deficit recovery plan in place, and it does not mean that there will be extra money.
EW advised that the disapplication does not have to be submitted if the SSF approve. LM asked for more detail on the individual schools and EW advised that all rates are at the NFF levels where as possible in the proposals and then circulated the detail on schools.
KS gave some headline information on the High Needs Block: there is £2,000,000 in the current budget, but £6,000,000 more would be required. SH asked for worked models, which EW passed around. The examples did not include the Special schools or the Winterstoke Hundred as confirmation from the ESFA on how the Winterstoke Hundred will be funded was still be awaited. She explained that the NSECT C provision was still open and a decision on funding was awaited for this.
EW advised that the October 2019 data set and revised APT would not be issued by the DfE until late December likely to the last day of term.
The four funding options were discussed. Option 1 showed the basic calculations based on the hard formula total; Option 2 showed the rates after a 0.5% movement to the High Needs Block rate; Option 3 showed the rates after a 0.7% movement to the High Needs Block rate and Option 4 showed the rates after a movement to the High Needs Block of 1.2%.
LM asked if the options were affordable, this was confirmed.
6
EW advised that there was no cap on gains in the options as due to the £3,750 and £5,000 per pupil stipulated rates it was not possible. For information in 2019-20 the cap in use is 6%.
WF asked why some schools do not change until Option 4, it was advised this this was because they did not hit the minimum funding guaranteed until then.
EW advised that the negative figures were due to non-domestic rates at Winford School which the Academy Trust would have to challenge if they felt they needed to do so.
JS proposed that a 0.5% Schools Block to the High Needs Block was The SSF approved by SSF in order that this will be the minimum move and approved the option 1 in the consultation. This would avoid a disapplication for a 0.5% 0.5% Schools Block movement to the High Needs Block being movement submitted. from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block.
JS also asked that provisional approval was given for disapplications The SSF also for School Block movements of 0.7% and 1.2%to be submitted, with agreed for any officers using the consultation responses as a guide as the deadline relevant for disapplications is Thursday 28th November and is prior to the next disapplications meeting of the SSF on the 4th December 2019, where formal approval to be for would be sought after SSF members have considered submitted and stakeholders responses to the consultation.. then for them to be retrospectively approved at the December meeting.
• Targeted Support EW advised that this is funding that is within the Schools Block but is separate to individual schools’ budget. It is issues on a formulaic basis to those schools which have high numbers of pupils with SEN. The amount budgeted this year is £278,000. It is this amount when the additional money was released by the DfE in late December 2018 SSF members agreed that half was allocated to all schools via AWPU and half went into Targeted Support. She asked if Targeted Support should be retained. All schools are included in the allocation formula with approximately 8 schools receiving an allocation from it. If the hard formula comes in, then the pot of money will not exist.
EW proposed that if it is kept, using the current model. CH asked if all schools could benefit from this model and EW confirmed they would.
It was agreed that it should be included in the consultation.
• MFG
7
This was agreed for consultation The SSF provisionally • Lump Sum agreed It was proposed that a single lump sum is agreed. This was agreed for consultation.
• De Delegations The SSF It was agreed to consult keeping the de delegations as previous provisionally years. agreed
• Statutory Services Charge The SSF It was agreed to consult on the charge amount remaining the same provisionally as 2018/19 and 2019/20. agreed The SSF • Exceptional Pupil Growth provisionally EW advised that there were no proposed changes, but more work agreed would be required for beyond 2021. There had been no comments received as the proposed policy was shared with SSF members via The SSF email for comment after the last SSF meeting. Therefore, the revised provisionally version would be consulted on. agreed
JS summarised that these points had been discussed before and he The SSF asked for any suggestions for areas not already covered. provisionally agreed
The SSF provisionally agreed
8. Evaluation of Meeting JS asked whether everyone was clear on what had been discussed and 6. the plan for the next meeting, he asked for suggestions on how the meeting could be improved. Everyone confirmed they had understood and there were no suggestions for improvement.
9. Date of Next Meeting Wednesday, 4th December 2019, 9:30am. Priory Community School, Queensway, Weston-Super-Mare BS22 6BP
8
Strategic Schools Forum -4 4 December 2019
Agenda Item No. 6
Finance Report:
• 2019-20 Budget Monitor
Emma Whitehead
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE OF MEETING: 4 DECEMBER 2019
SUBJECT OF REPORT: FINANCE REPORT, MONITORING REPORT FOR 2019-20 AS AT END OF PERIOD 7.
OFFICER/MEMBER PRESENTING: EDUCATION FUNDING MANAGER
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Strategic Schools Forum is recommended to: - i) Note the monitoring as at the 31st October 2019 for the 2019-20 financial year and the key areas of note, which is the out of district projected spend.
1. SUMMARY OF REPORT
This report provides a forecast year-end monitoring position of the 2019-20 schools budget calculated as at the end of period 7, 31 October 2019. Reports are provided throughout the financial year and contain detail on any key financial variances and movements that officers identify as part of the formal budget monitoring process.
The report continues to illustrate that it is challenging to keep the spend on SEND within budget and it is not going to be possible with the forecasts. This could continue to lead to difficult decisions being taken on priorities and funding.
2. POLICY
The Strategic Schools Forum’s monitoring of the school’s budget is an integral feature of its overall responsibilities and it ensures that resources are planned, aligned and managed effectively to allow schools the maximum resources available and in turn aids schools’ successful delivery of their aims and objectives. The 2019-20 schools’ budget was set within the allowable parameters after consultation with key stakeholders and decisions taken by the Strategic Schools Forum.
- 2
3. DETAILS
2019/20 Monitoring Report until the 31st October 2019
3.1 This is the third monitoring report for the Schools Budget in 2019-20 and covers the period to the end of October 2019.
Schools Budget monitoring
3.2 This report covers the period 1st April 2019 to 31st October 2019. Set out below are explanations of the headings as set out in Appendix A.
Column 1 Budget Description Column 2 Original Budget Column 3 Budget Movements Column 4 Final Budget Column 5 Expenditure to date Column 6 Projected Outturn Column 7 Variance for the year
3.3 As Appendix A highlights shows the areas of variance continue to be those are as expected and are all in the High Needs Block. Line 18 shows a variance of £68,606 which has been previously reported to SSF and is in relation to the ending of the SALT and SALSA elements of the Somerset Education Services contract.
3.4 SEN Equipment and other costs, Line 21 is projecting an overspend of £217,289 and this is due to costs associated with Education Health Care Plans (ECHPs). In 2020- 21 this budget will be split with the other defined and separated from the equipment.
Out of Authority Placements, Line 22 remains the largest pressure and projected variance is with the forecast spend being just over of £5.8m. This would be an overspend of c.£835k and an increase in spend of c.£1.8m when compared with 2018/19. Appendix C has the current cases.
You can see in the table below that the total forecast increase in spend from 2018/19 to 2019/20 is 30%, which is made up of a 21% increase in activity and a 7% increase in average unit costs.
Special Out of County Placements Cost & Volume Summary
Change 2019/20 2019/20 2018/19 variance Change P7 forecast v. 2018/19 2018/19 variance to 2019/20 2019/20 Forecast to Forecast V. 2018/19 Budget Actual Budget Budget Forecast P7 Budget P6 Forecast P6 Forecast actual % Change
- Av Numbers 91.42 102.36 10.94 111.49 124.22 12.74 125.32 -1.10 21.86 21% - Average unit cost £43,755 £43,755 £0 £44,849 £46,865 £2,017 £46,356 £509 £3,110 7% - Total Cost £4,478,753 £5,821,709 £25,685 £5,809,238 £12,471 £1,342,956 30% - Budget £4,000,000 £5,000,000 - Variance £478,753 £821,709 £809,238
- Volume Variance £478,753 £571,232 £620,366 -£49,134 £956,572 71% - Price Variance £0 £250,500 £188,896 £61,604 £386,384 29% - 3
3.5 Top up Funding, Line 24 is projecting an overspend of nearly £611k. The overspend relates partly to an increase in the number of children in receipt of TUF in our own maintained special schools (e.g. place increases at Westhaven) and partly to top-up funding paid to out of area maintained special schools. Whilst all is done to prevent children and young people having to attend schools outside of North Somerset it is not possible when it is judged that needs can be met outside and or we have insufficient places currently within North Somerset. Increasing capacity in our own maintained schools is an effective way of mitigating even higher costs in independent non-maintained schools. The new resource base places in 2020-21 will help along with the SEMH School and changes at Baytree but in the medium term there are few significant solutions, although the proposed new early intervention and engagement programme should lead to a reducing number of children requiring placements outside of mainstream schools.
3.6 As SSF members know, we have little control over spend on these placements as all children and young people have statutory rights to education and training. Work is ongoing with increasing our local provision but there is a collective duty to prevent children and young people having to be educated outside of the North Somerset.
3.7 Overall the estimated in-year overspend on the DSG is projected to be £1.73m. With the agreed deficit recovery contribution of £500k, this would lead to a total DSG deficit of £3.608m at the end of the 2019/20 financial year. This will, no doubt, lead to the need to revisit our deficit recovery plan, and we look forward to working with the DfE on this.
3.8 A monitor at the end of period 9 will be brought to the next SSF meeting on the 15 January 2020. At this stage, we expect to be reporting possible further increases in overspend in relation to maintained special school place funding.
Children’s services element of the Council’s People and Communities Budget
3.10 The last report to the Council’s Executive details a projected overspend in children’s services of £1.138m. Some significant growth was applied to the Children’s Services budgets in 2019/20 and this has largely closed the gap between the budget and the demand for placements for looked after children, although some growth in numbers and costs is now beginning to materialise. In addition, historic cost pressures continue in other areas such as adoptions, children’s centres and early years’ nursery provision, legal costs, support to families with disabled children and education related services.
3.11 The Council continues with its medium-term financial planning process for 2020/21 and beyond. One of the principles that it continues to follow is to close the gap between the budget and the projected spend, particularly in those areas where demand is most difficult to manage.
- 4
4. CONSULTATION
The report has been developed through consultation with the relevant officers and also with each of the departmental management teams. At this stage, there are no proposals / decisions that require wider consultation.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The financial implications are included throughout the report
6. RISK MANAGEMENT
This report discusses the risks and opportunities in relation to the revenue budget. As such, risks are included throughout the report
7. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS
The 2019-20 school budget has considered the equality implications. The EIA have been subject to consultation and discussion with a wide range of stakeholder groups to ensure all risks have been identified and understood. At this stage, there are no proposals / decisions that require consideration of impacts.
8. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
The corporate budget monitoring process is an important part of the Council’s overall corporate governance and financial management arrangements. The report discusses risks and opportunities across the Council, which may have a corporate impact. There are no specific corporate implications other than those already identified throughout the report.
9. OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The report is for information only; as such, no options have been identified.
- 5
AUTHOR S
Emma Whitehead, Education Funding Manager [email protected] 01934 426407
Katherine Sokol, Finance Business Partner (People and Communities) [email protected] 01934 634613
BACKGROUND PAPERS Previous papers to the SSF particularly the 2018-19 monitoring reports and the budget setting reports for 2019-20.
- 6
DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT MONITORING 2019/20 - As at 31st OCTOBER 2019 Appendix A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cost Centre Budget description Original Budget Final Budget Movements Budget Expenditure Projected Variance 2019/20 2019/20 2019/20 To Date Outturn for year £ £ £ £ £ £ 1 UNIVERSAL PROVISION AND EARLY INTERVENTION 2 Delegated Funding Delegated Funding 121,112,450 (1,355,607) 119,756,843 11,428,808 119,756,843 0 3 Less Academy Recoupment Less Academy Funding (108,627,097) 0 (108,627,097) 0 (108,627,097) 0 4 Total Delegated Funding 12,485,353 (1,355,607) 11,129,746 11,428,808 11,129,746 0 5 De-delegations De-delegations 0 276,645 276,645 187,151 276,645 0 6 EPC001-XPS58 Statutory Service Charge 0 35,958 35,958 0 35,958 0 6 EBZ001/4/5/7 Provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds 10,245,545 0 10,245,545 5,911,342 10,245,545 0 7 EES001 Retained Services 443,273 0 443,273 332,455 443,273 0 8 Total Universal Provision and Early Intervention 23,174,171 (1,043,004) 22,131,167 17,859,756 22,131,167 0
9 INTENSIVE SUPPORT FOR VULNERABLE LEARNERS 10 EBX320 Inclusion Advisory Team 8,750 (1,050) 7,700 2,450 7,700 0 11 EBX934 Travellers Service 93,167 0 93,167 38,888 93,167 0 12 EBX935 Sensory Impairment - Joint Arrangement 248,440 0 248,440 56,777 248,440 0 13 EBY999 Psychology Service 72,910 0 72,910 42,531 72,910 0 14 EBY999 Portage 66,840 0 66,840 38,990 66,840 0 15 EBY999 VLS Management 67,990 40,826 108,816 39,782 108,816 0 16 EES002 Virtual Schools 137,743 (291) 137,452 79,263 137,452 0 17 EES003 Safeguarding 98,951 (39,485) 59,466 72,083 59,466 0 18 EES007/EBX801 SALT & SALSA 103,036 0 103,036 171,641 171,642 68,606 19 Total Vulnerable learners service 897,827 0 897,827 542,405 966,433 68,606
20 EEH803 Delegated Place Funding 3,696,914 0 3,696,914 3,604,165 3,696,914 0 21 EBW002 SEN equipment & Other costs 244,999 0 244,999 303,243 462,288 217,289 22 EBW999 Out of Authority Placements 5,000,000 0 5,000,000 3,793,660 5,835,365 835,365 23 EBZ003 Early Years Commissioned Services 170,906 0 170,906 91,446 170,906 (0) 24 EES010 Top-up Funding 11,415,005 0 11,415,005 6,684,324 12,026,889 611,884 25 EEH805 Truro Pathways (Ex Westhaven Horizons) 220,376 0 220,376 252,926 220,376 0 26 EEH805 School Placement Support Team (Ex Westhaven Phoenix) 120,037 0 120,037 70,022 120,037 0 27 EBX300 Elective home educated children 118,333 (100,000) 18,333 10,694 18,333 (0) 28 EBX312 Out of school Panel for CME 0 100,000 100,000 127,391 100,000 0 29 EBX321 Business Rates and Rent for AP 110,000 0 110,000 121,751 110,000 0 30 EBX325 Commissioned tuition service 540,000 0 540,000 540,000 540,000 0 31 EBX800 Enhanced Provision 94,409 0 94,409 55,072 94,409 0 32 Total Other Intensive Support for vulnerable learners 21,730,979 0 21,730,979 15,654,696 23,395,517 1,664,538
33 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED 34 EEN700 Strategic Schools Forum 7,841 0 7,841 3,730 7,841 0 35 EEN399 Support and advice for SSF 150,588 0 150,588 31,879 150,588 (0) 36 EEN199 Licences and Subscriptions 148,236 1 148,237 147,235 147,235 (1,002) 37 EBZ011 Early Years Administration 79,953 0 79,953 46,639 79,954 1 38 EEN410 Criminal Record Bureau 0 0 0 (308) 0 0 39 EEN599 Pupil Admissions Section 229,699 0 229,699 133,992 229,699 (0) 40 EES006 Costs of Prudential Borrowing 632,704 0 632,704 0 632,704 0 41 EEN101 Edctn - Health and Safety 0 0 0 1,348 0 0 42 EPC001-XIS06 Contingencies 685,907 0 685,907 214,504 685,907 0 43 EPC001-ZRG02 Contingency for Unallocated DSG 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 44 Total Strategic management and centrally administered 2,434,929 1 2,434,930 579,018 2,433,928 (1,002)
45 TOTAL SCHOOLS EXPENDITURE BUDGET 48,237,906 (1,043,003) 47,194,903 34,635,876 48,927,045 1,732,142
46 DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (47,552,000) 357,097 (47,194,903) (29,214,786) (47,194,903) 0 47 BALANCE 685,906 (685,906) (0) 5,421,090 1,732,142 1,732,142
OTHER GRANTS/INCOME (NON DSG) EXPENDITURE 48 EES004/EPF001/ESP001 Pupil Premium Grant [DfE] 0 2,275,826 2,275,826 706,733 2,275,826 0 49 EPF001/ESP001-XIS09 Teachers Pay Grant [DfE] 0 129,456 129,456 53,940 129,456 0 50 EPF001/ESP001-XIS17 Other DFE Grants - Summer Schools/Year 7 0 327,641 327,641 136,517 327,641 0 51 EPF001/ESP001-DAA05 Universal Infant Free School Meals 0 2,210,844 2,210,844 0 2,210,844 0 52 EEN408/EEN409/EG2101 Other Non DSG 0 0 0 (32,274) 0 0 53 TOTAL EXPENDITURE TOTAL EXPENDITURE 0 4,943,767 4,943,767 864,915 4,943,767 0
54 GRANT FUNDING 55 EDSG01-GTI03 Pupil Premium Grant [DfE] (2,275,826) 0 (2,275,826) (521,978) (2,275,826) 0 56 EDSG01-GTI04 Teachers Pay Grant [DfE] 0 (129,456) (129,456) (499,969) (129,456) 0 57 EDSG01-GTI07 Other DFE Grants - Summer Schools/Year 7 (586,486) 258,845 (327,641) (326,867) (327,641) 0 58 EDSG01-GTI08 Universal Infant Free School Meals (2,210,844) 0 (2,210,844) (430,358) (2,210,844) 0 59 EDSG01-NA Other 4,387,250 (4,387,250) 0 0 0 0 60 TOTAL GRANT FUNDING (685,906) (4,257,861) (4,943,767) (1,779,172) (4,943,767) 0 61 BALANCE (685,906) 685,906 0 (914,257) 0 0 62 BALANCE DSG AND OTHER GRANTS (0) 0 (0) 4,506,833 1,732,142 1,732,142 Appendix B Mainstream Schools, Academies & NSETC NCY 10 pupils
TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Average FTE A1 65 65 65 65 65 54 54 53 52 52 52 51 57.75 A2 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 21.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 18.78 A3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.58 B1 105 106 106 105 105 124 124 124 120 120 120 120 114.92 B2 53 51 51 51 51 71 70 70 72 72 72 72 63 B3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.17 C1 72 71 71 71 71 90 90 90 89 89 89 89 81.83 C2 66.6 64.6 63.6 62.6 62.6 80.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 73.18 C3 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7.75 DH1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DH2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.04 DH3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DV1 9 9 9 9 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6.67 DV2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.58 DV3 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.42 DV4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.58 E1 37 37 37 38 38 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 43 E2 20 19 19 20 20 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 21.58 E3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OLA 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 7.08 OTH 9 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.42 Grand Total 484.6 478.6 477.6 477.6 477.6 556.3 554.3 553.3 549.3 549.3 549.3 548.3 521.33 Totals at 31/10/19 483.6 477.6 476.6 476.6 476.6 560.6 559.6 559.6 556.6 556.6 556.6 556.6 525.1 Difference inc / dec 1 1 1 1 1 -4.3 -5.3 -6.3 -7.3 -7.3 -7.3 -8.3 -3.77 £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ TUF Band Total Funding Average Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar spend per pupil A1 40,734 40,734 40,734 40,734 40,734 19,575 19,575 19,213 18,850 18,850 18,850 18,488 337,068 5836.67 A2 14,691 14,691 14,691 14,691 14,691 10,121 9,644 9,644 9,644 9,644 9,644 9,644 141,440 7531.39 A3 3,509 3,509 3,509 3,509 3,509 2,712 2,712 2,712 2,712 2,712 2,712 2,712 36,530 14158.84 B1 56,044 56,578 56,578 56,044 56,044 29,450 29,450 29,450 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 483,636 4208.46 B2 46,905 45,135 45,135 45,135 45,135 41,588 41,003 41,003 42,174 42,174 42,174 42,174 519,734 8249.75 B3 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,298 5,298 5,298 5,298 5,298 5,298 5,298 63,404 15204.8 C1 38,430 37,896 37,896 37,896 37,896 21,375 21,375 21,375 21,138 21,138 21,138 21,138 338,690 4138.95 C2 58,941 57,171 56,286 55,401 55,401 47,211 46,626 46,626 46,626 46,626 46,626 46,626 610,166 8337.87 C3 10,028 10,028 10,028 10,028 10,028 9,536 9,536 9,536 9,536 9,536 9,536 9,536 116,891 15082.71 DH1 434 434 434 434 434 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 4,326 2162.94 DH2 737 737 737 737 737 2,084 2,084 2,084 2,084 2,084 2,084 2,084 18,272 4522.72 DH3 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,650 29,637 9879.16 DV1 1,951 1,951 1,951 1,951 1,951 771 771 771 771 771 771 771 15,150 2271.32 DV2 0 0 0 0 0 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 3,242 5588.9 DV3 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 3,533 3,533 3,533 3,533 3,533 3,533 3,533 48,935 11071.32 DV4 0 0 0 0 0 1,546 1,546 1,546 1,546 1,546 1,546 1,546 10,821 18657.66 E1 28,240 28,240 28,240 29,004 29,004 30,746 30,746 30,746 30,746 30,746 30,746 30,746 357,950 8324.41 E2 21,478 20,404 20,404 21,478 21,478 19,755 19,755 19,755 19,755 19,755 19,755 19,755 243,530 11285 E3 2,572 2,572 2,572 2,572 2,572 1,970 1,970 1,970 1,970 1,970 1,970 1,970 26,648 26647.79 OLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTH 11,615 11,463 11,463 11,463 11,463 16,173 16,173 13,085 13,085 13,085 13,085 13,085 155,240 45391.72 Grand Total 348,629 343,863 342,978 343,397 343,397 266,867 265,218 261,767 261,389 261,389 261,389 261,026 3,561,309 Totals at 16/09/19 348,095 343,330 342,445 342,863 342,863 267,260 266,674 263,586 262,874 262,874 262,874 262,874 3,568,612 Difference inc / dec 534 534 534 534 534 -393 -1,457 -1,819 -1,485 -1,485 -1,485 -1,848 -7,303 Combined Specials Schools inc Alternative Provision and Resource Bases
TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Average FTE A1 46 46 46 46 46 48 49 50 50 50 50 50 48.08 A2 38.4 38.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 39.8 A3 11 11 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11.75 A4 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.42 B1 40 39 39 39 39 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 37.25 B2 60 59 59 58 58 65 66 65 65 65 65 65 62.5 B3 25 25 25 25 25 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 26.08 B4 6 6 6 6 6 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 8.75 C1 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.42 C2 66 68 72 77 77 58 61 62 62 62 62 62 65.75 C3 15 15 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15.25 C4 11 11 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7.25 DH2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.13 DH3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DV2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DV3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DV4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E1 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.58 E2 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13.79 E3 18 17 17 17 17 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 22.33 NIL 22 23 23 23 23 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 16.5 OLA 14 14 14 14 14 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15.17 Grand Total 403.5 403.5 407.5 411.5 411.5 396.3 408.3 410.3 410.3 410.3 410.3 410.3 407.8 Totals at 16/09/19 400.5 399.5 403.5 404.5 404.5 343 343 343 343 343 343 343 367.8 Difference inc / dec 3 4 4 7 7 53.3 65.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 40 £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Average TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total Funding spend per pupil A1 13,493 13,493 13,493 13,493 13,493 14,080 14,373 14,667 14,667 14,667 14,667 14,667 169,251 3,520 A2 21,184 21,184 20,632 20,632 20,632 20,853 23,060 23,060 23,060 23,060 23,060 23,060 263,478 6,620 A3 15,634 15,634 17,055 17,055 17,055 15,634 17,055 17,055 17,055 17,055 17,055 17,055 200,396 17,055 A4 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 53,401 37,607 B1 8,017 7,816 7,816 7,816 7,816 7,015 7,215 7,215 7,215 7,215 7,215 7,215 89,588 2,405 B2 33,100 32,549 32,549 31,997 31,997 35,859 36,410 35,859 35,859 35,859 35,859 35,859 413,753 6,620 B3 35,531 35,531 35,531 35,531 35,531 36,953 38,374 38,374 38,374 38,374 38,374 38,374 444,851 17,057 B4 18,848 18,848 18,848 18,848 18,848 31,413 31,413 34,554 34,554 34,554 34,554 34,554 329,831 37,695 C1 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 13,027 2,404 C2 36,410 37,514 39,720 42,479 42,479 31,997 33,652 34,204 34,204 34,204 34,204 34,204 435,268 6,620 C3 20,069 20,069 21,407 21,407 21,407 20,069 20,069 20,069 20,069 20,069 20,069 20,069 244,839 16,055 C4 20,788 20,788 18,898 18,898 18,898 9,449 9,449 9,449 9,449 9,449 9,449 9,449 164,415 22,678 DH2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DH3 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 4,870 4,870 DV2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DV3 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 7,617 7,617 DV4 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 17,055 17,055 E1 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,720 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 23,646 5,163 E2 9,998 9,998 9,998 9,998 9,998 10,368 10,368 10,368 10,368 10,368 10,368 10,368 122,566 8,888 E3 40,290 38,052 38,052 38,052 38,052 58,197 58,197 58,197 58,197 58,197 58,197 58,197 599,872 26,864 NIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 285,028 283,141 285,666 287,872 287,872 300,639 308,389 311,823 311,823 311,823 311,823 311,823 3,597,725 Totals at 16/09/19 284,477 282,590 285,114 285,666 285,666 277,152 277,152 277,152 277,152 277,152 277,152 277,152 3,363,577 Difference inc / dec 552 552 552 2,207 2,207 23,487 31,237 34,671 34,671 34,671 34,671 34,671 234,148
NB Summary includes actual FTE and expenditure for the VLC but 2019-20 funding is based on 80 places @ £8,000 = £640,000 Appendix C Out of County Placements Age in the Variance Actual Costs Variance to financial Category May-19 Sept-19 28.10.2019 to Prior 2018/19 2018/19 Actual year Month 8 - 9 ASD 0 67,271 67,766 67,766 67,766 0 9 - 10 ASD 74,725 74,725 76,856 76,856 2,131 0 10 - 11 ASD 4,960 32,850 43,507 43,507 38,547 0 10 - 11 ASD 71,022 71,022 71,016 71,016 -6 0 10 - 11 ASD 87,410 87,410 89,903 89,903 2,493 0 10 - 11 ASD 0 0 7,410 7,410 7,410 0 10 - 11 SD 0 0 0 18,514 18,514 0 10 - 11 SD 0 0 0 20,539 20,539 0 11 - 12 ASD 24,602 24,390 24,388 24,388 -214 0 12 - 13 ASD 0 62,947 59,667 59,667 59,667 0 13 - 14 ASD 29,291 29,291 30,126 30,126 835 0 14 - 15 ASD 19,670 19,755 19,753 19,753 83 0 14 - 15 ASD 19,829 24,786 25,493 25,493 5,664 0 14 - 15 ASD 40,043 40,043 41,185 41,185 1,142 0 14 - 15 ASD 19,075 76,301 78,477 78,477 59,402 0 16 - 17 ASD 15,782 0 0 0 -15,782 0 16 - 17 ASD 16,545 0 0 0 -16,545 0 16 - 17 ASD 74,725 31,135 31,848 31,848 -42,877 0 16 - 17 ASD 0 0 98,391 95,535 95,535 -3798.86 16 - 17 ASD 24,095 24,095 10,072 10,072 -14,023 0 16 - 17 ASD 20,543 20,543 8,587 8,587 -11,956 0 17 - 18 ASD 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 17 - 18 ASD 30,075 30,075 12,571 12,571 -17,503 0 18 - 19 ASD 186,432 186,432 186,417 186,417 -15 0 18 - 19 ASD 22,243 25,673 10,731 10,731 -11,511 0 18 - 19 ASD 0 1,259 0 0 0 0 18 - 19 ASD -716 0 0 0 716 0 18 - 19 ASD 46,765 54,798 55,617 55,617 8,853 0 18 - 19 ASD 21,083 0 0 0 -21,083 0 19 - 20 ASD 28,616 24,777 10,357 10,357 -18,259 0 19 - 20 ASD 0 1,512 -475 -475 -475 0 19 - 20 ASD 41,344 4,769 4,769 4,769 -36,575 0 19 - 20 ASD 0 25,000 24,998 0 0 0 19 - 20 ASD 25,986 25,000 24,998 41,997 16,010 11199.08 19 - 20 ASD 0 2,785 -298 -298 -298 0 18 - 19 ASD 0 0 37,369 37,369 37,369 0 18 - 19 ASD 3,366 3,366 3,534 3,534 168 0 19 - 20 ASD 31,613 54,375 54,371 54,371 22,758 0 19 - 20 ASD 31,613 54,375 54,371 54,371 22,758 0 20 - 21 ASD 21,829 20,010 21,828 21,828 -2 0 19 - 20 ASD 20,439 0 0 0 -20,439 0 20 - 21 ASD 44,615 0 14,236 14,236 -30,379 0 20 - 21 ASD 0 0 0 14,623 14,623 14622.97 20 - 21 ASD 72,720 53,816 72,714 72,714 -6 0 21 - 22 ASD 27,606 0 0 0 -27,606 0 21 - 22 ASD 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 15 - 16 ASD & SLD 72,987 0 0 0 -72,987 0 15 - 16 ASD & SLD 41,854 124,476 124,807 124,807 82,953 0 7 - 8 HI 0 55,809 65,073 54,074 54,074 -10999.1 9 - 10 HI 2,915 2,915 2,915 2,915 -0 0 11 - 12 HI 47,549 49,867 49,863 49,863 2,314 0 13 - 14 HI 48,995 30,702 30,699 30,699 -18,295 0 14 - 15 HI 37,955 37,955 37,952 37,952 -3 0 15 - 16 HI 37,955 37,955 37,952 37,952 -3 0 15 - 16 HI 37,955 44,799 44,795 44,795 6,840 0 20 - 21 HI 9,342 0 0 0 -9,342 0 8 - 9 MLD 5,767 19,500 19,498 19,498 13,732 0 10 - 11 MLD 0 0 11,564 11,564 11,564 0 12 - 13 MLD 11,010 11,109 11,292 11,292 282 0 13 - 14 MLD 35,884 36,207 36,806 36,806 922 0 13 - 14 MLD 19,270 20,209 20,544 20,544 1,274 0 15 - 16 MLD 22,246 0 0 0 -22,246 0 16 - 17 MLD 29,292 29,292 30,127 30,127 835 0 17 - 18 MLD 35,731 36,054 36,757 36,757 1,026 0 18 - 19 MLD 8,560 0 0 0 -8,560 0 18 - 19 MLD 34,554 0 0 0 -34,554 0 19 - 20 MLD 6,135 0 0 0 -6,135 0 19 - 20 MLD 18,750 0 0 0 -18,750 0 22 - 23 MLD 16,961 0 0 0 -16,961 0 17 - 18 PMLD 0 0 51,201 51,201 51,201 0 19 - 20 PMLD 0 0 37,881 37,881 37,881 0 19 - 20 PMLD 0 0 53,253 53,253 53,253 0 6 - 7 SEMH 0 70,000 64,476 64,476 64,476 0 7 - 8 SEMH 0 81,482 81,476 81,476 81,476 0 7 - 8 SEMH 0 0 39,961 39,961 39,961 0 9 - 10 SEMH 5,740 50,405 51,236 51,236 45,496 0 9 - 10 SEMH 0 0 32,368 32,368 32,368 0 9 - 10 SEMH 20,830 21,891 -13,656 -13,656 -34,486 0 10 - 11 SEMH 71,022 71,022 71,016 71,016 -6 0 10 - 11 SEMH 13,941 64,230 66,062 66,062 52,121 0 10 - 11 SEMH 29,804 54,798 55,617 55,617 25,814 0 10 - 11 SEMH 51,653 51,652 51,648 51,648 -5 0 10 - 11 SEMH 31,246 54,798 55,617 55,617 24,372 0 10 - 11 SEMH 0 500 12,407 0 0 -12406.5 10 - 11 SEMH 1,759 63,982 66,233 66,233 64,473 0 11 - 12 SEMH 0 0 0 31,077 31,077 31076.69 11 - 12 SEMH 0 35,042 35,039 35,039 35,039 0 11 - 12 SEMH 0 0 32,368 32,368 32,368 0 11 - 12 SEMH 8,431 54,798 55,617 55,617 47,187 0 12 - 13 SEMH 54,529 54,798 55,617 55,617 1,088 0 14 - 15 SEMH 26,937 0 5,100 5,100 -21,838 0 12 - 13 SEMH 0 0 37,470 37,470 37,470 0 12 - 13 SEMH 0 0 40,755 40,755 40,755 0 12 - 13 SEMH 29,804 54,798 55,617 64,895 35,091 9277.22 13 - 14 SEMH 16,071 0 0 0 -16,071 0 13 - 14 SEMH 5,209 0 0 0 -5,209 0 13 - 14 SEMH 16,928 0 0 0 -16,928 0 13 - 14 SEMH 8,651 65,754 65,749 65,749 57,098 0 13 - 14 SEMH 30,346 30,346 31,211 31,211 865 0 13 - 14 SEMH 25,089 26,292 27,042 27,042 1,952 0 13 - 14 SEMH 54,529 54,798 55,617 55,617 1,088 0 13 - 14 SEMH 5,621 0 0 0 -5,621 0 13 - 14 SEMH 0 66,690 61,583 63,162 63,162 1579.051 13 - 14 SEMH 22,781 0 0 0 -22,781 0 13 - 14 SEMH 34,803 54,798 55,617 55,617 20,815 0 13 - 14 SEMH 48,470 54,798 55,617 55,617 7,148 0 13 - 14 SEMH 0 0 0 43,783 43,783 0 14 - 15 SEMH 10,637 10,637 10,456 5,085 -5,552 -5370.99 14 - 15 SEMH 0 0 32,368 32,368 32,368 0 14 - 15 SEMH 54,529 54,798 55,617 55,617 1,088 0 14 - 15 SEMH 20,284 41,637 13,878 13,878 -6,406 0 14 - 15 SEMH 36,807 50,592 50,588 50,588 13,781 0 14 - 15 SEMH 60,632 60,632 60,627 60,627 -5 0 15 - 16 SEMH 13,500 0 0 0 -13,500 0 15 - 16 SEMH 27,627 545 0 0 -27,627 0 15 - 16 SEMH 11,579 40,000 38,576 38,576 26,997 0 15 - 16 SEMH 0 0 3,800 3,800 3,800 0 15 - 16 SEMH 35,956 54,798 14,132 14,132 -21,824 0 15 - 16 SEMH 0 0 48,171 48,171 48,171 0 15 - 16 SEMH 41,701 45,216 45,212 45,212 3,511 0 15 - 16 SEMH 58,119 58,119 58,274 58,274 154 0 15 - 16 SEMH 54,529 54,798 55,617 55,617 1,088 0 15 - 16 SEMH 16,686 54,228 54,224 54,224 37,538 0 15 - 16 SEMH 17,996 0 0 0 -17,996 0 15 - 16 SEMH 0 0 0 20,810 20,810 0 15 - 16 SEMH 47,333 47,333 70,994 70,994 23,661 0 15 - 16 SEMH 1,658 40,500 40,497 40,497 38,839 0 15 - 16 SEMH -9,638 0 0 0 9,638 0 15 - 16 SEMH 19,368 53,952 53,948 53,948 34,580 0 15 - 16 SEMH 33,672 19,254 19,253 19,253 -14,420 0 15 - 16 SEMH 0 14,402 14,401 14,401 14,401 0 15 - 16 SEMH 54,529 54,798 55,617 55,617 1,088 0 16 - 17 SEMH 49,296 47,985 47,981 47,981 -1,315 0 16 - 17 SEMH 59,331 55,622 55,618 55,618 -3,714 0 16 - 17 SEMH 0 0 8,687 8,687 8,687 0 16 - 17 SEMH 49,161 110,715 46,279 46,279 -2,882 0 16 - 17 SEMH 32,470 28,353 28,428 28,428 -4,042 0 16 - 17 SEMH 8,113 8,113 8,112 8,112 -0 0 16 - 17 SEMH 17,996 0 0 0 -17,996 0 16 - 17 SEMH 115,700 130,824 47,136 48,060 -67,640 0 16 - 17 SEMH 0 0 49,981 49,277 49,277 0 16 - 17 SEMH 27,083 0 0 0 -27,083 0 16 - 17 SEMH 10,225 9,600 9,599 9,599 -626 0 16 - 17 SEMH 38,133 43,698 43,694 43,694 5,562 0 17 - 16 SEMH 14,843 0 0 0 -14,843 0 17 - 16 SEMH 16,609 0 0 0 -16,609 0 17 - 18 SEMH 9,952 0 0 0 -9,952 0 17 - 18 SEMH 54,529 54,798 55,617 55,617 1,088 0 17 - 18 SEMH 25,076 0 0 0 -25,076 0 17 - 18 SEMH 55,148 43,689 18,262 18,262 -36,886 0 17 - 18 SEMH 45,808 41,232 17,235 17,235 -28,573 0 17 - 18 SEMH 61,560 46,398 19,394 19,394 -42,165 0 17 - 18 SEMH 0 10,000 9,999 9,999 9,999 0 19 - 20 SEMH -12,597 0 0 0 12,597 0 19 - 20 SEMH 17,996 0 0 0 -17,996 0 19 - 20 SEMH 19,705 0 0 0 -19,705 0 14 - 15 SEMH/SPLD 9,172 21,006 19,870 10,044 872 -9826.6 14 - 15 SLCN 32,921 35,664 36,681 36,681 3,760 0 10 - 11 SLCN 0 62,320 66,233 66,233 66,233 0 15 - 16 SLCN 39,708 39,708 40,840 40,840 1,132 0 17 - 18 SLCN 17,825 18,000 17,999 7,499 -10,326 -10499.1 15 - 16 SLD 0 0 0 2,968 2,968 0 17 - 18 SLD 0 0 18,417 18,417 18,417 0 18 - 19 SLD 20,035 0 43,336 43,336 23,301 0 10 - 11 SLD 750 16,286 16,284 16,999 16,249 0 10 - 11 SLD 0 0 2,885 2,885 2,885 0 19 - 20 SLD 0 0 32,981 32,981 32,981 0 20 - 21 SLD 26,692 0 45,753 45,753 19,061 0 12 - 13 SPLD 65,543 65,543 67,412 67,412 1,869 0 13 - 14 SpLD 24,581 29,694 30,541 30,541 5,960 0 13 - 14 SpLD 22,647 0 0 0 -22,647 0 13 - 14 SPLD 474 1,422 1,422 1,422 948 0 14 - 15 SPLD 17,997 15,974 15,973 15,973 -2,025 0 14 - 15 SPLD 13,200 17,350 14,666 14,666 1,466 0 14 - 15 SPLD 24,413 22,782 22,780 22,780 -1,633 0 15 - 16 SPLD 0 11,185 3,692 1,309 1,309 -2382.96 15 - 16 SPLD 37,630 40,425 40,997 40,997 3,367 0 17 - 18 SPLD 106,008 106,008 105,999 105,999 -9 0 17 - 18 SPLD 7,511 0 0 0 -7,511 0 18 - 19 SpLD 30,017 30,215 30,212 30,212 195 0 18 - 19 SpLD 0 0 816 816 816 0 19 - 20 SpLD 6,247 0 0 0 -6,247 0 20 - 21 SPLD 18,528 18,552 18,550 18,550 22 0 20 - 21 SPLD 0 0 42 42 42 0 20 - 21 SPLD 6,791 0 0 0 -6,791 0 13 - 14 VI 11,979 39,015 40,912 40,912 28,933 0 10 - 11 12,906 11,109 11,292 11,292 -1,614 0 12 - 13 36,306 0 0 0 -36,306 0 15 - 16 0 16,166 16,165 16,165 16,165 0 17 - 18 0 0 26,443 26,443 26,443 0 18 - 19 29,829 26,514 29,757 29,757 -72 0 19 - 20 62,227 74,672 74,666 74,666 12,439 0 20 - 21 50,123 50,442 50,352 50,352 229 0 ASD 0 0 0 50,863 50,863 0 ASD 0 0 0 23,076 23,076 0 ASD 0 0 0 68,413 68,413 0 19,608 0 0 0 -19,608 0 N/A -31,754 0 0 0 31,754 0 N/A -32,200 0 0 0 32,200 0 N/A -10,365 0 0 0 10,365 0 4,394,795 5,101,426 5,591,249 5,835,365 1,440,569 12,471
New 1 31,077 Future 0 0 Ended 1 -12,407 Changes 11 -6,199 Transport 0 0 Immaterial individually (less than £1k) 0 Net 12,471 Strategic Schools Forum -4 6 November 2019
Agenda Item No. 7
2020-21 Dedicated Schools Grant:
• Results of the Funding consultation for 2020/21
Emma Whitehead
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE OF MEETING: 4 DECEMBER 2019
SUBJECT OF REPORT: 2020/21 SCHOOLS BUDGET SETTING CONSULTATION RESULTS AND RECOMMNEDATIONS
OFFICER/MEMBER PRESENTING: EDUCATION FUNDING MANAGER
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) is recommended to: - i) Agree the recommendations for 2020-21 funding changes and de-delegations as detailed in Table B after considering the comments made in response to the consultation ii) Agree the Exceptional Pupil Growth Policy for 2020-21 iii) Approve that the relevant disapplication submitted to the Department of Education remains live and awaiting approval by the Secretary for Education
1. SUMMARY OF REPORT
To provide an overview of the consultation responses and the resulting recommendations for the 2020/21 schools budget. By informing the SSF of the views of stakeholders in order to take decisions on the proposals for the schools funding arrangements and de- delegations for 2019-20.
2. POLICY
The 2019 Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations require each Local Authority (LA) to set the Schools Budget each year. The Schools Budget is defined in the regulations and in the main represents all the expenditure incurred by the LA that relates to schools. This is funded via the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).
LAs must distribute an element of the Schools Budget to their maintained schools using the formula, mainly prescribed by the Secretary of State for Education, but with some local discretion. The calculation of the budget share applies to all maintained and academy schools in the LA and is completed using the Authority Pro-Forma Tool (APT).
LAs have to adhere to the relevant parameters and regulations and follow the relevant Technical and Operational Guidance issued by the Department for Education (DfE).
- 2
3. DETAILS
The School Budget Consultation for 2020/21
3.1 At the meeting on 6th November the SSF agreed the main likely areas for consultation and the timetable for consultation.
3.2 The areas discussed for consultation relating to the Schools Block were as follows in Table A:
Table A – Areas discussed for inclusion in consultation at SSF on 6th November Transfer from the schools block to the We expect to consult on a range of High Needs Block options to support spending in the High Needs Block, starting with a minimum of 0.5%, plus any additional requirements to support early intervention and re- engagement as described in the report presented to the October meeting Targeted Support Do we retain this element of funding or make it part of the AWPU instead? MFG LAs can consult on an MFG between +0.5% and +1.84% Lump Sum Consult on continuation of a single lump sum for all at £114,400 (plus ACA) in accordance with the NFF De Delegations Retain the same de-delegations as previous years. Which would mean it is just insurance that would be de- delegated in 2020/21. Statutory Services Charge Retain the same charge amount as 2018/19 and 2019/20 of £11.84. Exceptional Pupil Growth There are only minor changes to the policy for 2020/21 as per the proposal SSF members have seen and had opportunity to comment on already prior to its inclusion in the consultation. No comments relating to 2020/21 have been made.
3.3 The consultation documents were available via the e-consult website between 13th November and 27th November 2019.
3.4 A copy of the full consultation document is provided at Appendix A.
- 3
3.5 The table below details the recommendations for 2020-21 following consultation. The reference numbers quoted relate to the original consultation document and where there were multiple options for a recommendation the final recommendation is shown in bold type in Table B
Table B Recommendations for 2020-21 Schools Budget Section Description Recommendation 4 Implementation of the National Recommendation no. 4a – To implement option Fair Funding Formula in North 2 for the schools budget for 2020-21 Somerset Option 1 – Transfer 0.5% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this has been agreed as a minimum by SSF as it means that that the current agreed deficit recovery plan payment of c. £0.5m a year will occur) and will not require Secretary of State approval (paragraph 4.40.2)
Option 2 - Transfer 0.7% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this would require Secretary of State approval as over 0.5% that Schools Forms can agree (paragraph 4.40.3)
Option 3 - Transfer 1.2% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this would require Secretary of State approval as over 0.5% that Schools Forums can agree (paragraph 4.40.4)
Recommendation no. 4b – That the lump sum is as per the final APT in December after the area cost adjustment and is the same for both primary and secondary schools likely to be £116,069.10.
5 Recommendation no. 5a – that funding for insurance for schools continues to be de- delegated (paragraph 5.7).
Recommendation no. 5b - that no reimbursement of de-delegated resources is provided to a new academy beyond the DfE requirements detailed in (paragraph 5.9 De-delegations
Recommendation no. 5c – that if there is an underspend in the de-delegated insurance fund then this is prioritised to make a reimbursement to new academies to contribute, as far as possible to the additional insurance costs that they incur (paragraph 5.14).
- 4
Recommendation no. 5d – that any overspend or underspend on de-delegated services overall is carried forward to the following financial year to be used, overall, for the same purpose but that if the SSF considers that the total level of over or under spending on de-delegated services is excessive that the contributing schools will be required to making an additional payment or receive a reimbursement of the appropriate value (paragraph 5.15) 6 Recommendation no.6a – to continue to operate the process to automatically assess and allocate £278,815 of funding to those schools considered Additional allocations for as having a disproportionate number of high schools with a disproportionate needs pupils in 2020-21 with a cap on the final number of high needs pupils budget. If the budget was not retained then the (Targeted Support Fund) money would be distributed via AWPU (paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8),
7 Statutory Services Charges for Recommendation no.7a - That the proposed maintained schools statutory services charge (SSC) of £11.84 per pupil/place is agreed for the 2020-21 financial year (paragraph 7.9)
8 Growth Recommendation no.8a - That the proposed growth policy for 2020-21 is approved financial year (paragraph 8.3)
4. CONSULTAION ON FUNDING ARRANGMENTS FOR 2020-21
4.1 Table C below provides details of the responses received to the consultation:
Number Table C Responses Schools No. of schools % of
Total no. schools Category responded
Primary 13 1 1 7.6% (Maintained)
Multi Academy 61 23 35 57% Trusts and single academies
Alternative 1 0 0 0% Provision - 5
Special Schools 3 2 1 33%
Early years n/a 0 n/a n/a providers n/a Anonymous n/a 2 n/a
Other n/a 0 n/a n/a stakeholders
Totals 79 28 37 46.8%
4.2 Appendix B provides an analysis of the responses received to the consultation.
4.3 Appendix C provides details of the number of responses from each school/setting to and specifically the block transfer.
4.4 Appendix D is the proposed Exceptional Growth Policy for 2020-21 and the comments received in relation to this from the secondary school stakeholders suggest that this requires further review by officers prior to a decision being taken by SSF.
5. FURTHER DETAIL IN REPLY TO COMMENTS RECEIVED VIA CONSULTATION RESPONSES
5.1 The consultation offered respondents the opportunity to comment throughout and the section below provides further detail:
a) Movement from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block
Option 1 no comments in respect of this received
Options 2 a 0.7% transfer and Option 3 a 1.2% transfer - comments received in respect of these recognised that a movement is the is required for the extra work but that there was a need for compromise on what is needed and loss on schools budgets. Any movement over 0.7% would impact negatively on the mainstream schools due to their own budget pressures. The response from one of our Special Schools recognized that the lower amount of transfer is more equitable of all, due to the SEND overspend felt should select a 1.2% transfer.
However, there were comments received in respect of not supporting a move, not because the deficit is not viewed as a collective responsibility but because; due to the way the formula works, only certain schools in 2020-21 would be affected by the transfer. These responses felt that it would have a potentially disproportionate effect on smaller schools and that a mechanism for all schools being charged should be implemented, provided the regulations allow. - 6
Furthermore, if support is given by SSF for a move for additional resources into the High Needs Block that then this should be created via charging all schools for some of the services currently provided from the block that do not have a charge. As these schools believe that any additional resources agreed for the High Needs Block should be targeted to ensure that special schools are receiving equivalent increases in funding.
Officers have therefore completed some analysis to ascertain which schools would contribute most/least to the transfer from the schools block. This shows that those who are not being asked to contribute are those who are a) close to the minimum per pupil funding factor and or b) those whose per pupil increase was already low. Those that are being asked to contribute are either a) already over the minimum per pupil per funding per pupil funding factor, or b) those whose per pupil increase is already relatively high. Table D below illustrates the extent to which those schools who are being asked to contribute are “small” compared with those who are not being asked contribute.
Non- Table D Contributors contributors ALL ALL SCHOOLS - Number of Schools 45 30 75 - Average increase in per pupil funding from NFF 1.97% 6.50% 3.78% - Average NOR 306 483 376 PRIMARY ONLY - Number of Schools 40 25 65 - Average increase in per pupil funding from NFF 1.94% 6.33% 3.63% - Average NOR 216 322 263
Officers have looked at if it would make a difference if AWPU rates were changed, but this resulted in the same schools being impacted. Our conclusion is that the extent to which individual schools are being asked to contribute to the transfer to the schools block is a direct consequence of the NFF and, in particular, the new minimum per pupil funding and we are unable to change this
Due to the regulations we cannot charge all schools their charge of the transfer amount. Also, there is not a service in the High Needs Block that all schools could be charged for to cover the value for the required transfer.
Therefore, the recommendation is that 0.7% transfer is approved by SSF on which the Secretary of State will then need to approve.
b) Lump Sum
There was unanimous support for a single lump sum that will be published in the final APT. There were comments received that it should be noted that the lump sum, like all of the elements in the proposed 2020-21 formula, are greater than the published - 7
NFF levels. The only difference to published rates is the application of the area cost adjustment.
c) De-delegations and reimbursements
Comments received were that the reimbursement should be made as otherwise the new academy will pay twice and in respect of the reimbursements being made to new academies to contribute to academies that this is definitely required.
Insurance is the only de-delegation that North Somerset have, and the LA cannot insure academies. The Department made provision for this and provide resources to academies to afford their insurance. So therefore, the recommendations stand that there will be no reimbursement above the DfE requirements and subsequently should there be any underspend that reimbursement to new academies will occur.
d) Targeted Support
Several comments were received in respect of this funding, many recognising the need of such a fund for schools with a higher than average levels of SEN, and as a result some stating that the cap should be removed and or to increase the fund.
Others asking if the we know if schools with higher levels of incidents struggle anymore than perhaps small schools with low levels as an example of if there are economies of scale that can be considered for those with higher numbers.
We know that to increase the fund would result in a cut in funding to all schools, and whilst a conscious decision was to increase the fund in 2019-20 it was also discussed by the members of SSF after consultation to allocate half of the additional Schools Block to AWPU and put the other half into the targeted support – increasing target support from the previous fund of £50k in an attempt to mitigate in part against the reduction in Top up Funding. This funding with a hard NFF would not be in place so avoiding possible cliff edges has also been considered.
We also know that when we introduced this funding mechanism that it was at the request of some who felt they had a higher than average numbers requiring support but with a shortfall of funding. The Formula Review Working Group at the time and then the SSF agreed that this mechanism was the fairest, However, it is something that the FRWG could be asked to review in 2020-21 for 2021-22 working on the assumption that the opportunity to have such a fund remained.
e) Statutory Services Charge
A comment was received in respect of schools not knowing if they are charged twice for those services where there is an option to buy more from. As a reminder the published table below is how the charge is split. For those services where maintained schools have any doubt, they should ask the appropriate service leader to identify the work provided.
- 8
Table E Proposed SSC 2019-20 Elements of Statutory – per Service Charge (SSC) for pupil/place 2019-20 Health & Safety £3.11 Governor Services £0.90 Internal Audit £1.65 S151 Responsibilities £1.19 Complaints e.g. anti-bullying £0.73 Property & Asset Management - valuations £3.22 Business support £0.05 Schools HR Advisory Service £1.00 Total £11.84
f) Growth Policy
Whilst all who responded to the consultation accept the Growth Policy for 2020-21 several comments were made by representatives of primary schools in the Weston and neighbouring villages. The comments included investing in developing existing schools to cope with any increased demand and or to cope with the potential risk of reducing roles in existing schools. Also, that decisions should not just be predicated on new developments increasing the demand for school places.
The response that follows is from the Strategic Planning and Governance Service Leader. The opening date for a new school is never an exact science. Decisions to start the process take at least 6 months from inception to gaining approval for the competition to commence. The Presumption Route process normally takes place at least 18 months before the opening of the new school so the sponsor can plan their education delivery and school staffing, take part in the design and delivery of the new building and prepare and submit the robust information required to secure a Funding Agreement from the DfE. Decisions are made across multi-agency government organisations – Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC), the DfE and the LA.
Parents apply for places in the year their child is 3. Demand from birth rates need to be based on previous trends and the Office of National Statistics announced the reduction in birth rate in July 2018. Birth figures are reported retrospectively annually. It is impossible to accurately predict demand from children not yet born or conceived at a school level for a new development not yet built.
The build rate of homes serving a new school is led by developers and the market and subject to external influences, all outside of the LA or sponsor’s control. A delay in the building of some of the homes that changed from c70 a year to c19 in 2016 within the Locking Parklands development meant that the yield from new homes was not as great as the developer had first suggested when the application was - 9
considered by the Planning Authority. The school’s opening was delayed by a year from September 2017 to 2018. During the time from the announcement of the successful sponsor to two terms before opening the sponsor did not receive any funding from the LA.
The LA supports local schools for local children, where families can walk to school if they are able to do so and children and parents form relationships with their neighbours by being part of a local community. This is particularly important with new communities. A school is not just a place of learning. In new developments it is the local hub bringing people in through sport or community activities. It is part of the place-making heart of the development too.
Concerns have been expressed by schools in the past for example in Portishead concern over the opening of Trinity Anglican Methodist Primary School was made but this school has been needed together with expansion of most schools in Portishead. Similar concerns were raised when St Anne’s C of E Primary School expanded and for Haywood Village Primary prior to developing, again both have proven they were required in the communities they are based. it is appreciated some schools experience turbulence whilst a new status quo is developed, the longer-term viability of other schools in these areas have remained secure. The LA will continue to work with all when considering developing new or existing schools and of course the potential impacts.
6. DISSAPPLICATIONS
6.1 Whilst approval was given at the SSF meeting on the 6th November for a 0.5% movement. It was also agreed that if the consultation responses indicated a disapplication for a movement of 0.7% or 1.2% that these could be submitted by officers for approval of SSF at their next meeting on the 4th December.
6.2 Officers submitted a disapplication for 0.7% by the deadline of 28th November due to the responses received to the consultation. Therefore, formal approval is required for this to be considered by the Secretary of State for Education.
7. KEY DATES
7.1 There are a couple of changes to the key dates shared with SSF on the 6th November, and they relate to the decision to delay consultation in respect of Early Years funding for 2020-21 until early 2020:
Table F: Key Dates 13th November to 27th November 2019 Schools Formula Consultation period W/C 11th November 2019 Noticeboard article containing link to where the consultation can be accessed 18th November Consultation Surgery 9am-1pm at the Town Hall 20th November Consultation Surgery noon-4pm at
- 10
Castlewood 25th & 26th November 2019 Consultation responses analysed and incorporated in proposals 27th November 2019 SSF report published 28th November 2019 Disapplication deadline for movements from schools block to another block 4th December 2019 Proposals considered by the Strategic Schools Forum and the initial budget and provisional schools funding for 2020-21 4th December 2019 SSF approves any High Needs consultation for publication 9th – 20th December 2019 High Needs consultation EFA confirms DSG allocations for 2020- Late December 2019 21 (prior to recoupment of funding for academies) December/January 2019/2020 Formula funding for schools updated to reflect on October 2019 data set and 2020-21 DSG 15th January 2020 The SSF finalise formula and provisional budget for 2020-21, including Early Years and High Needs 15th January 2020 SSF approves Early Years consultation for publication 21st January 2020 The single proforma deadline for submitting to the EFA detailing structure of formula and unit values 5 February and 18 February Executive and Council approval of schools budget By 29th February Delegated budget shares for 2020-21 issued to schools By 31st March Early years and High Needs allocations issued
8. CONSULTATION
The report has been developed through consultation with the relevant officers and with each of the departmental management teams. At this stage, there are no proposals / decisions that require consultation that is in addition to the consultation that is the subject of this report
9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The financial implications are included throughout the report where available.
10. RISK MANAGEMENT
This report discusses the risks and opportunities in relation where possible in relation to the DSG.
- 11
11. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS
The 2020/21 school budget will consider the equality implications. The resulting EIA will have been subject to consultation and discussion with a wide range of stakeholder groups to ensure all risks have been identified and understood. The EIA at the time of consulting is attached with the Consultation document at Appendix A
12. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
The corporate budget setting and monitoring process is an important part of the Council’s overall corporate governance and financial management arrangements. The report discusses risks and opportunities across the Council, which may have a corporate impact. There are no specific corporate implications other than those already identified throughout the report.
13. OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The main options are outlined in the report and will be considered as part of the consultation process.
AUTHOR
Emma Whitehead, Education Funding Manager [email protected] 01934 426407
BACKGROUND PAPERS Previous papers to the SSF.
- 12
Consultation on school funding arrangements for the 2020-21 financial year
Proposals of North Somerset Council and the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF)
- 1 -
Index
SECTION DESCRIPTION
Foreword
1 Introduction
2 Methodology
3 Executive Summary of recommendations
Details of proposals:
4 Implementation of the National Fair Funding Formula in North Somerset
5 De-delegations
6 Additional allocations for schools with a disproportionate number of high needs pupils
7 Statutory Services Charges for maintained schools
8 Growth
9 Next steps
- 2 -
Foreword
Thank you for reading this consultation document.
Amongst other things, the consultation asks you to express a view as to how much money should be transferred from the schools block to the high needs block of the Dedicated Schools Grant.
Last year in my foreword I highlighted that, in common with most parts of the country, we as a Local Authority had a significant and growing pressure on spend in the high needs block, especially in relation to out of authority placements. These pressures continue and, despite our plans to provide more local special school places in the medium term, and the fact that the government has provided more funding into the high needs block, pressures still exceed the available resources.
It is for this reason that we are asking you to consider transferring funding from the schools block to the high needs block, both to fund improved early intervention and re-engagement and to fund additional spending on out of area placements. The highest amount that is requested is still less than the approved transfer in 2019/20.
In addition to funding for teachers pay and pensions increases, the overall schools block has been increased by 5.6% and, whichever option is chosen, primary schools will receive a minimum of £3,750 per pupil and secondary schools £5,000 per pupil.
We are, of course, all acutely aware of our duty to continue to provide good services to all children across North Somerset, and I encourage you once again to think about our most vulnerable children, with special educational needs and disabilities who are particularly protected under the Equality Act and the Children and Families Act.
- 3 -
1. Introduction
About this consultation
1.1. This consultation covers changes to school funding arrangements as a result of both national and local initiatives.
1.2. The proposals in this consultation could have significant impacts on the distribution of resources in North Somerset. All stakeholders are recommended to read and respond to the consultation in full. There will be the chance to book into a surgery on either the 18th or 20th November if you feel you need to, to enable you to respond in full to the proposals. This will enable your views to be considered, prior to the submission of any disapplication requests to the Department for Education (DfE), and then the implementation of the proposals. These are likely to be taken at the meetings of the Strategic Schools Forum on 4th December 2019 and 15th January 2020.
1.3. If you have any questions about anything contained in this document then please send them via email to [email protected]
2. Methodology
2.1. This year the release of information from the DfE being delayed means that the work of the Formula Review Working Group (FRWG) will inform the High Needs consultation, which is planned to take place in December between the 9th and 20th December.
2.2. The proposals for this consultation were approved by SSF at an additional meeting on the 6th November 2019. All SSF papers and minutes can be accessed via this link SSF paper and minutes
2.3. The consultation will be live from 13th November to 27th November. Surgeries will be held on the 18th 9-1pm at the Town Hall or on the 20th November noon – 4pm at Castlewood. If you wish to attend one of the events, please contact [email protected]
2.4. The SSF would like to encourage stakeholders to respond to the consultation to ensure that their views are taken into consideration as part of the decision- making process.
- 4 -
3. Executive Summary
3.1. A summary of all the recommendations from the SSF is provided in the table below. It is recommended:
Section Description Recommendation 4 Implementation of the National Recommendation no. 4a – That the three Fair Funding Formula in North scenarios are considered for the schools budget Somerset for 2020-21
Option 1 – Transfer 0.5% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this has been agreed as a minimum by SSF as it means that that the current agreed deficit recovery plan payment of c. £0.5m a year will occur) and will not require Secretary of State approval (paragraph 4.40.2)
Option 2 - Transfer 0.7% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this would require Secretary of State approval as over 0.5% that Schools Forms can agree (paragraph 4.40.3)
Option 3 - Transfer 1.2% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this would require Secretary of State approval as over 0.5% that Schools Forums can agree (paragraph 4.40.4)
Recommendation no. 4b – That the lump sum is as per the final APT in December after the area cost adjustment and is the same for both primary and secondary schools likely to be £116,069.10.
5 Recommendation no. 5a – that funding for insurance for schools continues to be de- delegated (paragraph 5.7).
Recommendation no. 5b - that no reimbursement of de-delegated resources is provided to a new academy beyond the DfE requirements detailed in (paragraph 5.9
Recommendation no. 5c – that if there is an underspend in the de-delegated insurance fund De-delegations then this is prioritised to make a reimbursement to new academies to contribute, as far as possible to the additional insurance costs that they incur (paragraph 5.14).
Recommendation no. 5d – that any overspend or underspend on de-delegated services overall is carried forward to the following financial year to be used, overall, for the same purpose but that if the SSF considers that the total level of over or under spending on de-delegated services is excessive - 5 -
that the contributing schools will be required to making an additional payment or receive a reimbursement of the appropriate value (paragraph 5.15) 6 Recommendation no.6a – to continue to operate the process to automatically assess and allocate £278,815 of funding to those schools considered Additional allocations for as having a disproportionate number of high schools with a disproportionate needs pupils in 2020-21 with a cap on the final number of high needs pupils budget. If the budget was not retained then the (Targeted Support Fund) money would be distributed via AWPU (paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8),
7 Statutory Services Charges for Recommendation no.7a - That the proposed maintained schools statutory services charge (SSC) of £11.84 per pupil/place is agreed for the 2020-21 financial year (paragraph 7.9)
8 Growth Recommendation no.8a - That the proposed growth policy for 2020-21 is approved financial year (paragraph 8.3)
- 6 -
4. Implementation of the National Fair Funding Formula in North Somerset
Background
4.1. This section details a range of proposals as a result of the Government’s implementation of a National Funding Formula (NFF) and the associated funding arrangements.
4.2. Details of the NFF can be accessed using the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-funding-formula- tables-for-schools-and-high-needs-2020-to-2021
4.3. This link provides access to a range of information including:
4.3.1. National Funding Formula summary table 2020 to 2021 4.3.2. Impact of the schools NFF, 2020 to 2021 4.3.3. Impact of the high needs NFF,2020 to 2021 4.3.4. Impact of the central services block NFF, 2020 to 2021 4.3.5. Technical notes for the operation of each of the blocks above
4.4. The DfE also provides operational guidance on the distribution of funding to schools which provides useful information on the makeup of the formula:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pre-16-schools-funding- local-authority-guidance-for-2020-to-2021
4.5. This section of the consultation document details each specific area of change and provides the background, the outcome of the national or local formula review considerations and the recommendations for each.
4.6. The specific areas of change detailed in this section are:
4.6.1. The National Funding Formula (paragraph 4.7) 4.6.2. Movement from the schools block to other blocks (paragraph 4.18)
- 7 -
The National Funding Formula
4.7. On the 9 September 2019, the Secretary of State for Education provided a statement to Parliament on schools funding. This can be read here:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions- answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-09- 09/HCWS1828/
This statement confirms that, in the main, the 2020-21 funding formula will remain as 2019-20. With the following main exceptions that are applicable for schools in North Somerset:
4.7.1. Increasing the minimum per pupil level to £5,000 for secondary schools and to £3,750 for primary schools. 4.7.2. The funding floor will be set at 1.84% per pupil for the NFF elements 4.7.3. There is no cap on gains, where there has been in 2018-19 and 2019-20
4.8. Within this statement, confirmation was also provided that local authorities will continue to have discretion over local formulae in 2020- 21, “however, as a first step towards hardening the formula, from 2020- 21 the government will make the use of the national minimum per pupil funding levels, at the values in the school NFF, compulsory for local authorities to use in their own funding formulae”
4.9. In the announcements ahead of 2020-21, the headline was that funding will rise by £2.6 billion for schools and high needs. However, please note that statements refer to the national allocation of funding to LAs through the DSG. The actual impact on individual schools in North Somerset will be determined locally by the decisions made about the proposals in this consultation document.
4.10. It remains the government’s long-term intention that schools’ budgets should be set on the basis of a single, national formula (a ‘hard’ national funding formula) as highlighted in 4.8. The ‘hard’ implementation of the national funding formula requires primary legislation and the DfE will not comment on the timescales on this any further, other than it will not be before 2021-22.
4.11. Under the current or ‘soft’ system, the DfE use the national funding formula to set notional budgets for each school. These are aggregated to give the total schools block. You can see the notional budget for each school, and the aggregated schools block funding for each local authority using the link provided in paragraph 4.2. For now, local authorities will continue to set some local formula to distribute their schools block funding, in consultation with their local schools and their schools forum.
- 8 -
4.12. Local authorities then distribute their schools block allocation between maintained schools and academies and, although it will be a local decision, the DfE are continuing to adjust the rules governing the setting of local formulae so that the national formula can be more closely mirrored.
4.13. The schools block became ring-fenced in 2018-19 and this continues in 2020-21 which means that the vast majority of schools block funding allocated to local authorities must be passed directly to schools. Local authorities will have limited flexibility to transfer funding to other areas, such as high needs, where these best match local circumstances. Transfers of up to 0.5% can be approved by the schools forum and do not require any additional approval from the Secretary of State. Transfers in excess of 0.5% or transfers not approved by the Schools Forum must approved by the Secretary of State.
4.14. Movements from the schools block approved for 2019-20 have not been “pre-approved” for 2020-21. This means that any movement over 0.5% even with SSF approval has to be applied for, via a disapplication to the Secretary of State for Education.
4.15. Pupil Premium plus - Stage one of the national funding formula consultation detailed how it would target support for looked after children and children who were previously looked after through the pupil premium plus, rather than include a looked after children factor in that national funding formula. The value of the total national amount spent through the looked after children (LAC) factors in local formulae in 2017-18 has been transferred from the DSG to the pupil premium. The pupil premium plus rate was increased in April 2018 to £2,300 and remained the same for 2019-20. We do not know what the rate will be for 2020-21 at this juncture.
Continuing to move to the Implementation of the National Funding Formula in North Somerset
4.16. There are a few decisions that may be made as a result of this consultation that will need to be made regarding the implementation of the national funding formula in North Somerset.
4.17. Each of these issues are covered in the sections below in order to seek views from stakeholders
Movement from the schools block to other blocks
Background
4.18. Since April 2018 the DSG has consisted of four blocks of funding: the schools block, central services block, high needs block and early years block, with the schools block the only ring-fenced block.
4.19. This means that funding allocated in the schools block cannot be spent in any of the three other blocks without prior approval.
- 9 -
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
4.20. The schools block continues to be ring-fenced for 2020-21 onwards. This means that normally funding allocated in the schools block cannot be spent in any of the three other blocks (with limited exceptions).
4.21. For 2020-21 one of the limited exceptions is that LAs retain some limited flexibility which will enable a transfer up to 0.5% of schools block funding into another block, with the approval of the SSF, following consultation with schools and other stakeholders. Transfers in excess of this require approval by the Secretary of State for Education.
4.22. In 2019-20 the Secretary of State for Education allowed a transfer of 1.65% of the schools block to the high needs block following consultation with schools and other stakeholders.
4.23. This approved disapplication for transfers for 2019-20 does not carry forward to 2020-21; new disapplication(s) have to be made.
4.24. The provisional schools block for 2020-21 (excluding the growth factor) is £126,812,493. A transfer from the schools block of 0.5% would therefore amount to approximately £0.6m.
4.25. The repayment amount of the overspend on the DSG agreed in 2018- 19, starting in 2019-20 for a period of five years was £0.5m, and this has to form part of the limit on transfer of 0.5%.
4.26. Local Authorities can apply to the Secretary of State for Education to transfer an amount over 0.5%.
4.27. The decision to move resources between the schools and the high needs block is always a difficult one, and one to which the SSF have always given much consideration. It means striking a balance between ensuring that the needs of the most vulnerable children and young people are met and ensuring that universal funding can provide a good standard of education for all.
4.28. Table 4i below shows the cumulative DSG overspend in recent years and the budgeted movements between the school and high needs blocks.
Table 4i Movement from Cumulative DSG Financial Schools block to deficit year High Needs block 2015-16 £322,637 2016-17 £1,415,924 £1,150,633 2017-18 £822,183 £788,079 2018-19 £1,152,341 £2,375,592 2019-20 £1,763,647 £2,853,733
- 10 -
4.29. Spending on high needs includes areas such as top up funding, specialist provision and specialist support services. The level of demand, spend and the budgets agreed have been scrutinised by the SSF. The SSF has also looked at strategies to improve the efficiency of processes, changes to funding arrangements and provision in order to manage the demand and spend as effectively as possible in accordance with need.
4.30. The LA and the SSF are continuing to progress and implement the Specialist Provision Review proposals. These look at how current and future specialist provision needs can be met in order to ensure the best possible outcomes for children and young people with high needs within a sustainable budget. The review had and continues to have involvement from all relevant stakeholders and the outcomes for North Somerset are being shared with our neighbouring Local Authorities to enable a shared understanding and collaborative solutions wherever possible. Projects to increase the local provision of specialist places include:
• The submission and progression of a bid to the DfE as part of the Wave 13 SEND and AP Provision Free School Bid, for a 65-place Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) Special School within North Somerset • The delivery of a 5-place expansion to Baytree Special School in its current site for September 2019 admissions • The commencement of the programme and statutory process to deliver an expansion to Baytree Special School to a new site with facilities for 65 new places for pupils with severe and profound learning disabilities, from September 2021. • The commencement of the programme and statutory process to deliver an expansion to Westhaven Special School to extend the school’s lower age to age 3 • The commencement of the programme and statutory process to deliver up to four new Specialist Units (for up to 40 pupils) to meet the needs of high functioning pupils with autism on mainstream school sites
4.31. The draft schools budget, including any proposed transfer from the schools budget, will be considered by the SSF on the 4th December and the final budget agreed on 15th January. Papers for these meetings will be issued to all schools ahead of the meetings to enable schools to share their views with their SSF representatives and inform their decision making.
- 11 -
Deficit recovery
4.32. The repayment of the overspend on the DSG at the end of the 2018-19 financial year, that was agreed by the SSF over a five year period to 2025-26 starting in 2019-20, has to form part of the limit on transfer from the schools block of 0.5%. As this has already been approved then this comes from the 0.5% approved SSF block movement for 2020-21. Any additional deficit has to be recovered from the block in which the further overspend occurred. This needs to be consulted upon and considered by the SSF.
4.33. For 2019-20 the projected increase in the DSG deficit to £2.85m (including current deficit recovery value) means that it will need to be added to the deficit recovery relates to high needs and therefore it must be recovered from the high needs block. This will need to come from the pre-approved transfer from the schools block before any further disapplication for increase movement into the high needs block.
4.34. The DfE continues to prescribe that all LAs that have a deficit of more than 1% of their total DSG will need to submit a deficit recovery statement. North Somerset had to complete a plan for 2019-20 and will continue to need to update and submit plans until told otherwise or until the deficit falls below 1% of our total DSG.
4.35. It should be noted that the DfE have still not provided any information about how deficits can be recovered once the ‘hard’ national funding formula is introduced. However, it has expressed a view that all authorities are due to receive a substantial increase in their high needs block funding and they expect them to use that to balance their high needs budget in-year or at least get as close to that position as they can.
Transfer to meet demands in the High Needs Block
4.36. In addition to recovering the deficit, a transfer from the schools block to the high needs block is required to fund the estimated high needs expenditure during the 2020-21 financial year. The draft schools budget, including any proposed transfer from the schools budget, will be considered by the SSF on both the 4th December and 15th January and the actual transfer amount to meet high needs demand will not be confirmed until these meetings have occurred.
4.37. Pressure on the high needs block remains and is increasing, and the SSF and schools are aware of this. The main area of pressure is spending on independent non-maintained special schools, where costs are expected to increase by around 30% in the current year and have almost doubled since 2015/16. Whilst additional funding has been made available through the high needs block (c. £2m), this is not sufficient to cover the increase in demand for out of area placements and the reduction in the likely movement from the schools block to the high needs block.
- 12 -
4.38. There will be a separate consultation that focuses on High Needs which will be released after SSF have met and approved the proposals on the 4th December.
4.39. This separate consultation may contain several options that will be dependent on the results of this consultation.
4.40. There is one scenario proposed in this consultation on how any schools funding could be allocated in 2020-21 but with block movement options plus a base model, these scenarios can be viewed in Appendix A and are summarised in the Table 4i below before and then are detailed in the text which follows:
Table 4i 2020/21 Base Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 % transfer from schools block 0 0.50% 0.70% 1.20% £s transfer from schools block 0 £600k £900k £1.5m (approx) AWPU: - Primary £2,922.11 £2,872.19 £2,843.96 £2,762.52 - Secondary KS3 £4,054.76 £4,004.84 £3,976.61 £3,895.17 - Secondary KS4 £4,585.55 £4,535.63 £4,507.40 £4,425.97 Minimum Funding Guanratee 1.84% 1.84% 1.84% 0.75% Investment in early intervention and re- 0 0 £250k £250k engagement Contribution to high needs 0 £600k £650k £1.25m spending / deficit recovery
4.40.1. Base model: This shows the impact of no block movement from the schools block to the high needs block:
4.40.1.1. AWPU would be at the NFF levels including the area cost adjustment of primary (KS1) £2,922.11, secondary (KS3) £4,054.76 and £4,585.55 (KS4) 4.40.1.2. There would be no cap on gains. 4.40.1.3. The MGF would be 1.84%?
4.40.2. Option 1: This shows the impact of a 0.5% transfer from the schools block to the high needs block.
4.40.2.1. AWPU would be £2,872.19 per pupil in primary and at secondary £4,004.84 (KS3) and £4,535.63 (KS4). 4.40.2.2. The MFG would be 1.84% 4.40.2.3. This scenario would allow for a £0.6m transfer to the High Needs Block and allows for the previously agreed deficit recovery plan amount of £0.5m to be paid back in 2020/21. This would be the second payment. SSF are aware that this movement only allows for this.
- 13 -
4.40.3. Option 2: This shows the impact of a 0.7% transfer from the schools block to the high needs block.
4.40.3.1. AWPU would be £2,843.96 per pupil in primary and at secondary £3,976.61 (KS3) and £4,507.40 (KS4) . 4.40.3.2. The MFG would be 1.84% 4.40.3.3. This scenario would allow for a £0.9m transfer to the High Needs Block it would initially cover the £0.5m annual deficit recovery plan payment to the DSG to be paid, as per the current DSG deficit recovery plan. Then the additional funds of c. £250K would allow for prevention work to be completed in order to mitigate spend in the High Needs block. The SSF have had two papers on this work and are in support of this work. The latest paper of the two is attached at Appendix B.
4.40.4. Option 3: This shows the impact of a 1.2% transfer from the schools block to the high needs block
4.40.4.1. AWPU would be £2,762.52 per pupil in primary and at secondary £3,895.17 (KS3) and £4,425.97 (KS4). 4.40.4.2. The MFG would be +0.75%. 4.40.4.3. This scenario would allow for a c. £1.5m transfer to the High Needs Block and would cover the c. £0.5m annual deficit recovery plan payment to the DSG to be paid, as per the current DSG deficit recovery plan; it would offer the opportunity to implement the prevention work as per 4.40.3.3 above; and would also allow for a further contribution to spending on the high needs block of c. £600k, which would continue the schools’ commitment to ensure a balance in funding as far as possible between those pupils in mainstream schools and those in special schools, and between those pupils with no additional needs and those with additional needs
4.40.5. As an example if the transfer was at the same as 2019-20 of 1.65% and £2.1m it would not be possible to do due to the formula must haves and the levels of funding that would result.
4.41. All of options 1, 2 and 3 continue with both primary and secondary have one single lump sum amount using the data we currently have of £116,069.10 which is the amount after the area cost adjustment.
4.42. Whilst different lump sum amounts can be used for primary and secondary, that as per previous years that this should remain as the same value for both primary and secondary and as per the amount provided in the initial Authority Pro-forma Tool (APT) to ensure all pupil led factors are at the highest they can be per option.
- 14 -
Recommendations
4.43. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.4a – That the three scenarios are considered for the schools budget for 2020-21
Option 1 – Transfer 0.5% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this has been agreed as a minimum by SSF as it means that that the current agreed deficit recovery plan payment of £0.5m a year will occur) and will not require Secretary of State approval (paragraph 4.40.2)
Option 2 - Transfer 0.7% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this would require Secretary of State approval as over 0.5% that Schools Forms can agree (paragraph 4.40.3)
Option 3 - Transfer 1.2% funding from the schools block to the high needs block (this would require Secretary of State approval as over 0.5% that Schools Forums can agree (paragraph 4.40.4)
• Recommendation no. 4b – That the lump sum is as per the final APT in December after the area cost adjustment and is the same for both primary and secondary schools likely to be £116,069.10.
5. De-delegations
Background
5.1. De-delegation allows the funding for particular areas to be pooled from maintained mainstream schools in order to provide a more effective use of resources and reduce the risks to individual schools budgets.
5.2. Funds cannot be de-delegated from academies, special schools or PRU’s. Academies, special schools and PRU’s have to take decisions as individual schools about how to support these areas of expenditure within their budgets.
5.3. For maintained primary schools their representatives on the SSF will make a decision that will apply to all the maintained primary schools. This consultation provides an important opportunity to ensure that the representatives on the forum can take an informed decision about what services their constituent schools, on the whole, want to be de- delegated.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
5.4. The de-delegations that are permitted in 2020-21 are the same as those permitted in 2019-20. Each individual area is subject to the approval of the SSF on an annual basis. - 15 -
5.5. Table 5i shows which areas of funding can be de-delegated:
Table 5i Allowable de-delegations De-delegation De-delegated in NS in
permitted 2019-20 Additional school improvement services Yes No Support for ethnic minority groups Yes No Behaviour support services (SS4L) Yes No Future schools Yes No Schools central funds (maternity etc) Yes No Support for schools in financial difficulty Yes No Insurance Yes Yes RPTA’s Yes No FSM eligibility Yes No Contingencies Yes No
5.6. Significant changes were made to de-delegations in 2017-18. This was agreed in order to be consistent with other changes being proposed and to align with the increasing number of conversions to academy status and schools continued with these changes subsequently in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
5.7. As a continuation of the arrangements put in place in 2018-19, the only de-delegation that is proposed for 2020-21 is Insurance.
5.8. The value of the de-delegation for insurance in 2020-21 will be set when the schools budget is set in January 2020.
5.9. When a school converts to academy status what happens to the de- delegated resources is determined by the date of conversion, as detailed below:
5.9.1. If a school converts on or between 2nd April and 1st September the LA retains 5/12ths (reflecting the April to August period) of the de-delegated resources and returns the rest to the school
5.9.2. If a school converts on or between 2nd September and 31st March the LA retains the full de-delegated resource for the financial year
5.10. If asked, the LA should continue to provide the service to new academies for the period when the LA retains the de-delegated resources.
5.11. However, in the case of insurance it is illegal for the LA to continue to provide insurance cover for a school that has converted to academy status. A new academy will therefore be in the position of having to fund its own insurance whilst continuing, for a time at least, to have de- delegated resources retained by the LA.
- 16 -
5.12. Where an LA is unable to provide a requested service to a new academy, such as insurance, the DfE expects the LA and academy to come to an arrangement to give some of the de-delegated resource back to the academy.
5.13. The LA does not receive an in-year reduction to the insurance premium when a school converts to academy status. Any agreement to give de- delegated funds for insurance back to an academy will result in an overspend in the de-delegated fund. It is proposed, therefore, that no reimbursement of de-delegated resources is automatically provided to a new academy beyond the requirements detailed in paragraph 5.9.
5.14. However, if there is an underspend in the de-delegated insurance fund then it is recommended that this is prioritised to make a reimbursement to new academies to contribute, as far as possible to the additional costs that they incur.
5.15. Any overspend or underspend on de-delegated services overall can be carried forward to the following financial year to be used, overall, for the same purpose. This ensures that any over or underspends on these resources are ring fenced to those schools that contributed towards the fund through de-delegation from their formula budget share. It is proposed that these arrangements remain in place in but if the SSF considers that the total level of over or underspending on de-delegated services is excessive that the contributing schools will be required to making an additional payment or receive a reimbursement of the appropriate value.
Recommendations
5.16. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.5a – that funding for insurance for schools continues to be de-delegated (paragraph 5.7).
• Recommendation no.5b - that no reimbursement of de-delegated resources is provided to a new academy beyond the DfE requirements detailed in (paragraph 5.9).
• Recommendation no.5c – that if there is an underspend in the de- delegated insurance fund then this is prioritised to make a reimbursement to new academies to contribute, as far as possible to the additional insurance costs that they incur (paragraph 5.14).
• Recommendation no.5d – that any overspend or underspend on de- delegated services overall is carried forward to the following financial year to be used, overall, for the same purpose but that if the SSF considers that the total level of over or under spending on de-delegated services is excessive that the contributing schools will be required to making an additional payment or receive a reimbursement of the appropriate value (paragraph 5.15).
- 17 -
6. Additional allocations for schools with a disproportionate number of high needs pupils (Targeted Support Fund)
Background
6.1. The Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) agreed, following consultation with schools, to introduce a process in the 2017-18 financial year to automatically assess and allocate funding to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils.
6.2. Local Authorities can allocate additional resources, calculated on a formulaic basis to schools that have a disproportionate number of high needs pupils. This is to provide support to such schools in funding up to the first £6,000 of support for pupils with special education needs.
6.3. In 2018-19 following consultation feedback, and discussion at FRWG, the SSF agreed that schools would receive an increase in funding to recognise when notional SEN funding falls below a baseline amount. The Targeted Support Fund is capped and the formula takes into consideration the £6,000 contribution for each pupil in receipt of top up funding. The number of children in receipt of top up funding is calculated as at September during the financial year to create a composite of number of children across the year.
6.4. Whilst, these arrangements are useful they are not as effective and robust as would be desired. There’s no recognition for schools which have a significant number of pupils which require additional support but fall below the TUF requirements and are therefore, are not in receipt of top up funding.
6.5. The SSF agreed, however, that there is no fair way of identifying these demands to change the agreed mechanism.
6.6. A budget of £50k was set for 2017-18 and the same was agreed following consultation in for 2018-19. Due to an overspend in 2018-19 as no cap was considered as the budget underspent in the first year, it was agreed subsequent years where this budget is in place it would be capped.
6.7. The budget in 2019-20 was increased to £278,815 to reflect the decisions taken by SSF of what to do with the additional high needs money of £457,629. The proposal is to retain this keep this budget in 2020-21.
6.8. If this budget did not remain in 2020-21, but was allocated to schools as part of the general formula, it would result in approximately an additional £10 per pupil on AWPU.
6.9. The likely distribution of this funding in 2019-20 can be seen in Appendix C it is only likely at the moment as final October 2019 census numbers are required.
- 18 -
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
6.10. It is recommended therefore to continue to operate the mechanism in 2020-21 with a cap on whatever the final budget figure is and to review again for 2021-22.
Recommendations
6.11. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.6a – to continue to operate the process to automatically assess and allocate £278,815 of funding to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils in 2020-21 with a cap on the final budget. If the budget was not retained then the money would be distributed via AWPU (paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8),
7. Statutory Services Charges for maintained schools
Background
7.1. Up until April 2017 Local Authorities received a grant called the Education Services Grant (ESG). The ESG was made up of two rates that funded two different groups of services:
7.1.1. The retained duties rate was allocated to local authorities to fund services they provide for all children and young people regardless of the type of school they attend
7.1.2. The general duties rate was allocated to both local authorities and academies to fund services authorities provide to maintained schools but which academies must provide themselves
7.2. The funding previously allocated through the ESG retained duties rate (£15 per pupil) was transferred into the schools block of the Dedicated Schools Grant from April 2017. The SSF agreed that this funding could continue to be used to fund the central services previously funded from this grant. This funding is used to meet the following responsibilities:
7.2.1. Ensuring every child has a school place 7.2.2. Ensuring the needs of vulnerable pupils are met 7.2.3. Acting as a champion for all parents and families
7.3. From 2017-18 the funding previously allocated through the ESG general duties rate ceased.
7.4. Local authorities are able to fund services previously funded within the general duties rate (for maintained schools only) by top slicing funding from maintained school budgets shares with the agreement of maintained school members of the schools forum. In North Somerset we call this top slice the Statutory Services Charge (SSC).
- 19 -
7.5. Local authorities should set a single rate per pupil for the statutory service charge (excluding early years and post 16) for all mainstream maintained schools (both primary and secondary). Local authorities may choose to establish differential rates for special schools and PRUs if the cost of fulfilling the duty is substantially different for these schools. The rate would be expressed per place rather than per pupil for special schools and PRU.
7.6. In North Somerset it was been agreed that the Statutory Service Charge (SSC) will operate like a de-delegation.
7.7. If a school converts to academy status, the amount retained for that school (that was topsliced from the schools budget) will be recouped from the local authority’s DSG for the remaining months of the financial year that the school is an academy. The academy will be reimbursed in its monthly general annual grant (GAG) payment from the point of conversion. Unlike for de-delegated services there will be no phased transfer of funding following conversion so there will be immediate recoupment of this part of the budget. For example, if a school converts on 1 January 2020, 3/12ths of the retained amount relating to that school will be recouped from the LAs DSG and reimbursed to the academy.
National / Local Formula Review Outcome
7.8. The calculation of the SSC has been reviewed ahead of the 2019-20 financial year.
7.9. The proposed SSC for 2020-21 is to keep the charge the same as the previous 2 years 2018-19 and 2019-20 provided in table 7i below:
Table 7i Proposed Elements of Proposed SSC 2020-21 – per Statutory Service Charge (SSC) for pupil/place 2019-20 Health & Safety £3.11 Governor Services £0.90 Internal Audit £1.65 S151 Responsibilities £1.19 Complaints e.g. anti bullying £0.73 Property & Asset Management - valuations £3.22 Business support £0.05 Schools HR Advisory Service £1.00 Total £11.84
Recommendations
7.10. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.7a - That the proposed statutory services charge (SSC) of £11.84 per pupil/place is agreed for the 2020-21 financial year (paragraph 7.9) - 20 -
8. Growth
Background
8.1. The policy for 2020-21 has had minor revisions and the proposed policy is attached at Appendix D.
8.2. The revisions were shared with members of the SSF on the 16th October, when members were asked to provide any comments by the 30th October. No comments relating to 2020-21 were received.
8.3. SSF on the 6th November made no further proposals prior to the attached policy being consulted on. It is accepted that for 2021-22 there is likely to be a requirement to make more substantial changes to the policy.
Recommendations
8.4. It is recommended:
• Recommendation no.8a - That the proposed growth policy for 2020-21 is approved financial year (paragraph 8.3)
9. Next steps
Background
9.1. This section sets out the key next steps towards implementation in of the proposals in this document from April 2020. The timetable for the implementation is provided in table 9i below:
Table 9i Timetable for implementation 13th November to 27th November 2019 Consultation period W/C 11th November 2019 Red Noticeboard article containing link to the will be published 25th & 26th November 2019 Consultation responses analysed and incorporated in proposals 27th November 2019 SSF report published 28th November 2019 Disapplication deadline for movements from schools block to another block 4th December 2019 Proposals considered by the Strategic Schools Forum and the initial budget and provisional schools funding for 2020-21 EFA confirms DSG allocations for 2020-21 Late December 2019 (prior to recoupment of funding for academies) December/January 2019/2020 Formula funding for schools updated to reflect on October 2019 data set and 2020-21 DSG 15th January 2020 The SSF finalise formula and budget for 2020- 21. 21st January 2020 The single proforma deadline for submitting to the EFA detailing structure of formula and unit values By 29th February Delegated budget shares for 2020-21 issued to schools By 31st March Early years and high needs allocations issued
- 21 - Apprndix A
FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-2021 SCHOOLS FUNDING OPTIONS
October 2018 2019-20 Baseline Position using 2019-20 Census OPTION 1 - £0.6m, (0.5%) transfer from Schools block to High OPTION 2 - £0.9m, (0.7%) transfer from Schools block to High OPTION 3 - £1.5m, (1.2%) transfer to Schools Block to High 2020-21 Baseline Position using 2020-21 NFF Criteria Criteria, rates & MFG data Needs block & 1.84% MFG Needs block & 1.84% MFG Needs block & 0.75% MFG updated for new classes
Change in per % change Change in per % change Change in per % change Change in per % change DFE School NOR Post MFG Budget Per Pupil NOR * Post MFG Budget Per Pupil Post MFG Budget Per Pupil Post MFG Budget Per Pupil Post MFG Budget Per Pupil pupil funding per pupil pupil funding per pupil pupil funding per pupil pupil funding per pupil 3122 All Saints East Clevedon Church of England Primary School 115 £ 482,265.76 £ 4,193.62 115 £ 499,691.58 £ 4,345.14 £ 151.53 3.61% £ 493,950.78 £ 4,295.22 £ 101.61 2.42% £ 490,703.77 £ 4,266.99 £ 73.37 1.75% £ 481,675.80 £ 4,188.49 £ (5.13) -0.12% 2277 Ashcombe Primary School 627 £ 2,347,824.45 £ 3,744.54 627 £ 2,458,630.74 £ 3,921.26 £ 176.72 4.72% £ 2,427,330.90 £ 3,871.34 £ 126.80 3.39% £ 2,409,627.59 £ 3,843.11 £ 98.57 2.63% £ 2,374,797.19 £ 3,787.56 £ 43.02 1.15% 3075 Backwell Church of England Junior School 230 £ 812,184.93 £ 3,531.24 230 £ 865,398.00 £ 3,762.60 £ 231.36 6.55% £ 865,398.00 £ 3,762.60 £ 231.36 6.55% £ 865,398.00 £ 3,762.60 £ 231.36 6.55% £ 865,398.00 £ 3,762.60 £ 231.36 6.55% 4129 Backwell School 1389 £ 6,364,371.60 £ 4,581.98 1389 £ 6,980,532.00 £ 5,025.58 £ 443.60 9.68% £ 6,980,532.00 £ 5,025.58 £ 443.60 9.68% £ 6,980,532.00 £ 5,025.58 £ 443.60 9.68% £ 6,980,532.00 £ 5,025.58 £ 443.60 9.68% 2271 Banwell Primary School 185 £ 772,709.10 £ 4,176.81 185 £ 801,599.46 £ 4,332.97 £ 156.16 3.74% £ 792,364.26 £ 4,283.05 £ 106.24 2.54% £ 787,140.80 £ 4,254.82 £ 78.01 1.87% £ 777,504.05 £ 4,202.72 £ 25.92 0.62% 2319 Becket Primary School 202 £ 904,783.79 £ 4,479.13 202 £ 919,211.23 £ 4,550.55 £ 71.42 1.59% £ 919,211.23 £ 4,550.55 £ 71.42 1.59% £ 919,211.23 £ 4,550.55 £ 71.42 1.59% £ 910,664.51 £ 4,508.24 £ 29.11 0.65% 2262 Birdwell Primary School 387 £ 1,316,468.99 £ 3,401.73 387 £ 1,460,574.00 £ 3,774.09 £ 372.36 10.95% £ 1,460,574.00 £ 3,774.09 £ 372.36 10.95% £ 1,460,574.00 £ 3,774.09 £ 372.36 10.95% £ 1,460,574.00 £ 3,774.09 £ 372.36 10.95% 2272 Blagdon Primary School 110 £ 476,487.05 £ 4,331.70 110 £ 489,753.19 £ 4,452.30 £ 120.60 2.78% £ 484,261.99 £ 4,402.38 £ 70.68 1.63% £ 481,156.15 £ 4,374.15 £ 42.45 0.98% £ 472,371.61 £ 4,294.29 £ (37.41) -0.86% 3455 Bournville Primary School 411 £ 2,136,382.20 £ 5,198.01 411 £ 2,175,870.37 £ 5,294.09 £ 96.08 1.85% £ 2,175,870.37 £ 5,294.09 £ 96.08 1.85% £ 2,175,870.37 £ 5,294.09 £ 96.08 1.85% £ 2,154,024.76 £ 5,240.94 £ 42.93 0.83% 4142 Broadoak Mathematics and Computing College 861 £ 4,688,670.65 £ 5,445.61 861 £ 4,831,908.82 £ 5,611.97 £ 166.36 3.05% £ 4,788,927.70 £ 5,562.05 £ 116.44 2.14% £ 4,764,619.85 £ 5,533.82 £ 88.21 1.62% £ 4,713,283.29 £ 5,474.20 £ 28.59 0.52% 3351 Burrington Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 68 £ 325,423.39 £ 4,785.64 68 £ 338,372.43 £ 4,976.07 £ 190.43 3.98% £ 334,977.87 £ 4,926.15 £ 140.51 2.94% £ 333,057.89 £ 4,897.91 £ 112.27 2.35% £ 327,520.31 £ 4,816.48 £ 30.84 0.64% 2332 Castle Batch Primary School Academy 436 £ 1,566,483.41 £ 3,592.85 436 £ 1,640,947.20 £ 3,763.64 £ 170.79 4.75% £ 1,640,947.20 £ 3,763.64 £ 170.79 4.75% £ 1,640,947.20 £ 3,763.64 £ 170.79 4.75% £ 1,640,947.20 £ 3,763.64 £ 170.79 4.75% 1111 Chestnut Park Primary School 0 £ - £ - 35 £ 186,440.53 £ 5,326.87 £ - 0.00% £ 184,693.33 £ - £ - 0.00% £ 183,705.11 £ - £ - 0.00% £ 180,854.88 £ 5,167.28 £ - 0.00% 3117 Christ Church Church of England Primary School 202 £ 897,038.97 £ 4,440.79 202 £ 937,288.82 £ 4,640.04 £ 199.26 4.49% £ 927,204.98 £ 4,590.12 £ 149.34 3.36% £ 921,501.52 £ 4,561.89 £ 121.10 2.73% £ 905,051.64 £ 4,480.45 £ 39.67 0.89% 4139 Churchill Academy & Sixth Form 1256 £ 5,943,989.47 £ 4,732.48 1256 £ 6,320,881.97 £ 5,032.55 £ 300.07 6.34% £ 6,320,881.97 £ 5,032.55 £ 300.07 6.34% £ 6,320,881.97 £ 5,032.55 £ 300.07 6.34% £ 6,320,881.97 £ 5,032.55 £ 300.07 6.34% 3113 Churchill Church of England Primary School 186 £ 722,566.44 £ 3,884.77 186 £ 753,579.51 £ 4,051.50 £ 166.74 4.29% £ 744,294.39 £ 4,001.58 £ 116.82 3.01% £ 739,042.69 £ 3,973.35 £ 88.58 2.28% £ 726,946.69 £ 3,908.32 £ 23.55 0.61% 4136 Clevedon School 1071 £ 5,076,360.02 £ 4,739.83 1071 £ 5,390,784.00 £ 5,033.41 £ 293.58 6.19% £ 5,390,784.00 £ 5,033.41 £ 293.58 6.19% £ 5,390,784.00 £ 5,033.41 £ 293.58 6.19% £ 5,390,784.00 £ 5,033.41 £ 293.58 6.19% 3354 Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School 204 £ 823,178.79 £ 4,035.19 204 £ 859,241.81 £ 4,211.97 £ 176.78 4.38% £ 849,058.13 £ 4,162.05 £ 126.86 3.14% £ 843,298.20 £ 4,133.81 £ 98.62 2.44% £ 828,451.87 £ 4,061.04 £ 25.85 0.64% 3121 Court-De-Wyck Church School 130 £ 539,009.51 £ 4,146.23 130 £ 553,472.28 £ 4,257.48 £ 111.25 2.68% £ 546,982.68 £ 4,207.56 £ 61.33 1.48% £ 546,748.90 £ 4,205.76 £ 59.53 1.44% £ 542,164.12 £ 4,170.49 £ 24.27 0.59% 3130 Crockerne Church of England Primary School 291 £ 1,098,283.42 £ 3,774.17 291 £ 1,145,914.13 £ 3,937.85 £ 163.68 4.34% £ 1,131,387.41 £ 3,887.93 £ 113.76 3.01% £ 1,123,171.05 £ 3,859.69 £ 85.52 2.27% £ 1,104,829.54 £ 3,796.67 £ 22.50 0.60% 2007 Dundry Church of England Primary School 78 £ 412,311.78 £ 5,286.05 78 £ 417,743.59 £ 5,355.69 £ 69.64 1.32% £ 417,743.59 £ 5,355.69 £ 69.64 1.32% £ 417,743.59 £ 5,355.69 £ 69.64 1.32% £ 414,525.80 £ 5,314.43 £ 28.38 0.54% 3091 Flax Bourton Church of England Primary School 159 £ 609,977.69 £ 3,836.34 159 £ 629,586.60 £ 3,959.66 £ 123.33 3.21% £ 622,283.60 £ 3,913.73 £ 77.40 2.02% £ 622,283.60 £ 3,913.73 £ 77.40 2.02% £ 616,934.33 £ 3,880.09 £ 43.75 1.14% 2295 Golden Valley Primary School 405 £ 1,413,097.30 £ 3,489.13 405 £ 1,549,242.00 £ 3,825.29 £ 336.16 9.63% £ 1,549,242.00 £ 3,825.29 £ 336.16 9.63% £ 1,549,242.00 £ 3,825.29 £ 336.16 9.63% £ 1,549,242.00 £ 3,825.29 £ 336.16 9.63% 4135 Gordano School 1548 £ 7,153,848.62 £ 4,621.35 1548 £ 7,791,408.00 £ 5,033.21 £ 411.86 8.91% £ 7,791,408.00 £ 5,033.21 £ 411.86 8.91% £ 7,791,408.00 £ 5,033.21 £ 411.86 8.91% £ 7,791,408.00 £ 5,033.21 £ 411.86 8.91% 2261 Grove Junior School 231 £ 842,054.43 £ 3,645.26 231 £ 879,255.83 £ 3,806.30 £ 161.04 4.42% £ 870,282.00 £ 3,767.45 £ 122.20 3.35% £ 870,282.00 £ 3,767.45 £ 122.20 3.35% £ 870,282.00 £ 3,767.45 £ 122.20 3.35% 2268 Hannah More Infant School 160 £ 605,768.70 £ 3,786.05 160 £ 628,520.37 £ 3,928.25 £ 142.20 3.76% £ 620,533.17 £ 3,878.33 £ 92.28 2.44% £ 616,015.58 £ 3,850.10 £ 64.04 1.69% £ 609,419.85 £ 3,808.87 £ 22.82 0.60% 4145 Hans Price Academy 800 £ 4,591,549.49 £ 5,739.44 800 £ 4,742,549.86 £ 5,928.19 £ 188.75 3.29% £ 4,702,613.86 £ 5,878.27 £ 138.83 2.42% £ 4,680,028.06 £ 5,850.04 £ 110.60 1.93% £ 4,624,794.29 £ 5,780.99 £ 41.56 0.72% 2001 Haywood Village Academy 224 £ 911,535.77 £ 4,069.36 224 £ 950,878.85 £ 4,244.99 £ 175.64 4.32% £ 939,696.77 £ 4,195.07 £ 125.72 3.09% £ 933,372.14 £ 4,166.84 £ 97.48 2.40% £ 917,445.07 £ 4,095.74 £ 26.38 0.65% 3451 Herons' Moor Academy 408 £ 1,466,801.99 £ 3,595.10 408 £ 1,539,727.20 £ 3,773.84 £ 178.74 4.97% £ 1,539,727.20 £ 3,773.84 £ 178.74 4.97% £ 1,539,727.20 £ 3,773.84 £ 178.74 4.97% £ 1,539,727.20 £ 3,773.84 £ 178.74 4.97% 2254 High Down Infant School 247 £ 861,524.11 £ 3,487.95 247 £ 928,946.40 £ 3,760.92 £ 272.96 7.83% £ 928,946.40 £ 3,760.92 £ 272.96 7.83% £ 928,946.40 £ 3,760.92 £ 272.96 7.83% £ 928,946.40 £ 3,760.92 £ 272.96 7.83% 2263 High Down Junior School 416 £ 1,406,418.06 £ 3,380.81 416 £ 1,565,997.60 £ 3,764.42 £ 383.60 11.35% £ 1,565,997.60 £ 3,764.42 £ 383.60 11.35% £ 1,565,997.60 £ 3,764.42 £ 383.60 11.35% £ 1,565,997.60 £ 3,764.42 £ 383.60 11.35% 3116 Hutton Church of England Primary School 206 £ 792,601.60 £ 3,847.58 206 £ 824,085.64 £ 4,000.42 £ 152.84 3.97% £ 813,802.12 £ 3,950.50 £ 102.92 2.67% £ 807,985.72 £ 3,922.26 £ 74.68 1.94% £ 797,648.14 £ 3,872.08 £ 24.50 0.64% 2273 Kewstoke Primary School 80 £ 392,905.30 £ 4,911.32 80 £ 405,782.91 £ 5,072.29 £ 160.97 3.28% £ 401,789.31 £ 5,022.37 £ 111.05 2.26% £ 399,530.52 £ 4,994.13 £ 82.82 1.69% £ 394,941.02 £ 4,936.76 £ 25.45 0.52% 2000 Kingshill Church School 135 £ 595,087.37 £ 4,408.05 135 £ 603,853.03 £ 4,472.99 £ 64.93 1.47% £ 603,853.03 £ 4,472.99 £ 64.93 1.47% £ 603,853.03 £ 4,472.99 £ 64.93 1.47% £ 598,660.30 £ 4,434.52 £ 26.47 0.60% 2286 Locking Primary School 397 £ 1,410,631.76 £ 3,553.23 397 £ 1,493,341.40 £ 3,761.57 £ 208.34 5.86% £ 1,493,341.40 £ 3,761.57 £ 208.34 5.86% £ 1,493,341.40 £ 3,761.57 £ 208.34 5.86% £ 1,493,341.40 £ 3,761.57 £ 208.34 5.86% 2310 Mary Elton Primary School 403 £ 1,382,525.95 £ 3,430.59 403 £ 1,518,860.40 £ 3,768.88 £ 338.30 9.86% £ 1,518,860.40 £ 3,768.88 £ 338.30 9.86% £ 1,518,860.40 £ 3,768.88 £ 338.30 9.86% £ 1,518,860.40 £ 3,768.88 £ 338.30 9.86% 2009 Mead Vale Community Primary School 363 £ 1,378,700.64 £ 3,798.07 363 £ 1,439,471.32 £ 3,965.49 £ 167.41 4.41% £ 1,421,350.36 £ 3,915.57 £ 117.49 3.09% £ 1,411,101.07 £ 3,887.33 £ 89.26 2.35% £ 1,388,125.39 £ 3,824.04 £ 25.96 0.68% 2285 Mendip Green Primary School 635 £ 2,312,630.12 £ 3,641.94 641 £ 2,435,776.38 £ 3,800.95 £ 159.01 4.37% £ 2,413,305.80 £ 3,765.89 £ 123.95 3.40% £ 2,413,305.80 £ 3,765.89 £ 123.95 3.40% £ 2,413,305.80 £ 3,765.89 £ 123.95 3.40% 3454 Milton Park Primary School 375 £ 1,524,421.35 £ 4,065.12 375 £ 1,550,183.32 £ 4,133.82 £ 68.70 1.69% £ 1,550,183.32 £ 4,133.82 £ 68.70 1.69% £ 1,550,183.32 £ 4,133.82 £ 68.70 1.69% £ 1,534,888.93 £ 4,093.04 £ 27.91 0.69% 4137 Nailsea School 773 £ 3,681,307.31 £ 4,762.36 779 £ 3,911,018.97 £ 5,021.64 £ 259.27 5.44% £ 3,911,018.97 £ 5,021.64 £ 259.27 5.44% £ 3,911,018.97 £ 5,021.64 £ 259.27 5.44% £ 3,911,018.97 £ 5,021.64 £ 259.27 5.44% 4000 NSETC / Winterstoke Hundred 48.5 £ 405,042.01 £ 8,351.38 53 £ 430,631.03 £ 8,202.50 £ (148.89) -1.78% £ 430,631.03 £ 8,202.50 £ (148.89) -1.78% £ 430,631.03 £ 8,202.50 £ (148.89) -1.78% £ 427,682.32 £ 8,146.33 £ (205.05) -2.46% 3095 Northleaze Church of England Primary School 209 £ 755,781.88 £ 3,616.18 209 £ 789,253.27 £ 3,776.33 £ 160.15 4.43% £ 789,042.00 £ 3,775.32 £ 159.14 4.40% £ 789,042.00 £ 3,775.32 £ 159.14 4.40% £ 789,042.00 £ 3,775.32 £ 159.14 4.40% 2287 Oldmixon Primary School 194 £ 944,242.02 £ 4,867.23 194 £ 959,391.80 £ 4,945.32 £ 78.09 1.60% £ 959,391.80 £ 4,945.32 £ 78.09 1.60% £ 959,391.80 £ 4,945.32 £ 78.09 1.60% £ 950,417.18 £ 4,899.06 £ 31.83 0.65% 2006 Parklands Educate Together Primary 26.5 £ 208,812.32 £ 7,879.71 44 £ 259,305.70 £ 5,893.31 £ (1,986.40) -25.21% £ 257,109.22 £ 5,843.39 £ (2,036.32) -25.84% £ 255,866.88 £ 5,815.16 £ (2,064.55) -26.20% £ 252,283.74 £ 5,733.72 £ (2,145.99) -27.23% 2252 Portishead Primary School 453 £ 1,493,533.20 £ 3,296.98 453 £ 1,708,074.00 £ 3,770.58 £ 473.60 14.36% £ 1,708,074.00 £ 3,770.58 £ 473.60 14.36% £ 1,708,074.00 £ 3,770.58 £ 473.60 14.36% £ 1,708,074.00 £ 3,770.58 £ 473.60 14.36% 4143 Priory Community School 1327 £ 6,541,725.91 £ 4,929.71 1327 £ 6,751,363.46 £ 5,087.69 £ 157.98 3.20% £ 6,685,119.62 £ 5,037.77 £ 108.06 2.19% £ 6,678,848.00 £ 5,033.04 £ 103.33 2.10% £ 6,678,848.00 £ 5,033.04 £ 103.33 2.10% 2283 Sandford Primary School 145 £ 577,912.35 £ 3,985.60 145 £ 602,774.66 £ 4,157.07 £ 171.46 4.30% £ 595,536.26 £ 4,107.15 £ 121.54 3.05% £ 591,442.19 £ 4,078.91 £ 93.31 2.34% £ 581,260.17 £ 4,008.69 £ 23.09 0.58% 3114 St Andrew's Primary School 227 £ 907,292.16 £ 3,996.88 227 £ 946,092.55 £ 4,167.81 £ 170.93 4.28% £ 934,760.71 £ 4,117.89 £ 121.01 3.03% £ 928,351.38 £ 4,089.65 £ 92.77 2.32% £ 913,025.99 £ 4,022.14 £ 25.26 0.63% 3115 St Anne's Church Academy 357.5 £ 1,312,068.77 £ 3,670.12 340 £ 1,334,602.20 £ 3,925.30 £ 255.18 6.95% £ 1,334,602.20 £ 3,925.30 £ 255.18 6.95% £ 1,334,602.20 £ 3,925.30 £ 255.18 6.95% £ 1,334,602.20 £ 3,925.30 £ 255.18 6.95% 3350 St Francis Catholic Primary School 181 £ 660,069.11 £ 3,646.79 181 £ 689,247.40 £ 3,808.00 £ 161.21 4.42% £ 682,479.60 £ 3,770.61 £ 123.81 3.40% £ 682,479.60 £ 3,770.61 £ 123.81 3.40% £ 682,479.60 £ 3,770.61 £ 123.81 3.40% 2005 St Georges Church School 210 £ 820,227.85 £ 3,905.85 210 £ 855,907.89 £ 4,075.75 £ 169.90 4.35% £ 845,424.69 £ 4,025.83 £ 119.98 3.07% £ 839,495.36 £ 3,997.60 £ 91.75 2.35% £ 825,461.41 £ 3,930.77 £ 24.92 0.64% 3450 St John the Evangelist Church School 303 £ 1,076,244.83 £ 3,551.96 303 £ 1,142,550.00 £ 3,770.79 £ 218.83 6.16% £ 1,142,550.00 £ 3,770.79 £ 218.83 6.16% £ 1,142,550.00 £ 3,770.79 £ 218.83 6.16% £ 1,142,550.00 £ 3,770.79 £ 218.83 6.16% 3349 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School 203 £ 765,099.52 £ 3,768.96 203 £ 798,944.67 £ 3,935.69 £ 166.72 4.42% £ 788,810.91 £ 3,885.77 £ 116.80 3.10% £ 783,079.22 £ 3,857.53 £ 88.57 2.35% £ 769,952.88 £ 3,792.87 £ 23.91 0.63% 4144 St Katherine's School 725 £ 3,748,794.38 £ 5,170.75 725 £ 3,870,183.22 £ 5,338.18 £ 167.43 3.24% £ 3,833,991.22 £ 5,288.26 £ 117.51 2.27% £ 3,815,084.74 £ 5,262.19 £ 91.43 1.77% £ 3,775,814.90 £ 5,208.02 £ 37.27 0.72% 3447 St Mark's Ecumenical Anglican/Methodist Primary School 434 £ 1,552,320.18 £ 3,576.77 434 £ 1,635,362.40 £ 3,768.12 £ 191.34 5.35% £ 1,635,362.40 £ 3,768.12 £ 191.34 5.35% £ 1,635,362.40 £ 3,768.12 £ 191.34 5.35% £ 1,635,362.40 £ 3,768.12 £ 191.34 5.35% 3118 St Martin's Church of England Primary School 528 £ 1,932,046.36 £ 3,659.18 528 £ 2,017,200.72 £ 3,820.46 £ 161.28 4.41% £ 1,990,842.96 £ 3,770.54 £ 111.36 3.04% £ 1,987,912.80 £ 3,764.99 £ 105.81 2.89% £ 1,987,912.80 £ 3,764.99 £ 105.81 2.89% 3446 St Mary's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Portbury 113 £ 466,240.60 £ 4,126.02 113 £ 481,569.20 £ 4,261.67 £ 135.65 3.29% £ 475,928.24 £ 4,211.75 £ 85.73 2.08% £ 472,737.69 £ 4,183.52 £ 57.50 1.39% £ 468,848.70 £ 4,149.10 £ 23.08 0.56% 3129 St Nicholas Chantry Church of England Primary School 386 £ 1,314,711.50 £ 3,405.99 386 £ 1,454,001.60 £ 3,766.84 £ 360.86 10.59% £ 1,454,001.60 £ 3,766.84 £ 360.86 10.59% £ 1,454,001.60 £ 3,766.84 £ 360.86 10.59% £ 1,454,001.60 £ 3,766.84 £ 360.86 10.59% 3099 St Peter's Church of England Primary School 584 £ 1,925,816.00 £ 3,297.63 584 £ 2,202,499.20 £ 3,771.40 £ 473.77 14.37% £ 2,202,499.20 £ 3,771.40 £ 473.77 14.37% £ 2,202,499.20 £ 3,771.40 £ 473.77 14.37% £ 2,202,499.20 £ 3,771.40 £ 473.77 14.37% 2003 Tickenham Church of England Primary School 101 £ 422,800.53 £ 4,186.14 101 £ 437,857.87 £ 4,335.23 £ 149.08 3.56% £ 432,815.95 £ 4,285.31 £ 99.16 2.37% £ 429,964.22 £ 4,257.07 £ 70.93 1.69% £ 425,093.69 £ 4,208.85 £ 22.70 0.54% 3452 Trinity Anglican-Methodist Primary School 442 £ 1,493,733.79 £ 3,379.49 442 £ 1,669,293.60 £ 3,776.68 £ 397.19 11.75% £ 1,669,293.60 £ 3,776.68 £ 397.19 11.75% £ 1,669,293.60 £ 3,776.68 £ 397.19 11.75% £ 1,669,293.60 £ 3,776.68 £ 397.19 11.75% 2276 Uphill Primary School 311 £ 1,155,147.03 £ 3,714.30 311 £ 1,205,438.47 £ 3,876.01 £ 161.71 4.35% £ 1,189,913.35 £ 3,826.09 £ 111.79 3.01% £ 1,185,767.25 £ 3,812.76 £ 98.46 2.65% £ 1,185,767.25 £ 3,812.76 £ 98.46 2.65% 2316 Walliscote Primary School 271 £ 1,228,290.83 £ 4,532.44 271 £ 1,281,148.88 £ 4,727.49 £ 195.05 4.30% £ 1,267,620.56 £ 4,677.57 £ 145.13 3.20% £ 1,259,968.89 £ 4,649.33 £ 116.89 2.58% £ 1,237,899.99 £ 4,567.90 £ 35.46 0.78% 2264 West Leigh Infant School 164 £ 616,097.34 £ 3,756.69 164 £ 626,028.06 £ 3,817.24 £ 60.55 1.61% £ 625,250.05 £ 3,812.50 £ 55.81 1.49% £ 625,250.05 £ 3,812.50 £ 55.81 1.49% £ 619,828.03 £ 3,779.44 £ 22.75 0.61% 2280 Windwhistle Primary School 372 £ 1,931,448.59 £ 5,192.07 372 £ 1,956,488.91 £ 5,259.38 £ 67.31 1.30% £ 1,956,488.91 £ 5,259.38 £ 67.31 1.30% £ 1,956,488.91 £ 5,259.38 £ 67.31 1.30% £ 1,936,818.29 £ 5,206.50 £ 14.43 0.28% 3108 Winford Church of England Primary School 197 £ 770,772.83 £ 3,912.55 197 £ 764,991.28 £ 3,883.20 £ (29.35) -0.75% £ 755,157.04 £ 3,833.28 £ (79.27) -2.03% £ 749,594.75 £ 3,805.05 £ (107.50) -2.75% £ 736,675.00 £ 3,739.47 £ (173.09) -4.42% 2284 Winscombe Primary School 213 £ 805,517.31 £ 3,781.77 213 £ 840,355.52 £ 3,945.33 £ 163.56 4.32% £ 829,722.56 £ 3,895.41 £ 113.64 3.00% £ 823,708.52 £ 3,867.18 £ 85.40 2.26% £ 820,108.50 £ 3,850.27 £ 68.50 1.81% 4001 Worle Community School 1390 £ 7,040,789.19 £ 5,065.32 1390 £ 7,267,697.90 £ 5,228.56 £ 163.24 3.22% £ 7,198,309.10 £ 5,178.64 £ 113.32 2.24% £ 7,167,554.89 £ 5,156.51 £ 91.20 1.80% £ 7,092,459.99 £ 5,102.49 £ 37.17 0.73% 2292 Worle Village Primary School 198 £ 770,410.41 £ 3,890.96 198 £ 805,149.94 £ 4,066.41 £ 175.45 4.51% £ 795,265.78 £ 4,016.49 £ 125.53 3.23% £ 789,675.27 £ 3,988.26 £ 97.30 2.50% £ 776,158.51 £ 3,919.99 £ 29.03 0.75% 3352 Worlebury St Paul's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 205 £ 759,610.80 £ 3,705.42 205 £ 792,348.96 £ 3,865.12 £ 159.70 4.31% £ 782,115.36 £ 3,815.20 £ 109.78 2.96% £ 776,327.19 £ 3,786.96 £ 81.54 2.20% £ 770,917.20 £ 3,760.57 £ 55.15 1.49% 3348 Wraxall Church of England Primary School 93 £ 414,340.21 £ 4,455.27 93 £ 421,474.71 £ 4,531.99 £ 76.72 1.72% £ 419,805.16 £ 4,514.03 £ 58.76 1.32% £ 419,805.16 £ 4,514.03 £ 58.76 1.32% £ 416,567.74 £ 4,479.22 £ 23.95 0.54% 3119 Wrington Church of England Primary School 199 £ 730,087.30 £ 3,668.78 199 £ 762,110.43 £ 3,829.70 £ 160.92 4.39% £ 756,806.50 £ 3,803.05 £ 134.27 3.66% £ 756,806.50 £ 3,803.05 £ 134.27 3.66% £ 756,806.50 £ 3,803.05 £ 134.27 3.66% 3111 Yatton Church of England Junior School 347 £ 1,209,476.85 £ 3,485.52 347 £ 1,305,835.97 £ 3,763.22 £ 277.69 7.97% £ 1,305,835.97 £ 3,763.22 £ 277.69 7.97% £ 1,305,835.97 £ 3,763.22 £ 277.69 7.97% £ 1,305,835.97 £ 3,763.22 £ 277.69 7.97% 3120 Yatton Infant School 240 £ 870,063.92 £ 3,625.27 240 £ 908,559.16 £ 3,785.66 £ 160.40 4.42% £ 901,663.31 £ 3,756.93 £ 131.66 3.63% £ 901,663.31 £ 3,756.93 £ 131.66 3.63% £ 901,663.31 £ 3,756.93 £ 131.66 3.63% 2002 Yeo Moor Primary School 384 £ 1,402,698.16 £ 3,652.86 384 £ 1,464,630.89 £ 3,814.14 £ 161.28 4.42% £ 1,445,796.00 £ 3,765.09 £ 112.23 3.07% £ 1,445,796.00 £ 3,765.09 £ 112.23 3.07% £ 1,445,796.00 £ 3,765.09 £ 112.23 3.07% Total 28,186 £120,069,447.36 28,236 £126,854,687.24 £126,213,628.95 £125,957,151.25 £125,316,578.95
* New classes opening from September 2020 shown as 7/12s of pupil numbers ie 30 /12*7 = 17.5 pupils
Produced by the Education Funding team FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-21 SCHOOLS CONSULTATION - OPTIONS - FUNDING RATES
OPTION 1 - OPTION 2 - OPTION 3 - EXAMPLE - 2020-21 £0.6m £0.9m £1.5m £2.1m (1.65%) Baseline transfer from transfer from transfer to 2019-20 trasf er from Funding factor Position using Schools block Schools block Schools Block Funding Schools block to 2020-21 NFF to High Needs to High Needs to High Needs High Needs block Criteria block & block & block & & 0.5% MFG 1.84% MFG 1.84% MFG 0.75% MFG Basic Entitlement Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU)
Primary (Years R-6) 2,794.47 2,922.11 2,872.19 2,843.96 2,762.52 0.00
Secondary Key Stage 3 (Years 7-9) 3,927.12 4,054.76 4,004.84 3,976.61 3,895.17 0.00 Secondary Key Stage 4 (Years 10-11) 4,457.92 4,585.55 4,535.63 4,507.40 4,425.97 0.00
Deprivation
Primary FSM 446.31 456.57 456.57 456.57 456.57 456.57 Primary FSM6 547.74 568.17 568.17 568.17 568.17 568.17
Secondary FSM 446.31 456.57 456.57 456.57 456.57 456.57 Secondary FSM6 796.25 826.89 826.89 826.89 826.89 826.89
Primary IDACI Band F 202.87 213.06 213.06 213.06 213.06 213.06 Primary IDACI Band E 243.44 253.65 253.65 253.65 253.65 253.65 Primary IDACI Band D 365.16 380.47 380.47 380.47 380.47 380.47 Primary IDACI Band C 395.59 410.91 410.91 410.91 410.91 410.91 Primary IDACI Band B 426.02 441.35 441.35 441.35 441.35 441.35 Primary IDACI Band A 583.24 608.75 608.75 608.75 608.75 608.75
Secondary IDACI Band F 294.16 304.38 304.38 304.38 304.38 304.38 Secondary IDACI Band E 395.59 410.91 410.91 410.91 410.91 410.91 Secondary IDACI Band D 522.38 542.81 542.81 542.81 542.81 542.81 Secondary IDACI Band C 568.02 588.46 588.46 588.46 588.46 588.46 Secondary IDACI Band B 608.60 634.12 634.12 634.12 634.12 634.12 Secondary IDACI Band A 821.61 852.26 852.26 852.26 852.26 852.26
English as an Additional Language (EAL)
Primary 522.38 542.81 542.81 542.81 542.81 542.81 Secondary 1,404.85 1,461.01 1,461.01 1,461.01 1,461.01 1,461.01
Prior Attainment
Primary Low attainment 1,036.65 1,080.54 1,080.54 1,080.54 1,080.54 1,080.54 Secondary low attainment 1,572.21 1,633.49 1,633.49 1,633.49 1,633.49 1,633.49
Lump sum 111,576.30 116,069.10 116,069.10 116,069.10 116,069.10 111,576.30
Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG ) n/a 1.84% 1.84% 1.84% 0.75% 0.50%
Minimum Funding per pupil Primary 3,750.00 3,750.00 3,750.00 3,750.00 3,726.26 KS3 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,776.26 KS4 5,300.00 5,300.00 5,300.00 5,300.00 5,276.26 Secondary 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 4,976.26
Produced by the Education Funding team FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-21 SCHOOLS CONSULTATION - OPTIONS - FACTOR SPEND
EXAMPLE - OPTION 1 - OPTION 2 - OPTION 3 - £2.1m (1.65% ) 2020-21 £0.6m transfer £0.9m transfer £1.5m transfer trasf er from Baseline Position from Schools from Schools to Schools Block Funding factor 2019-20 Funding Schools block to using 2020-21 block to High block to High to High Needs High Needs NFF Criteria Needs block & Needs block & block & 0.75% block & 0.5% 1.84% MFG 1.84% MFG MFG MFG Basic Entitlement Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU)
Primary (Years R-6) £47,497,607 £49,786,475 £48,935,947 £48,454,969 £47,067,408 £0 Secondary Key Stage 3 (Years 7-9) £27,121,637 £28,235,017 £27,887,403 £27,690,825 £27,123,725 £0 Secondary Key Stage 4 (Years 10-11) £19,077,247 £19,419,455 £19,208,048 £19,088,496 £18,743,604 £0
Deprivation
Free School Meals (FSM) £1,196,453 £1,226,567 £1,226,567 £1,226,567 £1,226,567 £1,226,567 Free School Meals Ever 6 (FSM6) £3,373,918 £3,507,664 £3,507,664 £3,507,664 £3,507,664 £3,507,664
IDACI Band F £302,722 £316,074 £316,074 £316,074 £316,074 £316,074 IDACI Band E £430,577 £448,000 £448,000 £448,000 £448,000 £448,000 IDACI Band D £517,078 £538,253 £538,253 £538,253 £538,253 £538,253 IDACI Band C £89,811 £93,123 £93,123 £93,123 £93,123 £93,123 IDACI Band B £986,834 £1,025,804 £1,025,804 £1,025,804 £1,025,804 £1,025,804 IDACI Band A £549,804 £572,465 £572,465 £572,465 £572,465 £572,465
English as an Additional Language (EAL)
Primary £364,713 £379,684 £379,684 £379,684 £379,684 £379,684 Secondary £164,509 £171,185 £171,185 £171,185 £171,185 £171,185
Prior Attainment
Primary Low attainment £4,885,979 £5,104,508 £5,104,508 £5,104,508 £5,104,508 £5,104,508 Secondary low attainment £3,496,256 £3,615,718 £3,615,718 £3,615,718 £3,615,718 £3,615,718
Lump sum £8,256,646 £8,656,820 £8,656,820 £8,656,820 £8,656,820 £8,321,732
Business rates ( based on estimates ) £886,050 £835,385 £835,385 £835,385 £835,385 £835,385
Premises & Split sites based on 2019-20 £81,380 £81,380 £81,380 £81,380 £81,380 £81,380
Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG ) £737,309 £509,956 £611,800 £683,994 £911,024 £4,618,662
Additional funding to meet Minimum Funding per pupil £54,418 £2,331,211 £2,997,850 £3,466,292 £4,898,190 £93,881,937
Deduction through capping & scaling factors applied -£1,501 n/a n/a n/a n/a £0
Total £120,069,446 £126,854,744 £126,213,678 £125,957,206 £125,316,581 £124,738,141
Produced by the Education Funding team October 2018 Census EXAMPLE - £2.1m, (1.65%) transfer to Schools Block to 2019-20 Baseline Position using 2019-20 data High Needs block, 0.5% MFG , Gains capped at 0.5% Criteria, rates & MFG updated and £111,576 Lump sum for new classes
% Change in per DFE School NOR Post MFG Budget Per Pupil NOR * Post MFG Budget Per Pupil change pupil funding per pupil
3122 All Saints East Clevedon Church of England Primary School 115 £482,265.76 £4,193.62 115 £ 480,815.03 £ 4,181.00 £ (12.62) -0.30% 2277 Ashcombe Primary School 627 £2,347,824.45 £3,744.54 627 £ 2,366,911.85 £ 3,774.98 £ 30.44 0.81% 3075 Backwell Church of England Junior School 230 £812,184.93 £3,531.24 230 £ 859,937.80 £ 3,738.86 £ 207.62 5.88% 4129 Backwell School 1389 £6,364,371.60 £4,581.98 1389 £ 6,947,557.14 £ 5,001.84 £ 419.86 9.16% 2271 Banwell Primary School 185 £772,709.10 £4,176.81 185 £ 775,928.18 £ 4,194.21 £ 17.40 0.42% 2319 Becket Primary School 202 £904,783.79 £4,479.13 202 £ 908,726.72 £ 4,498.65 £ 19.52 0.44% 2262 Birdwell Primary School 387 £1,316,468.99 £3,401.73 387 £ 1,451,386.62 £ 3,750.35 £ 348.62 10.25% 2272 Blagdon Primary School 110 £476,487.05 £4,331.70 110 £ 471,548.45 £ 4,286.80 £ (44.90) -1.04% 3455 Bournville Primary School 411 £2,136,382.20 £5,198.01 411 £ 2,149,036.76 £ 5,228.80 £ 30.79 0.59% 4142 Broadoak Mathematics and Computing College 861 £4,688,670.65 £5,445.61 861 £ 4,701,968.76 £ 5,461.06 £ 15.44 0.28% 3351 Burrington Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 68 £325,423.39 £4,785.64 68 £ 326,455.42 £ 4,800.81 £ 15.18 0.32% 2332 Castle Batch Primary School Academy 436 £1,566,483.41 £3,592.85 436 £ 1,630,596.56 £ 3,739.90 £ 147.05 4.09% 1111 Chestnut Park Primary School 0 £0.00 £0.00 35 £ 132,919.10 £ 3,797.69 £ - 0.00% 3117 Christ Church Church of England Primary School 202 £897,038.97 £4,440.79 202 £ 902,466.57 £ 4,467.66 £ 26.87 0.61% 4139 Churchill Academy & Sixth Form 1256 £5,943,989.47 £4,732.48 1256 £ 6,291,064.53 £ 5,008.81 £ 276.33 5.84% 3113 Churchill Church of England Primary School 186 £722,566.44 £3,884.77 186 £ 725,509.07 £ 3,900.59 £ 15.82 0.41% 4136 Clevedon School 1071 £5,076,360.02 £4,739.83 1071 £ 5,365,358.46 £ 5,009.67 £ 269.84 5.69% 3354 Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School 204 £823,178.79 £4,035.19 204 £ 826,716.64 £ 4,052.53 £ 17.34 0.43% 3121 Court-De-Wyck Church School 130 £539,009.51 £4,146.23 130 £ 541,135.03 £ 4,162.58 £ 16.35 0.39% 3130 Crockerne Church of England Primary School 291 £1,098,283.42 £3,774.17 291 £ 1,102,408.82 £ 3,788.35 £ 14.18 0.38% 2007 Dundry Church of England Primary School 78 £412,311.78 £5,286.05 78 £ 413,810.24 £ 5,305.26 £ 19.21 0.36% 3091 Flax Bourton Church of England Primary School 159 £609,977.69 £3,836.34 159 £ 615,729.90 £ 3,872.52 £ 36.18 0.94% 2295 Golden Valley Primary School 405 £1,413,097.30 £3,489.13 405 £ 1,539,627.30 £ 3,801.55 £ 312.42 8.95% 4135 Gordano School 1548 £7,153,848.62 £4,621.35 1548 £ 7,754,658.48 £ 5,009.47 £ 388.12 8.40% 2261 Grove Junior School 231 £842,054.43 £3,645.26 231 £ 864,798.06 £ 3,743.71 £ 98.46 2.70% 2268 Hannah More Infant School 160 £605,768.70 £3,786.05 160 £ 608,225.24 £ 3,801.41 £ 15.35 0.41% 4145 Hans Price Academy 800 £4,591,549.49 £5,739.44 800 £ 4,613,735.15 £ 5,767.17 £ 27.73 0.48% 2001 Haywood Village Academy 224 £911,535.77 £4,069.36 224 £ 915,497.77 £ 4,087.04 £ 17.69 0.43% 3451 Herons' Moor Academy 408 £1,466,801.99 £3,595.10 408 £ 1,530,041.28 £ 3,750.10 £ 155.00 4.31% 2254 High Down Infant School 247 £861,524.11 £3,487.95 247 £ 923,082.62 £ 3,737.18 £ 249.22 7.15% 2263 High Down Junior School 416 £1,406,418.06 £3,380.81 416 £ 1,556,121.76 £ 3,740.68 £ 359.86 10.64% 3116 Hutton Church of England Primary School 206 £792,601.60 £3,847.58 206 £ 795,988.40 £ 3,864.02 £ 16.44 0.43% 2273 Kewstoke Primary School 80 £392,905.30 £4,911.32 80 £ 394,284.89 £ 4,928.56 £ 17.24 0.35% 2000 Kingshill Church School 135 £595,087.37 £4,408.05 135 £ 597,491.77 £ 4,425.86 £ 17.81 0.40% 2286 Locking Primary School 397 £1,410,631.76 £3,553.23 397 £ 1,483,916.62 £ 3,737.83 £ 184.60 5.20% 2310 Mary Elton Primary School 403 £1,382,525.95 £3,430.59 403 £ 1,509,293.18 £ 3,745.14 £ 314.56 9.17% 2009 Mead Vale Community Primary School 363 £1,378,700.64 £3,798.07 363 £ 1,385,006.27 £ 3,815.44 £ 17.37 0.46% 2285 Mendip Green Primary School 635 £2,312,630.12 £3,641.94 640.8333 £ 2,398,092.42 £ 3,742.15 £ 100.21 2.75% 3454 Milton Park Primary School 375 £1,524,421.35 £4,065.12 375 £ 1,531,403.50 £ 4,083.74 £ 18.62 0.46% 4137 Nailsea School 773 £3,681,307.31 £4,762.36 778.8333 £ 3,892,529.46 £ 4,997.90 £ 235.53 4.95% 4000 North Somerset Enterprise and Technology College 48.5 £405,042.01 £8,351.38 52.5 £ 427,400.87 £ 8,140.97 £ (210.41) -2.52% 3095 Northleaze Church of England Primary School 209 £755,781.88 £3,616.18 209 £ 784,080.34 £ 3,751.58 £ 135.40 3.74% 2287 Oldmixon Primary School 194 £944,242.02 £4,867.23 194 £ 948,381.24 £ 4,888.56 £ 21.34 0.44% 2006 Parklands Educate Together Primary 26.5 £208,812.32 £7,879.71 44 £ 249,083.73 £ 5,660.99 £ (2,218.72) -28.16% 2252 Portishead Primary School 453 £1,493,533.20 £3,296.98 453 £ 1,697,319.78 £ 3,746.84 £ 449.86 13.64% 4143 Priory Community School 1327 £6,541,725.91 £4,929.71 1327 £ 6,647,345.02 £ 5,009.30 £ 79.59 1.61% 2283 Sandford Primary School 145 £577,912.35 £3,985.60 145 £ 580,166.70 £ 4,001.15 £ 15.55 0.39% 3114 St Andrew's Primary School 227 £907,292.16 £3,996.88 227 £ 911,137.17 £ 4,013.82 £ 16.94 0.42% 3115 St Anne's Church Academy 357.5 £1,312,068.77 £3,670.12 340 £ 1,326,530.60 £ 3,901.56 £ 231.44 6.31% 3350 St Francis Catholic Primary School 181 £660,069.11 £3,646.79 181 £ 678,182.66 £ 3,746.87 £ 100.07 2.74% 2005 St Georges Church School 210 £820,227.85 £3,905.85 210 £ 823,739.35 £ 3,922.57 £ 16.72 0.43% 3450 St John the Evangelist Church School 303 £1,076,244.83 £3,551.96 303 £ 1,135,356.78 £ 3,747.05 £ 195.09 5.49% 3349 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School 203 £765,099.52 £3,768.96 203 £ 768,357.56 £ 3,785.01 £ 16.05 0.43% 4144 St Katherine's School 725 £3,748,794.38 £5,170.75 725 £ 3,766,830.52 £ 5,195.63 £ 24.88 0.48% 3447 St Mark's Ecumenical Anglican/Methodist Primary School 434 £1,552,320.18 £3,576.77 434 £ 1,625,059.24 £ 3,744.38 £ 167.60 4.69% 3118 St Martin's Church of England Primary School 528 £1,932,046.36 £3,659.18 528 £ 1,975,378.08 £ 3,741.25 £ 82.07 2.24% 3446 St Mary's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Portbury 113 £466,240.60 £4,126.02 113 £ 468,001.78 £ 4,141.61 £ 15.59 0.38% 3129 St Nicholas Chantry Church of England Primary School 386 £1,314,711.50 £3,405.99 386 £ 1,444,837.96 £ 3,743.10 £ 337.12 9.90% 3099 St Peter's Church of England Primary School 584 £1,925,816.00 £3,297.63 584 £ 2,188,635.04 £ 3,747.66 £ 450.03 13.65% 2003 Tickenham Church of England Primary School 101 £422,800.53 £4,186.14 101 £ 424,351.74 £ 4,201.50 £ 15.36 0.37% 3452 Trinity Anglican-Methodist Primary School 442 £1,493,733.79 £3,379.49 442 £ 1,658,800.52 £ 3,752.94 £ 373.45 11.05% 2276 Uphill Primary School 311 £1,155,147.03 £3,714.30 311 £ 1,178,384.11 £ 3,789.02 £ 74.72 2.01% 2316 Walliscote Primary School 271 £1,228,290.83 £4,532.44 271 £ 1,233,855.38 £ 4,552.97 £ 20.53 0.45% 2264 West Leigh Infant School 164 £616,097.34 £3,756.69 164 £ 618,606.91 £ 3,771.99 £ 15.30 0.41% 2280 Windwhistle Primary School 372 £1,931,448.59 £5,192.07 372 £ 1,932,329.15 £ 5,194.43 £ 2.37 0.05% 3108 Winford Church of England Primary School 197 £770,772.83 £3,912.55 197 £ 735,121.78 £ 3,731.58 £ (180.97) -4.63% 2284 Winscombe Primary School 213 £805,517.31 £3,781.77 213 £ 815,051.88 £ 3,826.53 £ 44.76 1.18% 4001 Worle Community School 1390 £7,040,789.19 £5,065.32 1390 £ 7,075,258.85 £ 5,090.11 £ 24.80 0.49% 2292 Worle Village Primary School 198 £770,410.41 £3,890.96 198 £ 774,550.54 £ 3,911.87 £ 20.91 0.54% 3352 Worlebury St Paul's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 205 £759,610.80 £3,705.42 205 £ 766,050.50 £ 3,736.83 £ 31.41 0.85% 3348 Wraxall Church of England Primary School 93 £414,340.21 £4,455.27 93 £ 415,847.68 £ 4,471.48 £ 16.21 0.36% 3119 Wrington Church of England Primary School 199 £730,087.30 £3,668.78 199 £ 752,082.24 £ 3,779.31 £ 110.53 3.01% 3111 Yatton Church of England Junior School 347 £1,209,476.85 £3,485.52 347 £ 1,297,598.19 £ 3,739.48 £ 253.95 7.29% 3120 Yatton Infant School 240 £870,063.92 £3,625.27 240 £ 895,965.71 £ 3,733.19 £ 107.92 2.98% 2002 Yeo Moor Primary School 384 £1,402,698.16 £3,652.86 384 £ 1,436,679.84 £ 3,741.35 £ 88.49 2.42% Total 28,186 £120,069,447 £4,260 28,236 £ 124,738,141.25
Produced by the Education Funding team Strategic Schools Forum -4 2nd October 2019
Agenda Item No. 9
Specialist and Alternative Provision (AP) Review Update and Proposal for Early Intervention
Wendy Packer
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
1
REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE OF MEETING: 2ND OCTOBER 2019
SUBJECT OF REPORT: SPECIALIST AND AP REVIEW UPDATE AND PROPOSAL FOR PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION
OFFICER/MEMBER PRESENTING: EDUCATION INCLUSION SERVICE LEAD AND VIRTUAL SCHOOL HEADTEACHER …WENDY PACKER
KEY DECISION: YES
RECOMMENDATIONS
i. SSF note the progress to date of the new developments resulting from the Specialist and AP Review
ii. SSF agrees to formally support and become engaged with the Baytree Special School consultation as outlined below
iii. SSF agrees to the future funding of a centrally held Prevention and Early Intervention Team, which would sit within the Education Inclusion Service (EIS).
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to:
1.1. Inform SSF of the progress, which has been made in relation to each of the projects resulting from the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review
1.2. Ask the SSF to formally support and become openly engaged with the progression of the consultations - planning and school based- to secure the expansion of Baytree Special School from 72 to 120 places and the associated delivery of a 2nd site at Brookfield Walk, Clevedon to be in place by September 2021.
1.3. Demonstrate the need for the re-establishment of a centrally held proactive, preventative and early intervention service, which would work with schools to support identified individuals, groups of students and families. The report also highlights the potential benefits of an increase in centrally held resources for re-engagement work.
2
2. SUMMARY OF REPORT
2.1. As a direct result of the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review commissioned in 2017, the Local Authority and schools’ community has been working together to implement the recommendations. There are 4 pillars to the new model of provision: Outreach; Resource Centres attached to mainstream schools for High Functioning ASD students; the Pupil Referral Unit (Voyage Learning Campus) currently focusing on permanently excluded (PEX) individuals and tuition and a new Social, Emotion and Mental Health Free School proposed for 2020/21. The development of these provisions is the focus of on-going partnership working and this paper will highlight the positive progress in each of these areas.
2.2. In addition to the above, the Inclusion Panel has been working closely with schools to reduce the number of individual students who are being either fixed-term or permanently excluded. Schools can ask for advice and guidance from the Inclusion Panel for students who are presenting with challenging behaviours. Following on from this there has been an increased use of Managed Moves and at an earlier stage, when there is a greater chance of a “fresh start” in a new school being successful.
2.3. The number of individual students displaying complex behaviours is increasing. This, coupled with concerns regarding the future reduction in Top Up Funding and the loss of nearly all forms of centrally held intervention services, means that many schools are struggling to meet the needs of some individuals and manage their behaviours. There has been an increase in the number of PEX students, with the consequence that the VLC has been at capacity for some of the last year or itself has struggled to match the needs of the most challenging students, who may have been placed there.
2.4. The direct consequence of a lack of preventative, early intervention is that behaviours are escalating to the scale where they are often difficult to manage without additional provision having to be found. The nature of the alternative provision can be very expensive and often is not a match for the exact needs of the individual young people.
3
3. DETAIL
SPECIALIST AND ALTERNATIVE \PROVISION REVIEW PROJECT UPDATE
Specific Learning Disability and High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD)
3.1. As SSF will be aware, schools were asked in November 2018 to notify the Local Authority of their Expressions of Interest to have Resource Bases for pupils with High Functioning ASD on their sites. Up to £260,161 from the Specialist Provisions Fund in 2019/20 is to be allocated across up to three Good and Outstanding schools to assist with the capital expenses of creating new hubs to enable children and young people with Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) between the ages of 3-14 to attend an ASD Resource Base attached to a mainstream school.
3.2. The Specialist Provisions Hub funding can be used to expand existing provision, including at the same or a different site; adjust provision to make available space for additional places; and/or create new places.
3.3. Progress is as listed below:
a. Secondary Provision: The Regional Schools Commissioner approved the creation of a Resource Base at Nailsea School on 10 June 2019. The base will open for up to 10 pupils across the years 7 – 9 cohorts on 1 September 2020. Whilst structural work to the site is still being procured, the school have progressed internal adaptations to both the physical and organisational capacity of their school to create a permanent Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Specific Learning Difficulty (SPLD - Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Attention Deficit Disorder/ Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder, Dyscalculia and Dysgraphia) facility. The second phase of capital changes will take place across the 2019/20 school year and in the summer break of 2020 if still needed.
b. Primary Provision: the LA is continuing to work with two primary academy schools hoping to create High Functioning and Autism Resource Bases for up to 5 pupils each, one in the north and one in the south of the district. The LA is working with these schools to develop their applications, so they can progress to the consultation and RSC approval stages, if appropriate, from the autumn 2020 onwards
c. The Council has agreed to include a budget of £275,161 into its capital programme for 2019/20. This includes the 2019/20 Special Provisions Fund allocation of £260,161 plus a £15,000 contribution from the Council’s Basic Need allocation 2019/20. This total budget has been made available to assist these three academies in making the alterations necessary to their sites. The schemes will be overseen by the Council but procured and delivered directly by the academies.
4
d. Social Emotional Mental Health – Wave 13 Bid Progress: The Department for Education announced on 11 March 2019 that North Somerset’s bid to establish a new special school within its area can be progressed to the next stage of the process – the trust competition stage. Details of North Somerset’s specification for the new school was added, as requested, to the Council’s website on 19 March 2019. The bid specification provides necessary information for potential trust sponsors and includes details of a possible site for the new Social Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) school.
The LA met with potential sponsors on Wednesday 8 May 2019. Eight MATs attended the event. The enthusiasm to work with North Somerset to create both the new school and professional support for existing school and other providers was encouraging. Potential trusts have until 30 September 2019 to submit applications to the DfE to run the school. Potential sponsors are likely to hear if they can progress through to an interview stage by the end of 2019.
As a Free School the DfE will be responsible for delivering the new school buildings. They have, with other schemes, asked the Local Authority to pay for any ‘abnormal’ costs, the value of which is currently unknown. e. Expansion of the age range of Westhaven Special School to include infant-aged pupils: There is a projected increase in demand for special school places for pupils with Complex Learning Difficulties due to demographic growth and an increase in the numbers of pupils with these learning characteristics. The 2017/18 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision (SEND and AP) Review acknowledged the growing number of children and young people with identified SEND and our responsibility to provide appropriately to meet their diverse needs as locally as possible. The Education Provision in North Somerset ~ A Commissioning Strategy 2018 – 2019 http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Education- Provision-in-North-Somerset-a-commissioning-strategy.pdf, supports parity of provision across the special schools. The strategy, approved by the Executive in September 2018, supports the increase in provision for pupils requiring Complex Learning Difficulties support from age 4 to be provided by Westhaven Special School.
As a Foundation school, Westhaven Special School can oversee its own public school-expansion consultations. The school currently caters for 120 pupils aged 7 – 16.
The school undertook a first-stage public consultation between 7 May to 14 June 2019 to seek views on increasing its capacity from 120 to 138 places to enable it to admit up to 18 infant-aged pupils from September 2019 onwards. Of the 61 responses received, 85% were in support of the proposal to expand the school, 11.5% were opposed and 3.5% had no view.
The Governing Body published a public notice on 24 June 2019. This gave a second opportunity for the public to express their views about the expansion of the school. Two further responses were received from members of the community. One responder was supportive of the expansion but had concerns
5
regarding the traffic. The other responder objected to the proposal on the grounds of increased traffic volume.
This increase in provision is to support the extra demand across North Somerset as well as providing local provision for pupils currently educated in mainstream schools who will benefit from specialist support earlier in their education journey. The Executive Committee of North Somerset Council considered the report at their meeting on 11 September 2019 and agreed to the expansion.
In parallel with this process, a planning submission has been made and was approved on 31 July 2019. Work to deliver a demountable infant-phase building will start on site around July 2020 in time for September 2020. In the meantime, the school has undertaken some internal modifications to enable it to admit up to 6 pupils into a reception class from later this month should its request to expand be formally approved.
A budget of £126,085 from the Special Provisions Fund 2019/20 and £5,000 from the Basic Need allocation 2019/20 has been approved within the Council’s Capital Programme. This will cover some updates to the existing school buildings this summer (£31,000 in the summer 2019) and the relocation and setting up of a demountable building currently in use at another school, alongside supporting outdoor learning spaces. f. Complex Physical Needs - Baytree School: There is a projected increase in demand for special school places for pupils with Severe and Profound Learning Difficulties (SPLD) due to demographic growth and an increase in the numbers of pupils with these learning characteristics. Since 2015 the numbers of North Somerset children with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) has risen from 534 to 948. Currently 78% (740) of children and young people are educated within North Somerset with the remaining 22% (208) educated outside the area or receiving alternative provision. The Council supports ‘local schools for local children’ and seeks to secure appropriate provision for pupils with EHCPs as close to their home as appropriate.
The 2017/18 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision (SEND and AP) Review acknowledged the growing number of children and young people with identified SEND and our responsibility to provide appropriately to meet their diverse needs as locally as possible. The Education Provision in North Somerset ~ A Commissioning Strategy 2018 – 2019 http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Education- Provision-in-North-Somerset-a-commissioning-strategy.pdf approved by the Executive in September 2018, supports the increase in provision for pupils requiring SPLD education provided primarily by Baytree Special School.
In June 2019 a decision was taken by the Executive Member for Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning to approve the commencement of consultations to expand Baytree Special School. The first stage of a 3-stage statutory process will start on 19th September and end on 25 October 2019. Views will
6
be sought on whether there is support to expand Baytree Special School from a 72 to a 120-place school located across 2 sites.
Following a request of Councillors at a CYPS Policy and Scrutiny meeting on 20 June 2019, a further review of potential sites for the 2nd location for Baytree Special School was undertaken. The Executive Member for Business, Economy and Employment approved the use of a site adjacent to Brookfield Walk in Clevedon as a potential 2nd site for the school, subject to obtaining planning permission to develop the land for this purpose.
Basic concept layouts for key spaces and functions have been developed alongside the assessment of necessary site surveys by the appointed architects, Rio. Members of SSF may be aware that the allocation of this site is controversial with the nearby local community, supported by their member for parliament, Dr Liam Fox, MP. The neighbours have expressed their opposition to the 2nd school site being located on greenbelt land adjacent to the M5 in Clevedon. Other potential issues, in addition to the site’s Green Belt status, include drainage and ecology constraints have been expressed. The initial surveys have not identified any issues that could not be addressed through the design process and appropriate mitigations. The air quality of the site is within the required parameters for the development of a special school. Details of school plans to date and other site considerations will be available for review alongside the expansion consultation as part of the pre-planning process. It is hoped a planning submission can be made from November 2019.
Engagement with partner agencies, especially health, has now recently taken place. A lack of funding commitments from other organisations to co-locate services means that many of the opportunities for integrated health care may not be possible within the education budget available.
The work needed to progress this scheme will be considerable. This is especially the case as the application will need to convince the Planning Authority that it complies with the exemptions allowed as ‘very special circumstances’ when asking for an application within the greenbelt to be approved. In addition, local opposition could delay or stop the scheme.
The Council continues to work on securing the c£12.5m needed to progress this application. The 2020/21 Special Provision Fund allocation of £260,161 and the two additional allocations totalling £544,524 have been set aside for this scheme.
Members of SSF and our wider schools’ community are asked to work with LA officers and the school to ensure the public are aware of the acute need for additional places for pupils with SPLD, and to offer their written support and day-to day engagement with stakeholders to enable these plans to be realised.
The decision makers for these decisions are the Planning Authority in terms of a planning submission and the Council’s Executive in relation to the expansion approval request.
7
3.4. SUMMARY: Significant progress has been made over the last few years to address the needs of some of the most vulnerable young people in North Somerset. This is something to be recognised and celebrated. The original premise behind the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review was that, whilst there were some very good practices within North Somerset, there were also significant gaps. The results of the Review provided the evidence to support the development of a range of provisions to enable more of our children and young people in North Somerset to be educated within the local area in high quality settings. We anticipate that this will make a significant improvement in the health and well- being of some of our most vulnerable young people and will be supportive of their families and local communities.
4. THE CASE FOR PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION
Reality: i. There is an increase in demand for support for children and young people with complex needs ii. An increasing number of families are struggling to support children/ young people with a wide range of complex issues iii. A reduction/ cessation of support services within Local Authorities (LA’s) / health provisions has drastically reduced avenues of support for schools and families iv. Schools are struggling to support the increasing number of complex issues, despite money, which previously would have gone to LA’s, being directed to them v. Vulnerable and disaffected children and young people are at risk of failing to achieve their true academic potential vi. Children and young people are dis-engaging with education due to inappropriate provision, which then requires additional interventions = additional financial costs vii. Increasing numbers of families choosing to electively home educate giving rise to concerns regarding off-rolling viii. Insufficient government funding in the High Needs’ Block has resulted in reductions to Top Up Funding, the support schools seek to assist them provide for additional needs above which a school would be expected to providers as a direct consequence = additional financial costs re staffing and placements ix. The number of EHCP requests has risen significantly in the last few years. Between January 2015 and January 2019, the number of North Somerset children with an EHCP rose from 534 to 900, a 69% increase over only four years. As of July 2019, the number of Plans had risen to 967, an 81% increase since 2015.
8
Source: Department for Education, Statements of SEN and EHC Plans: England 2019 (National and local authority tables); Analysis of information from Capita One database, July 2019
The percentage of children and young people in North Somerset with EHCPs or Statements has historically been far below national and regional averages.
Source: Analysis of DfE statistics (Statements of SEN and EHC Plans: England 2019) and ONS population estimates. Actual percentages are shown for England and North Somerset.
At the same time, the availability of SEN support in schools - available to students who do not have EHCPs - has fallen. Prior to the 2014 SEND reforms, North Somerset had a similar proportion of students in its schools receiving SEN support to the national average. After the SEND reforms, the proportion dropped dramatically across the board, but in North Somerset it was a particularly dramatic change.
9
Source: Analysis of DfE statistics (Statements of SEN and EHC Plans, England: publications for 2016-2019 inclusive).
It is anticipated that the percentage of children and young people aged 0-24 with EHCPs in North Somerset will begin to approach the national and regional averages over the next few years.
a. The number of exclusions, both fixed term and permanent is increasing as a result. In the DfE statistics on Permanent and Fixed-Period Exclusions for the 2017/18 school year (the most recent year available), across 152 local authorities, North Somerset had the 6th highest primary school permanent exclusion rate in England. And although this relates to 13 primary school children being permanently excluded, that is more children excluded than in Bristol (11), and more than double the children excluded in South Gloucestershire (6) or BANES (5). North Somerset also had the fourth highest permanent exclusion rate in special schools, although this related to a single exclusion.
10
Permanent exclusions in primary schools Authority Number of Permanent permanent exclusion rate (as exclusions a % of primary school headcount) 1 Bedford 16 10.3% 2 Birmingham 103 8.8% 3 Dudley 23 7.9% 4 Tameside 17 7.5% 5 Coventry 25 7.5% 6 North Somerset 13 7.4% 7 Torbay 8 7.4% 8 Thurrock 13 7.1% 9 Norfolk 47 7.0% 10 Rochdale 14 6.2% Source: Department for Education, Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England: 2017 to 2018 (Local authority tables).
b. The cost of alternative provision and special school places is dramatically increasing with the result that the LA has an overspend = additional financial costs c. Some children and young people out of full-time education are at risk of CSE, drugs related issues and anti-social behaviour resulting in involvement with health professionals and the police and the criminal justice system = additional financial costs d. Increase in complex behaviours without appropriate support for the family can result in family breakdown and more young people entering the care system = additional financial costs and distress
It is more effective, efficient, cost effective and sensitive to the needs of all involved to PREVENT the above as much as possible: this is through early interventions. Early identification and appropriate, prompt interventions can address many of the complex issues before they become ingrained problems, which, by their very nature are not only difficult to manage and alleviate but are very expensive both in human and financial terms.
11
5. A SLIDING SCALE OF INTERVENTIONS Not all children and young people, their families and schools require the same level of intervention. Some families need to be helped to manage the behaviour of their children. It may be that they need to know how to set boundaries and manage tantrums so that positive behaviours are learned, and this support is required at all stage of some young people’s lives, not just during the early years when they may access assistance from Children’s Centres. Schools may require short term respite support. This may be because of an exclusion where it is more beneficial to send an individual to a base to address their behaviour than to send them home. Without the facility to remove young people from their immediate environment for a short period of time can have the consequence that a more dramatic response is forthcoming such as longer-term exclusions. Some of the “solutions” to the issues raised can be managed by the schools themselves and could be determined collectively through multi-academy trusts. This could include off-site facilities in different locations as already suggested as part of the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review. These facilities would be shared by a group of schools and support provided by a range of services.
However, schools, other professional and families benefit when external, objective advice, guidance and support can be offered to help them manage the issues and difficulties. It is often the involvement of the central, detached professional who can ensure the maintenance of positive relationships between families and schools. Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that some schools, multi-academy trusts and families have found ways to manage the new world of little or no support by providing their own solutions, many are struggling to do so, and ALL are looking for some centrally co-ordinated provision, which offers a breadth and depth of experience.
6. “INTERIM SUPPORT”: SPECIALIST AND ALTERNATIVE PROVISION REVIEW Whilst awaiting the outcome of the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review, the Education Inclusion Service (EIS) developed several resources to provide some support to the identified gaps in provision: The School Placement Support (SPS) Team and Westhaven Pathways. The positive impact of these has already been reported. (SSP paper June 2019) It is therefore, proposed to develop these services into a broader provision. The role of the Voyage Learning Campus needs to be included and aligned with the new proposal and needs of the Local Authority.
12
7. SHORT TERM PLACEMENTS Target Group i. Individuals (primary?) at risk of fixed term exclusion: short term therapeutic placement; delivered through the VLC
Short Term Behaviour hubs were identified as part of the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review, however, there was insufficient capital or revenue funding to support these as well as those for High Functioning ASD students. The priority was determined to be the need for ASD provision.
In addition, a continuum of support which covers: i. Advice to mainstream schools experiencing difficulties in managing challenging behaviours to build capacity within schools to manage pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and those at risk of exclusion from school - Inclusion Panel ii. Consultations for teaching staff, senior managers and head teachers: develop Education Inclusion Team iii. In-school observations - by EIS staff. iv. In-school training delivered by - EIS staff. v. Work alongside colleagues in mainstream to model best practice - Additional EIS required. vi. Contribution to the SEN formal assessment process - training to be provided by SEN team. vii. Advice for parents and parenting programmes - link with High Impact Families to include parent groups delivered in schools + NEW FAMILY SUPPORT WORKERS
13
8. CONTINUUM OF SUPPORT School based provisions
Central: Off-site short-term interventions Directed through The Inclusion Panels These could be managed by the VLC
Response to exclusions 6 weeks (?) interventions
Inclusion Panel (Education Inclusion Service) Managed Moves School Placement Support Team
Primary Secondary Re-Integration Worker Re-Integration Worker
9. REQUIRED
Two levels of support are identified as being a positive response to the needs of the children, young people, their families and the school community:
1. Proactive, early interventions to support the young person and their family
2. Re-Engagement work to support students who are not able to manage full- time provision. Focusing on re-engaging them and supporting their well-being creating positive attitudes to learning, these staff would provide support currently being secured through external mentoring agencies at considerable expense. (SSF Paper June 2019)
14
1.1 Proactive, early interventions to support the young person and their family
With the High Impact Families initiative potentially coming to an end March 2021, there will be an increased need for proactive, preventative, early intervention working with both young people and their families. The creation of a small team of multi-professional support available to engage with the young people and to provide support and guidance to their families would assist schools in maintaining school places. Like the remit of the earlier Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP), a team of inclusion workers and family support workers would be able to work alongside schools in working with identified individuals and their families before the stage when they are being excluded.
2.1 Re-Engagement Team to support students who are not able to manage full-time provision
A centrally managed team to work both in the community and within schools to assist with the engagement/ re-engagement of individuals referred through the Inclusion Panel. Work based around agreed needs and targets to take place both within schools and the community. Work could also encompass support about students who are electively home educated.
10. TEAM COMPOSITION
Family Support Workers JG6 x2 = £74,188 Inclusion Workers JG6 x2 = £74,188 Re-Engagement workers JG 6 x2 = £74,188 Cost of JG6: £33,974- £37,094 making the cost of the team = £222,564
11. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The financial implications are included throughout the report
AUTHOR
Wendy Packer, Education Inclusion Service Lead and Virtual School Headteacher [email protected] 01275 885 157
15
Appendix C
Targeted Support - a process to automatically assess and allocate funding to those schools considered as having a disproportionate number of high needs pupils
Amount per Notional Notional Notional Top Up notional SEN Increase in Total SEN (uses Top Up Top Up Estimated SEN Budget SEN Pupils funded pupils Amount per pupil after funding per Additional Number on prior Funded Funded DfE No School Name SEN Notional remaining as % of FTE as % notional SEN £6,000 notional SEN Funding to Roll October attainment pupils FTE pupils FTE x Budget * after £6,000 Number on Number on pupil contribution pupil to meet allocate 2018 data October 2019-20 £6,000 contribution Roll Roll Top up threshold 2018) funding d x £6,000 = a b c d c - e = f b / a = g d / a = h c / b = i f / b = j 1,089.65 b x l e 3122 All Saints East Clevedon VC A 120 29.36 £58,908 0.00 £0 £58,908 24% 0% £2,006 £2,006 £0 £0 2277 Ashcombe CO A 626 162.95 £317,357 16.58 £99,480 £217,877 26% 3% £1,948 £1,337 £0 £0 3075 Backwell VC A 235 40.77 £90,802 1.16 £6,960 £83,842 17% 0% £2,227 £2,056 £0 £0 2271 Banwell CO P 170 51.71 £102,045 7.58 £45,480 £56,565 30% 4% £1,973 £1,094 £0 £0 2319 Becket, Worle CO A 195 79.15 £138,353 3.16 £18,960 £119,393 41% 2% £1,748 £1,509 £0 £0 2262 Birdwell CO A 407 82.93 £160,648 4.84 £29,040 £131,608 20% 1% £1,937 £1,587 £0 £0 2272 Blagdon CO A 108 29.26 £58,051 0.58 £3,480 £54,571 27% 1% £1,984 £1,865 £0 £0 3455 Bournville CO A 419 194.87 £332,462 34.04 £204,240 £128,222 47% 8% £1,706 £658 £432 £84,117 3351 Burrington VA P 63 12.83 £33,973 1.00 £6,000 £27,973 20% 2% £2,648 £2,180 £0 £0 2332 Castle Batch, Worle inc RB CO A 408 163.21 £256,212 26.08 £156,480 £99,732 40% 6% £1,570 £611 £479 £78,108 Chestnut Park A £0 £0 £0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 £0 £0 3117 Christ Church, Weston VA A 207 76.23 £138,499 12.00 £72,000 £66,499 37% 6% £1,817 £872 £217 £16,560 3113 Churchill VC P 192 49.44 £93,487 4.00 £24,000 £69,487 26% 2% £1,891 £1,405 £0 £0 3354 Corpus Christi VA P 190 49.49 £96,725 8.90 £53,400 £43,325 26% 5% £1,954 £875 £214 £10,603 3121 Court de Wyck VC A 128 30.52 £67,351 2.00 £12,000 £55,351 24% 2% £2,207 £1,814 £0 £0 3130 Crockerne C of E VC A 291 96.21 £166,262 5.00 £30,000 £136,262 33% 2% £1,728 £1,416 £0 £0 2007 Dundry VC A 80 25.16 £51,015 2.74 £16,440 £34,575 31% 3% £2,028 £1,374 £0 £0 3091 Flax Bourton VC A 179 31.55 £68,723 2.58 £15,480 £53,243 18% 1% £2,178 £1,688 £0 £0 2295 Golden Valley CO P 414 107.84 £188,407 4.58 £27,480 £160,927 26% 1% £1,747 £1,492 £0 £0 2261 Grove CO A 218 54.41 £108,333 6.58 £39,480 £68,853 25% 3% £1,991 £1,265 £0 £0 2268 Hannah Moore CO A 159 30.19 £67,225 1.00 £6,000 £61,225 19% 1% £2,227 £2,028 £0 £0 2001 Haywood Village A 265 49.00 £103,781 8.32 £49,920 £53,861 18% 3% £2,118 £1,099 £0 £0 3451 Herons Moor CO A 418 105.25 £197,651 12.56 £75,360 £122,291 25% 3% £1,878 £1,162 £0 £0 2254 High Down, Infs Portishead CO A 254 38.92 £91,238 8.16 £48,960 £42,278 15% 3% £2,344 £1,086 £3 £132 2263 High Down, JnrsPortishead CO A 387 81.12 £169,854 3.66 £21,960 £147,894 21% 1% £2,094 £1,823 £0 £0 3116 Hutton VC A 209 57.03 £105,682 4.42 £26,520 £79,162 27% 2% £1,853 £1,388 £0 £0 2273 Kewstoke CO P 87 26.67 £53,745 0.00 £0 £53,745 31% 0% £2,015 £2,015 £0 £0 2000 Kingshill VC A 141 43.85 £86,078 2.00 £12,000 £74,078 31% 1% £1,963 £1,690 £0 £0 2286 Locking CO A 373 104.00 £193,801 9.58 £57,480 £136,321 28% 3% £1,863 £1,311 £0 £0 2310 Mary Elton CO A 409 104.11 £185,394 8.58 £51,480 £133,914 25% 2% £1,781 £1,286 £0 £0 2009 Mead Vale CO A 345 136.70 £225,544 14.99 £89,940 £135,604 40% 4% £1,650 £992 £98 £13,350 2285 Mendip Green inc RB CO A 626 225.83 £375,945 32.33 £193,980 £181,965 36% 5% £1,665 £806 £284 £64,108 3454 Milton Park CO A 369 118.73 £218,541 6.16 £36,960 £181,581 32% 2% £1,841 £1,529 £0 £0 3095 Northleaze VC A 208 49.88 £93,910 3.58 £21,480 £72,430 24% 2% £1,883 £1,452 £0 £0 2287 Oldmixon CO A 196 76.42 £142,261 7.42 £44,520 £97,741 39% 4% £1,861 £1,279 £0 £0 2006 Parklands Educate Together A 37 11.44 £30,304 2.00 £12,000 £18,304 31% 5% £2,649 £1,600 £0 £0 2252 Portishead CO A 449 81.52 £168,076 8.92 £53,520 £114,556 18% 2% £2,062 £1,405 £0 £0 2283 Sandford CO P 152 30.90 £66,759 2.42 £14,520 £52,239 20% 2% £2,160 £1,691 £0 £0 3114 St Andrew's, Congresbury VC P 218 64.36 £120,395 5.50 £33,000 £87,395 30% 3% £1,871 £1,358 £0 £0 3115 St Anne's, Hewish VC A 343 74.87 £149,038 7.98 £47,880 £101,158 22% 2% £1,991 £1,351 £0 £0 3350 St Francis VA P 187 23.55 £62,223 2.16 £12,960 £49,263 13% 1% £2,642 £2,091 £0 £0 2005 St Georges VA A 205 53.67 £114,134 5.15 £30,900 £83,234 26% 3% £2,127 £1,551 £0 £0 3450 St John the Evangelist VA A 301 78.99 £144,451 4.74 £28,440 £116,011 26% 2% £1,829 £1,469 £0 £0 3349 St Joseph's, Portishead VA p 205 61.14 £106,753 2.42 £14,520 £92,233 30% 1% £1,746 £1,508 £0 £0 3447 St Mark's, Worle VA A 425 140.38 £232,879 5.42 £32,520 £200,359 33% 1% £1,659 £1,427 £0 £0 3118 St Martin's VC A 485 161.73 £289,432 6.66 £39,960 £249,472 33% 1% £1,790 £1,543 £0 £0 3446 St Mary's, Portbury VA A 116 20.22 £49,913 1.00 £6,000 £43,913 17% 1% £2,468 £2,172 £0 £0 3129 St Nicholas Chantry VC A 389 90.82 £166,450 3.00 £18,000 £148,450 23% 1% £1,833 £1,634 £0 £0 3099 St Peter's C of E VC A 622 81.08 £194,018 10.32 £61,920 £132,098 13% 2% £2,393 £1,629 £0 £0 2003 Tickenham VA A 96 21.73 £47,924 1.42 £8,520 £39,404 23% 1% £2,205 £1,813 £0 £0 3452 Trinity VA A 449 111.08 £197,344 10.07 £60,420 £136,924 25% 2% £1,777 £1,233 £0 £0 2276 Uphill CO P 312 77.16 £147,331 8.26 £49,560 £97,771 25% 3% £1,910 £1,267 £0 £0 2316 Walliscote CO A 279 137.56 £223,238 8.24 £49,440 £173,798 49% 3% £1,623 £1,263 £0 £0 2264 West Leigh CO A 166 23.21 £58,804 0.42 £2,520 £56,284 14% 0% £2,534 £2,425 £0 £0 2280 Windwhistle CO A 378 212.40 £338,529 19.82 £118,920 £219,609 56% 5% £1,594 £1,034 £56 £11,836 3108 Winford VC A 206 60.89 £108,474 3.42 £20,520 £87,954 30% 2% £1,781 £1,444 £0 £0 2284 Winscombe CO P 216 55.04 £103,608 3.42 £20,520 £83,088 25% 2% £1,882 £1,509 £0 £0 3352 Worlebury VA P 198 48.87 £94,975 0.58 £3,480 £91,495 25% 0% £1,944 £1,872 £0 £0 2292 Worle Village CO A 186 52.56 £102,789 7.09 £42,540 £60,249 28% 4% £1,956 £1,146 £0 £0 3348 Wraxall VA A 88 21.66 £48,602 0.00 £0 £48,602 25% 0% £2,244 £2,244 £0 £0 3119 Wrington VC P 205 40.51 £85,056 1.00 £6,000 £79,056 20% 0% £2,099 £1,951 £0 £0 3120 Yatton Infs VC A 235 53.96 £108,302 7.16 £42,960 £65,342 23% 3% £2,007 £1,211 £0 £0 3111 Yatton VC A 350 82.72 £159,753 11.32 £67,920 £91,833 24% 3% £1,931 £1,110 £0 £0 2002 Yeo Moor CO A 389 126.38 £216,384 7.00 £42,000 £174,384 32% 2% £1,712 £1,380 £0 £0 Total/Average Primary 61 16,983 4,715.99 £8,774,204 £6,235,784 27% 2% £1,949 £1,459 £278,814
Amount per Notional Notional Notional Top Up notional SEN Total SEN (uses Top Up Top Up Minimum Estimated SEN Budget SEN Pupils funded pupils Amount per pupil after Additional Number on prior Funded Funded funding per DfE No School Name SEN Notional remaining as % of FTE as % notional SEN £6,000 Funding to Roll October attainment pupils FTE pupils FTE x notional SEN Budget * after £6,000 Number on Number on pupil contribution allocate 2018 data October 2019-20 £6,000 Pupil £1,100 contribution Roll Roll Top up 2018) funding d x £6,000 = a b c d c - e = f b / a = g d / a = h c / b = i f / b = j e 4129 Backwell AcademyA 1,394 196.86 £462,161 11.32 £67,920 £394,241 14% 1% £2,348 £2,003 £0 £0 4142 Broadoak AcademyA 820 191.61 £419,209 10.32 £61,920 £357,289 23% 1% £2,188 £1,865 £0 £0 4139 Churchill AcademyA 1,312 202.76 £461,959 6.42 £38,520 £423,439 15% 0% £2,278 £2,088 £0 £0 4136 Clevedon AcademyA 1,116 207.64 £448,505 11.01 £66,060 £382,445 19% 1% £2,160 £1,842 £0 £0 4135 Gordano AcademyA 1,616 254.96 £568,059 6.16 £36,960 £531,099 16% 0% £2,228 £2,083 £0 £0 4145 Hans Price AcademyA 960 232.46 £485,438 21.23 £127,380 £358,058 24% 2% £2,088 £1,540 £0 £0 4137 Nailsea AcademyA 801 143.21 £320,235 10.75 £64,500 £255,735 18% 1% £2,236 £1,786 £0 £0 4000 NSETC/ Winterstoke AcademyA 53 0.00 £15,876 0.00 £0 £15,876 0% 0% £0 £0 £0 £0 4143 Priory AcademyA 1,396 315.84 £652,250 18.07 £108,420 £543,830 23% 1% £2,065 £1,722 £0 £0 4144 St Katherines AcademyA 784 133.91 £305,746 1.00 £6,000 £299,746 17% 0% £2,283 £2,238 £0 £0 4001 Worle AcademyA 1,446 334.24 £701,230 28.06 £168,360 £532,870 23% 2% £2,098 £1,594 £0 £0 Total/Average Secondary 11 11,698 2,213.49 £4,840,667 11.30 4,094,627 17% 1% £1,998 £1,706 £0
Total all schools 72 28,681 6,929 £13,614,871 £0 £278,814
Produced by the Education Funding Team Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
Service area: Education Funding Team – Strategic Planning and Governance Budget reference: Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and resulting schools funding 2020-21 Budget proposal: The DSG Equality impact assessment owner: Emma Whitehead Director sign off: Sheila Smith 15th January 2020 (after consultation closes, and Strategic Schools Forum meetings on the 4th Review date: December and 15th January
Service User Impact Staff Impact (High, medium or low) (High, medium or low) Before mitigating After mitigating actions Before mitigating actions After mitigating actions actions
Low Low TBA TBA
Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
Section 1 – The Proposal
1.1 Background to proposal
The Local Authority, in partnership with the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) sets and monitors the school’s budget and it is a key part of the overall responsibility of the SSF. The proposals contained with this consultation relate to the all mainstream schools in North Somerset and as such are concentrated on the Schools Block and any movements from this block.
The way in which the DSG is set out by the Department for Education (DfE) and as a result they release operational and technical guidance for all four of the blocks as they deem necessary.
In respect of the Schools Block there are some minimum requirements that have to be met and work within in 2020-21:
• A minimum per pupil level to £5,000 for secondary schools and to £3,750 for primary schools. • The funding floor will be set at 1.84% per pupil for the NFF elements • There is no cap on gains, where there has been in 2018-19 and 2019-20
Three options are being consulted on with schools in relation to the potential transfer of funding from the schools block to the High Needs Block and these will be considered by the SSF on 6 December, before making their proposal. These are 0.5% (£600k), 0.7% (£900k) and 1.2% (£1.5m).
Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
1.2 Please detail below how this proposal may impact on any other organisation and their customers
The impact of these reductions for each option on all schools has been exemplified and these exemplifications form part of the consultation document. In general terms, those schools who lose out most are those who have already reached the Government’s newly implemented minimum funding per pupil factor (of £3,750 fpr primary schools and £5,000 for secondary schools) or schools who are due to receive a relatively high increase in per pupil funding when compared with other schools. All schools are protected by the minimum funding per pupil factor and by the Minimum Finding Guarantee.
If a transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block does not occur, then this would mean that the High Needs Budget would not be sufficient to cover the anticipated demand and, in order to reduce the deficit in the medium term, action will need to be take to reduce spend in the High Needs Block. Any such reductions could then have a potential impact upon all SEND children and young people with Special Educational Needs.
Section 2 – What Do We Know?
2.1 Profile details – what data or evidence is there which tells us who is, or could be, affected?
As detailed above, the various options for transfers from the Schools Block to the High Need Block have been exemplified and the impact on individual schools has been illustrated.
If no transfer from the Schools Block is approved then, we know that the High Needs Block despite being increased by c.£2m for 2020-21 will still does not have enough resource to meet demand. Pressure on the high needs block remains and is increasing, and the SSF and schools are aware of this. The main area of pressure is spending on independent non-maintained special schools, where costs are expected to increase by around 30% in the current year and have almost doubled since 2015/16. There is not sufficient resource to cover the increase in demand for out of area placements.
Whilst actions are in train to reduce the deficit in the short term, the significant increase in the number of children and young people with SEND means that, should an early recovery of the DSG be required, then actions may have to be taken that would have an impact on children and young people with SEND.
Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
2.2 What does the data or evidence tell us about the potential impact on diverse groups, and how is this supported by historic experience/data?
The table below shows what movements have occurred in the last five financial years and what the cumulative deficit has been (estimated at end of 2019-20).
Financial Movement from Cumulative DSG year Schools block to deficit High Needs block 2015-16 £322,637 2016-17 £1,415,924 £1,150,633 2017-18 £822,183 £788,079 2018-19 £1,152,341 £2,375,592 2019-20 £1,763,647 £2,853,733 est. at end of period 6
Without the movement and the amount of cumulative deficit then all of this would have to be deducted from the next High Needs Block allocation for 2020-21 and this would have a major impact on many.
2.3 Are there any gaps in the data, for example across protected characteristics where information is limited or not available?
Ethnicity
Around 9% of children allocated top-up funding with or without an Education Health Care Plan (EHCP) are recorded as being from an ethnic group other than White British. Around 3% of the wider population of North Somerset record their ethnicity as one of these groups, meaning that there is potential for children from more diverse ethnic backgrounds to be affected by any change to top-up funding. However, it is important to note that this represents a very small number of individual children and families, and that as allocation of top-up funding will continue to be assessed on the basis of evidenced needs it is unlikely that the changes will have disproportionate effects on the basis of a child’s ethnicity or background. Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
Low income
Support for education via the high needs block is in the main not means tested or via a financial assessment, therefore it is not possible to make a detailed analysis on this basis.
For an Equalities Impact Assessment that was completed for changes to Top up Funding for the 2019-20 financial year, mapping the addresses of children and young people supported by our Special Schools and Education Inclusion Service indicates that, as expected, there are significant clusters of this population in and around the larger towns of Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead. While there are some overlaps between these mapped addresses and a number of the most deprived wards in North Somerset, the number of pupils represented is extremely small and it is not possible to draw conclusions which indicate that children from families on a low income would be disproportionately affected by the proposed changes to TUF. Notably, the presence of dedicated specialist schools in Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon and Nailsea has also likely influenced the trend for families with children who are entitled to top-up funding to gravitate to these locations.
Other protected characteristics
Data is not collected for the whole of the funding used from the High Needs Block, that would permit detailed analysis of the impact on particular faiths or LGBT+ communities. Given that assessment undertaken to ascertain entitlements is in the main based very specifically on individual needs, it is considered unlikely that there would be any specific impacts on these groups as a result of the proposed changes.
2.4 How have we involved or considered the views of the people that could be affected?
If the block movement does not occur then there will be further consultations at which time any equalities issued will be considered, reported and recorded.
For this consultation and any in the future we will continue to use all available existing forums to consult with all stakeholders in addition there were consultation surgeries available.
Professionals have been made aware of the Consultation and it has been discussed at a range of different forums. We have encouraged schools and representatives of multi-academy trusts in the primary and secondary and special school sector to gather the views of children and young people in relation to the key points.
This section will be developed further if required on completion of the consultation process. Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
2.5 What has this told us?
The process of setting the schools budget is one that has least negative impact on children and young people in North Somerset with the resources available is not one that is easy to do. That officers and members of SSF consider carefully any implications to minimise negative impacts as far as possible.
The proposals and levels of funding have been carefully considered to ensure the fundamental principle are protected while delivering as fair as levels of funding which are sustainable for the future that we can. While some children and families may experience changes in future as a result of this proposal all has been completed to minimise the impact as far as possible.
2.6 Are there any gaps in our consultation, what are our plans for the future?
The SSF will continue to apply the maximum possible funding levels that are as fair to all as possible within the funding regulations. The SSF always try to understand the impact of funding on the attainment, independence and future life-chances of all children and young people. The impact of any change is always monitored.
This section will be developed further if required on completion of the consultation process.
Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
Section 3 – Assessment of Impact
Impact Level Impact type Summary of Impact Insert X into one box per row, for impact level and type. High Med Low No Positive Neutral Negative Disabled people X X Depending on the level of the block move then the impact may change. If 0.5% is moved then it should minimise the impact on reductions in the High Needs Block and the impact will be minimal. People from different ethnic groups X X 9% of the pupils receiving funding from the High Needs Block are not of a white heritage background (including White Irish and Other White ethnic groups) Compared to the whole population of North Somerset where they make up just 3%. In proportion it is likely to have a bigger impact on them. However, it is important to note that this represents a very small number of individual children and families, it is unlikely that the changes will have disproportionate effects on the basis of a child’s ethnicity or background.
Male and Female X X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. Lesbian, gay or bisexual people X X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People on a low income X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People in particular age groups X X Children in the school system are going to be impacted by these changes. More children will need to be supported by mainstream schools and it could be in the future only Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
those with an EHCP will receive funding from the High Needs Block. People in particular faith groups X X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People who are married or in a civil N/A partnership Transgender people X X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. Women who are pregnant or whilst on N/A maternity leave Other specific impacts, for example: X X Parental involvement…. Concerns regarding potential carers, parents, impact on health and reductions in current education provision. Changes in wellbeing. criteria for TUF may result in an increase in EHC needs assessment requests and tribunals appeals against the Please specify: Parents and carers LA.
Article 2 of the First Protocol of ECHR1 provides for the right not to be denied an education and the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views. It Does this proposal have any potential does not however guarantee any particular level of education of any particular quality or character. Human Rights implications? If ‘yes’,
please describe Any proposals are carefully balanced to ensure that all children in North Somerset can access appropriate educational provision as outlined in the ECHR. Could this proposal have a Cumulative Impact with any other budget savings? This is an impact that appears when you consider services or activities together; a There are no other planned DSG savings that would have a specific, material impact. change or activity in one area may create an additional impact somewhere else
If ‘yes’, please describe?
1 Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No.1 of the ECHR (https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_2_Protocol_1_ENG.pdf) Fair Funding Consultation 2020-21– DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment November 2019
Section 4 – Action Plan
Where you have listed that there will potentially be negative outcomes, you are required to mitigate the impact of these. Please detail below the actions that you intend to take.
Action taken/to be taken How will it be monitored? Work with schools to clarify the support they are able to provide within their schools to support Working with the local Parent/Carer Forum pupils with SEN and Independent SENDIAS service to look at the impact these changes may have on children and their families with SEN. Protecting Special Schools by providing them with stable TUF
If negative impacts remain, please provide an explanation below.
Due to the level of funding received from Central Government not matching the increase in demand for services under the High Needs Block, the Local Authority needs to look at how the money is spent to make sure it can provide to the pupils with the highest level of special educational needs.
Appendix B
Summary of Questionnaire Responses
• This is not enough however school losses, if higher would hit Bournville too severely. • I have ticked option 1 as there is no box to 'disagree with all options' and option 1 is preferable from the options noted. We do not believe that resources for high needs, either to repay the deficit or to provide additional resources, should come from a further transfer from the schools' block. This is because only certain schools (those with the lowest gains from the increased resources) are affected by the transfer and therefore it has a disproportionate effect on both small schools and infants' schools. This does not feel fair. The deficit repayment should come from all schools by an additional charge outside of the funding arrangements. If the SSF also supports providing some additional resources for the High Needs Block, then this should be considered by charging all schools for some of the services currently provided free of charge by the High Needs Block. • If the additional 0.2% was guaranteed to support schools with High Needs children such as those being discussed at out of school's panel. • 0.7 is not enough, but school losses if higher, would impact hard • It's not enough, but school losses, if higher, would hit us too hard. • This is still not enough. With diminishing budgets any further deductions would impact too greatly on the school. • Any more and it would impact negatively on diminishing budgets. • Whilst this would not be enough - anymore and it would hit our own budgets too hard • This is a balance between what is needed and the loss on school budgets • This is not enough but the school loses if higher...... • As a special school and being very aware of the SEND overspend whilst acknowledging that asking for a lower amount may be more equitable, we feel on this occasion we must ask for option 3. • None of the above. We do not believe that resources for high needs, either to repay the deficit or to provide additional resources, should come from a further transfer from the schools' block. This is because only certain schools (those with the lowest gains from the increased resources) are affected by the transfer and therefore it has a disproportionate effect on both small schools and infants' schools. This does not feel fair. The deficit repayment should come from all schools by an additional charge outside of the funding arrangements (if this is allowable within the regulations). If the SSF also supports providing some additional resources for the High Needs Block, then this should be considered by charging all schools for some of the services currently provided free of charge by the High Needs Block. We believe that any additional resources agreed for the High Needs Block should be targeted to ensure that special schools are receiving equivalent increases in funding • Unfortunately, we need to look after everyone, but it would hits schools too hard. The Government needs to sort this area out • It is a shame we cannot give more, however, this would impact heavily on the schools who have not received large increases in this year's budget and would cause issues for them • I don't believe that the schools block should be used to support the inadequate funding of the high needs block. However, we don't have adequate resources and I believe that option 2 is the best alternative resolution. • It's not enough but any more the schools still lose out!
• It should be noted that the lump sum, like all of the elements in the proposed 2020-21 formula, are greater than the published NFF levels.
• As you will remember we were stung for 6 months of no insurance although we'd paid for it so had to pay twice. • Although this does create financial issues for new academies with duplicate payments possible. • Fairness using common sense should apply, academies are our local schools. Surely the aim is to support success for all pupils in N Somerset. In reality some academies have paid twice following this stance, meaning pupils lose out. • Not fair to have to pay twice. • Reimbursement should be made as otherwise the new academy will pay twice • Although this does create financial issues for new academies with duplicate payments possible. • Schools should get back any outstanding monies they are owed from the point they become academies, regardless of DFE requirement
• This is definitely required. • Only if no reimbursements are made to new academies. Otherwise no • This should not be a factor. Any under spend should be equally shared with all maintained schools • No, there should be no penalty in the first place. If any monies are left they should be distributed amongst the remaining schools - those who left should have already been reimbursed.
• Please can you provide a % value of what an excessive value would be. • It most definitely should be carried forward. • Of course, it should be.
• But need to refer to the fact that it is capped, so if there are more top-up funded children those schools supporting high numbers will be further hit – Bournville is likely to lose out to the tune of £30K because of capping, which leaves us nowhere near what a school without top-up pupils gets. • This is helpful to support those schools with high levels of SEND children. • Yes. Schools with a higher level of need must have appropriate level of funding to ensure the needs of all pupils are met. Mendip Green and Bournville have a significant level of need and must be allocated funding that reflects this. • Schools with a high proportion of TUF children should not lose out due to capping. • This is capped so if there are more top-up funded children, those schools supporting high numbers will be further hit - and schools supporting high numbers of pupils losing out. • Yes - however capping is an issue for those schools who have a significantly high proportion of top up funded children. the losses will be magnified. • However, capping prejudices schools with significantly higher TUF children. • The fact that this is capped is a problem for schools who support high numbers of pupils with high needs. some of the schools in our academy trust could lose out on around £30k per year with a cap which will hinder their ability to support the students properly. • But it is still not enough! • We do need to mention the fact that it is capped, so if there are more top-up funded children those schools supporting high numbers will be further hit – both our sister schools (Bournville and Mendip Green) could well lose out to the tune of £30,000 because of capping, which leaves them nowhere need what a school without top-up pupils gets…. • This is helpful to support those schools with high levels of SEND children. • To be able to answer this question meaningfully we would need to know whether SEN funding within the SBS is enough to fund lover levels of SEN up to £6k and the affect across all schools. Do we have any information in this connection and have we ascertained whether school with higher levels of incidents struggle anymore than say a small school with low levels of need and anything in between. Also where there are more incidents of need are there any economies of scale to add to the mix. • This is helpful to support those schools with high levels of SEND children. • Those schools who support high numbers of high need should be supported in meeting the high costs associated. If £278,815 does not meet the needs of those schools in North Somerset, then additional funding from all schools should be used to ensure these schools are not penalised because the care for our most vulnerable pupils • I agree with the automatic assessment and allocation. However, we should ensure that those schools supporting high levels of top-up funded pupils should not be funded at a level below the notional av. pupil rate for the phase of the appropriate phase. Therefore, this cap should be raised if additional funding is required to achieve this. • The budget should be increased as the capped level of funding only provides additional notional SEN up to the threshold level of £1,089 per pupil in 2019/20. The average level of SEN is £400 less per pupil in schools which are already facing financial pressures due to the disproportionately high level of pupils which have also seen top up funding cut in 2019/20. SEN in schools is in financial crisis and will put further pressure on referral units if they remain inadequately funded. • Yes however the fact it is capped means that if there are more top-up funded children those schools supporting high numbers will be further hit.
• However, there is a lack of clarity as to how this money is used. Maintained schools feel they are being double charged for some services as we are obliged to buy in to the service through SSE in addition to this charge.
• However I believe we should be cautious about future school openings when there is not enough children to fill the spaces in the schools already open in North Somerset and the Weston area especially. • However, the continued commitment of Locking Parklands Primary when there are falling rolls in established local schools beggars belief. Birth rates are known years in advance. N Somerset's decision in continuing with this project has increased the difficulty of providing high quality education at an already financially challenging time. There must be actual evidence of demand for school places- not assumption linked to investment/ development/ housing projects. • Yes but investing in schools like Locking Parklands when there are currently more than enough primary spaces available in Weston does not appear to be financially prudent. • there is agreement however it needs to be noted that a new school has been built in the south of North Somerset which evidently was not necessary as there were plenty of spaces available in established schools. • Whilst I agree with the outline of the plans as a whole, there are some specifics that are a concern - like the amount of money spent on locking parklands when there are already enough primary places in Weston and the impact that this will have on current schools who need to continue to maintain buildings etc... which are costs that are not proportional to the number of pupils attending. For an older school like ours that has had many years of building investment by North Somerset these can become a huge strain on budgets. surely this money would be better spent on the current building renovations to ensure that the current schools are able to remain up to standard and allow the focus of schools to be on educating and not having to always find funds for buildings. • I can't see any change compared to this year except the dates. • I am supportive of this policy, however, we have seen some incidents which have been very costly, Locking Parklands being a prime example, opened when there was more than enough capacity to meet need, were we feeding an multi academy trust's coffers or providing for the needs of local children? As a result, North Somerset schools have contributed amounts that would have been best spent on projects to help the greater good or pay of deficit. This must not happen again, those responsible should be held to account for this huge waste of much needed resource! • We do need to be mindful that we are building to provide places, not building for buildings sake. In the past much needed resources have been used to support growth before need. This should be avoided in the future at all costs.
Appendix C
Analysis of responses received in respect of block transfer
Pupil Numbers Block Movement Option Responses Pupil Numbers Represented on Block Movement Requests
No. of Schools or responses if anonymous Primary Secondary 0 0.5 0.7 1.2 0 0.5 0.7 1.2 Anonymous 2 0 0 2 0 Cabot Learning Federation 5 733 1883 0 0 1 0 2616 Churchill Academy and Sixth Form 1 0 1312 0 0 1 0 1312 Extend Learning Academies Network 7 2985 0 0 0 1 0 2985 Kewstoke Primary School 1 87 0 0 1 0 87 Lighthouse Schools Partnership 18 3980 3010 1 0 0 0 6990 Priory Learning Trust 4 751 2842 0 1 0 0 3593 Westhaven Special School 1 138 0 0 0 1 138 Totals 8674 9047 1 1 6 1 6990 3593 7000 138 Proposed Exceptional Growth
Policy 2020/21 Financial Year
Existing Schools Exceptional Growth is allocated where the Local Authority has asked a school(s) to provide extra places to meet basic need growth. This would normally be as a result of strategically planned extra places that are commissioned by the Local Authority as detailed in advance and included in the Education Provision in North Somerset~ A Commissioning Strategy (2018 – 2021).
The qualifying criteria for this funding is below. Schools who meet all of their relevant sector (primary/secondary) criteria will qualify for additional pupil growth funding:
Primary Sector Secondary Sector 1 Where the Local Authority agrees one Where the Local Authority agrees one of of the following with the school to meet the following with the school to meet basic basic need: need: • An increase in the school’s planned • An increase in the school’s planned admission number for its intake admission number for its intake cohort cohort (YR/Y3) in an academic year (Y7)** in an academic year (permanent (permanent or a temporary breach); or a temporary breach); • The school opens an additional • The school opens an additional class(es) for admission over and class(es) for admission over and above above planned incremental growth planned incremental growth
2 An increase in the number of notional classes. This is measured by dividing the October pupil numbers, both preceding and during the financial year, by 30 pupils. The second criterion is met if the latter creates a higher number of classes subject to the exception detailed below.* 3 An increase in pupils of more than 2%. The increase in pupils in the agreed cohort This is measured by the increase in - as at the October Census against the pupils between the October pupil published PAN is more than 5%. counts preceding and during the financial year. The third criterion is met if the increase exceeds 2% when expressed as a % of the pupils as at October preceding the financial year
*The exception to the second criterion, is where the Local Authority agrees the creation of an additional class is necessary and directly related to exceeding Planned Admissions Numbers (PAN). Schools may be expected to operate some mixed- age classes where necessary as the growth funding cannot be used to reduce class sizes. This doesn’t apply to secondary schools as they do not operate mixed year groups for curriculum classes. **The intake year if different from year 7 will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
For primary allocations, any resulting allocation will be calculated by multiplying the increase in pupils over the 2% trigger by 7/12ths of the AWPU rate for the phase to reflect the period September to March. For maintained schools the AWPU rate will be adjusted by deducting the value of the AWPU de-delegations. Additional pupil growth funding will be adjusted to reflect SEND.
For secondary allocations, any resulting allocation will be calculated by multiplying the increase in pupils over the 5% trigger by 7/12ths of the AWPU rate to reflect the period September to March. Additional pupil growth funding will be adjusted to reflect SEND.
Pupil Growth funding will be time limited to one year for breach classes as normal funding via the census numbers will follow in subsequent years. Normally to a maximum of the relevant years when the growth applicable to the school setting or until the school reaches its capacity if earlier. This funding will be cash limited if the demand exceeds the funding available.
Exceptional Pupil Growth Funding – Presumption Route New Schools
Where a school is established following the LA Presumption Route as a result of new demand from basic need, a one off, pre-opening set up costs are allocated on the basis of the details below: -
Pre-Opening
The actual funding provided to a new school will be determined on a case by case basis and will take into account the local context and potential impact on the sustainability of other schools. One-off pre-opening set up costs, will be allocated on the basis of the details below:
• A Headteacher at an appropriate scale point as laid out in the School Teachers Pay and Conditions document for the planned size of the school for the agreed period of time prior to opening. • Administration support on an appropriate grade for a comparable school of equal size for the period of time equal to that of the Headteacher. • Initial office equipment, premises and consumables to cover temporary office costs in the period before the school opens.
There is no fixed period prior to opening that these arrangements need to be in place for, but 5 months, (2 new school terms plus following holidays), is considered as the minimum.
Post Opening
In the first year, the delegated budget share for the period of the financial year open will be based on estimated pupil numbers with social deprivation and SEND data based on the average of up to three schools of the same phase, with demographic characteristics similar to those expected for the new school. SEND data will continue to be based on this methodology for the first three financial years the school is open.
Estimated pupil numbers will be used in the calculation of the delegated budget share for new schools and schools that have opened in the last seven years (for primary) or five years (for secondary) and do not yet have pupils in every cohort to which the school could admit.
For schools which opened before 31 March 2020, an allocation will be made from the exceptional pupil growth fund to reflect the pattern of pupil growth only seen in new schools.
- 2 - Created on 16/10/2019 The allocation will be calculated on the difference between the estimated pupil numbers used in the delegated budget share* and the actual pupil numbers, as at January during the financial year, rounded up to the nearest multiple of 30 pupils. This number will be multiplied by the appropriate AWPU value and the appropriate number of months with an adjustment for SEND and social deprivation funding.
For schools that open after 1 April 2020, the initial funding allocation for the school will be based on the number of first preferences received by the application closing dates, (15 January for primary and 31 October for secondary in the preceding year). Where the application closing date is later that the APT submittal date, the number of first preferences received up to the date of the APT submittal will be used. The school will also be allocated a post opening grant, on a lump sum basis of £50,000 per financial year, pro rata for the number of months open eg September to March £29,167 will be allocated.
Post opening funding will be time limited to a maximum of 5 years from opening for primary schools and 3 years for secondary, on the presumption the school will have a clear plan to operate at the planned admissions number be viable by this time through the usual funding mechanisms. This will encourage efficient deployment and allocation of resources as the school grows and will protect the growth fund against long term, non-sustainable commitments where demographic change falls short of expectations. There is an expectation that MATs will, use their staff and resources creatively to support the new school during this period.
In the instance where a school is expanding to the extent that it could be viewed as a new school, as it is on a separate site, the school will be considered as eligible for the new school post opening element of the exceptional pupil growth policy.
The estimated pupil numbers will need to be verified with the General Annual Grant (GAG) Statement for the school. Any difference in pupil numbers will be need to be queried with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) and adjusted as appropriate.
Exceptional Pupil Growth Funding – New Free Schools (not Presumption Route)
Sponsors who successfully apply directly to the DfE to run their school and granted pre- opening costs directly from national resources
Pre-opening funding - in the run up to opening, the DfE will provide a fixed-rate Project Development Grant (PDG) to cover essential non-capital costs up to the point at which the school opens.
Full details are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/free-school-pre-opening-guide
The PDG will normally be formed of two elements – an initial allocation of £30k with the balance paid in instalments after the provisional opening date has been agreed. This initial £30k is considered sufficient to meet all the pre-opening costs likely to be incurred by a trust up until the site solution is confirmed and the DfE has agreed a provisional opening date in writing.
- 3 - Created on 16/10/2019 Type of School PDG funding for first PDG funding for each school opening in a given additional school opening academic year in the same academic year Primary £220,000 £150,000 Secondary and all-through £300,000 £200,000 Special £220,000 £150,000 AP £200,000 £150,000 16 - 19 £250,000 £170,000 Independent converters / £25,000 £25,000 LA presumption schools
Published March 2019
- 4 - Created on 16/10/2019
- 5 - Created on 16/10/2019 Strategic Schools Forum 4th December 2019
Agenda Item No. 8
Education Inclusion Service Report incorporating
• TUF Consultation • Specialist and Alternative Provision review • Update on Educational Psychologists and EHCP’s • Update about statutory consultations to progress increases in provision. Wendy Packer
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE OF MEETING: 4TH DECEMBER 2019
SUBJECT OF REPORT: EDUCATION INCLUSION SERVICE UPDATE (INCLUDING TOP-UP FUNDING (TUF) CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION)
OFFICER/MEMBER PRESENTING: EDUCATION INCLUSION SERVICE LEAD AND VIRTUAL SCHOOL HEADTEACHER ~ WENDY PACKER
KEY DECISION: YES
RECOMMENDATIONS
i. SSF note the progress to date of the new developments resulting from the Specialist and AP Review
ii. SSF agrees to formally support the start of the Top Up Funding Consultation that will run from 9 – 20 December 2019
iii. SSF notes the consequences of the increased number of requests for Education Health Care (EHC) assessments and the shortage of Educational Psychologists
iv. SSF agrees to engage in the consultations to create extra primary-phase specialist places for Specific Learning Disability and High Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders and in the delivery of the expansion of Baytree Special School as appropriate
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to:
1.1. Inform SSF of the progress made in relation to each of the projects resulting from the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review
1.2. Ask SSF to formally support the Top Up Funding Consultation process that runs from 9 – 20 December 2019
1.3. Inform SSF of the situation regarding Educational Psychologists and EHCPs
1.4 Update SSF about statutory consultations to progress increases in provision as an outcome of the SEND and AP Review findings.
2. SUMMARY OF REPORT
2.1 Further progress has been made in developing the additional provisions identified in the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review. These need to be viewed as positive steps to increase the much-needed additional provision for our children and young people within North Somerset. 2.2. The Top-Up Funding Consultation proposed for 2020/2021 primarily focuses on changes to the criteria for Top-Up Funding. In addition, there are proposals to reduce the number of moderation meetings from 4 to 3 due to capacity issues and to look at the process for Post 16 funding. 2.3. The significant increase in demand for EHC assessments has been impacted upon by the lack of capacity relating to Educational Psychologists.
3. DETAILS
Specialist and Alternative Provision Review – Project Updates 3.1 Using resources from the Specialist Provisions Fund of £260,161 in the 2019/20 financial year, significant progress has been made on delivering two Specific Learning Disability and High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Resource Bases for pupils with High Functioning ASD across the primary and secondary sector, to be available from September 2020 as below:
a. Secondary Provision: The Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) approved the creation of a Resource Base at Nailsea School on 10 June 2019. The base will open for up to 10 pupils across the years 7 – 9 cohorts on 1 September 2020. The Council and Nailsea School are working on the final alterations to the Nailsea School site to create a unit within the main buildings of this school to open on 1 September 2020.
b. Primary Provision: the LA is now working closely with one primary academy school in Weston-super-Mare with the intention to create a High Functioning Autism Resource Base for up to 10 pupils. It is hoped the academy will commence expansion consultations early in 2020 so they can progress to the planning application and RSC approval stages, if appropriate, from spring 2020 onwards. The resource base, if approved, should be available for pupils by the start of the 2020/21 school year.
3.2 The closing date for Expressions of Interest for the new Social Emotional Mental Health – Wave 13 Bid Progress school was 30 September 2019. The Department for Education and the Council are considering the applications for providers of the new SEMH school. We anticipate interviews to be early in the new year. This Free School application is led and will be delivered by the DfE/ESFA.
3.3 Complex Physical Needs - Baytree School: The first stage of a 3-stage statutory process to expand Baytree Special School onto a 2nd site started on 19 September and ended on 25 October 2019. Views were sought on whether or not there is support to expand the school from 72 to 120 places located across 2 sites. The result of this consultation will be shared with Council Members in December 2019. A planning application is expected to be submitted in the new year, along with budget approval for the scheme to be added to the Council’s capital programme in February 2020. The Baytree Very Special Circumstances planning
process that will need to be shown for an application to be considered within a greenbelt site, together with the receipt of a recent Town and Village Green application from residents, means there are still significant challenges, which will need to be overcome before the delivery of this scheme is secured.
The budget for the scheme is significant. Whilst the LA will hope to cover most of the standard fixtures and fittings for the school, specialist furniture and equipment required by individual pupils to meet education, health or care needs will need to be met from other funding sources.
Top-Up Funding Consultation Updates
3.4 SSF are asked to note and to formally support the Top-Up Funding Consultation, which will run from 9 -20 December 2019. The details are included as part of the Addendums of this paper:
• Addendum 1: TUF Consultation Paper including New School Age Criteria; Process for Post 16 TUF; Post 16 Criteria & VLC/SEMH Criteria
Educational Psychologists and Education Health Care Plans
3.5 SSF are aware there has been a significant increase in both the number of requests for assessments for EHCPs and subsequently of the numbers progressed through to the assessment process. The situation now has been impacted upon by the fact that educational psychologist support, the specialist input adopted by North Somerset to support assessments, is insufficient to allow us to comply with the statutory time frames for assessments. This is not only a local issue but a national one too.
Local Authorities cannot refuse to assess a young person for an EHCP just because there is no specialist involvement. North Somerset reviewed our criteria as part of the Graduated Response to ensure we complied with this.
The SEN Regulations, however, state that every EHCP assessment needs to include educational psychology advice. (Code of Practice 9.49…” Advice and information must be sought … from an educational psychologist who should normally be employed or commissioned by the LA”)
4. CONSULTATION
4.1 The consultation to deliver a secondary-aged (years 7 – 9) ASD Specific Learning Disability and High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Resource Base for pupils with High Functioning ASD at Nailsea School fully supported this new provision. The project has now moved, following the approval of the RSC in June 2019, to the delivery stage.
4.2 A consultation to deliver a primary-aged ASD Specific Learning Disability and High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Resource Base for pupils with High Functioning ASD at an academy in Weston-super-Mare will commence in early 2020. SSF are asked to respond positively to this consultation when available.
4.3 Following an Expression of Interest process in Term 1 (2019), Multi-Academy Trusts have applied to the DfE to run a new Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) school in North Somerset. Whilst it is not possible to share the names or numbers of those who have applied, it is hoped this process will be progressed to the interview stage early in January 2020.
4.4 Following consultation, the changes to provide infant-aged places at Westhaven School have been implemented. Reception-aged pupils started at the school in September 2019.
4.5 Stage 1 of the 3-stage expansion consultation on to create extra places at Baytree School ended on 25 October 2019. Cllrs will consider the responses to this consultation in December 2019.
Alongside the school expansion process, a planning application for the new site is expected to be made in early 2020. SSF are asked to respond positively to this consultation when available.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Revenue Costs
5.1 The revenue funding needed to fund pupils attending new provisions created as an outcome of the Specialist and Alternative Provision Review will be incorporated into the recommendations to be made to SSF in future meetings following the Top Up Funding Consultation process that runs from 9 – 20 December 2019. Details will follow in due course.
5.2 Officers are seeking alternative options to create capacity and resilience when requiring Educational Psychologists/specialist capacity when inputting into EHCPs.
Capital costs
5.3 The capital costs of the delivery of the ASD Specific Learning Disability and High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Resource Bases are being met by the Council from a Specialist Provision Fund grant in the 2019/20 financial year. SSF may wish to review the impact these resource bases have on reducing the numbers of out of district places. This could inform a future business case for additional resource bases in the future.
5.4 The SEMH School is a Free School and therefore should be funded by the ESFA. The ESFA will look to the Council to resource any costs for abnormal building expenses such as road infrastructure changes, the re-routing of power lines etc.
5.5 A report to secure capital funding for the 2nd site for Baytree Special School will be considered by Full Council in February 2020 as part of the Council’s budget setting process. This may or may not include the funding needed for student-specific specialist equipment.
5.6 There are no capital implications to the Top-Up Funding Review or lack of Educational Psychologist support.
6. RISK MANAGEMENT
6.1 Pupils to attend the primary and secondary-aged ASD Specific Learning Disability and High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Resource Bases are already starting to be identified. The increase in need for this form of provision currently indicates no lack of demand for the 20 places to be created. The projects should help to reduce the risk of overspend on out of district places for this category of need.
6.2 There is significant demand for SEMH places. As a Free School to delivery risk lies with the DfE/ESFA. The creation of this new school should help to reduce the risk of overspend on out of district places for this category of need
6.3 The Baytree Very Special Circumstances planning process that will need to be shown for an application to be considered within a greenbelt site, together with the receipt of a recent Town and Village Green application from local residents, means there are still significant challenges, which will need to be overcome before the delivery of the expansion of Baytree Special School is secure. Considerable work continues to be progressed by the Council to minimise these risks. A delay to the opening of the new school site, whilst not planned, is a significant possibility at this time.
6.4 It is recognised that difficult and unpopular decisions will need to be taken by SSF to reduce the overspend and demand on this budget. Following on from last year’s consultation, which looked directly at funding values, the focus this year has primarily been on ensuring that the criteria for each category and level was considered and agreed by multi-professional partners. This consultation reduces the risk that those managing the changes have not been consulted about them.
6.5 Officers are working with colleagues from Somerset Council, from whom North Somerset commission their educational psychology service, including the provision of statutory duties, to increase capacity. This is needed in direct response to the increase in demand for EHC needs assessments.
7. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Equality considerations were reviewed when setting the 2019-20 school budget. The EIA has been subject to consultation and discussion with a wide range of stakeholder groups to ensure all risks have been identified and understood. At this stage, there are no proposals / decisions that require the consideration of additional impacts. The latest EIA is attached.
8. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
8.1 The corporate budget monitoring process is an important part of the Council’s overall corporate governance and financial management arrangements. The monitoring process looks at risks and opportunities across the Council which may have a corporate impact. There are no specific corporate implications other than those already identified throughout that report.
9. OPTIONS CONSIDERED
9.1 To not implement the changes resulting from the SEND and AP Review or not consult on changes to Top-Up Funding. Neither options were considered viable alternatives.
AUTHOR
Wendy Packer Education Inclusion Service Leader and Virtual School Head
[email protected] 01934 885157
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Previous papers to the SSF particularly the 2018-19 monitoring reports and the budget setting reports for 2019-20.
Addendum 1
Proposals of North Somerset Council and the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF)
Consultation on school and post 16 Top up Funding (TUF) arrangements for the 2020 -21 financial year
Index
SECTION DESCRIPTION
1 Introduction
2 Methodology
3 Executive Summary of recommendations
Details of proposals:
4 School Top up funding Criteria / Process changes
5 Post 16 Criteria /Process
6 VLC Criteria
7 Next steps
Appx 1 Top up funding guidance 2019/20
Appx 2 Proposed School age criteria
Appx 3 Proposed Post 16 process
Appx 4 Proposed Post 16 criteria
Appx 5 Proposed VLC criteria
Appx 6 Draft Equality Impact Assessment
1. Introduction
About this consultation
1.1. This consultation covers further changes to the Top up Funding (TUF) arrangements for the 2020/21 academic year following recommendations made at the consultation carried out at the end of 2018.The proposal is that changes are made to the criteria for school aged pupils, VLC and criteria and process changes to TUF for Post 16 colleges.
1.2. The current Top-Up Funding system in North Somerset has been in place since April 2019. See Appendix 1.
1.3. It was developed in consultation between the Local Authority and schools through a working group. The model is based on calculating a ‘universal band value’ for pupils with various types of needs which takes into account whether they attend mainstream or specialist provision.
1.4. The current universal band values are calculated on the basis of expected staffing costs required to meet different types and levels of need. The universal band value is then adjusted by subtracting the expected contribution from the delegated budget share to arrive at the actual Top-Up Funding value. For mainstream schools, the expected contribution from the delegated budget is £6,000 (Element 2). For special schools, the expected contribution is £10,000.
1.5. If you have any questions about anything contained in this document then please send them via email to [email protected]
2. Methodology
2.1. The Strategic Schools’ Forum (SSF) requested a follow up consultation on the Top-Up Funding following the changes which were implemented from April 2019. It was acknowledged that during the last consultation the Top- Up Funding criteria would be considered by a multi-professional group.
2.2. The original review was completed in collaboration with relevant Local Authority staff and representatives from schools, parent groups and other educational settings. It involved the following activities:
• review of relevant documentation and processes • analysis of data including financial data and benchmarking data from statistical neighbour authorities • meetings with key personnel from the Local Authority and schools/settings. • meeting with parent representative.
2.3. The Formula Review Working Group (FRWG) is the body that the Council consults in relation to the way in which schools are funded. A subgroup of the FRWG was established, including representatives from the Education Inclusion Service’s SEND Team; Education Funding team, mainstream and special schools (including head teachers and business managers, SENCOs); health and parent groups.
2.4. The FRWG met 6 times between April and May 2019 to look at the Top-Up Funding criteria. This was necessary to ensure that the criteria were devised in a multi-agency manner. The proposed criteria changes can be found as Appendix 2.
2.5. Stakeholders also considered the practicality of the increase in frequency of moderation sessions (which includes the number of times each year, educational settings can apply for funding). Last year’s TUF consultation increased the frequency of the moderation meetings and the number of times a setting could apply to four times a year.
2.6. It is proposed this is reduced to three times a year to ensure sustainability and capacity issues for schools and the LA are managed.
2.7. It is proposed the funding start and end dates are clarified as detailed in the table below.
Moderation Funding Start Date Funding End Date
March 1 May 30 April June 1 September 31 August November 1 December 30 November
2.8. There will be a briefing session when members of the SEND Team will be available to answer questions associated with the consultation, this is detailed in Section 7. It should be noted that the proposed recommendations are for the academic year 2020-21.
2.9. The SSF would encourage all stakeholders to respond to the consultation to ensure that their views are taken into consideration as part of the decision- making process.
3. Executive Summary
3.1. A summary of all the recommendations from the SSF is provided in the table below.
It is recommended:
Section Description Recommendation 4 Top-Up Funding Criteria/ Recommendation no 4a – Approve the new school Process Changes criteria as presented in Appendix 2
Recommendation no 4b - Agree that moderation will occur three times a year in; March, June, November. Recommendation no 4c - Agree that annual training needs to be undertaken by new staff only Recommendation no 4d – Agree the funding start and end dates. 5 Post 16 Criteria/Process Recommendation 5a - Agree a new process of moderating and agreeing funding for Post 16 settings as presented in Appendix 4 Recommendation 5b - Agree new criteria for Post 16 settings as presented in appendix 3 6 VLC Criteria Recommendation 6a - Agree new criteria for Voyage Learning Campus as presented in appendix 5
4. Top-Up Funding Process
4.1. In October 2019, 1,094.6 full- time equivalent children and young people in North Somerset were in receipt of Top-Up Funding.
4.2. The actual amounts of Top-Up Funding are currently determined through a banding system based on a set of descriptors of pupil needs. In North Somerset, there are five categories of need with each category broken down into levels of need
• Category A: Cognition & Learning has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £4,350 to £26,092 (mainstream) or £3,250 to £37,965 (special) • Category B: Communication/ASD has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £2,850 to £33,293 (mainstream) or £2,405 to £37,965 (special) • Category C: Social, Emotional & Behavioural has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £2,850 to £17,472 (mainstream) or £2,405 to £22,678 (special) • Category D: Sensory has 4 levels for Vision and 4 levels for Hearing with top-ups both ranging from £1,850 to £18,551 (mainstream) or £0 to £17,055 (special) • Category E: Physical/Medical has 3 levels of need with top-ups ranging from £7,850 to £23,639 (mainstream) or £5,159 to £26,860 (special) The full breakdown is shown below:
2020-2021 Top- Up Funding Bands & Values – Financial Year
1st April 2020 – 31st March 2021 20 Special Mainstream Schools & Category Level Schools Resource Annual amount Bases Annual amount A1 £4,350 £3,520 A2 £5,729 £6,620 A - Cognition and Learning A3 £10,848 £17,055 A4 £26,092 £37,695 B1 £2,850 £2,405 B2 £7,029 £6,620 B - Communication - ASD B3 £12,715 £17,055 B4 £33,293 £37,695 C1 £2,850 £2,405 C - Social, Emotional and C2 £7,029 £6,620 Behaviour C3 £12,715 £16,055 C4 £17,472 £22,678 DV1 £1,850 £0 DH1 £1,850 £0 DV2 £5,557 £0 D - Sensory V=Vision, H=Hearing DH2 £5,557 £0 DV3 £10,600 £7,617 DH3 £10,600 £4,870 DV4 £18,551 £17,055 DH4 £18,551 £17,055 E1 £7,850 £5,159 E - Physical / Medical E2 £10,307 £8,887 E3 £23,639 £26,860
4.3. A subgroup of the FRWG has made posed changes to the Top- Up Funding criteria for schools which can be found in Appendix 3. It is proposed that these changes are agreed.
4.4. Following the changes implemented last year, it is proposed that the number of opportunities to apply for funding is reduced to three times a year to ensure sustainability and capacity issues for schools and the LA are managed.
4.5. It is proposed that the funding start and end dates are clarified and detailed in
the table below.
Moderation Funding Start Date Funding End Date
March April March June September August November December November
4.6. In relation to training it is proposed that just new staff attend the annual mandatory Top-Up training.
Recommendations
• Recommendation 4a- approval is given to the proposed new school criteria as presented in Appendix 2.
• Recommendation 4b- the number of moderation opportunities is reduced from 4 to 3 times a year in March, June and November.
• Recommendation 4c- annual Top Up Training is only mandatory for new staff.
5. Post 16 Top-Up Funding
5.1. A new process of moderating and agreeing funding for Post 16 FE settings has been co-produced between the Local Authority and Weston College. See Appendix 4.
5.2. Top-Up Funding criteria which is specific for Post 16 students has been developed. See Appendix 5.
5.3. It is proposed that the new Post 16 process and criteria is agreed.
Recommendation
• Recommendation 5a- approval is given to the proposed new process and funding for Post 16 settings as presented in Appendix 4.
• Recommendation 5b- approval is given to the new criteria for Post 16 settings as presented in Appendix 3.
• Recommendation 5c- approval is given to the new criteria for the Voyage Learning Campus as presented in Appendix 5.
6. VLC
6.1. Top-Up Funding criteria which is specific for SEMH needs in relation to the Voyage Learning Campus has been developed. See Appendix 6.
6.2. It is proposed that the new VLC SEMH criteria is agreed and is used to help moderate the students within the VLC in relation to the current block funding arrangements.
7. Next steps
7.1. This section sets out the key next steps towards implementation of the proposals in this document from April 2020. The timetable for the implementation is provided in the table below:
7.2. This consultation is only proposing changes which relate to the criteria and minor processing changes for Post 16 funding. Next year due unknown factors, the FRWG will need to revisit the criteria and the values associated with each category.
Timetable for implementation 9th December 2019 to 20th Consultation period December 2019. W/C 9th December 2019 Noticeboard article containing link where the consultation can be accessed. 19th December 2019 Consultation Surgery 10.30- 2pm at The Town Hall
6th January 2020 Consultation responses will be considered 10th January 2020 SSF report published 15th January 2020 Proposals considered by the Strategic Schools Forum W/C 20th January 2020 2020-21 Top-Up Funding guidance link sent out via Noticeboard.
Appendix 1
TUF Guidance 2019/2020 Academic Year
TUF guidance 2019/20 http://www.supportservicesforeducation.co.uk/Pages/Download/5f84 2221-c261-4a68-a49f-a22cc94f0e99
Appendix 2: New School Age Criteria
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 1. Severe learning difficulties 1. Must meet ALL of Level 1 1. Pupils have profound and 1. Must meet ALL of Level 2 or criteria. and that despite appropriate multiple learning 3. support and personalised 2. Anticipated to be working at or difficulties. 2. In addition, pupils exhibit teaching the child is only below Pre-key stage 1, Standard 2. Attainment in all areas likely severe and challenging making occasional steps of 2 levels throughout their school to remain static at or below behaviour that poses severe career (up to Year 11) progress or progress has P4 throughout school career risk to themselves, other 3. Experiences severe coexisting stopped. needs in one or more other area. (up to Year 11). pupils and staff, requiring 2. Attainment in all core and The additional need will be 3. In addition to severe learning additional staffing (at least most foundation subjects will difficulties, pupils have hourly on average) and a Category A Category considered as long-term and in remain at or below a NC Year terms of behaviour, would have coexisting high level additional requirement for extended 1 level or Pre-Key Stage 1, been present for at least four need in one or more other teaching outside the standard 4 level throughout terms. areas e.g. sensory, mobility, classroom setting. their school career (up to 4. Acquisition of basic skills will be communication or medical 3. Demonstrate persistent,
– Year 11). extremely slow and inconsistent; difficulties. constant severe and
Cognition Learning and 3. Experience severe difficulties teaching and learning sessions 4. Pupils will communicate by challenging behaviours in all in making inferences, need to identify small steps to gesture, eye pointing, facial settings and with all staff generalisation and inform assessment expression, objects of posing a sever risk to outcomes/secure progress over transferring skills. reference or by vocalisation. themselves and others. time. 4. They will have significantly 5. Lacks independent personal 5. Pupils cooperate with shared 4. Due to the extent of their delayed receptive and care skills e.g. toileting, exploration and may engage learning difficulty, they have expressive language skills in dressing, eating, hygiene. and show that they can tell the limited communication line with their cognitive profile. 6. Extent of difficulty requires long- difference between specific throughout the day. 5. Their vulnerability at break term multi-professional strategic people, objects, places and 5. Due to the complexity of their and lunchtime due to planning to maintain a events in their familiar learning and behaviour these significantly delayed mainstream placement at least surroundings. pupils require planning and development of social skills every two years. provision for out of school lead to concerns regarding hours and for a high level of safety and inclusion means family support and liaison. that they must be supervised.
Pre-Key Stage 1 Guidance
Page 18 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Speech & Language Speech & Language Speech and Language
1. A minimum of moderate to 1. Severe speech sound 1. The pupil has profound severe disorder of receptive disorder or neurological communication difficulties and/or expressive language structural impairment coupled with very challenging skills. Pupil cannot follow affecting speech. behaviour. They have instructions or respond 2. The child is unintelligible extremely limited
Category B Category appropriately to questions even to familiar listeners. concentration, independence when they can complete 3. Child will need high level and are unable to grasp tasks that are not reliant on bespoke AAC devices as social/behavioural norms. speech and language. advised by a speech and 2. The pupil is likely to remain
– 2. Able to communicate using language therapist. largely non-verbal throughout
Communication self-generated, simple their school career. sentences, may have Interpretation is heavily difficulty in expressing ideas dependent on the context and through language e.g. word knowledge of individual. finding, sequencing. Extent of 3. Reliance on AAC and or use disorder requires support of concrete modes of
(Speech and Language) from SALT and delivery of a communication such as body personalised speech and language / use of real objects language programme or a to make simple choices, strategy plan that is no more basic needs known. than two years old. 3. Due to their receptive and expressive language difficulties, the pupil demonstrates at least a 2-
year delay in the core subjects up to and including KS2 and at least a 4-year delay in KS3 and 4 in all core subjects.
Page 19
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Social Communication Social communication Social Communication
1. Due to their social To meet all of level 1 of Social Must meet all of Level 2. communication needs, the communication criteria pupil has significant 1. Severe, persistent and difficulties with social 1. The child has severe and complex social interaction
Category B Category competence/emotional well- pervasive social difficulties. Intentional social being. Frequent social communication difficulties interactions are on the pupil’s interaction and which have a significant own terms and tend to centre communication difficulties impact on their ability to on the meeting of their needs. demonstrating an inability to understand and use
–
independent repair and language. This affects their 2. Limited functional language Communication recover the situation (3- 5 ability to understand skills. Difficulty seeing the times per day) from which consequences, predict and point of learning opportunities they are unable to problem solve and accept or social activities. independently repair and age appropriate responsibility recover. for their own actions. 3. Ritualised and repetitive behaviours evident
(Social Communication) Requires support to: 2. Persistent social interaction throughout the school day • develop empathy and and communication and which significantly limits understanding of emotions, difficulties, evident throughout the child’s learning and • initiate or maintain the school day and in all impacts on other children’s conversations, settings and contexts. learning. • use and understand non-verbal communication to assist 3. Completely self-directed and reciprocal peer or adult interactions. largely unresponsive to adult • recover and repair incidents of attempts to engage the child social communication. throughout the day.
2. Significant difficulties 4. Limited appreciation of managing and interpreting the classroom conventions, environment (including leading to challenging classroom and unstructured behaviour. times) and coping with Page 20
communicative demands and 5. School has recognised and or changes and transitions acted upon the requirement during the school day. for multi-agency involvement Social Communication 3. Significant anxiety results in for assessment and to the inability to cope with support their learning. 1. Due to their extreme social social demands escalating to communication difficulty, they extreme distress/controlling have preverbal behaviours. communication. 2. Meaning has to be inferred from behaviours, gestures, facial expression or emotional response by familiar adults and/or AAC 3. These pupils exhibit severe and challenging, unpredictable behaviour (at least hourly on average) that poses an additional risk to themselves, other pupils and staff to the extent that additional staffing is required to ensure safety of the pupil and/or others limited or no intentional social interaction. 4. Extremely rigid and ritualised behaviour which impacts on their own learning and on others learning and is evident throughout the school day. 5. At times these behaviours will escalate to a crisis situation (Incident last for a prolong period of time or results in a prepared multi-professional response being activated to help support and manage the situation)
Page 21 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 1. Exhibits severe and 1. Must meet ALL of Level 1 10. Must meet ALL of level 1 1. Must meet all level 3 challenging disruptive or criteria and 2 2. Pupil likely to have complex disturbing behaviours which 2. Severity of SEMH results in them 1. Frequent, intense emotional and profound needs in all harms themselves or others. being physically and verbally responses to everyday areas. Engages in These behaviours will be seen threatening to peers and adults on demands e.g. severe unpredictable and extreme even in the context of a an almost daily basis, presenting anxiety, withdrawal, verbal or social and emotionally structured and supportive significant health and safety risk. physical aggression towards based behaviours which personal and behaviour Display self-harming behaviour self, peers, adults and or compromise their safety and management programme stemming from their emotional property. the safety of others. which includes appropriately needs which impacts on their 2. The behaviour completely differentiated tasks. ability to engage with learning. disrupts the child/young 3. Requires a personalised and Social, Emotional Mental Health & Social, 2. The behaviour impedes the person’s learning and other therapeutic learning child’s learning and social 3. Shows high levels of oppositional activities and disturbs/ environment and will need times and distracts the whole defiant behaviour and unable to interrupts the whole class for more than 1:1 support class. comply with reasonable requests. long periods. The episodes throughout the school day. 3. Frequency will be significant at of problematic behaviour are 6 to 8 times per day on 4. Be extremely distractible to the long lasting and may well 4. The behaviour has resulted average, requiring immediate extent that they do not engage continue over a number of in either complete lack of intervention to de-escalate / re- even when planned strategies and days. relationships with peers establish an environment differentiated support is put into meaning that the where the child is able to re- place. 3. Premeditated violent child/young person finds it engage with learning 5. The behaviour impacts behaviour with intent to harm difficult to make any friends 4. Results of behaviours means substantially upon the child/young and not in response to or friendships. Any there is a need for person’s learning and other environmental factors, over interactions with weaker interventions to help calm and activities and disturbs / interrupts an extended period (one peers may feature and be
re-assure the other children the whole class for sustained year) including assaults on based upon intimidation and and staff so that they are ready periods. staff and pupils requiring control to learn. 6. The episodes of problematic detailed risk assessments. 5. Signs of emotional distress are behaviour will continue all day. 5. The child/young person may evident on at least a daily Unable to make appropriate 4. Will need more than 2:1 have suffered from acute basis. The pupil is reluctant to approaches to peers, resorting to support at times during the trauma or abuse which engage and requires close physical and verbal school day if in a renders him / her extremely monitoring and supervision intimidation/aggression on an mainstream environment vulnerable and has and adjustments to tasks. almost daily basis. and has difficulty maintaining necessitated a high level of 6. Outbursts are intense but of 7. Unable to maintain control and placements. multi- agency involvement short duration. does not take responsibility for over a sustained period. own behaviour. They may appear
Page 22
7. Risk assessment will be overwhelmed by their emotional 5. Positive response and 6. The child/young person may required. needs and feelings of distress. intervention strategies be considered a risk to self appropriately employed to or others and requires a risk 8. Severely impulsive behaviours help deescalate the assessment to ensure his / with no concern for consequences. situation. her safety in school
9. School has recognised and acted 7. The pupil’s behaviour upon the requirement for multi- causes an acute concern in agency involvement for relation to health and safety assessment and support and to or safeguarding in all maintain placement. contexts. The risk of significant harm to self and others is a constant concern.
Page 23 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Vision Vision Vision 1. Multi-sensory impairment. 1. Moderate Vision Loss (in 1. Moderate Vision Loss (in the 1. Registered severely sight Diagnosed combination of the range of 6/24 to 6/36) range of 6/36 to 6/60). Usually impaired with an Acuity of severe visual and as advised by medical registered as Sight Impaired. less than 6/60. severe/profound hearing diagnosis or the QTVI Requires 1:1 support 2. Braille users in primary loss. 2. May be registered as sight throughout most of the school education will be supported at 2. The pupil may or may not day to access the curriculum, this level. or severely sight Impaired. have hearing aids or a Learning materials may specialist equipment and cochlear implant. need to be modified and/or adapted (electronic or enlarged) 3. The pupil will have additional Hearing enlarged to meet their learning materials. complex needs and be totally 1. Have a profound sensori- 2. Environmental audit has been dependent on appropriately visual need. neural hearing loss in the requested and implemented. qualified adult support in order 3. Unable to visually access better ear as advised by to access the learning board work. medical diagnosis or the Hearing environment and curriculum. Sensory Teacher of the Deaf. 4. May need more than 1:1 4. Environmental impact audit to 2. Has significant difficulty support throughout the school have been completed and 1. Permanent, severe Sensori- understanding the speech of day. Use of a sensory room implemented. neural hearing loss in the better adults and peers at an age- on a regular basis will be Loss ear. appropriate level without appropriate. Staff will use support, whether signed, 2. Has hearing aids and or a sounds or objects of Hearing written or oral. cochlear implant. reference. 1. Moderate sensori-neural 3. May use additional amplification hearing loss in the better ear e.g. radio system / soundfield. 5. Pupils who are Braille users in as advised by medical 4. Receptive and expressive secondary school will be diagnosis or the Teacher of communication significantly supported at level 4. the Deaf. delayed. 2. Delayed receptive and 5. Pupil may communicate orally expressive communication or through AAC. 3. Due to variable speech intelligibility may use AAC and or additional amplification e.g. radio system /Soundfield system.
Page 24 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 1. A life-long and ongoing physical 1. A wheelchair user and 1. Non-ambulant, all areas of condition requiring wheelchair unable to transfer and motor function are minimal
or other mobility aid such as a weight bear without adult 2. Totally reliant on adult personalised walking frame intervention and not able to support for all transfers and which is monitored by a medical assist. positioning within seating professional. and standing frame using 2. The use of specially hoists during the school 2. Has poor core stability and adapted mobility day. physical strength requiring a equipment. Reliant on adult physiotherapy programme to support for moving, 3. Minimal fine motor skills minimise deterioration. positioning, personal care. and reliant on adult support for personal care needs, 3. Extent of physical difficulty 3. Fine motor skills difficulties including toileting
means the child is unable to mean the child is unable to 4. Level of physical disability transfer independently (but may cut up food independently. Physical requires manual handling be able to assist). risk assessment and 4. Level of physical disability accessible transport 4. Ongoing difficulties with self- requires a manual handling
arrangements for school help and independence skills. risk assessment and accessible transport trips etc.
5. Level of physical disability requires arrangements for school trips 5. Highly reliant on adult a manual handling risk assessment etc. support for all personal for access to all school activities care needs including including those off-site. toileting, dressing, eating and drinking.
6. Has additional severe learning, communication or social need.
Page 25
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 1. Chronic medical condition/s that 1. Must meet level 1 criteria. 1. Severe or degenerative impact on their ability to access 2. To implement the advice of medical condition. The the academic and social medical professionals, pupil severity and/or the curriculum. Examples of the requires trained adults to unpredictability of medical medical condition would include access the entire condition/s require constant severe uncontrolled epilepsy, curriculum due to their adult intervention by staff frequent suctioning or medical condition. with the competency colostomy. standards required to 3. A significant coexisting undertake the necessary 2. Individual Healthcare Plan in difficulty e.g. procedures. place due to the potentially communication, sensory or 2. Has additional severe
Medical serious nature of their condition. learning. learning and communication difficulties 3. Learning programmes are 4. Unable to monitor their which means that they are
required to support and train the health needs and unlikely to recognise or pupils to independently manage independently manage this. articulate deterioration in their medical condition. Adults would recognise their medical conditions symptoms, triggers of the which may change rapidly. onset of the condition Adults working with them would also struggle to recognise any early signs. 3. Highly individualised learning programmes implemented across all settings.
Page 26
APPENDIX 3 Process for Post 16 TUF
The following applies to all mainstream FE Colleges, mainstream and non-independent sixth forms.
New starters transferring from North Somerset Schools, including mainstream and special schools will be allocated the top up funding category and level they received in the year prior to transfer. This is in line with school aged top up funding, where pupils transferring as part of a key stage transfer (EY to reception and Y6 to secondary education) maintain the funding they received in the previous school.
Where school aged funding for transfer pupils remains in place for one year, funding will continue for two years in Post 16 (to reflect a typical 2-year course), but the LA will, in liaison with the provider, review 10% of cases to ensure that the funding level remains appropriate.
VLC is block funded but each pupil’s needs will be moderated against the specialist criteria under SEMH. This moderated level will be the one that transfers with the learner upon transfer to Post 16 education.
New applications
The Local Authority will moderate 15% of new applications for top up funding, with the exception of new starters, whose allocation is carried over, as described above.
To support this process, the setting will provide a list of all learners, with the category and level required to support them, to the LA. The LA will determine the 15% of learners that require a full application.
Each case will consist of a full application including a request for funding form and the application evidence expected will be the same as for school aged applications.
• In all cases where a student is in receipt of an Education Health Care Plan, the evidence that settings will need to provide will be a copy of this and the latest Annual Review (including any reports), which sets out the needs of the students and the provision in place to meet those needs. Should there have been a significant change since the Annual Review was held, evidence of such may also be submitted.
• In cases where the student is at SEN Support and currently in receipt of Top-Up Funding the evidence will consist of a completed Top-Up Funding review form (including any recent and relevant outside agency reports).
• Where there is a new application, the information provided will be included in the top up funding request form (including any recent and relevant outside agency reports). Page 27
Applications will be moderated by SEN Officers, and a representative of the educational psychology service and supportive parents.
Post 16 criteria has been written which is comparable to the school aged criteria but reflective of the cohort of post 16 learners.
For those applications that are not agreed at moderation, the provider will have the opportunity to attend an appeals panel where the decision will be scrutinised. As Post 16 placements only have the opportunity to make applications once per year, they will be permitted to include new information in the appeal.
High Needs No Category
FE Colleges do not receive element 2 funding through a formula. They do receive element 2 funding for those learners who receive top up funding. To ensure fairness, the LA pays a nominal amount from the high needs block to allow colleges to support leaners who do not require TUF but do require additional support though smaller group sizes. The LA provides this amount to students on L1 courses. Colleges will provide a costed provision map for each course.
Page 28
Post 16 Criteria -Appendix 4 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 1. Severe learning difficulties 1. Must meet ALL of Level 1 6. Learners have profound 6. Must meet ALL of Level 2 were evident in their school criteria. and multiple learning or 3. setting, and that despite 2. Anticipated to be working at pre- difficulties. 7. In addition, learners appropriate support and entry level 7. Attainment in all areas likely exhibit severe and personalised teaching the 3. Experiences severe coexisting to remain static at or below challenging behaviour needs in one or more other area. student was only making P4 throughout college that poses severe risk to The additional need will be occasional steps of considered as long-term and in career (up to Year 11) ) and themselves, other progress or progress has terms of behaviour, would have little further progress is learners and staff, stopped. been present for at least two evident in Post 16 education requiring additional
Category A Category 2. When Attainment in all core terms. 8. In addition to severe staffing (at least hourly on and most foundation subjects learning difficulties, learners average) and a remained at or below a NC have coexisting high level requirement for extended Year 1 level or Pre-Key Stage additional need in one or teaching outside the
– 1, standard 4 level throughout more other areas e.g. classroom setting.
Cognition and their school career (up to Year sensory, mobility, 8. Demonstrate persistent, 11) At Post 16 level students communication or medical constant severe and will be working at entry level or difficulties. challenging behaviours in level 1 with a greater emphasis 9. Learners will communicate all settings and with all placed on the skills required for by gesture, eye pointing, staff posing a sever risk to adult life and supported facial expression, objects of themselves and others. Learning employment reference or by vocalisation. 9. Due to the extent of their 3. Experience severe difficulties 10. Learners cooperate with learning difficulty, they in making inferences, shared exploration and may have limited
generalisation and transferring engage and show that they communication skills. can tell the difference throughout the day. 4. They will have significantly between specific people, 10. Due to the complexity of delayed receptive and objects, places and events their learning and expressive language skills in in their familiar surroundings. behaviour these learners line with their cognitive profile. require planning and provision for out of college hours and for a high level of family support and liaison.
Page 29
5. Their vulnerability at break and 11. Acquisition of basic skills will lunchtime due to significantly be extremely slow and delayed development of social inconsistent; teaching and skills lead to concerns learning sessions need to regarding safety and inclusion identify small steps to inform means that they must be assessment supervised. outcomes/secure progress over time. 12. Lacks independent personal care skills e.g. toileting, Category A Category dressing, eating, hygiene. Extent of difficulty requires long-term multi-professional strategic planning to
– maintain a mainstream
Cognition Learning and college placement at least every two years In relation to SEND code of Preparing for Adulthood requires Preparing for Adulthood requires Preparing for Adulthood practice section 8.31 onwards* students to have highly students to have highly requires students to meet ALL individualised programmes of individualised programmes of of Level 2 or 3 and to have Preparing for Adulthood needs: study throughout the school day study with high levels of 1:1 highly individualised Students will need individualised which will include: support throughout the school programmes of study with high programmes of study which will day which will include: levels of 2:1 support • the additional needs require a include: throughout the school day higher level/frequency of 1:1 which will include: adult support • Require an extremely high • Explicit teaching for a large part level (100%) of individual • Students exhibit severe and of the social and academic • Students will need frequent support challenging behaviour that curriculum in order to facilitate (daily and/or weekly) tutorials by poses an additional risk to their inclusion. The learning of the appropriate specialist teams • Require a total environment themselves, other pupils routines and personal in order to enable full access to with specialist facilities. The and staff development in addition to the curriculum learning environment must be learning attainments consistent in structure and • Students will require • High levels of support in setting matches the ongoing multi-professional differentiating activities and developmental and age advice/support to address behavioural difficulties Page 30
• Experience severe difficulties in resources in small groups/1:1 appropriate needs of the making inferences and situations or small classes. students with similar peers. • Students will require regular generalisation risk assessments and a high • Students will require assistance • Specific teaching with real level of adult support • Require regular access to with and alternative recording experience, assistive technology and for all curriculum areas Specialist support to enable • A learning need with an • access to specialist resources students to manage these • Students will require significant emphasis on exercising designed to scaffold learning modification of curriculum choice and developing behaviours as without support they pose risk to • Have significantly delayed resources and materials e.g. independence, interpreting themselves, students and receptive and expressive modified text the environment and staff language skills which may communicating with others. • Students will require a require Alternative and Specialist support will consistent structured • Medical condition means that • Augmented Communication environment with secure and the student may need support require training in de- e.g. signs and symbols explicit boundaries, to meet their health needs escalation techniques and the use of restraint A high level of teaching in the during the day • • Students will require area of personal and social Individualised curriculum supplementary resources • Require access to therapy • development with 1:1 support including appropriate furniture rooms, hydrotherapy, sensory provided throughout the day to encourage application of and specialist equipment. facilities, technical aids and • Frequent specialist advice these skills in the college appliances as necessary and input for school staff on setting and immediate locality • Access to specialist personal how to enable full access to care areas may be required • Require additional assistive • Independent travel training technologies and technical the curriculum and provide • Support in facilitating transition to support for all curriculum or • Support in making appropriate support as required. Support supported living skill areas and/or task relationships and dealing with will need to be highly skilled analysis differentiated sexual feelings and innovative to engage students activities and resources in • Job coaching and access to small groups/1:1 situations work placements and • A need for the curriculum or small classes internships to promote delivery to be flexible and • Assistance with and transition to adulthood personalised alternative recording for all Curriculum areas
• Identified staffing support access the curriculum or
Page 31
personal development throughout the day. • 2:1 Support
Page 32
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Speech & Language Speech & Language Speech and Language
1. A minimum of moderate to 1. Severe speech sound 1. The learner has profound severe disorder of receptive disorder or neurological communication difficulties and/or expressive language structural impairment coupled with very
Category B Category skills. Learner cannot follow affecting speech. challenging behaviour. instructions or respond 2. The student is unintelligible They have extremely appropriately to questions even to familiar listeners. limited concentration, when they can complete 3. Student will need high level independence and are
– tasks that are not reliant on bespoke AAC devices as unable to grasp
Communication speech and language. advised by a speech and social/behavioural norms. 2. Able to communicate using self- language therapist. 2. The learner is likely to generated, simple sentences, remain largely non-verbal may have difficulty in expressing throughout their college ideas through language e.g. career. Interpretation is word finding, sequencing. Extent heavily dependent on the
(Speech and Language) of disorder requires support context and knowledge of from SALT and delivery of a individual. personalised speech and 3. Reliance on AAC and or use language programme or a of concrete modes of strategy plan that is no more communication such as than two years old. body language / use of real 3. Due to their receptive and objects to make simple expressive language difficulties, choices, basic needs the learner demonstrates at known.
least a 3 year delay in Post 16 setting.
Page 33
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Social Communication Social communication Social Communication Social Communication
1. Due to their social To meet all of level 1 of Social Must meet all of Level 2. 1. Due to their extreme social communication needs, the communication criteria communication difficulty, learner has significant 1. Severe, persistent and they have preverbal
Category B Category difficulties with social 1. The student has severe complex social communication. competence/emotional and pervasive social interaction difficulties. 2. Meaning has to be inferred from behaviours, gestures, well-being. Frequent social Intentional social communication difficulties facial expression or emotional interaction and which have a significant interactions are on the response by familiar adults
– communication difficulties impact on their ability to learner’s own terms and
and/or AAC
Communication demonstrating an inability understand and use tend to centre on the 3. These learners exhibit severe to independent repair and language. This affects meeting of their needs. and challenging, recover the situation (3- 5 their ability to understand unpredictable behaviour (at times per day) from which consequences, predict and 2. Limited functional language least hourly on average) that they are unable to problem solve and accept skills. Difficulty seeing the poses an additional risk to independently repair and age appropriate point of learning opportunities themselves, other learners
(Social Communication) recover. responsibility for their own or social activities. and staff to the extent that 2. Requires support to develop actions. additional staffing is required empathy and understanding 3. Ritualised and repetitive to ensure safety of the learner of emotions, initiate or 2. Persistent social interaction behaviours evident and/or others limited or no intentional social interaction. maintain conversations, use throughout the college day and communication 4. Extremely rigid and ritualised and understand non-verbal difficulties, evident throughout and which significantly limits behaviour which impacts on communication to assist the college day and in all the student’s learning and their own learning and on reciprocal peer or adult settings and contexts. impacts on other students’ others learning and is evident interactions, recover and repair learning. throughout the college day. incidents of social 5. At times these behaviours will communication. 3. Limited appreciation of 4. College has recognised and escalate to a crisis situation 3. Significant difficulties classroom conventions, acted upon the requirement (Incident last for a prolong managing and interpreting the leading to challenging for multi-agency involvement period of time or results in a environment (including behaviour. for assessment and to prepared multi-professional classroom and unstructured support their learning. response being activated to
Page 34
times) and coping with 4. College has recognised and help support and manage the communicative demands and acted upon the requirement situation) or changes and transitions for multi-agency involvement during the college day. for assessment and to 4. Significant anxiety results in support their learning.
the inability to cope with social demands escalating to extreme distress/controlling behaviours.
Page 35
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 8. Exhibits severe and 11. Must meet ALL of Level 1 20. Must meet ALL of level 1 8. Must meet all level 3 challenging disruptive or criteria and 2 9. Learner likely to have disturbing behaviours which 12. Severity of SEMH results in them 6. Frequent, intense emotional complex and profound harms themselves or others. being physically and verbally responses to everyday needs in all areas. Engages These behaviours will be seen threatening to peers and adults on demands e.g. severe in unpredictable and even in the context of a an almost daily basis, presenting anxiety, withdrawal, verbal or extreme social and structured and supportive significant health and safety risk. physical aggression towards emotionally based personal and behaviour Display self-harming behaviour self, peers, adults and or behaviours which management programme stemming from their emotional property. compromise their safety and Social, Emotional Mental Health & Social, which includes appropriately needs which impacts on their 7. The behaviour completely the safety of others. differentiated tasks. ability to engage with learning. disrupts the student/young 9. The behaviour impedes the person’s learning and other 10. Requires a personalised and student’s learning and social 13. Shows high levels of oppositional activities and disturbs/ therapeutic learning times and distracts the whole defiant behaviour and unable to interrupts the whole class for environment and will need class. comply with reasonable requests. long periods. The episodes more than 1:1 support 10. Frequency will be significant at of problematic behaviour are throughout the college day. 6 to 8 times per day on 14. Be extremely distractible to the long lasting and may well average, requiring immediate extent that they do not engage continue over a number of 11. The behaviour has resulted intervention to de-escalate / re- even when planned strategies and days. in either complete lack of establish an environment differentiated support is put into relationships with peers where the student is able to re- place. 8. Premeditated violent meaning that the engage with learning 15. The behaviour impacts behaviour with intent to harm student/young person finds it 11. Results of behaviours means substantially upon the and not in response to difficult to make any friends
there is a need for student/young person’s learning environmental factors, over or friendships. Any interventions to help calm and and other activities and disturbs / an extended period (one interactions with weaker re-assure the other students interrupts the whole class for year) including assaults on peers may feature and be and staff so that they are ready sustained periods. staff and learners requiring based upon intimidation and to learn. 16. The episodes of problematic detailed risk assessments. control 12. Signs of emotional distress are behaviour will continue all day. evident on at least a daily Unable to make appropriate 9. Will need more than 2:1 12. The student/young person basis. The learner is reluctant approaches to peers, resorting to support at times during the may have suffered from to engage and requires close physical and verbal college day if in a acute trauma or abuse mainstream environment which renders him / her
Page 36
monitoring and supervision intimidation/aggression on an and has difficulty maintaining extremely vulnerable and and adjustments to tasks. almost daily basis. placements. has necessitated a high 13. Outbursts are intense but of 17. Unable to maintain control and level of multi- agency short duration. does not take responsibility for 10. Positive response and involvement over a 14. Risk assessment will be own behaviour. They may appear intervention strategies sustained period. required. overwhelmed by their emotional appropriately employed to needs and feelings of distress. help deescalate the 13. The student/young person situation. may be considered a risk to 18. Severely impulsive behaviours self or others and requires a with no concern for consequences. risk assessment to ensure their safety in college 19. College has recognised and acted upon the requirement for multi- 14. The learner’s behaviour agency involvement for causes an acute concern in assessment and support and to relation to health and safety maintain placement. or safeguarding in all contexts. The risk of significant harm to self and others is a constant concern.
Page 37
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Vision Vision Vision 1. Multi-sensory 1. Moderate Vision Loss 1. Moderate Vision Loss (in 1. Registered severely impairment. Diagnosed (in the range of 6/24 to the range of 6/36 to 6/60). sight impaired with an combination of severe 6/36) as advised by Usually registered as Sight Acuity of less than visual and medical diagnosis or the Impaired. Requires 1:1 6/60. severe/profound hearing loss. QTVI support throughout most of
2. May be registered as sight the college day to access 2. The learner may or may not or severely sight Impaired. the curriculum, specialist Hearing have hearing aids or a Learning materials may equipment and adapted 3. Have a profound sensori- cochlear implant. need to be modified and/or (electronic or enlarged) neural hearing loss in the 3. The learner will have better ear as advised by enlarged to meet their learning materials. additional complex needs and 2. Environmental audit has been medical diagnosis or the be totally dependent on visual need. Teacher of the Deaf. Sensory 3. Unable to visually access requested and implemented. appropriately qualified adult 4. Has significant difficulty support in order to access the board work. understanding the speech of learning environment and Hearing adults and peers at an age- curriculum. 4. Environmental impact audit to appropriate level without Loss 6. Permanent, severe Sensori- 4. May need more than 1:1 have been completed and support, whether signed, support throughout the college neural hearing loss in the better written or oral. implemented. day. Use of a sensory room ear. on a regular basis will be 7. Has hearing aids and or a Hearing appropriate. Staff will use cochlear implant. sounds or objects of 4. Moderate sensori-neural 8. May use additional amplification reference. hearing loss in the better ear e.g. radio system / soundfield. as advised by medical 9. Receptive and expressive 5. Learners who are Braille diagnosis or the Teacher of communication significantly users will be supported at the Deaf. delayed. level 4. 5. Delayed receptive and 10. Learner may communicate expressive communication orally or through AAC. 6. Due to variable speech intelligibility may use AAC and or additional amplification e.g.
Page 38
radio system /Soundfield system.
Page 39
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 1. A life-long and ongoing 1. A wheelchair user and 1. Non-ambulant, all areas physical condition requiring unable to transfer and of motor function are wheelchair or other mobility weight bear without minimal
aid such as a personalised adult intervention and 2. Totally reliant on adult walking frame which is not able to assist. support for all transfers and monitored by a medical positioning within seating professional. 2. The use of specially and standing frame using adapted mobility hoists during the college 2. Has poor core stability and equipment. Reliant on adult day. physical strength requiring a support for moving, physiotherapy programme to positioning, personal care. 3. Minimal fine motor skills minimise deterioration. and reliant on adult support 3. Fine motor skills difficulties for personal care needs,
Physical 3. Extent of physical difficulty mean the student is unable including toileting
means the student is unable to to cut up food 4. Level of physical disability transfer independently (but may independently. requires manual handling be able to assist). risk assessment and 4. Level of physical disability accessible transport requires a manual handling 4. Ongoing difficulties with self- arrangements for college help and independence skills. risk assessment and accessible transport trips etc.
5. Level of physical disability requires arrangements for college trips 5. Highly reliant on adult a manual handling risk assessment etc. support for all personal for access to all college activities care needs including including those off-site. toileting, dressing, eating and drinking.
6. Has additional severe learning, communication or social need.
Page 40
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 1. Chronic medical condition/s 1. Must meet level 1 1. Severe or degenerative that impact on their ability to criteria. medical condition. The access the academic and 2. To implement the advice of severity and/or the social curriculum. Examples medical professionals, unpredictability of of the medical condition learner requires trained medical condition/s would include severe adults to access the entire require constant adult uncontrolled epilepsy, curriculum due to their intervention by staff with frequent suctioning or medical condition. the competency colostomy. standards required to 3. A significant coexisting undertake the 2. Individual Healthcare Plan in difficulty e.g. necessary procedures.
Medical place due to the potentially communication, sensory or 2. Has additional severe serious nature of their condition. learning. learning and communication difficulties
3. Learning programmes are 4. Unable to monitor their which means that they are required to support and train the health needs and unlikely to recognise or learners to independently independently manage this. articulate deterioration in manage their medical condition. Adults would recognise their medical conditions symptoms, triggers of the which may change rapidly. onset of the condition Adults working with them would also struggle to recognise any early signs. 3. Highly individualised learning programmes implemented across all settings.
*Preparing for adulthood Outcomes post-16
Page 41
Young people entering post-16 education and training should be accessing provision which supports them to build on their achievements at school and which helps them progress towards adulthood. Young people with SEND are likely to need more tailored post-16 pathways. The post 16 criteria MUST reflect the highly individualised approached needed to facilitate progression towards the preparing for adulthood agenda. The Criteria MUST consider the provision alongside learner need for this cohort of learners.
Page 42
SEMH/VLC proposed criteria Appendix 5 (Below)
Page 43
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1. Has a history of severe and 1. Must meet ALL of Level 1 Must meet ALL of level 1. Must meet all level 3 challenging disruptive or criteria 1 and 2 2. Pupil likely to have complex disturbing behaviours when 2. Severity of SEMH has resulted in 1. Intense emotional and profound needs in all in a mainstream setting, them being physically and verbally responses to everyday areas. Engages in which harmed themselves threatening to peers and adults demands e.g. severe unpredictable and extreme or others. The behaviour presenting significant health and anxiety, withdrawal, social and emotionally impedes the child’s learning safety risk in mainstream settings. verbal or physical based behaviours which and social times They have a history of Displaying aggression towards self, compromise their safety and 2. Frequency seen in previous self-harming behaviour stemming peers, adults and or the safety of others. Social, Emotional Mental Health & Social, mainstream settings would from their emotional needs which property. have been significant at 6 to 8 impacts on their ability to engage 2. The behaviour 3. Requires a personalised and times per day on average, with learning. completely disrupts the therapeutic learning requiring immediate child/young person’s environment and will need intervention to de-escalate / re- 3. Shows high levels of oppositional learning and other more than 1:1 support establish an environment defiant behaviour and unable to activities and disturbs/ throughout the school day. where the child is able to re- comply with reasonable requests interrupts the whole engage with learning which can be reduced by specialist class for long periods. 4. The behaviour has resulted 3. Results of SEMH difficulties teaching and small class sizes with The episodes of in either complete lack of means there is a need for a higher staff to pupil ratio. problematic behaviour relationships with peers interventions to help calm and are long lasting and may meaning that the re-assure the other children 4. At times they will be extremely well continue over a child/young person finds it and staff so that they are ready distractible to the extent that they number of days without difficult to make any friends to learn. do not engage even when planned specialist teaching and or friendships. Any
4. Signs of emotional distress are strategies and differentiated small class sizes with a interactions with weaker part of their profile. The pupil is support is put into place. higher staff to pupil ratio. peers may feature and be reluctant to engage and 5. The behaviour impacts based upon intimidation and requires close monitoring and substantially upon the child/young 3. Premeditated violent control supervision and adjustments person’s learning and other behaviour with intent to to tasks. activities and disturbs / interrupts harm and not in 5. The child/young person may 5. Without the smaller, specialist the whole class. response to have suffered from acute provision, outbursts are intense 6. Verbal intimidation/aggression on environmental factors, trauma or abuse which but of short duration. an almost daily basis. over an extended period renders him / her extremely (one year) including vulnerable and has
Page 44
6. Risk assessment will be 7. Unable to maintain control and assaults on staff and necessitated a high level of required. does not take responsibility for pupils requiring detailed multi- agency involvement own behaviour. They may appear risk assessments. over a sustained period. overwhelmed by their emotional needs and feelings of distress. 4. Will need more than 2:1 6. The child/young person may support at times during be considered a risk to self 8. Severely impulsive behaviours the school week and has or others and requires a risk with no concern for consequences. difficulty maintaining assessment to ensure his / placements historically. her safety in school 9. School has recognised and acted upon the requirement for multi- 5. Positive response and 7. The pupil’s behaviour agency involvement for intervention strategies causes an acute concern in assessment and support and to appropriately employed relation to health and safety maintain placement. to help deescalate the or safeguarding in all situation require contexts. The risk of specialist teaching an significant harm to self and higher staff to pupil others is a constant concern. ratios.
Page 45 Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Service area: Education Inclusion Service Budget reference: Dedicated Schools Grant and resulting schools funding 2020-21 Budget proposal: Outcome of the Top-up Funding (TUF) Consultation Equality impact assessment owner: Wendy Packer Director sign off: Sheila Smith Review date: 6th January 2020 (after consultation closes)
Service User Impact Staff Impact (High, medium or low) (High, medium or low) Before mitigating After mitigating actions Before mitigating actions After mitigating actions actions Medium
Some staff in schools are funded via Top Up Funding allocated to individual children, therefore Medium TBA TBA any changes may impact negatively on staffing levels. The impact will vary based on the individual needs staff are supporting and other funding available to schools
Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Section 1 – The Proposal
1.1 Background to proposal
The Local Authority, in partnership with the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) have reviewed the Top-Up Funding criteria for school age, Post 16, SEMH/VLC pupils. This Consultation covers further changes to Top- Up Funding (TUF) arrangements for 2020/21 academic year following recommendations made at the Consultation carried out at the end of 2018. The primary focus to this Consultation is changes to criteria for Top-Up Funding.
Any changes to the criteria associated with the different funding bands will have a potential impact upon the children and young people who are in receipt of Top- Up Funding or for whom schools may be applying for additional resources. It is with this awareness that the Top- Up Funding criteria has been co-produced with school staff and representatives from parent groups.
1.2 Please detail below how this proposal may impact on any other organisation and their customers
The proposals will have a potential impact upon all organisations and people who work with or support children and young people with SEND, their families and educational professionals. Changes to the TUF criteria may result in other professionals needing to be involved in supporting individual circumstances. This may increase demand for health and social care services provided or commissioned by North Somerset Council or commissioned by BNSSG CCG.
Section 2 – What Do We Know?
2.1 Profile details – what data or evidence is there which tells us who is, or could be, affected?
Top-Up Funding is allocated on the basis of a category of primary need, along with a banding to indicate the severity or complexity of the identified need. The current categories and ranges of the bands can be summarised as follows:
• Category A: Cognition & Learning has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £4,350 to £26,092 (mainstream) or £3,250 to £37,965 (special) • Category B: Communication/ASD has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £2,850 to £33,293 (mainstream) or £2,405 to £37,965 (special) Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
• Category C: Social, Emotional & Behavioural has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £2,850 to £17,472 (mainstream) or £2,405 to £22,678 (special) • Category D: Sensory has 4 levels for Vision and 4 levels for Hearing with top-ups both ranging from £1,850 to £18,551 (mainstream) or £0 to £17,055 (special) • Category E: Physical/Medical has 3 levels of need with top-ups ranging from £7,850 to £23,639 (mainstream) or £5,159 to £26,860 (special)
In October 2019, 1,094.6 full- time equivalent children and young people in North Somerset were in receipt of Top-Up Funding.
2.2 What does the data or evidence tell us about the potential impact on diverse groups, and how is this supported by historic experience/data?
Due to suggested changes in the TUF criteria, this is likely to reduce the number of students receiving the lower levels of TUF Funding. This is based upon historic referrals.
Overall there are higher numbers of students receiving TUF in the lower bands of each category. Changing the criteria as proposed is likely to result in a proportion of these students having their needs met from a school’s notional SEN budget rather than receiving additional TUF via the Local Authority.
Age and Phase of Education
Children attending special schools are generally likely to receive Top-Up Funding based on their more complex needs, regardless of their age or phase of education. In terms of children attending mainstream provision, primary age children (63%) are more often recipients of Top-Up Funding than secondary age children (37%). There is potential that younger children may be more disadvantaged by any changes in TUF. However, it is notable that the majority of these students transfer to special school provision when attaining the age of secondary school transfer.
Further analysis of the age profile of the more complex, special school population indicates that numbers in any specific age group are small. However, there are notable peaks in Categories A around Year 2 and 3 (ages 6-8 years), and in Category B in Year 6 and 7 (aged 10, transitioning to secondary school). These peaks may be related to the greater ability to diagnose specific conditions or needs which occur as a child develops and are expected to be broadly similar to national trends. Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
2.3 Are there any gaps in the data, for example across protected characteristics where information is limited or not available?
Ethnicity
Around 10% of children allocated Top-Up Funding are recorded as being from an ethnic group other than White British. Around 3% of the wider population of North Somerset record their ethnicity as one of these groups, meaning that there is potential for children from more diverse ethnic backgrounds to be affected by any change to Top-Up Funding. However, it is important to note that this represents a very small number of individual children and families, and that as allocation of Top-Up Funding will continue to be assessed on the basis of evidenced needs, it is unlikely that the changes will have disproportionate effects on the basis of a child’s ethnicity or background.
Low income
Support for education via Top-Up Funding is not based on any form of means test or financial assessment, therefore it is not possible to make a detailed analysis on this basis. Mapping the addresses of children and young people supported by our Special Schools and Education Inclusion Service indicates that, as expected, there are significant clusters of this population in and around the larger towns of Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead. While there are some overlaps between these mapped addresses and a number of the most deprived wards in North Somerset, the number of pupils represented is extremely small and it is not possible to draw conclusions which indicate that children from families on a low income would be disproportionately affected by the proposed changes to TUF. Notably, the presence of dedicated specialist schools in Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon and Nailsea has also likely influenced the trend for families with children who are entitled to Top-Up Funding to gravitate to these locations.
Other protected characteristics
Data is not collected as part of the Top-Up Funding process which would permit detailed analysis of the impact on particular faiths or LGBT+ communities. Given that assessment undertaken to ascertain entitlement to Top-Up Funding is based very specifically on individual needs, it is considered unlikely that there would be any specific impacts on these groups as a result of the proposed changes.
2.4 How have we involved or considered the views of the people that could be affected?
We will use all available existing forums to consult with all stakeholders in addition there will be several consultation surgeries across the area. during December and January. Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Professionals have been made aware of the Consultation and it has been discussed at a range of different forums. We have encouraged schools and representatives of multi-academy trusts in the primary and secondary and special school sector to gather the views of children and young people in relation to the key points.
This section will be developed further on completion of the comprehensive consultation process.
2.5 What has this told us?
The process for applying for, assessing need and allocation of Top-Up Funding is, by nature, focused on delivering support based on evidence of significant or complex needs. The proposed changes to the systems, processes and levels of funding have been carefully considered to ensure this fundamental principle is protected while delivering fair levels of funding which are sustainable for the future.
2.6 Are there any gaps in our consultation, what are our plans for the future?
The proposals include mechanisms for the measurement of outcomes which will enable us to better understand the impact of Top-Up Funding on the attainment, independence and future life-chances of children and young people who are supported via this system. We will continue to review the impact of these changes, and to ensure that they continue to support children’s achievement, independence and wellbeing.
This section will be developed further on completion of the comprehensive consultation process.
Section 3 – Assessment of Impact
Impact Level Impact type Summary of Impact Insert X into one box per row, for impact level and type. High Med Low No Positive Neutral Negative Disabled people X X As this funding is targeted at SEN pupils, only those with the higher level of need will receive support from Top up funding. The rest will be supported by schools from the element 1 and 2 funding. People from different ethnic groups x X 10% of the pupils receiving TUF are not of a white heritage background (including White Irish and Other White ethnic groups) Compared to the whole population Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
of North Somerset where they make up just 3%. In proportion it is likely to have a bigger impact on them. However, it is important to note that this represents a very small number of individual children and families, and that, as allocation of top-up funding will continue to be assessed on the basis of evidenced needs, it is unlikely that the changes will have disproportionate effects on the basis of a child’s ethnicity or background.
Male and Female X x Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. Lesbian, gay or bisexual people X X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People on a low income X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People in particular age groups X X Children in the school system are going to be impacted by these changes. More children will need to be supported by schools with only the higher needs children receiving Top-Up Funding. People in particular faith groups x x Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People who are married or in a civil N/A partnership Transgender people X x Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. Women who are pregnant or whilst on N/A maternity leave
Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Article 2 of the First Protocol of ECHR1 provides for the right not to be denied an education and the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views. It Does this proposal have any potential does not however guarantee any particular level of education of any particular quality or character. Human Rights implications? If ‘yes’, please describe These proposals are carefully balanced to ensure that all children with complex needs in North Somerset can continue to access an appropriate level of Top-Up Funding to support them in accessing appropriate educational provision as outlined in the ECHR. Could this proposal have a Cumulative Impact with any other budget savings? This is an impact that appears when you There are no other planned budget savings that would have a specific, material impact on schools / consider services or activities together; a children with SEND. change or activity in one area may create an additional impact somewhere else
If ‘yes’, please describe?
1 Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No.1 of the ECHR (https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_2_Protocol_1_ENG.pdf) Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Section 4 – Action Plan
Where you have listed that there will potentially be negative outcomes, you are required to mitigate the impact of these. Please detail below the actions that you intend to take.
Action taken/to be taken How will it be monitored? Work with schools to clarify the support they are able to provide within their schools to support Working with the local Parent/Carer Forum pupils with SEN and Independent SENDIAS service to look at the impact these changes may have on children and their families with SEN. A more consistent moderation process which will ensure a fair system across the Local Authority responding to individual children’s needs and a way for monitoring how Top- Up Funding is used once allocated A project to ensure that appropriate contributions to Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are made by our health partners in the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)
If negative impacts remain, please provide an explanation below.
Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Service area: Education Inclusion Service Budget reference: Dedicated Schools Grant and resulting schools funding 2020-21 Budget proposal: Outcome of the Top-up Funding (TUF) Consultation Equality impact assessment owner: Wendy Packer Director sign off: Sheila Smith Review date: 6th January 2020 (after consultation closes)
Service User Impact Staff Impact (High, medium or low) (High, medium or low) Before mitigating After mitigating actions Before mitigating actions After mitigating actions actions Medium
Some staff in schools are funded via Top Up Funding allocated to individual children, therefore Medium TBA TBA any changes may impact negatively on staffing levels. The impact will vary based on the individual needs staff are supporting and other funding available to schools
Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Section 1 – The Proposal
1.1 Background to proposal
The Local Authority, in partnership with the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) have reviewed the Top-Up Funding criteria for school age, Post 16, SEMH/VLC pupils. This Consultation covers further changes to Top- Up Funding (TUF) arrangements for 2020/21 academic year following recommendations made at the Consultation carried out at the end of 2018. The primary focus to this Consultation is changes to criteria for Top-Up Funding.
Any changes to the criteria associated with the different funding bands will have a potential impact upon the children and young people who are in receipt of Top- Up Funding or for whom schools may be applying for additional resources. It is with this awareness that the Top- Up Funding criteria has been co-produced with school staff and representatives from parent groups.
1.2 Please detail below how this proposal may impact on any other organisation and their customers
The proposals will have a potential impact upon all organisations and people who work with or support children and young people with SEND, their families and educational professionals. Changes to the TUF criteria may result in other professionals needing to be involved in supporting individual circumstances. This may increase demand for health and social care services provided or commissioned by North Somerset Council or commissioned by BNSSG CCG.
Section 2 – What Do We Know?
2.1 Profile details – what data or evidence is there which tells us who is, or could be, affected?
Top-Up Funding is allocated on the basis of a category of primary need, along with a banding to indicate the severity or complexity of the identified need. The current categories and ranges of the bands can be summarised as follows:
• Category A: Cognition & Learning has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £4,350 to £26,092 (mainstream) or £3,250 to £37,965 (special) • Category B: Communication/ASD has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £2,850 to £33,293 (mainstream) or £2,405 to £37,965 (special) Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
• Category C: Social, Emotional & Behavioural has 4 levels with top-ups ranging from £2,850 to £17,472 (mainstream) or £2,405 to £22,678 (special) • Category D: Sensory has 4 levels for Vision and 4 levels for Hearing with top-ups both ranging from £1,850 to £18,551 (mainstream) or £0 to £17,055 (special) • Category E: Physical/Medical has 3 levels of need with top-ups ranging from £7,850 to £23,639 (mainstream) or £5,159 to £26,860 (special)
In October 2019, 1,094.6 full- time equivalent children and young people in North Somerset were in receipt of Top-Up Funding.
2.2 What does the data or evidence tell us about the potential impact on diverse groups, and how is this supported by historic experience/data?
Due to suggested changes in the TUF criteria, this is likely to reduce the number of students receiving the lower levels of TUF Funding. This is based upon historic referrals.
Overall there are higher numbers of students receiving TUF in the lower bands of each category. Changing the criteria as proposed is likely to result in a proportion of these students having their needs met from a school’s notional SEN budget rather than receiving additional TUF via the Local Authority.
Age and Phase of Education
Children attending special schools are generally likely to receive Top-Up Funding based on their more complex needs, regardless of their age or phase of education. In terms of children attending mainstream provision, primary age children (63%) are more often recipients of Top-Up Funding than secondary age children (37%). There is potential that younger children may be more disadvantaged by any changes in TUF. However, it is notable that the majority of these students transfer to special school provision when attaining the age of secondary school transfer.
Further analysis of the age profile of the more complex, special school population indicates that numbers in any specific age group are small. However, there are notable peaks in Categories A around Year 2 and 3 (ages 6-8 years), and in Category B in Year 6 and 7 (aged 10, transitioning to secondary school). These peaks may be related to the greater ability to diagnose specific conditions or needs which occur as a child develops and are expected to be broadly similar to national trends. Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
2.3 Are there any gaps in the data, for example across protected characteristics where information is limited or not available?
Ethnicity
Around 10% of children allocated Top-Up Funding are recorded as being from an ethnic group other than White British. Around 3% of the wider population of North Somerset record their ethnicity as one of these groups, meaning that there is potential for children from more diverse ethnic backgrounds to be affected by any change to Top-Up Funding. However, it is important to note that this represents a very small number of individual children and families, and that as allocation of Top-Up Funding will continue to be assessed on the basis of evidenced needs, it is unlikely that the changes will have disproportionate effects on the basis of a child’s ethnicity or background.
Low income
Support for education via Top-Up Funding is not based on any form of means test or financial assessment, therefore it is not possible to make a detailed analysis on this basis. Mapping the addresses of children and young people supported by our Special Schools and Education Inclusion Service indicates that, as expected, there are significant clusters of this population in and around the larger towns of Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead. While there are some overlaps between these mapped addresses and a number of the most deprived wards in North Somerset, the number of pupils represented is extremely small and it is not possible to draw conclusions which indicate that children from families on a low income would be disproportionately affected by the proposed changes to TUF. Notably, the presence of dedicated specialist schools in Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon and Nailsea has also likely influenced the trend for families with children who are entitled to Top-Up Funding to gravitate to these locations.
Other protected characteristics
Data is not collected as part of the Top-Up Funding process which would permit detailed analysis of the impact on particular faiths or LGBT+ communities. Given that assessment undertaken to ascertain entitlement to Top-Up Funding is based very specifically on individual needs, it is considered unlikely that there would be any specific impacts on these groups as a result of the proposed changes.
2.4 How have we involved or considered the views of the people that could be affected?
We will use all available existing forums to consult with all stakeholders in addition there will be several consultation surgeries across the area. during December and January. Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Professionals have been made aware of the Consultation and it has been discussed at a range of different forums. We have encouraged schools and representatives of multi-academy trusts in the primary and secondary and special school sector to gather the views of children and young people in relation to the key points.
This section will be developed further on completion of the comprehensive consultation process.
2.5 What has this told us?
The process for applying for, assessing need and allocation of Top-Up Funding is, by nature, focused on delivering support based on evidence of significant or complex needs. The proposed changes to the systems, processes and levels of funding have been carefully considered to ensure this fundamental principle is protected while delivering fair levels of funding which are sustainable for the future.
2.6 Are there any gaps in our consultation, what are our plans for the future?
The proposals include mechanisms for the measurement of outcomes which will enable us to better understand the impact of Top-Up Funding on the attainment, independence and future life-chances of children and young people who are supported via this system. We will continue to review the impact of these changes, and to ensure that they continue to support children’s achievement, independence and wellbeing.
This section will be developed further on completion of the comprehensive consultation process.
Section 3 – Assessment of Impact
Impact Level Impact type Summary of Impact Insert X into one box per row, for impact level and type. High Med Low No Positive Neutral Negative Disabled people X X As this funding is targeted at SEN pupils, only those with the higher level of need will receive support from Top up funding. The rest will be supported by schools from the element 1 and 2 funding. People from different ethnic groups x X 10% of the pupils receiving TUF are not of a white heritage background (including White Irish and Other White ethnic groups) Compared to the whole population Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
of North Somerset where they make up just 3%. In proportion it is likely to have a bigger impact on them. However, it is important to note that this represents a very small number of individual children and families, and that, as allocation of top-up funding will continue to be assessed on the basis of evidenced needs, it is unlikely that the changes will have disproportionate effects on the basis of a child’s ethnicity or background.
Male and Female X x Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. Lesbian, gay or bisexual people X X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People on a low income X Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People in particular age groups X X Children in the school system are going to be impacted by these changes. More children will need to be supported by schools with only the higher needs children receiving Top-Up Funding. People in particular faith groups x x Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. People who are married or in a civil N/A partnership Transgender people X x Not known – but expected to be negligible based on local and national patterns. Women who are pregnant or whilst on N/A maternity leave
Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Article 2 of the First Protocol of ECHR1 provides for the right not to be denied an education and the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views. It Does this proposal have any potential does not however guarantee any particular level of education of any particular quality or character. Human Rights implications? If ‘yes’, please describe These proposals are carefully balanced to ensure that all children with complex needs in North Somerset can continue to access an appropriate level of Top-Up Funding to support them in accessing appropriate educational provision as outlined in the ECHR. Could this proposal have a Cumulative Impact with any other budget savings? This is an impact that appears when you There are no other planned budget savings that would have a specific, material impact on schools / consider services or activities together; a children with SEND. change or activity in one area may create an additional impact somewhere else
If ‘yes’, please describe?
1 Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No.1 of the ECHR (https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_2_Protocol_1_ENG.pdf) Top up Funding Consultation – DRAFT Equality Impact Assessment December 2019
Section 4 – Action Plan
Where you have listed that there will potentially be negative outcomes, you are required to mitigate the impact of these. Please detail below the actions that you intend to take.
Action taken/to be taken How will it be monitored? Work with schools to clarify the support they are able to provide within their schools to support Working with the local Parent/Carer Forum pupils with SEN and Independent SENDIAS service to look at the impact these changes may have on children and their families with SEN. A more consistent moderation process which will ensure a fair system across the Local Authority responding to individual children’s needs and a way for monitoring how Top- Up Funding is used once allocated A project to ensure that appropriate contributions to Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are made by our health partners in the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)
If negative impacts remain, please provide an explanation below.