Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 SEN Governors SEN Governors Meeting George Thomas, Professional Leader, Autism Outreach Team Jackie Hibbert, School Development Adviser (SEN/Inclusion)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 SEN Governors SEN Governors Meeting George Thomas, Professional Leader, Autism Outreach Team Jackie Hibbert, School Development Adviser (SEN/Inclusion)"— Presentation transcript:

1 1 SEN Governors SEN Governors Meeting George Thomas, Professional Leader, Autism Outreach Team Jackie Hibbert, School Development Adviser (SEN/Inclusion) Charlie Palmer, Assistant Head of Pupil Support May 2007

2 2 Contents 1.What is Aspergers Syndome? (George Thomas) 2.Finance for SEN (Charlie Palmer) 3.Inclusion Standards and Monitoring (Jackie Hibbert) There will also be time for SEN Governors to talk together

3 3 What is Asperger syndrome? Autism Outreach Team Telephone: George Thomas Leicestershire Autism Outreach Team

4 4 Aims To give an overview of Asperger syndrome To introduce the Triad of Impairments To look at the effect the triad has on the child To understand that every person with Asperger syndrome is a unique individual

5 5 Hans Asperger 1930s Vienna University Childrens Clinic The Man!

6 6 Triad of Impairments Lorna Wing 1981

7 7 Prevalence 1 child in 250 (Gillberg 2002) Perhaps 50% receive diagnosis Average age at diagnosis is 11 (Howlin & Asgharion 1999)

8 8 Social Interaction Less interest in other people Interest but less ability: getting things wrong Poor understanding of social role/genre Preference for adult company Limits to social learning Misinterpreting other peoples actions and intentions

9 9 Understanding other people Noticing objects and facts rather than thoughts, feelings and intentions

10 10 Understanding other people Descriptions of pictures and events may not include thoughts, motivations and feelings

11 11 Communication Expressive and receptive communication Normally developing vocabulary and grammar Limited awareness of audience: poor turn taking Possibly less ability to understand long periods of speech Could be confused by other information such as gesture, tone and facial expression Literal understanding Communication breakdown under pressure

12 12 Flexibility of thinking Poor insight into the thoughts and feelings of others Less able to predict and generalise from experience Literal and concrete in understanding Tendency to develop limited but intense interests Difficulty networking or patterning knowledge

13 13 Sensory Difficulties People with Asperger syndrome may encounter many obstacles in everyday life Many people with Asperger syndrome experience over- sensitivity to normal daily practices that we take for granted One or more of the five senses could be affected.

14 14 Summary (I) Asperger syndrome, like autism, has an organic origin. It is not the result of environment or nurture. There is, as yet, no cure. Autistic spectrum disorders involve a triad of impairments: social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication and flexibility of thinking style.

15 15 Summary (II) Individuals can move along the spectrum during the course of their lives Prevalence estimates range from 75:10,000 to 115:10,000. This means from 7 to 10 in each high school. Boys are more likely to be affected by a ratio of 9:1.

16 16 Finance for Special Educational Needs Charlie Palmer

17 17 Hypothecation and Virement An hypothecated budget is one in which the elements making up the budget are precisely specified, and amounts cannot be vired among different budget headings. A shopping list given to a child is a good example. It has always been the practice in the UK Treasury to argue that both Taxes and Spending are not hypothecated and similarly, it has always been argued that education budgets are not hypothecated. For governors, the non-hypothecation of budgets means that it is up to each governing body to determine local spending priorities within the overall budget. Fair Funding continues this tradition. But... [Although budgets are not hypothecated] the Government considers it important that each school should be clear what levels and kinds of special needs it is expected to meet from its own delegated budget and how much of its delegated budget is notionally attributable to SEN." (DfEE Fair Funding Consultation Paper, 1998, page 33).

18 18 What is in the Budget for SEN? Notional Budget for SEN –4% of Age weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) funding* –£7.30 per pupils SENCO release time –Amount delegated for statements Additional Elements –Funding for Unit Provision –Learning Support Unit and Social Inclusion Funding (secondary schools) * An additional 1% is built into the delegation formula

19 19 Section 52 Budget Statement Financial year runs April to March LEA issues school budget statements in March each year LA publishes Notional Budget for SEN information on EIS in May Three year school budgets will be issued from next year, but future years subject to pupil data changing each year

20 20 How the Formula Works PA points are scored by those pupils whose SAT results at Key Stage 2, 3 and 4 fall in the bottom 18% of all Leicestershire schools. For Key Stage 1 the bottom 18% of baseline assessments/Foundation Stage Profiles are used. Those in the bottom 2% score points weighted by 4, next 5% weighted by 2% and next 8% by 1. The funding per PA point figure is calculated, using the PA funding at each key stage and dividing by the total number of PA points in each of those stages. Prior-Attainment (PA) drives 70% of the funding available at Key Stage 2,3 & 4 and Social Deprivation (SD) drives 30%. With Key Stage 1 this is adjusted to 50% for both as it is recognised that baseline assessments/foundation stage profiles are not as objective as SAT results. Total SEN Funding is split between Key Stages - pro rata using global pupil numbers on roll figures at each stage. The funding per SD point figure is calculated, using the SD funding at each key stage and dividing by the total number of SD points in each of those key stages. SD points are weighted numbers on roll. The multiple index of deprivation is used to rank schools in order of most deprivation. The most deprived third receive a weighting of 4 for each pupil, the next third a weighting of 2 and the bottom third a weighting of 1. The January PLASC NOR figures are used Each schools Section 52 SEN Delegation formula funding share = (PA funding per point x schools PA points) + (SD funding per point x weighted NOR) Prepared by Phil DMello

21 21 An Example: SEN Calculation

22 22 An Example: Section 52 Budget Statement 4% AWPU SENCO Release £7.30 per pupil

23 23 Notional Budgets for SEN School details 4% of AWPU funding Delegated funding SENCO release time: £7.30 per pupil Total Notional SEN Budget

24 24 Arrangements for Transitional support budget Budget of £85,000 agreed by schools forum for This year schools protected by minimum funding guarantee and contingency fund* Enhanced Packages budget Propose to run shadow budgets and engage APSPs with decision making in and work on formal agreement to support delegation for approved by forum. Consultation indicates panels not ready to take on this, shadow budgets not yet prepared. 16+ statements in mainstream Delegation to schools agreed by schools forum in Balance between historic and formula funding Gradual move to 100% formula funding over last four years Mid year transfer support Small budget proposed to be held centrally to help small schools with high cost pupils arriving at non-standard times. *Contingency funding can only be accessed if the school is in deficit

25 25 Rules for Additional Funding (07-08) Enhanced Packages Aim: Support schools with high cost statemented pupils Resource: £710,000 Rules: 1.Statement panel identify that a special school placement is appropriate, but family prefer a mainstream placement 2.An out county placement has been agreed but a school has not yet been identified

26 26 Rules for Additional Funding (07-08) Mid Year Transfer Support (Move In) Aim: Reduce risk to schools from high cost new arrivals Resource: £ 50K Rules: 1. Applies to pupils who have statements specifying 25 hours support or more, and transfer at non-standard times (and years) 2. All costs met when statement costs exceed delegated budget 3. Schools need to contact SENA case work officer

27 27 Monitoring Budget Information – Financial Year April 2003-April 2004 Income£ a)Notional school budget for SEN (This includes: delegated amount for statements, SENCO release, and 4% AWPU (original figures distributed in April 2003)) b)Amount from centrally held budget for high cost statements £ c)Other sources of funding, e.g. Standards Fund, spent on SEN i)£ ii)£ TOTAL£ Expenditure a)Amount spent on staffing (internal) i) SENCos or part of SENCos salary£ ii) SEN support teachers£ iii) Teachers who teach small lower sets (roughly half fewer usual set numbers).£ iv) SEN teaching assistants£ v) NNEBs supporting SEN pupils£ vi) Administration for SEN£ vii) Other – please specify:£ £ b)Amount spent on external services, e.g. STS, consultancy i)£ ii)£ c)Amount spent on materials/resources£ d) Amount spent on INSET (include cost of supply cover, travel etc. as well as course feels)£ e)Other expenditure (please list) £ TOTAL£

28 28 Impact of Delegation

29 29 Monitoring of Special Educational Needs in Schools A new approach Jackie Hibbert School Development Adviser SEN/Inclusion

30 30 Historically……… Rolling programme of Local Authority review of schools (like a mini-inspection) and paper exercise. Local Authority had ownership and was the driving force. Resulting report identified issues in school (each 3 years) and used for Local Authority purposes.

31 31 Change of emphasis With the revised framework for inspection, new emphasis on school self-evaluation, validated by School Improvement Partner. School has ownership of process and can carry out process annually. Result informs school development priorities but also provides information for Local Authority.

32 32 Three Pronged Approach School Self-Evaluation and discussion with School Improvement Partner. School updates Self Evaluation Form and School Development/Improvement Plan. LA provides Benchmarking data 3 year cycle of meetings to moderate judgements, refine self-evaluation tools and establish networks for CPD

33 33 Inclusion Standards To give a framework for the discussion with the School Improvement Partner. Sets out the expectations of good practice in Inclusion Broader than just Special Educational Needs – good practice in Inclusion is good practice for all. Can be supported by various self-evaluation tools

34 34 Inclusion Standards: Sub-sections Pupil Progress Attitudes, values and Personal Qualities Teaching and Learning Accommodation and Resources Partnerships with parents, other schools and the community Leadership and Management

35 35 Inclusion Standards – sample page Links with Self- Evaluation Tools Inclusion Standards Possible Sources of Evidence Notes SENSEF section 3 Self - Evaluation Grid from Leading on Inclusion Achievement & Attainment Inclusion Quality MarkElement 1: Pupil Progress Index for Inclusion Indicators and Question Orchestrating Learning Clear tracking systems are used to identify under-performing groups and individuals. A range of assessments is used to identify appropriate targets and teaching approaches, identify provision required and plan accordingly. Routine progress reviews using both quantitative/qualitative data enable teachers to plan for progression in learning. As far as possible, pupils involved in process. Appropriate strategies are in place for groups and individuals. Pupils are achieving at maximum potential (with the rate of progress appropriate to any Learning Difficulty). Tracking system records Assessment records Provision mapping or group IEPs for majority of pupils with additional needs; individual IEPs or PSPs for some individuals that show SMART targets related to provision. Pupils records of achievement Evidence from pupil interviews and surveys Every pupil has appropriate learning targets (quantity as well as quality). PANDA analysis See SEN SEF for HMI definition of good progress (2004)

36 36 Information the SIP is collecting This year – looking at school generated data. Next year, data will be provided for the schools. Strengths and areas for development. Will enable examples of good practice to be disseminated and will enable targeted professional development. Judgement reached, will contribute to schools own self-evaluation and will help Authority to prioritise intervention from SEN Advisory Team.

Download ppt "1 SEN Governors SEN Governors Meeting George Thomas, Professional Leader, Autism Outreach Team Jackie Hibbert, School Development Adviser (SEN/Inclusion)"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google