SEN Delegation Review Group Introduction October 2003

Why did we Delegate? Fairness Flexibility (including earlier intervention) Form-filling Finance

How did we delegate Approx 2/3 of mainstream statement budget was delegated, 1% of AWPU was redistributed The rest was held centrally for high cost statements Formula allocated 30% by disadvantage and 70% by prior attainment Two levels of protection added –First- losses/gains limited to 20% of max –Second- losers topped up to cash budget level

Related Work Transparency of SEN processes and funding: Reform of statement panel Developing monitoring framework Notional budgets for SEN SEN strategy development Simplified claims process

Delegation Review Group: Terms of Reference (Draft) Seek views of stakeholders on the principles of SEN delegation (not initially included in the brief) Work within national guidance on school funding Identify improvements to the delegation formula, transition arrangements and related procedures Share the work of the group in brief with colleagues via the Education Bulletin To make recommendations to the Schools Funding Forum on changes to LMS arrangements around SEN funding

General Plan of Work Meeting 1: Identify issues for modelling/data collection/consultation Meeting 2: Look at models and identify draft proposals for further work Meeting 3: Agree final proposals

Meetings of the Group Thursday 11 September 3.00pm – 5.00pm Beaumanor Hall Monday 6th October, pm, Beaumanor Thursday 4th November 3.00pm – 5.00pm Beaumanor Hall Monday 17 November 3.00pm – 5.00pm Beaumanor Hall

Membership of the Group Tony Crompton, Headteacher, Blaby Stokes Primary Adrienne Holland, Headteacher, The Grove, Melton Jill McLaughlan, Headteacher, Westfield Infants School Bob Morley, Headteacher, Barrow Hall Orchard Carole Jackson, Headteacher, Limehurst High (Retired) Pat Young, Headteacher, Newbridge High Chris Hunt, Vice Principal, Lutterworth Grammar Steve Welton, Headteacher, Birkett House (withdrawn) Ketan Mavani, Phil D’Mello, Education Finance Service Chris Bristow, SENA Charlie Palmer, SEO

Issues and Difficulties in Schools Cash protection from did not meet full costs for Worries over reducing statemented support from 25 hours to 22 hours It will take time for statemented hours to reduce in a school New entrants in September Out of catchment pupils with statements, especially city fringe Formula may not reflect real disadvantage in small pockets Prior attainment element may be distorted by very successful feeder schools Worries over further shifts toward formula funding from statement costs in Working with parents who are feeling provision is being cut Cuts in SEN teacher time in some schools Establishing new payments system with much reduced paperwork Early sharing of information with schools to help them plan Importance of delegation giving flexibility for early intervention Holmfield Primary: a needy city fringe school with many new statements Westfield: on cost (pension) variations and

The National Picture Charles Clarke’s announcement on LEA spending growth- many LEAs see this as a push to further delegation… Scottish executive considering major legislative change to end SEN records

Charles Clarke’s Statement: July 17th 6. My guiding principles for the changes needed to the schools funding system for the next two years in order to deliver that are: - that every school should receive at least a guaranteed per pupil increase in its funding for each year;… 14. This year most LEAs’ spending on centrally­ ‑ funded pupil services, such as special educational needs and excluded pupils, has increased significantly faster than their spending on budgets delegated to individual schools. It is essential that, in future, the Individual Schools Budget receives its fair share of any increase. So my intention is that, in and , spending on such central items should rise no faster than spending on the Individual Schools Budget. I will consult on how Fair Funding Regulations can ensure that this is delivered. In doing so, I will take account of the need for local flexibility on items such as the expansion of nursery provision to meet the Government’s commitments.

LEA Context SEN Budget predictions Leader member promise to review principles as well as formula Severe budget pressure School Forum Meeting, Tues 1st Oct

LEA Budget Pressure Statementing budget (centrally retained): current forecast overspend30% (£2.8m budget) Out county budget: current forecast overspend10% (£5.7m budget) Additional costs in Student Support Service 25 hour tuition6% (£3m budget) SEN Strategy additional costs:~%

David Scott’s Paper to Forum Analysis of Options 7.1Increase Delegation Retained funding meets the costs of support staff (where the hours allocated are 25 or greater) and teachers (for over 3.25 hours in primary or 2 hours in secondary). The budget for this is £2.8M and it is this budget that is forecast to be heavily over-spent. Other high cost/low incidence SEN (e.g. Sensory impairment) is supported by central staff at a cost of c.£3M. The proposal under this option would be to delegate the remaining £2.8M budget. Benefits (i) ensures that the LEA complies with the Secretary of State’s wishes in relation to central spending. (ii) removes the unhelpful cut- off between school and LEA support that has led to a large number of review recommendations from schools (e.g. requesting 25 hours ancillary for pupils currently receiving 20 hours support). (iii) protects other central spending where growth may exceed inflation; in particular spending on excluded pupils and spending on other categories of high cost/low incidence SEN. (iv) removes a high risk of demand-led budget, overspending on which has impacted on schools’ budgets in years following the overspend. Disadvantages (i) involves further delegation of SEN before the initial delegation has bedded-down. (ii) delegation of the highest cost statements could prove to be a difficult issue for the headteacher/officer group that is reviewing the SEN delegation formula- could lead to large and unpredictable demands on small school budgets from individual children with high levels of need. 7.2Reduced Funding Per Pupil The current retained funding could be spread (much) more thinly. Schools would only receive a percentage of the current cash value of the teaching/support hours. Taking account of both the over-spend in 2003/04 and the trend in recent years, the cash value could be 50% of the current allocation (or less). 7.3Delegate an Alternative Budget The largest budget that is not delegated at present is that for Primary/Special meals. Delegation would be sufficient to off-set the extra costs of SEN (at least in 2004/05) but it would not support the needed per-pupil funding uplift. This is because the extra delegation would go to primary and special school pupils only as school meals funds are already delegated to secondary schools.

Schools Forum: 1/10/03 A resolution recommending no further delegation was not seconded A resolution to support delegation in line with 7.1 (David Scotts paper) was passed But no one was happy with this

What must we try to do- general aims Be as open and transparent as possible Search for fairness Minimise losses as so difficult to manage for schools Move away from historic costs- if we say distribution was unfair Acknowledge difficulties Work within DfES rules

Possible Changes to Formula A better estimate of historic costs for calculating protection, including on costs Support for new entrants in small schools with statements, via central or area group function Tapering of support around cut off to avoid full costs falling on schools when 25hr plus statements are reduced Delegating more of 25hr+ costs to avoid all or nothing impact on schools 3 year transition plan to move away from historic costs to allow statemented pupils to work their way through the school Guarantees about control of losses to losers Post code based measures of disadvantage rather than ward/ enumeration district (may not be possible) The wording of statements The need to inform schools of changes as soon as possible Formula elements: disadvantage, prior attainment, 1% redistribution of AWPU Support for schools attracting pupils with statements

Consultation on Views about Delegation Schools forum have discussed the issue- does Mr Ould’s commitment imply wider consultation? Suggest survey of a sample of schools- supported by written paper setting the context, contacting head, SENCO, Chair of Governors and SEN Governor

Draft School Survey Questions 1. Are you familiar with SEN delegation and the LEA paper “All in the Same Boat”? 2. Could delegation help schools improve provision for pupils with SEN? 3. Should the LEA do more to monitor spending on SEN in schools? 4. Did general school budget difficulties make SEN delegation more difficult? 5. Would you like to see more delegation of the statementing budget? 6. Would you like to see more delegation of SEN support services? 7. Would you like to see a return to no delegation of the statementing budget 8. Do you support the principle of SEN delegation? 9. Do you reluctantly see no alternative to delegating all of the statementing budget? 10. Would you recommend your school to buy into an insurance package to protect the school from high costs of new pupils with statements? 11. Do you support a three-year transition to formula budgets?

The Biggest Pressure Points Very needy schools not getting full entitlement due to transitional arrangements Losers managing losses Admission of statemented pupils So if we have to delegate all statement costs…

New Arrivals Delegation will have a very negative impact on schools’ willingness to welcome pupils with statements. We could consider: –Paying costs of all new admissions for fixed time –Paying costs for fixed time where total new costs exceed fixed percentage of notional budget for SEN –Offering either as an insurance package for schools to buy –Offering different insurance packages for different sized school budgets

Transitional Arrangements We could: Develop better statementing cost estimate Model 3-year transition to formula based budget, including support for losers based on remaining statement costs (based on statements) each year