EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Leicestershire Learning for Life 1 SEN Delegation Update May 2005.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Leicestershire Learning for Life

1

SEN Delegation Update

May 2005


2

Chart to Show Mainstream School Statement Budget Growth: 1998-06

-2,000,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

Overspend 589366 609161 635695 1076716 1848100 172,370.00 -88490 0

Central Budget 5419980 6318200 7064150 7775350 8892290 3,308,270.00 1187780 1,167,970

Delegated to schools 0 0 0 0 0 9,285,410.00 12521880 12,891,270

98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06


3

Central Budget: SEN (03-04)Item Amount (£)

• Mid year transfer support (move in) 144,000• Enhanced packages 656,000• Additional support for pupils in units 191,000• Post 16 statements 333,000• Other LEA statements 281,000• Music therapy/Speech therapy 49,000• Band 10 support in special schools 101,000• Income from OLEAs -831,000• Underspend -89,000

TOTAL: 1,188,000


4

Chart to Show Number of Pupils under Assessment each Month May 01 - Jan 05

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Mo

nth

ly A

sses

smen

ts

SEN Delegation

Trendline

Revised Code of Practice


5

Chart to Show Monthly Numbers of Mainstream Pupils with Statements, and Numbers under Statutory Assessment: 2001-04

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

May

-01

Jul-0

1

Sep-0

1

Nov-0

1

Jan-

02

Mar

-02

May

-02

Jul-0

2

Sep-0

2

Nov-0

2

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jul-0

3

Sep-0

3

Nov-0

3

Jan-

04

Mar

-04

May

-04

Jul-0

4

Sep-0

4

Nov-0

4

Jan-

05

Nu

mb

er

of

Ma

ins

tre

am

Sta

tem

en

ts

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Mo

nth

ly A

ss

es

sm

en

ts

Number of Mainstream Statements Number of Pupils being Assessed each Month


6

SEN Delegation: 2004-05

• 25 hour plus costs delegated• £150,000 Mid Year transfer budget• £265,000 Top up

[for schools with statement costs greater than delegated budget]

• One third formula funding (rest historic costs)

• Formula factors: Prior Attainment (two thirds) and Disadvantage (one third)

• 4 year plan to move to full formula funding


7

Chart to Show SEN Delegated Budgets and Losses for Shortfall Primary Schools, May 04

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Bringhurs

t Prim

ary S

chool

Desford

Com

munity

Prim

ary S

chool

Gaddesb

y Prim

ary S

chool

Hemin

gton P

rimary

Sch

ool

Merc

enfeld

Prim

ary S

chool

Gre

ysto

ke P

rimary

Sch

ool, Narb

orough

Somerb

y Prim

ary S

chool

Stath

ern P

rimary

Sch

ool

Worth

ingto

n Sch

ool

Blaby

Thistly

Meadow P

rimary

Sch

ool

Elizabeth

Woodvil

le P

rimary

Sch

ool

Gle

nmere

Com

munity

Prim

ary S

chool

Badgerbro

ok Prim

ary S

chool

Sketc

hley

Hill Prim

ary S

chool

Ashby

Hill To

p Prim

ary S

chool

Highcli

ffe P

rimary

Sch

ool and C

omm

unity C

entre

Woodco

te P

rimary

Sch

ool

Hallbro

ok Prim

ary S

chool,

Broughto

n Ast

ley

Belton C

hurch o

f Engla

nd Prim

ary S

chool

Long Whatto

n Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool

Mowsle

y, St N

ichola

s Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool

Old

Dalb

y Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool

Packin

gton C

hurch o

f Engla

nd Prim

ary S

chool

South K

ilworth

Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool

Swithla

nd St L

eonard’s

Church o

f Engla

nd Prim

ary S

chool

Thurnby,

St Luke

’s Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool

Walth

am o

n the W

olds

Church o

f Engla

nd Prim

ary S

chool

Woodhouse

Eave

s, S

t Paul’s

Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool

Wym

eswold

Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool

St Mary

’s Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool Bitt

eswell

St Andre

w’s Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool, North

Kilw

orth

All Sain

ts C

hurch o

f Engla

nd Prim

ary S

chool,

Sapcote

Thurlast

on Churc

h of E

ngland P

rimary

Sch

ool

St Pete

r’s C

hurch o

f Engla

nd Prim

ary S

chool

Saint C

harles’s

Cath

olic P

rimary

Sch

ool, M

easham

Saint J

ohn Fish

er Cath

olic P

rimary

Sch

ool, W

igst

on

Saint J

oseph’s

Catholic

Prim

ary S

chool,

Mark

et Harb

orough

Loss

Allocation

37 schools received a total of £122,226


8

Chart To Show SEN Delegation Budgets and Losses for Shortfall Secondary Schools, May 04

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

King

Edwar

d VII

Schoo

l , M

elton

Wel

land

Par

k Com

mun

ity C

olleg

e

South

Cha

rnwoo

d High

Sch

ool

Sheps

hed

High

Schoo

l

Belvo

ir Hig

h Sch

ool a

nd C

omm

unity

Cen

tre

Count

esth

orpe

Com

mun

ity C

olleg

e

Gro

by C

omm

unity

Col

lege

Kibwor

th H

igh

Schoo

l and

Com

mun

ity C

entre

Thom

as E

stley

Com

mun

ity C

olleg

e

Willi

am B

radf

ord

Comm

unity

Col

lege

Loss

Allocation

10 schools received a total of £142,498


9

Membership of the Formula Review Group

• Tony Crompton, Headteacher, Blaby Stokes Primary (retired)• 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)• Phil D’Mello, Education Finance Service• Chris Bristow, SENA• Charlie Palmer, SEO• David Scott, Christine Cassell, Assistant Directors of Education


10

What are we trying to do?

• Support gainers who have lacked resources under the old funding system

• Protect losers where statement costs exceed delegated budget

• Help schools think about SEN provision strategically as a whole school issue


11

Issues Raised During Spring Summer 2004: Formula Review Group

• Claw back between schools for statemented pupils moving from one to another• Revision of criteria for statutory assessment/statement/provision before statement• Inclusion of ATH on statements• Revision ATH hours• Review of monitoring arrangements• Physically adapted schools attracting more statemented pupils• Dovecote primary who may get 20 travellers- some with statements- with say, 10 hours- but big

total overall• Pupils with PD and high support needs- eg two carers, and schools with several pupils with

nursing needs (eg catheterisation, creaming for eczema)• Pupils who have sudden medical conditions eg epilepsy, RTA, Brain tumour• Particular position of High schools loosing large amounts of money- is the pattern of gains losses

different for them that primaries and colleges- some Highs never hit additional funding criteria• City fringe schools and additional funding• Case studies of longer term budgets for SEN to show changes beyond those in the budget figures• Transitional funding support 05-06: full or 60% (funding ends 06)• Provision for ASD in schools that have developed a specialism• Concerns about delegation from the Leics Autistic Society• Including “Social Deprivation” elements in school budgets in Notional Budgets for SEN


12

Formula Review Group: Action Agreed

• Use of most up to date Index of Multiple Deprivation data at super output area level, rather than ward level.

• Use of enhanced resource packages to support pupils with statements for physical difficulties attending out of catchment specially adapted schools.

• Establish a fund in the Traveller Education Service to target support for schools with particularly needy Traveller children, within the limits of available resources.

• Extend the use of “Move In” Transitional Support to pupils with sudden onset difficulties.

• Update of historic cost information (the actual costs of statemented pupils in each school for the financial year 05-06).


13

Formula Review Group: Recommendations for Schools Forum

• Proposal to use £140,000 of transition support grant from DfES to protect schools with delegated budgets less than the costs of statemented pupils.

• Move to increase the proportion of formula funding in 2005-06 while transition support is available, within the limits of the available transition support.


14

Formula Review Group: Issues for Consultation

• Move to increase the proportion of formula funding in future years only when transition support is available, to ensure that schools do not have statement costs exceeding available budgets.

• Proposal to seek continuation of protection arrangements with Schools Forum in future years.

• Proposal to move to full formula funding by 2007-08 as agreed last year within the limits of the protection described in 2 & 3.

• Proposal to limit transition support to 85% of statement costs to take account of grouped arrangements for SEN support in schools.

• Issue of County schools with high number of city pupils, seeking passported funding for city pupils with statements- proposal not to make special arrangements.

• Proposal to continue not to hold a central budget for schools reporting mid year budget pressures

• Proposal to end the automatic specification of Additional teacher Hours on statements.


15

Chart to Show Summary of SEN Delegation Consultation Responses Spring 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

ses

Yes 88 92 85 44 35 32 60

No 7 3 11 43 45 62 34

Formula moves only with loser protection

Question 1

Schools forum approach to continue

top up

Full formula by 2007-08Question 3

Limit cost calcs to 85%Question 4

No to City passportingQuestion 5

No to central budgetQuestion 6

End automatic spec of teacher hours

Question 7


16

Schools with City Pupils with Statements

• Are city statements are funded at a higher level than county statements?

• Do city pupils have a higher AWPU?

• Do we have to take City pupils with statements?

• Do the city treat their own statemented pupils the same?

• Do schools get all the money the county gets?

• Do we passport city funding direct to schools

• No- they are the same from this year

• Yes- but we can’t recoup this

• Yes- law says we can’t treat them differently to our own

• Not quite- don’t go over PAN- but are working on it

• Yes- all goes into mainstream statement budget

• No- top up rules apply


17

City Schools with statements

Top up Rules• Work out statement

costs for year• Check calcs with schools• Top up if costs greater

than delegated budget

• “Move in” support for high cost statements arriving at non standard transfer times

PassportingHave argued against direct

funding city statements because:

• Adds additional bureaucracy• Works against principles of

delegation- planning overall budget

• Top up rules protect schools


18

SEN Delegation: 2005-06

• £12.9m delegated to schools• £154k Mid Year transfer budget• £140k Top up

[for schools with statement costs greater than delegated budget]

• 45% formula funding (rest historic costs of statements)

• Formula factors: Prior Attainment (two thirds) and Disadvantage (one third)

• Plan to move to full formula funding by 2007-08 providing losers can be protected


19

Further Work• Early involvement of receiving schools

with pre-school pupils with SEN• Review of criteria for placement• Issues for 06-07:

• Low fliers with statements• Inclusion/dual placement support• Calculation of top up- allowance for grouped

arrangements• Top up arrangements and a central budget

for schools in difficulty with SEN costs


20

Notional Budget for SENIncludes:

– 4% AWPU– £7.19 (approx) per pupil SENCO release– Delegated budget for statements– Top up (for schools with statement costs exceeding delegated budget)

Additional Budgets:– Unit provision (primary)– Learning Support units (secondary)– Social Inclusion budget (secondary)


21

Forecast Out turn for 04 / 05

1,31529144178

51579656TOTAL

19161191Special Units

333117

3242916 +

56573564530Secondary

2262210913117Primary

TOTAL (£000s)

No.Move in** (£000s) No.Standard

(£000s)No.EP’s*

(£000s)

* Enhanced Packages ** Mid Year Transfer Support


22

Forecast Out turn for 04 / 05 (ii)

• Microtech £82,000• SEN Equipment £77,000

Expenditure on out county mainstream placements = £552,000 (114 pupils)

Expenditure on out county special school placements = £6,583,000 (376 pupils)


23

Mid Year Transfer Support (Move In)

Who is eligible?1. Non statemented pupils who have

had a major change in their health needs

2. Pupils requiring additional support, who are looked after by another East Midlands LA but attend a Leicestershire school

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Leicestershire Learning for Life 1 SEN Delegation Update May 2005.

Documents

Transcript of EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Leicestershire Learning for Life 1 SEN Delegation Update May 2005.