To consider information concerning the provision of additional funding to mainstream schools for the purpose of making appropriate SEN arrangements under the 2001 SEN Code of Practice for children and young people identified as having special educational needs as defined in the code.

The Committee considered information concerning the provision of additional funding to mainstream schools for the purpose of making appropriate SEN arrangements under the 2001 SEN Code of Practice for children and young people identified as having special educational needs as defined in the code.

The Manager of SEN & Disability presented her report which set out: the financial implications of funding for additional educational support where a child had been identified with Special Educational Needs (SEN); the benefits and issues concerning the current funding system without statements of SEN; and current action being taken.  Appended to the report were the Special Educational Need Code of Practice 2001 (Appendix 1) and Data concerning Statutory Assessment & Statements of SEN.  A ‘Summary of Information’ was issued at the meeting.

The Manager of SEN & Disability reported that funding for additional support under the SEN 2001 Code of Practice was provided from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Staff providing administrative and casework services for statutory assessment and the maintenance of statements of SEN were funded through the Local Authority budgets.  Schools based budgets included a notional 6% for additional needs.  Further funding for SEN was currently retained centrally from the DSG and provided to mainstream schools on a needs basis through the Banded Funding levels with and without statements of SEN. There are currently 4 Band Levels of funding for individual needs ranging from £1,830 per annum (Level 1) to £10,930 per annum (Level 4).  The band level was determined on the basis of evidence about a child’s needs gathered as a result of assessment and purposeful interventions as described in the 2001 SEN Code of Practice and criteria.  It was proposed to delegate funding associated with Band Levels 1 and 2 through a formula into schools base budgets. A recent 8-week consultation, undertaken by the Herefordshire Schools Forum, had looked at possible alternatives to the current method of delegating the Banded funding.  A report on the outcome was due to be considered by the Herefordshire Schools Forum on 15th December 2008.

During the course of scrutinising the report the following principal points were noted:

• Responding to questions about parental confidence in any school’s SEN arrangements and that Voluntary Aided schools required statements rather than banded assessments, the Committee noted that the system relied on schools maintaining a proper system of assessment and this was being monitored by the service.  There was a statutory process for statements, and the Code of Practice set out the approach to banded funding. 
• Banded funding for levels 1 and 2 was delegated under a formula to schools.  Statemented funding followed the child if they moved school.
• The needs of the young person could be met in different ways to give the right outcome.  Banded funding levels 1 and 2 addressed low level needs.
• By their nature formal statements took longer to prepare and consider and were more costly to administer.
• Questioned on the breakdown of data for bands 1 & 2 the Committee noted that, while not shown in the agenda, this data was collected and monitored.
• Responding to concerns regarding the number of statements e.g. for dyslexia the Committee were informed that the number had probably been low and where statements had been completed these had been for primary school pupils and may have been for ‘difficult need’ rather than specifically for dyslexia.
• It was noted that Hampton Dene Primary School had not been listed in table U at page 28/39 as it had a Language and Communication Centre. 
• It was further noted that while the number of allocations, indicated in table T, was high for some High schools, this was dependant on whether SENCOs had made applications.  It was important for there to be good liaison between primary and High schools at the time of transfer.
• Questioned whether the funding allocation under the formula covered the actual cost to the school it was acknowledged that this was dependant on a number of factors e.g. number of banded pupils in the school; their range of difficulties and the schools ability to provide for those pupils within the budget.  Central Services were able to offer advice on budgeting in such circumstances.
• Concerning the number of pupils at band level 4,  being pupils with a wide rang of difficulties and in need of the most assistance and therefore the most expensive, the Committee noted that a very small number of pupils went out of county for extra assistance and, in the main, these pupils were in special schools prior to out of county placement.
• The Committee were informed that the current allocation of levels 1 & 2 banded funding was made based on statistics for the take up of Free School Meals (FSM) in the school.  The Committee questioned whether this was a fair and equitable method of allocating SEN funding bearing in mind the range of other indices and that every child’s needs were important.  Concern was expressed that a school may be significantly underfunded for SEN when based on its number of FSM.   In response the Committee were informed that allocation by FSM was used for a high proportion of other school budget allocations and the FSM statistics were regularly and robustly checked.
• Voicing similar concerns over school funding for Statemented pupils the Committee were reminded that Statemented funding followed the child. 
• It was claimed that some schools were finding it difficult to obtain adequate responses from the Education Psychology Service and the Behaviour Support Service.
• A Headteacher representative commented that while unfortunately there would be winners and losers, many teachers preferred the current allocation system for band levels 1 & 2 on the basis that the level of bureaucracy involved in applying for individual child funding took teachers away from teaching.

The Chairman suggested that in view of the concern now expressed about the system for allocating Level 1 and 2 Banded Funding a small Working Group be formed to look at background material, including the report to the Herefordshire Schools Forum, to ensure that the range of delegated funding options to schools are adequately considered and that no child requiring additional assistance was missed by the system.

RESOLVED that the report be noted and a SEN/Banded Funding Working Group be formed comprising of Councillors: WU Attfield; G Lucas; AM Toon SJ Robertson and JD Woodward, to examine the range of delegated funding options and how the SEN / Banded funding system was meeting the needs of children and schools.