Return to Agenda

ITEM CA9

CABINET - 20 DECEMBER 2005

DELEGATION OF THE STATEMENTING BUDGET

Report by Director for Learning & Culture

1. Following Cabinet’s decision on 20 September 2005 to carry out a formal consultation with schools on proposals to delegate the statementing budget (a centrally held budget for supporting children in mainstream schools with Statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN)), this paper describes the consultation process, results, and implications if the scheme were to be approved. It also makes recommendations about implementation. This is not about SEN Services or Special Schools which remain unaffected.
2. The Annexes to this report, comprising details of the consultation process and the responses received, are circulated as a separate document to Cabinet Members only and are available in the Members’ Resource Centre and for public inspection
   
   (CA9 - Annex A - download as .doc file)
   (CA9 - Annex B - download as .doc file)
   (CA9 - Annex C - download as .doc file)
   (CA9 - Annex D - download as .doc file)
   (CA9 - Annex E - download as .doc file)
   (CA9 - Annex F - download as .doc file)
   (CA9 - Annex G - download as .xls file)
   

Background

3. A Statement of SEN describes a child’s special educational needs and the provision required to meet them. A number of reports and policy initiatives from the DfES, Ofsted and the Audit Commission in recent years have encouraged local authorities to move away from reliance on statutory assessment and statements as a means of allocating resources. Ofsted has described the current process nationally as "unwieldy, bureaucratic, time-consuming and costly".
4. SEN funding systems should deliver funding to schools as early as possible, as transparently as possible, as equitably as possible, as objectively as possible and with the minimum bureaucracy. Currently the majority of SEN funding in mainstream schools in Oxfordshire (£11.5 million) is allocated to schools using a formula known as the SEN Index. This money is used to support all children with SEN including the first five hours of 1:1 teaching assistant (TA) support, or equivalent. However, £4.8 m is retained centrally for approximately 1,700 statements. Most statements are used to allocate relatively low level of resources: 72% of statements have less than 15 hours of TA support and are mainly for general learning and behavioural needs. It is estimated that £600,000 is spent on administrative functions for mainstream statements; this does not include any school, educational psychologist or SEN Support Services time. Educational Psychologists in Oxfordshire have estimated that they spend approximately one day per week on statutory processes.
5. Nationally 3.1% of children have Statements; in Oxfordshire the figure has remained at around 2.4% for several years. This is in line with similar authorities. About 350 new assessments are made per year. Spending on statements was within budget last year and there has been a commitment to increase the budget by £400,000 in 2006/07. Where authorities have delegated funding directly to schools the numbers of statements have reduced gradually over a number of years. As statement and assessments fall so there is a proportional reduction in central administration. Time saved by educational psychologists, SEN Support Services and SEN co-ordinators (SENCOs) can be spent supporting children.

Benefits of Delegation

6. Delegation has tended to reduce demand for statements and DfES research, ‘Reducing Reliance on Statements’, highlights the benefits:

• Headteachers, governors and SENCOs are able to make decisions about curriculum and support arrangements for both individuals and groups of pupils who experience barriers to their learning. They are best placed to ensure that resources are used early and proactively to address learning needs as they arise.
• More pupils with SEN without a statement in the low- statementing authorities reach the expected levels, at each key stage, than in high-statementing authorities.
• Less paperwork and SEN-related bureaucracy for SENCOs, educational psychologists and other LEA teams.
• Improved relations with parents and schools.
• Fewer appeals overall to the SEN & Disability Tribunal and fewer appeals against refusal to assess.
• Local schools judge the low statementing authorities to be slightly more effective, across nine out of ten indicators of their performance on SEN.
• Ofsted inspectors judge the low statementing authorities to be more effective, across all three of the published inspection scores on SEN.
• They scored marginally better on SEN in the 2002 Comprehensive Performance Assessment exercise.

7. In a national overview produced by the DfES SEN Adviser Team in March 2005 it was reported that ‘almost all local authorities have now delegated resources for ‘high incidence’ statements or are in the process of change. The majority of those currently working on change are developing formula approaches. Most of those authorities in the process of review recognise the need to accelerate progress.’ One of our statistical neighbours, Gloucestershire, began delegating in 2003; the number of new statements issued each year reduced from 354 in 2002-03, to 271 in 2003-04 and to 146 in 2004-05. Bournemouth has reduced the number of new requests by 46% in three years. The number of SEN & Disability Tribunal (SENDIST) appeals has reduced from 8 to 0 and there have been no complaints to the authority as a result of the process.

Assurances for Parents and Schools

8. A number of assurances have been outlined for parents and schools in the proposals. Specifically the criteria for statements will not change. Parents and schools will still have the right to request a statutory assessment if the child meets the criteria, there are no plans to cease any statements and if parents wish the statement to continue and the child meets the criteria, the statement will be maintained. Where a child does not have a statement schools will continue to comply. Assessments, advice and monitoring by specialists will continue to be available and delegation should, in time, enable specialists to spend more time supporting children. Access to therapy services (Speech and Language, Physiotherapy, Occupational therapy) is not dependent on statements, rather a child’s level of need. This similarly applies to support in tests or exams and access to equipment.

Risks to the Local Authority and Schools

9. The County Council will retain its existing legal responsibilities to comply with SEN legislation; to assess appropriate children when requested and to ensure that provision is made in accordance with those statements. The detailed scheme of delegation will ensure that governing bodies are aware of their responsibilities to make statemented provision where funds have been delegated for the purpose. Advice from Legal Services is that this extension of the current scheme of delegation for SEN funds does not increase risks or liabilities for schools or the Council. The findings from other authorities that have already delegated show that there are fewer appeals overall to the SENDIST and fewer appeals against refusal to assess.

Consultation Process

10. Informal consultation took place in June and July 2005. Formal consultation took place between October and November. ‘Reducing Reliance on Statements – Proposals to Delegate the Statementing Budget’ was circulated to all schools for the attention of Headteachers, SENCos, Chairs of Governors and the SEN Governor (See Annex A). It was also circulated widely to colleagues in Learning & Culture, Social & Health Care and Health. Briefings on the proposals were provided for headteachers, governors, SENCos and SEN Support Services. Over 150 people attended these meetings. A Fact and Impact Conference and two briefing meetings were held for parents and involved voluntary organisations. Over 75 parents attended. In addition to these events, delegation has been a major agenda item at SEN Partnership and Schools Forum meetings. A summary of the consultation process is included at Annex B.
11. A total of 79 written responses to the formal consultation were received. One response was submitted by Oxfordshire Secondary School Headteachers Association (OSSHTA) which represented the views of all Oxfordshire’s secondary schools. In addition, 13 secondary schools (38%) also sent in responses. 66 primary schools (27%) responded. A few responses were received from various other colleagues including the Paediatric Physiotherapy Service and partnerships currently receiving further additional provision. Only replies from schools were counted (one reply from each school), the OSSHTA response has been given due weight as it represents the views of all secondary schools. Comments from the ‘Fact and Impact’ conference for parents and comments from all respondents have been considered. The results are included at Annex C, and comments are included in Annexes D to F.
12. A select committee style investigation for achieving Education for Children with Learning Disabilities by members of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee is scheduled for 13 December 2005, to enable members to investigate the potential impact of delegating the statementing budget to schools. The Committee will be asked to explore the implications of the proposals for children with a learning disability and to make recommendations to Cabinet based on their findings. These will be reported at the meeting.

Results

13. A number of principles were proposed to underpin the delegation of the statementing budget. These were mainly about equity, transparency, early intervention, flexibility and minimal bureaucracy. They were supported by more than 90% of respondents.
14. 66% of primary respondents and 100% of secondary respondents supported the notion of delegation.
15. Schools were consulted on both the method and level of delegation. Three possible methods were suggested, an audit approach, partnership/cluster approach or a formula approach using the SEN Index. Secondary schools fully supported a formula approach (100%). Primary schools also favoured a formula approach with 62% of respondents supporting the proposal. There was 40% support for an audit approach and 25% support for a partnership/cluster approach from primary respondents. Some schools expressed preferences for more than one option.
16. A number of options were offered regarding the level of the statementing budget that could be delegated; either the total budget or a ‘significant amount’. The significant amount proposed equates to funding for pupils with 15 hours support per week or less. This covers approximately 70% of all statements. Schools would then be expected to fund the first fifteen hours rather than the first five hours of support. Alternatives were offered which either included or excluded ‘small schools and/or schools with small SEN budgets’. The OSSHTA response, on behalf of all secondary schools, fully supported the option to delegate all of the funding for statements but removing ‘small schools.’ The outcome of the primary response needed further analysis due to the number of options offered and the fact that some respondents indicated more than one preference. Detailed analysis of responses (Annex G) to the question about the level of delegation showed that 77% of primary schools supported at least 15 hours being delegated. Some favoured small schools being excluded and others did not.
17. Analysis of the replies received from ‘small schools’ showed that they tended to favour being removed. 60% supported the option to delegate most of the funding and removing small schools, 35% did not support being removed. There were some suggestions that small schools should be defined by the size of their overall budget rather than the size of funding received through the SEN Index, as schools with larger budgets have greater capacity to manage funding fluctuations.
18. The proposal suggested that a contingency fund is retained for exceptional circumstances. This was supported by 95% of respondents.
19. A considerable level of support was also received for the proposal to phase any funding changes over two years. 68% of respondents supported the proposal and OSSHTA suggested three years rather than two.
20. A number of performance measures were proposed to enable the local authority to monitor the effect of delegating the statementing budget. Many of these are already in place. There was a high level of support from primary respondents (72%). Secondary colleagues offered a mixed response and OSSHTA definitely did not support the proposal. Comments revealed that they felt that a number of the measures listed were not performance measures and that there was not a clear correlation between the statementing budget and school performance. Comments received suggested the need to distinguish between the impact and effect on individual schools and the impact and effect on the local authority as a whole.
21. This funding review provided an opportunity to also consider the additional funding for SEN currently allocated to some schools or partnerships for Moderate Learning Disabilities (MLD) Units and Enhanced Provision. When asked whether such funding should continue most respondents had ‘no opinion either way’ or felt unable to answer the questions. Their comments highlighted the need to know more about the allocations. Schools currently receiving additional funding strongly disapproved of any re-distribution of this funding. In terms of the suggested phasing of any funding changes there was strongest support for consideration from April 2007 phased over two years (47 % supported this option, 32% had ‘no opinion either way’ and 21% did not support it). OSSHTA did not feel able to comment and few individual secondary schools replied to the questions.

Conclusions

22. Having considered a wide range of views and the results from the formal consultation process it seems to be appropriate to introduce the delegation of the statementing budget from April 2006. Although there was overwhelming support from secondary schools and substantial support from primary schools (70%), the number of primary schools responding was relatively low (27%). There are genuine concerns among some headteachers and it is therefore proposed that the implementation is reviewed within the first year for consideration by the Schools Forum and Cabinet.
23. It is proposed that all of the funding for secondary schools should be delegated and funding equivalent to the first 15 hours of provision should be delegated to primary schools. This might best be phased over two years, in line with the government’s agenda for two-year budget plans from April 2006 to 2008. A full review of the scheme should then take place in time for any changes to be made for April 2008.
24. Exceptional arrangements should be made for the hundred primary schools with the smallest whole school budget. For these small schools the authority will continue to fund individual pupils from centrally retained funds where they require more than 5 hours of support per week. It is recognised that at least initially, there is a need to retain a small budget to be administered by a panel of headteachers and officers, to address exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances would include schools with more than three children requiring 15 hours per week of support and might also include, for example, new schools. This budget should be ring-fenced within the school block and any surplus re-distributed to schools at the end of the year.

Monitoring and Accountability

25. A number of monitoring and accountability structures are already in place for schools and local authorities to ensure that children’s needs are met. Reducing the reliance on statements requires further strengthening of these processes. Schools will continue to be expected to provide parents with clear information about the progress and attainments of their child, the arrangements that are being made and who is responsible for making the provision. They will also continue to be responsible for assessing the impact and quality of SEN provision and identifying areas for improvement. These aspects will continue to be monitored by the LA and inspected by Ofsted. The LA will continue to provide schools with a budget statement that shows clearly how SEN resources have been calculated, including the breakdown of the SEN Index. Work is in hand to develop annual systematic accountability arrangements, such as SEN performance data profiles for each school, benchmarked against schools of similar type, size and context. Other monitoring systems already in place, including the number of exclusions, admissions to special schools and complaints, will continue to inform overall SEN strategic planning. The LA will continue to publish expenditure, including spending on statutory assessment processes through annual Section 52 statements.

Delegation of ‘Additional Funding’

26. There was no consensus about the delegation of the ‘additional funding’ received by some schools and partnerships. There is a tension between maintaining good practice that has developed within the schools/ partnerships currently receiving the additional funding and the need to consider fair distribution of funding. Currently not all of the funding is targeted at schools with the highest level of need. Sharing funding among all schools limits the ability to target significant amounts of funding at the few schools with very high levels of need. It is recognised that further detailed discussions will need to take place before an informed response can be obtained from schools. Further work will take place with a full report to Cabinet in the summer 2007, including any necessary consultations. It is therefore proposed that no action is taken to delegate "additional funding" in 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONS

27. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

1. agree the introduction of a scheme of delegation from April 2006 using the SEN Index formula, on the following basis:

1. all of the statementing budget for secondary schools should be delegated;
2. for primary schools, funding equivalent to the first 15 hours of provision should be delegated;
3. introduction should be phased over two years;
4. exceptional arrangements should be made for the hundred primary schools with the smallest whole school budgets and other exceptional circumstances, on a basis agreed by the Director for Children, Young People & Families;
5. a contingency fund should be retained for exceptional arrangements, ring-fenced within the school’s block so that any surplus is re-distributed to schools at the end of the year;

2. to ask the Director for Children, Young People & Families to:

1. review the implementation within the first year for consideration by the Schools Forum and Cabinet;
2. produce a full review of the scheme within the first two years, in time for any changes to be made for April 2008;
3. report to the Cabinet in Summer 2007 on the use of "additional funding" and any proposals for its redistribution from 2008.

KEITH BARTLEY
Director for Learning & Culture

Background Papers: Responses received.

Contact Officers:
Simon Adams, Senior Education Officer (SEN) 01865 810602
Janet Johnson, Education Officer (SEN) 01865 815129

December 2005

Return to TOP