Hannah Spencer

Rachael shared with Forum the findings of the Element 3 funding pilot that has been implemented during 2022 to 2023.

The overarching feedback from the pilot was that conversations were much more focused on the needs of the child and thatthe plans that we currently have can be quite outdated. It was felt that our annual review processes would need to change along with our writing of our EHCPs, to be able to then make sure that the needs-based tool that would calculate the funding would actually be fit for purpose.

On an individual basis, there were some significant gains where children's needs were higher than they had been set within the EHCP. And then some where children have made significant progress and schools were saying to the SEND team we are no longer providing the level of provision that is included within the plan where those funds actually went down. Rachael thought there were roughly an equal amount of plans that went up as an equal amount of plans that went down, but overall the budgets that were used in the pilot model did indicate that there would be a reduction in the amount of funding allocated to schools. However, it was explained to members that potentially some of those savings would not be as real as they are in the pilot process, because we would be using the uplifted model for the implementation, reflecting current support staff pay (the current model is based upon pay levels from ten years ago).

Stewart asked for clarity that the Element 3 banding was an LA decision, not a choice for discussion at Forum, rather Forum was being asked to make a decision about the implementation of the banding model.

Rachael explained that this model will be taken forward using the funding matrix that was instigated during the pilot. The LA is planning to meet with Islington again for a further meeting, to actually agree that funding matrix for Post 16. 

Three options were then presented to members for rolling out the scheme. The first option was to use the new formula for each Annual Review that received in 23-24, although it was felt by all that there was insufficient capacity at the moment to fully enact this.

Option 2 was to use the new formula for every phase transfer plan being amended for 2024 entry and new EHCP’s. with a view to a full roll out from 2024 onwards.

Option 3 was to use use the new formula for specific and targeted year groups where Element 3 is exceptionally high, or RSA rate is higher than the average, alongside the new formula for Phase transfer and the issuing of new EHCP’s, before a full roll out from 2024 onwards.

Before moving to a vote on which option Forum would like to agree to, Rachael invited questions from members. Laurence asked which year groups would be most affected by choosing option 3 – Rachael clarified that years 5 and 10 are the focus of phased transfers.

The Chair then shared a letter from TASH (Torbay Association of Secondary Heads), sharing their concerns regarding the tone of the element 3 paper. Whilst assured it wasn't about saving money, each pilot summary has a headline of the saving made with the exception of one small plus.
So there are questions regarding what is going to happen to that money that has been saved given the plan is for this to be cost neutral, will it still go to schools or is there another plan for this sum of money?

Rachael explained that if any savings were to come out of the implementation, it would have to go into our deficit position. We cannot be reinvesting money back that doesn't actually exist within our system. The pilot never had any financial reductions attached to it. The consequence of doing the pilot has actually demonstrated that there may be reductions that can be made based on the needs of the children that we've looked at and the provision that's been put in place by schools. Implementing this goes back into our deficit until we're in a place to be in a surplus and then we can have different conversations at school forum about reinvestment.

Stewart pointed out to members that the idea of the pilot scheme was about looking at what's being done and making sure that it is more impactful, and that it should not be seen as a money saving exercise.  Indeed, some colleagues from schools that will be more affected financially were in agreement that it was the right thing to do i.e. It was about putting the money in the right place for the right children.

Laurence asked whether some further modelling could be done around which schools are going to be significantly affected, and what the implications could be. Rob and Rachael were in agreement that this could be done and shared with school colleagues at a later date.

After further discussion, members were asked to vote in favour of one of the three proposals. Voting went as followed:

Members were thanked for their vote, whilst recognising it was a difficult decision to make it was felt that this option was the most equitable for all parties moving forward.