Norfolk HNS School’s Briefing 22 March 2013 Trish Bugg, Senior Adviser, Education Funding Agency 1 EFA Funding Briefing, including High Needs Student Funding - Post 16

What is changing? Funding per student Study programmes Raising Participation Age

The participation age will be raised : For 16 year olds -end of the academic year in which they are 17 from Summer 2013 For 17 year olds to their 18 th birthday from Summer 2015 What counts as participation?... full time education (school, college or independent provider for at least 540 hours) full-time work including at least 280 hours of education Students will take either academic programme or a substantial vocational qualification– to help them secure skilled work or a university place education will be funded…student by student All students receive same basic level of funding Enables and supports a simple and transparent funding system Subject to A level and GSE reform Landmark changes Study programmes Raising Participation Age Funding per student

Independent Specialist Providers, Special Schools, Non-Maintained Special Schools will now be funded through the National Funding Formula programme funding What is Changing?

What hasn’t changed? Academies, colleges, and providers will still get their funding from the Education Funding Agency Maintained schools – funding via the Local Authority Funding system that is based on the data returned in census for schools/academies or Individualised Learner Record (ILR) for colleges and other FE providers We still have a lagged student system… …what is delivered in the current year, is the basis for funding in the next year

The new funding formula Total Programme Funding Programme Cost Weighting Disadvantage Funding Area Cost Allowance Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor ()

This is a count of students to be funded Must meet qualifying period of 2 weeks or 6 weeks- will not fund programmes under 2 weeks Based on autumn census or ILR return Either full time => 540 hours Or Part Time < 540 hours For shadow allocs and 2013/14 Band 4 = full time The bottom band treated as Full Time Equivalent (FTE), that is a proportion of 600 Age groups and are shown separately on the statement but treated the same Program Cost Weighting Disadvantage Funding Area Cost Allowance National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor () Student Numbers Student numbers Student status Hours required per year Full time540 + Band Band Band Band 1 up to 280

 A FT rate based on circa 600 hours  Three part time rates for bands 2,3,4  Each funded at mid-point of the band  For Band 4 ( hours) we will for 13/14 fund at the FT rate  Band 1 (below 280 hours) funded as a proportion of 600 hours ie 150 hours gets 25% of the National Full Time funding Rate The National rate will be set at the end of February Program Cost Weighting Disadvantage Funding Area Cost Allowance Student Numbers Retention Factor ( ) National Funding Rate per student Part Time Funding rates Student Number status Hours funded at… Example Rate Full time600£3,900 Band 4 600£3,900 Band 3 405£2633 Band 2 320£2080 Band 1 % of 600% of £3,900

 Success no longer used in funding, a retention factor is now used  Applied at student level, not qualification level  Retained means still studying a core aim on planned end date or leaves early and is recorded as completed the core aim  For academic programmes – still studying one of the academic aims  For vocational programmes still studying the core aim  Retention FACTOR =half way point between Retention RATE and 100% Student Retention and funding Funding Leaves before qualifying period 0 Leaves before planned end and not recorded as completed 50% Retained to planned end date and recorded as completed 100% Leaves before planned end date and recorded as completed 100% Program Cost Weighting Disadvantage Funding Area Cost Allowance Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student ( ) Retention Factor Number of students completed Number of students started

 Recognition that some vocational subjects are more expensive to teach than others  Applied to the student’s whole programme  Determined by the student’s core aim ie A Levels or substantial vocational qualification  All academic programmes uplifted by one weight, which has been determined by merging the 2 current academic weightings and low cost vocational programmes and rebasing these as 1,  Vocational Programme Weighting categories are being reduced in number and re-set to make it simpler: applied at sector subject areas Cost Weighting Category 2012/13 average Proposed 2013/14 Base Medium High Specialist Disadvantage Funding Area Cost Allowance Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor ( ) Programme Cost Weighting

 Recognises that some students require additional support to participate and achieve if we are to achieve full participation and improve attainment  Principle is to create a single budget that institutions use as they see fit Disadvantage Funding Economic Deprivation Prior Attainment Program Cost Weighting Area Cost Allowance Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor ( ) Disadvantage Funding

Based on student’s home postcode Deprivation is calculated using Index of Multiple Deprivation This examines the student’s home area based on: income; employment; health and disability; education, skills and training; housing and services; living environment; and crime Uplift is between 8.4% and 33.6% Block one: Disadvantage Funding Economic Deprivation Additional categories are no longer eligible Care Leavers attract a standard uplift- rate Program Cost Weighting Area Cost Allowance Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor ( ) Disadvantage Funding

Prior Attainment Acknowledges the additional cost of students who need extra learning support Based on student’s achievement of GCSE English and maths at end of Year 11 Funding rate for shadow allocations =£450 Flat rate for part time bands 2 and 3 = £274 Pro rata as per programme costs for band 1 The rates will be set at the end of February Block two: Program Cost Weighting Area Cost Allowance Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor ( ) Disadvantage Funding Example Maths below grade C English below grade C Funding attracted per student (£) Student 1yes*Rate x1 Student 2yes*Rate x1 Student 3yes *Rate x2 Used to be graduated payments based on student’s grades Now only a flat rate based on non-achievement of grade C

Area Cost Allowance  Reflects the cost of delivery in high cost local areas – remains unchanged  We will continue to calculate this using the same methodology as now  Applied to the whole participation formula (including all disadvantage) Program Cost Weighting Disadvantag Funding Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor ( ) Area Cost Allowance AreaUplift Inner London20% Outer London12% Berkshire12% Crawley12% Surrey12% Buckingham (London fringe)10% Hertfordshire (London fringe)10% Buckinghamshire (non fringe)7% AreaUplift Oxfordshire7% Essex (London fringe)6% Kent (London fringe)6% Bedfordshire3% Hertfordshire (non-London fringe)3% Cambridgeshire2% Hampshire and Isle of Wight2% West Sussex non-fringe1% Program Cost Weighting Disadvantag Funding Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor ( )

? TP from 11/12 ? ? High Needs Students Student Support Funding Formula Protection Funding Total Programme Funding …plus extras (if applicable) The new funding formula ??? Student Support Funding Program Cost Weighting Disadvantag Funding Student Numbers National Funding Rate per student Retention Factor ( ) Area Cost Allowance

High Needs Student Funding (HNS) - the objective To create a HNS funding system that fits with, and supports:  SEN Reforms (Green Paper 2011 and Draft Legislation)  Study Programmes  Raising the Participation Age  New National Funding Formula

17 Green Paper 2011: Support and Aspiration  Children’s SEN picked up early and support in place quickly  Staff have the knowledge, understanding and skills to provide the right support  Parents know what they can reasonably expect, without having to fight for it  Aspirations for YP are raised through an increased focus on life outcomes  For more complex needs, an integrated assessment and a single Education, Health and Care Plan from birth to 25  Greater control for parents over the services they and their family use.

18 The case for high needs funding reform  Some perverse financial incentives are inherent in the current funding system  An awkward divide at 16 and totally different funding systems for a young person in a school or in FE  An increasingly diverse range of providers, including academies and Free Schools, for which equitable funding arrangements are needed  A need to make sure that limited funding is distributed effectively and efficiently, and that scarce resources are not wasted  Need to timetable reform alongside mainstream funding reform because of the interactions

Key outcomes  Funding arrangements in which providers will be funded on an equivalent basis  High needs education funding pre 16 and post 16 brought closer together to support Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) proposals for  Greater clarity and consistency about school and college provision and responsibilities  Funding that follows individual students and is more responsive to needs  Local authorities act as both commissioners and funders 19

The essence of HNS funding  Funding for students with learning difficulties and or disabilities or special educational needs that require support costs above £6,000  A place plus funding system; places funded by the EFA and plus (any additional funding) funded by the home local authority  3 elements. Element 1 and 2 are formula calculations and Element 3 is flexible. 20

21 What the whole system looks like Element 1: Core education funding Element 2: Additional support funding Element 3: Top-up funding Mainstream settings Pre-16 SEN and AP Specialist settingsAll settings Post-16 SEN and LDD “Top-up” funding from the commissioner to meet the needs of each pupil or student placed in the institution Mainstream per-pupil funding (AWPU) Contribution of £6,000 to additional support required by a pupil with high needs, from notional SEN budget Base funding of £10,000 for SEN and £8,000 for AP placements, roughly equivalent to the level up to which a mainstream provider will contribute to the additional support provision of a high needs pupil. Base funding is provided on the basis of planned places. Mainstream per- student funding (as calculated by the national funding formula ) Contribution of £6,000 to additional support required by a student with high needs PLACE LED PUPIL/STU DENT LED 21

22 Funding flows: from the EFA to the institution 22 Place-led funding Pupil/student- led funding EDUCATION FUNDING AGENCY (EFA) Commissioning local authority Schools BlockEarly Years BlockHigh Needs Block Education provider Element 1Element 2Element 3 Maintained institutions only Pre-16 funding through the maintaining LA mainstream formula or £10k/8k base funding for special schools/AP. Post-16 funding “passported” via the maintaining LA

Key messages  Complex change to move to single common system from one which funded students via 3 different mechanism  Money distributed is finite and aims to maintain the same levels of resources for FY as available to Local Authorities (LAs) in 2011/12  We have not set out to redistribute funding between LAs. Matter for LAs to manage pressures across whole DSG (0-25)  Budget overall up by 9% since 11/12 (AY) – we have used this to increase the top up funding for those that need it. 23

HNS student numbers – the journey  August 2012 – LAs forecast 13/14 HNS places by checking baseline data, and identifying institutions new to EFA funding  September to December 2012 – On going dialogue between LAs and EFA to update and refine HNS numbers  December 2012 – EFA applied 24% limit to HNS places for some LAs  December 2012 – EFA notified institutions of indicative HNS places  December 2012 – EFA notified LAs of DSG including High Needs Block  7 th January 2013 – LAs informed EFA of changes to HNS numbers 24

Next Steps  If LAs identify that process has had a disproportionate effect on its overall budget it can submit an exceptional case to EFA by 22 nd February And LAs can still HNS numbers by 22 nd February  Exceptional cases will include: succinct explanation with supporting data, and business impact covering student volumes and budget  Separately institutions have an opportunity to raise initial concerns with the EFA by 22 nd February 2013, where overall allocation of places from multiple LAs may lead to a risk of provision being non-viable 25

Links to further information All published documents and help documents are published on the DfE website: nce/financialmanagement/schoolsrevenuefunding/ a /school-funding-reform-and- arrangements-for