1. Inclusion Strategy: Update Tim Bowman, Head of Inclusion Services Alasdaire Duerden, Inclusion Programme and SEND Reforms Paper B

2. Inclusion Update: Contents 1.SEND Locality Working 2.Special School and IR Placements 3.Locality High Needs Funding Allocations 4.Pupil Referral Unit

3. 1. Inclusion: SEND Locality Working All 7 localities continue to look at the medium- to long-term actions and plans for embedding the new ways of working. The majority of localities are now in a position to start to run the agree to assess meetings. The links between the SEND new ways of working and Early Help/MAST continue to be strengthened with a number of localities looking to pilot a joint decision making panel. A Strategic Inclusion Taskforce has been established, members will include the locality lead headteachers. The aim of this group is to look at how we can help to implement the vision of the Inclusion Programme Board across the city in a strategic and consistent way.

4. 2. Inclusion: Special School & HN Places Sept 16 Places number per Business Case Actual numbers Sept 16 Variance 16/17 financial implications £'000 Independent Service Provider (ISP)637411645 Integrated Resources209 Special Schools + hubs 1,050 1,08636 1,300 Potential placement changes79 Complex Case fund-400 Total 1,322 1,448 126 1,545 There continues to be high demand for specialist places and therefore rising pressures on our budget. Our special schools cannot meet this demand they are at and above their capacity. This growth in places has not been funded by the Government. We are not funded by government for all the places we commission. We are concerned that this rising demand demonstrates low confidence in mainstream schools and settings. The only sustainable way to meet this demand is through an emphasis on and investment in inclusion. Our inclusion strategy is an ambitious programme of change, introducing new ways of working for all schools and it will drive fundamental changes to support all vulnerable children and young people aged 0-25 and their families. We have protected funding for inclusion within our budget. Our expectations are that our inclusion strategy will improve SEND provision in mainstream schools and settings and increase parental confidence in them.

5. 3. Inclusion: Locality HN Funding – Agreed Model Total Top Up Funding£2.1m Upfront Allocation: £75k per Locality£525K Band C & D Funding £247.5k (£432k) Balance for Proportional Allocation Apr – Aug (5/12ths): Based on numbers of pupils with SEN in each locality as a proportion of total SEN in the city using the January 2016 Census Sept – Mar (7/12ths): Based on numbers of L3,4 & 5 pupils in each locality as a proportion of all L3, 4 & 5 pupils in the city using the Sheffield Support Grid £1.3275M (£1.15m)

6. 3. Inclusion: Locality HN Funding – SSG Data Average allocated HNF (£1.3275M) per pupil: £691 Average total HNF (£2.1m) per pupil: £1,094 Jan 2016 Census SSG Numbers* SSG as Percentage of City Total Variance from CensusSSG Numbers per 1,000 pupils A14.10%27013.17%-0.93%29 B22.80%31015.12%-7.68%26 C11.90%22210.83%-1.07%24 D15.30%38118.59%3.29%32 E8.50%934.54%-3.96%11 F17.80%59929.22%11.42%32 G9.60%1758.54%-1.06%23 Total100.0%2,050100.00% £75k per locality£525,000 C&D Summer£107,500 C&D Autumn/Spring£140,000 £772,500 5/12ths£553,125 7/12ths£774,375 Total for allocation£1,327,500 Total Locality HNF£2,100,000 Some modelling has taken place to account for a small amount of missing data

7. 3. Inclusion: Locality HN Funding - Options 2.Use the SSG Data for 7/12ths Allocation but do not apply Full Year Effect Avoids additional churn caused by applying full year effect – particularly in Locality E Per 1,000 rate suggest SSG allocation reflects actual position Still meets funding following need principle 2.Use the SSG Data for 7/12ths Allocation but do not apply Full Year Effect Avoids additional churn caused by applying full year effect – particularly in Locality E Per 1,000 rate suggest SSG allocation reflects actual position Still meets funding following need principle 1.Use the SSG Data for 7/12ths Allocation and apply Full Year Effect Reflects original agreement – funding follows need Per 1,000 rate suggest SSG allocation reflects actual position Creates significant churn in some localities – particularly E 1.Use the SSG Data for 7/12ths Allocation and apply Full Year Effect Reflects original agreement – funding follows need Per 1,000 rate suggest SSG allocation reflects actual position Creates significant churn in some localities – particularly E 3.Use either (1) or (2) and apply a +/- 3% cap Reduces impact of using SSG data Creates additional complexity Only partially adheres to funding follows need principle 3.Use either (1) or (2) and apply a +/- 3% cap Reduces impact of using SSG data Creates additional complexity Only partially adheres to funding follows need principle 4.Use the January 2016 Census Data for 7/12 th s Allocation Removes impact of using SSG data Only partially adheres to funding following need principle Data is at least nine months old 4.Use the January 2016 Census Data for 7/12 th s Allocation Removes impact of using SSG data Only partially adheres to funding following need principle Data is at least nine months old

8. 3. Inclusion: Locality HN Funding – Comparison Data Option 2Option 1Option 4 5/12ths Census 7/12ths SSG Total Allocation5/12ths Census Adjusted 7/12ths (adjusted full year total minus 5/12ths payment) Adjusted SSG Full Year Total Allocation 5/12ths Census 7/12ths Census Census Total Allocation A£77,991£101,991£179,982£77,991£96,850£174,841£77,991£109,187£187,178 B£126,113£117,101£243,214£126,113£74,631£200,744£126,113£176,558£302,671 C£65,822£83,859£149,681£65,822£77,937£143,759£65,822£92,151£157,973 D£84,628£143,920£228,548£84,628£162,093£246,721£84,628£118,479£203,107 E£47,016£35,130£82,146£47,016£13,207£60,223£47,016£65,822£112,838 F£98,456£226,269£324,725£98,456£289,433£387,889£98,456£137,839£236,295 G£53,100£66,105£119,205£53,100£60,223£113,323£53,100£74,340£127,440 Total£553,125£774,375£1,327,500£553,125£774,375£1,327,500£553,125£774,375£1,327,500 * Red figures denote a reduction from Option 2 Note: Option 3: +/- 3% cap is not modelled. How it would be applied and the resulting complexity this introduces; the difficulty of ensuring it was fully understood; and the fact that it moves away from the principle of funding following the need suggests this is not the right option.

9. 4. Inclusion: Pupil Referral Unit Attached Paper (Paper B Appendix 1) provides final proposals for a new financial strategy for pupils at risk of permanent exclusion. This financial strategy supports our agreed new ways of working. This paper follows on from the discussion at the Schools Forum in July and subsequently with Secondary Headteachers Partnership Group and Primary Inclusion Panel. Specifically it addresses colleagues concerns about: The level of funding and charges Potential disincentives to access services Support for schools with high levels of presenting challenges Schools Forum members are asked to agree to the implementation of these new way of working and the new financial model and ask that an update on implementation be brought to the Forum in Spring Term.

10. Questions?