Agenda item

This report provide an update on the Additionally Resourced Provisions and Early Years Banding Review.

Shirley Parks (Director Education, Partnerships and Strategy, Brent Council) introduced the report, which provided an update on the Additionally Resourced Provisions and Early Years Banding Review.  The Forum noted the following key points as part of the update provided:

·            Schools Forum had received a report on 19 June 2024 on a proposed banding SEND Resource Allocation System (RAS) to move away from the current hours led system to a needs-led, provision-based approach for mainstream schools and Additional Resource Provisions (ARPs), early years settings and post-16 settings.  Following consideration of that report it had been agreed that consultation would be undertaken with schools and settings in the autumn term on the proposed new approach.

·            The report presented for consideration covered two proposed changes to HN funding in EY and ARPs.  The Early Years Inclusion Fund (EYIF), which totalled just under £1.7M, as outlined in Table 1.  The funds were allocated through two main channels: ‘Children with Disabilities’ (CWD) places and Additionally Resourced Provision (ARP) places.  Additionally, EYIF provided financial support to Private, Voluntary, and Independent (PVI) settings, as well as childminders to support children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) via SENIF.

·            The disparity in Brent in relation to how ARPs were funded.

·            Currently, allocation of the EYIF was overseen by the Under 5s Nursery multi-agency panel (held monthly).  CWD or ARP places were agreed using supporting evidence from a paediatrician report or an EHCP.  SENIF funding to the PVI settings was awarded using a two-tier banding system, where either £2,850 or £4,560 top-up was awarded.

·            Many Local Authorities did not offer enhanced nursery provision.  The SENIF bandings covered most levels of need and for those children with complex needs and there were some early years resourced provisions which provided specialist support.

·            Currently Early Years SENIF funding had only two bands.  This meant that emerging needs were either not supported or were financially over-supported.  For children with more complex needs, PVI settings were not appropriately funded to meet need.  This in turn was driving demand and pressure on the enhanced nursery settings and limiting parental choice.

·            Early Years providers could face a significant administrative burden in applying for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) before a child started school, often at a stage of a child’s development where it remained uncertain what their long-term needs would be.  Early Years providers needed resources to be provided in a timely manner.

·            Waiting times for EHCPs and paediatrician reports could impact on the allocation of places in a timely fashion contributing to empty places within settings and delayed support for children.

·            SENCOs reported that they find the Graduated Approach Framework useful but they could not access funding quickly enough, particularly for those children who clearly had complex needs.

·            There was a lack of clarity about the difference between enhanced nursery placements and the nursery resourced provisions. The funding of different placements at different levels needed to be clearer, alongside clear reporting on delivery from the providers.

·            In Early Years, terminology ‘CWD’ and ‘ARP’ places was no longer used, with the term ‘enhanced places’ used to cover all places allocated additional resource.

·            The new SENIF banding system and Early Years Banding Matrix Resource Allocation System (RAS) would standardise enhanced place funding.  Introduction of the new SENIF bandings would mean that emerging needs were supported and not financially over-supported and for children with more complex needs, PVI settings were appropriately funded.

·            New staff resource was put in place to quality assure settings receiving funding alongside a new SLA.  Allocating staff resource to quality assure and oversee the use of SENIF and enhanced place funding, in addition to implementing SLAs (Service Level Agreements), would ensure the optimum use of funding thereby improving service delivery.

·            The current requirement for a child to have an ECHP and paediatrician report to be considered for SENIF and enhanced place funding would be removed.  The Under Fives Nursery Panel approving enhanced places in the absence of an EHCP and/or paediatric report could improve efficiency in filling available places.

·            Increasing the enhanced place top-up value to £12,500 would bring average funding across all enhanced places to £22,500 (the agreed number of places attract £10K base funding).  The EYIF currently provided funding for 60 places in MNSs and Willow Nursery at an average of £22,238.60/place.  These places would see an uplift of up to £261.40 per place on average in the level of funding allocated to enhanced nursery placements.

·            Benchmarking against other Local Authorities had shown that there were two main methods of allocating funding: a banded system and a set rate for each provision.

·            Table 5 and 6 within the report set out the financial modelling for increasing the enhanced place top-up value to £12,500.

·            The proposed new approach for the HNB contribution to Early Years would result in an increase of approximately £44k, raising funding from £1.698m currently to £1.743m.

·            The proposed new approach to standardise ARP rates at £12,500 would result in an increase of £268k against the overall annual budget allocation of £4.6m for ARPs (including the Maintained Nursery School ARPs).  This would create an additional budget pressure of £168k for the 2025/26 financial year, if implemented from September.  However, this approach would ensure consistent funding for all ARPs in Brent and provide schools that previously received less funding with adequate resources to continue meeting the needs of children in line with other ARPs.  Additionally, it was anticipated this reduce the number of children requiring special school places if their needs could be effectively met within an ARP.

·            The proposed funding approach was consistent with the Children and Families Act (2014) and the SEND Code of Practice (2015).  An SLA would be put in place with each school and setting that sets out responsibilities, expectations and KPIs.

Following this, the Chair asked the Forum for any comments or questions with the following noted:

·            In expressing support for the approach outlined within the report, further details were sought on the clawback position with members were advised would depend on when a pupil joined a school as that would have an impact on funding.

·            Details were sought on whether the deficit had been costed for 2025-26 and how the offset would be calculated.  In response, the Forum was advised that the team addressed affordability and sustainability when doing the costings for 2025-26 and £168k had been allocated for the offset.

The Chair thanked officers for the report.  As no further questions or comments were raised the Forum RESOLVED:

(1)       To approve the introduction of the new approach to SEND funding in Early Years settings as set out in section 4 of the report.

(2)    To approve the introduction of a standard and consistent approach to funding ARPs across the borough, as set out in section 5 of the report.