Agenda item

The Schools Forum received a report from the Director of Children and Families relating to a review of the Education Banding Tool (EBT). The following points were discussed:

• Following the implementation of the EBT in March 22, 24.2% (1,209) of pupils with an EHCP, in scope of the EBT, had their Element 3 top up funding calculated through the EBT. A significantly higher than expected level of pupils had been allocated to Level 9 and above of the EBT.

• 11 of the 23 special schools had over 50% of their pupils who had been taken through the EBT on Levels 9 and above.

• Previously 44% of pupils in special schools were funded at Matrix Level 3, this equated financially to the EBT Level 8b. However, there were now 50% of pupils funded at EBT Levels 8b and above.

• Imosphere, who created the banding tool, undertook an annual health check and raised a concern with the authority that there was a significant number of CYP banded in the top levels of the EBT.

• Whilst the number of children assessed on the EBT remained relatively low, the average ‘top up’ cost for those placements in special schools was significantly higher than compared with the matrix model.

• A benchmarking exercise against other local authorities had been undertaken by Imosphere. The results showed that the values placed on the SCC banding levels were significantly higher than other authorities. These levels had been set using the pilot data, against what was considered affordable.

• The Schools Forum was reminded that the authority always intended to undertake a review of the EBT, and it had been reported during previous HNB updates at past meetings that there was a concern around the increased costs associated with the EBT.

It was announced by the Assistant Director for Education Strategy and Improvement, that the situation had worsened since the writing of the report, and the Education Banding Tool would be suspended with immediate effect, pending work to be undertaken to improve the process and bring it back into a cost neutral position. It was confirmed that the authority would revert back to the original funding arrangements for mainstream and special schools. As reported, there were currently 25% of children on the EBT, with 75% being funded through the original arrangements, and it was confirmed that these funding arrangements would remain in place, but all new assessments would be carried out through the original funding arrangements.

The Chair of the Forum raised the issue that no consultation process had taken place with Schools, he also asked how much money had been spent on implementing a system that was now considered to be unfit for purpose. In response it was acknowledged that there had been no consultation on the announcement, but the decision had to be made quickly, and it was highlighted that the model being reintroduced had already been approved by Schools Forum and was currently being used for c75% of children on the HNB. The Assistant Director for Education Strategy and Improvement asked that evidence be provided that demonstrated how the money had been wasted, it was agreed that this discussion would continue outside of the Schools Forum meeting environment.

The Head of SEND explained that Key Workers were implementing information that had been provided by schools. It was an administrative role and there were no clinical judgements being made. Settings provided evidence that ticked boxes of higher bands, with the authority being duty bound to make sure the support was delivered. Communication had been received from schools that stated they would not take CYP unless they were band 9 or above. This had left the authority in a difficult position, because this was not the basis on which the EBT had been designed. It was designed to identify, and fund need accurately, it was not designed to be used as a tool for bartering. When schools informed the authority that they would not make provision for children on a bands 7, 8 or 9, the decision had to be made to go to the independent sector, which was not a cost-efficient way of working. The national context demonstrated that there had been an increase in need, and higher levels of need, accelerated by Covid, particularly in mainstream settings which was, inevitably, filtering into the special provision.

The Chair further voiced his frustrations that there appeared to have been no quality control, and suggested that a process had been implemented that hadn’t been managed correctly. In response to a question asking if there had been a contingency plan relating to any overspend, it was confirmed that, notwithstanding the announcement to suspend the EBT with immediate effect, the process had been monitored since it had been implemented. Initially the sample sizes of CYP on the EBT were too small to allow any conclusions to be drawn, however as those sample sizes increased it became apparent that the EBT was costing more money than anticipated. The Forum was reminded that the EBT was always intended to be cost neutral, whilst the authority never intended to implement a process to save money, neither did it intend for it to cost money, which was what had started to occur and why the process had been suspended.

In response to a question asking for assurances that the CYP already in the system would continue to receive the level of support and funding they had been originally allocated through the EBT, it was confirmed that, whilst there may be a need to review funding to the EBT, at this moment in time, where funding had been agreed as part of an EHCP either in a mainstream or special school, it would continue to be provided and applied to any changes that may come about as a result of any future changes to the EHCP.

In response to a question asking for more detail regarding the health funding for individual pupils with medical needs, and the fact that EHCPs seemed to focus on “Education”, above “Health” and “Care”, it was explained that there had been significant progress in this field and health colleagues were now involved in discussions. They had been made aware of the integral role they played to the process, and discussions had taken place to consider what was able to be delegated to schools, and the areas that Health colleagues would be funding.

In response to a question asking if schools had been challenged on decisions to only take CYP on a Band 9 or above, it was confirmed that most schools had worked collaboratively with the authority, schools that had stated they would only be willing to take children on a higher band had been challenged.

In response to a question asking when schools were expected to revert back to the original funding arrangements, it was confirmed that any applications that had been received before the announcement had been made would be honoured and taken through the EBT process, but any applications that had not yet been submitted would need to be submitted under the old application process. It was confirmed that this information would be communicated to Schools in the week beginning 17 July 23.

Resolved: a. That the Education Banding Tool review be noted.

b. That the announcement to suspend the Education Banding Tool with immediate effect, be noted.