Pupil Referral Unit Funding Formula Review 2017/18... · PUPIL REFERRAL UNIT (P RU) 4.1 PRUs...

P a g e 1 | 23

Shabana KausarLONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW |

Pupil Referral UnitFunding FormulaReview 2017/18Review of Woodbridge Park and Health Related EducationFunding

Version 1.0

14 November 2016

P a g e 2 | 23

Pupil Referral Unit Funding Formula Review 2017/18

1. RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 The report is seeking the following recommendations from Schools Forum:

a) To approve the implementation of the new funding formula for theWoodbridge Park Education Service (8.2);

b) To note and agree for the Council to centrally recoup the AWPU anduse to fund in-year additional places (8.5);

c) To note and agree for the Council to implement clawback of vacantplaces and apply transitional protection (8.6);

d) To note the reduction in Woodbridge Park Education Service fundingbetween 2016/17 and 2017/18 of £0.4m and agree to putting in place atransitional protection over a maximum of a two year period (9.5);

e) To discuss and agree a commissioning and service strategy for theSchool (9.7);

f) To approve for the Council to seek permission from the DfE to disapplythe minimum funding guarantee for the school in order to implement thenew funding formula (9.7.2).

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Service Review

2.1.1 Earlier this year the Schools Forum agreed to the review of the Council’smaintained alternative provision at Woodbridge Park. The key reasons forundertaking the review were:

the current funding pressures across DSG; the high per place funding when compared with special schools; to remove any duplication of funding; the financial pressures identified by the School in meeting agreed

savings from 2014/15; and to have in place a transparent funding system.

2.1.2 During the year the Council has met with the School three times tounderstand their concerns and discuss future funding options. Themeetings were attended by;

Headteacher at Woodbridge Park Education Service School Business Manager from Woodbridge Park Education Service Head of SEN and Disability at the Council Senior Advisor for Vulnerable Groups at the Council and School Strategic Finance lead at the Council

P a g e 3 | 23

2.2 Purpose of Report

2.2.1 The report sets out 2017/18 funding allocation for Woodbridge Park whichthe Council is seeking to adopt and implement by September 2017.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Hounslow Council commissions a range of alternative provision from theindependent and further education sectors which supplement the provisionavailable at Woodbridge Park. This enables schools and the Council todraw on a range of learning environments when considering the needs ofindividual children.

3.2 Hounslow has only one local authority maintained PRU, Woodbridge ParkEducation Service which currently operates from a number of sites,supporting pupils from key stage 1 to key stage 4. The service alsoincludes provision at West Middlesex Hospital, for those with long termillnesses through the Continued Access to Education (CATE) unit. Thisalso includes access to home tuition for pupils who are too ill to attendschool (this is usually as a dual registration along with their mainstreamschool).

3.3 Delegated Budget

3.3.1 Woodbridge Park Education Service has been receipt of delegated budgetssince 2014/15. In its first year a review was undertaken by Headteacherand Management Committee to determine an appropriate managementstructure and advice on an appropriate level of staffing for the changingneeds of the service and operate within a sustainable budget. An agreedoutcome of this review identified £0.26m cut to the original fundingallocation to be taken over a period of two years. Due to financialpressures identified by the Service in 2015/16 the Council agreed to notreduce their funding fully by the agreed amount.

3.3.2 The approved budget for 2016/17 was £4.15m after taking into accountapproved savings of £0.17m, which were protected by the application of theminimum funding guarantee (MFG).

Table 1: 2016/17 Woodbridge Park’s Budget Share (26 February 2016)Budget Share Places Place Funding

Continuing Access to Education £732,043 39.00 £18,770.34Hospital Education £525,416 28.00 £18,764.87PRU - Primary (KS1/2) £297,691 8.00 £37,211.36PRU - Secondary (KS3/4) £1,154,681 75.00 £15,395.75SEN BESD Provision £1,332,379 30.00 £44,412.64Total £4,042,211MFG Protection £104,703 £582.49Total £4,146,914 179.75

P a g e 4 | 23

3.3.3 Prior to 2015/16, with the exception of the Hospital education, the budgetfor Woodbridge Park was allocated as a single place allocation. In 2016/17an attempt was undertaken to break placements costs down to individualservices.

3.4 Financial Framework

3.4.1 Funding for alternative provision is made through the High Needs DSGblock grant. The Council are responsible for setting the budget inaccordance with EFA’s High Need Operational Guidance, which requiresfunding to be allocated on a “place-plus” approach which includes anelement for base funding and top-up.

3.4.2 The current operational guidance advices funding for some areas i.e.Hospital to remain same as 2016/17 but where the Council is seeking tochange the funding formula in new year they can seek permission from theDfE to disapply the minimum funding guarantee requirements, on the basisof a change in the funding formula.

3.4.3 Funding Guidance

3.4.3.1 It is also proposed that the SEN transitional protection around SENclawback is also applied to the PRU.

4. PUPIL REFERRAL UNIT (PRU)

4.1 PRUs provide education for some of the most vulnerable children andyoung people who have either:

been permanently excluded from school, or are at risk of exclusion; or have specific behavioural, social, emotional or medical needs,

preventing them from attending a mainstream school.

4.2 Although most pupils receive education in a school (mainstream or special),there are a range of circumstances in which suitable education has to beprovided outside school. In such circumstances, pupils may be admitted toa PRU.

4.3 PRUs are legally both a type of school and provider of education otherwisethan at school and are also subject to regular inspections by Ofsted. PRUs’tend to have volatile number of pupils on their roll and the type of pupilsthey teach mean that they are not subject to all the legislative requirementsthat apply to mainstream and special schools.

4.4 Comparison with other local authorities

4.4.1 The role and composition of PRUs varies across local authorities. In someinstances, these can be single establishments catering for one particularkey stage or age group of pupils and/or one specific type of educational

P a g e 5 | 23

need. In other instances they can include a range of provision on manysites across a wide geographical area.

4.4.2 Of the 32 London boroughs contacted in the summer only two localauthorities responded with some of the information.

Table 2: Other Local Authority 2016/17 PRU Place Funding

LA Provision No ofSites

No. ofPlaces

BaseFunding

PRU

BaseFundingHospital

Top-up

PRU

TotalPlace

FundingHackney PRU unknown 240 £10,000 £7,296 £17,296Barnet Northgate 1 10 £10,000 £17,017 £201 £27,218

Barnet PavilionHHTT 3 108

£10,000 £11,742 £2,900 £24,642

Barnet Pavilion PRU £10,000 £8,805 £18,805Barnet Danegrove 1 3 £10,000 £7,076 £17,076Barnet Orion 1 3 £10,000 £7,076 £17,076

4.4.3 The PRU costs above include funding for Tier 3 CAMHS support. It isrecognised that this is a limited information and that the boroughs havedifferent demographics. Overall Hounslow’s current average cost ofplacement is higher than the other local authority provision above.

4.4.4 This information will not be used to determine funding for the school, as theany funding proposals will be determined on principles agreed inconsultation with council officers and service (section 8).

4.4.5 Further research was undertaken using the internet to collate informationon PRU funding levels, staffing ratios and clawback/recoupment process.The research identified the following key facts:

Where information was published on methodology it showed that mostlocal authorities set their funding at an average 1:6 staff to pupil ratio forspecial schools which includes PRU. This is similar to the statisticalrelease on school workforce published by the DfE on 30th June 2016relating to 2015, extract of which is provided under appendix 1.

There is no set national guideline for teacher to staff to ratio but nationalresearch undertaken by devolved governments i.e. Scottish parliament,show similar ratios for special schools in recognition of varying need.

Many local authorities recoup the AWPU centrally (table 3) and have adifferent arrangement to funding additional places at PRU.

4.4.6 Additional information was collated through discussions with LocalManagement of School network in London. From those who shared localpractices, at least a quarter of them confirmed that they recouped theAWPU centrally and made additional contribution to PRUs in-year forplaces above the original numbers. Whilst the remaining confirmed thatcurrently the schools undertake the recoupment with some stating they arerelooking at these arrangements to move towards a Council managed

P a g e 6 | 23

process. The table below sets out the written responses received fromother local authorities.

Table 3: Responses received from other local authoritiesCouncil Response

Barking &Dagenham

The reclaim of AWPU for exclusion does not go into thePRU as it would be double funded as top-up to the PRU isbased on place funding.

Islington

The reclaim of AWPU for exclusion does not go into thePRU as it would be double funded top-up to the PRU isbased on place funding. The funding is used for paying forincrease in funded places.

HackneyIt comes back to the Authority. The retained value is usedto contribute to the cost of PRU top up, until the pupil moveson.

Bracknell Income is paid back to the LA.Croydon Income is paid back to the LA.

SurreyDeductions are retained by the LA, as the pupil referral unittop-ups are based on actual pupil numbers thereby thisreceiving funding.

Sutton Currently the PRU recoups the funding but the LA areconsidering to move away from this.

4.5 Current Cost Analysis

4.5.1 As part of the review the school provided costs incurred in providing forPRU service which shows an average cost per place of £25,563.

Table 4: 2016/17 Budgeted PRU Places and Actual Staffing Ratio

Phase PlacesCost per

Place FTEStaff: Pupil

RatioTeaching Staff: Pupil Ratio*

Primary 20 £30,502 11.52 1: 1.74 1: 1.92KS3 67 £22,222 27.01 1: 2.00 1: 2.84KS4 48 £28,170 25.09 1: 1.91 1: 2.42

* the ratio is calculated by taking the total FTE of Teachers and Teaching Assistants and divided by number if places

4.5.2 The staff to pupil ratio is very low, thus a possible contributing reason forthe high costs when compared with the other local authorities. The servicehas raised concerns of funding multiple sites and one of reason why theyhave high costs and insufficient funding but when compared with Barnetmultiple site cost the average is still much higher. As only limitedinformation is available from other local authorities it is proposed that thesame principles are adopted for split site as in mainstream schools toensure a fair system for funding multiple sites.

4.5.3 Whilst many local authorities recoup the AWPU centrally, in Hounslowsome of recoupment is managed centrally (SEN, Early Years) withWoodbridge Park Education Service being the only school locally whodirectly invoice other schools for their share of the AWPU relating to

P a g e 7 | 23

permanent exclusions. When to include the recouped amount to theAWPU then the actual funded placement cost is much higher.

4.5.4 The core funding of £10,000 is made up of two elements; a notional £6,000relating to SEN and £4,000 representing the average AWPU. There is aneed to reassess the recoupment locally to ensure that any duplicatedfunding relating to exclusions is removed, currently either being paiddirectly or raised separately by the school in the new proposals.

5. HOSPITAL EDUCATION

5.1 For medical reasons children of school age may attend or be admitted to ahospital ward and as a result are still are entitled to receiving education.

5.2 Councils have a legal duty to ensure that children attending or admitted tohospital in their borough have access to education. This duty applies tochildren from out of borough attending hospital in the borough and forHounslow children placed in independent hospitals.

5.3 Hounslow is responsible for funding the children’s ward at West MiddlesexHospital. The numbers attending the children’s ward has been on a risesince the closure of the children’s ward at Ealing hospital.


5.4.1 The current funding rate for hospital places was determined from spendincurred by the Council in 2013/14. As part of the review Woodbridge Parkidentified cost of the service which shows a cost per place of £6,371 at staffto pupil ratio of 1:1.875. On comparison with Barnet the cost per place ismuch higher, whilst the actual spend much less which highlights need tochange.

6. COMMUNITY ADOLSCENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (CAMHS)

6.1 Tier 4 Community Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) –Independent Health Education

6.1.1 Tier 4 CAMHS are highly specialist services for young people agedbetween 12 and 18 who have been identified as having mental issues(including depression, psychoses, eating disorders, severe anxietydisorders, emerging personality disorder) and identified to be a significantrisk to themselves or others such that their needs cannot be safely andadequately met by community Tier 3 CAMHS.

6.1.2 Tier 4 CAMHS is delivered through day units, specialised outpatient teamsand in-patient units. These can include secure forensic adolescent units,eating disorders units, specialist neuro-psychiatric teams, and otherspecialist teams (e.g. for children who have been sexually abused), usuallyserving more than one region.

P a g e 8 | 23

6.1.3 NHS England are currently responsible for commissioning Tier 4 servicesfor young people following an assessment undertaken by a mental healthprofessional. Whilst the Council are responsible for paying the educationalelement.

6.1.4 These are costly placements which the Council has no influence over interms of where and with whom the child is placed. Over the last yearCouncil has been successful in negotiating reduced cost recharge andputting in place SLAs with these providers to help it manage the costpressures. Even though these children are not attending school, the schoolcannot remove them from their school roll.


6.2.1 This was highlighted as a budget pressure in 2016/17 as there was nofunding available to set a budget for this area. In year there is a projectedoverspend of £0.11m which will be funded from one-off DSG reserves.This is an area of growing pressure and thus needs to be funded from theDSG.

6.2.2 Currently there a very small number (3) of children attending WoodbridgePark either because they move between Tier 3 and 4 or through referral.These children are included within the overall funded places. Goingforward a decision is required on what Woodbridge Park will need to deliverthrough the core offer to ensure the funding core reflects this for the school.

6.3 Tier 3 CAMHS – Continuing Access to Education (CATE)

6.3.1 Tier 3 CAMHS are community based services for young peoplewith significant, severe, complex or persistent emotional, mental health,psychological and/or relationship difficulties which cannot be adequatelymet by the school.

6.3.2 In Hounslow CATE are the main provider of Tier 3 service which can onlybe accessed by referral through the CAMHS service following anassessment of need. Young people in these services are “dual registered”between CATE and the School. The length of stay at CATE is very muchdependent on the particular health need but in reality children in year-10tend to stay with CATE end of their GCSE year.


6.4.1 As part of the review the PRU provided costs incurred in providing for theCATE service highlighted an average cost per place of £29,385. Whilst thestaff to pupil ratio is 1:2.21.

6.4.2 The current costs identified by the PRU are more than the funding but thestaffing ratio is also low and thus need to review this further to identify amore sustainable funding level.

P a g e 9 | 23

7. HOME TUITION FOR MEDICAL REASONS

7.1 For medical reasons a young person may be unable to attend school for awhile and in these cases the duty to commission access to education fallson the school. The school is not permitted to remove the young personfrom their roll.


7.2.1 As this is a service directly commissioned by schools and is outside scopeof this review.

8. PROPOSED FUNDING MODEL

8.1 There is a need to have in place a sustainable and affordable local fundingmodel which can be managed with the DSG High needs block. Followingdiscussion with Council officers and the PRU the following principles for thefunding model were agreed:

establish placement costs for each different service allowing for atransparent allocation and monitoring process;

the staffing element of the model to be determined on a teacher staffingto pupil ratio of 1:6;

staff costs to be based on average salaries rather than actual cost; funding model to incorporate split sites; non-pay costs basis taken from information provided by school; budget allocation provided will work in the same way as mainstream

funding i.e. funding will not mirror actual structures but will be based onreasonable staffing structure; and

SEN top-up to be allocated outside the main funding to ensure aconsistent way of funding for SEN top-ups.

8.2 Funding Bands

8.3 It is proposed to allocate funding on the following basis:

8.3.1 Pupil Led

8.3.1.1 The pupil led funding is calculated as follows:

a) Basic Entitlement – majority of the funding is allocated through thisfactor which is linked to staffing structure and class sizes. A basis forthe calculation is outlined in Appendix 2

a) Non-pay (based on actual cost provided by school) excluding premisesrelated costs which are captured separately as a specific lump sum

8.3.1.2 Six bands are proposed for each service area outlined in the table below.

P a g e 10 | 23

Table 5: Proposed Pupil Led Banding Structure for 2017/18

Bands (Pupil Led) BasicEntitlement Non Pay Total

Pupil ledBand A1 Primary PRU £22,334 £2,884 £25,218Band A2 KS3 PRU £14,270 £1,712 £15,982Band A3 KS4 PRU £17,283 £4,321 £21,604Band A4 CATE £18,506 £2,221 £20,727Band A5 Post 16 Medical TBC TBC TBCBand A6 Hospital £5,275 £633 £5,908

8.3.1.3 The funding will be allocated using the agreed placement numbers for eacharea multiplied by the appropriate total pupil led factor.

8.3.2 Site Specific Lump Sum

8.3.2.1 A site specific lump sum has been determined using the same calculationto determine the split-site factor for mainstream schools in addition to othercosts which have not been taken into account above. Details of the costare outlined in appendix 5.

8.3.2.2 Currently five bands are proposed for each site outlined in the table below.

Table 6: Proposed Site Specific Funding for 2017/18Bands (Site Specific) Lump SumBand B1 Woodlane KS3 (currently at Syon Park) £98,716Band B2 Fairholme KS2 £106,716Band B3 St Georges CATE (currently Syon Park) £106,716Band B4 West Thames College £30,000Band B5 West Middlesex Hospital £0

8.3.2.3 The flat sum will be allocated for each site in addition to the place-ledfunding.

8.4 SEN Funding

8.4.1.1 The funding formula includes an element of SEN. Any additionalrequirement for top-up relating to a child’s specific requirements will need togo through the same route as those used by mainstream schools i.e. panel.

8.5 AWPU Recoupment

8.5.1.1 As discussed in Section 4.5 there is a risk that the current system ofcharging may effectively result in double funding the PRU where AWPU isbeing recovered from schools in addition to the Place funding already beingreceived within the school formula allocation.

8.5.1.2 It is therefore proposed that the recoupment of AWPU is processedcentrally by the Council in the same way as other claw-back andrecoupments. This will mean that the Service will not be receivingadditional “duplicated” funding for their core activity.

P a g e 11 | 23

8.6 In Year Adjustment of Places

8.6.1 Additional Places in Year

8.6.1.1 To have a consistent process in relation to funding additional places acrossSEN Centres the following is proposed for 2017/18:

a) PRU Places – additional funding top-up available where the total FTEfor the year increases by more than 5.54%

b) CATE– additional top-up funding available where the total FTE for theyear increases by more than 6.0%

c) Hospital Education – additional top-up funding available where the totalFTE for the year increases by more than 6.0%

d) SEN Funded Places – additional funding available for SEN top-upelement only

Table 7: Rationale behind In-Year adjustment triggersStaff Ratio Weighting Places Class No %

(a) (b) (c) (d)=(c/a) (e)=(d/c)*(b)

PRU 5.50 0.30 135 25 5.45%Cate 5.00 0.30 30 6 6.00%Hospital 5.00 0.30 28 6 6.00%Total 193 36

8.6.2 Clawback of Vacant Places

8.6.2.1 To have a consistent process in relation to clawback across all schools thefollowing is proposed for 2017/18:

a) PRU Places – to clawback the top-up element only but capped at nomore than 10%

b) CATE– to clawback the top-up element only but capped at no more than2.5%

c) Hospital Education – no clawback proposed for 2017/18d) SEN Funded Places – clawback SEN top-up element only

8.6.2.2 The table below provides an illustration of what the level of clawback maylook like.

P a g e 12 | 23

Table 8: Illustration of proposed clawback

PlacesFunded Clawback Cap

Max PlacesClawback willapply to (FTE)

ActualPlaces in

Year

What will beclawed back

Primary 20 no more than 5% 1.00 10 1.00KS3 67 no more than 5% 3.35 50 3.35KS4 48 no more than 5% 2.40 30 2.40

CATE 30 no more than2.5% 0.75 20 0.75

Hospital 28 n/a 0.00 10 0.00Total 193 7.50 120 7.50

8.6.3 Transitional Protection

8.6.3.1 It is also proposed that the SEN transitional protection around SENclawback is also applied to the PRU.

9. 2017/18 PROPOSED BUDGET

9.1 The new funding formula calculates the schools core budget excluding SENtop-ups as £3.7m for 197 places (appendix 6).

9.2 In order to calculate a comparable difference between 2016/17 and2017/18 the following years funding has been calculated at 179.5 placeswhich shows a year on year funding reduction of £0.41m from current yearfunding. This is mainly to do with the top-up element of the SEN placesbeing removed.

Table 9: Proposed Budget Reduction to 2016/17 Allocationat 179.5 places £2017/8 Proposed Budget 3,732,0892016/17 Approved Budget 4,146,914Reduction Budget -£414,824

9.3 The other reason for using the original allocation is because this is the basefunding from which the Council is required to calculate any MFG.

9.4 As the difference is more than 1.5% of the current budget it is proposed toput in place transitional funding protection over a two or three year period.

9.5 Transitional Protection

9.5.1 Option 1 - Over 2 Years

Table 10: Option 1 - Transitional Protection over 2 YearsYear 1 Year 2 Total

Reduction from 2016/17 Base -£414,824 -£414,824Protection Applied £207,142 £207,142 £414,824Net Reduction (+) / Net Increase (-) -£207,142 -£207,142 £0

P a g e 13 | 23

9.5.1.1 As the original 2016/17 budget included 30 SEN places, going forwardwhere the school receives SEN top-up this will be taken into account for,upto 30 children in reducing the protection given. For example if the schoolreceives the following £200,000 for 30 SEN places then:

Table 11: Option 1 – Impact of Transitional Protection if SEN top-up receivedYear 1 Year 2 Total

Reduction from 2016/17 Base -£414,284 -£414,284Protection Applied (minimum) £207,142 £214,284 £421,426Protection to level of SEN Top-Up -£7,142 -£7,142Net Reduction -£214,284 £214,284 £0

9.5.2 Option 2 - Over 3 Years

Table 12: Option 2 - Transitional Protection over 3 YearsYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Reduction from 2016/17 Base -£414,284 -£414,284Protection Applied (minimum) £138,095 £138,095 £138,095 £414,284Net Reduction -£276,189 £138,095 £138,095 £0

9.5.2.1 As the original 2016/17 budget included 30 SEN places, going forwardwhere the school receives SEN top-up this will be taken into account for,upto 30 children in reducing the protection given. For example if the schoolreceives the following £200,000 for 30 SEN places then:

Table 13: Option 2 – Impact of Transitional Protection if SEN top-up receivedYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Reduction from 2016/17 Base -£414,284 -£414,284Protection Applied (minimum) £138,095 £107,142 £14,284 £259,521Protection to level of SEN Top-Up £61,905 £92,858 £154,763Net Reduction -£214,284 £200,000 £14,284 £0

9.6 Savings

9.6.1 A saving of £0.2m can be expected next year which can be used to fundthe post 16 Medical Sixth Form at CATE and any SEN top-ups.

9.7 Going Forward

9.7.1 It is important for the Council and Schools Forum to have in place acommissioning strategy for what they expect the PRU to deliver and for thisreason it is advised that a joint working group is commissioned to outlinewhat is required and link it with the managing behaviour differently strategy.

9.7.2 Following approval of the proposals the Council will be seeking to apply toDfE in displaying the minimum funding guarantee in order to adopt the newfunding formula.

Appendix 1 - 2015 School Workforce Release Published 30 June 2016 Extract

P a g e 14 | 23

Table 17a: Pupil:teacher ratios and pupil:adult ratios in state funded schools.January 2000, 2005 to 2009 and November 2010 to 2015England

Notes Note 5 Note 5 Note 5 Notes 5 Notes 5,6

LA MAINTAINED NURSERYPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 18.1 16.5 16.3 16.8 16.3 16.5 16.1 16.7 16.5 17.1 18.4 19.6

PTR (Qualif ied and unqualif ied teachers) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . . 16.2 15.9 16.7 17.6 18.8PAR w ithin-schools 3 7.1 5.5 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.8 .. 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.9 5.0

LA MAINTAINED PRIMARYPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 23.3 22.5 22.0 21.9 21.6 21.4 20.9 21.0 20.9 20.8 20.9 21.0


PRIMARY ACADEMIESPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . , 21.9 21.4 21.9 21.7 22.0

PTR (Qualif ied and unqualif ied teachers) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . . 21.3 20.6 21.2 20.8 20.9PAR w ithin-schools 3 . . . . . . . 12.5 11.7 11.8 11.2 11.2

TOTAL STATE FUNDED NURSERY AND PRIMARYPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . , 21.0 20.9 20.9 21.0 21.1


LA MAINTAINED SECONDARYPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 17.2 16.7 16.6 16.5 16.2 15.9 15.6 15.5 15.4 15.4 15.5 15.8


SECONDARY ACADEMIESPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . . 15.6 15.5 15.9 15.9 16.3


TOTAL STATE FUNDED SECONDARYPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . . 15.6 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.1


STATE FUNDED SPECIAL 5

PTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 6.8 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 5.9 5.9 6.1PTR (Qualif ied and unqualif ied teachers) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . . 5.9 5.8 5.4 5.5 5.5

PAR w ithin-schools 3 3.2 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 .. 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0

TOTAL ACADEMIESPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . 15.1 14.7 15.1 14.7 14.2 15.9 15.9 16.1 16.8 16.9 17.4

PTR (Qualif ied and unqualif ied teachers) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . . 15.2 15.3 15.9 16.0 16.4PAR w ithin-schools 3 . . . . . . .. 10.7 10.6 10.7 10.5 10.7

TOTAL STATE FUNDEDPTR (Qualif ied) w ithin-schools 1, 2 . . . . . . . 17.8 17.7 17.8 17.9 18.1


Source: School Census and School Workforce Census

Notes1. The w ithin-school PTR (Qualif ied) is calculated by dividing the total FTE in these schools (including: occasional teachers; those on employment

number of pupils on roll in schools by the total FTE number of qualif ied based routes to QTS; others w ithout QTS, those on paid absence andteachers regularly employed in schools. The w ithin-school PTR (Qualif ied any notes to replacements). The teacher numbers are from the 618gand unqualif ied) is calculated by dividing the total FTE number of pupils on survey, see editors for further details.roll in schools by the total FTE number of qualif ied and unqualif ied teachers 5. Includes academies from 2011.regularly employed in schools. 6. November 2015 f igures are calculated using the most current

2. For statistical purposes only, pupils w ho do not attend both morning and figures e.g. January 2016 pupil numbers and November 2015afternoon at least f ive days a w eek are regarded as part-time. Each teacher numbers.part-time pupil is treated as 0.5 FTE.

3. The PAR is calculated by dividing the total FTE number of pupils on roll Sources used are School Census for pupils and teachersin schools by the total FTE number of all teachers and support staff (excluding overall teachers) up to January 2010, School Workforceemployed in schools, excluding administrative and clerical staff. Census (for November 2010 to 2014 teachers and overall teachers)

4. The overall PTR is based on the total FTE number of pupils on roll and 618g survey for pre November 2010 (overall teachers).in nursery, primary and secondary schools and the FTE of all teachers

2012 2013 2014 2015

JANUARY NOVEMBER

2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Appendix 2 – Calculation of Basic Entitlement

P a g e 15 | 23

PRU MedicalTotal

Primary KS3 KS4 PRU Total CATE Hospital MedicalTotal

Pupil Led

QualifiedTeacher

FTE 1.67 3.69 3.17 8.53 1.98 1.33 3.31 11.84£ Pay £114,036 £251,972 £216,463 £582,471 £135,204 £90,819 £226,023 £808,494TLR £22,373 £49,435 £42,468 £114,276 £26,526 £17,818 £44,344 £158,620SEN £17,017 £37,601 £32,302 £86,920 £20,176 £13,553 £33,729 £120,649Total £ £153,426 £339,008 £291,233 £783,667 £181,906 £122,190 £304,096 £1,087,763

NewlyQualifiedTeacher

FTE 1.67 3.69 3.17 8.53 1.98 0 1.98 10.51£ Pay £63,036 £139,283 £119,655 £321,974 £74,737 £0 £74,737 £396,711TLR £22,373 £49,435 £42,468 £114,276 £26,526 £0 £26,526 £140,802SEN £17,017 £37,601 £32,302 £86,920 £20,176 £0 £20,176 £107,096Total £ £102,426 £226,319 £194,425 £523,170 £121,439 £0 £121,439 £644,609

TeachingAssistant

FTE 0.83 3.69 3.17 7.69 1.98 0 1.98 9.67Total £ £27,763 £123,427 £106,033 £257,223 £66,229 £0 £66,229 £323,452

TeachingAssistant(HLT)

FTE 0.83 3.69 3.17 7.69 1.98 1.33 3.31 11

Total £ £29,087 £129,312 £111,089 £269,488 £69,387 £46,609 £115,996 £385,484EducationPsychologist

FTE 0.17 0.56 0.4 1.13 0.25 0 0.25 1.38Total £ £5,194 £17,108 £12,220 £34,522 £7,638 £0 £7,638 £42,160

Admin Officer FTE 0.22 0.74 0.53 1.49 0.33 0 0.33 1.82Total £ £6,613 £22,244 £15,932 £44,789 £9,920 £0 £9,920 £54,709

Class Based FTE 5.39 16.06 13.61 35.06 8.5 2.66 11.16 46.22Total £ £324,509 £857,418 £730,932 £1,912,859 £456,519 £168,799 £625,318 £2,538,177

Notes:(a) Primary and KS3 teacher FTE is calculated on 1 teacher required for every 6 children whilst KS4 and CATE are based on 1:5(b) Discussion following meeting with school and Council officers confirmed the need for 2 qualified teachers and 2 teaching assistants(c) Educational Psychologist moved from non-pay


P a g e 16 | 23

PRU Medical

TotalPrimary KS3 KS4 PRU Total CATE HospitalMedical

TotalMinimum 1 FTE Requirement for non-teaching staff

Headteacher FTE 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.25 1Total £ £30,548 £30,548 £30,548 £91,644 £30,548 £0 £30,548 £122,192

DeputyHeadteacher

FTE 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.25 1Total £ £19,790 £19,790 £19,790 £59,370 £19,790 £0 £19,790 £79,160

Caretaker /Facilities

FTE 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.25 1Total £ £9,620 £9,620 £9,620 £28,860 £9,620 £0 £9,620 £38,480

Cleaner FTE 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.25 1Total £ £5,616 £5,616 £5,616 £16,848 £5,616 £0 £5,616 £22,464

Receptionist FTE 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.25 1Total £ £7,638 £7,638 £7,638 £22,914 £7,638 £0 £7,638 £30,552

Secretary FTE 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.25 1Total £ £7,638 £7,638 £7,638 £22,914 £7,638 £0 £7,638 £30,552

SchoolBusinessManager

FTE 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.25 1

Total £ £10,181 £10,181 £10,181 £30,543 £10,181 £0 £10,181 £40,724ProgrammePlanner

FTE 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.25 1Total £ £7,638 £7,638 £7,638 £22,914 £7,638 £0 £7,638 £30,552

Non ClassBased

FTE 2 2 2 6 2.00 0.00 2 8Total £ £98,669 £98,669 £98,669 £296,007 £98,669 £0 £98,669 £394,676

TOTAL FTE 7.39 18.06 15.61 41.06 10.5 2.66 13.16 54.22Total £ £423,178 £956,087 £829,601 £2,208,866 £555,188 £168,799 £723,987 £2,932,853

Notes:No teaching staff costs have been funded to 1 FTE for school as these will be required irrespective of number of children.


P a g e 17 | 23

PRU Medical

TotalPrimary KS3 KS4 PRU Total CATE HospitalMedical

Total

Staff to Pupil Ratio 1: 2.71 1: 3.71 1: 3.07 1: 3.29 1: 2.86 1: 9.15 1: 4.28 1: 3.53

Teaching Staff to PupilRatio 1: 3.87 1: 4.37 1: 3.67 1: 4.02 1: 3.67 1: 9.15 1: 5.16 1: 4.31

It should be noted that the FTE derived from this calculation is to establish the funding at agreed principles and is in no wayinforming the school what their structure should be. This principle is same as the one adopted for main schools when establishingthe local funding formula.

Appendix 3 – Average Salary Costs Used

P a g e 18 | 23

Salary Costs as at September 2016Top Middle Low

Sta

ffTy

pe

Gra

de

SC

P

Tota

l £

Gra

de

SC

P

Tota

l £

Gra

de

SC

P

Tota

l £

Headteacher LeadershipGroup 7 £131,712 Leadership

Group 7 32 £112,747 LeadershipGroup 7 24 £93,400

Deputy Headteacher Leadership 24 £93,400 Leadership 10 £67,451 Leadership 1 £54,784

Qualified Teacher LeadingPractioner L18 £81,194 Leading

Practioner L9 £65,860 UpperRange 1 £50,943

Teaching & learningresponsibility

TLR TLR1 £16,793 TLR TLR1 £9,924 TLR TLR2 £3,437

SEN Allowance SEN SEN2 £5,359 SEN SEN2 £5,359 SEN SEN1 £2,715

Newly Qualified Teacher Main Payrange 6 £47,580 Main Pay

range 4 £40,755 Main Payrange 1 £34,033

SEN Allowance SEN SEN2 £5,359 SEN SEN2 £5,359 SEN SEN1 £2,715Teaching Assistant SO1 31 £37,201 Scale 6 27 £32,794 Scale 5 22 £28,368Teaching Assistant (HLT) SO1 31 £37,201 SO1 29 £35,039 Scale 6 26 £31,812Education Psychologist Scale 5 25 £30,892 Scale 5 24 £30,002 Scale 5 22 £28,368Caretaker / Facilities SO2 34 £40,332 Scale 5 28 £33,787 Scale 5 22 £28,368Cleaner Scale 1a 6 £22,462 Scale 1a 6 £22,462 Scale 1a 6 £22,462Receptionist Scale 5 25 £30,892 Scale 5 24 £30,002 Scale 5 22 £28,368Secretary Scale 5 25 £30,892 Scale 5 24 £30,002 Scale 5 22 £28,368Admin Officer Scale 5 25 £30,892 Scale 5 22 £28,368 Scale 4 18 £25,102School BusinessManager

PO1 36 £42,150 SO2 32 £38,221 Scale 6 26 £31,812

Programme Planner Scale 5 25 £30,892 Scale 5 24 £30,002 Scale 5 22 £28,368

The salary costs are based on 2016/17 salary and on costs at scale-points listed above.

Appendix 4 – Weighted average funded cost of posts employed by school

P a g e 19 | 23

In order to determine an average salary cost between the low and top end of the scale, a weighted average calculation has beenundertaken to estimate what proportion of staff will be employed at low, middle and top end of the range.

Weighting (b)

Staff Type Allocation Basis (a) Low Mid Top WeightedAverage Cost (c)

Headteacher School 10% 30.0% 60% £122,191Deputy Headteacher School 10% 40.0% 50% £79,159Qualified Teacher pupil 30% 25.0% 45% £68,285Teaching & learning responsibility pupil 10% 30.0% 60% £13,397SEN Allowance pupil 10% 10.0% 80% £5,095Newly Qualified Teacher pupil 60% 25.0% 15% £37,746SEN Allowance pupil 10% 10.0% 80% £5,095Teaching Assistant pupil 30% 25.0% 45% £33,449Teaching Assistant (HLT) pupil 30% 25.0% 45% £35,044Education Psychologist pupil 10% 10.0% 80% £30,550Caretaker / Facilities School 10% 10.0% 80% £38,481Cleaner School 10% 10.0% 80% £22,462Receptionist School 10% 10.0% 80% £30,550Secretary School 10% 10.0% 80% £30,550Admin Officer pupil 10% 10.0% 80% £30,060School Business Manager School 10% 10.0% 80% £40,724Programme Planner School 10% 10.0% 80% £30,550

Notes:(a) The allocation of the cost is either determined by the teacher staff to pupil ratio (pupil) or there is a fixed cost irrespective of the number of children

(school)(b) the weighting is looking at determining at what level the staff may be employed at. For example there is 60% likelihood that a Headteacher will be

employed at the top end whilst a 10% chance that it will be employed at the bottom of the scale(c) the weighted cost is calculated as follows:

[Low Weighting % x Salary Cost at low end] + [Mid Weighting % x Salary Cost at median] + [Top Weighting % xSalary Cost at Top end]

Appendix 5 – Site Specific Cost Calculation

P a g e 20 | 23

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6

Site Fairholme

Woodlane(currently SyonPark)

West ThamesCollege

St George (currentlySyon Park)

WestThamesCollege

West MiddlesexHospital (inward)

Provision PRU Primary PRU KS3 KS4 CATEPost 16Medical Hospital Education

LandlordWest ThamesCollege LBH

WestThamesCollege NHS

Ownership Type Rented Rented Co-located

Additional Staff:Reception £22,500 £22,500 n/a £22,500 n/a n/aSite Controller £34,875 £34,875 n/a £34,875 n/a n/aManagement (Deputy HeadTeacher) £11,541 £11,541 n/a £11,541 n/a n/aRent/Rates:Rates £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 NRates Relief NRent/Lease £8,000 £30,000 £8,000 £8,000 n/aMaintenance:Grounds Maintenance £3,000 £3,000 N £3,000 N NBuilding Maintenance £800 £800 N £800 N NOther property relatedcosts:Utilities £13,500 £13,500 N £13,500 N NCleaning £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 NService Contracts £500 £500 £500 £500 £500 NTOTAL £106,716 £98,716 £32,500 £106,716 £20,500 £0

Appendix 6 – 2017/18 Proposed Budget

PRU Medical

Total

Prim

ary

KS3

KS4

CAT

E

Hos

pita

l

Basic Entitlement:Non SEN £389,144 £880,885 £764,997 £514,836 £155,246 £2,705,108SEN £34,034 £75,202 £64,604 £40,352 £13,553 £193,711Non Pay £75,202 £114,730 £207,400 £66,623 £24,666 £488,621Split Site:Woodlane (currently Syon Park) £98,716 £98,716Fairholme £106,716 £106,716St George (currently Syon Park) £106,716 £106,716West Thames College £32,500 £32,500West Middlesex Hospital (inward) £0 £0Total £605,097 £1,169,534 £1,069,501 £728,527 £193,465 £3,732,089

Total Places 20 67 48 30 32 197

Element 1 (AWPU) £4,000.00 £4,000.00 £4,000.00 £4,000.00 £0.00 £4,000.00Element 2 (Notional SEN) £6,000.00 £6,000.00 £6,000.00 £6,000.00 £0.00 £6,000.00

Core Place Funding £10,000.00 £10,000.00 £10,000.00 £10,000.00 £0.00 £10,000.00Element 3 (Top-Up) £20,254.84 £7,455.73 £12,281.28 £14,284.23 £6,045.77 £8,944.62Total Per Place £30,254.84 £17,455.73 £22,281.28 £24,284.23 £6,045.77 £18,944.62Per Day £159.24 £91.87 £117.27 £127.81 £31.82 £99.71

PRU Medical TotalPrimary KS3 KS4 CATE Hospital

Staff to Pupil Ratio 1: 2.71 1: 3.71 1: 3.07 1: 2.86 1: 12.03 1: 3.63Teaching Staff to Pupil Ratio 1: 3.87 1: 4.37 1: 3.67 1: 3.67 1: 12.03 1: 4.44

Appendix 7 – 2016/17 School Budget and Cost Information Provided

PRU Medical TotalPrimary KS3 KS4 PRU Total CATE Hospital

Staffing FTE:

Total PayCosts

FTE 11.52 27.01 25.09 63.62 13.58 3.20 80.40£ £530,456 £1,272,663 £1,109,258 £2,912,377 £778,031 £163,159 £3,853,567Average £ £46,047 £47,118 £44,211 £45,778 £57,292 £50,987 £47,930

(a) Cost of Headteacher was not supplied so have used the Leadership Group 7 to estimate a cost.(b) Cleaners were added with non-pay have moved under staffing* hospital FTE provided seemed low compared with costs thus moved 1.6 fte from Cross Service


Non Pay CostsStaff Related Costs:

Subtotal £13,218 £30,218 £17,618 £61,054 £19,618 £6,718 £87,390Other Staff Related Costs:

Subtotal £8,150 £6,343 £6,204 £20,697 £6,275 £5,420 £32,392Premises Related Costs:

Subtotal £18,457 £64,845 £61,710 £145,012 £17,372 £0 £162,384Transport Related Costs:

Subtotal £3,510 £5,302 £3,776 £12,587 £3,532 £0 £16,118Education Related Spend:

Subtotal £5,782 £63,657 £80,165 £149,604 £28,922 £160 £178,686Other Running Costs:

Subtotal £37,180 £69,562 £84,528 £191,270 £40,904 £9,659 £241,833Total Non-Pay Costs £86,297 £239,927 £254,001 £580,224 £116,623 £21,957 £718,803

Total Costs £616,753 £1,512,590 £1,363,259 £3,492,601 £894,654 £185,116 £4,572,370

Appendix 7 – 2016/17 School Budget and Cost Information Provided

P a g e 1 | 23


Staff to Pupil Ratio 1: 1.74 1: 2.00 1: 1.91 1: 2.12 1: 2.21 1: 8.75 1: 2.65Teaching Staff to Pupil Ratio 1: 1.92 1: 2.84 1: 2.42 1: 2.51 1: 2.42 1: 8.75 1: 3.07


School Budget Share excluding SEN £297,691 £1,154,681 £1,452,372 £732,043 £525,416 £2,709,832

SEN Element (pro-rata usingplace numbers) £133,238 £1,132,522 £1,265,760 £66,619 £0 £1,332,379

MFG (pro-rata across using placenumbers) £10,850 £62,388 £73,238 £16,275 £15,190 £104,703

Total Budget Share (February2016) £441,779 £2,349,591 £2,791,370 £814,937 £540,606 £4,146,914

Overspend (+) / Underspend (-) £168,256 £491,421 £659,676 £66,598 -£362,208 £364,066

Pupil Referral Unit Funding Formula Review 2017/18... · PUPIL REFERRAL UNIT (P RU) 4.1 PRUs...

Documents

Transcript of Pupil Referral Unit Funding Formula Review 2017/18... · PUPIL REFERRAL UNIT (P RU) 4.1 PRUs...