Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FAO: ALL HEADTEACHERS
SUBJECT: SETTING SCHOOLS BUDGET 2020/21 EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EqIAA) An Equality Analysis has been conducted in respect of setting the schools budget for 2020/21 and is available to all Headteachers of schools in South Gloucestershire. As a result of this analysis, data shows:
Outcomes of some BAME groups is low when compared to the South West and the National Averages.
A greater proportion of boys compared to girls have Educational Health Care Plans (EHCP’s).
Pupils with EHCP’s perform better than the National Averages for attainment at KS2 and progress at KS4.
South Gloucestershire under identify pupils that need SEN support. Outcomes of all students receiving SEN support at both KS2 (attainment) and KS4
(progress) are below the National Average. There is an increasing pressure on the early year’s sector for EHCP’s requests. Exclusion both permanent and fixed term are placing an increasing strain on the High needs
Block. The attainment of all students at KS2 is above the national average in reading, writing and
maths combined and above for progress in writing. However, it is below national for progress in reading and mathematics.
Attainment and progress for all students at KS4 is below National average.
A more detailed summary of the groups impacted by any funding change can be found on page 28 of the EqiAA Setting Schools Budget 2020/21 report.
All Headteachers are reminded of the statutory duty to have due regard to the need to:-
1. Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
2. Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; this means:- Removing or minimizing disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic that are connected to that characteristic. Taking steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic
that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it. Encouraging persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public
life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.3. Foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and
persons who do not share it; this means:- Tackling prejudice. Promoting understanding.
The issues presented within the Equality Analysis should be explicitly considered when considering and providing feedback in relation to the options presented.
1
INITIAL EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS (EqIAA)
Setting Schools Budget 2020/21
SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION
South Gloucestershire Council is looking to set the schools budget for 2020-21. An important element of this is looking at ways of reducing the deficit and continued overspend in the Schools Special Needs and Disability (SEND) budget (called the High Needs Block).
South Gloucestershire is made up of:
Primary Schools - 92 primary schools which includes 7 paired infant and junior schools. Secondary Schools - 12 secondary schools All through schools - 3 all through primary and secondary schools Studio Schools/UTCs (14-19 provision) – 2 provisions serving the 14-19 age range including
1 Studio School and 1 University Technical College (UTC) Special Schools - 5 special schools (this excludes alternative provision provided by the
Pathways Learning Centre). 7 Resource Bases and 2 Access Centres attached to Primary and Secondary Schools EOTAS (Education other than at School) – 1 School Pathway Learning Centre (PLC)
This means there are 114 mainstream and special schools in South Gloucestershire (excluding PLC).
Within South Gloucestershire there are approximately 6,600 children and young people between the ages of 0-25 years with SEND. There are currently around 1,920 children and young people who have significant and complex special educational needs and/or disabilities who are in receipt of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
Pupils with SEND i.e. pupils with an EHCP or in receipt of SEND support, will always receive funding via the Local Authority regardless of whether they attend a Local Authority maintained school or an Academy.
It is forecast that if the council continues to spend against the schools SEND budget as currently, a deficit of £16 million will be accumulated by the end of 2019/20. Spending on children with SEND is increasing but the budget has remained fairly static. Currently the total SEND budget is around £31 million.
2
Background
SEND pressures are impacting on local authorities across the whole country. The reasons for these growing pressures include:
Increasing numbers of SEND pupils and increasing complexity of need (advances in life expectancy for children with complex conditions, more awareness and better diagnoses.
Sharper focus on inspection and attainment incentivises schools to be less inclusive and concentrate on results.
Core school budget pressures (8% national average cost pressure for schools over the past 5 years) reducing capacity for schools to be inclusive.
Legislative changes passing responsibility for 19-25 age range to Local Authorities without a transfer of sufficient funding (for South Glos. our calculations showed have shown an instant £2m shortfall in funding).
Introduction of the Children and Families Act 2014 resulting in a 35% increase nationally in the number of Education and Health Care Plans, while the eligible child population over the same period has only increased by 1%.
These pressures have caused enormous challenges for LAs who have responded in a variety of ways.
The government announced it will inject £2.6 billion extra into the schools budget in 2020-21, which includes £700 million earmarked for pupils with special needs. South Gloucestershire is expected to receive around £2.8m.
The following information provides some key points to assist in understanding terms and implications covered in this EqIAA. A glossary of terms is also provided in Appendix 1.
3
Consultation options
The following provides an overview of consultation options and continues by providing Schools Forum with an analysis of each option.
OPTION 1F Formula- £6m of 2020/21 £8m growth distributed to schools purely through the NFF, continuation of 18/19 & 19/20 £2.9m transfer from Schools Block to SEND + £2m of £8m growth transferred to support schools with SEND and 0.5% MFG.
OPTION 2F Formula - £8m growth distributed to schools purely through the NFF, continuation of 18/19 & 19/20 continuation of £2.9m transfer from Schools Block to High Needs block. £8m growth from Schools Block to SEND and 0.5% MFG.
OPTION 3F Formula - £8m of 2020/21 £8m growth distributed to schools purely through the NFF, 0.5% MFG.
OPTION 1U Uplift - £6m of 2020/21 £8m growth distributed to schools targeted to UPLIFT schools below the DfE min per pupil levels, continuation of 18/19 & 19/20 £2.9m transfer from Schools Block to SEND + £2m of £8m growth transferred from schools block to support schools with SEND and 0.5% MFG.
OPTION 2U Uplift - £8m growth distributed to schools to Uplift schools below the DfE min. per pupil levels, continuation of 18/19 & 19/20 £2.9m transfer from Schools Block to the High Needs Block and 0.5% MFG.
OPTION 3U Uplift - £8m of 2020/21 £8m growth distributed to schools targeted to uplift schools below the DfE min. per pupil amounts and 6.48% MFG.
MFG (Minimum Funding Guarantee) - The minimum funding guarantee (MFG) is a protection against changes in per pupil school budget share (SBS) funding between the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 academic years.
This EqIAA now goes on to investigate a range of data and information so that potential impacts in respect of ‘Protected Characteristic’ groups can be identified and evidenced. As consultation has been conducted specifically in relation to the SEND budget, much information is included in this EqIAA in respect of this. However, it is important to note that wider information concerning the whole budget for schools is covered and all of the information provided is to be used as a genuine component of decision-making processes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-funding-formula-tables-for-schools-and-high-needs-2020-to-2021
SECTION 2 – RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION
The following information is set out to in order to build a picture of impacts in respect of ‘Protected Characteristic’ groups. This section of this EqIAA sets out a range of data and information, and Section 3 of this EqIAA sets out the implications to be aware of in respect of impacts for ‘Protected Characteristic’ groups.
4
Very detailed information is set out in respect of pupils with SEND. However, information regarding outcomes for all pupils along with clear reference and links to Protected Characteristics is set out in order to provide a comprehensive set of information to be used within decision making processes.
Background
The High Needs working group (HNWG) was established in January 2019 following feedback from schools during the 2018/2019 Budget Setting Consultation. The council could not simply reduce funding for its statutory requirement of providing SEND support/provision for students. A more sustainable approach of working in partnership with schools and school leaders to make meaningful and very difficult system wide change that includes changes to culture, skills, processes, information and guidance and provision was needed. These changes need time to develop, gain buy-in and traction and require much longer timescales to have an impact on spending and the DSG (dedicated schools grant) deficit. The following table shows the current work streams of the HNWG.
Table 1 – Table to show the current workstreams of the HNWG.Workstream Changes to be Delivered Workstream components
Graduated Response to SEND
More inclusion at school level Training and guidance for SENCOs and Heads
Develop SEND Descriptors to help schools identify SEND Support levels of intervention
Disseminate and embed best practice on inclusion
Develop new comprehensive banding system
Cluster Funds – Early Intervention
Funding, support and monitoring for schools to support lower levels of SEND need thus reducing the escalation of need, EHCPS and cost
2 Pilots established, with targets, and interventions at school level commissioned.
First level of review for EHCP requests by Cluster SENCO Group
Out of Authority Placements
Reduced placement of CYP in expensive provision
At risk cohort identified and support team planned to work with schools, parents and CYP to offer local placements
Routes/causes for expensive placements identified and culture change needed is being championed by Academy CEO at secondary and primary heads executive
Alternative Provision
Develop LA wide strategy for excluded pupils
Develop outreach function to support schools
Incentivise schools financially to be more inclusive
Improved Support from CCG – funding and better joined-up approach
Improve joined up support with Health and recognise fairer contribution to CYP support costs
Identification of problems and funding gaps
Promote discussion and ownership of the change needed at HWB
Fairer allocation of SEND Top-Up funding
Introduction of Ready Reckoner Continued roll-out with QA process involving headteachers and Parent/carers
New Provision New provision and better New Post 16 Provision, the Chase completed.
5
matching of provision to need to reduce need for expensive out of authority placements
Expansion of Warmley Park Special School completed.
Continued expansion of new Special School Pegasus
Review of Resources Bases to match designation to greatest need
Developing new provision with MATs across the LA matched to identified need
Early Years Review of EY Inclusion Fund Develop more effective support for transition from EY to Primary using
Some of the measures above have already been developed but will need ongoing monitoring and further development through the HNWG to ensure the identified changes are delivered and embedded as intended. A draft copy of the HNWG strategic plan can be found at the following link https://www.southglos.gov.uk/education-and-learning/schools-and-education/financing-schools/the-schools-forum/
At a local level the Council sees great benefit from continuing its approach to do what it can to change our SEND system to improve outcomes for children and young people while improving value for money and trying to have the greatest impact from every pound we spend and it is welcome that the DfE has started a national review along the same lines. A good example of this “System Change” approach is the SEND Support Cluster funding pilots which are starting to show positive signs of delivering positive interventions in schools as a better alternative to escalating needs and hence escalating costs later on in the system.
One option that would enhance this approach and help support the level of change needed is to look at the new schools Block funding of £8m in 2020/21 and look to prioritise an element of it to support schools while helping create that system wide change needed. The approach here would be to invest £2m of the extra £8m and invest it in the following ways that would ensure the funding flows directly back to schools/providers but ensures it is controlled and targeted by schools to support system wide change in the SEND system through the following initiatives:
£1m to continue the Cluster Funding and move it from a pilot to a permanent feature of the South Gloucestershire SEND system. Item 6: https://www.southglos.gov.uk/documents/Schools-Forum-Agenda-and-Papers-for-10-may-18.pdf
£0.3m to allow the High Risk Group put in place support to significantly reduce exclusions (target should be zero exclusions)
£0.3m to support SEND pupils in the Early Years sector Appendix B Item 6:https://www.southglos.gov.uk/education-and-learning/schools-and-education/financing-schools/the-schools-forum/
£0.2m to provide an uplift to Special School and Resource Base rates
£0.2m to be directed by the Schools Forum/HNWG to support System wide change
6
High Risk Group (HRG) – A group set up to oversee and support students that are risk of exclusion from mainstream school.
National Funding Formula (NFF) - is the method that the Government is proposing to use to decide how much money should be given to English state schools each year.
Transferring Funds -The money given to Local Authorities from Central Government to fund its schools is called the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). It is split into four blocks: Early years, Schools, Central Services and High needs block – see appendix 1. There is minimal flexibility to move funding between these blocks. A transfer of 0.5% of the Schools block to the High Needs block does not require the approval of the Secretary of State.
SEND Categories of Need
South Gloucestershire Council completed an analysis of SEND needs in May 2017 as part of the development of its SEND Strategy and Vision 2018 - 2023. The table below outlines the percentage of needs in relation to children and young people with EHC Plans. Types of special educational needs or disabilities can be divided by 12 categories which are identified by the Government.
Table 2: Table to show percentage of each SEND need type in relation to children and young people with EHC Plans.
Primary Need Description % total Primary Need with EHC plans 0-25
yearsASD Autism Spectrum Disorder 26.6SLCN Speech, Language and Communication Needs 18.2MLD Moderate Learning Difficulty 15.3SEMH Social, Emotional, Mental Health 14.8SLD Severe Learning Difficulty 8.4PD Physical Difficulty 8.2HI Hearing Impairment 3.1PMLD Profound, Multiple, Learning Difficulty 1.7VI Visual Impairment 1.5SpLD Specific Learning Difficulty 1.3OTH Other 0.8MSI Multi-Sensory Impairment 0.2
Source: July 2017 Data Report to Schools Forum
7
Table 3: Table showing the Breakdown of all EHCP’s in South Glos. By Primary need and Year Group
Row Labels
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Grand Total
ASD 112
15
27 38 44 32 41 49 43 35 39 42 49 34 41
30
19
11 9 4 1 616
Health 1 1
HI 3 1 2 1 3 4 3 4 5 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 38
HI 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 16Medical 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 26
MLD 5 4 4 6 10 7 14 18 14 24 14 25 21 15 2513
11 6 1 1 238
MSI 1 1 2
PD 3 2 5 7 6 4 4 8 12 5 13 10 6 9 9 9 5 5 6 1 1 2 1 133
PMLD 1 1 2 5 7 1 1 3 3 2 7 3 2 5 3 1 5 1 1 2 2 58
SEMH 3 4 7 17 21 24 18 28 25 31 25 26 26 21 1318 5 2 1 315
SLCN inc ASD 2
16
25
30 38 26 16 19 14 11 8 19 14 9 9 7
10 3 1 277
SLD 1 3 3 4 9 8 8 13 9 9 8 7 3 9 6 314 7 9 8 4 2 147
SpLD 2 2 1 1 2 5 3 6 8 8 5 1 4 2 4 3 1 58
VI 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 27
(blank) 1 1Grand Total 4
14
53
73
93
119
124
111
132
140
140
131
120
129
137
102
107
97
53
32
24
12 3 3 1953
South Glos. EHCP data July 2019
Chart 1 - Type of need requested between January and June 2019 for an EHCP.
8
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-190%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Moderate Learning Difficulties Severe Learning Difficulties Specific Learning Difficulties Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties Autistic Spectrum Disorder Speech, Language and CommunicationSocial, Emotional and Mental Health Physical DisabilityHearing Impairment Visual Impairment Multi-Sensory Impairment Medical
Source: June 2019 EHCP Dashboard South Glos.
Tables 2 and 3 and Chart 1 show that ASD is the primary need requested and currently in the system.
KEYASD = Autistic Spectrum DisorderHI = Hearing ImpairmentMLD = Moderate Learning DifficultyMSI = Multiple Sensory ImpairmentPD = Physical DisabilityPMLD = Profound and Multiple Learning DifficultySEMH = Social, Emotional and Mental HealthSLCN = Speech Language and Communication NeedsSLD = Severe Learning DifficultySpLD = Specific Learning DifficultiesVI = Visual Impairment
Gender
Of the children and young people with EHC Plans, 71% are boys. This figure is as expected since the incidence rate of SEND nationally is higher in boys than in girls. This is for a number of reasons: There are more genetic syndromes that affect boys than girls and boys are more likely to be
referred for a medical diagnosis. Females are less likely to be identified with SEND as their behaviours are less likely to bring
them to the attention of education and health professionals.Whilst it is expected that the incidence rate of female children and young people requesting an EHC needs assessment and being issued with an EHC Plan will increase slightly, it is anticipated that this differential will remain between males and females.
9
Chart 2 – Chart to show the number of requests for EHCPs by gender between January and June 2019
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-190
5
10
15
20
25
30
Requests for EHCP's by gender type between January and June 2019
Female Male
Source: Sept 2019 EHCP Dashboard South Glos.
Chart 2 shows that Boys are 2-3 times more likely than girls to apply for an EHCP.
10
Race
The ethnicity of children and young people with SEN Support and with EHC Plans broadly mirrors the ethnicity profile of those learners without a special educational need or disability but with some differences for “White British” and “Black” students who are proportionately slightly more likely to have an EHC Plan. Table 4/5 and chart 3 all show that White British pupils represent the biggest proportion of students in South Glos.
Table 4 - Table to show the percentage of children and young people with EHC Plans and SEND Support plans as disaggregated by ethnic group (the ethnicity of all pupils across South Gloucestershire is included in the final column in order to show a comparator).Ethnicity CYP with EHC
PlansCYP in receipt of
SEND SupportAll Pupils in South
Glos.White British 86.6% 86.8% 83.90%Mixed 4.9% 4.4% 4.90%White Non British 2.9% 4.1% 4.70%Asian 2.1% 1.9% 3.30%Black 1.9% 1.4% 1.60%Chinese 0.2% 0.3% 0.30%Any other 0.2% 0.3% 0.50%Unclassified 1.2% 1.0% 0.70%
Source: SEND data return 2017
Chart 3 – Chart to show the ethnicity of students applying for EHCPs – January 2019 to June 2019
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-190%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A chart showing the ethnic group of students applying for plans between January - June 2019
White British White Irish Any other White BackgroundTraveller of Irish Heritage Gypsy / Roma White and Black CarribeanWhite and Black African White and Black Asian Any other Mixed BackgroundIndian Pakistani BangladeshiAny other Asian Background Black Carribean Black African Any other Black Background Chinese Any other Ethnic BackgroundRefused Information not yet obtained
Source: Sept 2019 EHCP Dashboard South Glos.
11
Table 5 - A comparison of EHCP referrals by ethnic group with the overall school pupil Population in South Gloucestershire
Request by Ethnicity Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Total Percentage EHCP South Glos %White British 16 19 23 25 22 25 130 70.27% 88.82%White Irish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.22%
Any other White Background 0 1 2 0 1 1 5 2.70% 0.00%Traveller of Irish Heritage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.66%
Gypsy / Roma 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.54% 0.22%White and Black Carribean 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1.08% 2.19%White and Black African 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.54% 0.00%White and Black Asian 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.54% 0.88%
Any other Mixed Background 1 1 1 1 2 0 6 3.24% 0.66%Indian 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.54% 1.32%
Pakistani 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.66%Bangladeshi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.44%
Any other Asian Background 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1.08% 0.88%Black Carribean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.66%
Black African 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.54% 1.10%Any other Black Background 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.54% 0.66%
Chinese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.44%Any other Ethnic Background 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1.08% 0.44%
Refused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%Information not yet obtained 2 6 8 6 5 5 32 17.30% 0.00%
20 29 36 35 33 32 185 100.00% 100.00%
Sept 2019 EHCP Dashboard South Glos vs Pupil Characteristics 2018
The above table shows that the groups most likely to be affected by any change to SEN provision are:Any other White BackgroundAny other Mixed BackgroundAny other Asian backgroundAny other Ethnic BackgroundGypsy/Roma White/Black AfricanThese pupils have significantly more referrals for EHCP’s than any other ethnic group when compared to the South Glos. Total ethnic makeup. (this data assumes that the referrals are converted into EHCP’s).
January 2018By local authority area and region in England
1. Includes middle/all through schools as deemed.
2. Includes all primary academies, including free schools.
3. Pupils of all school age were classified according to ethnic group. Includes pupils who were sole or dual main registrations.
4. All pupils of all ages. This is a change from previous years when only data for pupils of compulsory school age and above were included in this table.
5. Information refused or not obtained.
6. Includes all pupils classified as belonging to an ethnic group other than White British.
12
13
Age
The following table shows the numbers of children and young people aged 0-25 who are in receipt of EHC Plans according to year group and category of need. Year 11 students have the biggest proportion followed by Year 9. These are the groups, therefore, that would be impacted the most.
Table 6: Table to show the numbers of children and young people aged 0 – 25 with an EHC Plan according to year group and category of need.Year Group
ASD HI MLD MSI OTH PD PMLD SEMH SLCN SLD SPLD VI Grand Total
-2 1 1 4 1 2 2 0.7%-1 5 1 1 6 13 4 1 1.9%0 28 3 7 1 2 6 30 3 2 5.0%1 26 3 2 2 4 1 10 29 6 1 1 5.2%2 20 4 5 8 2 13 26 11 2 5.5%3 21 2 11 1 1 12 2 9 17 5 1 3 5.2%4 24 5 17 3 5 11 25 12 6.2%5 24 6 16 16 3 14 17 11 2 6.6%6 27 3 26 8 2 19 13 9 1 1 6.6%7 25 3 12 2 5 1 24 22 7 3 1 6.4%8 25 2 18 1 10 18 26 9 3 6.8%9 32 3 17 1 15 1 26 13 7 1 4 7.3%10 23 1 19 1 11 21 13 6 1 2 6.0%11 47 3 28 1 6 4 21 22 1 3 2 8.4%12 34 3 24 1 3 3 20 11 7 2 3 6.8%13 36 2 23 8 2 21 11 9 2 6.9%14 22 3 16 3 2 5 4 10 1 4.0%15 9 3 5 3 3 3 1 7 1 2.1%16 5 1 1 4 1 6 1.1%17 2 3 2 5 0.7%18 1 2 1 0.2%19 1 1 0.1%20 1 <0.1%
Source: July 2017 data report to Schools Forum (May 2017 data)NB. Year group “-2”, year group “-1” and year group “0” are early years students. Year groups 1 - 6 are Primary School students. Year groups 7 - 13 are Secondary School students.
14
Children and young people with an EHC plan by local authority and age group January 2019 based on SEN2 data return 2018-2019
The following table shows that a greater proportion of South Gloucestershire EHCP’s are under 5 years of age and between the ages of 5-10 when compared with England/South West.
Table 7 – Table to show the number and percentage of CYP with an EHCP
LA name
Number of children and young people with EHC plans1:Under
5 years of age
% Aged 5-10 % Aged
11-15 % Aged 16-19 % Aged
20-25 % Total
ENGLAND 14,094 3.98% 117,222 33.11% 126,332 35.69% 77,587 21.92% 18,760 5.30% 353,99
5
SOUTH WEST 1,242 3.75% 10,868 32.84% 11,720 35.41% 7,723 23.33% 1,545 4.67% 33,098
South Gloucestershire
90 4.69% 653 34.01% 640 33.33% 42822.29
% 109 5.68% 1,920
Chart 4 – Chart to show age groups of CYP requesting EHCPs between January 2019 and June 2019
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-190
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
A chart showing the age group of children and young people request-ing EHCP's between January and June 2019
0-4 Years 5-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-19 Years 20-25 Years
Source: June 2019 EHCP Dashboard South Glos.
The chart shows that the highest proportion of requests for EHCPs for the first 6 months of 2019 are from children and young people aged 0 – 4 years.
This supports the data shown in Table 7.
15
Characteristics of South Gloucestershire pupils
2019 – Spring Census Data
Female – 49% (19,176 pupils across all year groups)
Male- 51% (20,188 pupils across all year groups)
Table 8 – Table to show pupil data for South Gloucestershire
All students
E,K K Eno.
eligible FSM
% eligible FSM
No KS1 FSM
% KS1 FSM No KS2 FSM
% KS2 FSM % ENG % EAL No. Pupil Premium
% Pupil premium
White Mixed Asian Black Chinese Other Unclassified % BME
39364 14.0 10.6 3.3 3692 9.4 792 7.7 1360 10.1 91 8.6 5682 14.4 87.5 5.3 3.5 1.9 0.4 0.7 0.8 17.8
% EthnicityFSM
% SEN Total FSM KS1 entitlement KS2 Entitlement %Language Pupil Premium
Table 9: Table to show pupil characteristics of South Gloucestershire’s schools
Primary (R-Yr6) Total Number %Male %Female%Non-SEN %SEN
%SEN Support % EHCP White Mixed Asian Black Chinese
Any other ethnic group
South Glos Autumn 2018 22928 51% 49% 87.7% 12.3% 10.4% 1.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASouth Glos Jan 2018 22893 51% 49% 88% 12.5% 10.5% 2% 87.7% 5.6% 3.5% 1.5% 0.5% 0.70%National Jan 2018 51% 49% 86.2% 13.8% 12.4% 1.4% 73.9% 6.2% 11.1% 5.5% 0.5% 2%
Secondary Total Number %Male %Female%Non-SEN %SEN
%SEN Support % EHCP White Mixed Asian Black Chinese
Any other ethnic group
South Glos Autumn 2018 15959 51% 49% 87.6% 12.4% 10.3% 2.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASouth Glos Jan 2018 15792 51% 49% 87.1% 12.9% 10.7% 2.2% 88.3% 4.3% 3.3% 2.2% 0.3% 0.5%National Jan 2018 50% 50% 87.7% 12.3% 10.6% 1.6% 74.2% 5.2% 11% 5.8% 0.4% 1.8%
Special Total Number %Male %Female%Non-SEN %SEN
%SEN Support % EHCP White Mixed Asian Black Chinese
Any other ethnic group
South Glos Autumn 2018 488 74% 26% 0% 100% 2.3% 97.7% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASouth Glos Jan 2018 456 73% 27% 0% 100% 2% 98% 88.8% 3.7% 3.3% 2.4% 0.40% 0.40%National Jan 2018 72% 28% 0% 99.90% 2% 97.9% 74.2% 5.8% 9.8% 6.8% 0.3% 1.6%
Source: School Census 2018 data
The above table shows that there is roughly an even split of Males/Females in Primary and Secondary Schools in South Gloucestershire. However, Special schools are predominately occupied by boys.
16
Current Outcomes of all Pupils in South Gloucestershire and for Pupils with SEND
Early Years Foundation
The table below shows student performance in early years. South Gloucestershire is currently above the National/South West average for Students with SEN support and EHC Plans.
Table 10 – Table to show student performance in early years
Number of eligible pupils2
Percentage achieving at
least the expected
standard in all ELGs
Number of eligible pupils2
Percentage achieving at
least the expected
standard in all ELGs
6Number of
eligible pupils2
Percentage achieving at
least the expected
standard in all ELGs
6Number of
eligible pupils2
Percentage achieving at
least the expected
standard in all ELGs
E92000001 England 579,279 76 50,957 27 9,705 4 652,349 70
E12000009 South West 53,480 76 4,950 28 850 5 60,170 70
E06000025 South Gloucestershire 3,157 80 164 32 73 11 3,426 76
SEN with a statement or EHC plan All pupils5
At least the expected standard in all ELGs
6
Pupils with no identified SEN SEN Support
Source DfE attainment tables Sept 2018
Key Measure: percentage of pupils achieving a Good Level of DevelopmentChildren achieving a good level of development are those achieving at least the expected level within the following areas of learning: communication and language; physical development; personal, social and emotional development; literacy; and mathematics.
Trends in Early Years
The table below shows student performance in early years. South Gloucestershire is currently above the national average for Students with SEN support and EHC Plans.All pupils also make above Average progress. Most of the trends over the past 3 years have been increasing/improving.
Table 11 – Table to show trends in student performance in early years.
Early Years Foundation Stage ProfileKey Measure: percentage of pupils achieving a Good Level of Development
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018South Glos 76 77 77 54 60 54 25 34 32 5 7 11National 69 71 72 54 56 57 26 27 28 4 4 5Stat Neig. 70 72 73 52 53 53 27 26 30 5 5 6
Children achieving a good level of development are those ahcieving at least the expected level within the following ares of learning: communcation and language; physical development; peronal, social and emotional development; literacy; and mathematics.
SEN EHCPSEN SupportEligible for FSMAll Pupils
Source Key Academic Measures LA National Results Sept 2018 based on DfE attainment tables 2018
The following table shows that Indian Students perform better than the average early year’s pupil but this is also the case nationally.
Table 12 – Table to show student performance in Early Years according to ethnicity
Main Category Sub-Category
% Achieved GLD
(2017-2019)Difference from South Glos All
Difference from 2018 National Ethnicity
groupsAsian or Asian British Bangladeshi 60% not significant not significantAsian or Asian British Indian 85% higher higherAsian or Asian British Pakistani 76% not significant not significantAsian or Asian British Any other Asian background 70% not significant not significantBlack or Black British Black - African 80% not significant not significantBlack or Black British Black - Caribbean 62% not significant not significantBlack or Black British Any other Black background 70% not significant not significantChinese Chinese 83% not significant not significantMain Category Sub-Category % Achieved Difference from Difference from 2018
17
GLD (2017-2019) South Glos All
National Ethnicity groups
Mixed/Dual background White and Black African 73% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background White and Black Caribbean 71% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background Any other mixed background 71% not significant not significantAny other ethnic group Any other ethnic group 59% lower not significantUnclassified Unclassified (REFU or NOBT) 66% lower not significantWhite White - British 78% not significant higherWhite White - Irish 53% lower not significantWhite Traveller of Irish heritage 29% lower not significantWhite Gypsy/Roma 0% lower not significantWhite Any other white background 68% lower not significantAll 77%
EYFS – % Good Level Development by Ethnicity across 2017-2019 data
Table 12 shows that the following pupils perform less well than average:
White Irish, Traveller of Irish Heritage, Gypsy/Roma
Primary School – Key Stage 2
Source: School Census 2018 data
The table below shows that pupils with SEN support at KS2 perform below the National and South West average. Pupils with EHC Plans perform better than the National and South West average.Pupils with no identified SEN perform slightly worse than those in the South West/England. However this trend is reversed in 2019.
Attainment of pupils at the end of key stage 2 in reading, writing and maths by SEN provision1
and local authorityYears: 2018 (revised)
Table 13 – Table to show attainment of pupils at the end of Key Stage 2Region Pupils with no identified SEN SEN support SEN with a statement or EHC
plan
Number of eligible pupils
Percentage of pupils in reaching the expected standard3
Number of eligible pupils
Percentage of pupils in reaching the expected standard3
Number of eligible pupils
Percentage of pupils in reaching the expected standard3
ENGLAND (state-funded schools) 505,556 74 89,319 24 19,116 9
South West 46,385 73 9,082 22 1,750 8
South West
South Gloucestershire 2,613 72 401 20 103 12
Source DfE attainment tables Sept 2018
2. Figures for academies and free schools are included in the individual LA f igures and also in the total for England state-funded schools
3. Includes pupils w ho reached the expected standard, and those w ho reached a greater depth w ithin the expected standard.
4. Figures in this table do not include pupils that w ere identified as recently arrived from overseas during the September checking exercise.
5. Figures for Isles of Scilly and City of London are based on one school each and should therefore be treated w ith caution.
1. From 2015, follow ing SEND reforms, SEN pupils are categorised as 'SEN w ith a statement or Education, health and care (EHC) plan' and 'SEN support'. SEN support replaces school action and school action plus.
18
Table 14 - Provisional attainment at the end of key stage 2 2019
Region
Number of eligible pupils2,8Percentage of pupils reaching the
expected standard in reading, writing and maths3
All9 Boys Girls All Boys Girls
ENGLAND (state-funded schools)5 645,022 329,142
315,875 65 60 70
South West 59,450 30,220 29,240 63 59 68
South WestSouth Gloucestershire
3,312 1,693 1,619 66 61 72
Provisional DfE data 2019
Table 15 - Table to show outcomes in Early Years and Key Stages 1 and 2 as disaggregated according to Sex, SEN and Ethnicity
Region Number of eligible pupils Percentage of pupils reaching the expected standard2
White Mixed Asian Black Chinese White Mixed Asian Black Chinese
ENGLAND (state-funded schools)1,3
457,266 35,328 66,989 36,941 2,509 64 66 69 64 82
South West 51,669 2,257 1,451 987 164 63 64 68 54 75South West South
Gloucestershire2,746 162 111 51 12 63 66 79 59 75
Source DfE attainment tables Sept 2018
1. Figures for academies and free schools are included in the individual LA figures and also in the total for England state-funded schools.
2. Includes pupils who reached the expected standard, and those who reached a greater depth within the expected standard.
3. Figures in this table do not include pupils that were identified as recently arrived from overseas during the September checking exercise.
4. Figures for Isles of Scilly and City of London are based on one school each and should therefore be treated with caution.
Table 15 shows that only Asian pupils in South Gloucestershire perform better than the English average.
Trends in Key Stage 2
The tables below again show an improving trend in the performance of all, disadvantaged, SEN support and EHCP pupils. A similar trend can be seen amongst our National and Statistical Neighbours. However, South Glos. Pupils still perform below the National Average at KS2 in all categories apart from those on SEN support.
Table 16 – Table to show trends for pupil groups in Reading, Writing and Mathematics – Key Stage 2Key Stage 2
Reading, Writing and Mathematics
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018South Glos 53 60 63 34 41 45 10 17 20 11 9 12National 53 61 64 39 47 51 16 20 24 7 8 9Stat Neig. 54 61 64 36 43 46 12 16 20 7 8 8
Key Measures: percentage of pupils achieving expected standard in all of reading, writing and mathematics (combined) and average progress in each of reading, writing and mathematics.The expected standard is a scaled score of 100 or more in reading and maths and a teacher assessment in writing of working at the expected standard.
SEN Support SEN EHCPAll Pupils Disadvantaged
Progress scores are presented as positive or negative numbers either side of zero. A score of zero means that pupils in a school (or group) made the same progress as those with similar prior attainment nationally; a positive score means that they made more progress than those with similar prior attainment; a negative score means they made less progress than pupils with similar starting points nationally.
Source Key Academic Measures LA National Results Sept 2018 based on DfE attainment tables 2018
19
Table 17 - Table to show attainment for pupils in Reading, Writing and Mathematics according to ethnicity – Key Stage 2
Main Category Sub-Category
% Achieved RWM (2017-2019)
Difference from South
Glos All
Difference from 2019 National
Ethnicity groups
Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 78% not significant not significantAsian or Asian British Indian 83% higher not significantAsian or Asian British Pakistani 73% not significant not significantAsian or Asian British Any other Asian background 69% not significant not significantBlack or Black British Black - African 68% not significant not significantBlack or Black British Black - Caribbean 35% lower lowerBlack or Black British Any other Black background 53% not significant not significantChinese Chinese 81% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background White and Asian 78% higher not significantMixed/Dual background White and Black African 56% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background White and Black Caribbean 56% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background Any other mixed background 68% not significant not significantAny other ethnic group Any other ethnic group 65% not significant not significantUnclassified Unclassified (REFU or NOBT) 45% lower not significantWhite White - British 63% not significant lowerWhite White - Irish 75% not significant not significantWhite Traveller of Irish heritage 11% lower not significantWhite Gypsy/Roma 40% not significant not significantWhite Any other white background 56% lower lowerAll 63% not significant
KS2 – %RWM by Ethnicity across 2017-2019 data
Table 17 shows that the following pupils perform less well than average:
Black CaribbeanWhite BritishTraveller of Irish heritageAny other White Background
20
Secondary School – Key Stage 4
Table 18 – Table to show achievements of pupils at the end of key stage 4 by SEN provision for local authority and region
Number of eligible pupils(4) Average Progress 8 score (5)(6)
Pupils with no identified SEN
SEN support
SEN with a statement or EHC plan
All pupils(9)
Pupils with no identified SEN
SEN support
SEN with a statement or EHC plan
All pupils(9)
England10 423,440 51,959 18,476 494,835 0.1 -0.4 -1.1 0.0
South West 40,273 5,221 1,732 47,294 0.0 -0.5 -1.2 -0.1
South Gloucestershire
2,068 275 85 2,428 -0.1 -0.5 -0.9 -0.2
Source DfE attainment tables Sept 2018
P8 score measures the average progress made by a child between KS2 and KS4; 0 being the norm.Key Measures: progress 8, attainment 8 and attainment in English and mathematics. Reformed GCSE start introduced from 2017 - comparison with previous years is not valid.
Table 18 shows that at KS4 All pupils, those with no identified SEN, and those on SEN support perform below the English/South West Average on Progress.In contrast those on EHCP’s perform slightly better than the English/South West Average on Progress.
Table 19 – Table to show GCSE and equivalent entries and achievements of pupils at the end of key stage 4 by ethnicity for local authority and region.
White Mixed Asian Black ChineseAll
pupils(8) White Mixed Asian Black Chinese All pupils(8)
England9 381,934 22,916 50,460 25,183 1,536 494,835 -0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.0
South West 43,422 1,400 930 526 102 47,294 -0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.0 -0.1
South Gloucestershire 2,203 96 68 32 4 2,428 -0.2 -0.3 0.6 0.0 -0.2 -0.2
Number of eligible pupils(3) Average Progress 8 score (4)(5)
Source DfE attainment tables Sept 20181. Includes entries and achievements by these pupils in previous academic years.2. State-funded schools include academies, free schools, city technology colleges, further education colleges with provision for 14- to 16-year-olds and state-funded special schools. They exclude independent schools, independent special schools, non-maintained special schools, hospital schools, pupil referral units and alternative provision. Alternative provision includes academy and free school alternative provision.3. Pupils at the end of key stage 4 who are included in the measure.
The table above shows that all groups apart from Asian students perform worse than the English or South West average.
21
Trends at KS4
All categories of pupils apart from those with EHCP’s in 2018 perform worse than the National Average in South Glos. However, all pupils, disadvantaged, SEN Support and pupils with EHCP’s performance has improved between 2017 and 2018.
Key Stage 4Key Measures: progress 8, attainment 8, attainment in English and mathematics and, from 2018, English Baccaleaurate average point score (EBacc APS). Reformed GCSE start being introduced from 2017 - comparison with previous years invalid.Progress 8 aims to capture the progress pupils make from the end of key stage 2 to the end of key stage 4. It compares pupils’ achievement – their Attainment 8 score – with the average Attainment 8 score of all pupils nationally who had a similar starting point (or ‘prior attainment’), calculated using assessment results from the end of primary school. Progress 8 is a relative measure, therefore the national average Progress 8 score for mainstream schools is zero.
Table 20 – Table to show trends at KS4 by SEN provision Progress 8KS4P8_AllKS4P8_AllKS4P8_All KS4P8_DisadvKS4P8_DisadvKS4P8_Disadv KS4P8_SuppKS4P8_SuppKS4P8_Supp KS4P8_EHCPKS4P8_EHCPKS4P8_EHCP
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018South Glos -0.23 -0.32 -0.18 -0.82 -0.90 -0.76 -0.62 -0.73 -0.54 -0.96 -1.10 -0.86National 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.38 -0.40 -0.44 -0.38 -0.43 -0.43 -1.03 -1.04 -1.09Stat Neig. -0.02 -0.08 0.00 -0.42 -0.59 -0.60 -0.41 -0.51 -0.40 -0.98 -0.98 -1.10
SEN EHCPAll Pupils Disadvantaged SEN Support
Source Key Academic Measures LA National Results Sept 2018 based on DfE attainment tables 2018
Table 21 - Table to show GCSE and equivalent entries and achievements of pupils by ethnicity
Main Category Sub-Category%4+ En&Ma (2017-2018)
Difference from South
Glos All
Difference from 2018 National Ethnicity
groupsAsian or Asian British Bangladeshi 60% not significant not significantAsian or Asian British Indian 83% higher not significantAsian or Asian British Pakistani 67% not significant not significantAsian or Asian British Any other Asian background 67% not significant not significantBlack or Black British Black - African 75% not significant not significantBlack or Black British Black - Caribbean 45% not significant not significantBlack or Black British Any other Black background 60% not significant not significantChinese Chinese 80% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background White and Asian 70% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background White and Black African 61% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background White and Black Caribbean 56% not significant not significantMixed/Dual background Any other mixed background 61% not significant not significantAny other ethnic group Any other ethnic group 53% not significant not significantUnclassified Unclassified (REFU or NOBT) 48% not significant not significantWhite White - British 62% not significant lowerWhite White - Irish 50% not significant not significantWhite Traveller of Irish heritage N/A N/A White Gypsy/Roma Supp not significant not significantWhite Any other white background 69% not significant not significantAll 62%
KS4 – % 4+ En & Ma by Ethnicity across 2017-2019 data
Table 21 shows that the following pupils perform less well than average:
White British
22
Exclusions and Elective Home Education
Table 22: Permanent Exclusions by group 2019
2017-2018 2018-2019 TrendWhite British 48 44 ImproveMixed Race 6 2 ImproveAsian 0 1 DeclineBlack 2 2 ImproveChinese 0 0 NAOther ethnic group including White Other 4 1 Improve Ethnicity not given 0 0 NAGRT/Irish Traveller 1 2 Decline
Table 23: Fixed Term Exclusions by group 2019
2017-2018 2018-2019 TrendWhite British 2879 2217 ImproveMixed Race 167 169 DeclineAsian 16 19 DeclineBlack 25 36 DeclineChinese 1 0 ImproveOther ethnic group including White Other 58 77 DeclineEthnicity not given 23 12 ImproveGRT/Irish Traveller 14 22 Decline
There has been an overall reduction in the numbers of pupils who have been excluded both permanently and for a fixed period, however the data for those pupils from BAME backgrounds, overall is not correlating to this trend with fixed term exclusions, with an overall increase for the group as a whole.
All other groups, FSM pupils, those with SEND support and EHCPs are all witnessing an improvement from 2018-2019, it is BAME pupils that are the only group where exclusions have increased.
The following tables show the Fixed Exclusions by ethnicity across the last three academic years (where the numerator or denominator of the rate is 1 or 2 the rate has been suppressed).
As pupils can receive more than one fixed period exclusion an exclusion rate is calculated as the number of exclusions as a percentage of the total number of sole and dual main registered pupils on roll as at January census day. In order to increase the size of the data and smooth any annual peaks which may be based on behaviour policy in a given period, the table also includes an average rate for the 3 years.
The graph below shows the average rate, against the South Glos. average and the National rate in 2017/2018 (2018/2019 data not yet available).
Permanent exclusions have not been included due to the small numbers which would need to be suppressed as often are 2 or under.
23
Summary tables
Table 24 – Table to show fixed exclusion rates according to ethnicity
Main Category Sub-Category
2016/17 Fixed exclusion rate
2017/18 Fixed exclusion rate
2018/19 Fixed exclusion rate
Average rate over 3 years
National Fixed exclusion rate 2017/18
Asian or Asian British
Bangladeshi3.1 0.0 0.0 1.13 1.93
Asian or Asian British
Indiansupp supp supp 0.54 0.75
Asian or Asian British
Pakistani5.1 5.3 5.8 5.42 2.52
Asian or Asian British
Any Other Asian backgroundsupp supp supp 0.53 1.45
Black or Black British
Black - African3.2 1.3 3.6 2.73 4.08
Black or Black British
Black - Caribbean23.4 15.4 17.4 18.66 10.46
Black or Black British
Any Other Black background9.2 28.5 10.4 16.10 5.8
Chinese Chinese supp supp supp supp 0.5Mixed/Dual background
White and Asian2.1 2.6 2.9 2.55 3.41
Mixed/Dual background
White and Black African16.2 10.7 7.3 11.33 5.78
Mixed/Dual background
White and Black Caribbean14.9 12.4 14.7 14.00 10.13
Mixed/Dual background
Any Other Mixed background10.9 9.4 9.6 9.98 4.52
Unclassified Unclassified (REF & NOBT) 23.5 20.5 14.4 19.48 8.05Any other ethnic group
Any other Ethnic Group6.4 5.7 4.6 5.50 3.16
White White - British 7.1 8.9 7.7 7.88 5.7
White White - Irish supp supp supp 8.09 5
White Traveller of Irish Heritage 9.4 12.7 6.2 9.50 17.42
White Gypsy/Roma 18.5 11.4 27.0 19.19 16.52
White Any Other White background 2.3 2.5 3.9 2.90 2.74
All All Pupils 7.1 8.3 7.3 7.59 5.08
Chart 5 – Chart to show fixed exclusions by ethnicity
24
Bangladeshi
Indian
Pakistani
Any Other A
sian backg
round
Black - A
frica
n
Black - C
aribbean
Any Other B
lack backg
round
Chinese
White and Asia
n
White and Black
Africa
n
White and Black
Caribbean
Any Other M
ixed backg
round
Unclassi
fied (REF &
NOBT)
Any other E
thnic Group
White - B
ritish
White - I
rish
Travelle
r of Ir
ish Herit
age
Gypsy/
Roma
Any Other W
hite backg
round0.00
10.00
20.00
Fixed Exclusions by Ethnicity 3 year average (2017-2019)
Average rate over 3 years 2017/2018 National S Glos Average
The following tables show the reasons captured in the school management information system for each exclusion as a %. The data has not been broken down by ethnicity due to the small numbers within some categories, but have included a BAME category which is all ethnicities excluding ‘White British’, ‘Refused’ and ‘Not obtained’. A large % of the reasons are recorded as Other.
Table 25 – Table to show Fixed Period Exclusion reasons
Overall Fixed Exclusions - 3 years BAME - overall Fixed exclusionsBullying 0.39% Bullying 0.48%
Drug and alcohol related 2.78% Drug and alcohol related 4.09%
Persistent Disrupt. Behaviour 23.29% Persistent Disrupt. Behaviour 18.08%
Damage 2.10% Damage 2.28%
Other 31.00% Other 29.31%
Physical assault v. adult 7.39% Physical assault v. adult 6.09%
Physical assault v. pupil 11.06% Physical assault v. pupil 14.27%
Racist abuse 0.75% Racist abuse 0.76%
Sexual misconduct 0.18% Sexual misconduct 0.38%
Theft 0.58% Theft 0.95%
Verbal abuse/ threat v.adult 18.04% Verbal abuse/ threat v.adult 19.60%
Verbal abuse/ threat v. pupil 2.44% Verbal abuse/ threat v. pupil 3.71%
25
SEND Pupil Projections and Future Trends (using current incidence rates)The table below shows the current projections for future ECHPs. The data shows a projected 25% increase in need over the next 10 years.
Table 26: Table to show projections for future ECHPs as disaggregated according to year groups. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
-2 Pre-School Age 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12
-1 Pre-School Age 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34
0 Reception 82 80 80 80 79 81 82 83 84 84 85
1 Year 1 85 87 85 85 85 83 86 87 88 89 89
2 Year 2 91 93 95 94 93 93 92 95 96 97 98
3 Year 3 85 87 89 91 90 89 89 88 91 92 93
4 Year 4 102 102 105 107 110 108 108 108 106 109 111
5 Year 5 109 116 117 120 123 126 124 123 123 121 124
6 Year 6 109 113 121 121 124 128 131 128 128 128 125
7 Year 7 105 106 109 117 117 120 124 127 124 124 124
8 Year 8 112 117 117 121 130 130 134 137 141 138 137
9 Year 9 120 119 124 125 129 138 138 142 146 149 147
10 Year 10 98 103 102 106 107 111 118 119 122 125 128
11 Year 11 138 136 143 142 148 148 154 164 165 169 174
12 Post 16 111 105 103 108 107 112 112 116 124 125 128
13 Post 16 114 108 101 100 105 104 108 109 113 120 121
14 Post 19 66 89 84 79 78 82 81 85 85 88 94
15 Post 19 35 63 84 80 75 74 78 77 80 81 84
16 Post 19 18 33 60 80 76 71 70 74 73 76 77
17 Post 19 12 14 26 46 63 59 56 55 58 57 60
18 Post 19 4 9 11 20 36 49 46 43 43 45 45
19 Post 19 2 3 7 9 16 28 38 36 34 33 35
20 Post 19 1 2 2 6 7 12 22 30 28 26 26
Total 1641 1726 1808 1879 1939 1993 2036 2070 2096 2123 2149
Source: 0-25 Education Data Dashboard 2018
26
Growth by Primary Need by 2026
The table below shows that the biggest area of growth in need is projected to be within Mainstream Schools, FE Colleges and Special Schools. Growth is particularly prominent amongst students with ASD.
Table 27: Table to show projections for future ECHPs as disaggregated according to year groups.
ASD HI MLD MSI PD PMLD SEMH SLCN SLD SPLD VIOther Total
AP 9 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 22
EHE 10 0 8 0 1 0 4 3 3 0 0 0 29
FE college 73 13 64 0 10 0 42 35 12 4 1 0 255
Independent school 5 0 4 0 4 0 10 1 1 4 1 0 31
Independent special school 50 8 1 0 7 8 7 5 8 4 1 1 100
Independent specialist college 20 0 10 0 7 0 3 5 14 1 0 0 60
Mainstream 182 22 122 0 72 0 134 219 10 10 14 13 799
OLA Mainstream 9 1 8 0 5 0 9 7 1 0 1 0 42
OLA Special school 7 7 1 0 9 5 13 0 3 0 0 0 45
OTH 5 0 4 1 1 0 9 0 1 0 1 1 25
Pre-school 7 0 1 0 9 0 0 17 4 0 0 0 38
PRU 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
RB 73 16 3 0 16 0 5 41 0 0 7 0 160
SG Special 120 0 100 4 34 22 68 58 123 5 4 0 538
SU 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4
Total 571 67 329 5 177 35 318 390 181 29 31 16 2,149Source: 0-25 Education Data Dashboard 2018
27
SEND Projected Growth by Phase
These tables clearly show the increasing pressure on Post 19 Services with school leavers accounting for a 200% increase in provision by 2026.
Table 28: Table to show growth according to phase
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
No. Increase %
Pre-school 42 42 43 43 43 45 45 45 46 46 46Growth 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 10
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
No. Increase %
Primary 663 678 691 697 703 709 712 712 715 719 725Growth 15 12 6 6 6 3 0 3 5 6 62 9
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
No. Increase %
Secondary 573 580 595 611 630 647 667 689 697 705 709Growth 7 15 15 20 17 20 21 9 8 4 136 24
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
No. Increase %
P16 225 212 204 208 212 216 221 225 237 245 249Growth -13 -8 4 4 4 5 5 12 8 4 24 11
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
No. Increase %
P19 138 213 275 320 350 376 391 399 401 407 419Growth 75 62 45 30 26 15 8 1 6 13 281 204
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
No. Increase %
Total 1641 1726 1808 1879 1939 1993 2036 2070 2096 2123 2149Growth 85 83 71 60 54 43 34 26 27 26 508 31
Source: 0-25 Education Data Dashboard 2018
28
Trends in South Gloucestershire - Ethnicity
The following table shows the number of each ethnic group, as collected in the January school census from 2017-2019. The numbers include all years from and including the Reception year. This table helps illustrate the small cohort sizes in South Gloucestershire for some categories, which affects the results in the following tables.
Table 29 – Table to show trends in regard to ethnicity of pupilsMain category Sub Category 2017 2018 2019 Trend
As ian or As ian British Bangladeshi 97 85 83
As ian or As ian British Indian 561 614 663
As ian or As ian British Pakis tani 255 264 274
As ian or As ian British Any other As ian ba ckground 372 380 371
Black or Black Bri tish Black - African 402 448 505
Black or Black Bri tish Black - Caribbean 111 123 109
Black or Black Bri tish Any other Black background 120 130 135
Chines e Chines e 132 152 155
Mixed/Dual background White and As ian 431 462 479
Mixed/Dual background White and Black African 204 196 218
Mixed/Dual background White and Black Caribbean 619 643 681
Mixed/Dual background Any other mixed background 667 672 685
Any other ethnic group Any other ethnic group 204 228 259
Unclas s i fi ed Unclas s i fi ed (NOBT or Refu) 289 307 292
White White - British 32801 32387 32267
White White - I ri sh 39 46 51
White Travel l er of Iri sh heri tage 64 71 65
White Gypsy/Roma 27 35 37
White Any other white ba ckground 1708 1830 1911
Total 39103 39073 39240
29
SECTION 3 – IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF EQUALITIES ISSUES AND IMPACTSSummary of key findings emerging from Section 2.
The proportion of students represented by the following groups are more likely to be impacted by any change to mainstream school funding – These groups that are currently performing lower than the South Glos./National Average.Early Years – White-Irish, Traveller of Irish Heritage, Gypsy/RomaKS2 – Black Caribbean, Traveller of Irish Heritage, White BritishKS4 – White British
Gypsy/Roma and White/Black African students are those most likely to benefit from an improved SEN provision as these students are more highly represented amongst all EHCP requests based on 2019 data (Jan - July).
Year 11 students followed by Year 9 have the biggest proportion of EHCP’s. These are the groups that would be impacted on the most by any change to SEN funding.
Future requests for EHCP’s is growing amongst pupils aged between 0-4 years. Extra funding to support this group of students through improved SEN support could potentially reduce the pressure on EHCP requests and improve long term outcomes for these students.
Early years students with EHCP’s are represented proportionally more than the South West/English Average. Extra funding to support this sector could potentially bring this back in line and put less long term pressure on the High needs block.
Pupil attainment for those with EHCP’s at Early years/Primary and Secondary level are good or better and therefore would improve even further with any improvement in work from the HNWG or any additional funding.
Transferring funding out of the schools block could have an adverse effect on the outcomes of mainstream students with no identified SEN as there would be less money for schools to spend on these students – teachers/resources etc. The attainment and progress of these students is also currently below the National Average at KS4.
Boys are Girls with no SEN are equally likely to be impacted on by any funding change as they are represented equally in mainstream schools.
EHCP’s are proportionally represented more by Boys (71%). Boys would therefore benefit the most by the work of the High Needs working group or any additional funding.
Attainment of pupils currently receiving SEN support at KS2 and progress at KS4 are below the English Average. Extra funding through the Cluster Fund would therefore directly benefit these group of students and should help improve outcomes.
Special Schools are currently facing more complex students, extra funding through increase base rates should help them better accommodate the needs of these students. This would put less strain on South Gloucestershire needing to fund independent placements.
There has been an overall reduction in the numbers of pupils who have been excluded both permanently and for a fixed period, however the data for those pupils from BAME backgrounds, overall is not following this trend with fixed term exclusions, with an overall increase for the group as a whole. The following groups of students would benefit from extra funding targeted through the High Risk Group (HRG): Pakistani, Black Caribbean, White and Black African, White and Black Caribbean, White British.
30
There has been an increase in pupils being electively home educated who have had SEND support as part of their previous schooling. There is evidence that for some of these pupils that they may be better supported through SEND support in school, rather than at home, which the funding would potentially support.
Consultation Options
All options include the continued work of the High Needs Working Group (HNWG) overseen by the Schools Forum and ultimately cabinet in implementing their Strategic Plan with the aim of achieving a future in-year balance.
Impact for Pupils and Schools
OPTION 1F ormula - £6m of 2020/21 £8m growth distributed to schools purely through the NFF, continuation of 18/19 & 19/20 £2.9m transfer from Schools Block to SEND + £2m of £8m growth transferred to support schools with SEND and 0.5% MFG.
Total Transfer- £4.9m between schools block and high needs block
This option would benefit pupils with EHCP’s, those on SEN support and those at potential risk of exclusion highlighted through the initiatives of the HNWG set out on page 5-6. The category of pupils that would be impacted the most are those summarised on page 28. By transferring £2m out of £8m this would mean that there would be less base level funding for schools. Over half of the Primary and Secondary schools would be below the minimum funding level. However, this £2m isn’t being “lost” to the system and will flow directly back to help pupils in mainstream schools.
Half of all Secondary and Primary schools would fall below the minimum per pupil level of funding.
OPTION 2Formula - £8m growth distributed to schools purely through the NFF, continuation of 18/19 & 19/20 £2.9m transfer from Schools Block and 0.5% MFG.
Total Transfer £2.9m between schools block and high needs block
This option would benefit more mainstream schools than the previous option. Pupils with EHCPs’ and those on SEN support would not benefit as there would not be the funding levels available to support the initiatives set out at the start of this document (page 5-6). The deficit and pressures on the High needs block would continue to grow.
A third of all Secondary and Primary schools would fall below the minimum per pupil level of funding.
OPTION 3Forumula - £8m of 2020/21 £8m growth distributed to schools purely through
the NFF and 0.5% MFG.
No transfer between schools block and high needs block
31
This option would benefit schools who would stand to gain the most through the NFF, particularly schools that educate pupils who are more disadvantaged. There would also be no extra funding to contribute to the initiatives set out on page 5-6 putting more strain on the High Needs Block.
There would be a small reduction in the number of schools that would fall below the minimum per pupil level of funding when compared with the previous option (8 fewer Primary’s and 1 Secondary).
OPTION 1 U plift £6m of 2020/21 £8m growth distributed to schools targeted to UPLIFT schools below the DfE min per pupil levels, continuation of 18/19 & 19/20 £2.9m transfer from Schools Block to SEND + £2m of £8m growth transferred from schools block to support schools with SEND and 0.5% MFG.
Total Transfer £4.9m between schools block and high needs block
This option would see two thirds of all Primary and Secondary schools fall below the minimum funding level. However, there would be £2m of funding to allow the HNWG initiatives to take place and benefit those pupils highlighted in page 5-6.
OPTION 2 U plift - £8m growth distributed to schools to Uplift schools below the DfE min. per pupil levels, continuation of 18/19 & 19/20 £2.9m transfer from Schools Block 0.5% MFG.
Total Transfer £2.9m between schools block and high needs block
No schools would fall under the minimum level of funding. There would be no funding to help pay for the HNWG initiatives and this would put more strain on the High Needs Block and SEND funding.
OPTION 3 U plift - £8m of 2020/21 growth distributed to schools targeted to uplift schools below the DfE min. and 6.48% MFG.
No transfer between schools block and high needs block
Again no schools would be below the minimum level of funding under this option. However there would be no funding to pay for the HNWG £2m initiatives set out earlier (pages 5-6).
32
SECTION 4 - EVIDENCE INFORMING THIS EqIAA
July 2017 Data Report to Schools Forum 0-25 Education Data Dashboard 2018Schools key measures 2018 v 1.7 DfEOffice for National Statistics (ONS)EHCP Dashboard South Glos.SEND Strategy 2018 - 2023SEND data return 2017Department for Education Benchmarking Tool – Version 2 2017-18Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Research Report 111
Data Web Links:www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2018
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-in-england-2016-to-2017
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-curriculum-assessments-key-stage-2-2018
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/a-level-and-other-16-to-18-results-2017-to-2018provisional
National Funding Formula:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-funding-formula-tables-for-schools-and-high-needs-2020-to-2021
Schools Forum Reports November 2019:https://www.southglos.gov.uk/education-and-learning/schools-and-education/financing-schools/the-schools-forum/
33
Appendix 1: Glossary
Special School - If your child has more severe or complex needs they may need to go here.
Mainstream School – This means general education classes are combined with special education classes. Schools that practice mainstreaming believe that students with special needs who cannot function in a general education classroom to a certain extent belong in the special education environment.
Resource Base - A resource base is a specialist provision within a mainstream school for a specific area of special need or disability. Pupils will access Mainstream classes supported by a specified time in the Resource Base.
Access Centre:These are units attached to a school where pupils are taught separately from those pupils in mainstream (similar to a mini special school).
Pupil Referral Unit - is an establishment maintained by a local authority which is specifically organized to provide education for children who are excluded, sick, or otherwise unable to attend a mainstream or special maintained school.
P8 Score- It aims to capture the progress a pupil makes from the end of primary school to the end of secondary school. It is a type of value added measure, which means that pupils’ resultsare compared to the actual achievements of other pupils with similar prior attainment.
P Levels - performance descriptors for pupils aged 5 to 16 with special educational needs (SEN) who are working below the standard of the national curriculum tests and assessments.
Maintained school - This means they are overseen, or 'maintained', by the Local Authority.
Academy - Schools are state-funded schools in England which are directly funded by the Department for Education and independent of local authority control.
Free school - Free schools are new independent state schools. Charities, groups of teachers, existing schools and parents can set up these new schools if they can prove that they are needed and wanted by a local community.
SEN Support – is the process schools and similar settings use to identify and meet the needs of children with special educational needs.
Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)- Every Local Authority receives money in the form of an annual grant for education from Central Government; this grant is ring-fenced specifically for education (this means it can only be used for that specific purpose). The grant is allocated each year to the Council with the total amount broken up into four areas (known as Blocks) as follows:
The Schools Block – covers mainly funding that is passed onto mainstream schools (i.e. all schools other than special schools) including academies. Schools have complete discretion on how they use this funding to run their school to support all pupils from reception age to year 11. Schools normally use a large element of this funding for their day to day running costs including staffing.
34
High Needs Block – covers spending to support pupils with high levels of needs in relation to SEND. A large proportion of this is used to support pupils with SEND in mainstream school provision as well as funding Special Schools and Resource Bases in mainstream schools.
Early Years Block – this mainly covers funding to nursery providers.
Central Services Block – this mainly covers statutory duties exercised by Local Authorities in relation to Schools e.g. school audits, school improvement etc.
High Risk Group (HRG) – A group set up to oversee and support students that are risk of exclusion from mainstream school.
National Funding Formula - is the method that the Government is proposing to use to decide how much money should be given to English state schools each year.
Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) - The minimum funding guarantee (MFG) is a protection against changes in per pupil school budget share funding between the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 academic years. The amount of protection will vary according to the impact of local changes in the funding formula and the effect of these on individual per pupil rates.
Terms and abbreviations frequently used within SEND:AP Alternative ProvisionASD Autistic Spectrum DisorderAWPU Average Weighted Pupil UnitCYP Child and Young PersonDfE Department for EducationDSG Dedicated Schools GrantEHE Electively Home educatedEHCP Education Health and Care planFSM Free school MealsHI Hearing ImpairmentMLD Moderate Learning DifficultyMSI Multiple Sensory ImpairmentLAs Local AuthoritiesOLA Other Local Authority OTH Other ProvisionPD Physical DisabilityPMLD Profound and Multiple Learning DifficultyPRU Pupil Referral UnitRB Resource BaseSEMH Social, Emotional and Mental HealthSEND Special Educational Needs and DisabilitiesSLD Severe Learning DifficultySpLD Specific Learning DifficultiesSU Special UnitVI Visual Impairment
35
