Agenda item

To note the contents of the report in relation to the information requested at previous meeting on the Primrose Centre, Sandwell Community School (SCS) and Albright Education Centre.

The Forum received a report with information on commissioned places, occupancy and funding for Primrose, Sandwell Community School (SCS) and Albright. In addition, average occupancy figures were as up to date as possible, at the time of compiling the report.

 

Primrose PRU

 

The Local Authority had commissions 25 places per year at £10K per place plus, Element 3 top up for 20 places at £11,920 per place for primary permanently excluded pupils. The additional 5 places were preventative places and top up was chargeable to schools who used the service.

 

Table 1, below, showed the funding for the Primrose Centre for 2021/22 funded through the HNB.

 

Primrose Centre Funding 2021/22	No of Places	Cost per place £	Total 2021/22 £
Commissioned places	25	10,000	250,000
Top up for Permanent Exclusion	20	11,920	238,400
Top up for Preventative Places	5	0	0
Teachers P & P G			26,400
Total Funding for 2021/22 from the HNB			514,800

 

Table 2, below, showed the average occupancy for the period summer term 21, autumn term 21 and spring term 22 to date.

 

	Commissioned Places 1/4/21-31/3/22	No of Pupils Foot Fall	Average No of Pupils on roll
Average Occupancy PX Places	20	8	4
Average Occupancy No School Place- SEN	0	3	2
Average Occupancy No School Place – No SEN	0	1	0
Average Occupancy Preventative Places	5	36	14
Total	25	48	20

 

The number of permanently excluded places funded through the HNB for element 3 top up was reducing and pupils on preventative places were filling the vacancies.

 

Primrose charged schools £95 per day for a preventative place.

At the time of this report Primrose had 17 pupils on roll.

 

Sandwell Community School (SCS)

 

The Local Authority had commissions 180 places per year at £10K per place plus Element 3 Top up for 80 places at £7,346 per place for Secondary permanently excluded pupils. The additional 100 places were preventative places and top up was chargeable to schools who used the service.

 

Table 3, below, showed the funding for Sandwell Community School for 2021/22 funded through the HNB.

 

Sandwell Community School funding 2021/22	No of Places	Cost per place £	Total 2021/22 £
Commissioned places	180	10,000	1,800,000
Top up for Permanent Exclusion	80	7,346	587,700
Top up for Preventative Places	100	0	0
Less Building Adjustment for Tipton Site			-78,200
Teachers P & P G			118,800
Total Funding for 2021/22 from the HNB			2,428,300

 

Table 4, below, showed the Average occupancy for the period, summer term 21, autumn term 21 and spring term 22 to date.

 

	Commissioned Places 1/4/21-31/3/22	No of Pupils Foot Fall	Average No of Pupils on roll
1 Average Occupancy PX Places Funded through the HNB	80	102	64
2 Average Occupancy No School Place - SEN Funded through the HNB	0	3	2
3 Average Occupancy Alternative Provision Panel funded through the HNB	0	2	1
4 Average Occupancy Preventative Places Funded by Schools	100	80	30
5 Average Occupancy Fair Access Panel funded through the FAP funding	0	9	6
6 No funding agreed (very short occupancy)	0	15	3
7 Queries	0	31	21
Total	180	242	127

The LA had provided element 3 top up for 80 places earmarked for permanently excluded pupils. Items 1, 2 and 3 in the above table had been funded from the HNB and would be counted against the 80 funded places. The average occupancy for these categories was 67.

 

Item 4 would be funded by the Schools who commissioned the preventative places. The average was 30.

 

SCS had charged schools between £50 - £125 per day depending on the age and needs of the student.

 

The Fair Access Panel had agreed to fund item 5 in the table.

 

Item 6 were those pupils that would not be funded. There were some pupils who appeared on the roll at SCS for a very short period of time that would not attract any additional top up and some where they were the responsibility of another LA.

 

Item 7 were the pupils on roll that the agreement to fund had not been reached. Discussions around this funding were continuing.

 

The majority of the pupils in query had come through the Fair Access Panel route.

 

Overall there would be an average of 53 unoccupied funded places at £10k per place in SCS during 2021/2022.

 

At the time of this report SCS had 127 pupils on roll.

 

Albright Education Centre

 

Albright was Sandwell’s hospital and home education provision in addition to educating pupils on site. It was funded differently from the other 2 PRUs.

 

As Albright Education Centre was a PRU, the DfE have stated they cannot be treated as a post 16 establishment and receive additional funding from the ESFA.

 

The Local Authority had originally commissioned 40 places per year. In 2020 / 2021 this had increased by 10 places to provide Albright Education Centre with 50 commissioned at £10K per place. They did not receive any element 3 top up per pupil, but received a lump sum, determined by the DFE in the funding formula designated for the home and hospital tuition.

 

Table 5, below, showed the funding for Albright Education Centre for 2021/22 funded through the HNB.

 

Albright Education Centre Funding 2021/22	No of Places	Cost per place £	Total 2021/22 £
Original Commissioned places	40	10,000	400,000
Additional Agreed Commissioned places	10	10,000	100,000
Lump Sum for Home and Hospital Tuition			759,200
Teacher P & P G			38,500
Total Funding for 2021/22 from the HNB			1,297,700

 

Table 6, below, showed the average occupancy for the period summer term 21, autumn term 21 and spring term 22 to date. The pupil numbers only included the hospital tuition data if they were actually on roll at the point of requesting the data. The length of time that pupils access hospital tuition varied but was usually short term.

 

The pupils accessing hospital education would include both Sandwell residents and non-Sandwell residents.

 

The funding for hospital education had changed with the introduction of the HNB and funding had been adjusted to eliminate the need for funding recoupment between Local Authorities.

 

	Commissioned Places 1/4/21-31/3/22	No of Pupils Foot Fall	Average No of Pupils on roll
Average occupancy Full Time	50	62	22
Average occupancy Part time		30	9
Average Occupancy Post 16		5	2
Hospital Tuition		4	0
TOTAL	50	101	33

 

At the time of the report, Albright had 55 pupils on roll of which 3 were full time post 16 students and 15 were part time students.

 

A Member referred to the funded places at Primrose where 20 places had been funded, but only had 8 children in for that allocated funding of 20 places.

 

J Gill advised that, in view of the fact that Primrose was such as small PRU, it had to be managed carefully. Whilst 20 places had been funded for permanently excluded pupils via top-up, only 8 permanently excluded placements had been made within the current financial year.

 

The Member followed up by querying if the funding for these placements / capacity had been utilised for alternative placements and if additional charges had been made for such alterative placements.

 

J Gill advised that she could not comment on what income Primrose had charged as she only had access to the High Needs Block side of the ledger. She did, however, know that the charge was for £95 per day.

 

The Member requested clarification on this matter as he felt that it was of the utmost importance. He felt it was essential that the Forum were able to understand what was happening to the allocated funding which had been taken up by preventative placements rather than permanent exclusion placements, as commissioned placements should be available as / when required.

 

M Tallents agreed to investigate further in relation to all PRUs and feedback to the next meeting on this very matter.

 

A Member, in referring to SCS commissioned places, suggested that SCS should be informed by the LA of which placements were to be made to help alleviate pressure from Fair Access (FAP) and the High Needs Block. At the moment, he had the impression that it was SCS who was deciding on placements rather than the LA. He felt that it should be up to the FAP and / or the Inclusion.

 

Support to dictate which children go into the spaces which had been commissioned and funded via Inclusion Support.

 

M Tallents advised that it should be FAP or Inclusion support who would determine how that allocated funding would be allocated / used. She would however, investigate further on this matter and report back to the next meeting with an update.

 

In relation to SCS, another Member queried if commissioned places were not being fully utilised at present and if commissioned places for the new financial year would remain the same or be reduced accordingly.

 

M Tallents advised that, at present, commissioned places for permanent exclusions would remain the same. However, the LA would most likely need to look at the funding allocated to PRUs to ensure that they could still operate efficiently and effectively whilst reviewing the commissioned places allocated. Whilst there weren’t many permanent exclusions at primary level, and the number historically was low, the secondary exclusion rate had risen over recent years. Such places were monitored and could be recommissioned each year.

 

In relation to Albright, the Vice-Chair queried why an additional 10 places had been commissioned when the average number of pupils on roll was 33.

 

M Tallents advised that those places had been commissioned around 2 years ago to enable Albright to support children in Key Stage 2, taking into account the impact of the Pandemic and the anticipated impact upon mental health.

 

The Forum noted the contents of the report. Updates to the queries identified above would be provided at the next meeting.