Conclusions regarding the research questions Sample Clauses

Conclusions regarding the research questions. 6.1.1 How the money is used and accounted for? Each of the four ABPs had evolved a distinctive local strategy towards how the funding devolved to it was used and the accountability measures it had in place. Regarding use of the money, the main difference was the level of priority given to providing alternative education for those pupils deemed to be at Tier 3 of the ABP Provision Map (that is, permanently excluded pupils or those who, in order to prevent permanent exclusion, required full-time off-site programmes) versus those at Tier 2. We characterised this difference as ‘reactive’ versus’ proactive’: a focus on Tier 3 was in reaction to permanent exclusion or high risk of imminent permanent exclusion, whilst a focus on Tier 2 was designed to prevent pupils ever reaching Tier 3. In the four ABPs, the local strategy was agreed at the ABP meetings and there seemed to be an acceptance that it was appropriate that each ABP would have its own approach to the balance of use of its funding. The very practical problem arising, however, was that, in the two ABPs prioritising prevention over Tier 3 provision, the budget was overspent as the investment in Tier 2 had not succeeded in preventing a small number of students reaching Tier 3. Year on year, this became cumulative as, unless a student reached Tier 3 in Year 11 only, provision required to be paid for over more than one school year. Thus each year, each ABP ‘inherited’ its Tier 3 students from previous years (minus those who had left school) and added a few more. For this reason, the budget was under pressure also in the two ABPs that priorities spending on Tier 3. In terms of how money was accounted for, one mechanism was that each ABP Coordinator was responsible for presenting a budget update at each ABP meeting. A second mechanism was peer review. In the three ABPs where there was a consensus on local strategy, these meetings served as a place where members could challenge each other over requests for ABP money, acting as peer gatekeepers of the locally agreed funding thresholds. This system appeared less effective in one ABP where there were reports of divergent views about the best local strategy. A third accountability mechanism concerned the effectiveness of money devolved to schools for Tier 2 work. The ABPs varied in the robustness of their requirements for schools to account for how that money had been used and how effective it had been in meeting the needs of Tier 2 pupils. The fourth accountabili...