THE EXISTING ABP SYSTEM Sample Clauses

THE EXISTING ABP SYSTEM. Key findings Overall views of the current system  Overall, the balance of opinion was that the ABP system should be retained (suggestions for changes and developments to it are in Chapter 5)  Overall, the balance of opinion was that the ABPs offered good value for money. The four ABPs  ABPs varied in size (number of schools, number of pupils, geographic area) and in funding allocations (based on take-up of free school meals).  The Chair was viewed as an important strategic role requiring skill and experience to maintain a productive balance amongst the ABP schools.  The Coordinator role was viewed as crucial to the success of the ABP system and as a skilled, demanding job.  The remit and Terms and Conditions of the Coordinator role varied considerably across the four ABPs.  Despite common core purpose and objectives, the four ABPs had evolved unique characteristics in response to historical, contextual and philosophical differences. This was viewed as appropriate.  The main difference in local strategy was the degree of emphasis placed by each ABP on providing for those permanently excluded (‘reactive’) versus interventions to prevent permanent exclusions (‘proactive’). Uses of devolved funding  The balance of use of funding in each ABP reflected the relative emphasis on reactive versus proactive purposes of the ABP, as well as historical and contextual issues in each ABP. This variation was viewed as acceptable.  The two ABPs that prioritised prevention were operating a deficit budget.  ABP meetings were used to hold schools to account regarding the thresholds for accessing ABP funding, in line with each ABP’s local strategy.  ABPs varied as to whether or not they acted on schools’ behalf in terms of accountability for the quality of alternative provision bought with ABP funding. o One ABP had introduced an element of ‘payment by results’ into contacts with alternative providers as a type of quality assurance mechanism.  ABPs also varied in the robustness of the systems used to hold schools accountable for the uses of devolved ABP funding for Tier 2 work in schools. The provision funded by the ABPs  The ABP Provision Map, with its three Tiers of intervention, was viewed as helpful.  There was evidence from our sample schools of school investment in whole school systems supporting everyday good practice as the ‘bedrock’ of preventative work (Tier 1). All 20 senior leaders who responded to the questionnaire agreed that ‘Wave 1 ‘quality first’...