Agenda item

Action

Cathy Burnham presented the report on the Pupil Referral Units budget proposals 2015/16.

Currently there are four funding bands which are based on the pupil’s needs and the staffing ratio requirement.

For pupils in the Reintegration Service primary schools only pay 50% of the lowest band for a maximum of 12 weeks and secondary schools pay the lowest band but for a maximum of 6 weeks. In both primary and secondary the difference between the payment by the school and the band is paid by the High Needs Block.

Where a pupil is in the KS4 Alternative Curriculum the school pays £1500 a term, which is the equivalent of the AWPU, for a maximum of 2 years and the High Needs Block pays the difference between the AWPU and the actual band.

The effect on the High Needs Block is a forecast over spend of £400k in 2014/15 and for this pressure to remain in 2015/16.

The PRUs delegated budgets are forecasting a combined surplus of £400k (Alternative Curriculum £265k and Reintegration Service £135k), which is comprised mostly of contingency for potential running costs.

Ian Pearson read out the comments from Paul Dick and Charlotte Wilson regarding the PRUs surplus balances and questioned the recommended 2% increase in their budgets.

In the short term it is proposed that in the financial year 2015/16 the four current bands are averaged and a single band is used therefore the schools pay a greater proportion of the real costs and also reducing the bureaucracy involved in agreeing which band a pupil should be funded on.

The long term proposal from 2016/17 is that the PRU top up funding budget be delegated to the schools who directly commission services from the PRUs, alternative providers or develop their own resources.

Stacey Williams, Headteacher of the Reintegration Service, spoke on behalf of the PRUs. Stacey stated that there had been no discussion regarding a single band and there were other options including a return to the methodology used in 2013/14. Currently SEN top up funding comes out of the PRU top up funding. Stacey felt that the proposal represented the LA position from the high needs funding point of view, but did not look at how much the PRUs needed to function. It is the view of the PRUs that the proposal needs more modelling which takes time.

David Ramsden and other members felt that schools should be consulted on these proposals as they also supported the PRUs financially and that these should be examined at the next HFG.

ACTION: Schools consultation document to be produced on the longer term PRU proposal of delegating the budget from 2016/17.

ACTION: Impact data to be produced for HFG and Schools Forum. Report to return to the next Schools’ Forum.

C Burnham / HFG