Agenda item

Action

Jane Seymour and Cathy Burnham presented the report on the High Needs budget proposals 2015/16.

The High Needs Block DSG 2015/16 funding is £17.911m and the proposed budget is £18.951m before the proposed savings which means there is a shortfall of £1.040m. There has been no increase in funding yet there is a growth in demand for statutory provision.

The report contained proposed savings of £835k to the High Needs budget 2015/16.

The members asked whether the statutory services had been reviewed. Jane Seymour confirmed that this had already been done as the shortfall was £1.9m in the Schools’ Forum papers of 8^th December 2014.  

The proposed savings are:

Language & Literacy Centres

The possible saving of £67,300 would be achieved by closing one of the Language and Literacy Centres. This proposal has been discussed widely both within the HFG and with the Headteachers they represent. The service is highly regarded providing invaluable outreach services and early intervention; it is also currently oversubscribed. John Tyzack read a letter from Antony Gallagher, Headteacher at Burghfield St Mary’s Primary School in support of the LAL’s and the impact it would have on his school if the Theale Primary School LAL were closed. An opportunity may have presented itself to enable this saving but a closure of one of the centres would have widespread impact on helping children with dyslexia. Cutting lower level intervention support would lead to an increase in pupils requiring special placements in the future as dyslexia teachers are a costly and difficult service for schools to access individually. If the number of LALs were reduced to one the travelling distances involved would make it logistically and financially impractical.

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum did not agree the proposed saving of £67,300 by closing one of the Language and Literacy Centres.

Specialist Inclusion Support Service

The possible saving of £36,650 from SISS which provides outreach support from the special schools to the mainstream schools could either be achieved by reducing the level of service or asking schools to pay. However following meetings with the special schools the special schools have stated that they would be willing to continue funding the service from their own budget if the central funding needed to be withdrawn. This proposal means that the service can continue at its current level and remain free at point of use for the mainstream schools.

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposed saving of £36,650 in SISS as the service will be funded by the special schools.

SEN Pre School Children

The possible saving of £10,000 would be achieved by reducing the level of the service providing support to enable children with SEN to access non maintained and voluntary pre- school settings. The Heads Funding Group recommended that the alternative to reducing this service, which will eventually impact on the schools, is for the funding to come from the Early Years funding block, which has a large under spend this year instead of the High Needs block. Claire White confirmed that the regulations allow this to be funded out of the Early Years block. Graham Spellman asked why the entire budget could not be funded from the Early Years Block instead of just the £10k saving. The response was that it could have been but the recommendation was to confine the transfer between blocks to the saving required.

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed that £10,000 of the SEN Pre-School Children budget will be funded from the Early Years funding block.

Cognition and Learning Team

This service is currently free at the point of delivery and supports schools in relation to SEN provision and practice. The saving of £80,000 could be achieved by charging schools for certain services such as assessments and setting an income target.

Keith Watts asked whether a model for charging has been produced and whether the £80k was achievable. Jane Seymour stated that some work had been done and that the £80k was based on a notional cost for assessments but the charging had not been worked out in detail.

ACTION: Consultation between the Cognition and Learning Team and schools regarding what services are charged for and the costs.

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposed saving of £80,000 in the Cognition and Learning Team budget.

Equipment for SEN Pupils

The saving of £13,000 could be achieved if equipment is only purchased for pupils attending mainstream schools and resource units; special schools would fund these items from their own budgets. The Special Schools representative, Jon Hewitt, confirmed that the special schools equipment costs that were funded centrally would now come from the special schools own budgets.

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposed saving of £13,000 in the equipment for SEN pupils’ budget.

Early Intervention

The saving of £19,300 could be achieved if this funding for the Early Years

Language Project was ceased. The project is not a statutory provision and has been largely replaced by ECAT (Every Child A Talker).

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposed saving of £19,300 in the early intervention budget.

Medical Support

The saving of £5,000 could be achieved by schools absorbing the cost. There were no requests for funding from this budget last year.

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposed saving of £5,000 in the medical support budget.

PRU Outreach

The possible saving of £80,000 in the PRU Outreach budget 2015/16 could be achieved by reducing staffing and hence the number of outreach sessions pupils receive on re-entering mainstream school. More of the support would need to come from the school itself either directly or by purchasing the additional service and there is a risk that this would lead to more pupil exclusions. The remaining £117k budget could be incorporated in the Reintegration Service base budget and used flexibly by RS to support outreach pupils when they are not at full capacity although Stacey Williams, the RS Headteacher, doubted that this would lead to increased flexibility. Although the Schools’ Forum agreed in principal there was concern regarding the level of additional information and a review at the end of the Summer term was requested. 

ACTION: Review the PRU Outreach Budget at the July meeting of the Schools’ Forum

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposed saving of £80,000 in the PRU outreach budget.

Home Tuition

Home tuition is a statutory service and there is a possible pressure if the budget is cut by £28,500 because the service must be provided if a child cannot attend school. The budget in 2014/15 was £282k and the proposed budget 2015/16 is £300k including the saving. This is a volatile budget as it is needs led. All schools have a virtual learning environment (VLE) and there are e-learning packages which could be made better use of to support home tuition. It was suggested that a strategic plan was required which the service and the schools would participate in, but it was acknowledged that this was more likely to impact on the budget 2016/17. Members felt that insufficient additional analysis had been provided and a review at the end of the Summer term was required.

ACTION: Review the Home Tuition budget at the July meeting of the Schools’ Forum

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposed saving of £28,500 in the home tuition budget.

Vulnerable Children

The possible saving £20,000 could be achieved by tightening the funding criteria.

DECISION: The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposed saving of £20,000 in the vulnerable children budget.

Engaging Potential 

Members asked why there were no proposed savings against the £540k Engaging Potential budget. Engaging Potential is a commissioned statutory service providing alternative education packages for 14 KS4 young people with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties statements whose needs cannot be met in any other provision. The current contract is due for renewal in August 2015 and it may be possible for a lower price to be negotiated. However Jane Seymour pointed out that this was set up to reduce out of county costs and the annual £39k per place is good value compared to the £70k per annum for an out of county placement.

ACTION: Progress/impact on all the savings and the Engaging Potential tender are to be reviewed at the end of the Summer term.

J Seymour

C Burnham

C Burnham

J Seymour