Agenda item

The Forum considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which provided an update on the High Needs Place Funding for 2016/17. At the previous meeting, the Heads Funding Group had heard that place funding in 2015/16 was based initially on place funding allocated by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) in 2014/15. The local authority had attempted to make ‘exceptional’ requests for increases to the planned places at Brookfields, The Castle, Trinity ASD Resource, West Berkshire Training Consortium (WBTC) and Newbury College but all were refused apart from 4 planned places for the WBTC and Newbury College due to the stringent criteria. A formal challenge against this decision was unsuccessful; an experience shared by many other local authorities.

Since the last meeting, the EFA had notified Local Authorities that it would base 2016/17 financial year place funding on the place funding allocated for 2015/16. There would be no opportunity for Local Authorities to request additional planned places as there was the previous year. However, local authorities would have the flexibility to move planned place funding between institutions in line with any changing patterns of need and the regulations.

Local Authorities might request additional planned places for academies and Further Education Colleges, but if these were agreed, the funding would be taken from the Authority’s DSG. Any places which needed to be funded over and above the current total of 609 would therefore represent a pressure on the High Needs Block (HNB).

There had been a shortfall in 2015/16 in planned place funding for Brookfields, The Castle, Trinity ASD Resource, Newbury College and Speenhamland PD Resource. However, there had been over provision of planned place funding at some other establishments, with the net shortfall being 7 places currently. Numbers at The Castle and Brookfields continued to rise and were likely to further exceed planned place numbers in 2016/17, which would be an additional pressure on the High Needs Block. It was anticipated that the Trinity ASD Resource would take two or three more children in September 2016. Newbury College numbers were likely to fluctuate and could increase.

As some institutions had more planned places than they required, a decision would need to be taken for 2016/17 as to whether some of the “surplus” planned places would be reallocated. However, this was likely to be difficult for small resourced units as they might then be unable to fund the required basic level of staffing to run the resource. Post 16 planned places could not be removed from schools’ budgets.

A request has been made to the EFA for 5 planned places for the Trinity ASD Resource which opened in September. If agreed, this funding would be removed from the DSG. These places were already being funded and therefore this did not represent an additional funding pressure on the HNB. No other requests for changes to planned places at academies or FE Colleges had been made. Changes to planned places at maintained schools, either up or down, did not require approval of the EFA.

There was surplus post 16 planned place funding in five mainstream schools, but under EFA regulations this funding could not be removed from schools without agreement. There might, however, be opportunities to reduce top up funding to these schools to take in to account surplus place funding.

Four schools with resourced units had more planned places than High Needs students. These were: Kennet, Westwood Farm Infant, Westwood Farm Junior and Winchcombe.

Discussions with these Headteachers were being held and had not all yet been concluded. However, initial indications were that in most cases numbers would be higher in 2016-17 than they were currently and therefore there was likely to be limited scope to remove any planned place funding. An update would be given at the January 2016 meetings of the Heads’ Funding Group and Schools Forum.

Any additional planned place funding allocated to special schools would therefore be an additional pressure on the HNB.

Peter Hudson entered the meeting at 5.44pm

David Ramsden assessed that balancing place funding would not redistribute a large sum of money. He further asked what decisions would need to be made and by whom. Ian Pearson advised that officers were negotiating with all schools to give back surplus funding.

Reverent Bennet noted that some schools would be subjected to small year-to-year fluctuations in their High Needs pupil numbers and the challenge would be to maintain a high quality and consistent provision.

David Ramsden advised that since the meeting of the Heads Funding Group he had considered the perceived surplus in funding received by Little Heath School and concluded that two pupils had signed up to courses and ultimately decided not to continue on the course so those pupils were now attending different institutions.

Ian Pearson summated that should officers’ negotiations not be successful the Schools Forum might have to take a decision on whether to reduce the place funding of particular institutions. At this stage however, Schools Forum were invited to acknowledge the issues and note the progress.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.