Agenda item

The Forum considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which presented saving options for balancing the high needs budget for 2016/17. Schools Forum was required to offer their views on the options presented and to recommend any other options for consideration. A final proposal would then be brought back to the meeting on 14 March 2016.

Ian Pearson noted that a thorough discussion had been held around these options at the meeting of the Heads Funding Group, resulting in none of the options being ruled out.

The predicted overspend on HNB in the 2015-16 financial year was currently estimated at £498k. This was in addition to the original budgeted shortfall of £127k. The total overspend of £625k would need to be met from the 2016/17 HNB allocation.

The main area of pressure in this budget was the increase in numbers of children with SEND attending specialist placements as opposed to mainstream schools. Specialist provision included resourced units, maintained special schools, special free schools, independent and non maintained special schools and PRUs.

The total number of pupils with Statements or EHC Plans had remained fairly static over the last four years, averaging around 760. However, as Table 3 showed, the proportion of children with Statements or EHC Plans who were included in mainstream schools was dropping quite rapidly.

TABLE 3
Year	2012	2013	2014	2015 (Jan)	2015 (Dec)
Total Statements/EHCP	759	773	758	747	768
% in mainstream	55%	53%	47%	45%	42%
% in specialist	45%	47%	53%	55%	58%

The Schools Forum would also need to consider the long term funding implications for the HNB if this trend away from mainstream inclusion continued.

Keith Watts enquired whether children with statements and EHC Plans had higher needs in December 2015 compared to 2012, or whether mainstream schools were less able to meet their needs. Ian Pearson answered that schools had reported they were less able to support children with moderate learning disabilities, in addition to a significant increase in the number of children being diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Anecdotally, schools were also finding children with behavioural difficulties harder to keep in mainstream schools.

Jane Seymour added that other reasons for the increase in specialist school placements might include the favourable reputation held by West Berkshire’s special schools which would lead a parent to choose a special school for their child. There were also independent schools setting up in the area which were drawing pupils to them.

Graham Spellman asked who made the decision regarding whether a child would be placed in a mainstream or specialist setting. Jane Seymour responded that there was a Special Education Needs (SEN) panel including a Headteacher and the SEN Manager, which took a robust approach in determining whether a child’s needs could not be met in a mainstream school. In cases where it was the parental preference for the child to go to a special school, however the SEN Panel disagreed it was required, the case would be allowed to go to a tribunal. However if the mainstream school was advising that they could not accommodate the child, it would be very difficult for the Local Authority to argue otherwise.

Keith Watts summated that part of the pressure on specialist units might be that mainstream schools were less able to cope with children with high needs. Jane Seymour agreed that this was true to a point and the Local Authority always tried to support a school, however if a school could no longer support a child, the Local Authority could not avoid making a placement into a special school.

David Ramsden stated that it would be helpful to see a breakdown of the entry points at which a child moved to a special school. Jane Seymour replied that the data could be provided and that some placements were made at the transition from primary to secondary school but likewise there were a number of in-year placements.

David Ramsden opined that more information over time would be helpful and that as a Headteacher of a mainstream school, he often would have a child in the school who he thought would be better accommodated in a special school.

Keith Harvey asked whether the shift towards special schools in accommodating pupils with high needs corresponded with an increase in the number of places that the special schools could offer. Jane Seymour advised that there had been an increase in the number of free schools, but also ASD resources had opened in Reading, Bracknell and Oxfordshire.

Ian Pearson noted that a further strategic discussion would be required between Local Authority, Schools and non-Schools partners because unless the funding situation changed, big changes would be required to how children’s high needs were met.

A list of the 19 savings options that could be considered was presented to the Schools Forum members. All the options had implications for schools, whether this was removal/reduction of a service currently received by schools for free, or requiring schools to pay for the cost of services, whether this was through the blanket removal of funding from school budgets or requiring schools to purchase services at point of delivery. In order to reduce spend to the level of resource being received; reductions of this magnitude would be required.

Option 1 – Contribution from Schools Block – 16/17 headroom

Option 2 – Contribution from Schools Block – by reducing current funding rates to schools

Ian Pearson introduced savings options 1 and 2 and outlined that contributing the anticipated headroom of £607k from the Schools Block 2016/17 would have a positive impact to reduce the £1.9m pressure. Schools Forum would have to take a decision at this meeting on whether to agree to options 1 and 2 as the Schools Block Budget had to be submitted to the DfE. There might be an argument that while funds had been allocated to the Schools Block, there had been significant movement of children to being funded by the High Needs Block, and therefore the funding should follow suit.

Options 2a and 2b were:

Option (a) - reducing the per pupil funding (AWPU) by £10 per pupil. This would generate an additional £167k to transfer to the HNB (more schools would qualify for minimum funding guarantee). Funding removed would be proportional to size of school.

Option (b) – reducing the lump sum by £5,000 per school. This would generate an additional £240k to transfer to the HNB. Funding removed would be equal for all schools, irrelevant of size.

Councillor Mollie Lock expressed the view that option b would be particularly difficult for smaller schools with lower budgets. Ian Pearson advised that some schools would be protected by the Minimum Funding Guarantee and increases in funding as a result of increased pupil numbers, which would mitigate the impact of reductions to the lump sum.

Jane Seymour, in introducing the remaining savings options, sought to reiterate that it had been an extremely difficult task to identify potential savings and in attempt to continue to meet the Local Authority’s statutory obligations, had been forced to consider savings in areas that she would have preferred not to.

Option 3 - Resourced unit place funding     

The number of pupils on roll at the Westwood Farm Schools’ Hearing Impaired Resourced units had been consistently below capacity by 5 or more places for some time. This was in line with a national trend of falling numbers in hearing impaired resourced units, as more children with hearing impairment were attending their local mainstream schools. Funding for 5 planned places could be removed with effect from September 2016 (Full year savings would not be achieved until 17-18).

Option 4 - Mainstream top ups

When a pupil had a Statement of Special Educational Needs or an Education, Health and Care Plan, the cost of their additional support was topped up, over and above the first £6,000 which the school was required to fund. Top up bands were notionally based on a number of hours of teaching assistance, but schools were encouraged to use funding flexibly for small group support as well as one to one support. It would be possible to reduce funding bands by an agreed percentage, for example 5%.

At this point, David Ramsden sought to confirm that the Schools Forum would not be required to make decisions against these proposed savings; Ian Pearson clarified that only options 1 and 2 required a decision at the meeting.

Graham Spellman thanked officers for their work in providing savings options and asked if they could further advise which options it would be preferred the Schools Forum didn’t take as for some options, the financial savings might not outweigh the implications and risks, particularly where withdrawal of the service might lead to an increase in parents seeking statements or EHC Plans. David Ramsden noted that if all the maximum savings options were taken, an overall saving of £2.1m would be achieved which was only £200k above the total savings required.

Jane Seymour advised that option 4 would only be successful if taken in partnership with schools, who would be required to absorb the reductions in top-up funding.

Option 5 – Resource unit top ups

Similarly, schools with resourced units receive planned place funding of £10,000 for each place. They then received top up funding based on the pupil’s funding band. The funding bands were based on notional staffing ratios for different levels of need. It would be possible to reduce funding bands by an agreed percentage, for example 5%.

Keith Watts asked whether head teachers of resourced units had been consulted on these proposals. Jane Seymour advised that only the Heads Funding Group had been consulted on at present, which included a Headteacher with two resourced units and who was in support of the proposals.

Bruce Steiner stated that it was difficult for a layperson to fully assess the financial implications which might arise as a consequence of making the saving. Jane Seymour advised that she could consult more widely on this savings option.

Option 6 – Special school top ups

Special schools received planned place funding of £10,000 for each place. They then received top up funding based on the pupil’s funding band. The funding bands were based on notional staffing ratios for different types and levels of need. It would be possible to reduce funding bands by an agreed percentage, for example 5% or 10%.

Option 7 – FE College top ups           

FE Colleges received planned place funding of £10,000 for each place. They then received top up funding based on the cost of the course which the student was undertaking. There was some evidence that top up fees charged by FE Colleges in the Berkshire area are above the national average. It was proposed that negotiations take place with FE Colleges to reduce top up fees in the 2016-17 academic year. It was difficult to quantify to what extent costs could be driven down, so a notional reduction of the budget by 10% was proposed.

Cathy Burnham introduced the three options relating to top-up funding received by Pupil Referral Units. She advised that when she had submitted the options she had intended that one of the three options could be taken, however colleagues had suggested that the three could be taken in conjunction.

Option 8 – PRU Top ups – Reduction in daily rate

It is proposed that the daily rates paid to the PRUs are reduced – Alternative curriculum by £20.25 per day (from 1/9/16), and Reintegration Service by £10.25 per day (from 1/4/16). If the contributions made by schools remain as per the current arrangements the savings would be as shown in Table 5. This assumes all places are filled – the saving would be greater if not all places are filled throughout the year.

TABLE 5	Current	Proposal	Saving
Alternative Curriculum – from 1/9/15	£103.25	£83.00	£107,730
Reintegration – Primary week 1 – 12 Primary wk 12 onwards	£65.90 £103.25	£55.65 £93.00	£7,790 £15,960
Reintegration – Secondary week 1 – 6 Secondary wk 6 onwards	£28.56 £103.25	£18.31 £93.00	£15,580 £31,160
Total Saving			£178,220

Option 9 – PRU Top ups – Increase contribution paid by schools

Alternatively, or in addition to the above proposal, the amount contributed by schools towards placements could be increased by £10 per day in the Reintegration Service, and by £750 per year in Alternative Curriculum (from 1/9/16). This would reduce the amount required to be met by the DSG. The savings would be as shown in Table 6, assuming all places are filled.

TABLE 6	Current	Proposal	Saving
Alternative Curriculum – annual contribution (change from1/9/16)	£4,500	£5,250	£24,000
Reintegration – Primary	£37.35	£47.00	£7,334
Reintegration – Secondary	£74.69	£85.00	£15,671
Total Saving			£47,005

Option 10 – PRU Top ups – Increase Number of Weeks Paid for by Schools

The current arrangement was that there is a cap placed on the number of weeks a school pays for a placement in the Reintegration Service, with the DSG picking up the full cost for the remaining weeks of the placement. The current trend is that most placements are exceeding this cap. Increasing the number of weeks that schools paid a contribution towards would provide a saving, though this was difficult to quantify as the length of placements at any one time changed from one week to the next. The savings shown in Table 7 assumed that two thirds of current placements were above the cap, and this would reduce to one half by increasing the number of weeks by 6.

 

TABLE 7	Current	Proposal	Saving
Reintegration – Primary	12 weeks	18 weeks	£14,193
Reintegration – Secondary	6 weeks	12 weeks	£56,765
Total Saving			£70,958

Peter Hudson sought clarification that option 8 would mean that schools would be paying the same rate; however a lower rate would be paid by the LA so less funding would be received by the PRUs. Cathy Burnham advised that interpretation was correct and that the implications of options 9 and 10 would be increased costs to schools.

Option 11 – Sensory Impairment

The Council was part of a joint arrangement with the five other Berkshire Local Authorities for the purchase sensory services. This included teachers of the deaf and teachers of the visually impaired who supported children in mainstream and special schools. The current contract would run until March 2017. The contract could be varied with 6 months’ notice, i.e. by June 2016. Until then the Local Authority would be reliant on the service provider agreeing to make savings on a voluntary basis.

Options would include

·         Reducing the number of visits for non statemented children with hearing impairment and providing training for schools to meet more needs themselves

·         Reorganising staffing so that a higher proportion of support for children with visual impairment is delivered by trained TAs rather than teachers.

Jane Seymour advised that this savings option was reasonably achievable.

Option 12 – Engaging Potential          

Engaging Potential had 14 places for students who have a Statement or EHC Plan and who have significant behavioural difficulties. This provision was set up as an alternative to more costly out of area placements. Pupils might have previously attended mainstream schools, Pupil Referral Units or specialist schools. The current contract would run until 2018, but could be varied with 6 months’ notice. An option would be to reduce the number of places from 14 to 10 from September 2016 and reserve places for students with the highest level of need. Full year savings would not be achieved until 2017/18.

Option 13 – Equipment

There was an option to reduce the budget from £20,000 to £10,000. Mainstream schools would need to fund more SEN equipment for pupils with Statements / EHC plans.

Jane Seymour advised that technically it was schools’ responsibility to provide specialist equipment.

Option 14 – Therapy Services

The service includes speech and language therapy and occupational therapy for children with Statements / EHC Plans. The option would be to reduce the budget by 10% and explore possibilities to reduce overhead costs, change the ratio of therapists to therapy assistants and reduce the frequency of therapists’ visits to schools. The associated risk might be possible legal challenge as therapy was quantified in Statements / EHC Plans.

Keith Watts asked if there was a risk in the reduction of the quality of the service provided if the provision was met by therapy assistants rather then therapists. Jane Seymour replied that evidence suggested that adequately qualified and trained therapy assistants could be very effective. As a saving of only £32k would be reached, there would not be a large impact on the service.

Option 15 – Language and Literacy Centres

Options could include

·         closing both LALs in July 2016

·         closing one LAL in July 2016 and retaining one LAL to serve the whole area

·         Closing both LALs and employing a peripatetic dyslexia teacher.

The implications / risks were that if all provision was lost, there would be a high risk of increased EHC requests from parents and schools, with associated costs, so net expenditure might increase.

 

Option 16 – Special school outreach

This service supported children with learning difficulties and associated needs in mainstream schools. Options could include

·         ceasing the service

·         Retaining the service and charging schools for it.

Peter Hudson asked for further information on the types of support offered by special school outreach. Jon Hewitt responded that both the Castle School and Brookfields offer outreach support where referrals had been made to support children. Outreach workers would go into schools and work with staff with the objective to meet the child’s needs in the mainstream setting, however sometimes it was necessary to identify a place in a specialist setting for the child.

Option 17 – PRU outreach

Options were to:

a)    Reduce this budget to £100,000 and encourage Outreach Team to generate more income – but this would result in increased costs for schools.

b)    Remove separate budget and allow the Reintegration Service (RS) to incorporate Outreach facility into main budget. If RS not full, then more Outreach could be offered. Outreach was likely to be severely reduced.

c)    No change in budget as it would have an adverse effect on support for schools. It was a cheaper ‘buy-in’ than an inreach RS place and therefore gave schools more choice and a reduction in costs.

Option 18 – CALT Team

The CALT Team had been working to an income target since April 2015. It could be possible to increase income generation by reducing what schools received in the free core service and increasing charges for annual packages of support and for pay as you go services and training.

Keith Watts enquired what the buy-in rate by schools was. Jane Seymour advised she did not have the data to hand but the decision to charge for some services came after most schools had set their budgets for 2015/16 so the buy in rate was estimated to be lower than it otherwise should be.

Option 19 – Vulnerable Children Fund

The option was to reduce the fund to a small budget of £60,000 (reduced from £80,000 in 2015/16). There were no staffing costs attached so it was an easy budget to remove but with a large impact on smaller schools. The Fund was used mostly by small schools to reduce the risks of exclusion for challenging pupils.

John Tyzack summarised that the intention was that officers would refine the options and present them to the Schools Forum on 14 March 2016. He asked if information could be collected regarding actions that Local Authorities with similar pressures in their High Needs Block were taking.

Councillor Dominic Boeck left the meeting at 18.20pm

Keith Watts asked that more robust analysis of the likely pressures caused by a cut to a service. Jane Seymour advised that this could be attempted; however it was difficult to predict what actions schools would take if, for example, CALT charges were increased. Regarding the option to close the LALs, a worse case scenario could be presented of the number of Statements/ EHC Plans being requested. Keith Watts further asked why charging for LAL services had not been presented as an option. Jane Seymour advised that the matter be considered but it would lead to an inequitable service based on the ability of the school to afford it.

Keith Harvey recognised the work that had been put in to identifying savings options and enquired whether there was any scope to reduce the amount spent on top up funding to non West Berkshire special schools as there was a predicted outturn of £1,085,240. Jane Seymour responded that officers could try to achieve savings in that area however the issue was that the free school in the area charged fees which were higher than mainstream schools but lower than independents so considered themselves as good value for money.

Peter Hudson asked whether the high figure spent on non West Berkshire special school top ups was due to West Berkshire not having the capacity in its own mainstream provision. Jane Seymour advised that ASD provision had increased in the area. One unit was opened in September 2015 and another unit would be opening in September 2016. Demand had increased, however parents were also attracted by services offered by non West Berkshire special schools.

Patricia Brims, referring to Statements and EHC Plans, explained that Educational Psychologists made recommendations and outlined requirements in their reports which the Local Authority became statutorily bound to provide. She enquired whether there was any way to reduce the level of requirements that Educations Psychologists specified. Cathy Burnham responded that in her capacity as the Local Authority’s Principal Educational Psychologist she could advise that Educational Psychologists were not able to fetter their professional advice in the context of pressure on the Local Authority. Their reports were always careful to discuss a child’s needs and not outline the provision required as needs could be met in a variety of ways. Although Educational Psychologists were employed by the Local Authority, they had to offer an independent service.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.