Agenda item

Ian Pearson introduced the report to the Schools’ Forum, which set out the final proposal for balancing the high needs block budget over 2017/18 and 2018/19. He stated that it largely followed on from the discussion that had taken place at the last meeting of the Schools’ Forum in January.

West Berkshire remained in a difficult position as it experienced increases in numbers and age range however, would not receive an increase in funding to meet these growing demands. The budget had been well controlled overtime and had only suffered difficulties over the past two years. Paragraph 3.4 of the report outlined a number of ways the Local Authority was striving to deliver its policy to help ensure there was local provision for children with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) and a reduction in reliance over time on external specialist placements.

Ian Pearson drew attention to the table on page 20 of the report. This included a range of saving options that were ranked. There was a total saving calculated at the bottom of each column. When this table was discussed by the Heads’ Funding Group (HFG), there had been concern raised about just taking the savings in column one, as this would not sufficiently deal with the deficit. 

Ian Pearson drew the Forum’s attention to paragraph 5.4, which had been added to the report as a result of the HFGs discussion. If just category A savings were agreed, it would take three years for the deficit to be paid back and for the budget to be  balanced. The HFG had been uncomfortable with this approach and recommended savings further to category A be taken. They recommended the following additional savings, totalling £104,780 be taken, which would bring the total savings in 2017/18 to £219,090:

·         £20,000 reduction to the Specialist Inclusion Support Service – the two special schools to absorb the cost.

·         £40,000 reduction to PRU outreach – the PRU to absorb the cost.

·         £20,000 reduction to the Vulnerable Children’s’ Fund.

·         £24,780 by reducing top up rates for mainstream, resource units and special schools by 0.5%.

Proposed savings bullet pointed above needed to be agreed by the Schools’ Forum. The impact of the savings if they were agreed were shown in Table 3 of the report. Although there would be a deficit in 2017/18 and 2018/19, it was predicted that there would be a surplus of £432,180 by 2019/20.

Claire White highlighted that top up funding on page 37 of the agenda needed to be approved.

Catie Colson felt that the feasibility and sustainability of the proposed savings needed to be checked. She wanted assuring that it was realistic for schools to make the cuts and queried if the Schools’ Forum would be in the same position in two years time. Ian Pearson stated that it was difficult to predict how much money there would be in 2019/20. Regarding feasibility, no-one was implying the savings would be easy for schools. Jane Seymour reported that they had tried to select areas with the least risk. For example, regarding the Resource Units, all units were under subscribed and therefore it made sense to make savings in this area. Any cuts that required schools to make up the difference were more difficult.

Regarding the top up rates being reduced by 0.5%, schools would be required to make up the difference in funding however, the numbers were relatively small. Catie Colson stated that some schools would - be setting a deficit budget and therefore picking up costs could be difficult.

Peter Hudson asked if there was a down stream cost risk associated with the proposed savings. Jane Seymour reported that some of the potential savings identified in columns B and C would have a down stream costing risk and this was why effort had been made to avoid these areas. Jane Seymour did not think that the identified £220k of savings had down stream cost risk attached.

Jonathon Chishick queried how a set deficit was normally funded and Claire White confirmed it had to be the first call on the following years budget. Jonathon Chishick was also concerned about the surplus amount in 2019/20 and Ian Pearson reported that discussions had taken place regarding the approach to the cuts at the HFG. Concern had been raised given the changing system and that nothing was guaranteed. It had therefore been felt that building in a degree of flexibility was advisable for in the event that the end result was not as positive as originally anticipated.

Paul Dick confirmed that he had been part of the discussions at the HFG where further cuts had been supported. He had little confidence that the budget would balance in the third year. He added that there might be a small grant consisting of capital money that would be available to the local authority to help improve provision within the High Needs Block. Paul Dick stressed that if this money became available it was important that it went to the HFG for discussion to ensure it was maximised to its full potential.

Claire White referred to the forecast surplus amount for 2019/20 and stated that a number of the budgets with proposed cuts could be reinstated at a later date if there was a funding surplus.

Keith Harvey stated that he had not been in support of further cuts at the HFG however, he did agree that the surplus could be used for something positive in the future.

Keith Watts was concerned that they were just moving costs around, in particular for those pupils with additional needs. He asked for assurance that costs were not being moved from the collective to the individual. Ian Pearson explained that due to the complexity of the formula it could not be guaranteed however, fair access was needed to avoid particular schools being penalised.

Ian Pearson reminded Members of the Forum that the HFG was made up of headteachers from all the different types of school across West Berkshire and they were aware of the implications for colleagues.

Keith Harvey commented that he was least comfortable with the cut to top up rates. This was because special schools were already impacted upon by other additional cuts. Ian Pearson was aware that special schools would be impacted upon the most however, there did not seem to be an alternative solution. The level of impact also depended on the number of statements.

The Chairman asked the Forum to vote on the recommendations set out under 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the report. Paul Dick proposed that the Forum agree the recommendations and Jon Hewitt seconded the proposal and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum agreed the following recommendations:

1)    To agree the budget for 2017/18 as set out in Section 5 of the report.

2)    To agree that the top up high needs funding rates for 2017/18 are a 0.5% reduction on the 2016/17 rates (as set out in Appendix C of the report)

3)    To agree that the PRU top up charges for schools in 2017/18 remain the same as 2016/17 (as set out in Appendix C of the report).