Agenda item

Michelle Sancho introduced her report (Item 12), which set out iCollege charging options for 2018/19.

Paragraph 3.3 of the report summarised the current position, which was that the High Needs Block Budget (HNBB) heavily subsidised the top up payable for placements made by schools. A further element of the HNBB savings strategy was that schools would become responsible for the full cost of the places they commissioned. The HNBB would therefore pay just for permanent exclusions and sixth form places. The original plan had been that this would be implemented from September 2017 however, when the HNBB was set this was pushed back until April 2018.

An alternative proposal was for a new charging mechanism to be put in place from April 2018 for the full financial year. The Heads’ Funding Group (HFG) proposed that the following options (contained under paragraph 4.1 of the report) be considered by the Schools’ Forum:

1)    Continue with the current method, whereby schools paid a fixed sum for each placement up to a maximum ceiling.

2)    Continue with the original proposal, whereby schools paid in full for their placements.

3)    The High Needs Block subsidises school places by an agreed percentage (illustrated with 50%).

Michelle Sancho reported that Option 1 was not an affordable option. The Local Authority favoured option 3, as this incentivised schools to keeps costs and length of placements as low as possible. The amount that the HNBB would subsidise this option was yet to be decided. A sliding scale had been discussed at the HFG. Appendix A modelled a subsidy of 50% and this would cost the HNBB £820k, which means another £200k of savings would need to be found.

The Chairman asked for clarification from Officers. There were three options to consider however, the percentage for Option 3 was undecided. The Chairman felt that it would be difficult to ask the Schools’ Forum to consider voting for an option, where there were no confirmed figures.

David Ramsden referred back to original discussions regarding iCollege charging, which was originally suppose to fall to schools. However some schools had been surprised by this approach and therefore the Heads Working Group formed to review iCollege had met to see if this could be adjusted. David Ramsden was of the view that the High Needs Block could not take on the full subsidy and therefore Option 1 was out of the question. Some smaller schools would also be unable to cover the cost if they had a larger number of pupils requiring the service. If the cost to schools was too great then this could lead to an increase in permanent exclusions.

The Chairman stated that option three must be considered as an in-between option that was yet to be defined. He asked what the process would be if Option 3 was approved. Claire White clarified that if 25% was applied then this would bring spending down by £200k. Option 3 could me modelled over time as follows: 50% in year one; 25% in year two and 0% in year three, when the full cost would have to be met by schools. The Chairman stated that if Option 3 was approved then it would have to be done so on the basis that it would require further modelling work by Officers, with a definitive figure brought back to the Schools’ Forum for agreement.

Keith Harvey stated as Headteacher of a primary school that 25% would consume 2% of his budget and this could be 5% for smaller schools. Chris Davis stated that the figure did not link to the size of the school but how many pupils it had using the iCollege service.

Ian Pearson reiterated the options for consideration and confirmed that if Option 3 was approved then this would require an Officer to provide a menu of different options for the Schools’ Forum to consider and agree. David Ramsden stated that a consensus needed to be sought from all Headteachers regarding how much they were willing to pay for iCollege services. Ian Pearson stated that a majority might have to be considered rather than all Headteachers and it was important to note that members of the Schools’ Forum represented their relative groups.

Graham Spellman asked for clarification on if the Schools’ Forum agreed the 50% rate if a further £200k would need to be found within the High Needs Block. Ian Pearson stated this was correct unless agreement was reached to carry forward a high deficit. David Ramsden was of the view from discussions that had taken place at the HFG, that 50% was not affordable.

The Chairman invited members of the Schools’ Forum to vote. If Option 3 was agreed then it would be carried on the basis that more work was required. At the vote Option 3 was carried.

John Chishick suggested that the iCollege charging options should be dealt with in the context of the High Need Block Budget deficit.

RESOLVED that it was agreed by the Schools Forum that the High Needs Block subsidises school places by an agreed percentage (Option 3), subject to further modelling work being carried out by Officers.