Agenda item

The Chairman highlighted that a press officer from Newbury News would be recording the meeting.

Ian Pearson introduced the report which set out the current financial position of the high needs budget for 2017/18 and the proposals for setting the budget for 2018/19.

Ian Pearson explained that the High Needs Block Budget (HNBB) had been discussed over several meetings and the report included with the agenda was comprised of  recommendations formed by the Heads Funding Group (HFG) at its meeting on the 27^th February 2018.

Ian Pearson drew attention to paragraph 3.1 which highlighted that setting a budget for the HNBB continued to be a challenge. He felt that this was an understatement of the difficulties being faced. Since the implementation of the SEND reform, there had been a 14% increase in the total number of children in West Berkshire with a Statement or EHC Plan. This was mainly as result of the eligible age range extending to 25, which had caused a significant impact on the budget, which had remained static.

The table on page 16 of the report showed the total place funding available for 2017/18. Funding had only been provided by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) for 675 pupils when the actual number of pupils was 736. Due to the 2018/19 changes in high needs funding, only additional places in special schools were to be funded (compared to the current level), and only at £4k.

The net shortfall in the 2018/19 HNBB was estimated to be £1,009,200. This included a carried forward overspend of £564,640 in 2017/18. Table one of page 13 showed how the shortfall in the HNBB was forecast to increase up until 2019/20. This had meant that difficult decisions had been required in order to try and decrease the shortfall going forward. The Schools’ Forum needed to take a decision on what savings could be made.

Section two of the report set out the recommendations for consideration by the Schools’ Forum. At the last meeting of the Schools’ Forum a table had been presented which contained a number of savings options. In February, the HFG had gone through each of these possible options again and made some changes. A revised set of options was now included under Table Two on page 14 of the agenda.

A review of the Home Education service for pupils who could not attend schools because of health needs and options for charging for this service was presented to the HFG and the group had recommended implementing option four from the 1^st April 2018. As a result of a saving in this area the HFG determined that the savings relating to the Cognition and Learning Team (CALT) and to the Specialist Inclusion Support Service (SISS) should be removed until the strategic review was completed. The CALT had submitted evidence including support from Headteachers, setting out why the service should not be cut.

Ian Pearson reported that if all the savings proposed (Table Two, page 14) were made then the total saving in 2018/19 would be £306,300 and in 2019/20 £341,800. Table three on page 15, showed the impact on the overall budget if the revised proposals were taken. The amount for 2019/20 looked much lower (-£209,370) because it included a possible transfer of funds from the Schools Block for the maximum amount of 0.5% (£500k).

Ian Pearson invited questions from the Schools’ Forum on the proposals. David Ramsden asked for assurance that that there would be a discussion on the option of transferring £500k from the School’s Block and Ian Pearson confirmed that it would be brought to a future meeting of the Schools’ Forum for discussion. The aim of the strategic review would be to ‘invest to save’ and meet the needs of children and young people whilst decreasing the deficit.

David Ramsden commented that he had raised concern in the past that cuts were not being made deep enough however, based on the comments made he was satisfied with the saving options.

Jonathan Chishick felt that the real focus needed to be put on dealing with the cumulative deficit and Ian Pearson reported that this would form part of the strategy going forward.

Keith Watts was concerned about cuts to the Language and Literacy Service (LALs) as there would be a move from a system where pupils with needs were able to access the service to a system whereby pupils could only access the service if their school was willing to pay for it. Ian Pearson reported that this recommendation had not been an easy one for the HFG however, teachers present had felt that if they had a child who required the service then they would do their upmost to ensure access however, Ian Pearson commented that unfortunately this could not be guaranteed.

Keith Watts was concerned that savings were being made by charging schools however, schools were already short of money. If a school had a pupil with a particular need then they would face going further into deficit to ensure the pupil received the services they required. Ian Pearson sympathised with the point raised by Keith Watts and stated that those in worse financial positon would have difficult decisions to make. Ian Pearson reported that by retaining the CALT, which was a core service it was hoped that the impact on schools would not be as extreme as children accessing LALs often also accessed CALT.

Keith Watts was aware that there was not enough money available due to methods being used by Central Government and he asked Councillor Lynne Doherty what was happening to raise awareness of this. Councillor Doherty stressed that essentially there were 61 pupils in West Berkshire not attracting the level of funding required to meet their needs. This had been raised with Central Government and the response from the Education Minster had not been satisfactory and therefore another letter would be sent. Councillor Doherty reassured the Schools’ Forum that the issues being faced were a national problem and it was hoped therefore that Central Government would revisit the area. Claire White added that at a recent regional event she had attended, all local authorities had been facing deficit in their high needs budget apart from Hertfordshire, which had been a ‘winner’ under the new National Funding Formula for high needs.

The Chairman invited the Schools’ Forum to vote on whether they agreed with the recommendations set out in section two of the report. David Ramsden proposed that the recommendations set out in section two of the report be agreed and this was seconded by Chris Davis. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum agreed the following recommendations:

·         Implement savings totalling £306,300 in 2018/19 and £341,800 in 2019/20 as set out in paragraph 4.11 of the report.

·         Set a deficit budget of £702,900 for 2018/19, with a strategy to be worked on over the coming months in order to determine a longer term savings plan which will balance this budget in future years.

·         Top up funding rates for special schools, resource units, and mainstream schools to remain the same as the 2017/18 rates.

·         Special school place funding for additional “unfunded” places be increased from £5,000 to £7,500 from 1 September 2018.

·         The top up rate for iCollege to be set at £106 per day from 1^st April 2018 for all placements.