Agenda item

Ian Pearson introduced the report (Agenda Item 11), which aimed to present proposals for invest to save projects using £100k of one off funding in 2018/19 for consideration by the Schools’ Forum. The High Needs Block overspend in 2017/18 was £256k less than anticipated. The Schools’ Forum had agreed to use £156k of this money to reduce the deficit in 2018/19 and for £100k to be allocated to projects that would help generate savings in the High Needs Block.

Ian Pearson reported that pages 80 and 81 of the report pack detailed proposals for consideration. All the proposals added up to the total amount of £100k and it was highlighted that this would be a one off sum of money. The aim would be to reduce the pressure on the High Needs Block going forward.

It was agreed that the Schools’ Forum should consider each item individually.

5.1 Equipment for children attending resourced schools and nursery schools – Proposal: £10,000 be set aside to meet the costs of equipment in nursery schools and schools with resourced units.

Keith Harvey queried if the amount of £10k was the exact amount the Schools’ Forum had cut the service in 2017. David Ramsden struggled to see how a one off sum of money could be used for invest to save projects.

Ian Pearson reported that since the budget had been cut in 2017, equipment costs had sent some schools with resourced units into deficit. As there was now some money available this was an area that required revisiting and the one off amount of £10k would sustain the service until a decision was taken to review the budget long term. Based on this David Ramsden stated that he was happy to support the proposal.

Suzanne Taylor asked if the £10k would be used to offset the cost of equipment in year and Ian Pearson confirmed that it would be, as some schools were unable to afford equipment. Suzanne Taylor confirmed that she was not aware of any nursery schools that would need to call on the fund. Ian Pearson confirmed that the main issue was with resourced schools as they had a disproportionately high number of children requiring resources.

Keith Harvey suggested that the Schools’ Forum consider opening up the £10k to all schools. Keith Watts stated that if the fund was made available to all schools, then the criteria would be met by resourced schools and also other schools that might suddenly require resources. Jonathon Chishick stated that when the fund had been cut in 2017 he had not realised that nurseries did not have a delegated SEN budget to pay for equipment.

Ian Pearson stated that it was within the remit of the Schools’ Forum to either approve the recommendation or alternatively open the fund up to all schools.

Reverend Mark Bennet stated that he represented a school with a resourced unit that had a classroom especially for children with a hearing impairment and he stated that further funding would be particularly useful. He queried if there also needed to be money allocated specifically to new resourced units. David Ramsden was of the opinion that children with hearing impairments attended mainstream schools as well and therefore the funding should be made available to all schools, as long as certain criteria was enforced. Chris Davis added that if there was a robust system in place then the funding should be opened up to all schools and each case should be judged on its merits. Ian Pearson suggested that there should be threshold applied. Chris Davis recalled that there was once a bidding system in place.

RESOLVED that this should be brought back to the next round of meetings in October 2018.

5.2 Training programme for behaviour leads in schools with high exclusions – Proposal:If the bid is not successful, it would be possible to tailor the programme to be delivered for a lower amount of £78,400.

Ian Pearson reported that a bid had been submitted for funding from the Strategic School Improvement Fund for a programme of support and training for schools with high exclusions. The bid was for an amount of £167,000. If the bid was not successful, it would be possible to tailor the programme to be delivered at a lower amount.

Jacquie Davies commented that anything that could be done to help keep children in mainstream school was worth investing in. Chris Davis stated early intervention could mean that a child would less likely end up being permanently excluded.

Reverend Mark Bennet felt that the project could help address particular issues but not all. He asked how the effectiveness of the project would be monitored as it was significant project. Michelle Sancho reported that the aim would be to identify and track pupils to see what impact the project was having. Suzanne Taylor asked if there would be a focus on developing language. Michelle Sancho stated this would be included as part of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course programme as it was recognised that the school system had a significant impact on speech and language development. Catie Colston stated that she was supportive of offering training to schools. It would not solve all issues however, was a move in the right direction.

Patrick Mitchell queried if the project was approved, if it would be accessible to schools other than the top five schools with the highest exclusion numbers. Michelle Sancho reported that this would be possible.

David Ramsden felt that the quality of the training would be a huge factor in the success of the project. He was not fully informed on the nature of the project however, did have concerns. Michelle Sancho stated that the quality of training would be high. A pack of information would also be produced and left with schools to refer to. It was an invest to save project because individuals would be trained, data would be collected so that schools could be monitored and a network of behaviour leagues would be created. Michelle Sancho added that there would be a process of engagement with schools and details on how this could be implemented was detailed as part of the bid (Appendix A). Collaborative working with schools would be required.

Graham Spellman asked when it would be known if the bid had been successful. Michelle Sancho stated that the had been told they would know by July 2018, so it was hoped that this would be known shortly.

Jonathon Chishick asked if it was a West Berkshire based initiative and if the bid was not successful in West Berkshire could the authority join with other authorities to deliver the project. Michelle Sancho confirmed that it was a West Berkshire based project and although it could be possible for West Berkshire to join with another local authority, this could cause the project to become too broad and complicated as it would be likely that another authority would have different systems in place. Michelle Sancho reminded the Forum that if the bid was refused then a slimmed down option would be required from that included in Appendix A. 

Catie Colston proposed that the proposal should be approved and this was seconded by Chris Davis and at the vote the motion was carried (David Ramsden abstained from voting).

RESOLVED that the Schools Forum approved the allocation of £78,400 to this project if the bid was not successful

5.3 Delivery of PPEP Care Training module on ASD for schools – Proposal: This could be achieved at a cost of £10,000.

PPEP Care stood for Psychological Perspectives in Education and Primary Care. It was a nationally recognised programme which offered training. There had been a rise in complex needs including Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) consultation had revealed that this was an area schools would like to be upskilled on. The training would be delivered by experts in the field and then staff who had been trained would be able to help roll the training out to schools.

David Ramsden stated that he had been asking for something similar for some time and fully supported the project. He however queried if £10k was enough to cover costs if all schools took up the offer. Michelle Sancho stated that the figure was based on the delivery of a number of sessions.

Angela Hay echoed David Ramsden that training was something that was needed however, was concerned if enough money was being allocated. Michelle Sancho reported that if more money was made available then more sessions could be offered. David Ramsden felt that this was something that would be worth considering if the bid for funding under item 5.2 was successful. All schools needed to be made fully aware of what was being offered as it was prestigious.

Reverend Mary Harwood was aware that there were many parents awaiting support from CAMHS professionals and asked if this situation would get worse, if these professionals were delivering the training. Michelle Sancho confirmed that CAMHS professionals would not be delivering the training but rather members of the Education and Psychology Team.

Keith Watts queried if there was an overlap between the proposals for 5.2 and 5.3 and Michelle Sancho felt that this was unlikely because 5.2 was solely focused on ASD.

Jon Hewitt proposed that the Schools’ Forum approve the proposal and this was seconded by Keith Harvey. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Schools Forum approved the allocation of £10k for this project.

5.4 Setting up on line forum for SENCOs – Proposal: More work would need to be done to identify costings but this could be a relatively low cost initiative. The remaining £1,600 could be set aside for this purpose.

Ian Pearson reported that this was a relatively straightforward project and would involve increasing interaction between SENCOs and the sharing of good practise. Keith Watts felt that it was a good initiative however, stressed that SENCOs needed to be allocated time within the working day to be involved.

Keith Harvey was concerned that £1,600 was not enough funding to sustain the project as it could involve a phased set up and management. David Ramsden felt that success would depend on the quality of the software. Ian Pearson stated that Officers could proceed based on the initial amount and then return to the Schools’ Forum if it was thought that further funding would be required.

Patrick Mitchell stated that it was important that somebody took ownership of the management of the system. Catie Colston was concerned that the danger would be that only SENCOs who were already engaged would use the system. Ian Pearson stated that there was further support available to SENCOs and the system would be put in place to enhance the support already available.

Chris Davis proposed that the Schools’ Forum approve the proposal and this was seconded by David Ramsden. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that:

·         An update on costings should be provided to the Schools’ Forum in due course.

·         That the amount of £1,600 be allocated.

5.5 Funding for resourced schools experiencing financial pressures

Ian Pearson stated that the HFG agreed to recommend that this could not be resolved with one off funding and that a review on funding for resourced schools was required. Focus needed to be given as to whether the funding formula was fit for purpose and if it required adjusting.

RESOLVED that a report would be brought back to the Schools’ Forum on this in due course.