Agenda item

Ian Pearson introduced the report (Agenda Item 13), which set out the current financial position of the services funded by the Dedicated Schools’ Grant (DSG).

Ian Pearson explained that the area that required discussion was the High Needs Block (HNB). Table 1 summarised the budget position for each of the four blocks. Table 2 showed the forecast under or overspend position at the end of August 2018. The total overspend position against expenditure was £247k with a further £87k under achievement on High Needs funding due to a reduction in the import/export adjustment. Ian Pearson confirmed that no other variances were predicted for the other three blocks. 

Section eight of the report looked at the HNB in more detail. Table 6 set out the current position of the block and the final revised budget was £547k. The total over spend forecast against the block was £881k, giving a net variance of £334k. Consideration would need to be given to where spending could be scaled back and savings identified. The report identified the main variances against expenditure under section 8.4 of the report. The largest areas of variance related to the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU).

Keith Harvey asked if the variances were based on a six month period or a whole year and Ian Pearson confirmed that they were based on the year end position.

Jonathan Chishick asked what percentage permanent exclusions had increased by. Ian Pearson stated that figures around permanent exclusions presented a challenge. If viewing the number of exclusions for the current year they were far less than the previous year. Therefore the increase in spending did not relate to an increase in actual numbers of children being permanently excluded but was more likely related to the cost of the higher level of support they required. This required further investigation.

Regarding the PRU, the number of pupils requiring a place at the provision was lower than what had been anticipated. Because schools were now being asked to subsidise the cost of pupils attending the PRU, schools were choosing to look at alternative provision. This in turn reduced the budget for the PRU and a review needed to be undertaken into the size and staffing levels required going forward.

Angela Hayes commented that the cost expected from schools was prohibitive and was a particular pressure for primary schools and small secondary schools. Ian Pearson commented that changes to charging for PRU placements had been enforced as part of a cost cutting exercise however, this needed to the reviewed.

Patrick Mitchell felt that reversing the decision to increase the costs to schools placing pupils at the PRU would be a mistake however, the proportion of cost provided by schools needed to be revisited.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum noted the report.