To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Draft High Needs Budget 2019/20 (Jane Seymour)

Minutes:

Ian Pearson introduced the report which set out the current financial position of the high needs budget for 2018/19 and the position known so far for 2019/20, including likely shortfall.

The deficit amount agreed in 2018/19 had been driven upward due to an increase in students requiring specialist provision. Ian Pearson explained that the detail was set out within the report however, in essence increased spending was because there were more pupils requiring specialist provision; increased numbers of students were needing to be moved out of mainstream school and there as increased numbers of students presenting with complex needs.

Jane Seymour referred to details for Place Funding, on page 136 and reported that the budget had overspent by £240k. Some of this would be offset by import / export adjustments.

(Jonathon Chishick and Hilary Latimer left the meeting at 6.31pm)

Jane Seymour drew attention to Table 2 under appendix A on page 136 regarding Top up funding. Top up funding was paid to institutions where pupils from West Berkshire were placed. Most top up budgets were under pressure, and the type of placement creating the greatest pressure was shown in order under section 2.2 of the report. The cost of Education and Health Care Plans in mainstream schools had increased compared to previous years for the first time and this was because a higher band was having to be used due to increased complex needs. Jane Seymour reported that the overall pressure on the block was in excess of £500k due to cost of needing to move more students out of mainstream school into specialist provision.

Jane Seymour moved on to talk about Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). The number of children with Education Health Care Plans (EHCPs) being placed at PRUs was increasing as this was often an appropriate and cost effective provision for some young people. Under new funding arrangements for PRUs, these placements had to be funded through the SEN budget. The estimated cost was £331,400 for 2019/20. Jane Seymour stressed that these placements were more cost effective than independent and non-maintained special school placements. iCollege had been expanded specifically to allow for the admission of SEND/EHCP students.

Regarding other statutory services under Section 4 of the report. The budget for Sensory Impairment services was under particular pressure because of an increase in the number of children with severe hearing and visual impairments, who required a high level of visits from teachers of the deaf / visually impaired.

Jane Seymour explained that overall the £2.4million pressure was an accumulation of the areas detailed in Appendix A. The main reason for the pressure was the cost of moving children out of mainstream schools into other settings. There was a strategy in place however, the benefit would not be seen in the short term. Savings would need to be made however, this was getting more difficult. Jane Seymour reported that robust demand strategies were in place and the most cost effective options were always chosen. The underlying issue was the demand for high need provision was rising but the funding had remained static.

Keith Harvey referred to the large amount of savings that had been made to the HNB in recent years and felt that it was time that increased pressure was placed on the Government through Local Members of Parliament (MPs). Councillor Lynne Doherty confirmed that action was already being taken. Letters had been sent to the Local Government Association through the South East Group however, there had been little engagement in response. The issue was a national problem so it was hoped that the Government would react soon.

Jon Hewitt reported that the Special Schools in West Berkshire had written a joint letter to local MPs. ‘Voice’ the group that represented special schools was also taking a similar approach. Jon Hewitt added that parents were also critical in making the Government take action. It was a Central Government issue and change was required. Jon Hewitt stressed that there was not an issue with the HNB as a result of poor management, it was a collective deficit as it was all blocks that were funded by the DSG.

The Chairman commended the points that had been raised by members of the Forum and stated that unfortunately the Government seemed to be focusing little else apart from Brexit at the point in time.

David Ramsden referred to the decision due to be taken regarding transferring money from the Schools Block to the HNB and stated that he was against transferring the money. He acknowledged the points made by Jon Hewitt and accepted that it was a national issue. He also used the opportunity to commend the work undertaken by Jane Seymour and her team. Parents were being forced to take their cases to tribunals and schools and the SEN Team were feeling the pressure. David Ramsden explained that his objection to the transfer was based on three issues. Firstly he did not feel that cuts had been made hard enough the previous year. Secondly if the funding was transferred, £490k was not going to make the difference required to the HNB. Thirdly, schools were already under immense pressure and he did not feel that funding should be taken from the Schools Block that was already under pressure.

The Chairman noted the points made and reminded members of the Forum that this area would be discussed in greater detail later on the agenda.

(Charlotte Wilson left the meeting at 6.42pm)

Jane Seymour reported that a strategic approach was being undertaken and there was a five year SEN Strategy in place however, this would take time to roll out. Regarding the transfer of funds from the Schools’ Block to the HNB, Jane Seymour reported that out of £9 million, only £800k was spent on non-statutory services and to cut these services further would place further pressure on the rest of the HNB.

Jacquie Davies added that of 64 leaners at iCollege, 40% had no funding attached, which placed great pressure on the HNB.

Keith Harvey referred to the cuts that had been made the previous year and queried how much these savings had saved in the long term. It was important that value for money was kept in mind.

Rev. Mark Bennet it was easy to look inwards when under pressure and stated that some services needed to be provided at scale to be provided effectively. He asked if cross boundary working was considered. Ian Pearson stated that opportunities for joined up working were always taken. Examples of this work currently taking placed included the Sensory Consortium service run by all the Berkshire Local Authorities and the proposed SEMH provision provided in partnership with Reading.

Ian Pearson highlighted that West Berkshire’s position in terms of its HNB was also driven by the National SEN Funding Formula. West Berkshire suffered because levels of deprivation was one of the factors that the formula was based on.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum noted the report.

 

 

Supporting documents: