Agenda item

Melanie Ellis introduced the report (Agenda Item 7), which aimed to set out the current criteria and budgets for additional funds for review by the Schools Forum to ensure they were still relevant and met their purpose.

The Growth Fund would be calculated by the Department for Education (DfE) and received in December 2019. Melanie Ellis reported that the reserve for the Schools in Financial Difficulty Fund was currently at £181k. A decision would need to be made as to whether to de-delegate this service in 2020/21, in order to top up the fund, or whether to leave it at £181k, assuming no further bids were received in 2019/20. This would be included within the consultation with schools.

Details regarding the Additional High Needs Fund was contained under section 4.5 of the report. It was apparent that the number of schools with a disproportionate number of high needs pupils was continuing to grow and funding needed to be set aside from the High Needs Block at the current level of spend, in order to fund those schools qualifying. It was proposed that this remained at £100k.

 A decision was required from the Schools’ Forum to agree the proposed criteria for the Growth Fund, Financial Difficulty Fund and Additional High Needs Fund in order for this information to go out to consultation with schools. The budget for each fund also needed to be agreed.

Jonathon Chishick referred to the Additional High Needs Fund and noted that this money was used to fund schools with higher number of pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) than assumed in the formula. He felt that schools with higher numbers of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) but not EHCPs, should also benefit from the funding. Jonathon Chishick stated that he had raised the matter before however, acknowledged that the area was a challenge because of the way schools self-identified pupils against a set of measures regarding SEN. There were particular primary schools that were more attractive to parents, due to how they catered for certain SEN pupils, and as a result these schools were being placed under increased pressure. 

 Ian Pearson acknowledged the issue raised by Jonathon Chishick and the potential difficulties due to schools using their own self-identification measures. It would be difficult to include this matter as part of the consultation document for 2020/21 due to timescales however, Ian Pearson suggested that Officers could work on a proposal that could be presented at a future meeting in 2020, including proposals and implications. It was important to note that this could place further pressure on the High Needs Block.  Jonathon Chishick was satisfied with the proposed way forward on the issue and timescale. He stated that it seemed to be a growing issue and therefore it needed to be looked at. Jane Seymour agreed but, stated there was a lot of variation between schools regarding how they placed pupils on the SEN register and there was risk that a perverse incentive could be caused.

Catie Colston felt that investigation into the issue was wise seeing as the thresholds for EHCPs had risen. Keith Harvey concurred and supported that the issue needed to be looked at however, also agreed with Jane Seymour’s comment that a perverse incentive could be created. It might however be an opportunity to bring the number of EHCPs down.

 Hilary Latimer stated that over 4% of the pupils at her school had EHCPs. The school received £24k to meet the needs of these pupils however, this did not adequately cover costs. Hilary Latimer felt that schools under increased pressure from higher numbers of SEN pupils needed support.

Jane Seymour clarified that the threshold for EHCPs had not increased. The number of EHCPs had actually risen by 33% and the matter was that the level of needs were getting higher.

Catie Colston suggested that Officers could investigate what other local authorities were doing on the issue. Ian Pearson noted that members of the Forum were supportive for the issue to be taken to the Heads’ Funding Group for further discussion.

The Chairman invited members of the Forum to vote on whether they agreed the proposals included within the report regarding the criteria and budgets for additional funds for 202/21, in order to go out to consultation with schools. Keith Harvey proposed that the Schools’ Forum support the proposals set out in section four of the report and this was seconded by Ian Nichol. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that

·         A report would be brought to a meeting of the Heads’ Funding Group in 2020 including proposals and implications for dealing with schools under increased pressure due to higher numbers of SEN pupils.

·          The Schools’ Forum agreed the proposals under section four of the report, in order to go out to consultation with schools.