Agenda item

Jane Seymour introduced the report (Agenda Item 8) which set out the current financial position of the High Needs Block (HNB) budget for 2021/22 and the position as far as it can be predicted for 2022/23, including the likely shortfall. The report was similar to the report brought to the Forum in December 2021 and therefore Jane Seymour stated that she would highlight the difference. The purpose of the report was to seek approval of the overall HNB and that the transferred funding from the Schools’ Block should be used for invest to save purposes, subject to further information being provided at the next meeting in March 2022.

Jane Seymour dew attention to paragraph 3.7 of the report. The predicted spend for 2022/23 was approximately £244k higher than estimated in November 2021, mainly due to some additional independent school placements. Jane Seymour highlighted however, that the overspend in the block had reduced since the last meeting as was now  £5,196,855.  Without carried forward underspends, the shortfall for 2022/23 would be £1,480,178. The reason that this was lower than detailed at the last meeting in December 2021 was because the high needs settlement had been more than expected by about £910k.

The figures for the block were set out in more detail under Table One of the report on page 61. The table showed the transferred funding from the Schools’ Block, which as £300,200. Members of the Heads Funding Group had requested more detailed information regarding actual spend against the HNB over the last three years and this information would be incorporated within the report for the next meeting in March 2022.

Jane Seymour drew attention to the end of the report, which highlighted that consideration needed to be given to how the money transferred from Schools’ Block should be used. An outline of how this funding could be used had been included within the consultation with schools however further detail and proposals could be found under Table 10 on page 74 of the report. Jane Seymour reported that initiatives were being proposed that would improvement early intervention and prevent exclusions and costly specialist placements.

Jane Seymour provided detail on each of the proposals included within Table 10. Jane Seymour highlighted that the second proposal regarding funding for SEN in early years, required further discussion. Nursery representatives had felt that there were other areas within early years where spending could help early intervention in addition to improving the capacity of the EDIT Team. There would be further discussion on this area with the Early Years Funding Group.

Jane Seymour reported that further work was required regarding impact and actual cost savings against each of the proposals. A further report would be brought to the next round of meetings in March 2022 for agreement. At the current meeting agreement was sought on rest of the HNB budget proposals contained within the report.

Jonathon Chishick referred to table one within the section of the report on place funding. He noted that there was no total at the bottom of the ‘current number of pupils’ column or for further education (FE). If further education was excluded then the budgeted number of places was 601 and if this was added to the current number of pupils it was 712. He therefore queried if 712 needed to be budgeted for. Jane Seymour reported that the reason that the information was set out like this was because the budget could not be increased for places by seeking additional funding from the ESFA, unless it was for academies or FE, an uneven playing field, which pushed up costs. When additional place funding was required above the official planned placement number. The cost of additional places was taken therefore out of the relevant top up budget. Jane Seymour understood it was confusing and stated that this could bet set out differently if required. Jonathon Chishick felt that it was important to be clear about how many pupils needed support. Jane Seymour assured the Forum that these children had been budgeted for but they had been budgeted for in a different part of the HNB. Jane Seymour stated that it could be made clearer how many places were being budgeted within the report.

Reverend Mark Bennet noted under the same table that the current number of pupils in special schools was 440 against 365 places. He queried if this was placing pressure on capacity of the special schools and whether any of this pressure was diverting back into main stream schools.  Jane Seymour reported that the number of places did not bare any relation to the physical capacity of the schools. It was a notional number of places that the DfE was willing to recognise and fund through the formula and it was based on the number of children that were historically placed so not reflective of current reality. Jane Seymour added however, that special schools were under pressure. These schools took as may pupils as they could within their physical capacity, which was the main limiting factor. Sometimes there was a small number of children that had to wait for places and if this was the case then additional support would be funded to ensure their needs were being met until they were transitioned. It was an area that needed to be continuously monitored and it was a national issue. Providing additional provision for children with moderate difficulties formed part of the SEND Strategy.

Reverend Mark Bennet queried if the table could be amended so that what Jane Seymour had explained could be made clearer in the headings. Reverend Mark Bennet stated that he would also be interested to see some information on the actual capacity of existing provision so that pressure in the system could be judged. 

Gemma Piper stated that it was recognised that the cost of the placements at some provision such as Engaging Potential was more cost effective. Gemma Piper asked if any work had been done regarding expanding some of the smaller provisions, where the cost of placements were known to be significantly less. Jane Seymour confirmed that currently detailed work on expanding Engaging Potential had not been carried out. Engaging Potential was an independent school and not a local authority maintained provision that could be expanded however, this did not mean that negotiations could not take place. Early stage discussions had begun on this due to the success of the provision particularly with children who were Emotionally Based School Avoiders (EBSA). The SEND Strategy would be refreshed over the next 12 months and this was likely to be something that was looked at. Jane Seymour reported that the number of places for children with EHCPs had been increased at iCollege and there was now primary provision. A lot of effort and resource was also being put in to the new SEMH resource in Theale.

The Chair invited the Forum to vote on the recommendations listed under section two of the report. Jon Hewitt proposed that the recommendations be supported and this was seconded by Maria Morgan.

RESOLVED that:

·         Jane Seymour to present it clearer within the report how many places were being budgeted for.

·         The Schools’ Forum agreed the overall HNB budget for 2022/23.

·         The Schools’ Forum agreed that the transfer of funds from the Schools Block should be used for invest to save purposes, subject to a further detailed report on the usage of funds being brought to the next round of meetings in March 2022.