Agenda item

Jane Seymour introduced the report (Agenda Item 11), which aimed to update the HFG and Schools Forum on the invest to save projects agreed in 2020/21 and 2021/22. The first section of the report set out what the invest to save projects were and how much had been spent on each. Some projects had started in 2021 and the Schools’ Forum had agreed that these should continue into 2021/22. There was then a second set of projects agreed in 2021/22 however, as these were not agreed until July 2021 they were only in the early stages.

Michelle Sancho drew attention to section four of the report on the Therapeutic Thinking (TT) post and increase in Vulnerable Children Grant (2020-21 and 2021-22. The table under section 4.4 of report presented the estimated savings from core schools (13 schools) that changed their school policies to fully adopt a TT approach. The total estimated savings from these schools was £244k.

Appendix A included information on all other schools and how they had benefitted from funding. Michelle Sancho drew attention to the table on 149 of Appendix A, which detailed the total estimated saving from all other schools was £634k. The total saving when combined with the figure from the core schools was £878k for the current year. This was from the investment of £58k for the TT post and £129k increase in the Vulnerable Children Grant.

Jane Seymour drew attention to section five of the report, which provided detail on the investment to appoint two teaching assistants in the Autism Team (2020-21 and 2021-22) at the cost of £58k. Two TAs had been appointed using the funding and two separate projects set up. One project working with four primary schools and one other project working with two secondary schools and groups of identified children in each. Jane Seymour provided further detail on each of the two projects and reported that all of the pupils worked with at primary level were still in school and none of the children had moved to alternative placements or become emotionally based school avoiders (EBSA).

Jane Seymour continued by providing detail on the secondary project under section 5.9 of the report, which was focused on pupils who were EBSA. Jane Seymour referred to case studies detailed within the report where it could be seen that good outcomes were being achieved.

Jane Seymour reported that she would express the savings for the Autism project in the same way as the TT and VCF projects when the invest to save projects were next reported on in March 2022. Jane Seymour reported that it was felt that three children at least would have needed out of area specialist support had it not been for the projects, providing a saving of around £186k. Savings had also been achieved from at least four children who were at high risk of EBSA and had avoided specialist placement.

Michelle Sancho moved on to comment on the new EBSA Fund and Posts (2021-22) detailed under section six of the report. A panel met once per month to consider requests from schools that had opted in to the project. Each schools was provided with actions in the way of interventions.  Michelle Sancho referred to the posts detailed under section 6.1 of the report and reported that schools were very engaged. There was a number of complex cases and therefore the extra resource was being well utilised and appreciated by schools. Michelle Sancho reported that a project was also being trialled including the use of robots to increase engagement. The project had been trialled by other authorities and the feedback had been very positive. The attendance for one child in West Berkshire through the project had increased from 0 to 85 percent.

Finally Jane Seymour referred to section seven of the report, which provided detail on the ASD Funding (2021-22). The annual allocation for this initiative was £52,685. The process for schools to be able to access this funding was now in place and the first panel was held in July 2021 to consider 12 applications. A total of £11,330 was allocated by the panel. Schools were expected to provide detail on what outcomes were achieved as a result of receiving the funding and this would help provide detail on the impact of the project at a later stage.

Keith Harvey raised a question regarding ongoing funding. If through the consultation schools agreed to transfer some funding from the Schools’ Block for invest to save purposes he queried what this would be spent on. Jane Seymour stated that in the survey with schools a number of proposals would be highlighted. One proposed area of investment was in the Early Development and Inclusion Team, which was a very small team. Increased referrals were being experienced in this area and there was a long waiting list meaning that children were starting primary school without receiving the right intervention. Investment was also proposed for iCollege places to help avoid permanent exclusions. Finally it was known that the cost of medical home tuition was going to increase significantly in line with EBSA because until children were able to return to school the Local Authority had a duty to ensure provision was in place for these children. All proposals were in keeping with aims around early identification and early intervention to help avoid high cost out of area placements by helping to keep children in mainstream schools.

Michelle Sancho reported that the iCollege review was ongoing and was looking at different ways of funding. Alternatives to permanent exclusions were being looked at through offering short term placements to support schools.  Michelle Sancho stated that an increase in challenging behaviours was being experienced as a result of Covid and the proposals as part of the iCollege review would complement the TT approach.

Keith Harvey commented that what had been referred to sounded like new invest to save proposals and he queried if the plan was to continue the current invest to save projects.  Ian Pearson referred to earlier explanations regarding the impact of invest to save projects and stated that the conclusion was that there had been a net positive impact on the HNB. These could not be continued as one of invest to save projects however, if agreed it was proposed that funding for these areas was mainstreamed as part of the HNB and would form a significant part of the deficit recovery plan.

Reverend Mark Bennet referred to the projects and noted the short term impacts however, asked if there was a plan to follow up on the projects to assess the long term impact and the progress of individual cases. Michelle Sancho reported that children accessing TT support would be tracked. If pupils remained in school and avoided permanent exclusion then this could be assessed overtime and projected savings could be calculated.

Gemma Piper was aware that the permanent exclusion rate in the area was very high and she queried if individual pupils were being tracked by name. It was acknowledged that it was very early on in the process but it was possible that some cases that were originally assessed as a saving were no longer the case and this needed to be taken into consideration if future investment was being based on current figures. Michelle Sancho suggested that pupils could be tracked by the financial year and this would avoid part year reporting. The issue was that the reporting cycle for the Forum did not match the academic year. Michelle Sancho confirmed that there was access to all data including pupil names, from schools that had agreed to feedback.

Gemma Piper stated that at the Heads Funding Group it had been agreed that a simplistic overview would be provided as part of the report going forward. This overview needed to include all invest to save and likely savings.

RESOLVED that:

• An overview would be added to the next report due to be presented to the Forum in March 2022, which provided a summary of investments and likely savings as a table.
• The Schools’ Forum noted the report.