Agenda item

Lisa Potts introduced the report (Agenda Item 6), which set out the proposed 2025/26 budgets for the Growth Fund and Additional High Needs fund. Lisa Potts explained that the report set out the proposed budgets for the growth fund and additional high needs fund for 2025-2026. Lisa Potts drew attention to the Growth Fund Criteria included within Appendix A to the report.

Lisa Potts highlighted that the recommendation was to distribute growth funding across all schools via the school formula. She noted that the value of the growth fund for 2025-2026 was £307,452.

Lisa Potts drew attention to the recommendation to set the high needs budget at £200k. This was for schools that had a disproportionate number of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) needs. Lisa Potts invited questions on the report, noting that it was a regular report brought to the Forum on an annual basis.

Trevor Keable raised a question regarding whether the funding was just for West Berkshire children or if it included children from other authorities, such as Reading. Lisa Potts responded that the funding aimed to include children from other authorities, but there were challenges in updating the data for children not in their authority. She mentioned that if schools felt they had more children than what the average calculation included, they could review it on a case-by-case basis. Lesley Roberts added that schools could challenge the numbers and potentially have the funding backdated if it did not pick up children from across borders.

The Chair invited the Forum to consider the recommendations set out in section 2.1 and 2.2 of the report. It was proposed and seconded that recommendation 2.1, to agree that the DfE funding allocation for growth be distributed to all schools via the school formula, be approved. At the vote with all school representatives the motion was carried.

It was proposed and seconded that recommendation 2.2, to set the additional high needs fund at £200k, be approved. At the vote with all Forum members the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 were approved as set out above.