Agenda item

To receive the proposals from the Council for the 2017-18 High Needs Block element of the Schools Budget.

This report presented proposals for the 2017-18 High Needs Block (HNB), with the key points being:

• The Department for Education (DfE) had determined that where the cost of individual education provision was above £10,000 it would be classified as high needs and be eligible expenditure within the HNB. This report therefore relates to the associated needs and budgets.
• The process of calculating each LAs HNB grant allocation remains the most complex part of the funding framework and involves a series of deductions from LA core funding in order for the DfE to directly fund a range of specialist providers for an agreed number of places that are then made available for LA pupils.
• The DfE was making one main change to funding responsibilities for 2017-18 by transferring £125m of their Departmental post-16 budget that was currently outside the DSG into the HNB baseline. The transfer related to place funding for high needs places in further education and post-16 charitable and commercial providers and transfers the risk of needing to fund any future budget pressures at these institutions from the EFA to LAs. The funding to be transferred to BFC for this is £0.258m.
• The EFA had identified additional resources to be allocated into the HNB DSG for 2017-18 of £130m. This was based on LAs population estimates of 2-18 year olds and resulted in BFC receiving £0.329m.
• The Forum was reminded that a new HNB National Funding Formula was expected to be introduced from April 2018 with initial calculations indicating a 15% reduction in funding for BFC of £2.327m. The proposed ‘Floor’ factor in the National Funding Formula will ensure no LA received less cash in the first 4 years and is therefore the crucial element of the proposals for BFC.
• As part of preparations for the implementation of the funding reforms at April 2018, the DfE had been liaising with LAs to re-base budgets to ensure that each DSG funding block – Schools Block (SB), Early Years Block (EYB) and HNB - was set to the amount being spent and not the allocation from the DfE. This review identified a benefit from transferring £0.345m of costs currently in EYB to the HNB, with the change taking effect from April 2017.
• On this basis, the EFA had calculated an initial 2017-18 High Needs Block allocation for BF of £14.669m, an increase of £0.674m on the current budget, although £0.345m would be needed to fund the costs transferred from the EYB through the base lining exercise, meaning a real increase in spending power of £0.329m. The final High Needs Block DSG would not be confirmed until the end of March, but no significant changes were expected.
• The Forum was requested to agree the revised long term funding model for the ASD Unit at Rise@GHC in Annex 1 of the report, and in particular to note the initial budget allocations for 2017-18 including the draw down of £0.093m from the SEN Resource Units Reserve and the revised plan for 2016-17.

In terms of detailed budget proposals, the SEN Team, supported by Finance, had reviewed all High Needs budgets and Annexes 1 and 2 of the report set out the proposed changes that the Forum was recommended to agree.  The key proposed changes and assumptions were:

1. Kennel Lane Special School: Based on current pupil profile, a £0.019m saving could be achieved.
2. Maintained schools and academies: the recent trend indicated a pressure of £0.235m for element 3 top up payments. There was a further growth requirement for diseconomy funding for Rise@GHC of £0.192m and a new proposal to set aside £0.067m in the SEN Resource Unit Reserve to contribute to the diseconomies to be experienced when the new SEN Unit opened at Binfield Learning Village.
3. The most significant budget being managed in the HNB was for non-maintained special schools and colleges amounting to nearly £6m in 2016-17. The budget requirement calculation had been undertaken on the same basis as in previous years and indicated a potential saving of £0.277m.

Decisions taken by the Schools Forum at this meeting were expected to be adopted by the Executive Member in making final decisions for the 2017-18 Schools Budget on 14 March 2017.

Members raised the following questions and concerns in response to the proposals for the 2017-18 High Needs Block:

What percentage of children fell into the HNB and what percentage of the schools budget was spent on them? This information was not available at the meeting but has now been presented in a table attached to  these  minutes.

Concern was raised that funding was being proposed for an unknown number of pupils at Rise@GHC when funding for expected number of pupils in other budgets was being cut. The budget plan for Rise@GHC had been presented to the Forum each year to approve at which point actual pupil numbers are included. Future year pupil estimates are reviewed and changed as better information becomes available. Only 1 year’s budget is presented for approval at any one time.

Was there scope for income to be produced from utilising unused rooms/resources at Rise@GHC?  Opportunities to look at whether this was achievable would be investigated.

Was a strategy document available detailing the decision made for the development of SEN places at BLV?  Members were advised that more information would be provided at the next meeting but that they should e-mail Paul Clark in the interim if they required specific information or clarifications to be included in the briefing.

The current budgets for education out of school, including Home Tuition and Outreach was being maintained but concern was raised that a shortfall already existed with regard to access to Home Tuition.  The budget proposals reflected current demand and the predicted 2016-17 underspending of £22k, but it was acknowledged that this could be a volatile budget.

The projected number of learners at Rise@GHC had reduced from 56 to 47 and concern was raised that research and planning had not been rigorous enough prior to the development of this unit with a large budget for a relatively small number of pupils.  The aim was still for all 56 places to be filled by 2020-21 but the unit was still financially viable at the lower level of occupancy as it is unrealistic to expect the unit to be permanently filled to capacity.  Numbers for 2016-17 were confirmed, were best estimate for 2017-18, and speculative for the remaining years but based on current patterns. The unit was expected to make savings of circa £400k per year based on current placement forecasts. Savings will be higher if more than 47 pupils are on roll. The question was raised as to whether it would be viable for pupils from Kennel Lane to have a shared place at Rise@GHC but it was felt this would not be appropriate as some of the pupils at Rise@GHC were higher functioning than those from Kennel Lane.  It may, however, be appropriate for some pupils from the unit to work in the main college subject to a needs assessment.

Whilst the budget for mainstream schools – Element 3 short term interventions is proposed to be increased from £5k to £25k, there continued to be concern that for some children at primary level their mental and emotional needs were not being met.  A lack of resource could lead to an increase in temporary exclusions which could not be managed even with the increased budget.  Alternative Provision for primary aged pupils without a statement had a proposed budget of £50k so together with the £20k increase mentioned above, there was a total additional budget of £70k which could now be utilised. Based on current demand, this is considered sufficient. Members were concerned that the decisions on this from the Fair Access Panel were limited by budget availability when making decisions, so current expenditure may not be a good guide for real need.

CAMHS and Emotional Wellbeing - concern was raised about the long wait for tier 3 access.  Work was being undertaken by the Health and Wellbeing Board to address this and Members were invited to view the documentation relating to this which was available online.  Consideration was being given to putting in a budget for this but this may be subject to change following the HNB Review. 

The low level of exclusions was noted in the report but some Members felt that the number of permanent exclusions would not remain at a lower level than previously.  Members commented that it was important to ensure that alternative arrangements for children temporarily or permanently excluded could be supported and resourced and that the HNB budget reflected what schools thought was in their pupil’s best interests.

Members felt they were in a difficult position having less than a week to review the figures and put forward suggestions.  It was also disappointing that the right officers were not present to answer the detailed service specific questions that arose from reviewing the budget proposals. Due to the timeframe, Members did expect to work with the headings but would welcome any new proposals in relation to the questions and concerns raised. 

It was agreed that the next meeting of the Forum would receive a more detailed update on the questions raised and progress on the HNB budget review.

Therefore, the Forum AGREED the following recommendations made in the report:

That the Executive Member sets the total initial Dedicated Schools Grant funded budget at £14.669m, it incorporates the changes set out in the supporting information and Annex 2, and relevant budgets are therefore updated to those summarised in Annex 3.

The revised 2016-17 and provisional 2017-18 budgets for the Autistic Spectrum Disorder Special Educational Needs Unit at Rise@GHC (paragraph 5.28 and Annex 1).

The Forum also requested that the following recommendation made in the report:

In its role of statutory decision maker, that there are appropriate arrangements in place for:

1.     The education of pupils with SEN (paragraph 5.32), and

2.     The use of pupil referral units and the education of children otherwise than at   school (paragraph 5.32).

be amended and AGREED as follows:

In its role of statutory decision maker, that there are not appropriate arrangements in place for:

1.     The education of pupils with SEN (paragraph 5.32), and

2.     The use of pupil referral units and the education of children otherwise than at   school (paragraph 5.32).

And that the agreed review of the High Needs Block would inform on future budget requirements to address this.