Agenda item

To receive a report on proposals for the 2018-19 high needs block elements of the schools budget.

Paul Clark presented a report on the High Needs Block Elements of the Schools Budget for the purpose of reviewing the proposals and receiving comments on whether there are appropriate measures in place for children with SEN. It was confirmed this is an annual consultation with the Schools Forum.

 

The key messages detailed in the presentation were:

–        The funding was intended to deliver education for 0-24 year olds where cost exceeds £10,000 through a “place-plus” approach with 3 separate Elements: 1 = core education funding to £4,000; 2 = additional support funding up to a further £6,000; 3 = top up funding where costs are above £10,000. Whilst most funding for high needs pupils is provided from the High Needs Block, for mainstream schools, Elements 1 and 2 are provided in the main budget and funded from the Schools Block.

 

It was clarified that for schools with special needs units, Element 1 is funded from the Schools Block with Elements 2 and 3 from the High Needs Block.

 

It was questioned whether colleges received the same funding and it was confirmed that there were the same 3 elements with the same thresholds, with a national funding formula for colleges managed directly by the Education and Skills Funding Agency providing Element 1, with BFC responsible for funding Elements 2 and 3.

 

It was confirmed that if a high needs place is not taken up within the course length, the funding would not be clawed back but places could be reviewed next year and revised accordingly.

 

Further key messages detailed were:

–        National reforms would introduce consistency and transparency in the allocation of funds to LAs using a new formula, with up to date proxy measures, but High Needs remained the most complex part of education funding. This would come into affect from April 2018.

–        Transitional funding protection would be in place with a “floor” increase in funding in each of the next 2 years of 0.5% per 2-18 year old population. This would mean a minimum guaranteed increase in income.

–        Once fully implemented, the new funding formula would result in a £2.46m (15%) reduction in funding to BFC. However, for the final two years of the current spending review period, there would be no significant movement to the new formula.

–        Funding Floor factor represents 15% of BFC grant income compared to the LA average of 4% (second largest funding allocation). This demonstrates the importance of the funding protetction to BFC.

–        Whilst the amount of grant funding to be allocated to the council has been agreed, two significant adjustments relating to the number of places to be purchased remain at indicative amounts, creating uncertainty in budget setting. Final funding will be confirmed in June 2018.

–        Slower progress was being made on the review by BF of High Needs budgets than originally expected in order to link in properly with the Council’s wider Transformation Program.

–        Budget proposals were being made on the basis of recent trends, current expectations going forward, and a small number of new developments.

 

The significant budget proposals (+/- £0.02m were):

–        The Rise@GHC ASD SEN Resource Unit now achieved a net cost reduction of £0.066m compared to previous arrangements which is expected to increase to £0.468m when fully open in September 2021.

–        Places purchased in BF maintained schools would remain unchanged but the impact of the new LA import / export adjustment resulting in a cost reduction of £0.116m as other LAs would now be paying for their students.

–        KLS has admitted 10 more pupils requiring Element 3 top-up payments compared to the current year which together with other changes creates a pressure of £0.178m.

–        Element 3 top up payments to maintained schools and academies were over spending and the trend is expected to continue. A budget increase of £0.084m was proposed.

–        Payments from the SEN contingency to schools who admit a disproportionate number of High Needs pupils were consistently below budget. A saving of £0.050m was proposed. This would be redistributed within the high needs budget

–        NMSS and colleges represented £5m of expenditure and was the largest High Needs budget. The current academic year commitments had been rolled forward at average cost of provision and includes 11 less students than assumed in the 2017-18 budget. Growth had been added for 17 extra student placements. Cost reductions had been included for the impact of Rise@GHC and the LA import / export adjustment. This was a net saving of £0.681m. Current trends indicate more older children staying in education and needing provisions. The number of pupils had increased from 43 to 59 at Bracknell and Wokingham College.

–        Other SEN Support Services. Based on recent costs, a saving of £0.060m was proposed on the Children’s Development Centre, with additional costs of £0.033m for specialist psychologist support to the SEN tribunal process.

 

The new budget proposals detailed in the report were:

–        An Early Opportunities scheme to develop specialist support for under 5’s in 2 schools to complete assessments whilst children are very young to help determine long term needs.The details were being worked up with a pressure of £0.088m for September to March included in the proposals. It was noted that when an offer is available it would be brought back to Schools Forum for comment which was anticipated before the end of the summer term 2018.

–        To reflect rising costs and the increase applied to fees from certain institutions, it was proposed a 2% increase in for top up payments made to BF schools, with 1% for other SEN services. Total cost £0.184m.

 

It was also proposed that provided the overall centrally managed Schools Budget achieves a sufficient amount of under spending, any aggregate under spending on de-delegated budgets would be returned to maintained mainstream schools (December forecast indicates £0.065m would be returned to maintained mainstream schools). For example the Maternity Leave scheme.

 

Following the presentation a number of questions were raised and discussed as follows:

 

A general comment was made by Members that the budget proposals needed to come to Schools Forum meeting in January so that any questions could be addressed in sufficient time, before the budget needed to be approved. This was agreed by officers with the current timetabling reflected the absence of a final amount of grant funding from the Department of Education (DfE) and allowing maximum time to receive confirmation before decisions had to be taken.

 

(Action Paul Clark)

 

It was questioned what the provision was for primary age children who were at risk of exclusion. 

It was confirmed by Ian Dixon that there were currently only 15 schools with temporary exclusions and there is only one permanent exclusion. At the moment, there was no data to support the case for any increase in funding as so far it had not happened. A number of schools (4) were maintaining children who they would prefer not to. The proposed budget was based on a combination of recent trend and current need. Head teacher members commented that some secondary schools had spent over £0.050m to support all relevant children in school as they are expected to do.

 

It was noted that so far there had been one case where a child has moved to another mainstream school and another who was getting tuition through the home tuition service. Concerns were raised by Members regarding whether the £0.050m budget would meet the needs of very vulnerable children who were at risk as across BF schools the behavioral issues were all different.

 

It was acknowledged by officers that the full profile of who will require more than £10k per head per pupil was not held by BFC. The Forum were concerned that exact figures were not known and indicated their expectation that schools would readily provide the data. It was pointed out that there is no exact methodology of predicting the number of learners who do not require an EHCP but for whom a school believes they cannot meet the learners needs from within their budget

 

Members questioned how many children in BF primary schools currently need a support package and it was confirmed that last year there were 9 pupils who required the additional funding in order to receive more support. It was noted that the funding could be adjusted depending on the need.

 

Section 6.33 of the report detailed the “the lack of quality data [and] analysis of this.” Concerns were raised by Members regarding the lack of accurate data about children with behavioral issues. The Forum requested that high quality analysis was undertaken. It was confirmed that a needs analysis would go out to schools after Easter.  It was noted that the DfE would also review the provision.

 

(Ian Dixon to circulate document)

 

Page 66 of the report detailed the SEN contingency fund was consistently underspent and questions were raised about whether it was therefore allocated appropriately and whether it was necessary. Concerns were raised that only one school would qualify for the funding. Officers confirmed  that the DfE have encouraged LAs to allocate additional funding to schools with the highest concentration of high needs pupils to support their successful integration into a mainstream setting and that the Forum reviewed and agreed the criteria for accessing the funding each year.

 

In terms of the overall financial position on centrally managed budgets, Members  questioned where the money would be allocated if it was not spent and it was confirmed that it is treated the same way as a school budget; any under and overspends on individual budgets are collected at the end of the year and carried forward for use in the next year’s Schools Budget.

 

It was commented that there was a £0.75m capital funding grant allocation from the DfE for SEN priorities which was not in the budget. Brakenhale Academy have confirmed they had put in a bid.  It was noted that the process had been presented to the SEN group and had not been presented to all schools which raised concerns about the openness and consultation on the bidding process. Officers confirmed that the grant funding was not targeted towards particular schools but towards high needs pupils in general. It was noted that this was outside the scope of the agenda item but raised important points for consideration.

 

It was questioned why the medium term budget plan at in Annex 1 for the Rise@GHC anticipated vacant places. It was confirmed that the costing model needs to reflect the reality that the vast majority of schools have spare places and that the setting of fees needs to reflect this to ensure the model is financially viable.

 

For the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) proposal for KLS, it was questioned whether the 0.5% increase was only applicable to special schools and not also for College Hall Pupil Referral Unit (PRU). It was confirmed that the DfE do not require an MFG to be applied to PRUs.

 

The report detailed a new budget proposal for early assessment of young primary aged pupils of up to 2 terms to help determine the long term needs of relevant children before a firm decision is made on relevant support for these children. It was requested that additional information was provided to the Forum along with the impacts. It was confirmed that the LA would present a detailed paper to the  Schools Forum before any long term decisions are taken.

(Action: Frank Glennon to bring to Schools Forum)

 

RESOLVED That the Forum AGREES:

 

That the Executive Member:

1.         sets the total initial Dedicated Schools Grant funded budget at £14.613m, 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.

2.         that the post 16 SEN grant income budget be set at £0.578m (paragraph 6.22).

3.         approves the revised 2017-18 and provisional 2018-19 budgets for the Autistic Spectrum Disorder Special Educational Needs Unit at the Rise@GHC (Annex 1).

4.         approves a Minimum Funding Guarantee for special schools at plus 0.5%, the same amount as for mainstream schools (paragraph 6.27).

 

 

The Forum DID NOT AGREE:

 

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

1.         The education of pupils with SEN (paragraph 6.39), and

2.         The use of pupil referral units and the education of children otherwise than at school (paragraph 6.39).

 

RESOLVED That the Forum NOTES:

 

That provided the overall Schools Budget achieves a net under spending in 2017-18, any aggregate surplus on de-delegated budgets (currently estimated at £0.065m) will be repaid to maintained mainstream schools (paragraph 6.25).