Agenda and minutes

Apologies received from Val Moore, Jo Beaumont, Kath Kelly and Beverley Coltman.

Lauren Chalton, Robert Martin, Simon Grindrod, Lisa Craddock and Felicity Clarke did not attend.

Renata Chantrill advised that she was in attendance at the June meeting but it was not captured on the Minutes.

Rachel Simpson confirmed circulation of the Forum Meeting dates for the next academic year had been actioned.

No further amendments were requested and the minutes of the meeting held on 10^th June were agreed as a correct record.

Salik Khan presented on the Deficit Budget Policy Report advising that the purpose of today’s forum is to note the planned development of the policy for Autumn 2025. No formal decision is required, the report is just guidance for schools to have a formal process in place.

It is statutory for all schools to have balanced budgets and any school that doesn’t, is operating unlawfully according to DFE guidance. The policy has been created to help support schools in their approach to manage deficits and aims to ensure the identification of financial risks. Key features of the policy that were noted include:

• The policy distinguishes the two situations where there’s a managed deficit:
• The first situation is where a school has a short term or one-off issue causing the deficit. In this instance, the expectation is that the school will return to a balanced budget by the following year.
• The second situation is a licence deficit, which applies to deeper or structural financial issues, where school will need to produce a detailed business case and repayment plan.

• A three-year spending plan is usually proposed with flexibility for five years in exceptional circumstances. The business case looks at the root causes, critical planning, staffing, risk assessments and the educational impact.
• There is a proposal for budget resubmission in October 2025 to consolidate all school forecasts into a single set of planning, ensuring a consistent baseline and enabling fair comparisons across schools.
• There is a section in the policy on roles and responsibilities. Governing bodies remain accountable for approving budgets, with the IT chair and Business Manager being responsible for producing forecasts and providing a framework for planning and monitoring compliance. A new element to the policy is around the Schools in Financial Difficulty Panel which includes representatives from Education, Finance, HR and School Effectiveness. The panel has proposed quarterly meetings with an additional meeting every May to review new licence deficits. A rollout plan is being developed for implementation at the Local Authority. The new policy is proposed to be sent out after schools’ forum.
• Briefings will be held for teachers, governors and business managers after budget resubmissions. Schools identified with deficits will receive targeted advice during these sessions, and they will have access to tools, templates and financial planning support.
• The policy aligns with the existing scheme for financing schools, who are required to cooperate with audits, demonstrate value for money and rate changes involving staffing, organisation and complete the equality impact.

Carolyn Shoyer, representing the Diocese of Leicester, welcomed the policy and the clarity it provides and requested that it was considered whether there could be a consultation with the religious authority when a maintained Church of England School was identified. They currently receive this information as soft data when visiting schools, but Carolyn was wondering if this was something the Diocese could receive more systematically.

Rebecca Jones agreed that the clarity and consistency the policy will provide is well received although she raised a concern over the time it will take for schools who it applies to. Rebecca noted that these schools are mostly likely in a deficit due to lack of resources and this could add to the issue. Rebecca also questioned whether there will be additional support to smaller schools who do not have a dedicated Business Manager and if there will be a cost attached to this.

Salik Khan advised that there is a proposal for a hub with examples of what a good, structured business case would look like and this would be complemented by proposed webinars. There are ongoing discussions proposing clusters of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

NB This was originally set as Agenda Item 4 but following discussions during the meeting, it was agreed to move item 6 to item 4, and therefore this was subsequently discussed as agenda item 5

Salik Khan presented the report to the Forum, the purpose of which is to note the intention to transfer 0.5% of Schools Block funds to the High Needs Block for the SEND Investment Fund and approve launching a formal consultation with all schools. The rationale for the transfer is not about covering the High Needs Block deficit, it is a proactive investment aiming to build capacity within mainstream schools and to support pupils with SEMH needs.

The high needs block deficit remains a major financial challenge for the Council. While the proposed transfer doesn’t directly reduce the deficit, it supports early intervention and demand management. The Local Authority’s involvement in the DfE’s Delivering Better Value programme reflects our commitment to sustainable solutions. The SEND Investment Fund is key to this work, helping mainstream schools build capacity for SEMH support. This enables timely intervention in familiar settings, reducing the need for costly specialist placements.

Due to the delayed autumn budget, we’re working to a tight timeline, aiming to submit any requests for the Secretary of State by mid-November. A full consultation will be launched across all schools via multiple channels to encourage engagement and shape the final allocation.

Rebecca Jones expressed scepticism about the consultation process, suggesting that even if schools oppose the funding transfer, the Secretary of State may approve it regardless, so it feels like schools won’t have a real say. Schools are being asked to create recovery plans to manage deficits, yet the transfer reduces their budgets further, making recovery harder. It feels like the local authority are underfunded, so in order to fulfil roles in their services, they are taking more money from individual schools, making it more difficult for them to recover budgets. Essentially, schools are losing their ability to choose how they’re spending their money.

Salik Khan noted the Local Authority are not taking money away from schools, but redirecting it through the High Needs Block to create greater support there. Salik acknowledged Rebecca’s concerns and reiterated that the structure is mandated by national policy therefore needs further conversation at a national level.

Dr Jude Mellor noted that Leicestershire is severely underfunded nationally, an issue which needs addressing further. She questioned what schools could do collectively to advocate for better funding for our Local Authority. Dr Mellor also ask what are the steps and processes between the transfer proposal decision and the Secretary of State’s final decision?

Tim Browne advised that the process is we go out to consultation, the information returned will then be shared widely and is followed by a cabinet review at local level.  Ultimately, the decision on a request for transfer of funds is a political decision made by the Leicestershire County Council Lead Member and Cabinet. Tim advised that he has met with a number of Headteachers over the summer and relayed all of the concerns to our politicians. There is a political process in place and physical representation can be made if someone wanted to choose to do so.

Rebecca Jones questioned how schools can make an informed decision in the upcoming consultation when the impact from last year’s transfer hasn’t yet been experienced or measured? Schools are being asked to give feedback on a funding transfer without having seen any delivery of the initiative or its impact.

Salik Khan confirmed the consultation will follow a similar process to last year, feedback will be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

NB This was originally set as Agenda Item 5 but it was discussed and agreed in the meeting to move Item 6 to 4 so this subsequently became agenda item 6

Renata Chantrill talked through the paper which outlined the proposal to consult with schools on transitioning to a banded model for EHCP funding.

Summary of EHCP Banding Model Consultation Update:

• The consultation aims to engage schools on the proposed shift from the current funded hours model to a needs-led banding model for EHCP funding in Leicestershire.
• There is no national standard for EHCP banding; the proposed model is locally developed through the Change Programme partnership, with colleagues across Leicester City and Rutland.
• The model uses needs descriptors to assign funding bands and has been co-produced with Leicestershire schools to reflect local support needs.
• Initial soft testing with schools yielded positive feedback, prompting a wider consultation.
• The consultation is split into two stages:
1. Stage 1 (launched today) – Six-week consultation on proposed needs descriptors and banding approach (ending mid-October).
2. Stage 2 (late autumn to early spring) – Consultation on funding allocations for each band. Proposed to run across the winter and into early spring.

• This phased approach allows us to fully consider the needs descriptors and what the proposed funding attached to each banding may look like.
• A survey will be distributed via the Headteacher Briefing and discussed in meetings over the next six weeks.
• Feedback will focus on clarity, practicality, and overall support for transitioning to the new model.
• A report will be presented to the Schools Forum in November summarising initial consultation findings and outlining next steps in terms of whether we progress to the second stage.

Carolyn Shoyer raised her concerns about the proposed approach to banded funding for EHCPs. She clarified that local authorities are not legally required to specify funding the Education Healthcare Plans, only to ensure the provision outlined is funded. She argued that children with EHCPs often have highly complex and individual needs that may not be adequately captured by a banded funding approach. Carolyn expressed further concern that the shift could leave children at risk if the funding bands do not align with their actual needs and could lead to increased conflict with parents and carers who may feel their child’s provision is not appropriately funded or is misrepresented.

Phil Lewin noted the current challenges schools face when dealing with parental requests for increased EHCP funding. The existing approach of “funded hours” often makes conversations with parents difficult when trying to explain support levels.

Even when schools aim to be inclusive, parents are increasingly bypassing the school and going directly to the Local Authority to request EHCPs. Phil questioned whether the proposed banded funding system would help reduce these challenges or if parents would continue to challenge funding decisions directly with the local authority.

Renata clarified that the proposed banded funding model for EHCPs would not change the way that children's needs are currently assessed, these will still be assessed individually, as they are now. Instead of assigning a notional number of support hours, funding will be linked to a band that reflects the child’s assessed needs. This approach will mean that Schools will receive a pot of funding without rigid hour allocations, allowing them to use it more flexibly to meet the child’s needs.

Dr Jude Mellor expressed her gratitude for this approach finally being looked at, it is something that secondary school headteachers as a group have been asking for. She acknowledged that it will be a difficult process but genuinely believes it will help schools to be in a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

NB This was originally set as Agenda Point 6 but it was discussed and agreed in the meeting that it would make more sense to go through this information as agenda item 4 first before discussing the Schools Block Transfer.

Renata Chantrill presented on the Paper which addresses the work to date on the SEND Investment Fund and how the Local Authority are looking to spend the funds to support children and young people with social, emotional and mental health needs within the 2025/26 academic year.

The purpose of looking at the paper in forum was to update on where we are and discuss the confirmed offers due to be launched in mainstream educational settings within Leicestershire. The offers have been co-produced with a working group of schools to ensure funding is being spent in the most impactful areas. Work is now being completed to finalise these offers and launch them during the next term.

The following summary of offers was provided:

• Fully funded SEMH training will be available for all maintained schools - Areas include training on Trauma Informed Approaches, ADHD and Emotionally Based School non-attendance. It was confirmed that a contribution towards backfill costs would be provided from the fund to help with attendance for full-day courses.
• Primary in-school Alternative Provision and Outreach Support – offer includes an extension to existing Oakfield support to provide additional drop-ins and increased capacity to help reduce existing waiting time to access support. Also, there will be a pilot for primary in-school alternative provision support via new Graduated Response practitioners, and a team of Speech and Language therapists to support the Oakfield Outreach offer which will cover both Primary and Secondary schools.
• Secondary in-school Alternative Provision an Outreach Support – The Oakfield Outreach offer will also be available for Secondary schools as this has been identified as a particular gap. There we be a new Multi-Disciplinary Outreach team run through the new Oakfield Secondary, who will be going into schools to help support children and young people.
• Introduction of Online Consultations focusing on supporting professionals working with children and young people experiencing emotionally-based school non-attendance. This will be led by the Educational Psychology Services.
• Introduction of a directory of support and advice for schools to help easily signpost available services. It will provide clear guidance on how to access support, book training courses and engage with new initiatives.

There will be a number of impact measures put in place to help monitor the effectiveness and relevance of these offers. The measures include gathering early initial feed back from schools to enable ongoing tailoring and improvement of services if something is not working.

Further reports on progress will be brought to School’s Forum over the next 12 months around how these measures are being implemented and if they are resulting in the required impact.

Carolyn Shoyer expressed her support and encouragement for the proposals offered, which also resonates with the work of the Diocese. It was also mentioned that the Children’s Commissioner, Rachel de Souza had published “The Children’s Plan: The Children’s Commissioner’s School Census” the previous day, and much of what is being proposed by the Local Authority resonates with some of the themes outlined in the report. Carolyn noted that there is a lot of work to do to support schools and expressed the need for clear communication so that everyone involved is working collectively to address the issues and act on the system working together.

Dr Jude Mellor was appreciative of there being more clarity on how the SEND Investment Fund is being utilised. She expressed some concerns over the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Tim Browne addressed the forum regarding the appointment of David Warwick’s membership. He was unanimously nominated so Tim formally ratified his membership.

The next meeting is due to take place on Thursday 6^th November