Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Beverley Coltman, Dan Cleary, Felicity Clarke and Julian Kirby. There were no substitutions.

Phil Lewin highlighted that the previous minutes referenced an October 2025 budget deadline. Although this has since been revised to November 2025, the Forum agreed this would not be amended as it was correct at the time.

 

No further matters arising were raised.

Renata Chantrill presented the consultation feedback about the proposed 0.5% transfer from the schools block to the high needs block for 2026–27.

 

Renata stated that there were 31 valid responses received, mostly from secondary schools with 85% of responses stated that they disagreed with continuing the SEN Investment Fund.

 

Renata advised there is a £45m predicted overspend on high needs this year with a cumulative DSG deficit of £109.5m projected among a continued demand for outreach and graduated support.

 

Renata outlined two options for sustainable funding of Oakfield outreach:

 

Option one is to continue with the school block transfer for 26/27 to create an ongoing SEN Investment Fund which would be used to fund an ongoing multidisciplinary outreach and graduated response model from Oakfield school. The final methodology for that transfer for determining contributions would need to be confirmed when funding allocations have been announced by the DFE.

 

Option two is to continue the multidisciplinary outreach and graduated response model from Oakfield, but rather than through a school block transfer, we would be looking for a per pupil contribution from mainstream schools. Schools would also be asked to commit to supporting ongoing mainstream inclusion to make sure that we are collectively building a more sustainable financial position for the Leicestershire education system going forward.

 

Renata informed all that an indicative per pupil contribution level would need to be agreed based on creating that sustainable outreach and graduated support model across primary and secondary mainstream education and just noting concerns within the consultation around equity of contributions, a per pupil contribution model would introduce a standard contribution per pupil, which would effectively mean there would be more equity on a contribution basis.

 

Suzanne Uprichard raised concerns that a pay‑per‑use or voluntary model might increase permanent exclusions due to schools avoiding costs.

 

Renata clarified that the per‑pupil contribution is intended as an insurance‑style model and not pay‑as‑you‑go and explained that fewer participating schools would undermine the viability.

 

Pete Leatherland raised an issue in that there was too much material to read with short notice and asked for an alternative method of distribution to be considered for future meetings.

 

Pete asked which option would be used and how either helps reduce the high needs deficit, given the overspending on placements.

 

Pete also questioned how Oakfield fits with statements made by Victoria previously and queried the lack of measurable deficit‑reduction criteria.

 

Renata explained that the overspend comes from placement costs and EHCP volumes with over 8,311 EHCPs, a 15% rise since January.

 

Tim Browne confirmed to all that the deficit cannot legally be paid down using transferred funds and emphasised the aim is to slow future deficit growth through early intervention and fewer exclusions/EHCPs.

 

Tim also noted for all that the DfE will push for stronger mainstream inclusion.

 

Victoria Edwards stated that the model provides early, appropriate support to stabilise provision and outlined that the current outreach framework has been built using the SENIF.

 

Victoria advised that option 2 will result in bringing in less money which risks the graduated model.

 

Martin Towers asked how staffing and budgeting work under an optional per‑pupil model, since contributions might vary.

 

Victoria explained that the per‑pupil model is not pay‑as‑you‑go but is a nominal fee per school. Victoria advised that schools opting out, if option 2 was selected, cannot access the service.

 

Victoria highlighted the need for a stable universal structure and noted similar models operate in secondary inclusion partnerships.

 

Jude Mellor asked how much Oakfield already receives from the £2.8m SENIF and about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Salik explained that the application request concerns the exceptional premises factor, which is part of the national funding formula and stated that local authorities cannot adjust this factor without DfE approval.

 

Salik noted that seven schools in the cluster require exceptional support because they must pay rental costs for central buildings or support facilities.

 

Salik explained these costs arise due to site limitations, planning restrictions or lack of suitable provision, meaning the schools must lease premises.

 

Salik reported that a similar application was made last year and approved by the DfE.

Salik advised that the financial cost is around £82,000 in 2025/26 and a similar cost is expected for 2026/27.

 

Suzanne asked whether the amount is expected to decrease in the future or remain the same assuming the same number of schools still need support. Salik responded that he expects the rate to increase slightly due to inflation, though it should remain stable or near the current level overall.

 

Salik noted that before approval, the DfE will review rental agreements for evidence to support the request.

 

The LA made the following recommendation:

 

·         It is recommended that Schools Forum approves the continuation of the exceptional premises factor for 2026-27.

Yes: 13 No: 0 Abstained: 0

 

·         It is further recommended that Schools Forum endorses the submission of a disapplication request to the DfE to allow this factor to remain operational within the local formula.

 

Renata reported that phase one of the consultation on potentially moving to a banded model for EHCP funding was released in September and closed on 19^th  October 2025.

 

Renata shared that the consultation received just over 90 responses, including 20 from schools and the rest mainly from parents and carers.

 

Renata noted that 92% of schools who responded were in favour of moving to a banded model and explained that parents and carers were less positive and that the team now needs to carry out significant analysis of the qualitative feedback from the survey.

 

Renata highlighted that the feedback gathered is useful for improving the needs descriptor model that was part of the consultation and added that the feedback will also help shape a future communication strategy, especially aimed at parents and carers, if the model is formally implemented.

 

Renata stated that the next step is to use the consultation feedback to shape the next iteration of the needs descriptor model, with work planned over the coming months. Renata advised of additional developments of the needs descriptor model.

 

Renata also advised that preparation for phase two of the consultation are taking place which will focus on the funding linked to each band and confirmed that phase two is intended to be launched in early 2026.

 

Martin notes that there have been two no votes and asks what the current position is, specifically whether LCC will go to the Secretary of State or to Cabinet.

 

Tim explained that cabinet will next discuss the implications for Leicestershire and the wider high needs deficit and that cabinet will make a decision on 18^th November about whether to proceed with a schools block transfer to the Secretary of State.

 

Tim advised that if cabinet does not agree, discussions will be needed on funding Oakfield outreach without per‑pupil school contributions, mainstream inclusion responsibilities becoming statutory under the white paper and adjusting the budget and reviewing the Oakfield offer after the current SEND Investment Fund.

 

Phil asked Renata to clarify her earlier point that there was little feedback from primary heads. Renata confirmed that 77% of respondents were from secondary schools.

 

Phil suggested exploring into why primary heads are not engaging. Martin requested an updated register of members and also offered to contact people and take action to improve participation.

 

Jude noted that the SEND Investment Fund consultation was only shared in the Headteacher Updates, whereas important consultations have previously been sent as standalone emails and suggests that significant consultations should be highlighted more prominently.

 

Callum Payne advised that he will liaise with Martin around membership, noting some primary heads have recently shown interest in joining.

 

Pete asked Phil whether there is a Primary Heads Network meeting and Phil confirms there is and is similar to secondary and agrees this could be a good channel and will raise it with Leicester Primary Heads.

 

Salik confirmed the forum membership review was done with Callum and also offered help with recruiting members and suggests using their teachers’ letter to reach maintained schools.

 

Tim advised that he and Jane have met with Matt Williams and Nicole Brown to discuss making the Headteachers’ Briefing easier to navigate and noted the difficulty of balancing too much and too little information.

 

Tim stated that he and Rebecca Wakeley will explore presenting the briefing differently and invites feedback.

 

Simon Grindrod observed that schools and governors attend because topics like SEND are important but often feel expected to vote through decisions. Simon feels that when the forum disagrees, decisions still go to the DfE making participation feel symbolic.

 

Simon argues that the forum should be a place to work issues out collaboratively and not just rubber‑stamp proposals.

 

Pete agreed with Simon’s comment and stated that if this issue had come earlier, feedback on “option 2” could have been meaningful.

 

Pete advised that because the deadline is mid‑November, it feels like whatever the forum says now won’t matter as it will be pushed through.

 

Tim appreciated Pete’s point and reiterates the local authority’s desire to work collectively. Tim stated that cabinet may still decide to request a disapplication, but it’s possible to withdraw the request if wider consultation is preferred.

 

Tim advised that he will speak to secondary heads next week and could start a wider debate then.

 

Phil stated that the Leicester Primary Heads have a meeting soon.

 

Tim confirmed he has been asked to attend that meeting too, so the same discussion can take place there.

 

The next meeting is due to take place on Monday 23rd February 2026.