Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Martin Towers, Rosie Browne, Felicity Clarke, Ed Petrie and Michelle White. A substitution of Lisa Turland in place of Rebecca Wakely was noted.

·       Schools Forum in Operation

No amendments were requested and the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 23^rd February 2026. Minutes were agreed as a correct record. However, the action of ‘Obtain analysis on the potential impact of the expansion for the free school meals entitlement’ was discussed, where Salik provided an update.

Eligibility for free school meals in England will be expanded to all children in households receiving Universal Credit, with the Department for Education confirming the methodology for additional funding for 2026-27.

Mainstream schools will receive £295 for each additional eligible pupil, based on the increase between the October 2025 and October 2026 census. This shall cover the period of September 2026 to March 2027.

Further to this, for academies, they shall also be receiving an additional payment for April to August 2027. The funding will be rolled into the national funding formula.

It was highlighted that this is a significant change in policy where more pupils will become eligible for free school meals. Therefore, schools shall need to ensure census information is accurate, families are aware of the changes and catering and administrative arrangements are made for September 2026. Allocations are expected to be published in February 2027, where this shall continue to be monitored and further guidance on the matter shall be shared. 

Jude Mellor question whether there was clarity on an estimated percentage increase in free school meals to support in the organisation of arrangements and in mitigating the potential challenges that may arise, such as cost and workforce changes.

Action: Salik Khan to collect estimated data in relation to the potential increase of free school meals and feedback to colleagues over the summer.

Kate Nicholson asked where there is differential data to support the statement that ‘without TSIL programme demand and placement cost would have been significantly higher’, which was noted in the previous minutes. Tim Browne replied that there had been a detailed report that went to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which outlined these figures. Nerinder Samaria referenced that within the DSG outturn paper, in paragraph 9, it quantifies the impact of the TSIL Programme. This has avoided costs up £34 million by March 29, which exceeds cost of the investment of the programme.

Pete Leatherland questioned the link between the £4.6 million reduction in the school’s block funding settlement and falling pupil numbers. Salik confirmed the reduction is due to a decline in primary enrolment caused by lower birth rates.

School Forum in Operation

As per the constitution, an election of Chair and Vice-Chair was held. There had been no nominations for Chair or Vice-Chair, so Martin Towers and Suzanne Uprichard stood again.

A vote was taken for Martin to be Chair of Leicestershire Schools' Forum:

Yes:    8          No:   0        Abstained: 1

A vote was taken for Suzanne to be Vice Chair of Leicestershire Schools' Forum

Yes:    8          No:   0       Abstained: 1

Martin and Suzanne were re-elected, unopposed following a formal vote from Schools Forum.

Rebecca Jones wished to express thanks to Martin for his efforts on chairing Leicestershire Schools' Forum.

The report was for noting and required no decision to be made. The report highlighted the financial position of maintain schools across the sector. The balance position was reported to have moved sharply from a small over surplus in 24-25 into a net deficit at the end 25-26.

61 out of 65 budgets were submitted on the 2^nd June, with further school budgets having been submitted. Salik wished to thank maintained schools’ colleagues for their efforts. The subsequent outcome of the budget submission was 45/61 maintained schools were projecting a deficit in 2026 – 2027, were aggregate deficit from £9.83 million to £28 million by 2029-30. The forecast from July 2025 noted a £17m deficit, which Salik highlighted was an improvement and as a result of a number of factors, including the LLC intervention programme. He further added that the deficit can be attributed to a number of structural causes, which included falling pupil rolls, fixed leadership and premises costs, pay inflation, and costs related to emerging needs not yet covered by EHCP funding.

The report also highlights the formal intervention framework, including the school sustainability work stream, the introduction of the budget policy, the licence deficit panels, financial planning assumptions, training, monitoring and external specialist review and the School Place Planning Strategy 2026 – 2031. The Strategy also notes that due to uneven distribution, the pressure on some schools remains more acute when compared to others.

Kate Nicholson questioned how many maintained schools are currently at capacity and how that correlates with those perceived as not being sustainable. Salik replied that understanding the financial position of these schools is in preliminary stages, where capacity against the rolls, currently data is being worked through.

Action: Salik to check with service whether data regarding capacity against the rolls can be shared with Forum members.

In response to Peter Leatherland’s question, Salik noted the current balance as of the 31st of March was £9.7m

Dominic Lane noted there has been a £17mn saving and also £28m deficits, he questioned how much of the amount encompasses savings to pension and not efficiency. In addition, what corrective plan of action there were in reducing the debt further.

Tim wished to highlight that they are not saving and it is cost avoidance. He further explained that work continues to be undertaken, which looks at refining the forecasting arrangements, which differs from school to school. Oversight of this is through Schools Suitability Programme, where the Schools Sustainability Board oversees the work with actions to put in place to address the accumulated deficits, which by in larger are being caused by falling rolls.

It was noted that some schools struggle within certain areas of the County due to viability and sustainability. Academies have been reluctant to take on schools with deficits. Financial experts are currently reviewing the budget reports submitted, where feedback shall be expected in due course. The School Organisation Programme shall be prioritised around the growing deficit.

Tim outlined possible solutions for schools with persistent deficits, such as combining infant and junior schools, amalgamations, academisation, or, as a last resort, closure. The Board will prioritise actions based on detailed budget reviews and local needs, with regular updates to the Forum.

Further to this, Dominic wished to clarify whether there is confidence in the reason for these deficits are due to falling rolls. Tim expressed that there shall be high support and high challenge, where leadership and governance, school structures, school standards expenditure (accumulative and projected debt) shall be reviewed, where corrective action shall be taken should there be any other issues. Tim wished to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Nerinder Samaria spoke to the report and wished to highlight a £30.9m overspend for 2025-26, primarily due to High Needs Block overspend, pressures from rising SEND demands, significant growth in EHCP demand (23% increase in EHCPs in one year), increase placement and service costs.

Nerinder highlighted paragraph 4 of the report, which further details the High Needs Block spend. He noted that independent specialist school’s provider spend account for 24% of the total High Needs Block spend, which equates to 67% of total EHCPs.

The cumulative DSG deficit reaching £79.2m is likely to trend upwards during the MTFS period. There is potential for government support to fund up to 90% of DSG deficits as of March 2026, but this is contingent on approval of the SEND Reform plan and subject to ongoing review

Mitigation efforts, including the TISIL programme, have delivered significant cost avoidance (£34m). However, despite this, the overall, financial position is still unsustainable without further actions. It was noted that there is underspend in Early Years spend and Schools Block.

Action: In year budget monitoring updates to be bought to future Schools Forum meeting.

Action: Salik to send Foongyee questions received from members.

Action: Foongyee to disseminate questions and answers to Forum colleagues.

Tim added he has expressed his concerns to the DfE about the lead in times around the Reforms.

Pete referred to page 20 and questioned whether special units were running at capacity, whether they were in the correct specialism and could there be more done.  Tim shared, there is ongoing work to review the funding arrangements of the units, that will have different needs. It was noted that such questions were also asked in the Q&A document received, which shall be addressed.

Renata added that majority of unit bases are full, with a few which are being reviewed, where SLAs are not aligned with the cohort of children that need to be placed. From September, there are tentative or finalised allocations against all units. Though there is a significant waiting list, there will be new enhanced resource bases opening from September onwards, which will bring additional space for Early Years children who are moving up to primary school. Work is ongoing with the opening of Harborough Special School scheduled to open in 2028. Renata noted that the DfE gives capital on an annual basis, which can be a challenge as this impacts the amount of funding that would support in bringing forward specialist places. This information becomes available in Apil where forward planning of specialist placements can be a challenge. Despite this, review of the Capital Programme shall be undertaken over the next few years. Renata noted that they continue to evaluate and be mindful of spending but are adopting an invest to save approach as they continue to go forward.

Pete noted that whilst work is ongoing and spaces become available, there are existing opportunities which could be readily available and questioned where these may be within the plan. Renata voiced that they are working with schools which have additional capacity to support enhanced resource bases.

Tim noted for each business case around potential closure, there will be review of possible future use of the site. There is also a formal deposition process. He also shared that decision making will also encompass the need and demand of particular areas in Leicestershire.

Liv Dale spoke to the report and provided an overview of the SEND Reform plan, including the submission of the final plan for DfE approval, the introduction of the Experts at Hand model to enhance mainstream inclusion, and the challenges of workforce recruitment and sustainability.

Liv noted the rising EHCP demand and cost, increased reliance on specialist provisions and the movement towards mainstream inclusion. The focus of work includes early intervention in mainstream, clearer national expectations and standards to allow equity across mainstream schools where possible and improvement of outcomes and value for money. The SEND Reforms aims to reduce costs.

Liv explained that the SEND Reform plan was submitted with cross-sector sign-off and is a precondition for accessing the High Needs Stability Grant, which could write off up to 90% of historic DSG deficits. Approval is expected by mid-September.

The SEND Reform plan focusses on two main areas, which are SEND sufficiency expansion and the Experts at Hand Model.

The Experts at Hand model aims to provide multidisciplinary support in mainstream settings, focusing on early intervention and inclusion. The model was developed in lieu of the national guidance, consequently, there may be iterations made as more information and guidance is released. Some indicative funding brackets for the budget to deliver the Experts at Hand has been given. The model prioritises direct delivery, with an aim of 90% of funding allocated to frontline support and is structured around seven localities to ensure responsiveness to local needs. Experts at Hand grant funding will likely be given to Local Authority to deliver the Experts at Hand model until the 31st of March 202. This is in line with the statutory legal changes coming in in 2029/2030.

David Warick questioned the premises sold by Leicestershire County Council. Tim stated, the standards by which councils and the building bulletins have to adhere to for schools are different for maintained schools and for independent schools. A survey was undertaken for suitability of the site for a school and cost of equipment for a special school. The conclusion was that the site was not suitable for a school. However, better use of the money was to build a brand new 252 place special school on a different site.

David Warrick wished to share on behalf of the NEU:

“The proposals in relation to the Experts at Hand offer appear to be contradictory to the guidance provided by the Government which explicitly states that the funding is to develop and deliver a new Experts at Hand offer. The proposal is to use this funding to replace existing funding. This is, therefore, not a new offer. The Government guidance states explicitly that they do not expect the EaH grant to be substituted for existing spend. The guidance goes on to say it should be used to build on and enhance existing local capacity and good practice. 

Schools’ Forum should seek further clarification from the Council on these proposals and also be aware that the Council are also removing Qualified Teaching Status from their Early Years offer.

Rather than building and enhancing good practice, the Council is dismantling in one area and substituting in another.”

Action: Foongyee to include David’s comment in Q&A and circulate feedback to Forum members.

Gratitude to working group members and engagement of colleagues was noted and thanked. Liv highlighted the iterative process that the model and work would continue to be over the next 2 years.

Suzanne questioned, that within the Expert at Hands Model, would there be difficulty in sourcing professionals and how the management of this for Leicestershire would look. Liv  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

For Information only. The report outlies the Early Years Block Budget 26/27, which confirms that Leicestershire County Council has met the minimum pass-through rate of 97%. The report captures four different funding streams. Salik confirmed that the council achieved a 97.2% pass-through rate for three- and four-year-olds and nine months to two-year-olds, with the only supplement applied being deprivation. The centrally retained amount covers quality improvement, advisory, and administrative costs.

There were no items raised under any other business.

• Thursday 22^nd September 1:30 – 3:30pm
• Thursday 5^th November 2 – 4pm
• Thursday 11^th February 2027 2 – 4pm
• Thursday 24^th June 2027 1:30 – 3:30pm

The next meeting is due to take place on Tuesday 22^nd September 1:30pm – 3:30pm

• Tuesday 22^nd September 1:30pm – 3:30pm
• Thursday 5^th November 2pm – 4pm
• Thursday 11^th Feb 2027 2pm – 4pm
• Thursday 24^th June 2027 1:30pm – 3:30pm