Agenda item

Jane Moore presented the report to the forum, proposing a Schools Block transfer that invests funding in the most effective way to achieve the best outcome for Leicestershire children and young people with SEND.

The LA continues to overspend on the High Needs DSG. This is a needs-led budget which the LA must spend to meet demand. TSIL focused on reducing growth and demand entering the system. Demand is higher for EHCPs in Leicestershire than in other LAs compared to LA size. TSIL benefits forecasted over the 8 years to full benefits realisation have never been sufficient to fully recover the financial position. The LA bears the cost of children whose additional needs cannot be met in mainstream alone. Many LAs transfer money to the High Needs block frequently to subsidence deficit but Leicestershire’s attempt to transfer money to the High Needs block was declined by the Forum and Secretary of State (SoS) twice.

Delivering Better Value (DBV) is a DfE focused programme with an initial objective of supporting local authorities to be able to deliver a balanced budget within 3 years. A schools’ block transfer is one action available to LAs in achieving this. Safety Valve is the next level of DfE action based on level of deficit, which includes more interventions from the government. The DfE is not satisfied that LA has not yet reconsidered a transfer to the High Needs block. The LA needs to transfer 0.5% of schools’ budget to the High Needs block. If Forum does not agree, the LA will need to go to SoS for disapplication.

Rosalind Hopkins requested a breakdown of the high needs block, detailing what the block is being used and what it is funding. Rosalind also questioned whether the political landscape (with the upcoming 2024 election) had created an opportunity to make a collective approach against the DfE as the system is failing. Jane Moore agreed that the challenges within the system are exacerbated by the national landscape, but that it is unclear how a new government might affect the system. In addition, Jane has agreed to provide a breakdown of spending from the high needs block.

Jane Moore had not proposed a basic transfer of funds to the high needs block simply to reduce the deficit. Instead, Jane proposed that money transferred from the schools’ block is used to reinvest into schools to deliver sustainable impact and reduce the demand for EHCPs and their cost. SEND is expensive in mainstream schools and there are concerns that moving funding away from the Schools’ Block will hinder the ability of mainstream schools to support SEN, which would result in more SEN children being pushed out of mainstream schools when there are not enough special provisions to pick them up. Jane acknowledged the risk of a transfer, but the LA proposal aims to minimise and take control of the risks presented. As a forum, it has been recommended that a communication is drafted to share with schools and explain the circumstances of a high needs block transfer.

Dr Jude Mellor questioned how putting money into supporting mainstream school systems can be done effectively. Jane Moore notes that part of the discussion around a transfer includes using reinvested money to support school inclusion.

Peter Leatherland questioned what happens when Leicestershire is placed into a Safety Valve agreement. This is a different means of planning in which decision are made for the LA on how spendings occur.

Peter Leatherland noted that TSIL did not work to reduce the LA’s high needs deficit. Peter questioned why the schools block should be used to invest money into a system shown to be ineffective. Peter also questioned how removing money from schools would affect school interventions that have already been planned. Jane Moore reminded the Forum that the 0.5% transfer would not be invested into TSIL; this would be a government directed approach and would be used to directly support inclusion within mainstream schools. In addition, Jane clarified that the transfer would enact a cap on schools’ gains rather than a direct transfer from existing school budgets.

Rosalind Hopkins questioned whether transferred funding to the high needs block would be ringfenced and whether spending of this funding would be reported to the forum. Given that SEN is not equal across schools, as some schools are managing SEN within their budget, Jenny Lawrence has assured the forum that the LA would be careful and transparent with how the transfer is being used. The transfer will have its own budget with governance for fair and proper use.

Rosalind Hopkins reported feedback from mainstream schools which were spending above the £6k notional SEN which was coming from their school budget. Rosalind has questioned whether a report evidencing the challenges within the SEN system and how schools are funded might inform how money from the transfer might be spent.

Phil Lewin has asked whether the LA will ask schools to stop requesting EHCPs, given that the demand for EHCPs has not reduced through TSIL. Phil noted that the schools are expected to educate SEN children but do not have the funding to do so. There are better ways to fund medium-term SEN interventions, but funding is not forthcoming, so schools are forced to request an EHCP to ensure funding is provided. Legislation does not support the LA declining EHCP requests as LA decisions are overturned at tribunals. In addition, children who go onto EHCPs do not come off EHCPs when needs reduce. Releasing government funding for innovative interventions within schools prior to an EHCP would require a policy change within the DfE, which the DfE are not willing to do.

Martin Towers asked whether the LA would have a better chance of taking children off EHCPs when needs reduce if annual reviews were more thorough. Jane Moore agreed that this would be more effective in theory, but in practice the capacity within schools and the LA, as well as a challenging parental population, have not allowed for this.

Dan Cleary asked whether there would be a benefit in communicating these issues with the public more clearly. The Forum should coordinate messaging for the public to encourage system and policy change.

Peter Leatherland and Rosalind Hopkins have been nominated to represent the Forum at the SEN Funding Review Group. The high needs block transfer does not impact Early Years (EY) provisions and so there is no requirement for an EY representative.

A formal paper on the proposed 0.5% high needs block transfer will be presented to the Forum at a future meeting.

Recommendation: That Schools’ Forum note and comment on the content of this report.

Recommendation: That Schools’ Forum nominate a member to become a representative on a SEN Funding Review Group.