Agenda item

SEN Investment Fund & Schools Block Transfer.

Minutes:

The School Block Transfer Final report was released on the morning of 17th September. Jane Moore addressed concerns regarding the lateness of papers being circulated to forum members; the document was released for the Forum’s review and consultation and will be voted on during the next Schools’ Forum in November 2024. The report was released to Schools Forum to align with the commencement of the consultation and to ensure it was sighted before the meeting.

The LA has proposed the establishment of a SEN investment fund where funding is ratcheted to reduce the growing prevalence of pupils presenting with Social, Emotional and Mental Health Needs (SEMH). The LA has previously detailed and reported the position of the High Needs Block, the work done to reduce spending and to move to a position of not overspending, as well as setting out the national position of High Needs funding. The report sets out the LA’s proposal to establish a ringfenced SEN Investment Fund through a transfer of funding from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).

The funds from the Schools Block transfer would be ringfenced and used exclusively within schools as a redistribution of funding within the system. The LA’s data analysis showed that SEMH was the pressing and growing driver of EHCP’s in the SEND system. The School Block Transfer report sets out more detail on how practitioners would be funded to support young people and help young people to manage and recognise triggers. The LA seeks consultation on whether SEMH would be the best use of funding and whether this is the right approach. Jane Moore noted that this would be an annual process, but the impact of this funding would not be seen until 2026-27.

The LA proposed a 0.5% Schools Block to High Needs Block transfer modelled on the current schools funding system by capping annual funding gains at individual school level. This proposal has challenges, such as some schools having protected levels of funding which cannot be removed. There is a £1.5m cash yield from primary schools, 60% of which would see a reduction. There is less cash yield from secondary schools but 80% would see a reduction. The report models the proposal on 2024-25-year data.

The consultation on the 0.5% Schools Block to High Needs Block transfer will close on 20th October 2024. The consultation feedback will be analysed and presented to Schools’ Forum on 4th November. If the LA cannot obtain approval from the Schools’ forum, the LA will determine whether approval will be sought from the Secretary of State.

Recommendation: The Schools’ Forum note the proposed actions.

Recommendation: The Schools’ Forum consider submitting a formal response to the consultation.

Mark Mitchley claimed that the LA has failed in every attempt to reduce the High Needs deficit. Mark questioned why schools would have confidence in the LA. Jane Moore reminded the forum that the transfer would fund the needs of children within mainstream provision; the money would not fund SENA or the Education Psychology services but would fund pupils with SEMH needs. The transfer would not fund capacity issues but would redistribute funding within the overall SEND system. Jane also reminded the forum that the LA is not solely responsible for meeting high needs.

Peter Leatherland questioned the impact of a Safety Valve agreement being triggered. The LA’s proposal takes money from schools to fund interventions schools are already providing without addressing the deficit. Jane Moore explained that a Safety Valve takes all responsibility on how money is spent away from LAs and schools; it takes control of changes to services and provisions. The LA has been advised to consider a Schools Block transfer by the DfE; the funding is to be used specifically to meet the needs of pupils with SEMH and reduce the future call on High Needs funding.

Carolyn Shoyer supported the position of a system-wide challenge. However, Carolyn noted that the LA has a responsibility for the sufficiency of school placements. There is a heavy reliance on expensive school provisions despite school leaders being willing to provide physical space for high need placements and work positively with the LA. Carolyn questioned how health services can be co-located into schools to positively impact SEMH to reduce the escalation of need.

Carolyn Shoyer observed the unlikeliness of the Schools Block transfer to be approved by Schools’ Forum but encouraged the LA to escalate the request to the Secretary of State. The LA’s message to the Secretary of State should be that funding and system reform are both required.

Rebecca Jones noted that schools work hard to ensure that budgeting is correct so that children receive the best support. Removing money from schools makes this more difficult. Furthermore, Rebecca felt that seeking approval from the Secretary of State to overturn a decision of Schools’ forum undervalues the forum’s purpose. Jane Moore reflected that requesting approval from the Secretary of State is the standard process if Schools’ Forum don’t approve a transfer; despite this, Mrs Deborah Taylor noted that approval from the Secretary of State is not guaranteed. In addition, Jane has not criticised the position or the job that schools are doing. Jane encouraged the need to be on the same page; whilst the proposal will not benefit individual schools, it is for the benefit of children with SEN in Leicestershire.

Rosalind Hopkins queried whether there was evidence to suggest that the proposed approach and spending would have a positive impact on meeting need. After much discussion between members, Jane Moore agreed that the approach was not currently based on evidence. Jane Moore indicated that whilst the LA would like to work with all parties to make a strong case on how funding would be spent, opposition to the transfer has made this difficult. This would be the focus of discussion should the Schools Block transfer be agreed.

Peter Leatherland questioned whether there was a means to determine whether all special schools were full and what could be done to reduce the deficit. Jane Moore observed historic difficulties in moving children back into mainstream once in a special provision. Special schools are full, and each school has been expanded. However, some units attached to mainstream schools were built for specific needs which need to be reviewed to ensure they continue to do so. The LA should work with schools where units have spaces to determine how barriers can be removed to facilitate placements.

Rosalind Hopkins feared that the proposed transfer would have adverse effects on inclusion in mainstream schools. Jane Moore shared concerns but reminded the forum that the proposal has been made due to Leicestershire’s funding position and the expectation of the DfE’s Delivering Better Value programme.

Suzanne Uprichard determined that there is a need to understand why there are larger than expected increases in the number of children with SEN in Leicestershire. A concerted effort to understand this is required to resolve the issue. Jane Moore directed the forum to the summer ISOS Publication report which set out the challenges of the SEN system, which cannot be fixed by directing more funding into it. Instead, the report suggested that the SEN system is only fixable by understanding higher instances of SEN, capacity in schools, and the expectation of parents. Jane will circulate the ISOS Publication report with the minutes.

          NB. ISOS Publication report: Towards an Effective and Financially Sustainable      Approach to SEND in England.

Rebecca Jones requested that Schools’ Forum compile a response to the Schools Block transfer consultation without involvement from LA officers. Martin Towers will circulate a form requesting input from forum members, which will be used to draft a collective response.

Supporting documents: