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: