Agenda item

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 recruitment progress and whether roles were permanent or temporary .

 

Victoria advised that recruitment has been successful with most posts starting in January. Some posts are permanent to run services while others are temporary pending future funding decisions.

 

Renata provided a breakdown of SENIF spending with £2.1m being spent on recruitment, £0.4m on training and £0.3m in‑school AP offers.

 

Jude queried Oakfield’s total financial scale and Rachel Frith responded to advise that currently, Oakfield costs about £9m annually. Jude expressed concern about sustainability without the SENIF.

 

Tim warned that the Oakfield outreach cannot continue without new funding (~£2m needed).

 

Phil expressed concerned about schools that are already in deficit due to falling numbers would be unable to opt into a voluntary model. Phil also stated that he is unaware of managed moves being used in Leicestershire.

 

Phil also raised a fact that schools would have to accept an agreed number of SEND pupils and feels that governors would be struggling to accept more SEND pupils.

 

Phil recognised the importance of early intervention but questioned the feasibility.

 

Pete asked why the per‑pupil question was not in the consultation and feels that option 2 lacked modelling and seemed last‑minute and stated that he believes option 2 is preferable but is too unclear to support.

 

Renata gave some indicative figures stated that we have 100,000 mainstream pupils within Leicestershire and if we needed to raise £2.8m, this equates to £28 per pupil and that’s that service size and cost depends on participation.

 

Tim informed all that the number of EHCP applications from parents is now around 48% which is driving pressures.

 

Rosie Browne asked whether schools opting in could be given a maximum cost cap to reduce risk.

 

Tim stated that a minimum contribution level would be essential and hoped for broad participation to maintain viability.

 

Martin highlighted that schools in deficit may want to contribute but cannot and requested sight of last year’s Secretary of State business case and evidence of delivery against it.

 

Tim responded to say that the business case will be made available. Tim explained that no impact was expected yet due to the timing of the recruitment and reiterated the SENIF focus is early intervention, not deficit reduction.

 

The LA made the following recommendation:

 

a)    Note the responses to the consultation on a further 0.5% transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for the 2026/27 financial year.

 

b)    Consider the two options set out in paragraphs 24-37 for funding a sustainable outreach and graduated support offer to mainstream schools through Oakfield School. Options include:

 

·         A 0.5% Schools Block Transfer to the High Needs Block, or

Yes: 2 No: 10 Abstained: 1

 

·         A per-pupil contribution from schools and a commitment from schools to supporting ongoing mainstream inclusion.

Yes: 0 No: 10 Abstained: 3

 

c)    Agree which option the Forum recommend to Cabinet.

 

Jude stated that she would have considered option 1 but finds it morally problematic given inequitable contributions caused by DfE rules. Jude advised that she abstained on option 2 due to the lack of clarity.

 

Pete stated that he felt option 2 would be acceptable if it was compulsory but the optionality and lack of detail prevented him supporting this.

 

Kelly Dryden advised that she thinks option 2 is conceptually the better model, but insufficient modelling makes it risky.

 

Phil stated that he voted for option 1 to ensure continuation of early‑stage support despite the imperfections.

 

Martin advised he voted no to both options due to the lack of visible impact so far and needs evidence before supporting further funding.

 

Tim asked what alternative solutions members would support given the system pressures.

 

Jude agreed that option 2 has potential if properly developed and consulted on and believe a more comprehensive system‑wide approach is needed.

 

Suzanne emphasised that the children are at the centre of this, many of whom currently receive inconsistent or inadequate support and urged action to maintain and improve provision based on what she witnessed at Oakfield.