Agenda item

Schools Forum to note the report and make recommendations on the options consulted on.

The Forum received a report for information, which provided Members with: -

 

• additional information and financial implications of the SEND & HNB consultation outcomes.

• an overview of the financial and timing implications of the High Needs Provision Capital Allocation Grant.

• confirmation that DFE had agreed a three-year increase in HNB funding and that 2022/23 would be the last year of that agreement. Further announcements were anticipated for 2023/2024 onwards, but no timescales had been provided thus far.

 

SEND HNB Consultation Outcome Options

 

There were 6 proposals that had been consulted on and presented at the last Schools Forum Meeting, as follows: -

 

Proposal 1

 

Should the Time Allocation Model of Inclusion Support Services be reviewed for Secondary Schools from a flat rate allocation to a formula allocation in line with the primary model?

 

Schools Forum had agreed to the change from a flat rate to a formula model with further consultation with Secondary representatives on specific elements and weightings to the formula (option 1.2). The proposal has been presented at JEG, Primary and Secondary Partnership during November 2021. A steering group of Secondary representatives would be formed in the new year.

 

This would have no financial implications on the HNB.

 

Table 1, in Appendix 1 to the report, showed the financial implications of this option on the HNB and had been used as a status quo position. The estimated outturn reported in the October 2021 monitoring report had been used as the starting point for the projected carry forward. An indicative estimate for 2022/23 had also been used to produce the cash flow.

 

Proposal 2

 

This proposal was to determine the use of funding being held with the SEN Support Service category of the HNB to employ a Secondary Preventing Exclusions Team (PSE). An alternative proposal had been put forward to use this funding to employ the Transition / Reintegration Team currently funded through schools Exclusion Levy.

 

Schools Forum had agreed the use of the PSE allocated budget to be used to fund the reintegration officers.

 

The Financial implications of this was a saving of £37,100 per annum.

 

Table 2, in Appendix 1 to the report, showed the impact of this option compared with the baseline.

 

Proposal 3

 

To determine the level of top up funding allocated to children and young people with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This proposal had 5 options: -

 

Option 3.1 to increase the element 3 top up by 1% across all top ups. To include mainstream schools, special schools, focus provision schools and PRUs (excluding Albright).

Option 3.2 to increase the element 3 top up by 2% across all top ups. To include mainstream schools, special schools, focus provision schools and PRUS (excluding Albright).

Option 3.3 to increase the element 3 top up by 1% across all top ups in mainstream schools and focus provisions schools only

Option 3.4 to increase the element 3 top up by 2% across all top ups in mainstream schools and focus provisions schools only

Option 3.5 to maintain current levels of top-up funding for all pupils.

 

Schools forum deferred this proposal to this meeting pending further financial information.

 

The annual impact of proposal 3 had been calculated based on the current anticipated outturn as at 31/3/22 and the predicted budget for 2022/23. The financial impact of each option was shown in Tables 3 – 7 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

Proposal 4

 

To incrementally increase specialist places for primary and secondary aged pupils with severe learning difficulties / complex needs and secondary aged SEMH students.

 

There had been a steady increase year on year in the number of Children and Young people requiring additional support though an EHCP. This increase was expected to continue over the next 5 years.

 

The anticipated increase in the number of EHCPs over the next 5 years was approximately 1300. The expectation was that 35% of these would require specialist places and as Sandwell schools were very inclusive, 65% would be met in mainstream with support.

 

Over this 5-year period, 271 specialist places had already been agreed through the opening of Specialist Free Schools and expansions of existing provisions and built into the HNB cashflow leaving approximately 1029 still to be planned and funded.

 

Of the 1029 still to be agreed, 184 would be specialist places and 845 would be mainstream with support.

 

The current need for specialist places were KS3 SEMH Focus provisions, KS3/4 SEMH special school places and SLD Primary and Secondary satellite schools / extensions.

 

The cost per place had been calculated as an average, however, the actual cost could be higher following the statutory assessment process and finalising the new EHCPs.

 

Capital cost of the specialist provision would be met through the High Needs Capital Allocation, as applicable.

 

Schools forum had deferred this proposal to this meeting pending further financial information.

 

There was no additional funding in the HNB to fund the place elements and top up for these additional EHCPs, but each year the funding was adjusted for special school pupils on roll by a small amount per place equating to £4000.

 

At this point in time, there had not been an announcement for any increases after 2022/23.

 

Table 8, in Appendix 1 to the report, showed the estimated financial impact on the HNB from April 2022 onwards. The actual impact would vary based on timelines for expansion completions.

 

Proposal 5

 

To support the development of specialist teaching environments in mainstream schools.

 

The purpose of the grant was to enable mainstream schools in Sandwell to become “even more inclusive” and meet the growing complexity of pupils Special Educational Needs entering their schools. The grant would be for one-off capital funding to be used to enhance the physical accommodation of the school site, to provide specialist teaching and / or intervention spaces to enhance school provision. Examples included; structured teaching spaces for pupils with ASD, Sensory rooms, nurture / therapeutic environments and hygiene rooms.

 

Funding for this would be from the High Needs Capital Allocation and would have no impact on the HNB.

 

Schools Forum had deferred this to the next meeting pending further information on how the grant system would work. A draft proposal was attached at Appendix 3 to the report.

 

Proposal 6

 

To provide a limited one-year resource grant, funded by the HNB to schools who establish the specialist teaching spaces detailed in proposal 5.

 

This would be a maximum of £100K for 1 year and schools would receive a maximum of £2000 per school. The criterion for the resource grant was included within Appendix 3 to the report.

 

The financial impact of this would be minimal on the HNB.

 

This had been deferred by Schools Forum pending the additional information requested in proposal 5.

 

Conclusion to the Proposals

 

The financial impact tables 1 – 8, in Appendix 1 to the report, were in isolation for each proposal. Within Appendix 2 to the report, Tables 9 – 13 showed the impact of Proposal 2 which had already been agreed, Proposal 3 which was the increases in top-ups and Proposal 4 the anticipated increase in the number of pupils with EHCPs over the 5-year period. Table 14 showed the capacity created in the development of specialist places and the impact in mainstream.

 

The increase anticipated in the assessment for EHCPs was a national issue, therefore these places would be needed over the 5-year period and there was a real risk that the HNB would go into deficit if additional funding is not forthcoming from Central Government.

 

If the HNB went into deficit, the Local Authority would need to submit a deficit recovery plan to the DfE stating how the deficit would be managed. There were a number of ways to manage the deficit, those being: -

 

 

1. Review EHCP banding matrix and reduce the amount of “top up” money to all schools (as we had done previously). This would financially impact on schools and would be subject to consultation with schools and parents.

2. Review support services and additional service level agreements paid for through the HNB. This could lead to schools purchasing services directly that were currently provided through the HNB. This would impact financially on the schools to maintain the support they currently received.

3. Local Authorities could transfer up to 0.5% of the schools’ block to other blocks in the DSG, with Schools Forum approval. The LA had never requested a transfer from the schools’ block to the HN block, and it had been reported at the meeting on 8th November 2021, that the Authority would not be requesting a transfer for 2022/23. This was also a short-term solution as this option would not be available once the Hard Funding Formula was finalised which would be 2024/25 at the earliest.

4. Schools were asked to look at their pathways and structures to accommodate the pupils that the LA wished to place. This would impact on both schools and the HNB funding but could be partly funded by reducing out of borough placements.

 

HNB Capital Allocations

 

The recent announcement allocated Sandwell £1.48m and there was a carry forward of £0.6m from the SEND capital allocation.

 

Some capital expenditure would be required to go through Cabinet for approval, which could result in a delay in starting the projects. This would mean that buildings / adaptations will be completed but the places not fully utilised until phased transfers in September 2023, as phased transfers for September 2022 would need to be finalised by February 2022.

 

The implications of this meant that some pupils would still be placed out of borough into independent schools in the intervening period.

 

Other Considerations

 

The basic entitlement factor in the HNB was increased to account for increases in special schools / academies at approximately £4000 per place. Therefore, there would be some guaranteed increases in the HNB funding from 2023/24 onwards.

 

A budget for 12 places at Westminster SPI had been included in the cash flow projections. This was a new initiative to support pupils post 19 into work / apprenticeships. This pilot scheme had started on 1st September 2021 and was due to be reviewed shortly. If the pilot did not continue, this would result in a saving in the HNB.

 

Members considered the report and queried the following, in particular: -

 

The Vice-Chair queried what would happen if any of the proposals led to the HNB being pushed into a deficit.

 

The Vice-Chair also commented that, from the feedback head received from other mainstream Head Teachers, given the choice of either having money for additional top-up allocations or allocating that money for special school places, there was a strong feeling amongst his colleagues that money being allocated for special school places was where they would wish that money to be allocated. This preference was borne out of the strong feeling that mainstream schools were struggling with the high SEND needs required at present.

 

M Tallents advised that, in terms of mitigation, most of the proposals would lead to an in-year deficit by 2023/24 and a full deficit by 2024/25. However, the amount for future HNB funding was still awaited. When notification of the exact amount was received, if it was insufficient and would lead to a deficit, the Council / Forum would need to look at a variety of options to mitigate that risk, possibly via a DfE Management Review Plan.

 

The Chair queried whether or not it was viable to invest in the local special schools to help reduce the reliance on the cost of out of Borough and independent school placements.

 

M Tallents advised that the vast majority of those children who were placed out of Borough were SEMH and those with more complex needs. However, work was required to try and reduce such out of Borough placements.

 

A Member queried what the reason(s) was behind the increase in children with complex needs. Was it due to an increase in the population, or was it due to the Authority becoming more efficient at identifying such needs in children struggling in mainstream education.

 

M Tallents advised that it was due to a combination of both of those aspects. M Jarrett reported that better understanding the level of support required for such children going forward would assist with the liaising with the DfE and informing the DSG Management Plan to help deal with the HNB and the specific pressures the Authority was experiencing.

 

Members fed-back from their respective Primary and Secondary Heads meetings. Both phases agreed that they would like to see the capacity increased in relation to local PRUs with the long-term ambition that such children could be taught in mainstream schooling, wherever viable.

 

Resolved that: -

1. the contents of the report be noted, the risks involved and the impact of not expanding specialist places in Borough.

 

2. in relation to Proposal 3, Forum Members voted unanimously in favour of approving option 3.5, as set out in 6.6 of the report [unanimous].

 

3. in relation to Proposal 5, Forum Members voted in favour of rejecting this Proposal, as detailed in section 8 of the report [4 in favour of approving, 8 in favour of rejecting and 2 abstentions].

 

4. in relation to Proposal 6, Forum Members voted in favour of rejecting this Proposal, as detailed in section 9 of the report [12 in favour of rejecting].