Agenda item

Report of the Director of Education Commissioning and Inclusion.

This report provides an updated financial projection on High Needs Block (HNB) spend for 2024/25 and reports a further increase in the deficit projection since the last report. 

Proposals for the 2025/26 HNB budget are made against this background and that are sustainable whilst also working to improve life outcomes for children/young people with high needs.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Education Commissioning and Inclusion.

Vikram Hansrani (Director of Education Commissioning and Inclusion) and Di Osborne (Head of SEND and Inclusion) summarised the report which provided an updated financial projection on HNB spend for 2024/25 and reported a further increase in the deficit projection since the last report.    Proposals for the 2025/26 HNB budget were made against this background and that were sustainable while also working to improve life outcomes for children/young people with high needs.

The Chair thanked officers for the report and invited questions and comments from the Forum. The following was discussed:

·       A member stated that the proposed change to proportionality payments should have been reviewed in detail by the HNSG, as that forum was intended for in-depth discussions on specific areas and the potential outcomes of such changes before proposals were presented to Schools Forum. The member acknowledged that officers had attempted to bring this issue to a previous meeting, but it had not been discussed.

·       A member noted that if the change recommended to Schools Forum was implemented on an interim basis, it might be difficult to reverse, as providing the money to schools upfront, rather than as a proportional payment at the end of term, would have made future adjustments more challenging.

·       A member stated that they did not disagree with devolving money to schools, or the principle of providing certainty regarding funding, but noted a contradiction in the report. They highlighted concerns about a proposed formula based on proxy measures, which did not create perverse incentives for identifying children with SEND. However, the formula now included identifying the number of SEND children as part of the calculation. An officer acknowledging that it could be seen as a similar perverse incentive, as there was a factor based on high needs pupils. However, it would be done annually, and the excess money would be calculated based on what the school would have received through the devolved payment. The officer explained that while the formula reflected the number of high-needs pupils, there was no direct relationship, as the process would occur once a year and would not encourage identifying more children for financial gain throughout the year.

·       A member asked for clarification on the current system, noting that a £1.8 million budget had been set for the devolved amount, which was then shared out to schools through a formula. They asked if the set amount had changed to £4 million, as it had been last year, or if it was a different figure. The member also requested details on the new formula, as this information was not included in the report. They pointed out that the current formula included prior attainment, FSM, and the number of Camden residents, and asked how these factors would change when using the numbers for the proportional payment. An officer responded, explaining that the new formula would leave the pot at £1.8 million through the old factors and then add 75% of what would be generated through the proportionality formula. This would be added to the existing factors. The officer clarified that the £1.8 million would be generated as it had been in the previous year, and the 75% would be based on the full-year cost of proportionality using the latest numbers.

·       A member raised that part of the purpose of the HNSG was to find savings, emphasising that there could be savings and alternative ways of spending less money in this area, but acknowledging that there were many areas to explore. An officer responded that savings considerations would involve significant discussions, all dependent on what would happen to HNB funding in future years and whether numbers of children with SEND would continue to increase. The officer noted that the current approach was framed as an interim measure, which could be adjusted in the future. They suggested that other areas, such as EOTAS and independent special schools, should be examined for potential savings first.

·       In response to members, officers confirmed that conversations were taking place with Robson House about their funding arrangements and it was not appropriate to comment at this stage in this forum. Those discussions would be taken to the HNSG and then an update on any decision made would be provided to Schools Forum in the summer.

·       A member praised the work carried out around remodelling ENG and clusters, as well as the responsiveness of SEND funding, which had been helpful to schools. However, this meant that officers needed to stay on top of the processing and administration of funding. The member expressed concern over the delay in funding, particularly when the money arrived 18 months after being agreed upon. Given that resources were becoming tighter, the member questioned what steps were being taken to review systems and processes. An officer responded that the issue of delayed payments was being addressed, with additional SEND officers being assigned to work with schools to ensure that payments would be made more promptly.

·       A member raised concerns about falling rolls and catchments, particularly in schools that admit a significant number of out-of-borough pupils. They questioned whether any modelling had been done on the impact of Camden schools, as some may have half of their students as non-residents. Officers responded that HNB funding was allocated solely for Camden residents. They explained that the weighting for the devolved amount was based on 20% residency, 20% FSM, and 60% prior attainment, with importance placed on these factors. The allocation was not based on the proportion of Camden residents in a school.

·       Officers confirmed that any changes agreed would be circulated to schools as soon as possible. Members emphasised the importance of ensuring schools understood the changes.

·       Members agreed to add the CLIF budget as another key area in Recommendation B, to incorporate an analysis of the funding disparity between ENG, EHCP and CLIF and an analysis of the uptake of CLIF across different settings and transitions, including a consultation with EY colleagues on their assessment of the uptake of CLIF.

RESOLVED –

THAT Schools Forum

a)    Note the updated HNB position for 2024/25.

b)    Agree the HNB Subgroup to oversee a review of key areas including ARP admission criteria and funding, the growth in our use of independent and non-maintained special schools, Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) packages, alternative provision, and the CLIF budget.

c)    Agree an interim change to the formula for devolved funding to Camden mainstream schools pending a fuller review of mainstream high needs funding.