Agenda and minutes

To note the Schools Forum membership list and any updates.

The Chair noted that there were a number of terms of office expiring in 2025 and head teacher members should consult their respective forums about future nominations.

RESOLVED -

THAT the membership list be noted.

There were no apologies.

There were no declarations.

There were no announcements.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2024.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the last meeting held on 5 November 2024 be approved as a correct record.

There was no urgent business.

Report of the Director of Education and Inclusion.

This report provides an overview of responses from primary and secondary schools in relation to proposals regarding the local funding formula for schools for 2025/26. These proposals were reported to the forum at its September’s meeting in light of the new governments delay in issuing detailed school funding proposals until after the 30^th October Budget Review. These proposals recommended, subject to any statutory National funding Formula (NFF) requirements or any new government policy revision to the NFF, that there will be no significant change to the local formula and forum was favourable to the proposals presented. Since this time the latest ESFA guidance Summary policy document for schools national funding formula 2025 to 2026 - issued on the 3^rd October has indicated no significant changes being proposed for the 2025/26 NFF to date.

Forum previously agreed the proposal subject to any significant objections from schools during the consultation period and that the responses should be reported back at forum’s next meeting. There were no significant number of requests from schools to change the agreed approach during the consultation period. There was also no significant number of responses to the general comments question as detailed in section 2 below. However, any current and future comments will be passed on to the appropriate service for consideration and response.

The forum is now asked to confirm its earlier approval of the September 2024 consultation document.

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

Victor Saunders, Team Leader Schools and Designated Schools Grant (DSG), introduced the report which provided an overview of responses from primary and secondary schools regarding proposals for the local funding formula for 2025/26. The Forum had previously agreed to maintain the current formula, pending any major changes, and since then the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) had confirmed no significant changes to the National Funding Formula (NFF). The consultation period revealed no substantial objections or additional comments from schools. The Forum was now asked to confirm its approval of the proposals presented in September 2024.

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

·       Members asked for updates on general budget announcements. In response, it was confirmed that the Autumn Budget allocated £1 billion to special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) funding, which formed part of the £2.2 billlion to the core schools budgets. The 1.8% increase to school core budgets would need to cover inflation and the teacher pay award for 2025/26.There was still a question as to whether any of the SEND allocation would be used as bailout funding for financially struggling local authorities, which would result in a lower uplift distributed to other local authorities using the funding formula. The details would be confirmed by government between now and December 2024 to allow local authorities to proceed with their budget planning and Forum would be updated at the next meeting.

·       A member commented that it would be unfair for local authorities to be penalised and receive a lower SEND funding uplift for being more financially responsible. In response, it was confirmed that the ESFA was aware of Camden’s good practice and if the funds were not distributed using the formula, there would be dismay from many similarly financially responsible local authorities.

·       It was confirmed that a low response rate to the consultation was expected due to the low impact nature of the proposals for no change and the continuation of a previously agreed approach by schools. Camden had already moved the local funding formular in-line with national averages which the national funding formula now used, therefore the formulas were drifting closer together anyway. Officers said that within the consultation documentation an invite was offered to schools to discuss any queries. It was noted by members that for other consultations which asked more impactful questions, officers should ensure schools were supported to engage and fully understand.

·       It had been communicated by government that National Insurance would be funded for schools on top of the £2.2 billion, however there had been no contact yet to confirm this to local authorities.

·       In response to a question asking if funding for staff pay awards would be a real terms increase, it was stated that they were likely to be grant based on pupil premium and schools were unlikely to receive the full amount of money  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report of the Director of Prevention, Family Help and Safeguarding.

This report explains the support that is provided for Early Education and Childcare providers to enable them to meet the needs of children with emerging special educational needs and / or disabilities. It describes the model through which the budget is determined and an analysis if the increase in demand that has arisen in recent years.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Prevention, Family Help and Safeguarding.

Nick Smith, Head of Education Commissioning and School Organisation, introduced the report which outlined the financial support provided to Early Education and Childcare providers to meet the needs of children with emerging SEND. The report detailed the budgeting model used and included an analysis of the recent increase in demand for these services.

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

·       In relation to section 2.1, it was confirmed that the contribution from the High Needs Block (HN) Block Designated Schools Grant (DSG) of £500,000 was in addition to the £804,000 funding.

·       A member asked which of the HN Block or Early Years (EY) Block would be used if the level of funding exceeded the £1.3 million budget and they asked if there was a cap. In response, it was stated that if money used exceeded either budget there would be a potential impact on both budgets. Officers said that the DfE did not legally distinguish between EY Block or HN Block within the DSG, but Camden could trace its own reserves in what had been spent in different blocks. An overspend on either block had the same net affect. This had not occurred before in Camden, and if the scenario arose, it would involve a discussion between the services on how to react. It was clarified that an overspend would form a deficit and not a reduction in the EY rate.

·       In relation to Figure 7, a member stated that funding for Band C did not cover 75% and funding for Band D did not cover 100% of a child’s nursery costs, on the assumption that nurseries were expected to pay the London Living Wage (LLW), therefore the report was not factually correct. The member asked for more detail on how nurseries would pay the wages of CLIF staff, because 30 hours was not funded and it was known that CLIF was allocated at least £10 less than the Exceptional Needs Grant (ENG) and Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) funding. Another member stated that the funding for ENG and EHCP also did not cover costs. Members said it was helpful to see the band separation and they would like to see the actual funding amounts per band presented in a future report.

·       A member noted there were no illustrative figures in the report which related to banding and there was also no account for the cost of assessments attached to each band. They also noted that the wording in the summary of the report overstated how much the funding met the costs of SEND provision.

·       Members requested that a representative from EY attend a future meeting and prepare a more detailed report, which responded to points raised at this meeting.

Action By - Director of Children's Prevention, Family Help and Safeguarding

RESOLVED –

THAT the report be noted.

Report of the Director of Education Commissioning and Inclusion.

This report is an information report providing an update on the High Needs Block (HNB) position and the work being undertaken to review this.

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, introduced and summarised the report which provided an update on the financial position as of September 2024, with a projected deficit of £1.85 million, which had now increased to an overspend of £2.1 million. The overspend was driven by rising pupil numbers, individual tuition for children not attending school and education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) provision. It was noted that reserves were expected to be depleted sooner than anticipated, compared to previous reporting. In addition to the report, it was noted that there had been recent parliamentary debates and two national reports, including one from the National Audit Office (NAO), warning that 43% of local authorities may face deficits by March 2026. Work was ongoing with corporate finance to monitor HN Block spending, particularly in mainstream and independent schools, where costs had significantly risen.

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

·       A member queried the £5 million allocated to independent and non-maintained placements and asked how many pupils this covered. Officers said that the placements involved approximately 70–80 children, but highlighted Camden's success in reducing residential placements. It was also noted there were a number of placements which were awarded through parental tribunal preferences. The average cost per pupil was £70,000, however some cases exceeded this amount significantly. Officers noted placements typically involved low-incidence, high-cost cases jointly funded by health, social care, and education, and suggested that the High Needs Subgroup explore the cohort further to assess value for money and outcomes. Officers emphasised the need to expand mainstream provision within Camden to reduce the reliance on independent placements.

·       A member asked if SEND resource provisions would be integrated within Camden schools, utilising available space more effectively which was increasing due to falling pupil numbers. They also asked if there was a strategy to reduce the number of EHCPs within the local authority. Officers clarified that there was no specific strategy to limit EHCPs, emphasising the council's focus on providing timely support and interventions, whether that was through EHCPs or ENGs. Last year Camden's net increase in EHCPs was six, which was significantly lower than neighbouring authorities with some seeing net increases of over 300. The importance of ensuring local families felt supported was highlighted. Concerns were also raised by members about the rising costs of ENGs, with funding for EHCPs and ENGs drawing from the same budget, which should necessitate closer monitoring of both.

·       A member raised concern over the VAT (value added tax) status of independent special schools, which were not VAT-exempt like non-maintained special schools, but officers clarified that local authorities could reclaim VAT, so there was unlikely to be a direct financial impact on Camden. The member suggested benchmarking the issue with other local authorities, as it was being discussed nationally by special  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Director of Education Commissioning and Inclusion.

Following discussion at September Schools Forum, this report sets out the terms of reference of the High Needs Block sub-group of the Schools Forum. Forum members requested that these terms of reference be included as an appendix to the main Schools Forum terms of reference. The terms of reference, previously approved by Forum in September 2023, have been updated to include the new work programme for this year.

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

In response to members raising the error that not all High Needs Block Subgroup members were also Schools Forum members, officers agreed to remove the following line: ‘Membership will consist of Schools Forum members’.

RESOLVED –

THAT Schools Forum agree the updated High Needs Block Subgroup terms of reference (Appendix 1), subject to the correction, and for the updated version to be appended to the Schools Forum terms of reference.

Report of the Director of Education and Inclusion.

Over the last 5 years there has been a significant reduction in demand for school places within Camden and the wider London area. Forecasts of pupil demand have also been created in times of unprecedented change and challenge for families in Camden. Specifically, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have fundamentally altered people’s lives and changed patterns of migration within central London and Camden Borough specifically. The impacts of these have reduced the anticipated level of demand for school places across the Borough.

Since 2018 the Council, in partnership with its family of schools, has removed 10 forms of entry from our reception intake, responding to a reduction in birth rates of over 30% across the borough. These difficult decisions including four school closures, the most recent being the closure of St Dominic’s Catholic Primary School, ensure that our family schools remain both sustainable and responsive to the needs of their communities.

The forecast data continues show supressed birth rates within London and Camden alongside the continued effect of reductions in families moving into Camden during the COVID period. Whilst the peak of surplus anticipated from last year is not forecast to increase our new forecasts indicate that Camden will reach that peak sooner, and that the marginal increases towards the end of the planning period will not be realised to the same extent.

Primary:

The surplus over the reception year admission number is estimated to rise 6.7% in 2023 to 28% by 2032/33.

Secondary:

The Secondary Year 7 surplus is estimated to increase from 12% in 2023 to 21% by 2032/3. 

This level of anticipated surplus provision within both phases does require responses overtime to ensure the sustainability of our school offer. The Council in collaboration with schools has established a School Place Panning Group of school leaders to develop a school place planning strategy with aligned implementation plan focused on schools most acutely impacted by falling roles.

Ensuring Camden has the right number of school places is both the Council’s statutory responsibility and aligns with our We Make Camden principals and are fundamental to the implementation of the Councils Education Strategy ‘Building Back Stronger’. Preventing schools becoming financially vulnerable and thus subject to unplanned change, helps maintain strong, safe and open communities. Good and outstanding schools promote independent healthy lives and support robust growth and jobs. 

The data and forecasts of the demand for school places within Camden is reviewed annually by the authority and made publicly available. Our review incorporates all underlying demographic data including: existing provision and capacity, actual registered births and fertility, the latest Greater London Authority (GLA) forecasts for births and their relationship to school rolls, together with the additional pupils associated with new housing developments. The analysis is used to help us make informed decisions about the future organisation of school places.

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

Nick Smith, Head of Education Commissioning and School Organisation, introduced and summarised the report which set out the composite and live data projections for school places and demonstrated the basis for school place planning decision-making in Camden. The report noted a decline in birth rates, with births in Camden remaining lower than expected. While previous reports suggested a possible recovery, the current data indicated that the low point had likely been reached, but the situation may change over the next ten years, depending on future births. Primary schools, secondary schools and different planning areas of the borough faced different contexts. There was a need for caution in looking at the data, as previous predictions about increased demand from additional housing had been overestimated. The School Place Planning Group would involve more stakeholders and work closely with the SEND team.

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

·       Cllr Boyland emphasised the importance of aligning SEND needs with place planning and suggested that it would be helpful to see figures for both areas mapped out together.

·       Cllr Boyland raised concerns over the high level of Camden students entering the independent sector in the transition to secondary school. He suggested that the Communications Team and Camden Learning could attract students back into the mainstream sector with the right messaging, and now would be an opportune time with rising fees due to VAT being introduced on private sector schools in January 2024. A Member asked if the reasons for this trend were known, and it was confirmed there were several factors and the had been a review 18 months ago, however it was hard to pinpoint reasons at a granular level. A member suggested gathering insights from primary school head teachers about why students leave Camden schools when transitioning.

·       A member expressed concern over the financial impact of the projected 28% surplus in secondary school places by 2032, noting that some schools were still relatively full but facing potential enormous losses due to low year group numbers. Action was needed quickly to address this, especially as increasing EHCPs were requiring more money from school budgets which affected the curriculum offer. Officers acknowledged the need for action, explaining that while measures like caps on admission numbers had been taken, long-term solutions may require statutory action by the Council and further consideration of grouping schools together. The Schools Place Planning Group was looking at Camden’s position within the broader context of falling rolls in inner London and the potential impact of school closures. A member noted that closing schools to help other schools were difficult but necessary decisions and hoped the Group would focus on schools with very low numbers. Officers said that Camden had already made some tough decisions in previous years, however there were challenges ahead and all options needed to be considered.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To consider and note the work programme and action tracker.

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

Nick Smith, Head of Education Commissioning and School Organisation, introduced and summarised the report which outlined the work programme and action tracker.

As discussed on item 8, members requested that the EY Team prepare a more detailed report to report to a future meeting, which responded to the points raised at this meeting, and that they be present to answer questions.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report be noted.

To note the remaining meeting dates of the academic year:

·       Wednesday, 4 December 2024

·       Wednesday, 5 February 2025

·       Wednesday, 4 June 2025

The remaining meeting dates for the 2024-25 academic year were noted.

• Wednesday 4 December 2024
• Wednesday 5 February 2025
• Wednesday 4 June 2025

There was no urgent business.