Agenda item

John Wood explained he would be updating Schools Forum on three areas of work: the Centrally Retained Budget 2020/21 and minor changes, the DSG Recovery Plan and the Resource Base review.

Centrally Retained: a summary of changes put forward at the end of the last financial year had been included in the report made available prior to the meeting.  There had previously been an issue for schools around the lack of support for the LA SEND team which had been raised at the January 2020 Schools Forum.  This had now been addressed with funding allocated to appoint business support with a financial specialism, in order to give the necessary support.  The other area was funding for SALT and LAC and some early interventions initiatives.  The first line of the table circulated showed the additional funding for the business roll and hard to place pupils reduced in line with the revised protocol, where there had been double funding and a lack of clarity. The funding had been reduced in line accordingly.  All reductions as listed were on the last 2 years actuals due to carrying vacancies and the money had been reinvested.

The increase in SALT for £252,000 was for the contract with Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Service, allowing a proposal for some additional local SALT support for local children. LAC budget was as based on the previous years’ expenditure.  The Post-16 advisor role had been in the previous budget and was to support those with EHCPs in their career options: an appointment had been made but they had left and the post was being retained. The net increase of these changes was £100,000 on the £2.3m although these were only interim measures as part of the DSG Recovery Plan.

DSG Recovery Plan: at the Schools Forum meeting in January a provisional brief had been shared prior to the LA’s meeting with the ESFA on Wednesday 22 January.  All those LAs with an overspend, above a certain amount on their DSG had been asked to submit such a DSG Recovery Plan to the ESFA.  The LA’s meeting had taken place as scheduled and this was now delayed feedback to Schools Forum.  Overall, the meeting had been positive, with the brief made available as appendix A of the report provided for this meeting. 

For 2020/21 High Needs was increased by £2m and it had been suggested if that funding were to go into the budget it would be of no immediate benefit and could be used for other projects.  Such a move would delay recovery but could be beneficial long term and this approach had been agreed. The ESFA had acknowledged some of the pressures on Slough created by mobility, immigration issues, with half plus of cases to SEND panel being from the BME community.  The ESFA had acknowledged these trends and were aware the increase in approval of requests for assessments was a national issue, reflecting more evidence of the increase in demand.

It had been noted that for some LAs it would be impossible to clear their deficits, but there was a need to demonstrate there was a robust plan in place.

The LA had not been able to commit as much to the recovery as had been planned due to Covid but additional staff support was to join the LA, with a focus on the DSG recovery work.

Resource Bases: the review had yet to be finalised and it was planned to adhere to the original timetable (as submitted to Schools Forum in January).

Discussion followed about the timing of the Resource Base review consultation with schools in September. John Wood confirmed It was planned to complete data analysis over the summer and to involve all schools, Resource bases and the High Needs Task Group.  It was felt a wider-school consultation was required but it was acknowledged the timeline was ‘tight’.  Anything agreed would not take place before September 2021, but any such changes would need to be included in the 2021/22 budget.  Ideally, John Wood explained the consultation would need to go out to schools early to mid-September for draft proposals to come back to the October meeting of Schools Forum.  He added that some key issues had been identified such as the identity of Resource Bases and the difference between primary and secondary, but no recommendations could be carried out without presentation to Schools Forum.

The Chair confirmed the process for ratification of any proposals would be reviewed in line with the proposed meeting dates for Schools Forum.

John Wood confirmed that wider local provision had to be taken into account when commissioning places, as Slough could not rely on being self-sufficient.  It might not be necessary to create additional places if Slough were able to commission places over the border.