Agenda item

The Chair confirmed that there were two papers associated with this item.  The first is a covering paper from Johnny Kyriacou which explains the context of the second paper, which is a report for Slough Borough Council Cabinet which has also been circulated to all headteachers. The Chair stated that the purpose of this item was for Forum members to note the council's current position on the management of the DSG deficit and the issues which have been addressed, and to make any comments or ask any.

JK summarised the context of the main report, which had been presented to the Cabinet meeting on 9th March. JK noted that the projected in-year deficit on the High Needs block had been reduced from £7.2 million in 2020-21 to £4.9 million in 2021-22, and commented that this was a significant achievement.  To get there, the team had looked at everything from placements to decision making; everything was still driven by the needs of children and where they need to be placed but was being done more robustly. The paper set out what the council intended to do, with a clear and transparent rationale.  Separately to that is the safety valve program so the safety valve program is an initiative from the DfE to target LA’s is where there is a large overspend such as ours.  You can find examples Agreements between LA’s and the DfE online if you type safety valve program DfE. You can look at places like Kingston, Hammersmith and Fulham they've got agreements with DfE, you can see those publicly to see what their projected spend was and the things that they've said that they would put in place.

JK commented on the importance of Slough being able to join the DfE’s safety valve programme, which would hopefully result in the DfE looking to write off some or all of the historic cumulative overspend if the in-year deficit can be brought under control.  DfE are very robust and require clear plans that are achievable. JK also commented on the possibility of looking at preventative which would represent opportunities to invest to save;  the DfE were likely to look favourably on such an approach, whereby there is sensible spending on some of high needs funding in the shorter term in order to reduce spend in the long term.

The Chair invited Councillor Hulme to add any comments that she wished to from the council's perspective. Cllr Hulme commented that there is a great anxiety in the Council that if we do not begin to address this, we will end up with a further liability, and that the council is very grateful to all its partners in all the sectors across the town in helping us to try and address these fundamental issues. In terms of the DSG Cllr Hulme confirmed that it is unusual to have a DSG-focused paper at cabinet level, but this is an indication that this has a high profile within the Council and will be monitored closely to make sure that we are making the right decisions for our children in the right way.

The Chair asked for questions and comments from Forum members.

Maggie Waller referred to the SEND panel and asked whether any more had been done to secure health attendance and contribution, particularly in relation to complex EHCPs. JK confirmed that a more robust approach at panel meant that appropriate funding is being sought where needed, which is one reason why the spend has come down so much this year.  CCG colleagues have created a working group to look at the tripartite panel again, which looks at the funding between LA, social care and health. A model of 33% from each sector has been agreed but only as a principle that everybody has an input into it.  The actual division of funds would not be 33% if the need was more heavily weighted towards one service than another, so for example if it was 80% health, they would be expected to pick up most of that cost. There is a realisation that all partners need to come together and the local authority is definitely engaging with partners and talking to them about funding to make sure that the right funds are paid by the right people.

Peter Collins commented that the Cabinet paper had been circulated to headteachers in both the primary and secondary phases to enable them to pass comments back through Forum representatives The general view of secondary heads seemed to be that it's very helpful to have this really clear ‘state of the nation’ and the stronger sense of direction of travel.  There is probably a resigned sense of satisfaction that we've got to this point now, so we can start moving on.

Navroop Mehat commented that there had been a lot of ongoing conversations around this in different groups, and that a lot of views had already been expressed.

Gill Denham commented that in her own recent experience there have been problems very recently in the last month which she has raised with JK.  Although the direction of travel seems to be positive like the changes and you need time to bed down, and there are still considerable staffing issues which are impacting on the quality of decisions.

The Chair asked about the reference in the report to the lack of consideration of existing models in other authorities for the SEND banding matrix. It was confirmed that it had been based on a model from Essex, but that there had been relatively little adaptation of the model to the Slough context. Although the model was received positively at the time, it has ended up costing more going forward.  The model is being reviewed as soon as possible. The Chair noted that it would be helpful if schools could know the time scale on the review and in particular the potential impact on children in September.  JK confirmed he would come back to Forum on this.

Valerie Harffey confirmed that she was on the task and finish group for that banding review and that while the group did look at more than one model, the one that was adopted could well have been more bespoke. VH also questioned whether more money would be expected from schools when budgets are tight.

Peter Collins noted that the banding review which introduced the current matrix had taken place alongside one of the many resource base reviews.  The consequence was that decisions about resource base funding and provision were being made at the same time as banding provision. These are completely separate things which clearly need to complement each other, but they shouldn't have been decisions which were made at the same time. It's easy to see now that that was a really bad thing to do, but, at the time it actually seemed to make some sense; there is a lesson here about process.

Maggie Waller picked up a point in the minutes of the previous meeting where it was stated that a report would come saying how the transfer that had been agreed from Schools Block to the High Needs block was being used and what the impact of that would be.  JK stated that additional funding was offsetting the pressure on post-16 placements. The Chair questioned the message that this gives to other headteachers who would want to know how transferred funding from the Schools block, which is for provision for 5-16 year olds, would be used to address high needs for the same age range. JK agreed he would come back to Forum with further information on this.

The Chair confirmed that Forum would note the contents of the report and that the DSG management plan would be a standing item on the agenda for May and for July. JK confirmed that the planned meeting with the DfE to discuss the safety valve programme is in April; presuming that meeting goes ahead, then there would b e a written or verbal update at the next Forum meeting.