To consider the attached report.

James Norris, Head of Finance, introduced the report to Members, which provided a financial update for the financial year 2020/21. There were variances within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and the projected deficit position.

Progress had been made on the Deficit Recovery Plan (DRP), to be submitted to the Department for Education (DfE). This was because of the deficit balance at the end of last year and projected forward for the end of this financial year. Regular monitoring was being undertaken, with unchanged variances within the Schools Block. There was an underspend of £450,000 due to lower commitments against the Growth Fund than initially planned. There was an underspend of £52,000 in the Central Schools Block due to staffing vacancies and reformation of teams. There was a forecast underspend of £100,000 in the Early Years Block due to the clawback mechanism from the last financial year. It was projected that underspend could be completely dissolved, with an update in the next Schools Forum. There was an overspend of £810,000 in the High Needs Block (HNB) due to Pupil Top Up and direct support packages, and the forecast was largely based on the 2019/20 outturn. An update would be given in future monitoring reports.

The DSG budget showed an overall overspend of £208,000 at the end of March 2021. Previous years showed additional costs from the HNB in the second half of the year, estimated to be £70,000. The overspend position would therefore be £278,000, should the additional costs materialise. There was a cumulative carried forward deficit between £1.233 – £1.303 million, which represented just over 1% of the overall budget allocation. Authorities with a deficit, regardless of the percentage, had to submit a DRP to the DfE, which was being drafted by officers. All options were being explored to address the deficit and bring it back to a balanced position. Some options included, but were not limited to:

·         Improving the commissioning arrangement by ensuring annual reviews were undertaken at schools, with a focus of financial impact.

·         Increase the funding contribution from partners.

·         Reviewing the local Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Sufficiency strategy.

·         Hold inflation to a minimum.

·         Continue to promote the independence and use of the local offer to young people.

·         Seek approval for a block transfer, by moving funding from the Schools Block to the HNB as a last resort.

Kevin McDaniel, Director of Children’s Services, said the situation of the HNB was a national phenomenon around the education system due to the pressure on the funding mechanisms for children with additional needs. The borough was working around the inclusion agenda over the last few years, with the adoption of an inclusion charter and peer-led process of inclusion to ensure schools were providing good services to young people with needs. The challenge was ensuring funding was in the right area. Whilst an increase in money was due to come into the budget next year, this would not solve the problem alone. Systemic changes needed to be addressed and Members were encouraged to partake in conversations to find ways to transform the way support was delivered.

Councillor Hunt asked if the number of children with needs to join primary schools in the authority was taken into account, and the Members were informed that the modelling approach for the number of SEND in the system was being explored and would be updated in a future meeting. Kevin McDaniel said developmental needs were not easy to identify at the early ages as they developed overtime. Approximately 1.6% of children in schools in the borough had an Educational Health and Care Plan (EHCP), which attracted funding. The national number for children with additional needs who didn’t meet the EHCP threshold was 19%, with some schools in the borough being just below this number and many over. Judgements made by headteachers of their pupils showed that a third of the pupils had additional needs. It was therefore imperative to get early interventions and support to stop children as it was harder for schools to deal with children with additional needs in upper schools.

Joolz Scarlett asked if there was a timescale for the DRP to recover. James Norris stated there was no definitive timescale, however the team was working towards a timescale of 3-5 years.

The Panel noted the item.