To note the report.

The Chairman informed the Forum that this item and agenda item 8 were interrelated.  It was planned to discuss the DSG then the other agenda items were pertinent to the final decision that would be taken at agenda item 8.

The Head of Education and Schools informed the Forum that the report summarised RBWM’s 2017-18 DSG allocation and set out proposals for managing the DSG for the next two years in light of the 2017/18 funding arrangements. The Forum were informed that since they had met as a task group in December 2016 there had been an unexpected addition of  £390k into the high needs block.

Although the additional funding was welcome and the report showed the difference between the Forums December discussion and the current position section 3.5 of the report did highlight future potential pressures. The DFE had now released draft proposals for the re-distribution of high needs funding with the indicative figures showing that RBWM could lose £2.3m if this new formula was to be implemented.

The report went on to show, as illustrated in table 4.2, that if we continue on the current direction of travel regarding spending then there would be a £5.8 million overspend. Potential options to manage the pressures within each block were explained in the reports annexes.  It was proposed that a task group be established to look at saving proposals and that the Forum would be asked to approve a reduction in AWPU of 0.5% to support high needs pressures.

Alison Penny asked why some schools had not been affected by the proposals shown in the report and was informed that some schools would be protected by the minimum funding guarantee. 

The Chairman asked that with regards to agenda page 23 paragraph C what the implications would be if our base line was incorrect.  The Forum were informed that the DFE would look to see how much we had borrowed from the school block for high needs and compare our spending with other authorities.  LEA’s have been told they can n longer keep borrowing from the schools block.  The Chairman also mentioned that it was worth noting that out of borough placements was the biggest budget growth regarding high needs.

Gillian May asked if the working group to look at out of borough placements had been established and was informed that the report was proposing setting up a task group that would look at those placements but also other saving opportunities.

The Chairman had agreed that Mr James Wilding, Claire’s Court, could address the Forum on this item.

Mr Wilding informed that he had been had head teacher since 1981 and the school was very popular and approximately 700 pupils choose the school because of their special needs.  The school worked with a number of local authorities and each authority had their own rules regarding placements.  At their nursery school approximately 85% of students were PVI’s.  one of their challenges was not being able to communicate effectively with RBWM. He mentioned that Buckinghamshire had the provision that if` urgent action was required then there would be funding made available. He understood that there were funding challenges but as a private institute it was difficult to get support.

Mr Wilding noted that the RBWM consultation submission on the green paper had said that independent schools should not get funding for high needs placements.  He had held discussions with the Head of Education and understood that a liaison officer would be appointed and he offered his help to the Schools Forum in their deliberations regarding high needs placements. 

The Chairman mentioned that the funding situation was not going to get any better soon so it was important that a working party be established as soon as possible.  The vice-chairman mentioned that the terms of reference and timescale needed to be clear and relevant to have an impact.

The Forum had been circulated a list of High Needs Expenditure and Jo Haswell informed that it had been difficult accessing SEN services and a lot of the services on the list had not been known to her.

The Head of Education and schools informed that a link officer was being put in place and would work with local independent schools and that moving to Achieving for Children would enable the LA to have a dedicated officer looking at the local offer.

Martin Tinsley asked if the Forum should also engage with the public health, for example over CAMHS, as part of the review and was informed that this was important especially regarding mental health.

The Chairman had agreed that Elizabeth Farnden, Forest Green School,, could address the Forum on this item.

Elizabeth informed the Forum that Forest Bridge opened four terms ago and had 29 RBWM pupils with the rest being from other LA’s.  There were temporary accommodation on site and due to challenges with planning they could not get the school to its 96 capacity.   Any cut in funding would hit the school hard.  The Forum were also informed that the school had children with significant behaviour problems and thus a key priority was keeping children safe.  She understood the need to make savings and said that she would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the working group and see how we bring more pupils back into the borough.

The Forum were informed by both secondary and primary head representatives that both sectors were not supportive of the proposed cut in AWPU. 

It was noted that a reduction in high needs placements out of borough would help and the Forum were informed that although they did not need to identify savings at this meeting the Forum did need to agree the level of savings required so the DFE could be informed.

The Chairman asked what the consequences would be if a zero balance could not be achieved and was informed that the consequences were not known.  The national funding formula would split the high needs and the school block and it was expected that either schools, the LEA or both would have to pay any difference. 

The Forum noted the report and the recommendations would be reviewed under agenda item 8.