To consider the report.

The Forum were informed that at their meeting on the 31^st January 2017 they considered the need to make savings to the High Needs Block (HNB) and requested that a working party be established to look at potential ways of delivering the required savings.

At the working group meeting on 9^th March 2017 group members looked at saving options and a breakdown of all services and budgets included in the HNB.  There was a vacant post that it was proposed not to fill.  When reviewing the initial implementation plan it was agreed that the reduction in Mainstream, Special School and PR School top ups was not supported.  The table on agenda page 16 showed the current HNB Implementation Plan.

The Forum were informed that there would be a conversation with the two borough special schools during the summer term to analyse costs. Part of the review would also look if a child would be better served in a special school or a mainstream setting.

As part of the in year savings it was also proposed that there be a reorganisation of alternative provision and that the Council takes a more challenging stance on permanent exclusions. 

In response to questions it was noted that since September 2016 there had been 16 RBWM pupils excluded from schools, that there had been an increase in exclusions from the previous year due to the change in legislation regarding persistence and disruptive behaviour and that this year had seen an increase in exclusions due to one off events.  There were reasons when it was appropriate to exclude a pupil and when excluded the LEA had a duty to provide an education setting after 6 days which was paid for from the HNB.

There were lessons to be learnt from behaviour patterns from all schools with some schools having a more challenging setting where exclusion may be more appropriate. 

The Forum felt that consistency in funding from the HNB was required and this again raised the question about behaviour and the newly introduced funding matrix. 

It was noted that it was expected that exclusions would increase as there were already pupils within the system without exclusion plans that were being funded and schools have also indicated that without additional support more pupils would be at risk of exclusion.  The LEA wanted to be open and clear with schools; it was about being transparent and clear that there was no wish to see children out of mainstream education.

The LEA had a statutory duty to provide a PRU and therefore there was a demand lead budget.  It was noted that the Fair Access Protocol was binding on all where a child could not find a placement and it was felt that there could be better use of managed moves.

The Forum were informed that whilst attending a meeting the previous week the Head of Education had been surprised to find out that RBWM was one of a few smaller councils that did take funds from the school block to support high needs pressures.

With regards to proposed implementation plan the Forum were informed that there was about £100k of savings from SEN support services and that there was expected savings from improved commissioning.  Over the last few years the CYPDS team had focused on finding placements more then the costs.  Following the model used by Adult Services officers would be looking at existing placements to see if they could be commissioned better, they would look at economy of scale and the quality of service provision.

Officers were asked if the value for money exercise was being applied to other areas and the Forum were informed that it was with end user surveys also being used.  The outreach service would also be reviewed by the task group to asses if it is making a difference. 

The Forum were informed that if the short term cash savings were successful then this would allow time to review service delivery.  The task group gave the message that that they wanted provision to be provided locally as much as possible.

The Chairman mentioned that the long term view was to support the HNB and asked if we knew the timeframe for the National Funding Formula.  The Forum were informed that it may be delayed for a further 12 months but if was not we would need to be informed by the end of the summer term. 

Resolved unanimously:  that the Forum noted the report and endorsed:

·         The required HNB implementation plan in principle as set out in appendix A.

·         Further exploration of the initial areas of investigation identified by the HNB Working Party.