Transcript

I thought you were at the football, Tim! Such a joy for me! Are we there, Hannah? Yep, we're now live. OK, thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. Just a few notes from me before we get underway. Jamie Beardsmore, who normally clerks for us, is on leave, so we've got Hannah clerking for us this afternoon. At the beginning of the meeting, I need to mention that the meeting is being recorded and live-streamed. It's being conducted in accordance with the Council's remote meetings, just to confirm the recording is in progress. So, in accordance with the Council's remote meetings, protocols, proceedings and rules. Sorry, guys, there's some microphones on, and now my phone's gone. Good start. Please, can I ask you to indicate by raising your hand if you'd like to add anything to the discussion? Can I remind you to mute microphones? It's our preference that cameras are on. But if this causes you to have a break up of sound or picture, we're happy for you to turn them off. And just to advise you that voting is by general assent. Before we go on to the main agenda, I just need to make you aware that officers had intended to give us an update on the safety valve during this evening's meeting. But we're unable to do this due to the general election. And that is because during a pre-election period, we are unable to host any conversations on controversial political subjects. And so therefore, we will have a full update on the safety valve in the September meeting. So those are just the points to note before we start. If we go to item number one, please. Apologies for absence or any substitute members. Hannah, can you confirm if we've got any apologies? I have apologies from Keith Grainger, Sue Butler and Trudy Salons. Thank you very much. And I understand a couple of members are not able to stay beyond certain times. If you can just put in the chat for us if you're leaving early so we can we can pick that up. It is quite important this afternoon because we're very close to being core. So we will need to keep an eye on arrivals and departures. Just moving on to declarations of interest, we have quite a few this afternoon. So I'm going to read through the ones that I am aware of. But of course, people can declare interest at any point if it becomes evident during the discussion that you're affected. Sorry, Grant, your hand is up. No, I just need to make I didn't send this in advance. So can I declare an interest on item four, particularly around the information about tuition service as my daughter is supported by that service? Excellent. Yes, thank you very much. We'll we'll note that the other declarations that we've had in advance is for Trudy under agenda item six. But I don't think Trudy is with us. So we just need to be aware that she joins. And then for agenda item seven, recommendation three point two. My school has got an interest. Liz Savage, Caroline Johnson and Katie Moore were also affected by that. So just be aware of that. I'm not intending to ask anybody to withdraw, but just that we've got clear declarations of interest. Are there any other declarations that we've missed? OK, lovely. Thank you very much. If we go to item three, which is minutes and matters arising, I've checked the minutes through. Is everybody happy to record them as an accurate record? Lovely. Thank you very much. And there are no actions or matters arising from that section. Unless anybody's spotted something that we haven't. Good. On to number four. This is funding arrangements for pupils not attending school as a result of permanent exclusions or medical reasons. We're on page seven of the pack. Dwayne, I think I'm coming to you for the presentation. Yes, you are. Thank you. So this paper is about recouping money from schools. So the funding follows the child when the child has been permanently excluded. That's to note, we should have been recouping the money all along. And I know as a council, we haven't. So the DfG guidance says that we can do this. So I'd like the schools forum to note around that. The other sort of part of the paper is to agree and approach really around the recruitment for medical needs. So in terms of if I start with the permanent exclusions, when children are permanently excluded as colleagues, you may know that the local authority has a duty to put in education. So far, schools have been retaining the money. But what we aim to do is recoup that money now. So the funding follows the child and that will pay towards the education for that child. So in terms of the medical needs, I mean, there are many children. There's approximately 49 children accessing that service. Seven children in that service have accessed that service for many, many years. So part of this paper is to look at recouping money to actually follow the child into the medical needs service as well. So one is to obviously note, which is the permanent exclusion. So we just want you to note that the second is obviously for you to agree and approach really around the funding, around medical needs. So back to you, Chair. Thanks, Dwayne. I've got a couple of comments, but if anybody else has got anything to say, please, please pop your hand up. The secondary heads had had a bit of a discussion about this last week and there was no objection to the permanent exclusion call back. That seems to be sensible that if the student is leaving you that the money should follow them. There were some concerns raised around the call back for medical and the rates of the call back being 100 percent. And the concerns are around where somebody is going into medical tuition. Schools still maintain responsibility around attendance, quality of education and safeguarding. And there's also an intention that the medical provision should be short term and reintegration. And that means that schools are still going to incur costs. And so we have asked if there can be reconsideration and perhaps that schools maintain your view. And then the top up funding or people premium is used to support the the home tuition. But just so if we can ask for some further discussion around that, rather than agree on anything today. Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, I'm happy to work with heads around that. And I think it is important for the child to keep that contact with the school as well. Unfortunately, for some children, they have been there for a long time and not necessarily had that contact. So how would you want to move this forward? I mean, I'm happy to have more discussions around the tuition service. Is there a meeting coming up with with heads? Could it be raised again? Or to what extent are you able to adjust this? Is this something that has to happen financially? Or is there room to to make an adjustment? I think we've got to discuss with heads, to be honest with you, because I think if the child does people premium, then that people premium should follow the child. So that's one aspect. If the child's have an element three funding, that should follow the child as well. So, you know, I'm happy to set up a meeting come September for us to go through the tuition service, which is separate from then, obviously, the exclusions, Stuart, with with heads and head refs. OK, we've got a hand up, Grant. Oh, yeah, thanks, chair. So first of all, can I say I think the principle of money following the child, 100% agree, very good. Again, just I just sort of just remind people of my generation of interest. I just just just so I want to first of all, praise the tuition service. I think they do a really, really good job. I'm not just from my own personal perspective, but I've heard others say what a good job they do in lots of different contexts. And I think that's really important to note. I just wanted to pick out two things that I think interesting and I guess a slight challenge for me one. So I think the overrepresentation of young people with autism, you know, that's that you know, that's really significant, isn't it? That the number of young people, children and young people being supported and tuitioned with ASD. And I think that's because of the comorbidity ASD has with mental health services. Yeah. And in five point one seven, I think you make the really, really good point about that question that needs to be asked about, you know, that non attendance that then leads to tuition. But for me, that question, we need to ask that question and we need to actually look at this really holistically because and actually the whole is mental health. You know, it is not my daughter's autism, which is her barrier to going to school. It is her mental health. It's the anxiety. It's the comorbidity that is the barrier. And there are no services, no support, no nothing that people can access. And I feel that if we were asking that question and thinking about how do we get that mental health support into schools much earlier in whatever form, we would take a lot of pressure off of our tuition service. And I think the other question we need to ask is, are our schools, and again, this is not a criticism of my daughter's school, because I think they do an amazing job and have been incredibly supportive, but are our schools as autism friendly and mental health friendly as they need to be? And I think that question, Duane, is absolutely hitting the nail on the head. And my challenge to you, the local authority is and I'd love to be part of this if I can, is what can we do then to ask that question and come up with some solutions about getting our young people back into school in some way? And maybe that's part tuition, part school or hybrid. But I just feel that that is the solution. It needs to be a holistic approach and isn't just about tuition and on its own, it is about that. And I think that point out. So I just wanted to say that and to offer help as both an educator that sees our young people go to secondary school and then don't quite do as well as they do in primary because of the different way that we do things. And also because of my own personal vested interests. But I just want to share that and say thank you to the tuition service for the work they do. Thank you. Can I come back on that? Just for colleagues to be aware as school leaders, I met with the mental health in schools team last week. There is a thousand pound grant that comes up to our schools so you can apply for the grant to have a sort of mental health in schools team specialist in your school. You know, when I look at the data, very few schools, there's only about 10 schools have applied for that grant. But it is there, it's there for the taking and having a mental health representative on your school team as well. And they will come into school and support. And obviously they have a capacity to escalate where, you know, needs beat into the kind of surveys. But absolutely grant. I'd be more than happy to work with you. Be great part of the team. So I think there's a few bits and pieces here just to acknowledge our thanks to the tuition service. I'm also wondering, Duane, sorry, under the delivering better value scheme, isn't there a project starting this year about transition from year six to seven, particularly for pupils with ASD to try and smooth some of that anxiety? I know it won't have had an impact yet, but that is taking place. Yes. So we've got all the team in place now. So just for colleagues to be aware, the DBV is now the safety valve. OK, so it's being superseded by the safety valve. So, yes, we have we've appointed a team of staff that are working with our children in primary. They have a sort of caseload of children each now and are working with the families as well in terms of transition. So, you know, hopefully, you know, when I look at previous sort of dropout rates, hopefully we won't see that now with the support that's been available through the local authority. And when, yeah, and I think Stuart and colleagues, we could do more to share what's happening there as well with heads, because that is a good project and, you know, we're having good outcomes really from the families, the feedback. So, yes, that's in place. OK, thank you very much. Liz. It was just to say how wonderful the project is and how well it's going from my perspective as head teacher. I've had seven workers come in and it's been the strongest transition that we've had in Janet's Park for the time I've been here, but also in other local authorities, really, really well organised, but also putting the parents and the children's mind at ease about what the next life is about. Very, very, very helpful. Thank you very much for that. And I think it's worth noting that whilst the recommendations today are about how bits and pieces are financed, we should quite rightly acknowledge Grant's point that it's about getting underneath the reasons why we've got that growth and seeing what we can do to reduce the incidents in the first place. If there are no other comments, can I go to the recommendations? I can't see any hands. So if we page seven, we've got two recommendations and these are to note. So I think we've got agreement around 2.1 to note the intention to implement the DfE funding policy regarding permanent exclusions. Are we all happy to note that? Thank you. And then 2.2. I don't think we can agree to the approach to recoupment. But can I suggest that, as you said, there's a meeting in September and a discussion with head teachers, perhaps around that can recognise the school maintaining some role and therefore some holding on to some of that money. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. OK, so we'll have an action for a meeting to take place in September. Thank you very much. Item five, the provisional outturn school's budget. I think this is you, Paul. Yes, thank you very much, Stuart. Yeah, I mean, the next three papers are all finance related and they're all connected to the 23/24 financial accounts in general. So they're basically reporting on things that have happened, just so you're aware how things have occurred compared to the budget and the decisions and expectations when these decisions were taken as part of the budget setting process. So each of them are also annual reports. So you've seen them in this format for a number of years now. So I will hopefully just go through each of these reports, obviously one at a time. I'll just pick out one or two bits for a minute. But assuming you've had a chance to have a look at the detail in there, which says in a consistent format and hopefully it makes that familiar for those of you that have been on the phone for a while now. So that's just the first one is about looking at the final spend in the 23/24 accounts of the school's budget. So actually reporting what the spend was and also whether any of the balances have been used to support that expenditure. All money's been moved into the balances as well. So it brings you up to date on all the financing side of it as well. So, as I said, just a few bits to pull out then, as expected, and as we were expecting at the start of the year, the school's budget has overspent significantly again in 23/24. And again, that's linked to the highness block budget, which we talked about numerous times. And that's connected to what we're doing now with the safety valve. So the 23/24 accounts did actually overspend by £8.827 million. And within that, there was an underspending on the school's budget in the early years. Block parts of that is the highness block budget overspent by £9.274 million. And there's a high level summary of the accounts at Annex A, which is at pages 25, 26. You want to see a bit more detail of the spread of those variances across the main budget areas. Also want to highlight that obviously there's a large debt that is now accruing in the school's budget. Again, around the highness block budget, and there's a table on page 22 that just shows you how those reserves are changing. And you can see at the very bottom line in the far right-hand corner, the deficit balance that we are now rolling forward into 24/25 amounts to £18.062 million. You can see that's gone up £2.5 million during the course of the year. And the reason why that's slightly different from the headline figures is, if you can see in that second block of figures on page 23, the very last line shows the safety valve income. And you can see during 23/24, we received our first instalment of the safety valve income, and that was £6.4 million. So obviously that's gone into that account, and that'll be part of the financing of the medium-term plan that we put in place connected with the safety valve. So that would have been a higher figure if we hadn't got that income. And also a reminder that that is a deficit, so obviously that's money that we don't have, that we overspent. And at the moment, the DfE have a temporary exception on local authorities going into deficits with their schools' budgets, but that's due to end at March 2026, in which case the plan is at the moment that money would fall onto a local authorities balance sheet, and obviously needs to be taken into account in local authorities' finances. So that's something that we need to keep an eye on going forward as well. I don't know if everyone else heard that, but the recording stopped, but anyway. So they're the main things that I wanted to highlight. I don't think there's anything else to say on that paper, so there's a fair bit of information on there. There's some information around why the bearings have occurred in the account, so happy to take any questions, but I think that pulls out the key parts that I wanted to highlight.

• Thanks Paul. I think we lost Hannah for a second there. Are you back with us, Hannah?
• Yes, I'm back in. My internet is a bit dodgy, but I'm back in. I think we did get a message that the recording has stopped as well. So I don't know if you need to restart anything.
• It's still going through Zoom, so that's fine. It's still being picked up for YouTube.
• Lovely. Thank you very much. Again, if there's any comments, please raise a hand. I've just got a couple, Paul, to make sure we've understood it correctly. So excluding the safety valve money, it looks like the budget was, that the out-term was worse than budget, but was better than we thought it was going to be when we looked at this in December?
• Exactly, yes. So we were looking at the start of the year at £7.166 million overspend. When we looked at our latest forecast at the start of the calendar year, 24, it looked like it might be over £10 million overspend, but going through more work and some further reconsiderations, it's come down to the £8.827 million. So yes, it's lower than we thought, our worst projection, but it's higher than we were expecting at the start of the financial year.
• And I know we're not, we can't discuss anything in detail about safety valve, but these numbers are broadly in line with our commitments to safety valve. We're not seeing a deterioration from those numbers.
• No, it's £300,000 higher than we thought when we set our safety valve bid. So it's not a, in the scheme of the multiple year programme, obviously it's a fairly large pick-up, but it's not something that we wouldn't expect to be able to manage through further actions during the course of that five-year period, five, six-year period.
• Okay. So obviously not great, but...
• No, exactly.
• ...it's an iteration from agreements that we've previously made. Okay. Thank you. Liz.
• So my comment, as I went and looked back at previous years, or we'd had underspend in staff absences, am I right? Are there fewer staff absences?
• I mean, it's one of those, the staff absences is mainly staff on maternity leave.
• Oh, okay.
• So it's not like, it's not people are long-term sick or something like that. It just covers, it's the staff suspensions are included in that, and that's a very small budget. There was no staff suspensions funded last year. The vast majority of it is maternity leave absences, and obviously that goes up and down.
• And in previous years, that has been something that we've commented on about how the turnover of staff has been detrimental to the efficient running. So well done to people who've been here and staying and making it easier.
• Thank you, Liz. I think just another number to pick out there is that I think we've always had concerns about how much we spend out of borough, particularly with the non-maintained specials, and that is a line which is significantly overspent again. But I guess that's being addressed through all the work about bringing places back into borough.
• Yeah, obviously that's one of our key objectives in this year.
• Okay. Are there any other comments? In that case, can we go to page 17? And we are looking at schools forum notes, and we are noting 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. All duly noted. Okay, thank you very much. Back to you, Paul.
• Okay, again, so number six is looking at the balances held by maintained schools. Obviously not academies, this is just maintained schools because they're still part of the local authority statutory accounts. So there's a fair bit of information in there again. I don't think I really need to go through anything in particular, but there's a highlight of key changes on page 31. And I just, sorry, there's just three of those items I'd just like to highlight. I'm sure you've noticed that, and I don't think it's going to be too much of a surprise to anyone, that in aggregate balances did come down last financial year. So they came down by £712,000, which is a 35% reduction on the level of balances held in the previous financial year. So that obviously indicates that schools are having to withdraw money to balance their spend in the year. And obviously that's out of one-off money as well. So that's continuing a recent trend of money coming out of the reserves rather than building those reserves up. The other one is number three on 6.3. On average, schools have a surplus balance of 2.7%, and that was 4.5% last year. And what we've generally said is that above 3%, around 3% should be a safe level to manage any in-year unforeseen circumstances. Obviously that's an average, so some schools will have lower than that, some are in deficit. But we're below that level now, so we're just below that level. So that's something we obviously have been doing for a number of years now, to keep an eye on that and see how that goes. So that's just moving obviously lower and lower. And then the final one, which is at number nine, there are some deficit balances in the figures you can see in the annexes. And as per usual, we're going through meeting all the schools that have a deficit or have contacted us to say that they are needing some support, balancing their 24/25 budget, and we're in the process of going through those now. And I would expect to bring back a report hopefully in September, but it depends how quickly we can progress those discussions with individual schools. It may be a little bit after that, but yeah, we're going through that process now. So I think that's all I'd really like to highlight on that paper as well.
• Okay, I don't want to bore people with my comments. First of all, does anybody else want to pass any comment or ask any questions? In that case, I know we're not supposed to be political, but we do have Councillor Bailey in the room. And I think Paul, you've pointed out the bits that I wanted to point out that schools are under significant pressure, and that is demonstrated by the fact that balances are falling. And that on average to sort of dip below the target level of 3% is a concern. And it shows the pressure that schools are under. And I think it would be remiss of us not to make some sort of comment about the concerns, because if balances continue to deteriorate at that rate, we're going to have more and more schools in deficit. And I think there are a significant number of schools out there that are struggling to balance budgets and meet the needs of students. So it is a very difficult set of circumstances that schools are in at the moment. The other thing to note is on the significant surpluses, I don't think WEIRS members have had a chance to look at any of the detail behind those, but just to check that the officers are happy that those are genuine and being used for the correct purposes if we're being asked to agree that they're not subject to clawback. Yes, I should have mentioned that in the introduction. Yeah, so there are three schools with a significant surplus balance. There is a little bit of information on that in the annexes about what that money has been held for. So there are plans in place and head teachers have confirmed that's what they intend to do with it. And recent experiences that the spend does follow what the head teachers are indicating. Obviously, there could be instances when it doesn't do, but it is generally a good measure that the information we get back does follow through into the next set of accounts. So, yeah, we've done some checking with them and they look reasonable, the explanations that are being given to us. OK, thank you. Any other questions or comments on that item? I can't see how to operate the hand gesture on this one. OK, no worries. I just want you to know that I hear everything you're saying on that and that we I have been in touch with the Shadow Education Secretary and the various ministers, and I can assure you they're very, very aware of everything you're saying. That's not to promise anything because it's not it's not going to happen like that. We've yet to win the election, but should we win the election? I absolutely promise from Brattnell we'll be firing as much as we can at them to get them to do something about the troubles and challenges you currently have. OK, thank you. Thank you very much. So again, as we've got to be careful about being political, I think we would welcome the support of councillors with whichever government is elected to to press for school funding based on the evidence that we've got in Brattnell about the tightening school finances. Before I get in any trouble with Paul. OK, thank thank you very much. OK, can we go to page 30? So the forum 3.1 is to note the key financial information that Paul's just been through and that's in the paper. So can we agree to note 3.1 and the five subsections? Good. I'm seeing nods and no objections, so that is noted. This forum then has to agree to item 3.2 and that is the entire significant surplus balances and that they should not be clawed back at all. Are we all happy to agree that? Oh, sorry, there's a hand up here, Grant. I just wanted to clarify whether as an academy representative, given this is not relevant to academies, whether we get to vote or whether we should remain quiet. I'll have to defer to Paul. I've got no note that this is a that we're dividing the vote here. There's no restricted voting on this. Anybody as a member can vote on this paper. OK, thank you, Grant and Paul. So in that case, are we all happy to agree? Good, no objections, so 3.2 is agreed. I'm afraid, Paul, we're coming back to you. Item seven, please. Thank you very much. Yeah. OK, so yeah, so this is the final client's paper relating mainly to 2324, but this one does have a few areas of importance for 2425. So say another annual report. So this this sets out the use of the funds that are held centrally by the council at the start of the budget year, because we don't have any certainty about where the money should be allocated, because it's usually attached to policies that we need to get some data that identifies those schools that are eligible that meet the criteria we set to allocate the money. So this paper then sets out how all those different funds have been used. Some are then most of them come out of the school's budget. There's one out of the high needs block budget. Some relate just to maintain schools. Some relate to all schools, but this is just mainstream school. So it's not special schools or approved. So this this this paper shows that last year there was 561 million pound budget funded allocation. So there was an under spending of £168,000. And one of the main reasons why this this funding is held centrally is because there are volatile and unpredictable calls on these funds. And that's why it's held centrally rather than giving all schools a small amount, because it needs to be targeted to the schools that actually face the challenges that arise from these these particular policies. So so each of the details of that expenditure is set out in the main paper. The only thing I really want to highlight is in terms of some of the policies that we're proposing to update. And this is for update for 2425. Obviously, that's a good this is an appropriate time to do those policy changes. Nothing's going to change to 2324 because those policies have already been agreed. But there are three three changes. And it's paragraph 3.2 is the recommendation about agreeing those policies to Texas. So it's the first three there. So there's an updated policy text for the growth fund for next year. That is where we previously funded schools for increasing pupil numbers when they cross a funding threshold. What we're proposing now is just to fund schools when we agreed they need a new class rather than just a piecemeal. You've gone over a number of pupils. Here's some money for you. And this was a draft text was presented to the school forum in December. And that was reported then. And we've just repeated that again now. So there's no change to that particular text at this stage. Same again for the second one, the removal of the key stage one class size funding. So, again, that's where we are. We're actually going to stop providing any funds to schools going forward for that that route. And again, that was discussed in December when we presented these initial suggestions to the schools forum. And then the final one is that I want to highlight is number three, the updated text for the SCM contingency. So this is a fund of money that comes from a high needs block and it's aimed at targeting resources to a minority of schools that have the highest number of children with educational health care plans on their role and to make sure they get some extra support to manage and integrate those children and to continue to accept high numbers of the ACP's children onto their role. So there's a couple of reasons why we need to change it. One is that obviously that the profile of the number of children with an education health care plan has changed significantly over the last few years. So the thresholds we've had in the past as to you need to cross have a certain number of pupils with an ACP for your treatment funding, that needs to be raised. Now that the funding is going to be allocated to too many schools, it does need to be targeted to a minority of schools. So reflecting on the demographics now, we're suggesting a 4%, at least 4% of pupils with an ACP and that fits the current profile. So it's something obviously we'll need to keep looking at going forward. And just to make a clarification, unfortunately, the paragraph 6.24, which gives an outline of this policy. It does actually have an error in it. It says the funding threshold should be 3.5% for secondary schools when in fact we're asking for 4% and that's what's clarified in the annex. So we are actually asking, just to be clear, it's the wording in the annex that we're asking to be agreed here. There's an error in that paragraph, 6.24. So we need to make sure the money identifies the right schools, the policy identifies the right schools to allocate the funding. And then the second thing that we're looking to do is because the numbers are increasing a lot, we are looking at ending up allocating more and more money each year through this budget. We want to move to a position where we don't exceed the budget level. So we are proposing that once the data is run through the calculations, we cap the actual allocation to schools to no more than the budget allocation and that's £114,000 at the moment. So that annex 5 sets out the proposed text and it's also got an illustration of how that would actually distribute those funds. So this is page 62, how that money would be distributed in 24/25. So the yellow shaded columns is the actual 23/24 actual. The purple one is just applying the same criteria in 23/24 to 24/25 and you can see that allocates £337,000 and what we're saying is we really need to limit any allocation to our budget of £104,000. And then the two blue blocks and columns on the far right set out what the allocations would be on the model proposed in the paper, which is the first column in blue. And then that gets scaled down to the budget, which is in the third column in blue. We've also put in there for illustration if we limited the number of qualifying schools to 25% of the numbers rather than 15%, so that would allocate out to more schools. So it's allocating the same amount of money. It's just where do we cut the threshold for how many schools qualify, bearing in mind that the DFV requires this to be targeted to a minority of schools. So that's where the more detailed changes are in the paper. I think that's all I'd like to highlight. So if there's any, I think there might be some questions. I just wondered if there are two members trying to get in and I can't see the lobby. I don't know who has control of that. Sorry, that was my only question. Sorry Grant, I know you put your hand up first. Hannah, I can't see anybody in a lobby. Are you able to? Gareth Croxton and Jenny Baker. I weirdly can't see them either. I'll get on the old WhatsApp and try something different. Thanks, Tim. Sorry, Grant. That's OK. So thank you for this work on this, Paul. So I think broadly, I think all this makes a huge amount of sense and I think very sensible. I just had a couple of questions and I guess a more general point. So just looking at 6.24 and the allocation around percentage of EHCP. So first of all, I applaud anything that encourages schools to say, yes, I can meet the needs of a child with an EHCP rather than saying no. And I think that this idea that actually schools having a mere each particular threshold and there's additional support put in place over and above HMB top up as an incentive is a really, really good step in the right direction. So I'm really in support of that. My one question is, does that percentage include children who are already in an SRP? So I just want to be double checked that if you are a school with an SRP, you are not advantaged over a mainstream school that doesn't have an SRP because you're likely to have a higher percentage almost structurally. So I just want to be sure that we're not disadvantaging those of us that don't have an SRP. That's just a question for my things. I wanted to say that was really good. I also think the proposals in terms of the moving away from the 25 pupils and we're going to give you a bunch of money is broadly the right direction. But I just wanted to make a broad point. Earlier on in this meeting, we talked about funding following the child. And when it comes to in-year transfers in between censuses, that almost never happens. And there are groups of children that regularly we get no money for. So if you have a child that joins your school in November in year six, you never receive any core funding for that child. You know, we've had children that's joined our school with significant numbers during the year, and that does put financial pressure on the school. Even if you've already paid for the teacher and you're not actually at your new class, that does actually dilute your TA support. You are having to find other resources here and there. And I do wonder, and I know this is a national thing, but I just want to make the point that we talked about the principle of money following the pupil. It doesn't happen when it goes to in-year transfers and the proportion of in-year transfers that include special educational needs and social care as factors in their decision to move in year, particularly if it's Bracknell Forest to Bracknell Forest is significant and high. And I've done quite a lot of work over the last three year period looking at the in-year transfers for Crown Wood, for example, and around about 40%, 45% of our in-year transfers at other Bracknell schools and every single one of them had an SCN need, not only HCP, but an SCN need or had social care or there was a medical problem and they were complaining that other schools weren't managing them and they were going to move. That does put financial pressure on the receiving school. And so the one thing I did would say about that growth fund thing is that it did used to give a little bit of respite to schools that were seeing a lot of in-year transfers feeling there was a bit of money coming in. Because if you time it wrong, you don't get money in from core funding for two years. And I think that's just something to be aware of. I am broadly in favour of all this and I think it's generally sensible. But if we're going to have a principle of money following the children, that needs to be true of all children, not just those that are out for medical or tuition and what have you. It needs to be for all children. And I think we just need to be aware of that. But otherwise, really commend this, really support it. But just with those two slight quibbles, slight concerns about the real mechanics of it and the direction of travel. OK. Yeah, thanks for those comments. I'll do the simple one first. The SRP pupil numbers aren't included in the SAIM contingency because you're exactly right. That would skew the support to those schools. And there's a different mechanism to support for those children anyway. So they're specifically excluded from the numbers. In terms of the growth fund and the movement of funds to follow the pupil, this is where I just have to say, I have to quote back to your DfE funding rules. OK, so that the DfE do not allow movement of funds to follow pupils through a normal transfer from one school to another. That's specifically excluded. It's only for the excluded pupils that the rules are that you have to transfer the money. And I wouldn't want to suggest what the reason behind that is, but there's obviously a reason why that money, that DfE want that money transferred, but not any others. What they generally want is budget stability. So once you get your funding allocation, it doesn't change for the bulk of your funding. Your funding does change for your children with SEND support, that SEND needs for an EACP. But the government funding regulations do not allow us to make funding transfers just for putting new transfers between schools. Grant? No, thanks Paul. And I know you've told me that before, but I feel I keep on having to make the point about it. And I know that's it. But how what I would say is, and I get that with the previous model. And I think Crown would benefit from this one year in that, you know, we had a very small year six that left and we had a much bigger reception and that triggered some extra funding. And I think getting that extra funding for that is, you know, quite rightly, we should manage that sort of money out of the system. Because in the end, I still had three classes in year six. They were just small classes. I got three big classes in early years and that's why I got the extra money. But where I wonder whether we could look in the future is, is where if schools are getting fewer large in-year transfers, not structural year six out reception in jumps, unless there is an extra class, as you're proposing. But I wonder whether there was a way of looking at this school has had 25 in-year transfers, of which 50 percent are from other Bracknell schools, whether there was something around that that could be recognised that that does add workloads to schools, that does have a cost to schools. You know, it sometimes puts extra work onto my Senco. You know, I sometimes have too few TA's to deal with the additional SCN need that isn't yet any HCP. I wonder if there is something around that that we could look at in the future that recognises that sort of in-year transfer growth as opposed to the structural growth. And I just ask that for something to be considered in the future. If I could just come back on that, I don't think we would be permitted to do that because the whole rationale with the DFE on that, while we change the other growth fund, one of the different mechanisms is because the DFE want that to just focus on where you need to actually get some extra capacity in your area. So if there's movement between schools, you've got enough capacity to do that. So the money on that is it's a lagged funding system there, so you have to wait a year to get that. But if there's a need that you haven't got any places, you need to open a search class or you need to open another class somewhere else and that misses the census point for funding, then that school should get recognised with some additional funding. So they're very much focused on if you've got enough places, if people move around, then that just gets picked up in the next census. But if you don't have enough spaces and you need some more classes, then you can put some extra money into school for that reason. So as I say, this is the it's I said this loads of times that the funding regulations are getting quite restrictive and that there's not a lot of flexibility and freedoms. There's not a lot of them either, which is helpful, I guess, but that we can't we really can't do those sort of things. Your suggestion, even if they were something we wanted to do, we wouldn't be permitted to do it. OK, probably not the answer that Grant wanted, but the truth of the matter. And I think it's also worth noting and I'm trying not to make a political point, but certainly we've received a large number of contacts about people moving from the private schools into the state system. And a significant number of those are coming with high needs that may not have been a pressure on the high needs block previously. It's just a point to note that is going to be more than just internal transfers, that there might be some incoming from local private schools. OK, let's if there's no other points, let's move to page forty six, forty five and the first section of the forum to note. And those are the funding allocations to school in accordance with already approved policies. Are we all happy to note that? Thank you. And then three point two, we are being asked to agree to revised text for policies and there are four areas there. And we're just noting that three point two, the third point for S.E.N. contingency is the annex number that is correct rather than the number that's in the report. The four percent rather than the three. I know Paul answered this question. Can I just confirm, Paul, that the that it is clear in the reworded documents that S.R.P.s are not, that it's actually written down in that document that S.R.P.s are not included in there? So I haven't read all the documents in the annexes, but can I just confirm that that is the case, that that isn't that S.R.P.s are not included? It's on page sixty one. It's the second from last year I highlighted it. So we didn't have it explicitly in there before, but that's something we picked up going through. So we want to put it in there. It's explicitly mentioned here. Thank you, Paul. Much appreciated. OK, so are we all happy to agree to three point two? OK, so that is three point two agreed. I've just got a couple of other business. Just a reminder that the next meeting is on the 19th of September. And there are some changes going to be proposed to the forum that just require member appointments to end on the 31st of August. So there's alignment with the school year, even when members might join mid-year, that the terms will end on the 31st of August. And then finally to say that my term of office ends on the 31st of August. So I'm stepping down from forum and they're obviously then chairing. We have been trying to make sure there's some succession planning, and I do believe there will be at least two people that will be able to put their names forward. One for chair and one for vice chair. But obviously those positions will be open and open to election in the September meeting. So thank you. Oh, OK. Liz. I just want to say thank you for all your hard work, chair. We've been a real advocate for changing stuff for children, modern stuff. It's been really helpful having somebody take over. And it wasn't the easiest of circumstances. So on behalf of colleagues, actually. Well done. Thank you very much. Yeah, it's been a privilege to work with you all. And my thanks to you and my thanks to the officers who do a great job of looking after us. So whoever takes the role in September, it's a very privileged position and you are very well looked after. So my thanks to everybody as well. OK. Thank you very much, ladies and gents. Enjoy the football. Thank you, everybody. Take care. Yes. Are we losing it? Not yet. Yeah, I get it.