The Schools Forum of Enfield Council met on Wednesday 8 July 2026 to discuss the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), school balances, and funding gaps within the council's school funding model. The meeting also included updates on various school-related matters, including trees on school estates and copyright licensing.

Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to reviewing the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The report provided an update on the 2025/26 allocations and outturn position, as well as the 2026/27 allocations and budget position.

For the 2025/26 financial year, the report indicated an overall DSG allocation of £466.978 million, with a projected overspend of £3.4 million, increasing the total DSG deficit to £20.8 million. This overspend was primarily attributed to the High Needs Block, which saw an increase of £4.964 million, largely due to SEND placements and associated costs, including independent and out-of-borough placements. Conversely, the Early Years Block showed an underspend of £1.254 million due to lower take-up of early years places.

Looking ahead to 2026/27, the total DSG allocation was projected to be £483.388 million. The budget position for this year was set based on the March 2026 allocations, with the Schools Block at £139.624 million, the Central Schools Services Block at £2.601 million, the High Needs Block at £89.331 million, and the Early Years Block at £52.715 million. The report highlighted that Enfield, like many other local authorities, faces a challenging financial environment, with the DSG deficit expected to increase further in 2026/27 due to stagnant baseline DSG positions and rising costs in the High Needs Block. The report also mentioned government support for DSG deficits, subject to certain conditions.

School Balances as at 31 March 2026

The meeting received an update on the financial position of Enfield's maintained schools as of 31 March 2026. In total, school balances amounted to £2,265,206, representing a decrease of £321,363 from the previous year.

A total of 14 schools reported a deficit revenue balance, with the total deficit for these schools reaching £6,675,079. Primary schools accounted for 11 of these, with a combined deficit of £2,035,077, while three secondary schools reported a deficit of £4,640,002.

Regarding surplus balances, nine schools reported balances exceeding £100,000 and 5% of their 2025/26 budget share. The report detailed the breakdown of these surplus balances by school phase. The Enfield Scheme for Financing Schools outlines the requirements for managing deficits and controls for surplus balances above these thresholds.

Funding Gaps and Inequities in Enfield's School Funding Model

A significant discussion was scheduled regarding perceived funding gaps and inequities within Enfield's school funding model. A report presented to the forum highlighted concerns that the current local policies were financially penalising mainstream schools, particularly those that are growing or admitting more pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

Key issues raised included:

• Interest on Historic Deficits: Schools managing long-term deficits were reportedly being charged interest on loans, structured as interest-only payments. This meant that ongoing payments only covered interest and did not reduce the principal loan amount, diverting funds meant for teaching current pupils (AWPU funding) to pay off debt. The report contrasted this with other councils, such as Bury Council and the London Borough of Hillingdon, which do not charge interest on approved deficit recovery plans.
• Cashflow Issues for Growing Schools: Schools experiencing growth, particularly in post-16 education, faced financial hurdles due to delayed government funding. While the Department for Education (DfE) releases growth funding in July or August, the council was charging interest on temporary cash advances provided to schools to manage this gap. The report suggested that councils like Waltham Forest and Surrey County Council provide interest-free advances to bridge such gaps.
• High Needs Funding: The report argued that Enfield's funding for pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) had remained static for years, with inflation eroding the actual support that could be provided. The current two-tier model, consisting of a banding system and an hourly rate, was criticised for providing different allocations of support for similar needs. The report highlighted a significant gap between the assumed TA hours used in funding calculations and the actual costs of providing specialist support, with other London councils like Harrow and Camden adjusting their funding rates to match inflation and national wage agreements.
• In-Year High Needs Adjustments: Concerns were raised about the lack of in-year flexibility for high needs funding, with eligibility for exceptional support funding being based on fixed Spring term data. This meant schools could not adjust for new intakes in September, particularly those with high numbers of out-of-borough EHCP students. The report suggested models from Westminster City Council and the Royal Borough of Greenwich, which provide contingency funds for such situations.
• Out-of-Borough EHCP Funding: The report detailed how the council retained the £6,000 government payment received for out-of-borough students, while schools were expected to absorb these costs from their own budgets. This was noted to be particularly problematic for post-16 students, as sixth forms do not receive a general SEND budget. The report proposed that councils like Hackney and Camden pass this funding directly to the schools.

The report concluded with recommendations for the Schools Forum to request the Local Authority to stop charging interest on old deficit loans, provide an interest-free growth buffer, establish clear and fair high needs banding, implement an in-year high needs adjuster, and pass down cross-border funding.

Other Items

The meeting also included updates on the workplan, which outlined scheduled topics for future meetings, including the Schools Budget, annual reports, and funding arrangements for 2027/28.

Under Any Other Business, two specific issues were scheduled for discussion:

• Trees on School Estates: Mr. Jan Bless, Headteacher of Prince of Wales Primary School, raised concerns about the significant costs associated with maintaining trees on school estates, particularly those bordering the school site. He highlighted that the current national funding formula did not adequately account for such unique circumstances, leading to financial strain on schools. Mr. Peter Nathan, Director of Education, acknowledged that the issue stemmed from the national funding formula's lack of flexibility.
• Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) Royalties Data Collection: Mr. Peter Nathan was to be updated on the CLA's intention to conduct royalties data collection at selected schools during the Spring Term 2027. This exercise is part of the CLA's process to collect data on the use of published material to redistribute licence fees to creators. The report indicated that schools would be required to cooperate with this data collection, which would be conducted remotely.