Transcript

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to today's school's forum meeting. It's two o'clock, so we'll make a start. Thank you to everybody for attending this afternoon. I did try to convince Tim that we should move the meeting to a local pub, Beer Garden, but for whatever reason, we're not apparently able to do that this afternoon, so we'll make the best that we can do this afternoon. So we'll crack on, and I'll move straight on to item one. Simon, do we have any apologies? Yes, thank you, Chair. We've received apologies from Andrew Skelding, Councillor Mark Sutton, Craig Hodgson, Emily Vero, although she may turn up just a little bit late, and Councillor Jonathan Price. Thank you, Simon. Okay, item two, declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest in the agenda? Nope. Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to item three, which is the minutes of the last meeting held on the 23rd of January. Is everybody happy that there are an accurate record of the meeting that took place? Are there any queries or concerns? Super. Okay, then we'll move on to item four, which is matters arising. I'll pause and see if the colleagues have any matters arising from the minutes of the 23rd of January meeting. Okay, Vicky. Okay, Vicky. Hi there. Yes, I just wanted to ask, on page nine and into page 10, is it correct that £283,780 was allocated to Staffordshire for the Fallen Rolls funding? And that of this, a one-off payment of £79,940 was made to one school, and the rest went into DSG? Have I interpreted that correctly? Possibly not. Yes, Vicky, that's correct. If you remember, we agreed a formula by which it would be allocated in terms of, and we signed that formula off at Schools Forum, and then we applied the formula, which meant that one school met that criteria, and that was the allocation for that school, and so the rest of it, as agreed at Schools Forum, was contributed to the DSG. Okay, I'm just mindful around the impact of lower pupil numbers, really, across the board, so I just wanted to double-check that I'd got that right. Thanks, Tim. Thank you, Vicky. Steve Barr, I can see. Got your hand up? Yeah, sorry, just juggling multiple screens and unmuting myself. Yeah, I was looking, I couldn't actually find it in the minutes, but two things. One was the query about charging schools for entrust visits, for monitoring visits, under notices of concern, and it said in the minute something about initial visits would be funded by SCC. Now, I just wanted to clarify that it was only one visit per school. It actually says something, I can't find, I haven't printed them all out, and I can't find them in a minute now. There was something about initial visits, and my understanding was, it was the first, to any individual school, it was the first visit, and that others would have to be paid for at the school budget. But I just wanted to clarify the minute on that, that visits, visits referred to across the local authority, not visits to an individual school. Again, Steve, I'll clarify, so, yes, it's the initial visit to individual schools, and then subsequent visits are then charged to the school. Does that clarify the question? Yeah, that's fine. I was just slightly, I just wanted to be absolutely clear on that, because I was saying, when I find it in the minutes, there's actually reference to visits, but I thought it was one visit to an individual school. And then, I mean, the other thing I was going to ask about was, I don't know if it's going to come up, I couldn't see it really in general reports, but wraparound childcare and breakfast clubs, is that going to be addressed later on? And if not, can we have a brief update on how things are developing there? No, it's not on the agenda. I do have a briefing from Helen Gibson around things, so I'll pick that up and we do it towards the end of the meeting. I think there's an AOB bit, isn't there? There isn't there. Oh, right, okay. Yeah, thank you, and apologies for springing that on you, Tim. I should have flagged it up in advance, sorry about that. Thanks, I'll pick it up now, and then we'll come back to it. Thank you, Steve. Are there any other matters arising that colleagues would wish to raise? Nope. Okay, then. Item six, no, sorry, I beg your pardon, item five, which is the letter that I wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of the Schools Forum. Colleagues will have seen it under agenda item five within the pack and the rationale that's been explained there. Clearly, I don't necessarily think that there's much else to be gained other than noting the fact that the letter was sent. The relevant people have had an opportunity to note the forum's views, and they've obviously responded as they see appropriate. I don't know if colleagues had any other queries or questions that they wanted to raise about item five. Thank you. It's an awkwardly overquestion, Alan, but I can't apologise for this. I can't resist the temptation to comment on the fact that the reply that you received couldn't have been written in better English. Sorry about that. Thank you, Steve. Thank you. I had to resist my English teacher's marking coming out there. Okay, thank you, Steve. Any other colleagues have any other points? Kevin? Yeah, I noticed that one of the – within the letter that came back, it mentioned about – as part of the judgment that they consider, they consider the school's forum's rationale behind saying no. And I suppose the rationale that we've always put forward is just as straightforward, the school budgets are struggling. So I'm just wondering that, thinking ahead, if next time the 0.5% comes up, because I've got a feeling it will be an agenda item in autumn term, whether or not we might consider formulating a more detailed response from school's forum in terms of a rationale, because the rationale that's been put forward, whilst it is the rationale that we believe, actually there's a lot more detail to that than just, you know, well, school budgets are under pressure, so we don't want to take money away from a school budget. And I think it might be worth exploring that from a school's forum point of view to make sure that school's forum's viewpoint is properly put forward, because it would be easy to dismiss that. Clearly what's being sent is not sufficient for them to not make that transfer and to agree with that transfer with the local authority. And obviously that information has been put forward by the local authority. And I'm not suggesting the local authority of, but I just think a bit of clarity on that and making sure that the right information has gone forward. Yeah, thank you, Kev. I'm going to ask Tim to respond specifically in a moment, but picking up on that point, I think that's fair and valid and will certainly be a consideration, should it happen to come up again in the autumn. You never know. Well, I think there's one thing I can guarantee that it will be coming up in the autumn. Well, and the reason why I'll guarantee that is because if people kind of go back to the plan, one of the things that we've said is that we will continue to request a 0.5% switch as part of the plan over the life of the challenges that we face within it. Just picking up your point, though, Kevin, in terms of what the local authority submits, yes, the local authority does submit the plan. It submits its own narrative around that, but alongside that, we are required and we have to submit the minutes of schools forum. So, what I want to kind of dispel here is if you're suggesting that the narrative that's contained within the school forum minutes doesn't accurately reflect the discussions, then we just need to think about how we do take those minutes, but we have to. We cannot make that submission to the Secretary of State without submitting the minutes of schools forum. And I will say that last time it was very close, and when I say time-wise, and so in the first instance, we submitted or we sent them the link to the recording of schools forum. So, again, I just want to be clear that we're not portraying a different response. That has to be part of the submission. Yeah, I mean, that's really good clarity, Tim, because obviously we wouldn't be aware of that. So, it's good to know that, and it just means that then when forum comes around to have this perennial discussion, people will be mindful of the fact that that's the information that gets sent forward. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we will now move on to Item 6 and 7, where I'll ask Simon to take over. Okay, thank you, Alan. So, Item 6 is just a bit more information about the usual election of the Chair and Vice Chair that will be taking place at the schools forum in July, which will be a face-to-face meeting. It seems to come around incredibly quickly, but obviously just last year we had Alan take on the opportunity. The year prior to that, obviously, it was Richard who then stepped down. Normally the position is for a two-year period, so to get that back in order, we're going through the process again in July. As is usual, and as per the Constitution, the incumbent Chair and Vice Chair are asked if they would be willing to put themselves forward at the July meeting if they wish to do so. So, first, Alan, question to you. Are you happy to put yourselves forward again? Yes, yeah, I'll be happy to do that. Thank you. Great. And Steve, I can't see you on the screen at the moment, but would you be happy to put yourself forward as Vice Chair? Yeah, I mean, on the same sort of understanding as I took on Vice Chair before, I personally think it would be better if it was someone who was actually still working in a school. I offered to do it last time because now they are seeing very keen, and I'm personally happy to continue, but my feeling is still that it would be better if it was someone who was more directly involved in the schools. Well, I think I've still got my finger fairly closely on the pulse. So that's a long-winded of saying yes, but... OK. Thank you, Steve. So a message to everybody else in the forum that there is an opportunity there. Steve will be happy to step back if somebody was willing to put themselves forward as Vice Chair. So food for thought. Obviously, what will happen at the next meeting, we'll have this conversation again. So if anybody in the meantime would like to have a conversation with myself or with Tim or Alan or Steve, I'm sure won't mind speaking to you if you'd just like to get some more detail as to what the role actually involves, then please do get in touch. And obviously, we'll discuss that further at the next meeting. So that's just for note. Thank you, Chair. OK, I'll go straight into the next item, which is the May election. So obviously, alongside this particular appointment of the Chair and the Vice Chair, we're also looking at a number of members who are... their positions are up for re-election. I will give you the list of those people just so that it's on the record. So we've got Steve Swatton and Stephen Drew, who are all maintained primary. We have Kevin Orbutt and a vacant position for primary academies. Just stopping there to pause for Kevin. Kevin's actually retiring, I believe. As Richard said last year, he started to dig the tunnel. So we'd just like to pass on our thanks to Kevin for your involvement in the Schools Forum, which I believe dates back a number of years. I've not been able to find out how many years that actually has been, Kevin, but thank you very much for that. 17. Wow. When I was a young man. Not as many as Steve Barr or Steve Swatton. So, and there are three positions in all secondary academies, which is Mark Bowie, Emily Vero, and Will Wilson. So we will be undertaking some election processes, which will be starting in the next couple of weeks, post-Easter, of course, with a view to having those positions filled, ready for the July meeting. We also have four positions. So after asking Steve and Alan if they'd be willing to put themselves forward to be chair, that is on the proviso that they are, in fact, members of the forum, because both of those positions are up for... Now, for you, it's not re-election. It's obviously to go back to your respective forums and groups and ask if you'd be okay to stand, so I'm sure we'll be seeing you again. But also, Philip Sedell and Sadie Jones, who are the PVI early years representatives, I'm sure the same will happen there, but I will be sending an email out to both of you just to ask if you are okay to continue representing those groups. So that's everything from me. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Simon. And similarly, Kevin, I'd like to say the thanks of everybody on the forum. You don't look old enough to have been doing it for 17 years, Kevin. That can't be true. I have dark hair and hair. Yeah, we've all been there, Kevin. Thank you. Okay, we will now move on to item eight. And Mel is going to lead us on this item. Over to you, Mel. Good afternoon, everyone. Very short paper from us today. Obviously, a standing item on the agenda is a notice of concerns and licensed deficits. We actually have no new agreements to report to forum on since the last forum. Super, Mel. Well, that was particularly short and punchy. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm assuming there aren't any questions from colleagues with regards to that. Super. Then we will move on to item nine. And I'm going to hand over to Luke at this point. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. So, this is the annual schools budget update report for 2526. The report confirms the budget set for schools and rates for early years providers. The majority of this information has already been communicated. So, I'll briefly go through the report highlighting a few of the key points. So, we'll just start off with central provisions. That starts at the top of page 26. This section of the report updates the schools forum with the final figures of planned central expenditure. The allocation for growth and falling roles funding for 2526 is 2.7 million. This funding is being retained centrally to meet commitments under the infant class size and exceptional growth fund policies and the falling roles criteria. Any underspend will contribute towards repayment of the DSG deficit as per the deficit management plan. There's been a decrease to the levy for the education functions for what was reported at the November meeting due to a change in the number on role at maintained schools. The final levy for 2526 has been set at £55.26 per pupil. Moving on to individual schools budgets. So, formula budgets are based on the national funding formula. This includes a minimum per pupil funding level for 25 and minimum per pupil funding level. For 2526, the minimum funding levels per pupil are £4,955 for primary, £6,221 for key stage three and £6,831 for key stage four. The budget includes a minimum funding guarantee of 0% per pupil from the 2425 baseline. The individual school budgets can be seen in appendix one. Within the national funding formula, the core funding factors have been increased by 0.5% and free school meals funding rates increased by 1%. To ensure the national funding formula is affordable within the schools block DSG allocation, gains have been capped at 0.76%. And on to early years funding now. So, the funding for early years continues to follow the national early years funding formula. You can see in paragraph 20 how much Staffordshire County Council has been awarded for 2526. The disability access fund has increased by £28 to £938 per eligible child per hour and the early years pupil premium has increased by 32 pence to £1 per eligible child per hour. The early years funding base rates have been set at £5.43 per child per hour for three and four year olds, £7.84 per child per hour for two year olds and £9.85 per child per hour for under two year olds. For three and four year olds, deprivation rates have been maintained at the same amount as in 24-25, with 20 pence being the lower rate and 30 pence being the upper rate. No additional funding supplements, including deprivation, have been used for the two-year-old and under two-year-old rates. A contingency fund of £1.2 million has been set up to manage fluctuations. This is equivalent to 0.91% of the whole early years DSG block, which is lower than the 1% threshold advised by the workshop. Any unspent contingency will only be distributed if affordable. The Special Educational Needs Inclusion Fund for 25-26 has been set at £2 million. £1.7 million is funded by the early years block, with the rest funded by the high needs block. Just briefly touch on high needs, but I won't go into too much detail, with a lot of it being repeated on the following paper. So the government has confirmed Stafford's 25-26 high needs block allocation to be circa £143.6 million, this is a net increase of £10.5 million compared to 24-25. As a result of the funding switch, the total 25-26 high needs budget is circa £147.1 million. It is Stafford's intention to pass the budget increase on in full next year for the provision of SEND support. And finally, for 25-26, the special school budgets shown in Appendix 2 will be set based on a minimum funding guarantee of 0% with no capping of school gains. Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Luke. I can see there are a couple of hands that have gone up straight away. Tim, can you... Philip first. Philip? Yes, thanks, Alan. There's been an update from the DfE recently on the statutory guidance. and we've had a meeting with the Early Years Department about this. I'm just wondering, do you want to comment on this now or could we have it as any other business item? It wouldn't take long, but I just don't know whether to do it now or at the end. Yeah, I'll invite Tim to respond to that. Do you want to come in first, Philip? I can do it now if that's OK. Yes, yeah. Well, the update in the statutory guidance, so as not to bore people, it's just there's an update and then an FAQ document. And what the DfE seem to be doing is to make it very clear and for PVIs, well, all nurseries, much more difficult to make any charges, particularly on the three- and four-year-olds funding. Now, if members remember, the meeting before last, I made a statement about how if the employer's NI amount wasn't going to be covered in the funding, that this would cause severe difficulties for PVIs, particularly smaller ones in more deprived areas. Obviously, that's now come to pass, but the double whammy is that the DfE in this latest guidance update is trying to make it, it seems, much more difficult, particularly for nurseries in more deprived areas to legitimately make charges that they would need to make because the funding for three- and four-year-olds didn't keep pace with the increased costs of nurseries and it didn't address the backlog of underfunding, which is now around 30% over these last 10 years. That all notwithstanding, that the Staffordshire County Council did a fantastic job, as I've said before, on passing through a 145% increase on the three- and four-year-old funding, but as I said in the statement, if the employers NI wasn't covered, then it would leave us quite drastically short. Our concern is, we had a meeting with the early years, the early years group had a meeting with early years in Staffordshire County Council and we're very grateful for that and we're also very grateful that they have definitely listened to the concerns that we raise and the evidence of that is that they've taken the decision not to update our own, not to update the Staffordshire County Council guidance at the moment because of the concerns that we raised. I think it's important that we put that out there in the schools forum so that it can be minuted that those concerns that I raised in the statement not last time but the time before have come to pass now. We are, as I say, very grateful for the meeting that we've had but I have to reiterate that we are now very concerned for nurseries not being able to deliver the three- and four-year-old provision on the funding that they're getting albeit that it was very nice, it was very well enhanced by early years last time so I think it's important that we register this concern. It is a very serious concern. Thanks very much. Thanks, Philip. And the briefing I made reference to earlier on actually was picking up this point along with the early years expansion grant which I will go on and just to clarify for forum rather than the breakfast clubs and wraparounds so we'll have to add breakfast clubs and wraparounds to a future schools forum but you're right Helen from the early years team provided me with a note to say you're right that we will not be issuing an updated provider agreement at this current time but also say that providers should have regard to the revised documentation and then also just in recognition to the meeting that you had it says that we've received questions from providers since the guidance was published in addition we've also met with that early years reference group as you've made reference to and as a result we're gathering the main themes raised by the providers and we'll respond as soon as we're able to based on further work that we're doing with internal colleagues so that's the point and I think kind of clarifies exactly what you've just said there Philip if I may I will just go on and talk about the early years expansion grant because it's about all settings that provide funded childcare places are eligible for the early years expansion grant and one of the things that we intend to do with that grant in line with the DFE suggestions is that we focus distributing it to those providers who will have two year olds and under RE kind of the full rollout of the expansion entitlements in September 2025 the guidance also asks us to take into account the full funding context for 2526 and so what we're saying is our proposal is that we're going to allocate the early years expansion grant across the early years sector but we're excluding the small number of schools who have children age two and under as those schools will receive the national insurance contributions grant in September that also includes the three and four year olds which the expansion grant excludes and so our intention is to ensure that we give it to the kind of the PVI sector to try and support the sector and importantly the above comes in the context of the new statutory guidance for local authorities and early years settings which again we recognise has the potential to impact on the sustainability of the sector so I think we recognise that as well Philip thank you Tim that's really good to hear thank you Philip Steve Barr I can see the hands up yes thank you I'm now I'm now back on track having worked out the reason I couldn't find the minute I was looking for earlier was because I was looking at the agenda pack from the January meeting not this one anyway yeah two points one probably for Luke and one I guess for Tim because I don't think Mark or or Jonathan are on the call today first one can you I probably should know the answer to this but can you can you explain why there is there is no capping of gains under the formula there's no capping of gains for special schools but in the main in the main block there's a 0.76% capping of any gains Luke do you want to come in on that I might have to hand over a bit to Sarah or check with one of my colleagues on that I'm not not sure to come back immediately okay I can see Sarah's just put her hand up Sarah yeah so the the rates in special schools haven't gone up so there wouldn't be any capping of those gains because the rates haven't gone up thank you Sarah did you pick that up Steve yeah so are you saying there are no the rates haven't gone up no there are no gains yeah the the minimum funding guarantee and the the way that the caps worked in the special schools would only have kicked in if if there'd been an increase in the rates which there hasn't been right okay that's answered the question I'm not I'm not sure I fully understand it but that's probably my fault thank you I'm not pursue that any further the other the other point which is on page 28 paragraph 30 there's a there's a reference to the local authority to continue to lobby for additional and fairer funding I just wondered whether you could say anything about what form a what form that lobbying is currently taking and I know it's complicated by the fact we've got elections coming up in a month's time but also and this is something we have talked about before whether there's anything that schools and academies and trusts and school leaders and governors could do to either back up any lobbying that might be coming from elected members or the county council or to have their own campaign to lobby MPs or whatever because it just seems to have gone a bit quiet on that front I will pick up on some of those points Steve in terms of obviously we continue to be part of F40 which is voluntary but it is that so that that is a major way that we continue to kind of support the lobbying of fairer funding across the country and particularly for Staffordshire and then there are other forums by which we continue to lobby so it's through the Society of County Treasurers we continue to make the point around the sustainability of the local authority and its funding particularly with the statutory override and where that places pressure on the system and then we also are continuing to engage with the local government association and ensuring that we provide the local government association with all the survey requests that they're asking for currently there's one around special educational needs transport we're making sure that we always provide that information again because that's optional and we always do that because we think it's important that we certainly share it from a large shire authority and then it's probably not appropriate necessarily for me to kind of talk on behalf of Councillor Price Councillor Sutton in terms of the elected members but one of the things that they continue to do through the council is to meet with local MPs and to continue to raise all of the particular challenges of which SEND is very high on that agenda when they meet with the MPs locally thank thank you Tim Steve does that answer your questions yeah thanks I mean I think it's perhaps something we might come back to after the county council elections when there's a new county council and a new cabinet but yeah that for now thank you very much Tim thanks Steve Swarton do you want to come in hi one question to start with my understanding from appendix one not all schools have had a transfer to special needs block am I reading that right I'm not sure whether Luke was coming yes that's right because obviously where the schools are at the floor and so we have to provide that MFG of 0.5% those schools wouldn't be contributing so actually it is the gainers where the contribution comes from that just confirms my understanding the next point is more of a just a comment DFE's technical paper indicated that the extra funding this year was 4.3% now I know within that about 1.5% is to do with the national insurance which we're getting outside the main funding but when we end up only getting 0.76% at the maximum it's a little bit misreading when you read the technical note I think Luke you may have to come in on that question because that's a technical question yeah I need to look into the 4.3% and what it's made up really to provide a detailed answer I know that the schools block allocation excluded growth funding was increased by 1.9% and then with the funding switch and then having to cap gains that's what's brought it down but I need to look into the 4.3% in a bit more detail I mean all I'm really saying is on the face of it when you read the DFE document it seems that schools are being reasonably funded even though it goes on to say about the cost pressures but then in reality as we all know what we actually get isn't very much at all is it it's no criticism of the local authority or anything it's just more of an observation of where we all are if you know what I mean thank you Steve yep I think that's that's a fair reflection and a fair analysis Chris sorry apology it looks like I'm blinded by the light just referring back to Tim's point previously about the PVI settings and the national insurance grant we've got a nursery setting and obviously we only get the national insurance grant based on mainstream primary numbers we don't get any grant for additional staff that we are hiring for our two year old provision would that be all schools that have a two year old provision because obviously I'm just conscious that that is actually coming at an additional cost where we won't be covered for our additional national insurance contributions either yes so my understanding was we've taken the decision to provide that early years expansion grant to the PVI sector I'll have to go away and just clarify your second point which was to say that you're not receiving anything for staff within schools I'll have to take that one away and then bring that back Chris thank you thank you Chris Vicky sorry I was still on mute just a comment really rather than a question in relation to the individual school budget section of Luke's paper and it just really you know at the risk of stating the obvious the fact that there's no notice of concern or license deficits on the list isn't because there aren't any it's because they changed the guidance which is alluded to in the previous minutes in the last meeting so obviously we'll probably have an update on that in the July meeting once we've submitted our 25-26 budgets but just to make that wider point around how that looks it looks as if we haven't got any and actually pretty confident we've got more than we've had before so yeah just a comment really before we moved away from that item thanks Vicky Tim's just going to come in on that thanks just to make the point Vicky that this is around any new license deficits or notices of concern rather than we don't have any so if you remember at the schools forum back in January there were a number that were issued so just whilst I'm supporting the point that you're making that we do have them but it's not a case of saying yes we don't have them it's just that there were no new ones to be brought to schools forum today yeah and obviously we'll see as I just said in the July meeting we'll be picking those up I would assume from the 25 26 budget submissions yes time dependent that would be on where we are with getting those into place but obviously how we used to report on them the point I'm making is how we used to report on them has changed so it's you're not comparing like for like and I don't want it to look as if you know individual school budgets are not as much of an issue as they once were because that isn't the case I'm just going to kind of probably contradict you there in the sense of we're probably issuing more than we've ever issued before which will demonstrate the challenges that we're seeing with schools and their budgets Vicky rather than anything if we've changed the process of issuing them we're looking that longer term so if you recall probably two three years ago we were only looking at the current year and next year whereas actually we now are thinking around year two and year three of budgets and where there are pressures so I think we're probably highlighting more schools earlier than we would have done previously thank you Vicky yep I know from the conversations I've been having I think it's a very challenging set of circumstances and conversations particularly when you're looking two three years down the track and planning accordingly that was my point really yeah okay thank you thank you thank you Vicky any other points on that report before we note it and move on to item 10 okay thank you for your contributions we'll now move on to item 10 which is the high needs block I'm going to ask Sarah to update us on this hi this is the regular report outlining the latest position on the high needs block as per the request of schools forum given the ongoing pressures in this area as usual I won't go through the paper in full as I presume forum members have already had an opportunity to read the paper to summarize the paper outlines that the Q4 forecast overspend in high needs block for 2024-2025 is £28 million no change from the forecast reported in January as previously demand continues to exceed capacity with now around 8,660 EHCPs nearly a thousand more than this time last year demand is up roughly 69% from just five years ago this is impacting in all areas but especially the special independent sector with numbers now around 730 over 250 more than they were just three years ago this is by some way the largest budget pressure in the high needs block importantly the paper also outlines the continued decline in the DSG reserve which at the start of 2024-2025 was already in deficit by £30.8 million it will increase to over £56 million by the end of 2024-2025 based on the current forecast overspend left unaddressed the funding gap will likely increase and by 2029-2030 Staffordshire's high needs block could be between £40 million and £80 million over budget and by which time the accumulated deficit will be somewhere between £250 million and £360 million even at its current level the council is already losing annual revenue returns of over £2 million per annum in lost interest and this figure will increase as the deficit grows funding that would otherwise be available for delivering essential council services there's been no further guidance from central government relating to the statutory override the mechanism by which councils are required to ring fence their accumulated DSG deficits until the end of 2025-2026 banks. This is effectively a temporary bank overdraft that will need to be repaid before it becomes so deep it subsumes all the council's other cash balances and effectively makes the council bankrupt. Given the extent of the deficit this has the potential to impact on the educational provision available to future children with SEND for many years to come and it represents the most significant financial risk to the authority. In November 2022 we brought forward a proposed deficit management plan to mitigate as far as possible the existing overspend. Part of that plan included a half a percent funding switch from schools block. The transfer for 2025-26 was not supported by schools forum however it was supported by the Secretary of State and therefore about three and a half million will be added to the high needs block budget. The paper goes on to outline the high needs budget for 2025-2026. As previously reported in January the government has allocated just over $143.6 million for Staffordshire's high needs block. Once we add the $3.5 million funding switch money this brings the total available for high needs spend next year to $147.1 million about $11.5 higher than in 2024-2025. The Council recognises the financial pressures as we just talked about on schools across Staffordshire and as we keep saying we will continue to lobby government for additional funding in the sector. Importantly none of the additional funding received in 2025-2026 will be used to repay historical deficits. For 2025-2026 the special school budgets will be set based on a minimum funding guarantee of 0% in line with the MFG set by government. Also the infrastructure lump sum has been separated from the MFG element of the school specific rate and paid as an upfront amount based on schools agreed plan places. The 2025-2026 budgets include a 10% increase to Trig 8 rates. However environmental capacity and split site payments, both non-statutary factors, have been rolled into the funding envelope and redistributed as part of that Trig 8 funding uplift. The impact of the rolling will be phased in over three years for environmental capacity and two years for split sites. And as last year and in recognition of increasing costs, three additional separate funding streams will be passed on to both special schools and Prews. These are grants that come from government or have been which we're told to pass on by government. The additional 3.4% funding equivalent first distributed in 2023 based on current plan place numbers, historic TPG and TPECG grants based on current plan place numbers at 2020 values and the core schools budget grant which this year combines last year's core schools budget grant, TPG and TPG24 which is the pay and pensions grant related to 2024 which were separate grants last year and additional funding to support high needs providers with increases to their national insurance contributions from April 2025. The report goes on to provide an update on the progress of the SEND Accelerated Progress Plan and Alternative Improvement Plan. These outline how over time improvements in the provision for children and young people will be implemented and are essential for the delivery of the DSG management plan. This approach includes the new area of CEDIS provision which commenced in five of the eight districts on the 1st of September 2024. Provision for South Staffordshire became operational in January 2025 and expressions of interest closed for the remaining districts of Litchfield and Staffordshire Mall at the end of February 2025. These expressions of interest are currently being considered by the local authority with a view to shortlisting and interviewing prospective applicants. Also, in a change to the original process, CEDIS support can now be agreed at the local management group as well as through the due phase of EAPDR. This move represents a repositioning of a significant proportion of CEDIS capacity to an earlier stage in the school's graduated approach and will enable schools to enhance their SEND systems improvement work. This adjustment came into effect from the 1st of March 2025 in all districts where CEDIS teams are operational. The report closes with an update on Section 19 provision and the recoupment of these costs. At January's schools forum, it was agreed to establish a task and finish group to review the current arrangements and to work towards an agreed solution as supported by the guidance. This group met to begin their review on the 27th of January 2025. It is hoped that a mutual agreement between SEC and schools could be reached. As a result, SEC will not be pursuing any issued and unpaid invoices in relation to all P-charge until a recommended formula has been devised, agreed and recommended to each school, at which point a decision will be made in respect to those past invoices. Similarly, invoices that have been paid will also be subject to a further decision once a recommended formula has been agreed. The updated recommended formula may necessitate the return of funds or a reduction of future contributions to offset the element of payment that is no longer part of the agreed recommended formula. Once a decision about that agreed recommended formula has been reached, a further communication will be sent to all schools confirming the formula. Happy to take any questions. Thank you, Sarah. Laura, do you want to come in first? I'm just going to talk on behalf of the special school academies. I'm sure you're aware that our budgets are set from September to August and a change has been brought in by the local authority here into how funding is allocated via the school-specific funding. Previously, this has been on a per-pupil basis and this change mid-year for us within our budgets means that this is having a significant impact on the funding for our special school academies. One of our Stafford special school academies has a reduction in funding of £39,280 and three of our academies combined in one MAT has a reduction of £14,000 due to this change. As I'm sure you are aware, most of the special schools within Staffordshire are substantially and significantly above their planned places and this is where the impact comes from. We are concerned that we will be being asked to do more with less as all of our mainstream colleagues are worried about that as well. But we also feel that this will give a higher use of the independent sector because we won't be able to meet needs that are outlined on EHCPs and will lead into significant spending in those areas. Thank you, Laura. Tim, do you want to come in? Do you want to put that one up, Sarah? I don't mind. I don't mind, Tim. I can if you want me to. Yeah, if you want to. Yeah. Yeah. And what I would say about the infrastructure lump sum is it's meant to mirror the infrastructure lump sum that they get in the mainstream school, which is sort of based on, isn't related to people numbers. It's elements that are sort of fixed costs. So that's what the basis of that kind of part of the formula is related to. And the way that it was set up over like 10 years ago was that the schools that had the the largest school, the largest school will get nothing from that infrastructure lump sum and the smallest school will get the the most basically. So what what is what was happening is the smallest schools if they were growing in the year would end up getting more than the smallest school. So I think it's important to understand that that was was what was happening in this scenario and schools grow the infrastructure schools grow. The infrastructure needs change. So doing this mid year for our academies has that significant impact on budget that's already been set about income that we believed was going to come. There's been no consultation or communication with the schools about this. It's been very short notice. Do you want to come in there? Yeah. I mean, one of the things we will take away that that issue about the in-year law and have a look at that is Sarah was saying it's a recognition of the cost that all schools face. And, you know, but however, I recognize the point you're making around the in-year effect on on particularly the academy. So we will take that away, have a look at it and then provide an update. Thank you. Thank you. Steve Barr. Yeah. Thanks, Alan. One general point and one specific one. The general one, the risk of repeating myself is that, I mean, clearly what the paper says and what Sarah has highlighted about, particularly about the statutory override and the risk of the county council going bust is, is accurate. But I mean, if the, if the government, central government doesn't address this, then there'll be very few, very few local authorities that don't go bust next year. And many of them will go much, much, much deeper into the red than Staffordshire. So that's, I mean, that's just me getting it off my chest again, because I've said it so many times before. A specific point I wanted to ask about, and again, this is something that we've raised at schools for and for many, many years, is highlighted near the, very near the beginning of the paper, which is independent placements and costs going up and up and up. Sorry? Sorry, I thought someone spoke then. And we've had, we've had assurances over the years that this is being addressed and we all know the reasons behind it. And I'm sure if the local authority hadn't taken action, they would have gone up even more. But the budget for 2024-2025 put in 33.7%, and the outturn figure was 46.6, sorry, 33.7 million. The outturn was 46.6 million, which is almost 40% higher. But the figure in the 25-2026 budget is 36 million. And that's really the question I'm asking, that if the figure in the 24-2025 budget was 33.7, but the outturn is 46.6, are we going to have the same sort of scenario again in 25-2026, where 36 million goes in and the outturn is 48 or something like that? I think, yeah, well, yes, Steve, because the problem is, isn't it, that we know right now that whatever number I put by whatever line on that budget, we haven't got enough because we're forecasting something like a, well, deficit management plan, so something around a 40 million pound overspend in 25-26, so I think the answer is yes, but, yeah, what can you say? Okay, that's an honest answer. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Sarah. Kevin. Hi, just an observation, really. On the paper within the EAPDR section, it talks about the number of children that have gone through EAPDR and then go to EHC, and it says 40 have gone to EAPC following EAPDR, and all of them have been done within the statutory 20 weeks, which is brilliant. It's great. It shows that EAPDR is working, and that's a very positive picture, and that's all good news. The danger around it, though, is that the children that go straight to EHC requests without going through EAPDR are not meeting that 20-week statutory process at all. They're going way over, and it just doesn't look, I understand why, it's not a criticism, it just doesn't look good that actually we're now sort of almost advising schools within our own send hubs, go through EAPDR because you'll get your EAPDR quicker, and that isn't necessarily what EAPDR should be there for, and I'm just a little bit concerned that what we could end up doing is flooding the EAPDR system with kids who actually really should just go to statutory assessment because that's where they're at, but they'll go through EAPDR because they'll think they'll get it quicker, and that's a bit of a danger moving forward, and I'm retiring, it's not going to be my issue or something that I'll be dealing with within my hub, but I know it's a growing problem, and it's something that I think we need to consider and think about. Thank you, Kevin. That's me, Dom. Halid, did you want to respond to that? Yes, thank you. Thanks, Kevin, and I can't believe you're retiring. You're far too young to be in that space. No, I'm retiring whilst I'm still saying, Halid. Good for you, good for you. Yeah, I mean, it's a tension that we've noted from the start of this process. For me, EAPDR is not another step towards an EHCNA. That wasn't one of the North Stars for its delivery. What we're hoping is that EAPDR becomes part of that graduated approach, but inevitably, it sets up that tension, is it the alternative route in? Now, for some children that have very, very complex needs and their needs meet that legal test, the route through to a request for an education and healthcare needs assessment is the right route. In terms of the lateness of 20-week assessments, we've taken some fairly aggressive steps in the last couple of weeks in that space. We've got around 600 assessments that are beyond the 20 weeks as we stand, and we are creating a temporary high-focus team of send-key workers to address that particular backlog. So, we're hoping that we'll get into that sort of neutral space where we have very few plans beyond the 20 weeks. Melissa Jones from Education Psychology has also commissioned 300 additional ed psych reports in the locum space, so that we're hoping that once those reports are in place, which is one of the primary reasons for the delays in education and healthcare needs assessments. And again, it's a national issue, and where we have the government closing ed psych training courses, it does feel very, very sort of counter to what we're hearing in terms of the need for more education psychologists. So, I absolutely acknowledge and agree with your framing of the situation. It's a tension that we're going to need to navigate very carefully, and I'm hoping that with our district colleagues from the district model that we can make sure that children who would benefit from EAPDR because of the early intervention would be accessing EAPDR, and we're looking at sort of, you know, three, five, five kids on EAPDR at the moment, which is every week increases by a magnitude of 10 or 12, and we're seeing probably 70% of those requests for EAPDR agreed, which is, I know it states on the paper, a nine, seven percent increase. We're now up to a 10 percent increase in the number of agreed EAPDRs, which is great. We want to be doing that. We want to be getting early intervention in place, but fully acknowledge the tension. But just to reassure colleagues in this room that we are addressing the backlog aggressively, and there is a very, very clear recovery plan in place. That's good to know. It's because it would be a crying shame for the children who should be going to EAPDR, but don't get there quick enough because it's clogged up with the children who are already past that point, and that would be, that would be the crying shame, because the whole point is that it's meant to be early intervention and it's meant to be quick. So it just spirals then, doesn't it? So I'm really pleased that that, hopefully you can manage it, because that would be great. Thanks. Thanks, Kevin. Thank you. Tim, then Vicky. Just to emulate, definitely agreeing with Kevin's point there, and thank you, Halet, for your explanations as well. And I think we all know and understand what that is. Just added to this idea of the possible gaming of the system because of it being perceived as another pathway in, in thinking of the primary academies, the backlog in reviewed EHCPs that have had the review meeting and then children and their parents not being able to access special school places that their children may have benefited from because those places have been allocated to possibly out of county children, because of course, special schools will need to have those places filled because they will rely on, on being full schools. It was just to add that, maybe as that extra tension, that some of those waiting academies that I have involvement with are quite extreme, and actually then that send casework and simply being able to tell schools or parents that they will escalate back to their leadership team. But then there'll be too many who are heard at that week of meeting, that then gets passed on to the next week and the next week. And I know we're all here to improve the outcomes for all children. But just to say, I'm sure with that extra commissioned work, hopefully, we'll see that backlog going. But thank you very much for a few points. It was just to add that statement. Thank you, Tim. Vicky? Yeah, only to add briefly, similar to Kevin, Tim's point, really, and thank you, Hallett, but I'd had a specific request from a colleague when Steve and I send out the agenda just around the same thing, so I just didn't want to feel that I'd not put that forward, just the amount of time they've waited and the extent of the need that they're trying to meet and the impact of that, really. But I appreciate you've got that task force in place, so hopefully that will speed things up a bit. Thank you. Thank you, Vicky. Thank you, Vicky. And I'll make sure that those comments are passed on to the district leadership team, so they can cascade those down into their district SEND teams. Thank you. Thank you, Hallett. Will? I'd just check, what's the anticipated timescale for removing that backlog? Because I'm concerned as a secondary head around, you know, early intervention, and when that early intervention does not take place, these children are more likely to be at risk of suspensions. And the mercy of the sanctions of schools. So is there kind of anticipation of when that backlog will be cleared? Yep. So next week, we've instructed all of the SEND team to focus on the circa 200 plans. Sorry, beg your pardon. 300 plans where they are ready to be written. So there's going to be a focus week next week to focus on those plans. So expect consultations to be forthcoming, obviously notwithstanding the Easter holidays. So Melissa Jones has commenced her activity on the EP backlog, again, which is part of that chain effect in terms of the assessment process. So that started in mid-March. So a couple of weeks ago now. So those commissions, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to applaud Mel's ability to find EP capacity nationally to provide that particular service, because obviously, EPs are few and far between. So the plan is around sort of six to nine months to complete that process. But as I speak, we are in the throes of further requests for statutory assessment. And we're at circa 1,000 assessments in process at the moment. So whilst we're bailing as fast as we can, the water is coming into the boat, if you like. So the demand is outstripping capacity as we speak. So notwithstanding all of our efforts, there needs to be a national solution here. And I'm expecting a government-wide paper, hopefully, that will address the root and branch issues that we see within the SEND system. But just to reassure colleagues that we are doing all that we can and making sure that we're deploying resources in a focused way in this summer term going forward. Thank you, Hallett. Okay. Any other queries or questions regarding that paper? No? Okay. Thank you for everyone's contributions on that. We'll move on to the final item, which is the work programme and dates of next meetings. So as Simon's already said, the next meeting will be a face-to-face meeting on 10th of July. And then the other meetings are listed below and agendas obviously will be sent out in the normal way. Vicky, I can see you put your hand up. Sorry, I just wanted to ask about page 52. I'm not quite sure how we've gone beyond page 52 at this point. The education banding tool, there's a table on page 52 around that, but not any specific blurb within the paper about reintroduction and timescales for that, unless I've missed that elsewhere, which is likely. Could we just have a bit of an update on that? Or if it's not imminently being reintroduced, whether that would be something we'd be looking at in the July meeting at all? Yep. So the reason why the EBT rates are there is because there are some youngsters that were funded through it continue to be funded through the EBT rates. In terms of the updates, we're still working on a process to ensure that when we do implement it, and as we've always indicated, our intention is to implement or reimplement the education banding tool, but we need to be secure around making sure that it doesn't cost us any more. It's not about cost savings, as we've always said, but it has to be cost neutral, and at this point in time, it's not imminent, so we will add it to the work programme. We'll provide an update in July. Right. Thanks, Tim. Laura? Previously, when the work was carried out around the EBT, there was significant consultation done with mainstream and special schools around supporting that workload and that working party. I've not heard that there's any involvement with schools currently around that working party. Is that just within the local authority, or will there be opportunity for schools to be involved again? So, the current work is taking place looking at all of the information, Laura. So, as soon as we then start to think about, okay, so what does it look like, we will then start to include colleagues again as a consultation process before it is launched. So, yes, the answer to the question around, will you be involved? Absolutely, before we move forward with any reintroduction. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. Steve Barr. Yeah, it's just an admin point under that agenda item 11 about date to the next meetings. It's for Simon, really. You've got the meetings up to January on the agenda. And I know that the March one is out there in the public domain. I think it's 26th of March. But certainly, the teacher and school leader unions are trying to work on our programme for the next academic year already. Have you got a date for the summer term meetings yet, Simon? And if not, any idea when that might be in place? Steve, I don't have them to hand, but I do have them on a spreadsheet. So, I'll be able to share that in the minutes. I do need to have a quick word with Alan and Tim, because I think at the moment we've got one planned for over Easter, which obviously we can't have. So, I just need to rearrange those dates. That'd be really helpful. Thank you very much. Gee, Steve. Okay. Any final points before we close the meeting? Doesn't look like it. Okay. Thanks ever so much again for your attendance, everybody, and for your contributions today. We'll see each other in July. Thanks a lot. Bye-bye. Thanks. Bye.