Apologies were received from Wasim Butt, Michelle McWalter, and Amanda Sayers.

No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2024 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The chair introduced the item and invited officers to comment on the report.

Officers highlighted that there was a positive change to the overall Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) position due to a £2.143m underspend which reduced the deficit to £4.128m. This was due to a small underspend on the Schools Block and an increased underspend in the High Needs Block. With regards to School Balances, Officers noted that the number of schools with a deficit balance had reduced from 4 to 2, as well as a reduction in the number of schools with excess balances from 15 to 13. Officers also recognised increasing budgetary pressures on schools and were working with schools through the implementation of 3-year budget plans and deficit recovery plans.

The Chair invited comments or questions from members of the committee on the DSG and Schools Balances. Forum Members:

1. Sought clarity on the next steps should schools continue to go into deficit, how the process worked, and the actions taken if schools could not recover given statutory obligations. Officers advised that a deficit recovery plan was developed in which the Local Authority closely monitored a school’s alignment with the plan. If schools were to reach a point where recovery was challenging, then a Notice of Concern would be issued. Officers affirmed that a notice of concern could lead to the withdrawal of delegation or the establishment of a management intervention board.

2. Asked, due to the 2.98m underspend in the High Needs Block, if there would be any savings in financial year 2024-25. Officers explained that this amount was one-off in relation to 22-23 expenditure and was lower than estimated, thus, the revised forecasting may not be the same/ as high.

3. Asked if schools should log expenditures/deficit reduction costs, to highlight the increasing pressures on schools due to restrictive funding. Officers assured that their challenges and pressures were being reflected back to the Department of Education (DFE).

Schools Forum NOTED recommendations 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.1.3 as set out in the report:

5.1.1     the DSG deficit carry forward position; and

5.1.2     the level of schools’ balances

5.1.3     schools three year budget plan positions will be reported to the next Schools Forum

The Chair introduced the item and invited officers to comment on the report. Officers noted the report made recommendations that the appropriate top-up for Kensington Queensmill should be £28,000, backdated to the start of the financial year. They emphasised the recommendation for increased investment in early intervention for early years children, and also expressed the idea to extend Freston Junction, a new provision for children with social, emotional, mental health and communication needs, to primary school aged children.

The Chair invited questions or comments from members of the Committee. Forum Members:

1. Sought clarity over admissions criteria for schools in Kensington and Chelsea as fifty percent were filled by non-residents. Officers explained that under UK law, maintained schools may not give admissions priority to children for the sole reason that they live within the local education authority’s administrative boundaries.

2. Asked if there was a set of quality outcomes for pupils, Officers advised that each individual child has a personalised set of outcomes specified within their education health and care plan. It was also explained that placement are all  subject to an inspection regime.

3. Noted the significantly higher cost of independent placements and asked what additional support the settings were able to provide to justify the higher cost. Officers advised that some independent settings provide specialist health and care services for children with low incidence special needs, such as therapies and residential provision for looked after children. These added to the cost making the provision more expensive. Officers explained that provision for children with high incidence special needs although less expensive, could be better catered for in local authority maintained schools at an even lower cost, for example new specialist resource provision such as Freston Junction, and the Council was engaging with families to encourage take-up of the local offer

4. Noted concern about the increasing number of young people in-patient units, and questioned what support was in place for complex mental health needs. Officers stated that the area has an Executive Board co-chaired by Health and Local Authority which provides the opportunity for discussion about the contribution of partners to meeting needs, understanding the issues and driving plans and commissioning. Officers illustrated this with an example of the recent significant decrease in the waiting list for autism diagnosis for 5–16-year-olds due to the SEND Executive Board holding each partner to account and transparency in data. Officers assured that where a clinical need was identified, the local authority worked with health partners to ensure timely assessments.

Schools’ Forum AGREED to:

7.1          amend the top up for KQ, to £28,000 with effect from April 2024 (para 3.2)

7.2          endorse proposals for SEMH primary provision and outreach (para 3.7)

7.3          note the recommendations for investment in early intervention for nursery aged children (para 3.5); and occupational therapy in autism provisions (para 3.9)

7.4          note the 2024/25 Teachers’ pension employer contribution grant (TPECG) allocations for special schools, AP and hospital providers will total £380,353 (section 5); and

7.5          note the forward plan for the HNBRG (section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Chair introduced the item and invited officers to comment on the report. Officers highlighted that the balance sheet identified £311,000 linked to Historic pooled funds from schools that could not be backdated as transactions went back over ten years. Officer suggested the development of a non-recurrent intervention support pot to support schools

Forum discussed the report and raised the following points:

1. Identified schools’ vulnerability after leadership change as a potential criterion of eligibility for the support find.

2. That the intervention support fund would be used to support schools requiring improvement.

3. The method of assessment to determine which schools may require improvement would involve schools sharing the outcome they would receive if Ofsted were to visit and identifying their vulnerabilities as a school. 

4. Affirmed that the fund is not part of the Dedicated Schools Grant and would not be used towards reducing the deficit.

5. Forum requested a bidding template for this fund which was agreed.

6. The size of school balances was also discussed and will be taken account of in funding decisions.

Forum AGREED recommendation 5.1:

5.1          note the Schools Intervention and Support Fund, purpose and eligibility criteria.

The Chair introduced the item and invited officers to comment on the report. Officers stated that the report referred to the planning of the consultation and that no decision would be made that would affect the distribution or total of the funding. Officers emphasised that the Committee was being asked to agree to the three options for consultation.

Forum discussed the report and raised the following points:

1. Asked if the incoming government would be committed to National Funding Formula (NFF) funding. Officers expected that there would be no change in this aspect.

Forum AGREED recommendations 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3:

6.1.1          Agree the principles for agreeing the schools funding formula for 2025/26 budgets (paragraph 3.1).

6.1.2          agree the options to go forward for consultation with primary and secondary headteacher groups in September / October 2024 (section 4); and

6.1.3          note the next steps for agreeing the schools funding formula for 2025/26 budgets (section 5).

The Chair introduced the item and invited officers to comment on the report. Officers outlined key points of the report and noted three updates regarding the financial management of maintained schools.

The Chair invited questions or comments from members of the Committee. Forum Members: </AI8>

1. Suggested a change to the last sentence of paragraph 5.1 in the proposed scheme for financing schools to exclude to income lettings in overall figures for voluntary aided schools to provide more balanced figures across schools. Officers agreed, and suggested that the sentence will be re-worded in a future version of the scheme and in line with the introduction of the balance control mechanism from 2026/27.

2. Suggested an amendment to 2.14 in clarifying the difference between a capital project and premises improvements. Officers advised that they refer to a document that states the distinctions between the two.

Forum AGREED to:

4.1.1          review and approve the updated Scheme in Annex B, to be consulted on with all maintained schools (in line with provision 1.4 of the policy)

4.1.2          note that the outcome of the consultation will be reflected in the next issue of the Scheme.

4.1.3          note that the previously agreed balance control mechanism will be included in a future Scheme update proposal.