Schools Forum - Tuesday 13 January 2026, 1:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Schools Forum
Tuesday, 13th January 2026 at 1:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Gaynor Bull
  2. Clare Gray
Share this agenda point
  1. Gaynor Bull
  2. Clare Gray
Share this agenda point
  1. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Alan Sherwell
  2. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Alan Sherwell
  2. Gaynor Bull
  3. Claudia Glasgow
  4. Gaynor Bull
  5. Clare Gray
  6. Alan Sherwell
  7. Gaynor Bull
  8. Clare Gray
  9. Marieke Foster
  10. Clare Gray
  11. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Jannice Freeman
  2. Claudia Glasgow
  3. Gaynor Bull
  4. Jannice Freeman
  5. Gaynor Bull
  6. Claudia Glasgow
  7. Russell Dyer
  8. Claudia Glasgow
  9. Gaynor Bull
  10. Jannice Freeman
  11. Claudia Glasgow
  12. Gaynor Bull
  13. Rob Tucker
  14. Gaynor Bull
  15. Claudia Glasgow
  16. Gaynor Bull
  17. Jannice Freeman
  18. Gaynor Bull
  19. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Russell Dyer
  2. Gaynor Bull
  3. Alan Sherwell
  4. Russell Dyer
  5. Alan Sherwell
  6. Gaynor Bull
  7. Russell Dyer
  8. Gaynor Bull
  9. Gaynor Bull
  10. Russell Dyer
  11. Gaynor Bull
  12. Jannice Freeman
  13. Gaynor Bull
  14. Michael Jarrett
  15. Gaynor Bull
  16. Russell Dyer
  17. Gaynor Bull
  18. Gaynor Bull
  19. Russell Dyer
  20. Gaynor Bull
  21. Marieke Foster
  22. Gaynor Bull
  23. Michael Jarrett
  24. Gaynor Bull
  25. Michael Jarrett
  26. Gaynor Bull
  27. Marieke Foster
  28. Michael Jarrett
  29. Marieke Foster
  30. Michael Jarrett
  31. Gaynor Bull
  32. Michael Jarrett
  33. Marieke Foster
  34. Michael Jarrett
  35. Gaynor Bull
  36. Michael Jarrett
  37. Gaynor Bull
  38. Michael Jarrett
  39. Gaynor Bull
  40. Russell Dyer
  41. Gaynor Bull
  42. Laura Morel
  43. Russell Dyer
  44. Michael Jarrett
  45. Gaynor Bull
  46. Russell Dyer
  47. Gaynor Bull
  48. Gaynor Bull
  49. Michael Jarrett
  50. Gaynor Bull
  51. Russell Dyer
  52. Sue Bayliss
  53. Gaynor Bull
  54. Julie Manning
  55. Gaynor Bull
  56. Sue Bayliss
  57. Gaynor Bull
  58. Sue Bayliss
  59. Gaynor Bull
  60. Marieke Foster
  61. Gaynor Bull
  62. Michael Jarrett
  63. Marieke Foster
  64. Michael Jarrett
  65. Marieke Foster
  66. Gaynor Bull
  67. Jonathan Carter
  68. Gaynor Bull
  69. Jonathan Carter
  70. Michael Jarrett
  71. Gaynor Bull
  72. Marieke Foster
  73. Michael Jarrett
  74. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Clare Gray
  2. Webcast Finished

Gaynor Bull - 0:00:00
Good afternoon, everyone.
And the first item on the agenda today is election of chairman.
Clare Gray - 0:00:09
I have received a nomination, but I just wanted to cheque if there are any other nominations

1 Election of Chairman/Co-Chairman

for chairman of the schools forum today.
No?
Okay, so I have received a nomination for Gaynor Bolomarica -Foster to co -chair the
schools forum.
Could I have a proposer and a seconder, please?
Lovely.
Who's the seconder?
Oh, thanks.
Lovely.
So on a basis, there are no other nominations.
If everyone could show their agreement to Marika and Geina co -chairing.
Lovely, that's carried. Thank you very much.
Gaynor Bull - 0:01:10
Okay, thank you very much everybody and thank you Marika.
So Happy New Year to start with.
I hope it's not that long ago that you can remember what Christmas was like,
but I hope everyone had a good time.
Welcome to the 2026 weather. Have we got any apologies for absence today Claire?
Thank you Chairman. I've had apologies from Suzanne Best, Andrew Howard and Alison Rooney.
I don't know if there are any further apologies to report.

2 Apologies for absence

3 Declaration of Interest

Clare Gray - 0:01:36
Gaynor Bull - 0:01:41
Okay and do we have any declarations of interest in items on the agenda please? Alan?
Alan Sherwell - 0:01:53
Gaynor Bull - 0:01:56
Okay. Thank you. Okay. So if we go through the minutes and we've got two sets of minutes
to go through because the time between the minutes being posted for the 17th of November
and the December forum is quite short so people haven't had a chance to look at them. So if
go through the 17th of November first please so has anybody got any

4 Minutes of the previous meetings 17 November 2025 and 2 December)

amendments effectively to the minutes of the 17th of November which is page 3 to
through to page 10.
Alan?
Alan Sherwell - 0:02:38
reverse of what I actually said. What I said was that although I'm about to cancel, I had no part in taking the final decision in bucks on that matter.
And therefore I thought I was free to speak in the meeting, which of course I did.
Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Yes, Claudia.
Gaynor Bull - 0:03:26
Claudia Glasgow - 0:03:31
Sorry. So on page six, there is a small typo in the third paragraph. There's an extra G
in the first sentence after the word across that should read a consultation on both proposals
with all schools across and then it's got a g there. Lovely thank you for spotting that.
Gaynor Bull - 0:03:46
Anybody anything else? Okay if we move on to the minutes of the 2nd of December then
which start on page 11 and go through to page 16.
Anyone got any comments on those minutes?
No? Okay, sorry.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, we referenced in both of sets of minutes actually the elections and the
vacancies that we had on schools forum as part of the Constitution. Claire are
you able to give us an update on what has happened as a result of those
Clare Gray - 0:04:54
elections. Yes, thank you Chairman. So for the special maintained schools, Alison Rooney
has been elected and also Rachel Chapman has been re -elected. We still have vacancies for
two vacancies for the secondary grammar and also a vacancy for the secondary upper academy.
In terms of the secondary upper maintained election, we are having to rerun the election
just so that I can clarify the voting procedures. So that is actually starting from today for
week and only people from that secondary upper sector can vote and one school per vote.
So that's currently out for election.
But I've also put an item in the schools bulletin also to highlight the vacancies as well.
and yeah I think I think that's it sorry yeah I think that's the update thank you
okay so effectively we've got mainly re -elections and Alison Rooney was a
newly elected member okay brilliant and Alison's not here today so otherwise
welcome Alison. Alan?
Sorry, there's a trivial one there.
I'm noted under agenda that meeting is an apology for absence.
Alan Sherwell - 0:06:37
But I'm not actually in the bit before which accords to the apologies for absence.
Oh I see. Yes, okay. So in item one it states Alan's given his apologies but it's not noted in the apologies.
Gaynor Bull - 0:06:53
Clare Gray - 0:06:59
I also forgot to say Janice has been re -elected as well. Janice Robinson. Freeman.
Marieke Foster - 0:07:05
Can I just ask how many applicants you have got for the secondary upper. So if there is
going out to elections how many people have stepped forward to do that and also if you
have had any interest at all within the grammar school sector.
Clare Gray - 0:07:16
No I have had no nominations for grammar so therefore I have put advert out again in the
was bulletined to see if anyone is interested. And we have two people for that secondary
upper. Okay. Any other matters arising from those
minutes that are not on the agenda? Okay. Thank you. Right. Let's move on to the agenda,
Gaynor Bull - 0:07:47
which as usual is quite a hefty one for this meeting. So the first item that we've got

5 De-Delegation Proposals 2026-27

is item five which is the delegation proposals for 26 27 pages 17 through to 32. Janice where are you
do you want to take us through this one please.
Jannice Freeman - 0:08:07
and we're proposing a £3 .99 deposit to create a fund of £100 ,000 to elevate the school's income to 40.
We're proposing no de -delegation for justice to the school's funding.
and trading and stability, maybe previous spending and the changes in staffing of the Union and the figure that was posed with a defence of the P form, although the work has been essentially a double -step in my report.
Claudia Glasgow - 0:09:09
I do submit further information to Beryl on Monday, the day before.
That information, I don't know whether it's actually played through on the basis of what she came back to me.
So I would request that the money for the same opportunity as it was in the short form.
The information that she gave back to me is indicating that for NAS to get even less money this year, this coming year, than the past year.
So I haven't been able to work out how that relates because I've only got information on the NAS to get the UT facilities now.
I don't have information on the other trade unions and that.
And I'm going to share a report before she sends it to you.
And it's not in that report either.
So I think we are going to be seriously underfunded next year.
I did request on the Monday because she said that she had to produce a report on Monday.
I don't know where that information has gone.
I know that she said that information had been passed on to Russell, but the amount
of 80 paints per pupil hasn't changed.
Should you say it to me, because you're going to get a tax rate around that 100 pounds less.
Russell, to you.
Actually, no, I think it might be a 100 pounds less, but what do you think?
Yeah.
And the issue of WTB, and the issue of WTB are going to be a problem for next year.
Now I know facilities have all the trade unions, and they could be, and I understand from public safety,
Gaynor Bull - 0:11:26
So the recommendation from the report that Beryl presented was to agree a
Jannice Freeman - 0:11:31
£24 ,972 .50 projected and that was protected in a cost of 80p per pupil.
Gaynor Bull - 0:11:45
So reading the documentation, we were originally discussing a potential 70p contribution,
which was highlighted at the last schools forum that it probably wouldn't be sufficient
and there might be some issues with the pupil numbers.
So, I believe, looking at the papers we have got here, Russell and the rest of the finance
team went back and then identified that there was a discrepancy in the pupil numbers. And
having asked for the projected spend for the rest of this year and historic spend, that
was provided in the papers that went to the maintained school subcommittee. And the calculation
of 80P de -delegation then would result in approximately 26 ,000 being de -delegated, which
is what we're expecting the out -turn to be no more than for this year. And that, reading
the papers, that's my understanding of how everything was calculated.
Yes, Claudia.
Sorry, could it be put on record then that the information that Beryl used to produce
Claudia Glasgow - 0:12:43
that paper did not contain any SUWT information because she wrote to me and said that she
hadn't received that information by the time she rewrote the paper on the 8th. So I think
the delegation meeting took place on the 9th. I submitted information on the 8th but she
had already submitted the paper to the delegation group and she did say that she would make
my representations made, she passed them on to Russell so I don't know what's happened there.
Russell Dyer - 0:13:23
I think, because we increased it from 70p to 80p, so I think we were reasonably confident that that would pick up the additional costs.
I'm hoping that that is the case. It was just in her email back to me on the 8th.
Claudia Glasgow - 0:13:32
She did indicate that NASWWT was going to be receiving less money in the
coming year than it had for the year that we're just in at the moment and
that is going to be a huge difficulty for us. So I think perhaps what we need
Gaynor Bull - 0:13:50
is a clarification that following the de -delegation if it is agreed at this
meeting of 80 pence then each of the trade unions just need clarification in
of what their share of that will be.
Because the committee we just discussed the delegation to the unions, not to the individuals,
specific unions.
Jannice Freeman - 0:14:07
Claudia Glasgow - 0:14:13
Yes, sorry, the amount gets decided later on in the year based on membership figures.
So there is a formula that's worked out, we submit our information then based on the figures
that we submit, it gets allocated accordingly. So all I have done is base it on the information
that we have used previously and the percentage membership that we have within the maintained
sector. So that's the only information that I was able to base it on.
Gaynor Bull - 0:14:47
Okay. Well, the proposal that is being put to the Schools Forum today is that the trade
facilities de -delegation amount is 80 pence per pupil across both primary and secondary
pupils. Am I understanding correct, Janice?
Yes.
That's correct, based on the information we had at the time.
Can I just add one point, actually? Is it possible for this to be revised? Because certainly
Rob Tucker - 0:15:13
when the additional information from NASUWT went in, we didn't see any of those revised
figures at all. So I'm unable to comment actually on what is right financially at that point.
Gaynor Bull - 0:15:31
The de -delegation needs to be agreed today in terms of the amounts because otherwise
the schools will be, the maintained schools will be unaware of what their budgets are
going forward for and they need to be produced by February at the latest for
the schools. So I think what we've agreed in the past is if it looks as if the
the budget is not running to plan as the year goes on then we will need to not an
adjustment in year but consider the adjustments for the next year and
effectively it will just run over budget potentially. That's what we've agreed
in previous years I believe. Which is in fact what happened this year for supply
for small schools. So there is a facility for that to happen.
Claudia Glasgow - 0:16:24
Thank you very much for putting forward the proposal of 80 pence and so long as we can run over
budget then that will be fine but what I wouldn't want is for NASUWT
representatives to not be able to get out of school or to be timetable to be
out of school and then their school not to be able to be reimbursed for their release
because that would be wrong. So thank you very much for that.
Gaynor Bull - 0:16:45
So moving on the supply curve of small schools because there was significant overspend this
Jannice Freeman - 0:16:55
year we've increased that from 7p to 16p per pupil as a proposal. The final report received
in terms of the funding of financial support to schools and financial difficulties indicated
that we didn't need to alter that figure so we will maintain that or suggest proposals
that's maintained at £2 .75 and the same was true for all of the educational visits service.
School improvement team submitted a paper and if you remember when they first asked
for devolved money, they had a five year plan and because the savings made what they actually
presented for de -delegation this time slightly less than they had anticipated. So that was
the use of schools that is de -delegated to the all posing an £8 .41 per pupil de -delegation
which is a total of £16 .43 per pupil and I did a quick reckoning on that and that works out at about £6900 for a two form entry school.
So the proposal is...
Gaynor Bull - 0:18:10
Okay, any questions on the de -delegation and I believe Claire correct in saying that it is maintain schools only who will agree to these proposals.
No, okay, I think what we should note actually is that attending the meeting there were seven or eight representations from maintain schools which is probably more than we've had in the past.
Thank you very much for making the time to do that. So do we need to do this line
by line Claire or can we do it overall? Okay okay so we have a proposed
de -delegation of £16 .43 to cover the items listed by Janice and for
special schools £15 .88 in terms of 2026 -27 de -delegation, noting the comments that we've
heard in the meeting. If maintained school representatives could indicate if they are
in agreement with those proposals, please.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.
Oh, eight.
One, two, three, yeah.
Any against those proposals?
And any abstainers?
No? Okay. Sounds eight, I think, so.
Gaynor Bull - 0:19:37
Thank you.
Okay.
It was very useful, actually, Russell, to have the background information in terms of
the spend and the important thing to note is, of course, that we cannot carry anything
forward nowadays and that's why it's got to be a little bit tighter than perhaps we've
had the flexibility in the past.

6 School Budget Proposals 2026/27

Okay, moving on then to the next item, which is the school budget proposals for 26 -27.
So there are a number of areas in this, so the recommendations, we will go through the
paper sort of step by step to make it easier to sort of follow.
So the first recommendation, Russell, is basically to recommend to Buckinghamshire
Council sets its dedicated school budget at 752 .4 million in line with the funding
announcements on the 17th of December. So has anybody got any sort of questions
just on that small section? The indication shows us that we've got an
of 47 .6 million on 25 -26 figures. The two main chunks of that being associated
with the schools block and early years and high needs effectively with a
decrease in the allocation for central services. Okay so if we go through the
section then for the D .S .G. So section A relates to the funding for mainstream
schools and Russell have you got any comments that you wish to bring our
attention to for section A? I think in terms of at our last meeting we
Russell Dyer - 0:21:41
discussed all the sort of parameters for funding MFG, capital and scaling etc.
So obviously national funding formula means that we're very much restricted in what we can do in terms of funding.
So I think really we've just processed that through the authority performer tool and we've come out with the numbers that we have come out with which are published in the appendices.
So I don't think there's much real discretion that schools forums got other
than to broadly agree with with what's being proposed and obviously the detail
is in the appendices that obviously Jonathan will know the detail if there's
any particular questions on that. Okay so effectively we've got the first
Gaynor Bull - 0:22:32
recommendation which is to agree the funding allocation to mainstream
schools and we are not quite at the national funding formula so there's a scaling required
which means that all schools across the board will take a share of the reduction and they will
be allocated 99 .48 percent of the formula. I think the shortfall equates to roughly 2 .6 million
looking at the numbers but don't trust my maths on that if Jonathan can correct me
And it looks through the scaling, 34 schools would be protected by the minimum funding
guarantee versus 85 schools that were protected in 25 -26, where we had a scaling factor of
99 .46%.
Agreeing that does impact on what we are then able to do for the growth fund in 26 -27, which
Russell has indicated that there is a shortfall in what Bucks would need to support the growth for
both existing schools
expanding and new
ongoing or
What's the word I'm looking for one -off increases in
Number on roll
So the growth fund, the carry forward from 25 -26 was a shortfall of 407 ,000 and the proposals
indicate there's a further in -year shortfall of 280 ,000 which brings the cumulative growth
fund to a shortfall of 687 ,000.
Reading the papers, Russell you've indicated that the local authorities done an exercise to consider whether changing the criteria for the growth fund, basically, which is in 5 .5, I think, isn't it?
Yes, paragraph 5 .5.
But what you are proposing at the moment is there are no changes to the criteria at present
unless schools forum considers whether the benefits outweigh the risks, which is in 5 .10
of adding in those additional factors.
Is everybody clear what that actually means?
Alan?
Sorry, can I be just clear, what is the consequences of that deficit existing?
Russell?
Alan Sherwell - 0:25:17
Russell Dyer - 0:25:22
Yeah, I think in terms of the Growth Fund itself, you can have a case where, because
it's lagged funding it basically it will catch up so hopefully in the next two or
three years which should balance itself out but because of the lag nature of the
funding it just means at the moment we're taking a bit of a pressure so we
can just roll over that pressure and then gradually over time it should even
itself out so I think there shouldn't really be an impact but obviously we are
doing work to sort of model that into the future just to give schools form an
assurance that that is going to happen. Obviously if it didn't happen then we'd have to look into how to finance that deficit.
And that could mean reducing down the criteria and how generous we are with the Growth Fund, or moving some funding from schools.
The schools got into the Growth Fund itself.
Thank you for that.
The first one is really important.
Alan Sherwell - 0:26:27
It provides things that we absolutely need as an opponent.
Getting ourselves into a housing while we go is important.
So thank you for that.
Gaynor Bull - 0:26:43
Russell, are you, or Jonathan, would you be able to confirm if the proposals that were listed in 5 .5 were put in place,
what additional pressures that would put on the growth fund.
I wasn't clear from the papers to what that might entail.
Russell Dyer - 0:26:55
I don't think we've quantified that as such, but other than it would add to the pressure,
I think probably the pressure is...
We don't want to be adding to that pressure.
Yes, okay.
Okay.
So effectively, although we've got an increase in the growth fund from what we had in 25 -26,
Gaynor Bull - 0:27:14
because of our expansion of our existing schools, um, and their new and growing schools, and
then we've got projects and contingencies outside of the school's funding formula, and
that's the bit that are, they're expected but may not actually happen during the course,
or fully happen during the course of 26, 27. So, although we've got a figure in there of
of 700, 800 plus thousand basically, that's the bit uncertain as to whether that will
definitely come to fruition in 26, 27.
Okay.
Okay.
So in terms of the three recommendations then that basically relate to the schools block,
agreeing the allocation of funding, agreeing the methodology of affordability and then
confirming that the criteria for the growth fund stays as is currently with no proposed
changes but recognising there is a pressure that's been highlighted that hopefully will
work itself out over the coming years with the lagged funding coming through.
Everybody indicate if they are happy with, A, the allocation of the funding formula.
I think everybody can vote on this, can't they?
And then in terms of the methodology of affordability, so this is everybody taking the same share
effectively of 99 .48 % of national funding formula.
Thank you.
And then confirming that the growth fund, no change to the criteria and noting the pressures
for 26 -27. Great, thank you very much everyone. Okay, so that's the schools
Gaynor Bull - 0:29:06
block which is section A. Section B is relating to the central services block
and this is one where we know every year we are going to get a reduction in
funding associated with historic commitments.
And that reduction in funding this year is 244 ,000 pounds.
So overall, we had a decrease in funding,
despite the increase between 25, 26 and then 26, 27.
Overall, we've had a decrease on last year's funding,
which has put an additional pressure then of 300 ,000 effectively on central
services block. Russell what I'm unsure of is basically we've got some proposed
decreases in spending linked to the ongoing central functions. Safeguarding
an Education Project team has got a reduction of 30 ,000 pounds and then a
small reduction on schools' forum costs, which is great, actually,
to see that that's coming through, which are some increases elsewhere.
But you're confident that proposed project spend of $3 .578 million
is sufficient with those decreases that you're suggesting for education
and safeguarding?
Yeah, OK.
Same question as Alan, then, potentially.
in terms of the shortfall overall of 314 ,000,
what are the potential impacts on the council having
to find that during 26, 27?
Yeah, I mean, I think obviously that's a pressure
Russell Dyer - 0:31:01
that the local authority has to manage.
So we can identify other sources of funding.
If we can do that, then we can potentially
fund the pressure from that.
or we might look to reduce some of the service or some of the costs as well.
So that's really the two options that we have.
I think there's probably a little element of cross -subsidisation within the central services block itself,
which I think is probably allowable by the authority in my experience,
but I think that pressure of the 300 ,000 is really a matter for the local authority
to identify how we're going to actually manage that pressure, whether it's through a service cut or whether it's actually we're going to identify additional funding for that.
Gaynor Bull - 0:31:51
Okay, thank you. Has anybody got any questions on either the ongoing central functions or the historic commitments?
It's just an observation really, Basel doesn't cost the authority anything. We actually bring
Jannice Freeman - 0:32:10
income into the authority by the way we do so just, I'm not clear why we're shown as
an expenditure.
It shouldn't be an out and about but the administration costs it.
Yeah.
Gaynor Bull - 0:32:23
Sorry, just for my clarification, what is TSAN then, please?
Scott Basil and TSAN.
Basil's obviously the school leadership.
Yes.
Michael Jarrett - 0:32:39
Gaynor Bull - 0:32:50
Okay, no worries, we can put it in this clarification in the minutes if need be.
Okay, has anybody got any other questions on central services block?
And how many years left have we got in terms of the ongoing historic commitments reduction?
I think that's going to be year on year.
Russell Dyer - 0:33:12
It's not over a fixed period.
Gaynor Bull - 0:33:16
Can we have agreement then please to the proposal for the central school services block budgets?
and I believe everyone again can vote on this. Thank you. And then we come to the
Gaynor Bull - 0:33:37
main item of the day, the high needs block in section C. So the good news, I
suppose we should immediately recognise, is that we do have an increase in
funding of 5 .6 million yes okay balanced with a proposed in year deficit of 27 .3 million Russell
do you want to take us through some of the key points here you obviously when this information
Russell Dyer - 0:34:11
came out. What the department does is it mainstreams a lot of grants, which makes it artificially
sometimes look as though we've had a higher amount. So we're still doing the work to make
sure to look at the numbers. So I think we want to treat the figures with a bit of caution.
I mean, I think it's between 27 and 30 million. So I think, although we're asking you to sort
We are consulting with you so that the Council approves the high needs block budget.
I think we probably need to do a bit more work on this.
The Council normally sets the budget in February so we do have a bit more time to look at the
numbers and to revise our forecasts.
So I think we want to be treating the numbers here with a bit of caution because we need
to do that additional work, reviewing our assumptions
and reviewing all the costings that we have within that.
So whilst it looks as though it was good news,
we're probably looking a bit more in detail.
So these figures could change.
I think within the report, we sort of qualify
and that it's our subject to the council agreeing the budget.
And then we also qualify, given that we
have to look at the mainstream of grants issue.
So I think probably, although it did in the face of it, look, there's always some good news.
I think we probably have to treat that with a bit of caution.
So I think we will, once we have got the revised figures or if there's any revisions,
we'll certainly report this back to schools for them as part of the Council budget approval process.
Gaynor Bull - 0:35:55
Okay. Okay, anybody got any general questions at the moment?
Marieke Foster - 0:36:11
It's a note and recommend, basically, so I presume we would just note and recommend in principle that this is what happened subject to any change.
Gaynor Bull - 0:36:17
Additional information coming in from the DFE or anywhere else.
Michael Jarrett - 0:36:24
And also high needs block doesn't need to be consulted on in the same way that we do
for central school services or for schools blocks as well so it's a slightly different
arrangement and set up but we have always had those conversations to ensure that everybody's
noted on the intention of how that budget is going to be used. I think when we first
saw the settlement at the end of last year just before Christmas we were, to say we were
something that has now been overrun by the fact that we do need to look at
those consolidated grants in terms of what that looks like and if they are
included within the settlement which we think that they are then we haven't seen
quite as much of an increase as perhaps we had initially thought so for now we
just need to confirm the arrangement and then set that as part of the council's
Gaynor Bull - 0:37:13
budget. Can I just ask a question in terms of the additional three million
that the local authority has agreed to sort of put in. That's over a two -year
period. So where is that income effectively or a proportion of it in
these sort of figures? So the additional funding that the local authority has
Michael Jarrett - 0:37:34
ring -fenced for the use to identify and clear the backlog of Education, Health
and Care Plans is from the General Fund. It's not coming from the dedicated
schools grant at all. So although it's a two -year financial commitment of a
million and a half in 26 -27, sorry 25 -26 and then a million and a half in 26 -27, if it's
spent within a particular period we've identified that through the general
fund arrangements. So it is effectively for noting that there has been
additional investment from the local authority from the general fund but it's
not it's not attributed to the dedicated schools grant at all. So it's not
Gaynor Bull - 0:38:09
included in these figures effectively. Fine okay and and then Marika.
Marieke Foster - 0:38:15
So we are expecting, you're absolutely right, so we are expecting the send
Michael Jarrett - 0:38:31
reforms to be delivered. We were expecting them in the autumn term so
before Christmas we were expecting them, it was delayed until the spring. We've
now heard this morning that that is likely to be a few months away in terms
of before we get the detail in relation to the Senate reforms. You are right in
thinking the fact that there is an early indication that all of the deficits
across local authorities will be picked up by the Department for Education
because as it stands at the moment any deficit within the high -needs block is
sat within the statutory override,
so it's reported outside of the figures
from local authority financial reporting.
That statutory override is in place until March 31st, 2028.
And so therefore, a number of local authorities,
including a number of campaign groups,
have been speaking very closely
with the Department for Education
to look at what happens after the statutory override
expires on the 31st of March.
And the early indication,
although the detail hasn't been confirmed yet,
is that the Department for Education will pick up those overspends from local authorities
across the country and it will be sat in a separate arrangement compared to where we
see it within the dedicated schools grant at the moment.
Thank you. And this is within the income rate of the system and that's through a system
that's in the 30s? That's correct.
Marieke Foster - 0:39:49
But essentially that's building on the current deficit of around about 46, is that right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And it aligns very much with,
you know, many of you would have been involved
Michael Jarrett - 0:40:02
in the Delivering Better Value programme
that we were involved in for last year,
that expired last year.
And the projections in terms of the overspend
pretty much align with the calculations we have now.
So they weren't a million miles away,
and that's where we had consultants
coming from the Department for Education
looking at the figures,
and looking at where we saw the trajectory of increases.
So we're fairly confident that the figures
that we are reporting on
match very much in line with the kind of details that we saw previously through the delivery of better value.
Gaynor Bull - 0:40:39
So our potential projected deficit at the end of March 27 is circa 75 million in terms of the high needs.
Although it was interesting to note the point in 8 .11 that the 2526 national cumulative
DSG deficit is 6 .6 billion, which is expected to double by the end of March 28.
So it's not an insignificant figure that the Department of Education are going to have
to manage.
A question from me in terms of the backlog reduction, the pressures that you've got in
here of 12 million basically, how much of the backlog is that addressing in 26, 27?
Michael Jarrett - 0:41:26
So the investment that we've received from the local authority will, with the project
team that starts now, will be clearing the 1600 children and young people that are currently
in the backlog for their education, health and care plans to be assessed and
be completed. Thereafter we will be utilising the budget within the high
needs block as we would do ordinarily in terms of progressing any subsequent
application or assessment that comes through. So we're fairly confident with
the procurement arrangement with the new project team that they will
be able to deliver on the the figures that we have put forward and hence the
expect that the backlog will be cleared within six to eight months. That's the expectation
that we're working towards. Of course, anything can change in terms of the internal and external
influences around children's needs changing, different contributions we have for partner
organisations, but as it stands, based on a paper exercise alone, we expect that the
backlog will be cleared within six to eight months.
Marieke Foster - 0:42:33
Michael Jarrett - 0:42:35
It started just now this week. So I would be expecting, Mireki, that we will be seeing
progress updates in very frequent updates through to Bash, through to Special Head,
through to the Primary Executive Partnership Board and obviously through the Send Partnership
Board as well. So that's where we'll be monitoring the performance. But yes, the project team
was mobilised from Monday this week.
Okay, I noted in the message that came from the leader of the council there was a reference
Gaynor Bull - 0:43:00
to a cancelation of a special needs school project within Bucks. Could you clarify?
Michael Jarrett - 0:43:11
So last year you remember that we submitted, the local authorities submitted an application
for a free school for Buckinghamshire which was going to create 152 places Key Stage 2
to Key Stage 5 would have been built in Haddonham and would have served our,
principally would have served our children and people with SEMH needs. We
were expecting to have that confirmed. It was confirmed in writing when we had the
Conservative government, the change of administration meant that it had sat in
a slight vacuum in terms of the decision -making process but we had just
before Christmas we had confirmation that that programme, and there were 14
local authorities impacted had been scrapped and therefore the free school that we had
secured confirmation to go forward with was going to be within those 14 projects to be
scrapped. Instead of the amount of money to build the free school which would have been
completely funded by the Department of Education, the local authority has been offered £8 .3
million over three years as a gesture to support developing places within mainstream schools
in terms of units or ARPs and the leader of the council which you're right to
reference has written to the Secretary of State for Education within the
Department of Education to set out our concerns in relation to the fact that
this will not deliver on the sufficiency arrangements that we have set ourselves
as a local authority system and therefore we're awaiting a response back
Gaynor Bull - 0:44:43
from the Department of Education. And that 8 .3 million would sit on top of the
needs block so it's effectively a capital budget for developing the
sufficiency strategy. Okay. So the potential savings that we've identified
here, planned mitigations and other mitigations just over 9 million
effectively, can you identify, can you clarify what those really are so that
we've got clarity and the impact and of effectively losing 152 places in five
years or whenever it should have been. I take the first part of that question in
relation to losing the places. You can imagine as we are moving forward we
Michael Jarrett - 0:45:24
projected that as a local authority we were developing 900 places over the
over a period of time within the medium term financial plan cycle. By taking 152
two places out places significant pressure on already a system that is finding things
incredibly challenging. The expectation that more mainstream schools can expand to take
more children with particular identified needs is something that we recognise as being an
incredible challenge that we're asking the sector to be able to meet. We haven't taken
the news lightly and which is the reason why we've written to the, well the leader of the
to set out our concerns because whilst we appreciate
the fact that we have a very inclusive education system here in Buckinghamshire
there are more and more needs that are not being met
and there are more and more complex needs that are not being met and adding that to an
already
challenged set of circumstances is going to add
even more pressure on a system that is finding it very difficult to meet the needs
right now. So hence the reason why it's the perfect storm in terms of what we're
trying
to navigate but we are absolutely convinced that the conversations we are
having with the Department for Education will not be a one -off. With other local
authorities they have identified the fact that if they their project was
scrapped they would explore or consider a further school many years down the
line. For us we don't have the time to wait too many years down the line we
need the school now which is the reason why we have rejected that as a potential
wasn't even offered for us but that's what has been offered to other local authorities.
So for us instead we are going to have to look at other avenues and other options and
look at ways in which we can expand the already positive expressions of interest we've received
in from schools to look at expanding provision but what overlies all of this is the fact
that 152 places taken out at a stroke of a hand is something that's going to take us
very very long time to recover from. So we are pushing forward with our
sufficiency arrangements and our sufficiency strategy but of course this
is a huge dent that's now come our way that we were not expecting.
Gaynor Bull - 0:47:44
Russell can you then take us through just a little bit of explanation about
those planned and other mitigations are there any things? Yeah I think I think quite a bit of
Russell Dyer - 0:47:52
the mitigations are part of this sufficiency strategy so we'll add in more
places so that gets factored into our numbers in terms of savings and rather
than placing children with independence that we're going to have them within
special schools or ARPs and I think there's a number of other budget lines
as well that we've taken savings from with more children remaining in
mainstream forecasting that in as well and then some of the transition stages
doing some further work to try and, as I say, make sure that the children with those needs
aren't escalating into higher cost placements. So that's another significant chunk of the
funding as well. There's some smaller amounts in there as well, little projects about promoting
independence for post -18 provision, so it's across the age range as well. Reviewing some
the some services as well to see whether or not we can actually we don't we can
reduce those services obviously we consult with service users and then
within the alternative provision space implementing some things we can already
do like clawing back and some more food so I think we're adding a number of
to the sort of savings programme. I think probably just to mention that although it's
bad news with the free school not going ahead, we hadn't actually factored that in to our
recovery plan, so we hadn't actually put the savings in yet, so we wouldn't be revising
because of it obviously, although it's quite disappointing news.
Anybody got any other questions on high needs?
Gaynor Bull - 0:49:40
Yes. I've just got one question. Now this project
Laura Morel - 0:49:49
has started and we'll clear the backlog, has the impact on the additional costs for the
EHCPs that have been approved put into the 26, 27?
Russell Dyer - 0:50:00
It has, yeah. And we've also had wider conversations because we recognise that whilst we might
Michael Jarrett - 0:50:01
clear the backlog and therefore more children will have an Education, Health and Care Plan
awarded and therefore more settings will be able to draw down education, health and care
plan funding from the high needs block, it then creates more of a challenge wider therapies
for example, school places if there are to be specialist places that need to be provided.
So what we need to do is recognise where children are currently in their settings and just ensure
the funding can be commensurate with the needs of those children and young people. It will
impossible and we've just heard in terms of the sufficiency arrangements that you
know we've already seen 152 places taken straight out before we even start so it
is absolutely about ensuring that settings can draw down the resource in
order to be able to meet the needs of children in the settings that they're
Gaynor Bull - 0:50:56
currently at. Okay and what we haven't got in these papers is the breakdown
effectively of line by line of how the high needs block is being allocated once
the budget is proposed and obviously you've got any further information that's
potentially hopefully coming through. Will that information be presented in
March so people will be able to see the the breakdowns by line effectively?
Yeah we can update that in March.
Russell Dyer - 0:51:21
Gaynor Bull - 0:51:24
And then we can compare that against an out -turn so we'll know whether the 27 or the 30 or the whatever it is is a sensible figure.
Okay, bearing in mind the slightly good news and then the worst news that we've just heard,
can I have an indication please if everybody is happy to confirm the recommendation on
the high needs block at 143 .6 million, noting that there is an in -year deficit of 27 .3 million,
which may be higher at 30 million, then taking our cumulative deficit to circa
75 ,000 by 31st of March... 35 million, sorry, 75 million, that would be good.
75 million by 31st of March 2027. If everybody can indicate if they are happy
to note and recommend that to the Bucks Council please. Thank you. Okay was that
Gaynor Bull - 0:52:27
anyone not recommending I think it's easiest way to do it? Yep and no
abstentions. Thank you. Okay. Can I just add the TSAN that we were looking for the
Michael Jarrett - 0:52:37
abbreviations is the Teaching Schools Alliance Network so it's for newly
appointed head teacher. It's an old term that we just need to update but it hasn't been updated.
Okay, thank you. Okay.
Gaynor Bull - 0:52:50
Okay, and then the last section that we've got in in this part of the agenda is section D, which is linked to the early years block.
Who is taking us through that?
Russell Dyer - 0:53:11
I'm happy to, yeah, so I think the allocations for Merliers block, various age ranges and
various entitlements, this is really looking at how much we've got and how much we're allowed
to keep.
I think the amount that we can hold back in some of it is reducing.
So I think that's an issue that local authority needs to manage.
And then I think for the rest of it, it either gets passported out or we fund providers or
set early -year settings on a participation basis.
So I think we set the rates, and I know that Sue works with the group, the early -years
group to agree to consult with them and to agree the funding rates so effectively that
we allocate the funding appropriately to providers. So I think really the paper is just indicating
what the rates will be and how we're going to allocate the funding, whether it gets,
some of it gets held back and most of it gets passported out to earlier settings. But obviously
Sue is the expert in this area so if there is anything you want to add to that.
Sue Bayliss - 0:54:24
We have increased the amount of funding that we are allocating to the inclusion fund which
is for low level SCN so it's children from nine months on a term that enter into early
who may have SCN and with that funding that schools can apply for,
early years can apply, earlier settings can apply for, it's hoped to level the gap and move those children on to not needing it later on.
We've increased the amount in the budget for that and we've increased the amount for contingency funds this year
because a number of our early year settings are really vulnerable with the
change of funding rates and the different age groups of children
accessing free early education it's made the set quite fragile so we've increased
that rate within the budget. That's probably all I need to say.
Gaynor Bull - 0:55:43
Has anybody got any questions in terms of the early years block?
Julie Manning - 0:55:51
I'd just like to say that it's on behalf of the Maintain Nursery Schools, it's really good to see that we are going to get the full amount of the supplementary funded pass ported onto us, which is excellent news.
So the extra 1 % basically is definitely appreciated.
Gaynor Bull - 0:56:05
Sue, have you got any comments in terms of the take up in terms of our under two year olds?
Because obviously that's relatively new in terms of its coming in.
And bearing in mind it's got an allocation of 34 million effectively.
The difference for us this coming year is that we will be having three separate censuses.
Sue Bayliss - 0:56:28
I never know what the plural of censuses is.
And the government will be adjusting at the end of each term for us.
So the funding is, it's harder this year to budget for the LA than it's ever been.
The take -up for the youngest children is increasing but the patterns aren't
established and some parents are choosing child miners or they're choosing
day nurseries. We're working very hard to extend the number of
places available for those children and the flexibility across Buckinghamshire
to support working parents but the take -up is higher than we'd anticipated
and higher than the government had anticipated.
Okay, maybe.
So far.
Gaynor Bull - 0:57:21
Okay, and in terms of sufficiency of places then for early years, where are we within bucks on that?
Sue Bayliss - 0:57:25
Currently we have sufficient places that parents will have to travel up to five, six miles, which is not what we want.
But I think everybody will understand we're managing a private market.
We're opening, we're opening settings but then other settings as I've said are not as stable as they have been.
So we're needing to do a lot of work to support them and the pass -through rate has increased.
So the money for us to do that work is decreasing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We're going Peter to pay Paul in lots of ways.
Gaynor Bull - 0:57:58
Okay, okay.
Any other questions or comments on early years?
and this is just to note and recommend because it's the early years forum that
actually puts the recommendation through isn't it so okay thank you okay so that
finishes item six effectively yes Marika you're all gonna really regret this can
Marieke Foster - 0:58:25
I just ask if there is a a plan for the potential six and a half percent
unfunded teachers pay rise that we're expecting to see come September with a
view to it being back weighted over the next so it's gonna last over the next
three years so are we planning for maintained schools particularly to be
funding a 2 % pay rise in September that is unfunded outside therefore for
dedicated schools grant?
Gaynor Bull - 0:59:01
Michael Jarrett - 0:59:04
I think this is probably the million dollar question. It is a million dollar question and much like last year where there was the teacher pay awards which was unfunded to as part of those arrangements it fell then to the contribution that we had identified and then the short before being picked up by schools and we know that that is impossible.
We probably expect a similar arrangement for this year in terms of what that looks like.
We have had, all of us in terms of local authorities have talked to local authorities, sorry, from local authorities have talked to the Department for Education in relation to the pressure that he's going to place on schools.
we are still expecting a response back from the Department for Education in
relation to any additional funding that could be made available as it stands at
the moment. There is no assurance there's going to be any shortfall picked up by
the Department for Education so it it feels very much more like a worrying
picture that you're painting and one that we don't have a response to be able
to give you any assurance that that funding is going to be forthcoming
Marieke Foster - 1:00:06
any time soon. If that's the case, Michael, and I think probably the global picture with
America etc is making it more likely to be the case and the increased talk about spending
on defence budgets, would it therefore fall within the school's form of remit? And I don't
know the answer to this, that we start thinking about a working party to support schools in
of consolidating a response to that because essentially what it will mean is
that schools are going to have to have cut some subjects, they're going to have to
have bigger classes, they're going to have to reduce other support that they
can offer but schools are in a much stronger position if they stand united
in that and the messaging from that comes from the County Council. So I would,
Michael Jarrett - 1:00:47
my suggestion back in terms of that proposal would be that we've just
launched the Strategic Education Partnership Board for Buckinghamshire.
within that there is going to be a pillar that will be focusing specifically on resources
and implications around workforce etc etc. I would expect that that would be the forum
to be able to champion the issues that we're talking about across Buckinghamshire because
that will include all schools regardless of maintained academies, independent or otherwise.
So I think it's a very good place to have that conversation there and then to add more
pressure or response back to the Department of Education in relation to the issues that
Marieke Foster - 1:01:26
your sighting. Okay because essentially I don't think the Department of Education, I personally don't think they're going to make any changes. I don't think they have the ability to do that but for all schools now, you're planning now about your class sizes and your staffing for next year and you need to be making those decisions now. So actually schools need to have those decisions really by February in terms of the communication going out. Absolutely, yeah, we completely agree.
Gaynor Bull - 1:01:52
Okay. So following through then in terms of supporting the maintained schools in
setting their budgets for April onwards, what are we suggesting is going to be in
the calculation in terms of a pay rise for teaching staff?
That I haven't considered yet but we'll need to very quickly as we will be
Jonathan Carter - 1:02:14
talking schools next week about budget setting. And do we have any indication
Gaynor Bull - 1:02:28
from the Department of Education as to when they may determine this? I mean
Jonathan Carter - 1:02:31
there's a number of conversations that's been taking place regionally and also
Michael Jarrett - 1:02:33
nationally in relation to the concerns that Mireke you've just underlined. We've
had no indication back yet from the Department of Education. We have got a
meeting with the Regional Directors Office next week so we can ask the
question again. All those meetings are minuted so therefore we've had a record
of conversations we've already raised previously as well. That's cold comfort
when you're trying to set budgets with no assurance in terms of the money that's
coming forward but that's the best that we can do in terms of being able to
identify the challenge and ask for a response but yeah at the moment there's
no indication from the DFB.
Gaynor Bull - 1:03:06
Marieke Foster - 1:03:08
At a time when we've already got challenges in relation to what we're
Michael Jarrett - 1:03:28
asking teaching staff to be involved in in doing so completely agree. And the
Gaynor Bull - 1:03:36
challenge is very different across the primary sector versus the secondary
sector because the secondary sector can look at subjects but the primary sector
can't just lose a class basically.
So there are different options available depending
on the different sectors.
OK, so effectively, having agreed all the component parts
of the DSG allocation, effectively that
means then that we have agreed the overall recommendation
for the 752 .4 million DSG in line with the currently announced funding
allocations from the DFE. Okay next exclusion of the press and the public

7 Exclusion of Press and Public

Claire anything on that? Yes this is just to I don't think we've got any press in
Clare Gray - 1:04:33
public that this is just to go for the confidential minutes and the paper and
the facilities funding. Okay so the confidential minutes then were linked to
the non teaching support staff.