Schools Forum - Tuesday 21 April 2026, 1:30pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Schools Forum
Tuesday, 21st April 2026 at 1:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Chris Ward
  2. Gaynor Bull
  3. Alan Sherwell
  4. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Marieka Foster
  2. Chris Ward
  3. Gaynor Bull
  4. Chris Ward
  5. Gaynor Bull
  6. Jonathan Carter
  7. Errol Albert
  8. Marieka Foster
  9. Jonathan Carter
  10. Marieka Foster
  11. Jonathan Carter
  12. Marieka Foster
Share this agenda point
  1. Jonathan Carter
  2. Marieka Foster
  3. Gaynor Bull
  4. Marieka Foster
  5. Jonathan Carter
  6. Marieka Foster
  7. Gaynor Bull
  8. Doris Mutegi
  9. Gaynor Bull
  10. Doris Mutegi
  11. Gaynor Bull
  12. Doris Mutegi
  13. Gaynor Bull
  14. Dan Barton
  15. Errol Albert
  16. Gaynor Bull
  17. Marieka Foster
  18. Errol Albert
  19. Gaynor Bull
  20. Marieka Foster
  21. Doris Mutegi
  22. Sam Holdsworth
  23. Doris Mutegi
  24. Ian Chislett
  25. Doris Mutegi
  26. Debra Rutley
  27. Doris Mutegi
  28. Dan Barton
  29. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Doris Mutegi
  2. Gaynor Bull
  3. Errol Albert
  4. Aman Sekhon-Gill
  5. Gaynor Bull
  6. Marieka Foster
  7. Aman Sekhon-Gill
  8. Errol Albert
  9. Marieka Foster
  10. Gaynor Bull
  11. Aman Sekhon-Gill
  12. Gaynor Bull
  13. Doris Mutegi
  14. Aman Sekhon-Gill
  15. Jude Talbot
  16. Errol Albert
  17. Aman Sekhon-Gill
  18. Gaynor Bull
  19. Jonathan Carter
  20. Dan Barton
  21. Gaynor Bull
  22. Laura Morel
  23. Jude Talbot
  24. Janice Freeman
  25. Jude Talbot
  26. Libby Wilson
  27. Alison Rooney
  28. Libby Wilson
  29. Errol Albert
  30. Alison Rooney
  31. Errol Albert
  32. Dan Barton
  33. Doris Mutegi
  34. Dan Barton
  35. Gaynor Bull
  36. Dan Barton
  37. Errol Albert
  38. Gaynor Bull
  39. Errol Albert
  40. Gaynor Bull
  41. Alan Sherwell
  42. Errol Albert
  43. Gaynor Bull
  44. Marieka Foster
  45. Jill Watson
  46. Laura Morel
  47. Gaynor Bull
  48. Laura Morel
  49. Dan Barton
  50. Errol Albert
  51. Dan Barton
  52. Marieka Foster
  53. Libby Wilson
  54. Alison Rooney
  55. Errol Albert
  56. Alan Sherwell
  57. Errol Albert
  58. Gaynor Bull
  59. Sam Holdsworth
  60. Ian Chislett
  61. Jo Robertson
  62. Aman Sekhon-Gill
  63. Gaynor Bull
  64. Gaynor Bull - Chair
  65. Laura Morel
  66. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Errol Albert
  2. Gaynor Bull
  3. Jude Talbot
  4. Janice Freeman
  5. Errol Albert
  6. Aman Sekhon-Gill
  7. Dan Barton
  8. Alison Rooney
  9. Libby Wilson
  10. Errol Albert
  11. Dan Barton
  12. Aman Sekhon-Gill
  13. Errol Albert
  14. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Gaynor Bull - 0:00:00
Thank you. So welcome everyone to the Schools Forum meeting of the 21st of April 2026. I hope everyone had a good Easter break and has come back fully refreshed for the challenges of the summer term.
We've got a fairly short agenda this afternoon so hopefully we will be able to whiz through it.
The first item is apologies and update on membership. So if I hand over to Chris.

1 Apologies and Update on Membership

Chris Ward - 0:00:32
Thank you. We have apologies from Suzanne Best, Sue Fitzpatrick, Andrew Howard, Caroline Whitehead and Councillor Jackson.
For changes to membership, Libby Wilson has now joined under the Special Academy category and Sam Holdsworth and Ian Chislett have also joined in the Grammar category.
Gaynor Bull - 0:00:50
Great, thank you. Any declarations of interest in terms of items on the agenda?
Yes, the user one chair and I'm also a buck buck you said counsellor
Alan Sherwell - 0:01:07
Thank you
Gaynor Bull - 0:01:11
So if we look at the minutes of the previous meeting and
Has anyone got any corrections in terms of accuracy, please, firstly to the minutes, and then we'll do matters arising afterwards.
Any corrections? Who's been eagle -eyed and spotted the typos, basically, in the minutes?
Okay, no corrections, that's great. Do we have any matters arising?
Marika, I know you were going to ask about the membership vacancies.

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Could I just ask if there are still any membership vacancies?
Marieka Foster - 0:01:58
Chris Ward - 0:02:07
According to the spreadsheet I have, we have a vacancy in the Peru and a vacancy in secondary upper maintained.
Gaynor Bull - 0:02:15
Do we have any representation from the Diocese?
Chris Ward - 0:02:23
My spreadsheet indicates a temporary one.
I don't know to what extent it's a long -term cover, but I can cheque that out.
Okay, thank you.
Gaynor Bull - 0:02:32
Any other matters arising from the floor?
Okay, one question we were gonna have
is probably for Jonathan.
At the last meeting, we were unaware
what the teacher's pay deal was going to be
for the next three years, and the proposal
was the 6 .5 % spent over three years.
obviously schools are all in their budget meetings at the moment and we suggested it would be useful to confirm what was in the budget modeller and then what would be the recommendation.
Jonathan if you've got any updates on that please.
Yes, so in the modeller some of you obviously will have seen we assumed 3 % for teachers and 3 % for support staff.
Jonathan Carter - 0:03:28
Obviously we will prepare an update for your final budget submissions, those obviously maintained school.
So we are, we're going to have a quick look into that, obviously update the support staff accordingly.
So, yeah.
So we're aware that the support staff came out at 3 .5.
Errol Albert - 0:03:49
Errol, do we have any update on what potentially the teachers pay, might be for September?
I don't have it at this stage, I'm afraid.
Okay.
Okay.
Sorry, can I just ask a little deeper into that.
So guidance from the government is the 6 .5 % over the next three years with that being
unfunded and heavily weighted towards the end.
So 2 % presumably this year.
So is that the advice in terms of modelling for next year for the maintained schools?
Marieka Foster - 0:04:17
If that is what the government says, then yes, that's what we will be advising.
Jonathan Carter - 0:04:20
That's what I need to look into.
because I don't have that level of detail currently.
Well, to be fair, it's a bit of this,
because there's not a lot of clarity,
but that's what the standalone trusts are modelling for.
And also in terms of inflation,
what's the inflation model that they're working towards?
Marieka Foster - 0:04:38
Jonathan Carter - 0:04:40
I disagree with about a 2 .5 % inflation
across all other areas,
but that's sort of just a standard percentage.
It's obviously for all other governing bodies
to make that choice as to how risk averse they are,
I guess it's a difficult one.
The sort of greatest error, I suppose,
of uncertainty is always around energy
and obviously with currently what's going on in the world,
that's particularly uncertain at the moment,
but generally most things are.
In the grand scheme of things,
they're very minor compared to the pay of the 80th night.
So the budget goes on pay typically.
So two and a half is generally what we advise
most schools to work on.
It's quite a risk area, I think, isn't it?
Marieka Foster - 0:05:20
for the budget in that potentially if you're looking at 2 % unfunded pay rise plus let's
say a 3 .5 % inflation, certainly the single academy trust in terms of the budgets that
are coming through to them are actually flat year on year. So that's obviously a real cause
concern, a single academy trust, and I just wondered how that's being fed down to the
local authority schools in terms of their budgeting. Because I can't see that theirs
is going to be different to ours really, realistically.

4 Dedicated Schools Budget - Revenue Budget Monitoring 2025-26

In terms of your budget shares, there was obviously
Jonathan Carter - 0:05:51
no difference in the way the calculations work.
So obviously that's something we will be working
with our schools with.
We've certainly, obviously we've just rolled our balances
and we've certainly seen a significant increase
in deficit schools.
So that's something that obviously we're going to have
to work through with those schools to try and support them
as best we can.
Obviously there's some uncertainty around the whole
the SCN side of funding as well so that's something to take into account.
Marieka Foster - 0:06:27
Yeah, what we can do at this stage. I think the key thing is if we are more
Gaynor Bull - 0:06:31
likely looking at a 2 % Teachers Pay Award then rather than having 3 % in the
budget because I suspect every school around this table is looking at the
challenges of its staffing as a percentage of his overall income
expenditure etc so if we can clarify that at least then it might be a small
reprieve but every small reprieve is going to be welcomed basically by the
schools so I think the final deadline for the budgets is 19th of May run
roughly and so if that can go out to schools in the next couple weeks that'd
Marieka Foster - 0:07:13
helpful. Okay, sorry if I'm quick for me. But in terms of looking at staffing next year, this is the time
when schools are looking at their staffing for next year because the move
is all before the May half term so after May half term there's very little they can do
really with regard to those budgets.
Obviously you're referring to Academy budgets which are different
the following three years?
Jonathan Carter - 0:07:30
Yes, I appreciate it.
Marieka Foster - 0:07:34
But in terms of their staffing model for next year,
it's got to be made,
the changes got to be made before May half term,
because after May half term,
nobody moves anymore because the notice period's passed.
Yes, yes, yeah.
Okay, so other than our inevitable conversation about pay,
Gaynor Bull - 0:07:53
is there anything else anybody wants to raise
as matters rising as far as the minutes are concerned. No? Okay, okay thank you.
They will be just noted as agreed and then we're going to move on to agenda
item 4 which is the dedicated school budget and the revenue budget monitoring
2526. The author of this paper was Russell who provided it as a draught for
the March meeting.
Doris is actually going to be speaking to it at the moment.
But unfortunately, we think some of the figures that
are referred to in the text are in relation to period six
in terms of the variances rather than the table, which
is linked to period 10.
So Doris is going to do her best to talk us through it
and highlight some of the key issues.
But if the numbers don't necessarily
match between the appendix 1, which is the table period 10,
and the text that is the reason why.
So Doris, if I hand over to you then please.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
So I'll take the report mainly as read
and just give the key highlights.
Doris Mutegi - 0:09:09
The report on the DSG revenue budget position
in terms of forecast at period 10,
which is the January position,
highlights the fact that there was a planned budgeted deficit of 22 .9 million and that
in terms of forecast is in line with the expected budget of 22 .9 more broadly, which then means
that in terms of the carried forward,
a cumulative DSG reserve deficit would be $47 .4 million
as at 31st March, 2026.
The key highlights, and this is where the table
and the appendix doesn't quite tally with the wording,
the key highlights in terms of the deficit position,
although it's broadly in line in terms of the 22 .9 million,
there are some differences in various categories.
The ones that I would highlight are the alternative provision,
which continues to be a key area of pressure that has
an adverse variance of 2 .6 million.
The paper there notes 1 .6.
Independent schools has a favourable variance
of four million, and that's favourable. I think I'll go back and amend the previous
two bullet points, which are just noting that the numbers are incorrect in terms of figures.
The special schools taught PUP should be 1 .5 million rather than 1 .2. The other local authorities,
special schools is correct. I've already covered the alternative provision in the independent
schools. The last bullet point there refers to mainstream top -ups, and the figure should
be 1 .5 million. The report then ends really by highlighting what the DSG reserve will
be and as I've mentioned it's 22 .9 movement this year so cumulative should be 47 .4.
And then taking into account the government announcements of the high need stability grant,
the expectation is 90 % of that which will then mean we get our, the local authority
gets is left with a deficit of 4 .74 million. The paper asks, I guess just going back to note,
the DSG revenue budget monitoring position. I'm happy to take any questions.
Do we have any questions for Doris?
I appreciate there's quite a lot of numbers that you've just had listed out to me that are not necessarily written down in front of you.
I think the summary of the overall position is there's very little change from the forecast position that was provided at period 2.
This is the forecast position at period 10, which is at the end of January.
We obviously have two further months that are going to come through before we get the final out -turn figures.
Gaynor Bull - 0:12:55
I'm not sure, Doris, if you've got any indication of where we are at period 11 or period 12 at this point.
Doris Mutegi - 0:13:04
We're still working through the numbers in terms of close down, but we'll report on them at the next schools' forum.
Okay, so effectively because our next school's forum is in June, we won't have an out -turned
Gaynor Bull - 0:13:17
position reported until that point unless potentially a summary paper could be circulated
in advance.
It does seem quite a long time to June to be reporting on sort of March figures.
I've got a question from me in terms of the position is as forecast, but there have been
and quite significant changes within some of the lines.
So the variances, particularly in the independent special
schools, which has improved by around about a million pounds
in comparison to period six.
Can, are any of the officers able to sort of indicate
what has driven that improvement?
Doris Mutegi - 0:14:03
I think we need to take it away because I
I think we're relatively new in terms of Russell would probably have had the detail comparing.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay, I appreciate, as you say, we've got a new team sitting to the right -hand side
here.
Gaynor Bull - 0:14:17
Fundamentally, the improvement in the independent session schools has effectively offset the
increased deficit in the alternative provision and the improvement in the mainstream top -ups
for EHCPs has offset the increased deficit
for the Bucks special schools.
So miraculously, we've ended up with the same figure
as we did at the end of period six.
But I think schools would be interested
in understanding what has driven those changes.
One of our concerns will be the increasing deficit
in the alternative provision.
This is me making a guess rather than anything else,
but it might be helpful, it might not be.
But if we're looking at a general way of working
Dan Barton - 0:15:04
that seeks to reduce dependence on independent provision,
we've, over the course of the year,
we've started up and rolled out a number of ARPs.
There might be a sort of percolating effect,
which means that our dependence
on using new independent placements
has been reduced from what we thought it was going to be,
because we've bought online new ARPs.
I can only imagine that, beyond that, I'm in the dark.
Thanks.
Just to add though Chair, if there is any because I certainly appreciate the change of personnel
Errol Albert - 0:15:37
and some of the history in relation to working with those schools has left but
ultimately obviously there is a record of some of those conversations and some
of the findings from previous actions and decisions that were taken so very
happy to take away and come back to the next schools forum with a bit more of an
appraisal if that would be helpful to the group in relation to some of the
that relate to the numbers that you're seeing there.
Gaynor Bull - 0:16:08
Everybody happy with that, Sir Jesse Morita? Could I just ask where we are with the
Marieka Foster - 0:16:14
clearance of that love of the EHDPs? Sorry, I think that's on the item that we're coming to.
Errol Albert - 0:16:22
We're happy to take that now Rekha, if you wanted to, but we'll come to the update.
Okay, I don't mind. Happy to do it.
Gaynor Bull - 0:16:32
Marieka Foster - 0:16:45
Can we get, Doris, you said that some of the figures were not quite right.
Can we get an updated version, please?
Yes, sure.
I think it was circulated.
Doris Mutegi - 0:16:53
Is there a view on how 26 27 looks compared to
2526 I see that
We went up 13 million from 24 25 to 25 26 is there a view of what the increase will be for next year
Sam Holdsworth - 0:17:08
Doris Mutegi - 0:17:10
Didn't quite get that
So is there an outlook in terms of what your view is or what the finance view is of what 26 27 is gonna look like
Ian Chislett - 0:17:20
Doris Mutegi - 0:17:22
Because when I compare 24 to 25, 24, 25 to 25, 26, it went up 13 million in a year.
Debra Rutley - 0:17:29
So I just wanted to ask, is there a similar increase expected for next year?
Doris Mutegi - 0:17:37
I think it's the next report that we're covering in terms of the high needs report.
So happy to cover that.
Dan?
Thank you.
It would be probably slightly risky to crystal ball that into the future.
Dan Barton - 0:17:49
But a couple of things to note, there's a flat line in the high needs block for this year.
So we're going to get the same budget as we did last year for the high needs block against the background of incremental increases in demand and need historically.
So it stands to reason that there's likely to be probably certainly more pressure.
But as we'll hear later from the same reform plan, the attempt to push some of that need further down into mainstream and support it there might provide a mitigation.
I think it will probably obviously it will take some time for the actions of the reform plan to catch up
So there's likely to be a lag so I would expect there would be
Further pressure on the high needs budget next year despite hopefully getting the stability grant
Gaynor Bull - 0:18:38
Okay, I think some of those questions will probably come through in our next item which is item five where we have got the

5 High Needs Budget Update

and high needs budget update for 26 -27.
You will recall those of you who were here
at the last meeting, there were some provisional figures
that we were given with the expectation that the proposed
or the likely deficit in year would increase.
And what we have on page 19 in table one
is the approved budget for 26 -27,
which includes that slight amendment and includes a deficit in -year budget of 30 million within the high needs block.
So I'm going to pass back over to Doris again to sort of take us through some of these figures.
And bearing in mind the importance of understandings of where we are and what these figures, please feel free to ask any questions.
The numbers, as they are, when you consider that we are talking of 30 million deficit
is quite frightening.
Bearing in mind, we have no clarity at the moment as to what will happen in terms of
any future write off of high needs deficit budgets.
So Doris, if I pass over to you.
Thank you, Chair.
Doris Mutegi - 0:20:05
So the paper asks schools forum to note the updated 2627 high
needs budget and the savings proposals,
and also the recent announcements of the DFA
announcements of the high needs stability grant.
Again, I'll take the paper broadly as read
and just highlight some key areas.
In terms of funding, the DSG block allocation
was 143 .6 million, which was confirmed.
And that takes into account the rolled in grants,
so previous separate grants like the CSSB,
sorry, the core schools budget grant, the National Insurance Contribution Grant, and
the grants that are listed there.
So taking into account those rolling grants, there's really no increase in the allocation,
the GSG allocation.
It then means that the previous reports, there would be a 30 .3 deficit rather than had previously
been and that then meant that there's a 4 million expectation in terms of savings to
leave the DSG deficit at $30 .3 million because those are decreasing the grants, or no increase
in grant allocation. Then just highlighting paragraph 2 .5 as well, which highlights the
high -need stability grant.
And that's the announcement of the DFE.
Again, the 90%,
which, and then the assumption in terms of,
from a local authority perspective,
in terms of our forecasts,
assume that there's been very little announcements on this
in terms of the ongoing position 26, 27, and 27, 28,
with the assumption is that the 90 % will continue in those two years in terms of stability,
the highlighted stability grant. The table at paragraph 3 .1 then highlights again that
the expected deficit in 26 -27 of 30 .3 million. And to get, it basically highlights what the
allocation was in terms of high needs, 159 .2 million, highlights the key pressures, especially
within demand increases, unexpected, and then the backlog, the effect of the backlog of
EHCPs and processing that.
So the total pressures are highlighted at 27 .6 million.
Expected savings, the planned savings are those savings
that were in previous, had been previously highlighted
and other mitigations are new planned savings in 26, 27.
And the additional is that 4 million to try
and get back to the 30 .3 million in -year deficit of 26 -27.
The savings are then highlighted in table two,
and those total 13 million.
And then Section 5 looks at the reforms, which I think we shall cover after this paper.
Gaynor Bull - 0:24:28
So if we go to a couple of the questions that were raised earlier, and then I think if we
just have a few minutes to absorb some of these figures and then just process them in
our own heads.
Marika, you had the question as to where we were with the backlog, which is putting an
additional pressure of 12 million in terms of EHCP costs for next year.
And if I recall, it was approximately 1 ,600 EHCPs that needed to be processed, with the
consultants being appointed in January.
Our previous discussions indicated the majority of the financial pressures would be in the
26 -27 financial year. Are you able to update us at all on that, please?
Certainly, I'll pass over to, I'm in a second. So, as we all know, the recovery programme
Errol Albert - 0:25:16
is very much around increasing our ability to manage the demand and the backlog as was
described. We took on the additional capacity of those EPs in January, onboarded them, and
they set about the work as part of the programme in February, which Alan was overseeing at
the time has now moved into this role to continue on overseeing that programme with a view to
completing the plan for June of which our plan to DfE needs to be submitted.
I'll pass to Ammon just to provide a bit more in relation to the detail in terms of where
we've got to.
So just to kind of capture that question and the previous one as well around progress,
Aman Sekhon-Gill - 0:25:56
we as Errol said we onboarded our additional project team to help us work through the children
that are waiting for assessments.
Actively, the EP started working around the beginning
of February time, which obviously enables enough time
for them to get onto our system, do things in the way
that we want them to do, rather than a completely different way
so it's consistent with how we operate within the service.
Since that day, there's been about figures from yesterday.
There's 252 APDs that have been completed,
which is a really positive picture,
because we know a lot of those children,
That is the pinch point, not necessarily the production of plans.
It's the national shortage of EPs.
And in addition to that, 95 EHCPs have been issued by the project team.
So the gap in terms of the big number is because obviously lots of
app Ds take some time to do and that's a six week kind of programme process.
And then obviously it goes for co -production with the plan writers.
So that's the monitoring of the work that's happening regularly.
We've also started tracking the cost of those plans so
we can start seeing a bit of a picture
about what the additional plans that we're producing
in terms of cost implications
that's having across the picture.
Now obviously we need to wait a little bit longer
to keep producing more plans so we can truly see.
Actually if we want to expedite 1 ,200 children
in the next four or five months,
we need to start tracking what those numbers look like
in terms of financial costs to schools,
which kind of links also back
to the SEND reform plan as well, which is the next agenda item.
So I won't come on to that now.
So could I just ask how many children have added to that list?
Gaynor Bull - 0:27:38
Marieka Foster - 0:27:40
As we had a figure of 1600, is it given that you've done 252?
I'm pleased to say not just through the work the project
team has done, but the service has also been working tirelessly
Aman Sekhon-Gill - 0:27:47
to really try and work through those list of children.
And I believe it has gone down.
It is about 1 ,200 now.
But I say that with the caveat that with the SEND reforms, we know lots of families are
very worried about whether their children are going to get EHCPs or not, and we are
anticipating a potential another spike in demand.
So we are really trying to keep a close eye on that since the reforms have been announced.
Errol Albert - 0:28:16
Well, I think central government have actually cited that spike in anticipation of the concern
that parents might have in relation to what's happening within the system and the EHCP process.
So that is something that all local authorities are anticipating.
This isn't, as you all know, an overnight fix.
This is a long -term programme and I think governments, central governments, are certainly
advising local authorities to take with caution some of the recovery because the demand doesn't
stop as we know it continues to grow.
And obviously until further guidance is provided from central government around what the SEND
system will look like. Obviously, parents and carers are concerned that they're not
going to get the needs met in this time or what the future might hold. So it is anticipated
we'll continue to see that demand rise in this period of time as we do everything we
can to address what's already there.
Can I just ask, for the EHEPs, does the council hold figures of the number of students, young
Marieka Foster - 0:29:15
people who have an EHEP removed from them during their time going through the education
system in Buckinghamshire.
So there is data that's available on ceasing plans, but there is further work to be done
to really get under the skin of that, I would argue.
So in the last kind of three weeks in this role, I think there's a need for us to really
collectively understand, because sometimes parents will say, actually, we don't need
the plan anymore.
Sometimes it's the child's gone past the age.
So we're really trying to pull that data together at the moment.
But we do understand who's been seized on a plan and who hasn't.
Gaynor Bull - 0:30:02
Okay, I think that comment came from our discussions because part of the proposed reforms is that anyone who has an EHCP at, you know, year three, the age of seven or eight,
will continue with that for through to the age of 16 as a guarantee.
If we haven't seen that as a pattern in the past, then all our projections need to take into account that that might not necessarily be happening going forward.
Can I just clarify, if we've processed roughly 250 of those applications and 95 EHDPs have been issued, are we saying that only 95 were successful?
or are we saying that there is another 150 -odd in process?
That's a really helpful question.
Yes, absolutely, they're in process.
So because of the time lag between APDs being produced
Aman Sekhon-Gill - 0:30:48
and then passing over to the plan writers,
which is absolutely right,
the plan writers will then co -produce the plan
with the family, and that's what often takes a bit longer.
So the way that we're monitoring our data
is to make sure that we are tracking both APDs
as well as the number of plans produced,
because what we expect to see
is a high number of APDs with a slightly slower number of plans to begin with, but then with
the surge of the plans kind of coming through.
So that's simply to do with the timing of the project team because they started in February.
So a lot of the APDs now are ready to move on to plans, and they're in that co -production
phase.
Okay, so in terms of new EHCPs and the impact financially on year -end outcomes, there are
probably going to be little impact from the processing of this backlog, basically.
So, okay.
Gaynor Bull - 0:31:38
Okay, has anybody else got any other questions?
Yeah, can I just ask, is it expected to finish by the end of June?
Because if it's 250 now, we're at the end of April pretty much,
May, June to get through another 1200.
Doris Mutegi - 0:31:59
So we started with the figure that was there at the time at a certain
Aman Sekhon-Gill - 0:32:01
point in time, which was the 1600.
What we have to caveat is there'll be extra children every day as we're speaking falling
into that kind of wait list really.
So we did absolutely say that we would have 1 ,400 children, which was the estimated number
that we were working on.
We absolutely still aim to do that, but we have built -in flexibility in the programme based
on what we want to produce.
So we've basically said that every month we should be producing 170 plans, and that's
figure that we're working for towards that kind of waitlist time but naturally
there's two different measures there's the children that fall in since the
project but also the children from the point of the project that we've looked
at. Will there be additional cost if that timescale is not met? No because it has
to come out of the additional investment that's come into play so we've made sure
we've lined up appropriately. Naturally EP costs are higher than plan writers so
we need to make sure that our own EP service are really driving forward a lot of the EP assessments
that we need as well and that's the way that we're trying to kind of multitask it really so it's not
just solely the project team the EPs and the service are working really hard to increase
throughput there and as well including annual reviews yeah including annual reviews.
Jude Talbot - 0:33:19
I just wanted to say that from the from the ground we had
We were waiting for nine EHCPs in September and we've had five come through so we are
seeing it on the ground.
That's really helpful to hear and I think not just via this forum if I may but other
Errol Albert - 0:33:38
forums that we'll be engaging with it's going to be really important for us to hear news
like that where it's working.
I've visited a couple of schools now and I'm really grateful to Kate Cliff in Carrington
and being one of those who spoke to me clearly around
some of the impacts.
We went there, myself and a lead member,
and there was a long list of applications
that went in over 18 months ago.
We're starting to see some traction.
I still want to put out that degree of caution,
because again, as you've just heard in relation to
turning the tap off, that's not gonna happen.
And effectively, that sense of needing to,
parents to put in applications prior to any changes
will mean that there will be that spike.
But it's really good to hear that effectively things are starting to shift
and move on the basis of the action that we took as a local authority
in terms of that additional investment and additional resource.
So thank you very much. May I ask which school?
Marvellous, thank you very much.
I think also just to add, we've been really clear that this project
Aman Sekhon-Gill - 0:34:39
was never about clearing the backlog of children waiting.
It was about being able to reduce the wait times for children.
So we're using that as an additional measure as well for reporting impact because you know
We all know demand is problematic and with with the reforms. We know there's there's a risk of that as well
So we are making sure that the conversations are around timeliness
Recognising that the 20 -week deadline is really challenging
But actually what we know is our average wait time is what we want to bring down
Have we got any other questions
Gaynor Bull - 0:35:13
Can we have a look at the summary of the savings to understand the potential of what we're aiming for in 26 -27?
If we need to achieve £30 million worth of savings to still end up with a £30 million deficit, then we really do need to make sure that those are coming in.
The figure on the previous table indicated we've got additional savings of 4 million needed.
The figure in the bottom of this table indicates we've got 2 .3 million additional savings.
So there's a difference there, which I'm sure you'd prefer to take away
and consider why there's a difference in there.
If we can talk through each of these lines in the table,
basically, and particularly the key ones,
where we've got 3 .9 million saving,
we're linked to retaining 2 % of primary children
within mainstream schools.
That doesn't seem to be an equivalent figure for secondaries,
but if I recall correctly,
more of our places that we created last year for special needs provision in
schools was in secondary rather than primary and so I just wondered if you
could talk us through why we've got a primary target but not a secondary
target. This is me positing a possibility rather than speaking from absolute
But there's a couple of things.
Jonathan Carter - 0:36:57
One in terms of the spaces which become available through declining
Dan Barton - 0:37:01
mainstream population are likely to hit primary first.
So it's potentially more latent capacity that can be used in that way to invest
in ARPs in the primary sector.
That's one reason.
Second one is it's, because needs have escalated further by the time you get to
secondary school, it's harder to use that model as a diversionary activity to
prevent specialist provision.
So there's a couple of probable reasons.
Gaynor Bull - 0:37:32
Has anybody got any other questions
on that savings table?
I've just noted the no uplift of special schools.
You can see Alison's here as well.
I can't imagine that's gone down very well
in the special school community.
Laura Morel - 0:37:49
Jude Talbot - 0:37:52
Janice Freeman - 0:37:55
I think the unintended consequence of clearing the battle of the HCP is obviously a real
impact on sufficiency in the special schools.
Jude Talbot - 0:38:09
I'm also quite interested in that figure around 2 % of primary children within mainstream to
release special school places impacting an independent school.
I do wonder whether there's a need to unpick that data a little bit more.
Libby Wilson - 0:38:20
We've just been in a meeting this morning, Alan and I, and I think with the special schools
Alison Rooney - 0:38:28
in Bucks becoming so large, I do think some of the independent sector now is being impacted
because young people aren't coping with the size of the special schools in Bucks.
So they're actually needing smaller settings, which we don't have in Bucks, and therefore
they are the children who are potentially going out to the independent sector.
I'm not saying that is the case, but I do think there's some further unpicking of that figure to look at just to double -cheque
The the consequences of building capacity in special schools in bucks isn't actually almost adding to the pressure
I don't know if you wanted to add something there
I was just gonna say that also the complexity of need of children coming into special school means that the you know
Libby Wilson - 0:39:06
Yes, it's great to have more spaces
But actually because the children are more complex the classes need to be smaller therefore
but our buildings aren't necessarily getting any bigger, so it's a bit of a cyclical issue
with regards to that.
That's a really important point and it's just brought into focus the visit I did to a school
Errol Albert - 0:39:26
recently where they were four children within that particular class, each with very individual,
hugely complex needs, non -verbal, and each of them had their passports which the support
staff that were doing an incredible job meeting those needs. If you put any one of those children
into a larger classroom there would have been bigger issues and then you would be into a
different conversation as to whether that meets the needs. So I think it's a really
important point to take into consideration behind the figures and behind these statements
what that actually means on the ground in real terms for these children who have to
have their needs met. So it's not straightforward and I think that's a really important detail
that we can't overlook, we need to consider when it comes to that sufficiency piece and
the shift that might be from special mainstream etc. So thank you for raising that simple.
I think just coming back on that point, I think you know I'm really conscious in the
Alison Rooney - 0:40:26
new government guidelines and I know Emman's going to come on to send reforms in a moment,
you know there isn't that drive for further special school development. However, we have
got some real inconsistencies on how special schools are distributed across Bux and how
provision is distributed across Bux. And with, you know, the backlog being cleared of EHCPs
is going to be putting even more pressure on that. Yeah. And so, you know, I'm just
conscious that when we're looking at that sufficiency work and we have planned a meeting
to look at it, so it is in the pipeline to get the people, write people around the table
to look at that. We do need to be just digging down and just making sure that the work that's
coming out of the HCP recovery plan is also being reflected in the sufficiency plan as
well.
Errol Albert - 0:41:15
I'll pass to Dan in a second but I'm keen certainly for whatever we do and whatever
comes out of these reforms in consultation with you is that we learn from them. There's
a whole list of potential unintended consequences as a result of this. It would be unfair to
say that our central government colleagues have thought of everything because they haven't
and there's probably things that each local authority
are grappling with that they haven't seen before.
And I think we need to be mindful
of those unintended consequences
and make reference to them and bring them
to forums like this so that we can be prepared
and start putting together whatever plans we need to do
to mitigate against some of those risks.
Did you want to come in?
Yeah, that's okay.
Just wanted to think about the, I think it's 960 ,000.
Dan Barton - 0:41:57
We're in, this is statutory work.
So these are children whose needs have been identified
which we have to meet.
But because we're in this kind of strange place where we have to find savings to balance
the budgets, these end up being relatively arbitrary figures to reach a certain amount.
The problem here is, from the special school perspective, there hasn't been in line with
mainstream uplifts for more than a decade.
So your 10 ,000 pound per place today adjusted for inflation is probably half what it would
have been when you first started.
So my worry is that if we put in a relatively arbitrary
refusal to uplift special school places, we make it harder for you to meet need.
Which means that these escalate, which actually means the perverse impact is that the independent school, which we're trying to avoid
our dependency on, is absolutely...
I think we should really go back and do a little bit of an analysis around what the savings proposals we put in are.
But with the overarching view is, this is stuff we have to meet the need.
So if we haven't got enough money to meet the need, let's try to at least meet
the need in the most sensible way possible on a cost per place basis.
But that's gonna take a bit of time to work out.
So I'm just saying, we probably need to go and look at how was that 960 arrived at,
and has the unintended consequence been planned out?
Doris Mutegi - 0:43:25
I think I would say from a finance perspective, obviously, we just need to acknowledge and
be conscious that if any of the savings are figures of change that then impacts on the
deficit, and then see that the deficit would increase.
So just worth highlighting though, you know, in terms of it's a saving aimed to decrease
the deficit.
So if the saving is not achievable, then it increases the deficit.
Sorry, this is a terrible kind of infighting conversation, but I suppose what I'm saying
Dan Barton - 0:43:57
is we don't want the deficit to increase, but if it was going to increase, I'd rather
increase by a small amount by funding our special schools than a larger and less controllable
amount from the independent sector.
Anyway, apologies.
Thank you.
Gaynor Bull - 0:44:12
This may seem a bit of a silly question,
but this time last year,
we also had a proposed summary plan
for the savings in the high needs block for 25, 26,
because again, we had a shortfall,
and indeed we set that shortfall at 22 .7 million.
Have we done the exercise to see
whether the proposed savings that we suggested last year
have materialised in every area that we set,
be it small or large?
We should probably take that away,
is the diplomatic answer.
Dan Barton - 0:44:49
I don't think we necessarily know.
But this is why we're having this conversation
with government at the moment,
because there's a tacit acknowledgement
that high needs has been underfunded historically.
That's why we're here.
And because we haven't reached a saturation point yet,
We don't know what a stable state looks like, so growth is going to continue.
Even with the stabilisation grant, there's going to be increasing pressures year on year.
Hence, the need to radically reform the way that we're delivering in the system.
Yes, because potentially if we've got a 30 million in -year deficit and only 90 % of that
Errol Albert - 0:45:26
Gaynor Bull - 0:45:28
is written off on the positive side, we're still going to end up with a 3 million deficit
to add to the 5 million deficit, to add to a future potential 3 million deficit, we're
going to be back up to 11 million deficit in three years, even if we get 90 % written
off. So any way you look at it, unless there's a fundamental change in terms of the income,
we are going to struggle with our projection. Can I just ask a question? We discussed and
we were told at the last meeting that the funding for the special school that was proposed
for key stage two upwards in Haddonham had been removed,
shall we say, rescinded by the government
and that had impacted on a number of different councils.
I believe Michael at the time,
there was an offer on the table for Bux
to receive some alternative funding
to increase mainstream provision.
Bux had said at the time that they probably
were not going to accept that
and they were going to go back
and have further discussions with the DFE.
Do we have an update on what happened with those discussions and have we got any of that additional funding, capital funding, potentially coming in to the authority?
Thank you, I think, so firstly to reference the free school that was removed or rescinded in terms of the offer.
Errol Albert - 0:46:52
This escalated as part to our cabinet members and leader,
who wrote to the DFE in relation to our disappointment
as a council in regards to that decision,
which would have provided around 152 additional places
towards our 900 target for all those places.
We, the leader wrote in very strong terms
to DFE our concerns.
They have more recently written to the leader to say that they are reviewing the decision
and we are awaiting the outcome of that review.
So obviously it was quite a blow in relation to those targets.
What we are talking about is the difference between what was a proposed 20 million as
opposed to the 8 million that was offered ultimately, which will go nowhere near what
was required or what was needed in terms of what was set out in that initial proposal.
So as I say, we wait to hear that the refusal, wasn't a refusal, the money was ultimately
basically suggesting that the $8 million that was being proposed fell way short of the $20
million that was originally suggested or put forward as being required for that special
school within the area that you've referenced. So we are in a position where we are waiting
on the outcome of the review and obviously we'll update as best as possible as soon as
we can. Did somebody want to add on that? No. So have no further on that, we will keep
you posted in relation to the response to the review.
Gaynor Bull - 0:48:20
Alan Sherwell - 0:48:24
If I could just come in on that, Chair. Not my job to explain things for the Administration
that I'm not part of, but the leader of the Council did state at the Council meeting last
week that the department had invited us to appeal, which he took as meaning at least
they were thinking about the result of an appeal.
Now, who knows what's going to happen there and how quickly it's going to happen, but
the answer to your question, I think, is that it is still on the table.
It may be at the far end of the table, but it is still on the table.
And of course, as Errol has just said, whilst I don't think we would turn up our nose at somebody giving us eight million pounds,
it's not the money that is needed for the situation that we have.
I hope that helps a bit.
Yeah, thank you, Councillor. It certainly does.
and yeah, it's on the table.
Errol Albert - 0:49:24
I've put out some feelings in relation
to the other local authorities
that were in similar positions
to see if their situations are being reviewed as well.
It would be good to understand
whether we were one of several or the only one,
just to provide some context,
but as I say, we'll certainly be updating schools colleagues
as soon as we get the nod.
Thank you, either way.
Okay, has anyone got any other questions in terms of just the finances?
Otherwise what I suggest we do is look at the SEND reform announcements.
Sorry, yeah, Laura.
Gaynor Bull - 0:50:06
Okay, thank you.
Mine was just more of a comment than a question.
We've got the 3 .9 million, which is 2 % of primary children remaining mainstream we've
talked about.
The next one is an increased autism capacity in the mainstream to at least special schools
places.
Marieka Foster - 0:50:23
Jill Watson - 0:50:26
So that's in addition to the 2%, primary schools particularly, which is where we often start
Laura Morel - 0:50:31
with the autism diagnosis.
So that looks like it's like almost another percentage of children.
And that's going to be quite a challenge in primary schools to be able to manage that
that number of people, I think they could.
We need to be sure we're not double counting them,
which we're probably not,
which means that that's another percentage of children,
which is quite, it'll be quite challenging
for some primary schools.
Between those two lines,
you've got nearly half of the 30 million of savings
Gaynor Bull - 0:51:05
that we're proposing, and I suspect that the questions
that we're all asking ourselves is how realistic are we
that these figures are going to be delivering what they have done,
hence the question to look about what we were proposing last year
and what has actually been delivered,
to give us a little bit more reassurance that,
you know, these very challenging figures do come about at the end of the day.
And what's been the place for that to happen?
Do we understand what increased autism capacity means?
Is that more art?
Yeah.
Laura Morel - 0:51:47
Dan Barton - 0:51:52
Errol Albert - 0:51:54
Again, something we don't want to, I don't want to misinform this meeting and some of this has come before those that you see before you now.
So allow us to take that away and as I said, as I mentioned earlier to Jeff, we'll come back with some of the historical information that was put forward for these savings plans.
and I think importantly as already referenced,
what happened to it, where did we get to at 24, 25,
in order for us to hopefully inform
what's here as well, so many thanks.
So I can...
It's okay.
It's okay.
Dan Barton - 0:52:22
Apologies, just in, we will obviously go away
and look at what the thinking is
that underlies those figures.
I think it's just important to acknowledge
why that's a proposal, given what I said before
about the savings plan needing to be relatively arbitrary.
But actually the principle of saying,
let's try to invest more in mainstream with resource,
I don't think we would necessarily argue with that,
other than acknowledging that what we're trying to do
is undo 15 years of underfunding.
And so putting the capacity back in
can't happen on day one.
It's a gradual piece of work.
Ditto really with the gradual reduction in reliance
on the independent and specialist play,
which is what we all remember from 20, 25 years ago,
but it won't happen immediately, it will taper in.
So these are all the right things to do,
but it's more about figuring out how we make it work in a way
which doesn't make a school fall over,
just because we're pushing the children there to say we've ticked it and got it right.
So I think what we want to do is work with everybody,
inside and outside of this room, to develop a plan that's credible,
which we will fund, which might take longer or less long
to deliver based on capacity.
Sorry Dan, can I just support you in that?
Marieka Foster - 0:53:38
And to say obviously schools can't go below
the minimum funding grant, but nonetheless,
further to the conversation we were having this morning,
we feel that there is a real desire to support colleagues
in the early years, because unless we're supporting
colleagues in the early years, we're never gonna get
on top of the send situation.
and so sort of echoing the feeling around the room,
I think there is a support for that.
I was just going to add from the point of view
of thinking about the SEND reforms again,
which we're going to come on to
and thinking about the work that I've been doing
Libby Wilson - 0:54:12
with the SEND task force.
Alison Rooney - 0:54:14
You know, these are all the things that we are exploring.
You know, these are all the questions we're having
because we do have to be realistic about, you know,
having been in the special school sector for 30 years.
there are some young people, whatever you did in a mainstream school,
you couldn't get the environment to be supportive for them.
So part of the work we're doing in terms of the STEM reforms
over the next few years will have to be about having real clarity
on what inclusion, belonging looks like in mainstream
and where does that kind of universal offer, targeted offer,
then become a targeted plus and a specialist.
So there's lots of conversations going on.
And I think in terms of somebody who's been kind of working with the council to drive some of these initiatives,
one of the things I want to do is make sure I've got as much understanding of what it looks like across the whole county as possible.
So, you know, there is an absolute plan to try and understand the perspective of head teachers across the sector.
Also thinking about where does AP fit in with this, and because we're spending a lot of money on AP,
and how can we make savings by actually being really clear about what the needs
are across the whole county and I think I know that schools are incredibly
inclusive they are as inclusive they possibly can be very creative with the
money they've got they go out of their way to look at how they can do that but
we're all working in little silos at the moment and we need to be working much
more collectively as a as a profession to look at how we can solve this
together rather than in little silos across the county and you know and
certainly kind of working with Errol and Amma
and there's this real narrative around one service, care,
education and health working together because I also feel
as educationists at times we felt like we're in this
on our own and actually to see partners from health and care
sat around the table with us looking
at being a joint responsibility will also lend capacity to this.
So the savings potentially to be made that we're not aware of yet
because of other initiatives that are going
on across the council that will all support the capacity building with impacts.
Errol Albert - 0:56:25
Thanks Alison, I'm really pleased you mentioned that and I did want to mention the, certainly
pick up on the universal provision, as you will all be aware there are, as somebody described
recently, a blizzard of reforms that are coming down the track in relation to children's social
care and education particularly. When you consider things such as best start in life,
the good levels of development targets, the home learning environments and everything
else in between and also the family hub offer, there is a lot of work that's going on in
relation to what that universal provision can look at to provide an alternative to assessments,
the ACPs and early identification support, peer on peer learning but also peer support
for parents and carers within the family health network and so on. So what's really key to
me is ensuring that join up and as Alison's rightly referenced we want to do more with
yourselves and other school leaders and early years settings as to what that can look like.
But we need to reduce those boundaries that separate us sometimes in terms of social care,
education, early years etc. And this is the start of that I mentioned earlier on the conversation
in 90 school leaders and governors yesterday which was positive.
Alison was there, we had our health representative there as well as part of the same reform and
ourselves and indeed the parent carer forum.
We'll be doing more of that because we can't do this on our own.
This is a shared endeavour and whilst within the reforms we're named as the system conveners
as a local authority, ultimately this is for all of us to try and solve.
There are challenges, yes, but there are also opportunities with some of those grant funding.
But we've just got to think differently, innovatively, and think of ways in which we can meet the needs of our local children, young people and families within Buckinghamshire.
We're really keen for that. We want it to happen. We want it to happen soon.
If I can make a plug as World Chair at this stage, Alison has been a fantastic addition to council teams in relation to moving some of this work forward.
certainly around our reform plans and our improvement programme. As part of the family's
first funding stemming from the Children's Wellbeing in Schools Bill, there is funding
attached to that for us to have two more secondments in relation to primary or secondary
heads to join us as part of a council, one council or one partnership approach towards these reforms.
And I'm conscious also that the Children's Wellbeing Bill talks around education being
that fourth statutory partner around safeguarding.
There's lots of conversations that will need to be had
amongst ourselves to make sense of it all.
So that's something that we'll be communicating
with schools community soon so that we can hopefully
have more ellicence that we can work with as we move forward.
Thank you.
Sorry, Councillor, I took your.
Yeah, I think that's a very valuable and pertinent
Alan Sherwell - 0:59:17
contribution.
But I think it goes one stage further than that.
The government clearly has a view that a larger number of special needs children should be taught in mainstream education.
Some of those children are children that could clearly be taught in mainstream education if the mainstream schools have the resource to be able to deal with their specific issues.
There's a debate as to where that point comes because the other children for whom that wouldn't work
do need the special school provision or some form of alternative provision.
This is not a bucks debate. This is a national debate.
And sorting it is, I think, rather beyond the pay grade of us on this committee.
But what I would make a plea for, Errol, is all the pressure that you can put to make
sure that Bucks fully engages with our government association and other national local authority
for her, so let's make sure we're all trying to push the same point.
Because this issue applies in Manchester, it applies in Cornwall.
It doesn't matter what the nature of your environment is, it applies everywhere.
There has to be a sensible dividing line and the trouble is that that's arguable what that dividing line is.
But at least can we all be trying to argue the same thing?
Errol Albert - 1:00:53
Certainly Alan, I'll be very happy to share with you a strongly worded letter that went from the President of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, that went to the EFE.
I was in a DCS meeting, well a few recently, where we had colleagues from central government
turn up to listen to those concerns and we were informed they will take them back.
So we will keep you posted in terms of any response.
Are these savings between April and March? Is that the expectation?
Gaynor Bull - 1:01:23
Okay, so clearly if there's no project plan behind some of these numbers,
Sam Holdsworth - 1:01:27
because it's very unlikely we can achieve these in reality.
Ian Chislett - 1:01:30
Jo Robertson - 1:01:34
I think that what we're saying is that
there probably are project plans that sit behind it
Aman Sekhon-Gill - 1:01:41
with activity that's been undertaken,
but as we are all new to the role,
we probably need to go away and have a look
at what that activity has produced
and make sure that that is kind of then fed back
to this committee if I'm not wrong.
Okay, probably unless there are any, sorry.
Gaynor Bull - 1:02:00
Sorry, if I could just make an observation.
Well, whilst I warmly welcome the suggestions around multi -agency interventions and the support of, and the one joined up working,
Gaynor Bull - Chair - 1:02:17
I think the concern that I would voice on behalf of GMB members at the frontline and support staff is very much that
Laura Morel - 1:02:27
sometimes that joined up working can fall apart and it gets left to the people on the frontline
too because often if we're not careful in the background rather than it being a joined up network of support,
it becomes
pillars of people trying to pass the buck
as to which hook to hang the responsibility on.
And so I just want to make sure it's noted
that we absolutely applaud and support
the supportive approach,
but we need to be making sure that there's frameworks
and safeguards within that to make sure
it doesn't just fall on those individuals at the frontline
and trying to hold it together at the last step, as it were.
Gaynor Bull - 1:03:14
Thank you.
Okay.
Shall we, we've obviously sort of discussed in part
the implications and the challenges that we have,
but have we got anything in particular
that we want to raise regarding
the Send Reform announcements,
which are obviously white paper proposals.
Have we got any indication of when this white paper

6 Verbal update on SEND Reform Plan

will become law? No. Great. Does anyone have any comments or questions or a link to
the potential white paper proposals that are summarised for us at the end of this
item? Can I just add, Chair, sorry, before somebody comes in. As we know we've seen
Errol Albert - 1:04:02
legislation where proposals have been made in the past, consultations etc that haven't
necessarily passed. It's really important for us to, whilst we all will, keep our eyes
on business as usual and obviously one eye on what might come to pass, we've just got
to focus on what's right before us and what we think is the right thing to do for Buckinghamshire,
but I'm conscious and just to let you know there is still a degree of ambiguity in certain
areas, not just with these reforms but other papers as well, particularly in terms of how
linked together, funding arrangements and certain guidance. So and again as part of
these forums it'd be really great to understand in items if there was
something where we can provide updates in relation to when guidance is released
and when further information is is provided to us as local authority.
Okay so on the note...
Gaynor Bull - 1:04:55
Jude Talbot - 1:05:02
Janice Freeman - 1:05:05
Ruallst
and governing bodies from potential litigation and parents not being happy with the provision
as they see it.
Errol Albert - 1:05:38
Indeed, I think that the term fight was referenced in relation to that conversation with parents.
So, yeah, very alive to that. There is a shift in this guidance in relation to from local
authority to schools. But again, it's not picking up the point that was made earlier.
It's not failing one of us to be managing this ultimately.
We need to do this collectively and in support of one another as part of the reforms.
I think just to also add the experts at hand model is really, really crucial in this because
Aman Sekhon-Gill - 1:06:04
actually that team of support should be the support that then helps advocate on behalf
of the organisation as well as the parents.
So there should be, that is a really important part of this kind of model of delivery.
It goes without saying recruitment will be challenging in that, but there are opportunities
of pilot models that are where resources have been reallocated to meet that need.
I think this is where that engagement with schools about trying to understand what we
can do to support is really important, but the development of that experts at hand model
should really be a team of professionals which hopefully would alleviate some of that individual
anxiety that you know whether it's head teachers or whether it's echoes feel
whatever it is is then become a collective partnership approach to
responding to to what needs to be responded to because naturally you will
absolutely have parents who are unhappy with provision and parents who are very
happy with provision I think that's the nature of any industry when you're
working with families really. I just wanted to mention this because we
Dan Barton - 1:07:12
haven't had a talk about it today naturally focusing on some of the big
to get items, but one of the things we haven't talked about
is the curriculum review, which I think is gonna be
absolutely instrumental over time
in potentially supporting schools to manage better
with children's needs within the school,
because essentially I'm doing the reforms of 10 years ago,
or at least taking some of the sting out of them
in terms of broadening the curriculum
and the emphasis away from eBAC.
I just think let's not lose sight of that,
because that's gonna be, again, we don't know
when it's coming or anything else,
but it will have an impact on escalating need
and the ability for children with different needs
to be included in the mainstream.
Can I just say one positive, I think, from the white paper
as well is about the independent specialist sector as well.
It's really galling when you're sitting in placement panel
Alison Rooney - 1:08:01
Libby Wilson - 1:08:03
meetings and children that you know you could meet need
in your special school, yet there's
an independent school that can also meet need,
but they're being offered double, sometimes triple, you know, they're being asked for that amount.
So actually for that to be addressed, I think that's a big plus for us thinking about the finances of the local authority.
So I think that's a positive.
And I think we take similar view in relation to EOTUS where that's been mentioned, certainly.
So yeah, there are again opportunities on this.
Errol Albert - 1:08:34
Okay, do we have any further questions or comments?
If not, then perhaps Dan can just finish off the meeting
for us by summarising what we're suggesting
as a potential engagement for schools forum as part
of the send reform plan.
But we know the deadline has to be with the DFE by the middle
of June, which is before our next schools forum meeting.
Thank you.
So this is really just an idea to help
us give the right impression of all of the correct engagement.
Dan Barton - 1:09:15
We want to get this plan over the line.
The DFE time scale is very, very tight.
Whilst it isn't a statutory requirement
to consult with or get sign off from schools
forum for the reform plan, which I know
I'm sort of filling any gaps on afterwards,
it feels like best practise and the right thing to do
to provide as complete a draught of it as possible
for all of you at Schools Forum to then feed back on
almost immediately prior to submission.
So giving a man and a team as much time as possible
to work up a really strong draught.
But then also to have it on record in a public meeting
that we've really engaged with Schools Forum
as a statutory body, albeit it's not a statutory
conversation to have.
So we've suggested an extraordinary meeting
of this group somewhere around the first week in June,
I think.
And so we were thinking it would probably
be best to do that online, knowing
your challenges around scheduling and timetabling
and diarizing.
Probably be just an hour, but we would share a draught with you
in advance for comment so that we could go through that.
And it's not entirely performative.
I'm sure you have some good ideas as well.
but ultimately to give you the chance to feedback formally on that.
I don't know if there's any thoughts about that.
Aman Sekhon-Gill - 1:10:36
I think just to add as well, we're really conscious the deadline for this plan is June and there is no leeway on that.
So given the announcements were made around the end of March, which was middle of March,
which was we're commissioning you guys to be the conveners of the plan,
and there's a lot of kind of maturity assessment tools we have to complete,
lots of evidence that we need to gather and I'm really grateful that we've had
some really good engagement around some of that but unfortunately the deadline
of June the 15th is a real challenge for us and we're really trying hard to say
let's just get as many draughts as possible as we can out to people but
recognising that as you know as we sit here right now we're doing our maturity
assessment but we haven't even got to the point of writing that plan out and
the experts at hand piece is a massive part of that plan.
And that means developing a model that
can go live by September, which is the expectations of DFE.
So I think it's just really important to outline that,
because we're trying to work as agile as we can,
but recognising that the deadline is a deadline
and engaging as many people as we can in that process,
including our parent carer forum.
And I just think, again, coming back
to conversations with other DCSes
and other local authorities, that they've
highlighted that risk to co -production.
Certainly when you talked about parent carer forums,
we've got to do this together collectively.
Errol Albert - 1:11:55
But with the deadline that's been put in place,
to do that thoroughly and meaningfully is a challenge.
So it is about putting that message out there
to colleagues, partners, but also parent carer forum.
I'm pleased that we've got Lucy from FactBucks,
who's working with us on this to have that message.
We'll do everything we can in that time.
But obviously, the focus is on June deadline.
Post that, then we'll continue on with those conversations.
It's really important at this point in time,
despite our wanting and willingness
to do that co -production piece, it may not
be as thorough or as robust as it could be
had the deadline been set for September.
So I suppose, just in terms of facilitating
Gaynor Bull - 1:12:40
how we could manage that process,
would it be helpful for you if we, Chris, maybe compiled a Google form and
effectively if we had any comments or questions then we can actually submit
those in advance of that online meeting and then you've got a chance to think
about them. That's a great idea, thank you. I don't know how you create a Google form.
I'm going to delegate that to Chris.
There you go Chris.
Or somebody else, because I don't know how.
I was hoping you weren't going to ask me.
MST, because we quite need to go.
MST, oh is that MST Chris?
MST, marvellous.
Thank you, perfect.
Thank you.
Okay, technology over that end.
Okay, anybody got any other comments or questions
on that last item that we've got?
If not, we will note the dates of the next meeting

7 Date of Next Meetings

plus an additional one online sometime
in that first week of June.
No. So the last meeting that's noted here, the 22nd of March, that's a Monday, is that deliberate?
It is and fortunately I think Marika and I both had challenges in being available on the Tuesday and it's the end of term on Thursday and therefore it was decided that rather than do it on the last but one on the last day of term you'd probably prefer it slightly earlier.
Thank you very much everyone for your participation and your questions today.
And we will see you online sometime the first week of June.
Aman Sekhon-Gill
Programme Director, SEN Improvement
View profile Aman Sekhon-Gill