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

Schools Forum
Tuesday, 30th June 2026 at 1:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Chris Ward
  2. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alan Sherwell
  2. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alan Sherwell
  2. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Doris Mutegi
  2. Gaynor Bull
  3. Laura Morel
  4. Doris Mutegi
  5. Gaynor Bull
  6. Doris Mutegi
  7. Gaynor Bull
  8. Doris Mutegi
  9. Gaynor Bull
  10. Doris Mutegi
  11. Gaynor Bull
  12. Doris Mutegi
  13. Gaynor Bull
  14. Doris Mutegi
  15. Gaynor Bull
  16. Marieke Foster
  17. Cllr Alan Sherwell
  18. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Doris Mutegi
  2. Gaynor Bull
  3. Marieke Foster
  4. Gaynor Bull
  5. Sam Holdsworth
  6. Alison Rooney
  7. Ian Chislett
  8. Alison Rooney
  9. Marieke Foster
  10. Doris Mutegi
  11. Marieke Foster
  12. Gaynor Bull
  13. Marieke Foster
  14. Doris Mutegi
  15. Marieke Foster
  16. Doris Mutegi
  17. Marieke Foster
  18. Doris Mutegi
  19. Marieke Foster
  20. Jannice Freeman
  21. Gaynor Bull
  22. Nicky Lovegrove
  23. Gaynor Bull
  24. Rachel Chapman
  25. Gaynor Bull
  26. Laura Morel
  27. Gaynor Bull
Share this agenda point
  1. Jannice Freeman
  2. Gaynor Bull
  3. Jannice Freeman
  4. Gaynor Bull
  5. Jannice Freeman
  6. Gaynor Bull
  7. Doris Mutegi
  8. Jude Talbot
  9. Jannice Freeman
  10. Doris Mutegi
  11. Gaynor Bull
  12. Webcast Finished

Gaynor Bull - 0:00:03
schools forum of this academic year.
I think we've got as many people as we are expecting,
as we've got a few apologies.
We've got Dan online, temporarily incapacitated
due to an accident.
But he's there in body and in person.
So he'll be online.
OK, right.

1 Apologies

Have we got any apologies? Thank you. We have apologies from Pauline Cuddy
Joe divers Andrew Howard Gwyneth Langley
Mr Chris Ward - 0:00:39
Who's substituted by Rebecca? Oh, cool tree?
Julie Manning claim shabir Jill Watson and Caroline Whitehead
And we also have officer apologies from Errol Albert Jonathan Carter and Amman second Gil
Gaynor Bull - 0:00:54
Thank you.
Anyone else aware of any other apologies from your colleagues that may or may not have mentioned
and are not here?
No?
Okay, great.

2 Declarations of Interest

Any declarations of interest in any items on the agenda?
Great, thank you.

3 Minutes of the previous meeting

Cllr Alan Sherwell - 0:01:17
Gaynor Bull - 0:01:19
So we'll go to item three minutes of the previous meeting, which start on page three of your
pack.
So just in terms of accuracy first, if we go through each of the pages, and then we'll
do any matters arising or questions.
So in, there's not much on page three, so just in terms of page four, any questions
And then page 5.
Page 6.
And then page 7, which is just the dates.
So, okay.
Thank you.
In terms of the matters arising, I think we've got a couple of minutes.
The revised financial out turn be circulated to schools forum based on the correction of
some of the figures and that was an action for Doris which was completed.
And then investigation into the improved variances outlined in the report.
I suspect that will be covered in the main body of the meeting potentially.
And again, the savings summary plan, whether that was achieved and realised is covered
in the main body of the minutes.
That was an action for Dan.
Again historic savings informing the budget, we will cover that as part of the meeting.
And then there was a verbal update on the SEND reform plan.
So, Dan, I suppose a question for you from us is at the last meeting you weren't in
a position to share the full SEND reform plan because it hadn't gone through various ministerial
cabinet council personnel.
Now that that has been completed and it's been submitted, are we in a position to share
it with the wider members of the schools forum. Thanks, Kayla. Can I just cheque you can hear me
before I start answering back as it were. Yes, we can. Great, thank you. So, answering back. So,
the short answer is no, we can't share it until we've got a formal response from the DfE, I think
is our line, which is very frustrating. But unfortunately, I think where we're at is, and
We went through this a little bit at the last meeting and we wanted to share what we could
by way of the update around experts at hand, as you recall, but we can't share it until it's
been agreed by the DfE. That's where we're at, I'm afraid. Any idea on when that might be?
Thanks, Gayla. So the DfE, as you know, is rather good at using terms like imminent and things like
that for when things should be done. We're expecting September is when we
should hear back from the DfE about whether or not our submission has been
accepted with no hopefully with no changes and updates. Okay so we are
realistically then looking at the meeting of the 3rd of November as our
next meeting before that plan can be shared so we'll be six months into it
before it's been made available to a wider readership.
Alan?
Yeah, and we'll offer our apologies again for the fact
that we've been jumping to the DFE's tune in terms of that.
Yeah, absolutely understand that you haven't
got any choice about that.
Cllr Alan Sherwell - 0:05:08
It does raise a question, however, by delaying.
And if we have a change of minister by September as well,
which is not only impossible, it may be even worse,
by that amount.
That potentially delays the initiatives themselves
by that amount.
And I'm just wondering whether we
can have any sort of satisfaction
that it won't hold up implementation too long,
because the changes are absolutely needed.
Dan, would you care to respond?
Thanks, and thanks Alan. So I think there's a couple of things.
The first is that beyond, there's obviously an enormous amount of speculation that's happening at the moment anyway
in relation to Andy Burnham and various things that's been said.
And he mentioned in a news report the other day that education and reform was one of his
priorities.
I think it's unlikely that we'll see a massive change of direction.
And it isn't the case that we're going to pause until we hear back from the DFE before
we get going with the work.
The work continues.
So our work to configure and develop the experts at hand model continues.
We've received money associated with the plan you know in anticipation in terms
of the the reform monies that you will have got which is the gonna get the
wrong acronym now inclusive mainstream fund we've got notice about Doris might
be able to pick up on that and you'll know what your share is if you haven't
received it yet you'll you'll receive it surely if you're from an academy. So
things are moving and so I would want I wouldn't want to give the impression
that we're not going to continue the work in anticipation of the plan being
agreed and I think that the vast majority of reform plans are likely to be agreed by
the DFE as well. It's not in the DFE's interests to get bogged down in a load of bureaucracy
in relation to quote unquote holding to account they want to see change. So whilst none of
us has a crystal ball but I feel confident that one our submission will get over the
line, two that there won't be an enormous series of U -turns in relation to the education
and reform direction of travel.
And three, we're going to continue as we already are,
working with partners, some of whom are from the school
system and the wider health system to deliver
what we've set out anyway.
So it is frustrating, but I think I don't anticipate
there being huge barriers to us moving this forward.
And I'm sorry again that we can't share it yet.
Thank you.
Gaynor Bull - 0:08:06
Any other questions on matters arising on the minutes?
If not, we will move on to the first item on the agenda, which is over to Doris in terms

4 Revenue Budget Monitoring 2025-26

of the dedicated school budget revenue monitoring out -term for 2526.
Thank you.
Doris Mutegi - 0:08:27
Yeah, so, excuse me, the report asks school forums to note the out -of -town position, basically.
I'll take the report as read, so I'll just highlight the key areas.
The report also covers the 25 -26 savings position.
And in terms of our town, it highlights that the alternate 20 .98 is the deficit, which
was just under $2 million, $1 .9 million less than the budgeted deficit of $22 .9 million.
And the main reason for that is the underspend for early years.
The table, table one, kind of highlights it on a block basis, highlighting the early years
block variants there of three, just under three, over 3 million, 3 .39 million.
From a high needs block perspective, the overspend was 0 .82 against the 22 .9 million budgeted
deficit.
And that's mainly primarily because of the increase in overall FTE people numbers.
The bullet points on that page highlight the variances.
So basically, there are some overspends primarily in alternative provision, but there are also
underspends and it aligns with the table, but the net position is the 0 .82 million overspend
in high -needs block.
The next section is on Ali here's block, and that's the $3 .4 million as highlighted above
in the table, and that's really driven by comparing the census data to the funding and
resulting into an underspend because of people uptake in terms of especially around the under -2s
funding.
And we've applied a prudent approach.
Worth mentioning at this point, we are still in discussion with the DFE in terms of DSG
note and the outcome that will be the reviewing from a making sure it's robust.
But that's the position as I've reported at the moment.
Central block, there's no variants.
This schools block, the position remains as previously reported as a 0 .39 million overspend
relating to growth fund.
And the funding block shows the decrease in budgeted position.
From an overall cumulative DSG perspective, we started the year at 24 .9 in terms of the
brought forward and the out -of -position then reflects a 20 .98, so closing deficit position
accumulatively as at the end of the year was 45 .5 million.
Linked to the SEND reform, there is the high -need stability block, which we are hoping, expecting
the 90 % to be paid for the accumulated position to the year end of 25 -26.
So working through the numbers we expect a 40 .9 million grant which would leave behind
a 4 .55 million deficit to carry forward.
I'll pose there for any questions on the outcome position.
So, does anybody have any questions?
Gaynor Bull - 0:12:39
Yeah, Laura.
Laura Morel - 0:12:46
Thank you.
I can see the alternative provision overspend was 6 .28, and part of that was due to the
– looking at the reduction in independent schools.
So, how much of that deficit of the overspend in alternative provision do we know was reduced
by independent, because we were overspent.
The underspend on independent schools is 3 .9, but the overspend on alternative provision
is 6 .28.
So, just wondering how much of that overspend would – how much more that overspend would
have been if we hadn't stopped using independent schools?
Doris Mutegi - 0:13:31
Thank you. I believe strategically there was a decision to try and reduce the independent
places. So I think it certainly contributes to that. It explains the under spending independent
places. So there's a push to provide alternative provision rather than independent places.
I think without that, the independent places would have been higher, but alternative provision
may have come down.
I don't have the exact figures, and I think we would need a more—quite a detailed exercise
to kind of try and walk through the numbers.
But I think it would be fair to say that, you know, there was a lot of tracking last
year and pushing and will come down to, will come back to the savings, which is the next
item.
There was a lot of, the tracking that showed children being moved or pupils being moved
from independent placements to what I would call cheaper cost or lower cost placement
types, either alternative provision or special schools.
Anybody got any other questions?
Gaynor Bull - 0:14:51
Okay, I've got a couple.
Just basically the prudent approach to the early years block under spend, effectively
we're just transferring the budget to next year.
Yes.
In terms of a potential claw back and therefore actually it's not really an under spend in
the true sense we will be spending it, it's just we haven't spent it in this year because
it likely to be removed from our budget for next year?
Doris Mutegi - 0:15:20
Exactly right, and that's the discussion we're having with the DFA in terms of quantum, but
also in terms of mechanics of their club or not.
Gaynor Bull - 0:15:34
And I'm assuming your early years colleagues are supporting you in terms of the capacity
then that they have with their remaining budget in terms of what we set for next year?
Doris Mutegi - 0:15:44
Gaynor Bull - 0:15:46
We're carrying forward the pressure on the growth fund as well, so that's been carried
forward through basically.
Question in terms of the grant value we've estimated at just under the $41 million, leaving
us with the deficit, but we're obviously planning another deficit budget for this year.
Have we got any clarity from the DFE as to whether that 90 % grant will continue for the
next two years, which was part of the original potential proposals?
Doris Mutegi - 0:16:20
No we don't have certainty. What they have said, and I have it written down because I
expected that question, is they have said that, well the government is not guaranteeing
a 90 % of the cumulative 26, 27 and 27, 28 financial years and they have stated that
they will take an appropriate and proportionate approach, those are their words, to supporting
councils over the period.
But this is not unlimited and will be strictly linked to demonstrable delivery of reform
plans.
As precise as ever then.
Yes.
Great.
Okay.
Gaynor Bull - 0:17:03
It's just, you know, the reform plan has gone in, and assuming it's successful, and we do
get the grant for 41 million, we're going to be back up at 35 million deficit by the
end of this year, in any case, and the potential for the following year, unless we've got more
than 13 million pounds' worth of savings, is likely to be exactly the same.
So, we could easily be back up to a 45 or a 50 million deficit within two years without
any further grant funding coming in and no significant changes to the provision in which
we've got.
So, identifying the savings and making sure they're delivered is key.
So, did – Dan?
I can't – how do I –
Thanks, Chris.
Thanks, Gaynor.
Just assuming you can still hear, just to echo really what Doris is saying that whilst
DfE aren't providing absolute clarity on exactly what will happen. I think you're absolutely right
and I think we discussed this last time, the 40 million odd this year and whatever comes through
in future years assuming we do get 90 percent which has been the intention all along unless
nothing changes that will be you know money it won't touch the sides and we will continue to grow.
So there are some encouraging signs you know we talked last time and there and I put in my
communication to all Headteachers earlier this week, or last week, sorry, the number
of ARPs in terms of new places that have been delivered over the last year and those which
we've committed to already for the coming year, that progress will continue to mitigate
the growth in the spend. There'll be more work which comes online which I hope, I think
we all hope will mitigate the growth in high unit costs, you know, across the piece. But
but we should be under no illusions that unless we deliver on all of our proposed plans,
that inclusive mainstream provision happens and that we reduce our dependence on independent high cost provision.
We will be in a, before you know it, in the same or worse deficit position.
So it's going to require all of us collectively to work on delivering every bit of the SEND reform and the principles that underpin it.
That leaves us nicely on to point four in Doris' report.
What we asked last time was a review basically to see whether the planned savings have been
delivered against the proposed budgets for 2526 in order for us to be reassured that
the potential planned savings for 2627 are realistic.
So Doris, do you want to take us through that last 4 .1 section?
Yeah, thank you.
Doris Mutegi - 0:19:48
Yes, so the section covers the last year's savings, 2526, and the delivery.
Last year there was a planned savings of 6 .4, and those were delivered as planned, and includes
really the high needs block funding as outlined in terms of those four bullet points highlighted.
Gaynor Bull - 0:20:18
So I suppose the one that stands out for me is the exceptional support requests was removed,
brought back in, changed a little bit and effectively looks as if that has actually
produced some savings.
So does that mean that we had far fewer requests coming in from schools because the threshold
was higher or was it just a reduction in need, which I doubt?
Doris Mutegi - 0:20:47
I think it is the former, so in terms of the criteria and the application process was tightened
up so that from a cost perspective, but it was more forecast through the exceptional
support requests.
Gaynor Bull - 0:21:15
And have we reviewed that process in order to make sure that all our schools are aware
of how to access and what information that you will need in terms of going forward with
any exceptional support requests?
I don't know if Dan.
This is exceptional support request, Kayla.
Yes.
So, I think there's something to say.
I can't speak to detail of whether or not there's an increase or a reduction in those.
However, I think there's an acceptance that we want to look at the criteria for how those
are determined, notwithstanding the uncertainty that comes with send reform and overall long -term
reduction in the EHCPs in favour of ISPs. But there is something for me about wanting
to make sure that we prioritise schools for additional support where there is a very significant
additional volume of children above a certain threshold of need. One of the things we want
to do with colleagues in this room's support is actually enter into a series of conversations
with headteachers around the room from planning areas where we say this is the distribution
of children in your area by percentage in each school, can we talk about what are the underlying
reasons for what is definitely in most cases an uneven distribution of children with additional
needs? Can we work to co -create a set of principles which more adequately favours schools
who are doing, I suppose, who are pulling more than their weight? There will be lots
of other variables related to the reforms which might make that hard but there's an appetite
at our end to review what the criteria are, how that relates to the SEND floor, how that
relates to the notional SEND budget that's set by the local authority and the interrelationship
between that, experts at hand and funding that goes directly into schools. So there's
a big conversation to have there, but I think that's an important one that we're willing
to have.
Marika?
Dan, any idea how that's going to work with the difference? I can see how that works in
Marieke Foster - 0:23:19
primary school sector but how what about the grammar school in the secondary sector?
Are you asking about distribution of children with additional needs? Yeah so I mean I mean
that's the white elephant Marika isn't it because by definition if you have a selective system
that there is going to be an inherent unequal distribution of children with additional needs
based on the selection criteria and that's a fact. I know that there were a couple of
colleagues at the last bash meeting that I went to who were quite keen to press the fact that
there had been some analysis done and actually not all of the schools that we thought might lose out
would have done and quite the reverse was true. In my experience generally speaking you tend to get
more inclusive schools, ergo those without a selection criteria,
who end up carrying more of the weight of having to figure out
how to provide for children with additional needs than not.
So I was quite surprised to hear that point.
I suppose, ultimately, I think it's incumbent upon us
to make sure that we funnel, of high needs funding anyway,
the majority towards schools who are doing more of the work
to do that inclusion.
I suppose that's part of what I'm saying as the underlying narrative.
There will be a diversity of views and probably some pushback
from colleagues in the selective part of the system.
And I think that's fair.
But there is an indubitable point about EHCPs,
the financial burden that meeting the needs described in them
will cost schools and how we should be trying to balance the system
in relation to that.
Alan?
Cllr Alan Sherwell - 0:25:13
I think this is a very difficult point that Marika is quite right.
They hit on, because the simplistic thought would be that the children with special needs
are superficially less academic achieving.
And that's not entirely correct by a long way, because the children have very high academic
ability, but have serious special needs.
They're different from the special needs that children of very low academic ability have,
sure, but they're just as real, and they just as much take up time.
So obviously, you can't argue that it's not right to allocate results according to what
people are actually doing for that sector.
But I think we need to be very, very careful about how we measure what they are doing.
It's not straightforward.
And if it's not done with proper analysis, it won't be accepted as being fair.
Thank you. Dan, do you want to respond on that?
Thanks Geena. And just to come back on that, it's really important, you know, what I'm
not saying is that grammar schools aren't doing a good job with the children that they
have in terms of meeting their needs, where those needs might be special educational needs.
And you're absolutely right to say that there are some children with special educational
needs who are extremely academically able. When we zoom out right in the macro rather than those
micro sort of situations that you're talking about where there might be for example very highly able
but also highly autistic children who might be able to access a grammar school education but
might have a needs which take a lot of effort and thought and care to meet. Broadly speaking
the majority of children with additional needs aren't in the grammar school sector for those
reasons. That's also a fact. So I suppose what I'm saying is where we can, we ought
to be balancing the system in favour of funding those schools who are carrying the greatest
level of work. That's all I'm saying.
Gaynor Bull - 0:27:39
Anybody got any other questions on the item 4 agenda than the revenue budget monitoring
report?
Either for Doris or Dan.
No?
Okay.
Thank you.

5 Savings Plans 2026-27

So the next item we've got on the agenda is then the delivery of the planned savings for
2627.
Our target is 13 .067 million.
So not insubstantial considering last year's target was 6 .4 million.
So we have more than doubled our savings targets for next year.
The original savings table is given on the left -hand side of the page for you, which
was given in a slightly different format at the last meeting.
And Doris and the team have worked to give you a better description of the actual proposed
savings in the different areas on the right -hand side.
So, Doris, do you want to speak to any in particular of these items on this table?
Thank you.
Doris Mutegi - 0:28:43
Thank you.
I think you've covered it well.
Well, I think a lot of the savings are on the basis of the delivery of last year, and
you'll note that most of them refer to sufficiency, so trying to move children from higher -cost
placements into lower, either, you know, from special to mainstream or from independent
to special as appropriate.
So that would cover the majority of the savings and also the additional places within special
schools and ups that have been created.
So the majority of the savings will come through in terms of moving children as appropriate
to the lower cost placements with increasing sufficiency.
And also actively looking at those children who can move
and moving them at the right point in time.
So majority of the 13 .067 comes from those areas.
Dan, do you want to add anything to the comments before we ask for questions from the floor?
Thanks, Gayna. Just to echo what Doris has said there, I think there's a fairly sound
basis for lots of the savings that are in there based on delivery of savings in the
previous year. I did want to just flag about the clawback piece. There's a bit more work
needs to be done in relation to that one. We already do do some clawback from schools of
Orpew where children are excluded but this is in relation to IoTS which may or may not be possible
so we've got some further work to do on that to shape up what we've said no but actually there
might be some further work which might tell us that we actually can do something so that was the
first one that I wanted to say and for the time being we've put in a narrative next to the portage
in the new column essentially saying we'll look at an alternative compensatory saving because we feel
that the ported service is valued. Some people think it's old -fashioned, I don't necessarily
hold with that view and I think it's broadly speaking a preventative service so we're going
to look at and explore alternative sources of savings to compensate for not removing
portage at this time. That might change over time.
Dan, do you just want to explain for some of us in the room who might not exactly know
Gaynor Bull - 0:31:31
what portage means?
Yeah, so portage is essentially occupational therapy for babies. So it's where you have
a specialist occupational therapist who will have a referral out through the public health
health visiting team if there are some kind of issues which might have been highlighted very
early or even at birth. So very very young babies where there might be issues which have been
identified which a specialist portage OT effectively goes out to the family and supports
them to try to put things right, mitigate, that might be to do with physical sort of
if a child might be born with a club foot or something like that or it might be worse than
that, it might be what do they call them, a tongue tie or something like that. So various different
things that you can do very early to significantly alter the trajectory of a child's experience
through life which if not addressed early can very significantly escalate into more serious issues.
Thank you.
Marika?
Dan, thank you very much for this, and also thank you very much for the amount of work
Marieke Foster - 0:32:38
that's gone into this.
I really appreciate it very much.
It's a lot of work.
I'm quite surprised to see a potential saving there, Dan, because I think that really if
we're going to sort of pull ourselves out of this crisis, my belief is that we need
to be doing a lot with early years and really supporting our early year colleagues before
those children are in the system and then going through the system with ever -increasing
STEM needs as they go through.
So the idea of potential saving within that I find a little bit concerning.
I'm sure you've looked at it.
But the other thing I just wanted to ask about, in terms of the retention of children in school,
there's a—in mainstream school, there's a potential saving of $2 million there.
But is that possible that we can look to divert resources, so maybe try to make more savings,
but then divert resources into our early -year colleagues to try and support our early -year
colleagues and those children at that very young reception year one age to try and give
those children help before behaviour becomes, behaviour or needs become embedded more?
Are you okay for me to come back on that one, Dana and Marika?
Yeah, so first of all, I agree, it's not a very sensible thing to take away the early
support through Portage and so that's why we kind of, because myself and Errol and Amun
were new to this, we saw the proposal and we thought we don't think that's a very good
idea for the reasons that I've explained and you've very articulated, sort of underlined
as well.
So, in terms of how we – I think diverting children away from high -cost placements and
trying to have them included in mainstream as a kind of general principle is delivering
unit cost savings and will probably continue to do.
As to your question in terms of whether or not we might be able to further divert high -cost
spend which we've avoided and move it further upstream is I think what you're saying, there's
absolutely mileage in a conversation around that, it becomes challenging when we're already forecasting,
I think the paper says 30 .3 is our kind of forecast in -year deficit or cumulative deficit
for this year which is basically the total for last year plus what we think will incur this year.
It's hard to make a case for, it's not hard for me in principle, but it's hard to make the case for
that spend upstream when you're already significantly overspent.
So, that doesn't mean that we can't make a case or consider what we might do.
There are some rules about how you use high needs funding in the very early years.
Some of that's captured with what we call the Send Inclusion Fund,
which you're probably aware of.
There are some sort of special ways of doing that.
I think we should take away as a subgroup or a conversation outside this room
to look at what might be the art of the possible be
in terms of diverting high needs funding further upstream to make the case.
I think the case is obvious and instinctive,
but what do the numbers actually look like?
I think there could be an interesting pilot there.
Dan, I'm just going to come back on that,
just because I would really like to be involved in that.
I've done quite a lot of reading on this about the impact of parents
not communicating with small children in terms of their language development
and then the subsequent neural trimming that takes place,
which means that they then don't develop that language going
forward.
I would be really excited about Buckinghamshire becoming
a leading case of actually communicating with parents
about the importance of communicating
with preschoolers with a view to supporting that
and seeing what we can do.
We talked about it last year before you joined us.
But now you've joined us, I'm full of hope
that we could actually push that forward.
So good luck, Dan.
So, just on that, if I may, I think there's an opportunity to think about that in the
context of the Best Start family hubs, which are, you know, the government gets this, you
know, the intervention and, you know, post -COVID, the challenge around speech, language and
communication is obvious, as you've articulated.
I think the stats say that you can, basically every pound is worth four pounds if you spend
it there on that stuff. So let's look at it. We've got a programme already. We're managing
a piece of transformation around Best Start family hubs. Let's have a conversation.
Gaynor Bull - 0:37:13
Yeah, Dan, we previously had the early years inclusion funding, which we agreed to set
a couple of years ago at about 400K, which was well received by the schools and the early
areas, definitely.
The out turn, I think a year later was 270K was spent on it and then there was no budget
allocated to it for this last year that's just gone.
So we're back to the same sort of discussion as we had a couple of years ago basically
about the need.
Certainly being there at that early point in order to ensure that any gaps are closed
as quickly as possible at that early educational stage,
because we know that that gap just grows, basically,
as we go through the educational system.
Sam, did you have your hand up earlier?
Is that working?
Sam Holdsworth - 0:38:06
The $2 million saving that you talk about in terms
of increasing capacity for autism in mainstream schools,
you say you'll achieve through the delivery of upskill schools
through the delivery of experts at hand,
but you haven't yet, you won't be ready for 26, 27
for that, will you?
You haven't, when we had a meeting a couple of weeks ago,
you hadn't yet recruited people for those roles.
Am I okay to come back on that, Dana?
Yes, fine, Dan.
Thank you.
So I think that saving, it's an arbitrary figure
arrived at as a percentage saving assumption and I think that that's the
best we can do at this point in time because because we don't know the exact
impact that the things that we're going to do again is going to have I think
it's a sensible target it helps to balance the rest of the budget I think
that we'll either come in better or worse than that and there'll be
mitigations from the money that we get around expert hand I think the expert
piece of work will take longer to bed in than we would like it to because
inevitably will there be lots of kind of teething issues and gradually skilling
people up and getting the system working. I think there will be savings over time
it may be that they roll into future years. I think it's right that you point
out that there's some uncertainty there. I think the numbers will stack up
eventually and the principle is correct though.
I just wanted to add to what Dan said, having been part of writing the expert at hands bid,
Alison Rooney - 0:39:41
there will be some work that gets going without recruitment because there is already a team
in place to start some of the work. I'm not saying it's going to deliver those level of
savings, but getting the work up and running is not dependent on initially recruiting.
There's also an awful lot of work that needs to go on in terms of co -constructing what
inclusive principles look like in Black Bucks and actually having a real clarity on what
we're trying to achieve as a collective and working together.
So we're not waiting for the money for some of this work to happen.
We will be getting on with the work regardless.
So I just really wanted to add to that.
But there is a lot of work to work together as a collective across Buckinghamshire to
look at how can we work collaboratively.
and that's very difficult because as Dan's already alluded,
we've got a very fragmented system in Bux.
We've, you know, just looking at grammar,
selective system academies, standalone academies.
So it's how can we galvanise as one to try and,
and you know, certainly some of the things
that Dan's alluding to in terms of looking
at the distribution will support some of that,
thinking about where the first tranches of work happen,
because actually we should be targeting
where there's the most need
and where we need to get going first.
So, you know, I can't guarantee that it's going to bring about these levels of savings,
but I can guarantee that there's work going planned and will be shared with schools imminently
about how we intend getting going so we can hit the ground running in September.
Yes, I can't see you on the end.
Ian.
Ian Chislett - 0:41:18
So, I just wondered, Dan, in terms of the savings from a financial perspective,
I think we obviously all understand the need to make those savings.
and looking at the, you know, the 2 % of primary school children and 1 % of children in mainstream
secondary schools, it's almost sort of 50 % cumulatively of the total savings.
So, I just wondered in terms of the 2 % and 1%, are you able to give an indication of
how many students that is numerically in terms of students and how deliverable, what work's
understanding it's a challenging number.
So I think the first one, the honesty is that I don't know exactly how the number's
been arrived at, but we can go away and report back to you with the notes if that's
OK. In terms of how we'll, there's a couple of things. One, there's a kind of proof
of concept from having done some of the things that are inherent as part of the
experts at hand, the general mainstream inclusion principles which have delivered savings last
year. A key point is that we are going to do a forensic child by child analysis of where
we know, for example, if we've created an ARP or we've managed to retain a child in
a mainstream school that we know would otherwise have gone somewhere else, but as a consequence
of our work and the general repositioning of the system, we will track cumulatively
the impact over time of every time a child is diverted from a higher cost to a lower cost provision.
And so the differential will aggregate up and that is how we'll measure whether or not we've delivered.
We have to put the savings in as a budgetary pressure, but budgetary
process and I think there's a general acceptance that this is the right principle and
what I've heard anyway is a real willingness to try and make this work.
whether or not we make the two million or whether we do or we don't will remain to be seen.
But we will be tracking forensically on a child by child basis.
Thank you.
Yes, Alison.
I just wanted to kind of raise a point on behalf of special school colleagues around this
up list frozen for special schools.
I think, you know, we probably have the largest bucks pay workforce
Alison Rooney - 0:43:40
and we've not had any uplift to the bandings that we get in in terms of finance, but we
have had considerable additional cost to have to find in terms of meeting those pay rises
for all our Bucks Pay staff. So I think it has left some special schools in quite a vulnerable
position, so I just kind of really wanted noting. I am aware why it was done, because
we were expecting a national funding formula to come out of all the Senate reforms which
haven't materialised, so I do understand we were waiting for that and thought that would
give guidance but I just wanted kind of kind of being put on the table really in
terms of the special school sector. Doris can I just come back on a point that
Alison brings raises there actually I noticed in the minutes that it said that
Marieke Foster - 0:44:23
the budgets for next year were based on a 3 % uplift for all teaching and
non -teaching staff is that still the case in terms of forecast for next year?
Given that we haven't heard from the STRB yet or we haven't heard from the DFP?
Doris Mutegi - 0:44:38
Is that in terms of teaching and non -teaching staff?
So, presumably also in terms of inflation as well.
Marieke Foster - 0:44:43
Dan, do you want to take that one?
One of the things I wanted to say here,
I think what Alison was saying,
sorry, sometimes the mic's not great in the room.
I think we were talking about uplift to special school,
funding capitation and things like that.
Yeah, so obviously we know that the funding this year is flat from last year to this in
terms of high needs because we're waiting for the reform plan submission and everything
else in terms of the high need stability grant. There's an absolute appetite from within our
service to review on a primary need type age range and for want of a better word severity
level what our local formula is for determining how much money we will give to special schools
in respect of the children that they're educating.
There's a little bit around this, which is about timing,
because we've heard about, through the reforms,
the national packages of support
and the kind of intention to move to a position
where things are determined nationally.
What I don't want to do is...
What we need to do is commission a piece of work
that does some baselines, looks at what other areas
and staff neighbours are funding their special schools
to provide for various different types of children
and arrive at a determination that says,
inbox for a middle, mid -level special school child
with autism as a primary need.
This is what we will give you per child.
However, what I don't want to do is embark on an 18 -month piece of work
that then gets overtaken by a national piece of work
around packages through the reform programme.
That doesn't mean it's not necessary, but it just feels like
there could be, it could end up being a big waste of time
if the national work supersedes it. I'll say as well, although it wasn't mentioned I think
by Alison, but in relation to mainstream schools we absolutely acknowledge as well, I'm sure no
one's mentioned it yet but they probably would want to, that the way that we currently fund
EHCPs in mainstream in relation to the hours proxy is something that we are very keen for all sorts
of reasons related to both to promoting independence and to promoting good relationships between
schools and families and to creating a more realistic recruitment environment as well
to review that. So those are all on the sort of medium term plan to do something about,
particularly the hours proxy for mainstream funding and banding.
I would also add just one other aspect in terms of the payment of not necessarily hours,
but the timing, because an EHC application is made and then the delay in it being processed,
et cetera, actually means that for some schools, and particularly infant schools, your child
has actually spent a third of its life within the infant school sector before an EHC might
to be applied and therefore your payment is only from the date it is agreed rather than
the date it is submitted.
That is extremely frustrating when you're having to fund those costs post agreement,
shall we say, without any backdating.
But that's another storey.
So, Dan, the question on the floor here was realistically, in the minutes it suggested
Gaynor Bull - 0:48:16
that the guidance going out to maintain schools was effectively to allocate a 3 % increase
for teaching staff and non -teaching staff as far as their budget modeller was concerned,
whereas the we haven't had any guidance and the previous sort of three -year plan was that
it was going to be a 2%, 2%, and 2 .5 % increase over three years.
Any further update on that?
And is inflation going to be taken into account, or is that something that just doesn't happen?
I would love to be able to give you an answer on that, Gayle, and I'm afraid I can't.
We are reliant upon those decisions being made elsewhere and then implemented.
I think we've given the advice that we gave because we had to say something and it sounded
reasonable to say what we've said and Academy Trust will have taken either a more or a less
risk averse view depending on their governance and appetite for risk. I'm sorry that we can't
provide you with greater certainty around that at this time but as soon as we know anything
we will of course share it although you'll probably get it before us through a DfE email.
Marieke Foster - 0:49:32
I understand on the pay, and we don't know that because everybody is waiting for that,
but have schools budgeted, that maintain schools budgeted for an inflationary uplift next year?
Doris Mutegi - 0:49:45
I think that's the 3 % that was referred to, so the advice was 3%, but we don't know what it is.
Marieke Foster - 0:49:54
On salaries, on teaching staff and non -teaching staff, the minute it's saying teaching staff and non -teaching staff pay reviews,
but it doesn't say anything about inflation?
In terms of pay award?
Doris Mutegi - 0:49:59
No, but just in terms of general inflation of costs.
Marieke Foster - 0:50:02
Oh no, I don't believe that.
Doris Mutegi - 0:50:05
The budget salary model has had a 3 % uplift built into them.
Marieke Foster - 0:50:12
But in terms of costs, in terms of gas, electricity, papers,
have the maintained schools budgeted for inflationary costs?
You would normally do that, yes.
Jannice Freeman - 0:50:22
So the salary modeller only works on the teaching and the non -teaching salaries.
Gaynor Bull - 0:50:26
Everything else is an individual choice by the schools in terms of putting in whatever they believe is inflationary,
likely to be, which is anybody's guess sometimes in terms of particularly energy as we go in and out of different crises.
So, Dan?
I think that the question and the response was in relation to human resources and so the STPRB
and the recommendations that come out of that, it would seem prudent for people to budget based
on an anticipated inflationary uplift in things like utilities and everything else
because they're going up rather more than we would have hoped because of situations beyond our
control. These things are kind of annual perennial challenges aren't they in
relation to how we manage to distribute resource from a pot that isn't big
enough to pay for all the things we need and I don't think we can answer that
question because we aren't in control of the ultimate purse strings of the amount
of money that we get in Buckinghamshire.
Nicky, did you want to come in?
Nicky Lovegrove - 0:51:37
Yeah, I just wanted to go back on your point about EHCPs and that it takes a long time.
The money for them is from when it's agreed, but we don't even get it then.
It can take up to a term for the money to actually come through to us, which is even more frustrating.
And Rachel?
Gaynor Bull - 0:51:59
Yeah, Dan, I just wanted to add in a little bit about the medical needs as well.
Rachel Chapman - 0:52:04
So when we're looking at banding, our medical needs, particularly in a school like mine,
are increasing, increasing, increasing.
Those medical needs are funded out of the education budget, so our nurses we pay for
from our education, whereas in other local authorities you'll have them funded through
health and therapists through health as well.
So I thought that was really important to mention.
and also talking about those costs going up, those utility costs going up.
I know Dan, you mentioned it last time, that the place funding for special scores has been at 10 ,000 for 12 years now,
so we haven't had any increase in that as well.
Just to flag that when you're thinking about not putting any increase in those banding moving forward in that savings.
So just wanted that noted.
Thank you, Rachel. Dan?
Gaynor Bull - 0:52:52
Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Geena. The point that was made there, there's two points that I didn't get.
Sorry, the first one that I'll do in reverse order. There are decisions about how we are funded,
which are within our purview, and there are things that aren't. And so the 10 ,000 base funding for
special schools is a nationally determined one and makes no sense whatsoever now. It
probably amounts to a halving or something like that when you take into account inflationary
pressures. It's something like that. So it's clearly not enough. I think we know it and
we accept it and I think we can hold each other in that, understanding the pressure,
at the same time as recognising that the money that we get from government, even in the form
the stability grant would probably be gone in a year just on special school based funding if we
did it fairly and properly. So there are some things which probably need to just have a further
longer conversation about but the other bit I didn't mention which you did Gaynor before was
how frustrating it is that because of the delays in the assessment process beyond 20 weeks,
So schools are okay meeting needs on their own up to 20 weeks but expect on week 21 to
receive an amount of money that's repeatable and helps you to meet need in respect of those
outlined in section F of the EHCP.
The right answer for me to say is yes we should retrofund you as soon as an EHCP is issued
for the number of weeks that you've had to wait because you will presumably have been
meeting the needs from your own pot until that point. That's the right answer but it's not the
answer that I'm necessarily going to give because I can't unfortunately. Although that need will all
crystallise at some point and we'll be funding those children eventually but it takes money out
of one pot to pay another and unfortunately it's not within my compass anyway at this point to to
say anything otherwise but I suppose I just wanted to agree with you and I recognise that
it's not fair. Thank you. Any other questions? No I think, oh sorry,
Laura Morel - 0:55:15
Dora. It's okay. Just to come back to the sufficiency strategy delivering 72
additional places in special schools and arts, saving of 2 .8 million. Dan you sent
out some information I think last week on the sufficiently strategy and had 106
places in send schools does that include that 72 from this document or is that on
top of that it will be inclusive of sorry is it Laura's yes sorry Laura and
it will include it and then I thought that that's those numbers are from Paula
Campbell Balcombe who has the most up -to -date numbers about everything that's been awarded
in terms of new places up until the day that I asked her which was last week so that that might
account for some of the discrepancy because there's been a number of developments that
happened quite recently and also when I sent that message out there's also the commitments thus far
for this year and I anticipate there'll be significantly more than that by the end of
this year as well. And I understand that obviously you're looking for cost
effective hits to start with your quick wins but it's just interesting you've
got 106 places at a cost of five million pounds and the following year you've got
34 additional places at a cost of three million. There's a significant change in
the ratio of places to cost. Yeah and I think part of that will be accounted for
by the type of place that's being offered. So for example an SCMH place will cost sometimes
two or three times as much as a place for a different kind of primary need.
Without going into the details I can't give you a more sort of forensic answer than that but
the cost is related to the type of place as well as each individual scheme that we enter into will
have a business case that's attached to it where we've had to arrive at a determination of what's
best value for money. For your reassurance we always cross reference with the kind of DFE
benchmarks in relation to cost per place from a capital perspective as well and our schemes
are somewhere between five and ten times as a factor less money per child as in terms of
capital investment. I mean the revenue costs are related to the type of need, the age and
Gaynor Bull - 0:57:54
model that's proposed as well. Thank you. Okay thank you everyone so I think we'll

6 School Specific Contingency Fund Terms of Reference

draw a close to that discussion and just say good luck with achieving 11 million
pounds worth of savings as part of your sufficiency strategy in the next 12
months. Well actually you've only got 10 months left because we're already. We'll
do that in six Gaynor, we'll have four months to do something else at the end. Thank you Dan. Okay and we move on to the
last item on the agenda is the school specific contingency fund terms of reference. And I
believe Janice was this discussed at your last meeting?
Yes, this is discussed at the meeting on the 2nd of June.
Jannice Freeman - 0:58:33
Okay. Do you want to just highlight a few points, basically?
Yes. So you'll be aware that there's been a number of changes to how the contingency
if one is allocated and what we can do with it and the terms of reference hadn't been
updated to reflect that. So at the meeting we went through some of those areas that needed
to change. So the amendments were suggesting are to say that there's no carry forward anymore
to change the name to corporate director because it was out of date and also the timings of
the meetings. Also the terms of reference currently allow people to apply to contingency
see if they have, um, uh, an in year deficit that exceeds 2 % of their budget share.
And they don't necessarily have to be in deficit at the end of the financial
year if that's the case. So we wish to actually remove that.
So it's only schools who are actually going to be in deficit at the end of the
year can comply, apply for contingency. Um, we still had a COVID,
a line in there on claiming for COVID. So we thought that better come out. Um,
And also we'd like to cap any award so that it only brings the school back to a zero budget
Rather than bringing giving it then a surplus budget
So those are the changes were proposing and also we've had an increased number of claims for redundancy cost cover
as an unexpected
unforeseen circumstances
And as the committee what we decided is if you are taking the decision to make
Those costs are foreseen because they're part of your financial plan to bring yourself back
into a surplus or not balancing budget.
However, if you're misinformed about the amount that the redundancies are going to cost, which
has happened to some schools because of unforeseen uplifts, you could still apply then for contingency
on that basis.
So we just wanted some clarification around that built into the terms of reference for people
Gaynor Bull - 1:00:41
Thank you Janice anyone got any questions on those terms of reference or if not we are in support of your recommended changes
Is there a report coming from the contingency?
Jannice Freeman - 1:00:54
So, yeah
We received 14 bids in total.
The amount they applied for was $528 ,591.
We actually only had $98 ,615 in the pot.
So far exceeded what we had.
We actually agreed to pay the $103 ,435.
Actually met the terms of reference and the criteria.
So that was then pro -routed so that schools
received 95 % of the agreed awards. We're still getting a lot of schools applying for special
needs costs to be covered by contingency, so we just need to remind colleagues that
that is not covered by contingency panel. But yes, so we've spent all the money.
Gaynor Bull - 1:01:48
That's no surprise, but thank you very much to the members of Schools Forum who've sat
on that panel. It is certainly well received when we are in a position to
allocate to any school. As you've utilised all of the reserve that we
carried forward, then potentially in terms of next year's de -delegation it
will involve some de -delegation to it provide a pot again? Yes, yes. Obviously the
Jannice Freeman - 1:02:16
De -Delegation Committee will look at what's affordable for schools while
providing a sufficient pot to actually be of use to everybody else.
Gaynor Bull - 1:02:26
And Doris, when does that de -delegation committee meet?
Doris Mutegi - 1:02:30
Jude Talbot - 1:02:39
Yeah, we usually meet late autumn term because we have to have the figures in time for you
Jannice Freeman - 1:02:41
to give us provisional budgets in January, February.
Doris Mutegi - 1:02:50
I think we would be having the same timing in terms of this year as well.
Gaynor Bull - 1:02:54
Perhaps we can have an update on that within the November meeting basically because that
will be needed to set ourselves right for the year.
Do we have any other questions that colleagues would like to raise that they haven't had
an opportunity to do so so far?
No?
Okay.
That's great.
Thank you very much for your time.
Good luck with your recovery, Dan, and see you in person soon, hopefully.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, everyone.