Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Wioletta Burra, Nick Cooper (with Herman Franks attending as a substitute) and Jude Enright.

None.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday 13 February 2025 as a correct record.

It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday 13 February 2025 as a correct record.

To consider any actions arising from previous meetings.

None.

This report sets out the final Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) outturn against the budget set for 2024/25.

Folake Olufeko (Head of Finance, Brent Council) introduced a report, which set out the final Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) outturn against the budget set for 2024/25 and provided detail on the in-year 2024/25 deficit of £0.4m.

The Forum noted the following key points as part of the update provided:

·            The in-year deficit was mainly due to overspend of £2.1m against the High Needs (HN) Block offset by a £1.5m underspend against the Early Years (EY) Block, £0.1m underspend against the Schools Block and £0.1m underspend against the Central Schools Services Block (CSSB).

·            The High Needs Block budget was £77.4m and the allocation included a contribution of £1.4m (or 0.5%) of Schools Block income.  This excluded £8.9m, which was recouped by the DfE to allocate directly to academies.

·            The High Needs block supported pupils in specialist provisions and mainstream settings.  It also covered specialist support services and costs in relation to post-16 provision.  The HN Block had reported an overspend of £2.1m.  The main reason for the pressure was the top-up funding for children placed in special schools and academies due to an increase in the number of pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and average unit costs from January 2025.  The number of children requiring EHCPs was 3,892 at the end of March 2025 compared to 3,598 in March 2024, an increase of 8.2%.  This had led to increases in the top-up funding for in-borough mainstream academies and special schools, additional placements in independent day special schools and alternative education settings for children awaiting placements, as well as increased pupils in post-16 provision.

·            The £2.3m overspend on the budgeted HN top-up funding allocation to schools in Brent.  This variance was primarily attributed to an increase in the number of pupils with SEND, reflecting a 9% growth in FTE pupils across Special, ARP and mainstream settings compared to 2023/24.  Additionally, an overspend of £0.3m had been incurred for the cost of placing Brent children in settings out of borough due to increased rates.

·            The £1.2m pressure against the independent day and residential top-up funding due to the increased number of pupils placed in these settings in addition to an increase of fees for some settings.  Independent school pupils had increased by 9% in 2024/25.

·            The £1.2m underspend against the SEN Services budgets due to unutilised funds held for contingencies.  Additionally, a further £0.6m underspend was reported across the SEN support and support for inclusion budgets. 

·            The £1.5m underspend against the EY Block, which had been mainly driven from the additional funding from the DfE to cover the increase in provision of free childcare for working parents from September 2024 to 30 hours.  This allocation was provided based on an estimated take-up of hours by working parents in Brent.  However, take-up had been lower than predicted leading to underspends of £0.5m and £0.7m reported against the under 2- to 2-year-old and the 2-year-old working parent entitlements respectively.

·            The EY Block was a self-contained block based on headcount and therefore there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report provides an update on the DSG Deficit Management Plan and Delivering Best Value Programme.

Shirley Parks (Director Education, Partnerships and Strategy, Brent Council) introduced a report, providing a further update on progress to date against the DSG Management Plan and an update on Brent’s participation in the Department for Education's (DfE) Delivering Better Value (DBV) in Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) programme, aimed at supporting a reduction in expenditure against the High Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools’ Grant (DSG

The Forum noted the following key points as part of the update provided:

·            The Delivering Better Value programme was focussed on understanding and testing elements of how the SEND system worked and to see if efficiencies could be found in allocating and funding.

·            A rise in demand of Education, Health & Care Plans (EHCPs) had been noted over the years and there was a concern that the budget would not keep pace with the growth in EHCPs. Funding allocations for the High Needs Block had increased by 3% in 2024-25 and 6% in 2025-26, however EHCPs had increased by 8-11% in that time period.

·            There was a need to manage the rising demand of EHCPs so it was important to only maintain EHCPs as long as they were needed, to make use of all available funding and to ascertain whether a child’s needs could be met through ordinarily available provision.

·            Much work was being done to improve sufficiency of school places and work with partners to set up satellite provisions or expand existing special school places.

·            The DBV programme had officially come to an end in March 2025.  However, as detailed within the report some of the DBV pilot projects were being taken forward into business as usual.  These included work in relation to Intervention First, SEND Assurance, Workforce and inclusive environments and Commissioning and a focus (working with a group of Head Teachers) to develop the structure of SEND support services across the borough.

·            Roxanne Glennon highlighted the concern around the pressure on spend placed by the independent sector placements and need to ensure appropriate commissioning arrangements.

Following this, the Chair asked the Forum for any comments or questions with the following noted:

·            Nigel Chapman highlighted that work had been ongoing with partners over the last 3 years with Brent having maintained a stable position in relation to management of its deficit and commended all colleagues involved.

·            The pressures experienced by schools in regard to management of their budgets was recognised with colleagues for their hard work.

·            Further details were sought in regard to costs and allocations for independent schools.  ACTION: Folake Olufeko and Roxanna Glennon agreed to provide this information at the next meeting.

·            Calcification was sought on whether the Intervention First approach would be retained in the Harlesden cluster as well as expanded to other clusters.  Roxanna Glennon emphasized the importance of positive and impactful intervention.  This academic year, the Intervention First project had been extended to January 2026, as the ICB had started offering mental health intervention and added that it was crucial to commission accordingly to avoid any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report details the Scheme for Financing Schools and the Schools Financial Regulations for the financial year 2025-26.

Folake Olufeko (Head of Finance, Brent Council) introduced a report, which detailed the Scheme for Financing Schools and the Schools Financial Regulations for the financial year 2025-26.  The Forum noted the following key points as part of the update provided:

·            All changes applied in the revision were in line with the March 2025 Department for Education’s Scheme for Financing Local Authority Maintained Schools – Statutory Guidance issued to Local Authorities, changes to the Local Authority’s own regulations, the new EU Public Procurement Regulations and all relevant regulations.

·            The Scheme for Financing Schools for 2025/26 attached in Appendix A had been updated, with the summary of changes itemised in Appendix B.  The changes would be immediately effective following Schools Forum approval.

·            The Schools Financial Regulations for 2025/26, attached as Appendix C, had been updated, with the summary of changes itemised in Appendix D.  The changes would be immediately effective after consultation with Schools Forum.

The Chair thanked Folake Olufeko for her report and asked the Forum if they had any questions in relation to the information provided.  In noting that approval of the proposed changes to the Scheme for Financing Schools and consultation on the 2025-26 Schools Financial Regulations would only be open to maintained school members on the Schools Forum it was RESOLVED, with no further comments having been raised, that the maintained schools’ representatives on the Forum:

(1)       Approve the amendments to the Scheme for Financing Schools 2025/26.

(2)       Note (having been invited to formally comment) the Schools Financial Regulations 2025/26.

This report provide an update on the Additionally Resourced Provisions and Early Years Banding Review.

Shirley Parks (Director Education, Partnerships and Strategy, Brent Council) introduced the report, which provided an update on the Additionally Resourced Provisions and Early Years Banding Review.  The Forum noted the following key points as part of the update provided:

·            Schools Forum had received a report on 19 June 2024 on a proposed banding SEND Resource Allocation System (RAS) to move away from the current hours led system to a needs-led, provision-based approach for mainstream schools and Additional Resource Provisions (ARPs), early years settings and post-16 settings.  Following consideration of that report it had been agreed that consultation would be undertaken with schools and settings in the autumn term on the proposed new approach.

·            The report presented for consideration covered two proposed changes to HN funding in EY and ARPs.  The Early Years Inclusion Fund (EYIF), which totalled just under £1.7M, as outlined in Table 1.  The funds were allocated through two main channels: ‘Children with Disabilities’ (CWD) places and Additionally Resourced Provision (ARP) places.  Additionally, EYIF provided financial support to Private, Voluntary, and Independent (PVI) settings, as well as childminders to support children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) via SENIF.

·            The disparity in Brent in relation to how ARPs were funded.

·            Currently, allocation of the EYIF was overseen by the Under 5s Nursery multi-agency panel (held monthly).  CWD or ARP places were agreed using supporting evidence from a paediatrician report or an EHCP.  SENIF funding to the PVI settings was awarded using a two-tier banding system, where either £2,850 or £4,560 top-up was awarded.

·            Many Local Authorities did not offer enhanced nursery provision.  The SENIF bandings covered most levels of need and for those children with complex needs and there were some early years resourced provisions which provided specialist support.

·            Currently Early Years SENIF funding had only two bands.  This meant that emerging needs were either not supported or were financially over-supported.  For children with more complex needs, PVI settings were not appropriately funded to meet need.  This in turn was driving demand and pressure on the enhanced nursery settings and limiting parental choice.

·            Early Years providers could face a significant administrative burden in applying for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) before a child started school, often at a stage of a child’s development where it remained uncertain what their long-term needs would be.  Early Years providers needed resources to be provided in a timely manner.

·            Waiting times for EHCPs and paediatrician reports could impact on the allocation of places in a timely fashion contributing to empty places within settings and delayed support for children.

·            SENCOs reported that they find the Graduated Approach Framework useful but they could not access funding quickly enough, particularly for those children who clearly had complex needs.

·            There was a lack of clarity about the difference between enhanced nursery placements and the nursery resourced provisions. The funding of different placements at different levels needed to be clearer, alongside clear reporting on delivery from the providers.

·            In Early Years, terminology ‘CWD’ and ‘ARP’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

None.

Members are asked to note the schedule of dates for meetings of the Schools Forum during the 2025-26 Municipal Year as follow:

·             Tuesday 11 November 2025

·             Monday 1 December 2025 (additional date if needed)

·             Monday 26 January 2026

·             Thursday 26 February 2026

These meetings have all been scheduled to be held online starting at 6pm.

Members noted the remaining schedule of dates for meetings of the Schools Forum during the 2025-26 Municipal Year as follows with all meetings to be held online starting at 6pm:

·            Tuesday 11 November 2025

·            Monday 1 December 2025 (additional date if needed)

·            Monday 26 January 2026

·            Thursday 26 February 2026