Agenda item

Annual DSG Report 2017-18

Minutes:

George Grant presented a comprehensive report on the 2017-18 DSG out-turn across Early Years, Schools and High Needs Blocks, together with a commentary on the impact of spending. Schools Block had broken even, Early Years showed a surplus and the High Needs Block had overspent (noted in Table 1 of the report).

 

Within the Schools Block the majority of funding was passed to schools hence the break-even position. The impact of the centrally retained expenditure was detailed in supporting Appendix C.

 

The Early Years Block underspend of £818,000 was primarily because of demand-led 30 hours provision, with slower than expected uptake (reflecting the national picture).The reasons for the variances were set out in paragraph 4.3.6.

 

High Needs was significantly overspent: this was not new information, but it was significant and of concern accounting for an accumulated deficit now of £5.5m. The situation in Slough was reflected across the country and there was a national task group of Children’s Services working on this issue, with a view to lobbying Government.  There was not enough funding allocated to High Needs and it was not anticipated that this would lead to any developments in the short term, and possibly medium term. It was anticipated the deficit balance could increase before it improved.

 

The report outlined the main pressures and causes of overspend (see 4.4.6 and 4.4.7) and gave a year on year analysis within the report. The main factor was an increase in out-of-borough placements for complex needs.

 

It was noted that a range of initiatives was being explored to reduce the High Needs Block deficit over the next three years and a report would be presented to Schools Forum when potential savings had been quantified.

 

Members made it clear that the current reviews should focus on value for money and provision, not just savings.

 

Peter Collins stated clearly, on behalf of Headteachers involved in the Resource Base review group, that the group was assured the focus was about provision and ensuring that children were receiving the correct support in the right setting.  On behalf of the LA, it was confirmed that the review was intended to ensure children were placed in the right provision for them whilst making the best use of the funding available.

 

It was noted that language was very important and that identifying this review as being about potential savings was not helpful.

 

With regard to the Banding Review, it was noted that schools felt that top up bandings did not recognise economies of scale, which should be given recognition. Schools could be in danger of going into deficit and the Forum had to be mindful of the pressures on schools.

 

It was noted that there had been overspending on ‘hard to place’ funding due to the lack of places available in Years 10 and 11; it was stressed these had not been vulnerable students, there had just not been enough places available. This should not have been funded from the High Needs Block and had amounted to approximately £200,000.

 

There was a strength of feeling among members that the High Needs Block required more attention at Schools Forum to ensure a high standard of provision was maintained. 

 

Paragraph 4.6.6 contained a table giving an overview of maintained schools’ balances; it was felt the majority were reasonable.  It was noted that one was in deficit and following meetings with the LA, a plan had been put in place to deal with the situation; two schools highlighted had low balances and had agreed budget plans in place for the new academic year. The LA felt the schools would benefit from the support given.

 

A member asked what action was being taken for those schools that had a large surplus.  George Grant explained the schools with high balances were approached by the LA to understand why.  The schools quoted in the report had planned for specific projects i.e. premises etc.

 

It was queried whether the process was robust enough. George Grant confirmed that forward plans were known, the large expenditure was not in isolation and there should be long term planning to be aware of how resources were being used. There were time scales in place and the LA did challenge and address such schools. It was felt the system was robust and in line with academies. It was also noted that the DfE monitored school balances.

 

It was pointed out that the Growth Fund outlined in the report did not match that in Tony Madden’s report.  George Grant agreed to follow this up and would advise members accordingly (Update: the differences noted were in relation to back payments which had been honoured in 2017-18).

 

George Grant was thanked for his full and informative report and it was agreed that this should be an annual report to Schools Forum.

Supporting documents: