Agenda item

DSG Deficit Recovery Plan: DfE response and update

Minutes:

A copy of the DfE’s acknowledgement of the LA’s DSG recovery plan had been made available with the agenda. The DfE had offered support to further develop the plan, with a request for clarity on a number of issues, the first three quoted in the letter being key.  This included a lack of estimated numbers of future EHCPs, limited firm plans around savings proposals and a request for how certain calculations had been reached.  It had been noted that savings had been transferred between blocks and a DSG recovery plan should not have included High Needs. The ESFA did not expect any further block transfers.

 

DfE representatives were due to visit the LA for a meeting on Wednesday 22 January to discuss the recovery plan.  Work was in hand to address the issues raised but time scales were tight.  The plan required considerable work as the deficit was disproportionately high and needed to be bought under control. Although the deficit was high, the LA believed it was underfunded, as was the case for a number of LAs.  It was stressed to Forum that it would not be possible to achieve a break-even balance within three years. 

 

There was a need to prepare for the meeting with the DfE which it was hoped would result in establishing what was required, with time scales and expected outcomes.  It was expected there would be 6-7 months to finalise any proposals. The DSG recovery plan would be revised and proposals presented to Forum to allow for 2021/22 budget planning. It was agreed that the National Funding Formula (NFF) would impact on schools and add further complexities.

 

It was pointed out that Slough’s figures were disproportionate to statistically and physically neighbouring authorities and more information as to why Slough was an outlier could be provided to members. 

 

9.50am: Ray Hinds left the meeting

 

A member asked that the LA consider the unintended consequences of SEND tribunals. It was acknowledged that the expectations placed upon schools were challenging and there was a need to give priority to the children involved.  It was added that, if the LA were not in the current deficit situation, consideration could be given to increasing inclusive support work.  It was acknowledged there was a need to be more inclusive but not all the funding available was for SEND.

 

Neil Sykes and Jamie Rockman offered their support to work with LA colleagues on this issue and it was agreed the High Needs Task Group should arrange to meet with some urgency.

 

LA colleagues would report back to Schools Forum members on the DfE’s response, following the meeting scheduled for Wednesday 22 January.

Supporting documents: