Report by the Director for Children’s Services

The report was introduced by Cllr Brighouse and Mr Gordon. They advised that the issues relating to SEND were complex and needed to be understood in the national context.  It was a critical point for SEND finances across the country and it required Central Government to intervene.  A response was awaited from the Government to the Green Paper on SEND which had been issued for public consultation but had closed in Summer 2022.

Hayley Good, Deputy Director of Education, Kate Bradley, Head of SEND and Sarah Fogden, Finance Business Partner, Children, were in attendance to provide a presentation and respond to questions and points raised by the Committee.  It was stated that there had been some indication that the Government would provide an update on the SEND Green Paper during January 2023 but this was yet to be confirmed.  From a local perspective, there had been a significant increase in requests for Education and Health Care Needs Assessments and subsequently for Plans.  Every time there was a Plan funding was attached to this.  The number of Plans since the reforms had been introduced had increased from 2,233 in 2014/15 to 5,025 in 2021/22. This was an increase of 125%.  The allocation of funding from Central Government had increased by 49% during this time.  Changes were needed to prevent the deficit becoming wider.

It was explained that the High Needs Block (HNB) via Central Government was intended to enable local authorities to meet their statutory duties for Children and Young People with SEND up to the age of 25.  The HNB was based on a formula including historical spending patterns plus local factors including population and levels of deprivation.  Oxfordshire had a relatively high number of ‘floor funded schools’ and were funded at the minimum amount.  The formula meant that if needs varied from year to year they were not fully reflected in local budgets and a pupil with the same need could attract significantly more or less funding in one local authority than another.  Oxfordshire was the 22^nd lowest funded out of 151 local authorities.

It was confirmed that the High Needs Funding grant received by the Council was £74.5m and the demand for services via the HNB was expected to cost £92m in the current year.  The forecast overspend was therefore £17.5m.  In Oxfordshire, 16.3% of the children in special schools were in independent provision compared to 12.3% nationally.  Parents could request a preference for a placement at a special school, including in independent provision.

The Committee was advised that there had been a detailed public consultation on the local area SEND strategy which covered education, social care and health and included proposals to make SEND system reforms locally.  This also looked at some system reform opportunities as it was recognised that there were aspects that needed to be done differently going forward.  Work was now proceeding on the implementation plan and this was due to be shared in the coming weeks.

In terms of seeking to respond to the fact that there were not sufficient places in Oxfordshire’s maintained special schools, which was a key reason as to why children had to travel to school outside the county, the Council was not able to unilaterally open new special schools.  There were two new special school builds in progress at Bloxham Grove and Faringdon and bids for a further two special free schools had been submitted to the Department for Education (DfE).  The Council had put itself forward to be part of DfE’s Delivering Better Value programme, one of twenty local authorities involved.

Officers confirmed that significant levels of lobbying had taken place to improve the funding formula for Oxfordshire.  This included the Council being part of the F40 Group, consisting of the lowest funded local authorities, which lobbied Parliament and the Secretary of State for Education.  There had been an uptick in the national funding formula of 5% in the current year but the position relative to other local authorities had not changed.  It was considered that the funding formula was out of date taking into account high population growths and changes to the areas of deprivation and need.

It was recognised that the deprivation indicators did not take into account the increase in SEND prevalence rates.  More contemporary approaches needed to be pursued in terms of the school funding formula.  Deprivation had historically been linked to SEND but the prevalence was across communities, including the more affluent in Oxfordshire.  One of the biggest changes was the ability to identify autistic spectrum disorder with a 60% increase in children coming forward for statutory assessment.  

It was clarified for a place in a special school, DfE funded the first £6k.  At independent special schools there was no additional funding from the high needs grant.  Transport costs for children travelling to independent special schools out of county impacted on the Council, being from the revenue budget rather than the HNB.  Officers emphasised that the costs of the children’s places were not directly proportionate to the outcomes.  Often outcomes were better for the children in Oxfordshire’s maintained special schools and academies.

The Committee was keen to understand how the SEND finance overspend was funded.  It was stated that this went into a negative reserve on the balance sheet.  The DfE had negotiated a technical accounting override until 2025/26.  The deficit was currently £122m.  It was estimated that the overspend on SEND finances was £2bn nationally.  Lorna Baxter, Director for Finance, confirmed that regulations prohibited Council funding being put into the HNB.  She stated that the Council had a demographic risk reserve where it held some funding to help bolster the overall level of reserves.  There would then be some funding to offset part of the overspend.  It was noted that there was not a deficit cap for local authorities.

The ability to obtain more SEND school places was considered.  It was noted that all schools were opened as free schools and were academies by default.  They all had a resource base planned at the premises as requested by DfE.  The Council had to wait for wave funding to become available from Central Government and then submit an application for a new special school.  It was agreed that officers would provide the Committee with a breakdown of the funding model for the bids for the two special free schools.  It was believed that some S106 funding was involved with one of the free schools.  It was agreed that officers would also come back to the Committee with information as to whether there was the capacity with S106 funding to expand existing special schools in order to increase places.

The Committee noted that the emphasis was on funding directly from DfE rather than via Community Infrastructure Levy pooled funding.  Members also noted that there were expansion projects across the county to increase special school places within existing schools in addition to plans for new schools.   

The Committee examined whether there was the scope to have a policy of working with organisations who were non-profit.  Members were advised that there were children who needed very specialist provision and in some cases this was provided by the for profit sector.

The Committee considered that progress needed to be made on a national level following the Green Paper and the issue of Councils carrying deficits addressed.  There was a need to explore further with neighbouring authorities how councils could meet the more specific needs of children in the higher cost independent sector.

The Parent Carer Forum’s recommendations were discussed.  Members were advised that the Director for Children’s Services and the Deputy Director of Education met with the group regularly and covered off their recommendations within meetings.  There had been a Council response to the Parent Carer Forum which was being included in a newsletter for parents and this would be provided to the Committee.  They added that they were leading on a series of webinars for parents, starting at the end of January and they were liaising with the Parent Carer Forum to agree the agenda and the focus for these meetings. 

The following actions were AGREED:

1)          Officers to provide the Committee with a breakdown of the funding model for the bids for the two special free schools.

2)          Officers to provide the Committee with information as to whether there was the capacity with S106 funding to expand existing special schools in order to increase places.

3)          Officers to set out numbers on list of SEND independent school providers.

4)          a Council response to the Parent Carer Forum which was being included in a newsletter for parents to be provided to the Committee.

Recommendation: That the Council investigate the possibility of working with neighbouring Local Authorities to increase local provision of SEND services.