Agenda item

          The Forum was presented with the DSG High Needs and Central Schools Services Blocks 2026/27. The High Needs Block allocation for 2026/27 was confirmed at £31.877m before Academy and Further Education (FE) recoupment and included the deduction for the net export of SEND pupils educated outside the borough. Academy and FE recoupment totals £4.970m for per‑place funding, as set out in the DfE’s published allocations. In January meeting, the Forum voted to transfer the headroom funding from the Schools Block into the CSSB. Halton had £26.907m available for distribution to specialist providers and to help manage ongoing cost pressures within the High Needs Block.

          This represented a headline increase of 8.92%, or a net increase of 5.7% in annual funding, within which both inflationary pressures and rising demand must be managed. However, this comparison was misleading, as the 2026/27 figure included the annualised value (approximately £2.1m) of previous separate grant elements in 2025/26 for pay and pensions uplifts and national insurance contributions.

          There were no proposals to increase the discretionary top up rates for resources places or special schools but there was a continuing expansion of resource-based programme which was consistent with the growth of travel referenced in the White Paper. Significant expansions in numbers at resource bases and increasing numbers and costs of out of borough provision, increases in numbers and value of EHCP (Education & Health Care Plan) assessments are all contributory factors in generating an initial forecast shortfall of £8.71m. £42m was needed to manage all High Needs services.

          A cumulative DSG deficit would be investigated at £27m and this would not incorporate the budget for 2027/28. It was predicted that there would be an overspend of £12m for 2027/28. The Forum agreed to an annually increased contribution for the established schools’ safeguarding post to mitigate the reduction of the ‘historic commitment’ funding into the CSSB.

          It was noted that the public did not understand how much services for high need pupils costed and much the overspend costed the Council. If demand was not met, then services suffered. High Needs services had a statutory override, so it was not included in base position of the DSG.

          Smaller authorities struggled to have their own specialist SEND provision which was why Halton and neighbouring authorities had to rely on out of borough placements. Providers increased their prices annually for these placements. It was rare for a local special to not be able to meet a pupil’s needs; they may be placed put of borough if there was no place locally, if constant provision was needed, or if there was a place at a neighbouring authority that could accommodate them. Pupils would not be placed back in borough if they thrived at their out of borough placements. Work was done regionally to mitigate excess rises in costs for out of borough placements. The Forum suggested that authorities who did send children to out of borough placements were looked at.

          The needs of pupils had increased significantly over a short amount of time.   It costed £10m for 144 pupils to be educated in non-maintained specialist schools with varying needs, including communication. Priorities for funding needed to be rationalised due to the increase of children in KS1 requiring specialist provision. Specialist provision became more ‘competitive’ following the introduction of EHCPs in 2014 and parents becoming more involved and paying private assessors to create EHCPs for children. There was an increase in EHCP applications for Year 6s, so it needed to be questioned as to why these applications were so late in a child’s education.

          More work with the Early Years sector was planned to enhance early year provision in nurseries.

          It was confirmed that all specialist schools, including Raise Academy, and resource provisions in Halton were full. If there were vacancies, then this was affected by the need of the child or children who would be placed there. For example, eight vacancies could only accommodate six pupils if there was a higher need. Mainstream schools who had pupils with complex needs did not receive as much funding as special school placements. It was noted that different schools had different needs that they had to address with pupils.

          The Council will proactively work towards the number limit with placements as set out in White Paper. Placements costed the Council £72,985 each in independent non-maintained schools. Resource provision centre placements were £180,000 per placement and there were between eight and ten pupils per centre. Schools with resource provision benefitted the Borough and schools had been contacted to see if they could enrol a child who was in an out of borough placement. This will be more proactive in the future and in conjunction with parents.  

          There was a disparity between EHCP Top Ups at primary and secondary schools due to the level of need. The amount of funding per Top Up was determined by a Panel. All resource provisions at schools received the same funding as per the service level agreement. Differential with this were dependent on the pupils who were placed at the centre. Early Years could not use alternative provision identification but the support around the Early Years Intervention Fund worked well, and this was praised as part of the Council’s SEND inspection. It was noted that schools must pay for alternative provision.

          It was suggested that members of the School Forum share case studies regarding the specialist provision that schools provided to discuss in the future.

          RESOLVED:

1)    That the report be noted.

That the Forum approve the proposal as set out in the report.