Agenda item

AH introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·       The DSG Management Plan was required by the Department for Education (DfE) to address the overall deficit in the DSG account, however, the Council was not required to submit the plan to DfE.

·       This was the first iteration showing the baseline position.

·       The forecast was for the “do nothing” position which predicted that if the current spend continued with no interventions, the deficit would be £70m by 2024.

·       It was important to stress that this was not a savings plan but was looking at improvements and initiatives to deliver best value and this was interrelated with the work already taking place such as the Written Statement of Action, the wider education transformation programme and the capital investment programme.

·       The aim was for the plan to be dynamic and further information would be added, such as benchmarking and financial data, to ensure an understanding of how the pressures were being managed and the financial impact of a range of interventions such as specialist provision; top up funding; working with early years sector and the Alternative Learning Provision (ALP) review.

·       The ownership and termly review of the plan would be held with Schools Forum in partnership with the local authority and would be led by the Task and Finish Groups that had been established for High Needs and Early Years.

AM, as Chair of the High Needs Task and Finish Group, reported:

·       The first meeting of the Task and Finish Group had taken place in May;

·       Although it was a worrying deficit situation, a lot of the data would quickly change, and the forecast was unlikely to remain as high as £70m.

·       The group would be looking at High Needs spend and in particular ALP and using the tool to benchmark against other local authorities. 

·       The plan was not seeking to make savings but to improve efficiency and make things more transparent and equitable across the city. 

·       The number of pupils with ECHPs was increasing and there would continue to be an increase in spend. 

·       There were some anomalies in the data this was something for the Task and Finish Groups to monitor as the role of the group was to ask questions and support the Local Authority (LA) in making the information accessible for Schools Forum.

RD, as Chair of the Early Years Group, reported:

·       The first meeting of the group considered the terms of reference and what it could achieve, and future meetings would start to review the data and modelling.

·       There was a need to consider the position in relation to high needs and the core funding model. 

·       The current funding model for Early Years was not sustainable either for private, voluntary, and/or independent (PVI) settings or LA maintained nurseries.  The LA had set up working groups with maintained nurseries to look at sustainable models of provision and this had the support of Heads and Governors in Early Years settings. This work had common financial and educational goals with the Task and Finish Group and so the groups would need to work closely together. 

·       The Early Years strategies developed by officers were set out on page 19 of the agenda pack and the Task and Finish Group would be inputting into these strategies and be involved in reviewing and monitoring them.  

·       The next Task and Finish Group would look at interventions and impact going forward.

Forum members were invited to feedback any comments/questions to the Clerk who would feed into the Task and Finish Groups.

The following questions were raised:

Although not a savings plan, at what point would savings be made to address the projected deficit?

AH responded that the plan would look at the data and drivers for the expenditure and whether best value was being delivered.  She confirmed that by undertaking this work, there would be an impact on cost which would alter where and how money was spent.

In terms of benchmarking, how does Bristol City Council compare with other local authorities? 

AH responded that benchmarking was an important part of the process and this information would start to be fed into the plan.  She reported that one of the key pieces of information which would soon be available was the SEN2 data. 

Forum Members also asked if future iterations of the plan could be presented in a way that was easy for Schools Forum to access and include milestones and timelines and ways that Forum could support the process.

In considering the recommendations, it was;

RESOLVED:

1)      the baseline position stated in the first iteration of the Plan be noted.

2)      the initial consultation with Schools Forum regarding the Plan following review by High Needs and Early Years Task & Finish Groups be noted.

3)      the intention for the Plan to be a dynamic document that would continue to evolve in future iterations be noted.

4)      the fact that additional stakeholder engagement, coproduction and engagement was required as the Plan evolved, and must include Schools Forum, education institutions, parents and carers, children and young people, elected members and health partners be noted.

5)      the next version of the Plan be bought to Schools Forum in September 2021.