DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) 2016/17 DSG BUDGET AND ...... · DSG shortfall. 7.0 Proposals for Early Years Block Funding 7.1 It is estimated that the 2016/17 DSG funding shortfall

Page 1 of 41

Contact: Shabana Kausar, Finance Manager (Strategic Lead - Schools) Tel: 020 8583 3997 E-Mail: [email protected]

Schools Forum: 9 November 2015

DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) – 2016/17 DSG BUDGET AND OPTIONS ON

MITIGATING FUTURE OVERSPEND ON THE DSG (UPDATE)

Report by: Shabana Kausar, Finance Manager (Strategic Lead - Schools), Finance and

Corporate Services

Summary: At the last School’s Forum meeting in September, members requested an additional meeting be held to discuss further information on saving proposals for the early years and high needs block. The report provides an update on the DSG shortfall and highlights the issues that need to be considered.

1.0 Recommendation

1.1 Schools Forum considers and makes a recommendation to the Lead Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services in respect of the continuance into 2016/17 of the previously approved transfer of DSG between the Early Years, High Needs and Schools block (3.3)

1.2 Schools Forum considers the unfunded pressures and funding shortfall in DSG for 2016/17 and makes recommendation to Lead Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services

a) to set the AWPU unit rate in 2016/17 to reflect a reduction of £50 in the primary

and secondary sector AWPU unit rates (6.0)

b) to set the Special Schools and Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) funding to reflect a 1.5% reduction (appendix 3)

c) to consider either 15% or 20% reduction to the SEN statement top-up rates put forward by the SEN Task and Finish Group in the High Needs Funding Report (appendix 4)

d) to recharge schools for the copyright licenses (9.4)

1.3 Schools Forum considers and makes recommendation to Lead Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services:

a) to consider the recommendations outlined in the Early Years Funding Report

(appendix 3)

Page 2 of 41

b) to consider all other recommendations (not included above) outlined in the High Needs Funding Report (appendix 4)

2.0 Background

2.1 Following the Schools Forum meeting on 21st September 2015, the members agreed

that they required more information in order to make decisions on the following options and issues outlined in the report “Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) – 2016-17 DSG Budget and Options on mitigating future overspend on the DSG”:

a) Recommendation 1.8: Schools Forum considers the unfunded pressures and funding shortfall in DSG for 2016-17 and makes recommendation to Lead Cabinet Member to set the AWPU unit rate in 2016-17 to reflect a reduction of £50 in the primary and secondary sector AWPU unit rates.

b) Recommendation 1.9: Schools Forum considers and makes recommendation to the Lead Cabinet Member in respect of the continuance in 2016-17 of the previously approved transfer of DSG from the Schools Block to the Early Years block; the financial implications for early years settings of reducing or ceasing fully the transfer and impact on the EYSFF hourly rate, subject to minimum funding guarantee regulations.

c) Recommendation 1.10: Schools Forum notes the underlying base budget shortfall in the 2016-17 DSG of £4.1m, after taking account of the proposed reduction in the 2016-17 AWPU, and that the SEN task and finish group is 4tasked with making recommendations to Schools Forum on possible savings within the high needs block.

3.0 2016/2017 Estimated Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Funding Shortfall

3.1 The table below outlines the estimated DSG funding shortfall in 2016/17 of £6.8m

between the provisional DSG allocation for 2016/17, before adjustment for pupil number changes from the October 2015 pupil census, compared with the projected expenditure. Table 1: 2016/17 Estimated DSG Funding Shortfall

* 2016/17 Draft Budget figures include previously agreed movements between the blocks

3.2 The table above shows the projected expenditure in the high needs block is £11.9m

in excess of the DSG High Needs block allocation. In the present financial climate this is unsustainable and unaffordable, and is the major contributory factor to the overall DSG estimated funding shortfall as £6.4m relates to SEN pressures, of which £2.45m relates additional growth pressures in 2016/17.

2016/2017 £m

Provisional DSG Grant

Projected Spend

Variance

Schools Block 179.199 170.957 (8.242)

Early Years Block 14.309 16.333 2.024

High Needs Block 31.576 43.441 11.865

Central 0.000 1.008 1.008

Other – NQTs 0.051 0.051 0.000

Less Adjustment for Copyright Licences (0.161) 0.000 0.161

Total 224.974 231.790 6.816

2016/17 Estimated DSG Funding Shortfall 6.816

Page 3 of 41

3.3 The DSG has been split into three notional blocks – schools, early years and high

needs. The blocks are not ring-fenced but the DfE will continue to ring-fence the DSG as a whole. This means that decision to transfer funding between blocks is with the local authority (in consultation with the forum). Previously the Schools Forum have approved the following transfers between DSG blocks which is being recommended to remain.

Table 2: Summary of previously approved transfers between DSG blocks

Approved transfers between DSG Blocks

£m

Early Years

High Needs

Total

As a result of cessation of 3 year old transitional protection from 2013, the authority lost £1.8m of funding over the 2 years. This was recognised and planned for by the service in consultation with School Forum who approved and transferred agreed funding in 2014/15

0.9 0.9

Pressures to meet increased cost of EYSFF hourly rate 0.7 0.7

In order to meet the significant additional funding pressures in the high needs block Schools Forum has in previous years approved transfer of funding from the Schools Block to the High Needs block. The transfers reflect the unfunded pressures/growth bids submitted by SEN.

4.4 4.4

Reduction in AWPU for Primary and Secondary sectors in 2015/16 to fund High Need pressures

1.1 1.1

Total 1.6 5.5 7.1

4.0 DSG Reserves

4.1 The estimated DSG funding shortfall in 2015/16 is £4.1m and is being funded from:

a) £1.3m estimated clawbacks to recoup all high needs top-ups in respect of

vacant/unfilled places across special schools, centres and other establishments

b) £2.8m is being funded from one-off DSG reserves

4.2 After depleting the reserves to fund the 2015/16 DSG shortfall, only £2.3m will be available in 2016/17 to support any budget shortfall. This is subject to there being no further increase in 2015/16 SEN pressures and all the recouped income from SEN top-ups is realised fully in the current year.

5.0 Options to fund the DSG Shortfall

5.1 The options available to meet the estimated DSG funding shortfall in 2016/17 of £6.9m are very limited which are further limited by the operation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) regulations.

5.2 In setting the budget for 2016/17 and future years it will be necessary to set a balanced budget which reflects the growing pressures in terms of both demand and complexity in the high needs block. There have been a number of significant SEN financial pressures in previous years and are anticipated to continue into 2016/17 and beyond. This is as a result of;

Page 4 of 41

increased demand, complexity of pupil needs

no additional funding from DfE in respect of growth or adequate funding to meet the increased demand

5.3 The next few sections will be outlining proposals of savings options which have been

put forward by council officers, some of which include;

Schools Block: Reduction in AWPU funding formula factor

Early Years Block: Reduction in hourly rates

High Needs Block: Reduction in SEN top-up fees 6.0 Proposal for Reducing the AWPU Funding Formula Factor Unit Rate

6.1 Any reduction in the AWPU unit value would trigger the Minimum Funding Guarantee

(MFG) formula for:

a) any school already on MFG; or b) those schools losing more than 1.5% of their per pupil funding

6.2 In both of the above scenarios this will limit the amount that could be released from

schools delegated budgets to off-set the funding shortfall in the DSG.

6.3 In the last report to the Schools Forum on 21st September the following three options were put forward:

Table 3: AWPU Reduction Savings Option

AWPU Reduction Options - £m

Option 1:

£30 Option 2:

£50 Option 3:

£75

Amount cut from schools delegated budgets by reduction in AWPU unit value before impact of MFG formula factor

1.038 1.731 2.596

Increase in MFG protection in the funding formula in Schools delegated budgets

(0.383) (0.744) (1.347)

Amount released from Schools delegated budgets after impact of MFG protection

0.655 0.987 1.249

6.4 Appendix 1 provides detail at school level but it should be noted that the actual

impact at school budget level will not be known until the authority has agreed the 2016/17 formula allocations. The options are based on 2015/16 DfE return which uses 2014/15 as the base budget upon which the MFG is calculated.

6.5 It would not be recommended to apply the following two reductions because:

1. A £75 reduction to the current AWPU unit value will;

greatly reduces the amount realised through this reduction in AWPU due to the impact of the MFG protection formula factor, as more than half of the reduction in AWPU is protected by MFG

put almost all primary schools and eight of the fourteen secondary schools onto MFG

Page 5 of 41

2. A £35 reduction to the current AWPU unit value will not release enough savings to meet the estimated shortfall in DSG and therefore a larger reduction is preferable.

6.6 Option 2 is the preferred option as a £50 reduction in AWPU would release just under

£1m from schools delegated budgets which will partially offset the 2016/17 estimated DSG shortfall.

7.0 Proposals for Early Years Block Funding

7.1 It is estimated that the 2016/17 DSG funding shortfall in the Early Years block is

£0.43m and assumes the continuance of transfer from the Schools Block. However, if the transfer is not approved then the estimated DSG funding shortfall will increase by £1.6m to £2.02m.

7.2 The 2016/17 DSG provisional funding is based on 2015/16 DfE rates but the Government has indicated its intention to increase the hourly rate for 3 and 4 year old funding, to be published as part of its spending review. It should be noted that currently Hounslow receives 48p per hour less on 3 and 4 year olds from what the DfE funds (£3.97 per hour) and 47p less for every hour of support on 2 year olds (£5.53 per hour).

7.3 Financial Strategy and Saving proposals:

7.4 Appendix 3 outlines in detail the financial strategy and saving proposals for early years DSG block.

8.0 Proposals for High Needs Block Funding

8.1 It is estimated that the 2016/17 DSG funding shortfall in the High Needs block is

£3.2m which assumes:

the continuance of transfer from the Schools Block (£5.5m)

estimated clawback of high needs top-ups in respect of unfilled places (£1.4m)

use of one-off DSG reserves (£2.3m) 8.2 Financial Strategy and Saving proposals:

8.3 Appendix 4 outlines in detail the financial strategy and saving proposals for high

needs DSG block.

9.0 Options to Fund the 2016/17 DSG Shortfall 9.1 The 2016/17 projected DSG funding shortfall is £3.2m which takes in to account the

£7.1m historic transfer from schools block, £1.3m of estimated clawback recouping unfilled places and use of one off reserves.

Page 6 of 41

Table 5: 2016/17 Projected DSG Funding Shortfall

2016/2017 £m

Early Years

Block High Needs

Block Funding

Gap

Funding Shortfall 2.024 11.865 13.889

Funding Transfer (1.599) (5.474) (7.073)

Estimated DSG Funding Shortfall 2016/17 6.816

Estimated clawback from unfilled places (1.349) (1.349)

Use of One off DSG Reserves (2.278) (2.278)

Estimated DSG Funding Shortfall 2016/17 after use of reserves 3.189

Proposed Savings:

AWPU reduction £50 (0.987) (0.987)

1.5% reduction in Special School/Pru (0.228) (0.228)

Total including proposed savings 0.425 1.547 1.974

Estimated DSG Funding Shortfall 2016/17 1.974

9.2 After exhausting all the reserves there still is a funding shortfall of £1.97m which

needs to be found in order to set a balances budget.

9.3 Other options:

9.4 Copyright Licences:

9.5 Since 2014/15 the DfE have managed the copyright licences for all state maintained schools in England. From 1 April 2015 four additional licences have been included, taking the total of centrally managed licences to ten (appendix 2 provides the full list).

9.6 The DfE will deduct the total amount due to each CMO from the DSG payment due to the Council and will pay this direct. It is expected for the council to recoup the deduction from the DSG payment by recharging schools for their share.

9.7 For 2015/16 DfE deducted £160,991.51 from Hounslow’s DSG payment.

9.8 The council intends to recoup this amount in quarter 4 of this financial year. Going forward the council will inform schools of the value and date of the recharge as soon as DfE have provided confirmation, it is therefore recommended that this recharge is costed within schools budget plan.

9.9 Use of School Balances:

9.10 As agreed at the last schools forum, options around school balance levels and excessive balance clawbacks will be included within the Scheme for Financing for Schools consultation to be issued in November.

9.11 Other:

Page 7 of 41

9.12 The options available to meet the funding shortfall £1.81m on the DSG, after utilising all available DSG reserves, recharging schools for copyright licences and assuming that the proposed savings will be approved, are very limited.

Other reductions across the wider DSG

Review of funding formula and factor values 9.13 Changing the Funding Formula

9.14 Where the funding issue cannot be resolved through the normal channels (via

Schools Forum) then as last resort the Council can seek permission from Secretary of State for the MFG protection to be dis-applied. This will give the council the ability to re-set rates by adopting a new formula and setting a new base budget, one that is affordable and sustainable.

9.15 The key risk for the Council is that the Secretary of State can reject the application. Also any application by the local authority can be perceived negatively by DfE and can have a reputational impact.

9.16 2017/18 onwards:

9.17 With the one off DSG reserves exhausted in 2016/17 the projected shortfall

(excluding proposed 2016/17 savings) is £5.6m. This does not take into account any new growth in SEN and early years.

10.0 Financial Implications

10.1 This report covers the funding through the DSG, which is a specific ring-fenced grant.

10.2 There are no financial implications for the Council’s General fund in 2015/16. However, there is a serious risk to the General Fund in 2016/17 and beyond if the necessary cost reductions, savings and changes to the service delivery model are not made, in particular the high needs block.

11.0 Comments of the Assistant Director Strategic Finance

11.1 The projected shortfall on the 2016/17 DSG indicates unfunded pressures of £6.9m

before application of the remaining DSG reserves of £2.3m, leaving estimated unfunded pressures within the DSG of £3.2m for 2016/17. Projecting the DSG shortfall forward into 2017/18 it is anticipated that there would be a base budget shortfall of £5.6m before the addition of any 2017/18 unfunded growth pressures. There will be no remaining DSG reserves and the Council will need to consider measures to avoid an overspend on the DSG impacting on the Council’s General Fund.

11.2 There is concern about the increasing spend and volume of activity within the high needs block as pupil numbers increase and needs become more complex and funding through the DSG does not increase. There is a significant budget gap for 2015/16 and also 2016/17 in the high needs block which will need addressing, and some possible options for offsetting the deficit, i.e. AWPU reduction, early years savings and school balances have been identified in the report.

11.3 There is clearly a need to find a way of managing the increase in high needs pressures within the existing DSG funding envelope and for the schools community, LA and finance to work together to manage this to affordable levels which does not

Page 8 of 41

destabilise mainstream schools. It is not feasible simply to correct the position for this year by using the reserves, as this can only be considered as a one-off, and not take into account the pressure on places that are predicted to increase further in the next few years and the depletion of reserves and the funding shortfall in 2016/17. Measures will need to be agreed that make a significant contribution to the underlying funding shortfall.

11.4 The position is not financially sustainable going forward and the current situation would certainly affect the budget of all schools in the borough, both maintained and academies.

Appendix 1 Estimated Impact on Schools of AWPU Reduction at £30, £50 and £75

Page 9 of 41

The calculation below provides example, using the 2015/16 budget information of what the impact will look like for each School if the AWPU rate was cut by either £30, £50 or £75.

School Name 2016/17

Base Budget (col a)

2016/17 Base Budget with £30 AWPU Cut

(col b)


(col c)


(col d)

Belmont Primary School 1,665,843 1,654,562 1,646,242 1,642,780

Cranford Primary School 2,519,989 2,501,689 2,499,466 2,499,466

Cardinal Road I & N School 1,258,891 1,258,891 1,258,891 1,258,891

Cavendish Primary School 978,948 978,948 978,948 978,948

Alexandra Primary School 2,823,417 2,823,417 2,823,417 2,823,417

Feltham Hill Infant & Nursery School 1,442,896 1,440,304 1,433,424 1,424,824

Grove Park Primary School 1,257,777 1,257,777 1,257,777 1,257,777

Victoria Junior School 1,508,683 1,498,782 1,498,782 1,498,782

Hounslow Heath Junior School 2,220,694 2,205,294 2,205,294 2,205,294

Hounslow Heath Infant & Nursery School 2,490,451 2,490,451 2,490,451 2,490,451

Hounslow Town Primary School 3,051,613 3,032,379 3,032,379 3,032,379

Isleworth Town Primary 2,708,386 2,688,226 2,687,853 2,687,853

Lionel Primary School 2,083,836 2,077,905 2,068,465 2,056,665

Marlborough Primary School 2,778,892 2,759,212 2,746,092 2,742,683

Norwood Green Nursery And Infant School 1,575,124 1,564,834 1,559,575 1,559,575

Southville Junior School 1,551,167 1,540,487 1,538,451 1,538,451

Southville Infants School 1,248,960 1,248,960 1,248,960 1,248,960

Sparrow Farm Infant & Nursery School 1,144,458 1,144,458 1,144,458 1,144,458

Spring Grove Primary School 1,175,644 1,175,631 1,175,631 1,175,631

Springwell Junior School 1,522,226 1,517,764 1,510,424 1,501,265

Springwell Infant And Nursery School 1,657,262 1,645,712 1,642,824 1,642,824

Strand On The Green Junior School 1,392,285 1,386,743 1,386,743 1,386,743

Strand On The Green Infant & Nursery School 1,161,272 1,158,734 1,153,374 1,146,674

Wellington Primary School 1,921,032 1,907,579 1,907,579 1,907,579

Worple Primary School 996,984 996,984 996,984 996,984

Sparrow Farm Junior School 1,181,322 1,181,322 1,181,322 1,181,322

Ivybridge Primary School 1,647,095 1,647,095 1,647,095 1,647,095


Page 10 of 41

School Name 2016/17

Base Budget (col a)


(col b)


(col c)


(col d)

Edward Pauling Primary School 1,789,841 1,789,841 1,789,841 1,789,841

The Smallberry Green Primary School 1,856,897 1,856,897 1,856,897 1,856,897

Grove Road Primary School 1,167,688 1,167,688 1,167,688 1,167,688

Beavers Community Primary School 2,520,233 2,520,233 2,520,233 2,520,233

Berkeley Primary School 1,970,078 1,970,078 1,970,078 1,970,078

Crane Park Primary School 2,031,926 2,018,336 2,009,276 2,003,642

Fairholme School 2,390,956 2,374,546 2,368,103 2,368,103

Forge Lane Primary School 978,557 972,737 968,857 964,007

Green Dragon Primary School 2,028,357 2,015,397 2,006,757 2,000,227

The William Hogarth School 1,324,055 1,324,055 1,324,055 1,324,055

Bedfont Primary School 2,297,146 2,289,940 2,289,940 2,289,940

The Blue School 1,196,882 1,196,552 1,196,552 1,196,552

St. Paul's C.E. Primary School 1,215,100 1,215,100 1,215,100 1,215,100

Our Lady & St John's School 896,261 890,021 885,861 884,560

St Lawrence RC Primary School 1,861,578 1,848,057 1,839,037 1,835,304

St Mary's Catholic Primary School 1,291,858 1,282,499 1,275,879 1,274,130

St Mary's RC Primary 834,596 830,587 830,587 830,587

St. Michael & St. Martin School 1,691,032 1,678,462 1,670,116 1,670,116

The Rosary Catholic Primary School 1,740,617 1,728,137 1,719,817 1,718,186

The Orchard Primary School 2,585,316 2,566,926 2,554,666 2,553,943

Chatsworth Primary School 2,527,131 2,508,471 2,496,031 2,492,692

Heston Primary School 1,843,159 1,831,776 1,823,476 1,818,453

The Heathland School 7,574,638 7,534,348 7,507,488 7,473,913

Gunnersbury Catholic School 4,882,917 4,856,759 4,856,759 4,856,759

Oriel Academy West London 1,811,064 1,811,064 1,811,064 1,811,064

Oak Hill Academy 1,573,676 1,561,706 1,558,997 1,558,997

Norwood Green Junior School 1,516,060 1,505,380 1,504,048 1,504,048

Westbrook Primary School 2,268,217 2,251,897 2,241,017 2,237,434

Kingsley Academy 4,333,874 4,333,874 4,333,874 4,333,874


Page 11 of 41

School Name 2016/17

Base Budget (col a)


(col b)


(col c)


(col d)

Chiswick School 6,084,495 6,053,415 6,032,695 6,006,795

Rivers Academy West London 5,657,792 5,653,678 5,653,678 5,653,678

Feltham Community College 4,900,135 4,900,135 4,900,135 4,900,135

Brentford School For Girls 3,933,381 3,914,301 3,906,755 3,906,755

Heston Community School 5,508,048 5,508,048 5,508,048 5,508,048

Lampton School Academy Trust 6,225,601 6,191,971 6,169,551 6,147,662

Cranford Community College 6,259,663 6,259,663 6,259,663 6,259,663

Isleworth And Syon School 4,792,530 4,767,780 4,751,280 4,730,655

The Green School For Girls 4,106,618 4,083,968 4,068,868 4,049,993

St. Mark's Catholic School 4,807,567 4,779,817 4,761,317 4,738,192

Gumley House Convent School FCJ 5,140,733 5,111,633 5,092,233 5,067,983

Reach Feltham 1,629,394 1,619,224 1,612,444 1,603,969

Nishkam School West London 656,049 651,969 649,249 645,849

Total 168,666,866 168,011,109 167,678,916 167,417,577 1

Add Pupil Growth Fund 1,838,781 1,838,781 1,838,781 1,838,781 2

Total DSG Requirement Schools Block 170,505,647 169,849,890 169,517,697 169,256,358 3

Total AWPU 131,262,486 130,223,856 129,531,436 128,665,911 4

Amount cut from schools delegated budgets by reduction in AWPU unit value before impact of MFG formula factor

1,038,630 1,731,050 2,596,575 5

a4-b4 a4-c4 a4-d4

MFG Required 552,399 849,339 1,172,885 1,731,222 7

MFG Cap (289,561) (203,687) (167,007) (121,157) 8

Net Requirement (MFG) 262,838 645,652 1,005,878 1,610,065 9

Increase in MFG protection in the funding formula in Schools delegated budgets

382,814 743,040 1,347,227 10

b9-a9 c9-a9 d9-a9

Amount released from Schools delegated budgets after impact of MFG protection

(655,816) (988,010) (1,249,348) 11

Appendix 2 2015/16 Copyright Licenses in Schools

Page 12 of 41

The list of the licences covered by the new central arrangement are required either by all (or by the vast majority) of schools and there will be no way for schools to ‘opt out’ of the licences. These licenses will cover all primary, secondary, special schools in England, including academies, Pupil Referral Units and nurseries. Independent fee paying schools are not licensed in the same way and may wish to seek advice direct from the contacts listed at the end of this briefing. However, post-16 academies are not included as they are not technically ‘schools’ and will need to make separate arrangements, as will 6th form colleges. 1. The Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) Licence. This gives you the right to:

Photocopy books, magazines and journals published in the UK and 30 other countries giving your school access to a wide choice of published information

Make digital copies by scanning or re-typing for distribution to pupils, parents, teachers or governors, from titles published in the UK and USA plus a growing number of other countries

Make copies of content from digital material including CD ROMs, electronic workbooks, online journals and included websites

Use copies with digital whiteboards, VLEs and presentation software programs

Copy photographs, illustrations, charts or diagrams where they are included in an article or an extract

2. The School Printed Music Licence (SPML). This covers the copying and distribution of a

school’s sheet music to school members for curricular uses and for those extracurricular activities that are not Collective Worship. The licence permits schools to legally make copies of sheet music by any of the following means:

Photocopying

Scanning

Score-writing software programs

Notation by hand

Posting on a school VLE The licence also allows the adaption of the musical work so that it can be performed by any instrumental and vocal arrangements that your school wishes to use.

3. The Newspaper Licensing Agency Schools Licence (NLA). This permits the copying of

content from national, regional and local newspapers and certain news websites.

4. The Educational Recording Agency Licence (ERA). This allows educational establishments to record radio and television broadcasts received in the UK and to access copies of such recordings on agreed terms. Teaching staff can also access and download material on a number of on demand catch-up services including BBC iPlayer, 4OD, Five On Demand and ITV Player and Five on Demand. The recordings can then be retained, stored and copied for educational purposes at the licensed establishment. From April 2014 it also allows an educational establishment to enable students to access licensed recordings and clips from them when they are working off site and connect to the schools site.

5. The Public Video Screening Licence (PVSL). This is issued by Filmbank Distributors Limited who represent all of the six major Hollywood studios in the education sector, (Warner Bros. Sony Pictures, Disney, 20th Century Fox, Universal, Paramount Pictures) and many other leading Hollywood, Bollywood and Independent film studios and distributors including MGM, Lionsgate, Miramax and Entertainment Film. The PVSL is required where schools screen films from studios participating in the PVSL scheme on their premises for entertainment purposes. Under the PVSL scheme schools are able to screen films on DVDs

Appendix 2 2015/16 Copyright Licenses in Schools

Page 13 of 41

that have been purchased or borrowed from legitimate UK outlets during the term of the licence. The PVSL does not cover screenings for commercial or fundraising purposes i.e. where a charge is made either directly or indirectly (e.g. selling tickets to screenings). In these circumstances please contact Filmbank directly via [email protected] who can provide you with a licence for this type of screening.

6. The Motion Picture Licensing Company Licence (MPLC). The MPLC licence is similar to the PVSL in that it allows for the non-educational screening of films on the premises of an educational establishment. MPLC represents represent over 400+ film and TV producers and distributors from major Hollywood studios to independent and foreign producers. Examples of the studios whose work is licensed by MPLC are National Geographic; the Discovery Channel; and the studios that own the rights to Bob the Builder and Angelina Ballerina. The MPLC licence does not cover: Commercially advertising the film title outside of the school; making a charge to view the film ; DVDs or downloads that are not a legal copy of the film or Outdoor screenings. If a school does wish to commercially advertise and/or make a charge to view a film, then they should apply for a separate Single Screening MPLC Movie Licence. For further information please visit: http://www.themplc.co.uk/page/film-club-1

7. The Performing Rights Society Licence (PRS). The PRS licence covers performances of copyright music (including any associated words) which is controlled by The Performing Rights Society Limited (PRS for Music) or by any of the societies in other countries with which PRS for Music is affiliated.

8. The Phonographic Performance Licence (PPL). The PPL licence is a collective licence authorising a school to play in public, or broadcast, all of its members' recorded music or music videos in the UK. Collective licences can also cover the copying of recorded music and music videos for certain purposes. Typical uses in a school would be: discos/end of term parties; telephone system music on hold; playing a record / radio / tape / CD / digital music player; school fetes (where music is being played) and Dance/Aerobics classes for students and staff only. The two licences are required by every school.

9. The Mechanical Copyright Protection Society licence (MCPS). The MCPS ‘Limited manufacture’ licence covers the use of music in DVDs and CDs produced by the school and sold to parents, e.g. by the PTA, to raise funds for the school. The licence provides the right for all schools to make and sell up to 1,000 copies a year of DVDs or CDs containing music.

10. The Christian Copyright Licensing International licence (CCLI). CCLI administers two licences; i) The Collective Worship Copyright Licence (CWCL) permits schools to type song words

into a computer and store them for later use, e.g. to create a song words database for use with their song projection software; to create service sheets and hand-outs for pupils and staff; to create OHP acetates; and to audio/video record music from services for those unable to attend, or as a keepsake.

ii) The Collective Worship Music Reproduction Licence (CWMRL) is supplementary to the CWCL. It permits schools to photocopy the words and music of hymns and worship songs directly from music publications and also to make customised arrangements of music for pupils using transposing instruments (typically wind and brass instruments).

The agreements between the DfE and the Copyright Management Organisations (CMO) simply covers the administration of the licences. Each education establishment is a Licensee and as such responsible for ensuring that the terms and conditions of the licenses are adhered to by their staff. If you require a copy of your licence, please contact the individual copyright management organisation direct.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.themplc.co.uk/page/film-club-1

APPENDIX 3 – Early Years DSG Budget and Saving Proposal Report

Page 14 of 41

Contact: Chrissie Elam – Head of Early Years and Childcare Shabana Kausar – Finance Manager (Strategic Lead for Schools)

Tel: 020 8583 6279 / 0208 583 3997 E-Mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Schools Forum: 12 October 2015 EARLY YEARS DEDICATED SCHOOL GRANT (DSG) BLOCK – 2016/17 PROVISIONAL

BUDGET AND SAVINGS PROPOSAL Report by: Chrissie Elam, Head of Early Years and Childcare, Children’s and Adult

Services; Shabana Kausar, Finance Manager (Strategic Lead - Schools), Finance and Corporate Services

Summary: At the last School’s Forum meeting in September, members requested an additional meeting be held to discuss further information on the DSG early year’s block budget pressures. The report outlines the impact of DSG shortfall on the early years block in delivery of the Council’s statutory requirement to provide free education and childcare entitlements for 2, 3 and 4 year olds on and highlights issues that need to be considered.

1.0 Recommendations

1.1 The following are recommendations for the Schools Forum:

1. To consider and make a recommendation to the Lead Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services in respect of the continuance into 2016/17 of the previously approved transfer of DSG between the Early Years and Schools block of £1.6m (4.3)

2. To consider options as outlined in section 6 relating to the 3 and 4 year old funding and agree any further information which is required to reach an informed decision.

3. To consider options as outlined in section 6 relating to the 2 year old funding and to agree any further information which is required to reach an informed decision.

4. To consider and agree principles upon which savings options will be agreed and to make a recommendation as such to the Lead Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services

2.0 Background

2.1 The DfE issued a funding announcement in July 2015 indicating that there will be no additional funding allocation to schools next year and the DSG will be frozen at the same cash levels as 2015/16. The only increase in DSG funding will be related to pupil number changes. Whilst information on the Schools Block pupil rates was provided in July 2015, the Early Years Block allocation will not be confirmed until after the Governments spending review, which is due to be issued on 25th November 2015.



Page 15 of 41

2.2 The DfE normally announces provisional DSG funding for the Early Years block in

December based on the previous January census and then recalculates the final allocation on the following basis:

5/12ths January Census from old financial year

7/12ths January Census in current financial year

3.0 2015/16 Early Years Single Funding Formula 3.1 The Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) is the statutory mechanism which

the Council uses to allocate DSG funding for 3 and 4 year olds across all sectors (including Childminders). This also applies to the allocation of funding for 2 year olds.

3.2 The EYSFF rates for 3 and 4 year olds currently includes a base rate with supplements for Quality and Deprivation.

Table 1: 2015/16 Early Year Rates

2015/16 Early Year Rates 2 Year Olds

(hourly rates) 3 & 4 Year Olds

(hourly rates)

Description Basis of allocation Schools PVI Schools PVI

Base Rate per child £6.05 £6.05 £4.25 £4.45

Deprivation per child meeting eligibility criteria £0.00 £0.00 £0.60 £0.60

Quality per child only if provision is rated "Good" by OFSTED

n/a £0.00 n/a £0.20

Inclusion Funding to support children with additional needs who transfer from a PVI to maintained school

n/a n/a n/a £10.00

PVI = Private, voluntary and independent sector

3.3 The Level of funding available is based on participation rates reported by the Council to government and is based on set hourly rates agreed through consultation and approved by Schools Forum.

4.0 2015/16 Early Years DSG Block Funding Gap and Projected Outturn

4.1 With the exception of Early Years SEN, which sits within the High Needs DSG block,

all funding relating to 2, 3 and 4 year old provision is allocated within the Early Years DSG block.

4.2 There is an in year adjustment to the level of Early Years DSG allocation where there are increased pupil numbers reported in the January 2016 Census. In-year monitoring will be reported back to Schools Forum to note.

4.3 For 2015/16 Schools Forum agreed to continue to fund the DSG shortfall in the early year’s block with £1.8m from the Schools block. Currently the projected shortfall after taking into account the agreed transfer is £0.2m which will need to be funded from the one off reserves in 2015/16.


Page 16 of 41

Table 2: 2015/16 Projected Early Years DSG Funding Shortfall

4.4 The main reasons for the funding shortfall can be attributed to:

a) The DSG funded hourly rate for 3 and 4 year olds is:

- 28p per hour less than the rate which is paid to schools

- 48p per hour less than the rate which is paid to PVI’s

- 68p per hour less than the rate which is paid to PVIs that receive a20p

enhancement for quality.

b) When the Council was piloting the disadvantaged 2 year old offer the DfE funded an hourly rate of £6 per hour. However, when this programme was rolled out nationally the DfE reduced the rate to £5.53. At the time Hounslow had already negotiated the rates at £6 per hour with providers. This has led to a 47p shortfall for every hour of support; thus the reason for the overspend.

4.5 The projections are based on the following information (appendix 1):

2,161 average fte hours in the PVI sector for 3 and 4 year olds

2,648 average fte hours in schools for 3 and 4 year olds

816 average places in the PVI sector for 2 year olds

4.6 As these are demand led and volatile budgets it makes it difficult to accurately project the cost and demand, however, working alongside with the service the 2015/16 financial position has been updated to:

i. reflect local knowledge of new provision going live ii. reflect prior year trends in terms of take-up for 2, 3 or 4 year olds

4.7 New Funding in 2015/16 - Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP)

4.8 The EYPP is new grant funding made available to local authorities in 2015/16 for the implementation of pupil premium across early year’s provision. The aim of the EYPP is to extend the Pupil Premium into early years in order to better support the early education of disadvantaged 3 and 4 year olds.

Description 2015/16 Projection for the Year £m

Projected Spend

Provisional DSG

Variance

2 Year Olds 2.80 (2.56) 0.24

3 & 4 Year Olds

- Schools 6.41 (5.99) 0.42

- PVI's 5.89 (4.85) 1.04

Early Years Human Resources 0.13 0.13

Total Early Years Block 15.23 (13.57) 1.83

Early Years Pupil Premium 0.28 (0.28) 0.00

Net Shortfall in Early Years Budget before Approved Transfer 1.83

Approved Transfer from Schools Block (1.60)

Net Shortfall in Early Years Budget 0.23


Page 17 of 41

4.9 The Council will receive an additional £300 per year for each eligible child that takes up the full 570 hours entitlement. This equates to an hourly rate of 53p per child per hour. Local Authorities are required to ensure that the whole amount is paid directly to providers in order to maximise the effectiveness of the funding and positively impact on outcomes for children.

5.0 2016/17 Provisional Early Years DSG Funding

5.1 The provisional DSG funding for 2016/17 is based on demand projections (refer to

appendix 1). The estimated shortfall for 2016/17 in DSG funding on the Early Years block is £0.42m. This assumed that the Schools Forum will continue to approve transfer £1.6m from the Schools Block. Table 3: 2017/17 Estimated Early Years DSG Funding Shortfall

Description

2016/17 Projection for the Year £m

Projected Spend

Projected DSG

Variance

2 Year Olds 3.44 (3.14) 0.30

3 & 4 Year Olds

- Schools 6.41 (5.99) 0.42

- PVI's 6.07 (4.90) 1.17

Early Years Human Resources 0.13 0.13

Total Early Years Block 16.05 (14.03) 2.02

Early Years Pupil Premium 0.28 (0.28) 0.00

Net Shortfall in Early Years Budget before Approved Transfer 2.02

2015/16 Approved Transfer from Schools Block (expected to continue)

(1.60)

Net Shortfall in Early Years Budget 0.42

5.2 As outlined above these are volatile demand led budgets and therefore very difficult to

provide accurate projections on patterns and behaviours across this cohort. The detailed budget will need to be based on the January 2016 census but due to funding pressures across the DSG it is vital that: a) a balanced budget to be set so that service provision can be delivered within the

overall DSG funding envelope b) decisions are made on savings options that will be sustainable and deliver the

required outcome and contribute towards the overall DSG funding shortfall c) a timetable is agreed on the delivery of any saving proposals and outcomes that

will support the authority in meeting the increase costs associated with the growing pupil population

d) funding options agreed by Schools Forum support the Council in the delivery of the statutory duty to provide sufficient places for disadvantaged 2 year olds, all 3 & 4 year olds and those 3 and 4 year olds who will be eligible for the increased 30 hour offer.

6.0 Financial Strategy

6.1 The long term the aim is to stay within the allocated funding but with growth in children

meeting eligibility within this area and other pressures on DSG there are very limited options in the short to medium term that can be adopted some of which are:


Page 18 of 41

a) Undertake a review of the Early Years Single Funding Formula to reduce the

hourly rate in line with DSG funding. This will necessitate seeking permission from the Secretary of State as it would contravene the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG). It would also necessitate a formal consultation with providers, with the risk that a full year saving would not be realised.

b) Agree an incremental year on year approach to reducing the hourly rate which will meet the requirement of the MFG. This strategy would necessitate an ongoing commitment to balance the Early Years Block from the Schools Block with a year on year reduction in the transfer of funds.

6.2 With a principled steer from Schools Forum these options can be reviewed over the

next few months and brought back to the next forum meeting for further discussion.

6.3 Schools Forum is reminded that the Government has made clear the intention to increase the hourly rate for 3 and 4 year old funding with an aspiration of publishing details of the new funding rate during the autumn term 2015.

6.4 The following saving’s options have been identified and need to be carefully considered by the Schools Forum. Appendix 2 provides a detail analysis of risks and benefits of the saving proposals outlined below. Table 4: Early Years Saving Proposals

Saving Ref

Description Proposed Saving (full Year effect) £m

EY01 Reduction in the hourly rate for 3+4 Year olds of 1.5% across all sectors Reduction for schools:

- Basic: £4.25 to £4.19 per hour - Deprivation: £0.60 to £0.59 Per hour

Reduction for PVIs: - Basic: £4.45 to £4.38 per hour - Enhanced: £4.65 to £4.58 per hour - Inclusion: £10.00 to £9.85 per hour - Deprivation: £0.60 to £0.59 Per hour

£0.186m

EY02 New Funding Formula and Base unknown at this stage, dependent on what new formula is

employed

EY03 Reducing the hourly rate for 2 year olds by 1.5% Reduction from £6.05 per hour to £5.96 per hour

£0.051m

EY04 Reducing the 2 year old hourly rate from £6.05 to £5.53 £0.295m

EY05 Reducing the hourly rate for 2 year olds by 2% Reduction from £6.05 per hour to £5.93 per hour

£0.068m


£0.102m


£0.136m

6.5 Impact on the Minimum Funding Regulation (MFG)

6.6 The EYSFF hourly rates are subject to the MFG and thus the option in the cuts that

can be proposed is limited to a cut of no more than 1.5%. The saving is in line with other reductions that are being proposed across the DSG linked to MFG.


Page 19 of 41

6.7 As there was no DSG baseline in 2014/15 for 2 year olds the normal MFG rules cannot

be applied unless DfE introduce this in 2016/17. This allows for Schools Forum to consider options where the cut is more than 1.5%.

6.8 Any change in the hourly rate will require the Council to consult which can have an impact on whether the saving will take effect fully in 2016/17.

6.9 Key Risks:

6.10 The key impacts that the implementation of these saving may have are; Schools:

- A budget reduction may necessitate staffing reorganisations and therefore impact on quality.

- Schools may be reluctant engage with the 30 hour delivery model PVI:

- Reduction can impact the Council’s ability to deliver the statutory duty because:

i. Some PVIs may opt out and offer no free places ii. PVIs may not be sustainable or may close iii. PVIs may not engage with delivering the 30 hours iv. Quality may decrease and only Ofsted judged “Good” or better PVIs can

offer the free entitlement. - A reduction coupled with an increase in the minimum wage along with the new

legal requirement to offer employees pensions with the associated employer contributions will exacerbate financial pressures for PVIs.

6.11 Changing the Funding Formula

6.12 The Council can seek permission from Secretary of State for the MFG protection to be dis-applied, so that a new formula and base can be set. This will give the council the ability to re-set rates that are affordable and sustainable.

6.13 This option is considered as a last resort by the Council and should only be taken

forward if the funding issue cannot be resolved through the normal channels (via Schools Forum).

6.14 The key risk for the Council is that the Secretary of State can reject the application. Also any application by the Council can be perceived negatively by DfE and can have a reputational impact.


7.1 This report covers the funding through the Early Years DSG block, which forms part of

the overall DSG a specific ring-fenced grant. For 2015/16 there are no financial implications for the Council’s General fund. However there is a serious risk to the General Fund in 2016/17 and beyond if the necessary savings, cost reductions and changes to service delivery are not made within the DSG.


8.1 The projected shortfall in the Early Years DSG block indicates unfunded pressures of

£2.0m before the application of the DSG transfer from Schools block of £1.6m, leaving estimated unfunded pressures within the Early Years DSG block of £0.4m for 2016/17.


Page 20 of 41

Going forward into 2017/18 further pressures are anticipated in respect of demand growth in 2, 3 and 4 year olds. There will be no available DSG reserves to fund any of the additional pressures next year and the Council will need to consider measures to avoid an overspend on the DSG impacting on the Council’s General Fund.

8.2 There is concern about the increasing spend and volume of activity across early years and high needs block as pupil numbers increase and needs become more complex and funding through the DSG does not increase. There is already an indication of significant budget gap for 2015/16 and also 2016/17 in the high needs block which will further be impacted by any shortfall within early years. These need addressing, and some possible options for offsetting the deficit, i.e. reduction in hourly rates have been identified in the report.

8.3 There is clearly a need to find a way of managing the increase in early year’s pressures within the existing DSG funding envelope and for the schools community, private and voluntary providers (PVI), officers and finance to work together to manage this to affordable levels which do not destabilise mainstream schools and the private and voluntary sector delivering the provision. It is not feasible simply to correct the position for this year by seeking schools block to fund the pressure, as the funding from the schools block is limited due to the operation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) regulations and also any funding released from the schools block will need to fund pressures within the high needs block. Measures will need to be agreed that make a significant contribution to the underlying funding shortfall.

8.4 The overall position of the DSG is not financially sustainable going forward and the current situation would certainly affect the budget of all schools in the borough, both maintained and academies.

9.0 Equality and Diversity

9.1 As a result of any cut to the hourly rate there is a risk whether the council will be able

to secure places to meet its statutory obligations which can have an impact on the number of places available to our most disadvantaged children and families. Some of our most vulnerable children may not be able to access high quality early education which has the potential to have significant and lasting effects on outcomes for children, right through to adulthood.


Appendix 1

Page 21 of 41

2015/16 and 2016/17 PVI DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR 2, 3 AND 4 YEAR OLDS 2 Year Old Projections:

no of weeks

Total Places Available

% take up

Places to be funded

Total Hrs in Term

Summer 2015 13 774 90% 698

136,110

Autumn 2015 14 946 90% 853

179,130

Spring 2016 11 1497 60% 898

148,170

Total Projection for 2015/16 on 2 Year Olds

no of weeks

Total Places Available

% take up

Places to be funded

Total Hrs in Term

Summer 2016 13 1,497 60% 898

175,110

Autumn 2016 14 1,497 70% 1048

220,080

Spring 2017 11 1,497 70% 1048

172,920

Total Projection for 2016/17 on 2 Year Olds

3 and 4 Year Old PVI Projections:

no of weeks

Projected 2015/16 FTE

% Increase

Projected 2016/17 FTE

Total Hrs

Total Hrs in Term

Summer 2016 13 2,781.51 1.00% 2,809.33 42,140 547,819

Autumn 2016 14 1,520.95 1.00% 1,536.16 23,042 322,593

Spring 2017 11 2,181.21 1.00% 2,203.02 33,045 363,498

Deprivation 38 515.91 1.00% 521.07 7,816 297,011

Total Projection for 2016/17 on 3+4 Year Olds

no of

weeks Projected

2015/16 (children) %

Increase Total Hrs

Projected 2016/17 (children)

Total Hrs in Term

Inclusion 14 70 30.00% 6 91 7,644

APPENDIX 3 – Early Years DSG Budget and Saving Proposal Report Appendix 2

Estimated Impact on Schools of reduction in hourly rate for 3+4 Year olds of 1.5%

Page 22 of 41

No Description Funding Regulations Risks and mitigation

EY01 Reduction in hourly rate for 3+4 Year olds of 1.5% across all sectors

Impact on MFG : The EYSFF hourly rate is the only element protected by MFG regulations thus a maximum reduction of 1.5% can be made on the hourly rates Consultation Requirements: Will need to consult with PVI and schools

Benefits: The saving proposed is in line with 1.5% being proposed across the other DSG funding blocks relating to MFG linked budgets Risks:

Any reduction in the hourly rate for PVIs would need consultation

Any reduction would need notice to PVIs and so a full year saving would not be achieved.

Impact on schools may lead to staffing reorganisation and therefore impact on quality.

Schools may not wish to consider reorganising delivery models to accommodate the 30 hours if the funding rate is considered not to cover costs.

Impact of reducing the PVI rate by 7p may impact on delivering our statutory duty because: a. possible disengagement by PVIs with the LA with no free places

offered b. PVIs may not be sustainable or may close c. PVIs may not engage with delivering the 30 hours d. Quality may decrease meaning we can’t use for free places.

Reduction in the hourly rate is further exacerbated by the increase in the minimum wage along with the new legal requirement to offer employees pensions with the associated employer contributions.

Children may not be able to access this free entitlement

Impact on outcomes for children at 5.

Mitigation: Reduction of the hourly rate may not be necessary if the Government

increase the funding of the hourly rate by a sufficient degree.

Lead Officer

Chrissie Elam

Proposed Savings

Schools = £96k (appendix 3) PVI = £90k Estimated Saving = £186k (full year effect)



Page 23 of 41


EY02 New Funding Formula and Base

Impact on MFG: You cannot normally change the EYSFF as it is subject to MFG but as there is no DSG baseline in 2014/15 for 2 year olds the normal MFG rules cannot be applied unless DfE introduce this in 2016/17. The Council will need to seek permission from Secretary of State for the MFG protection to be dis-applied, in order for the Council in consultation with the Schools Forum introduce a new formula and base. Consultation Requirements: Will need to consult with the Schools Forum and PVI’s

Benefits: This is option is a last resort for the Council and should only be taken if the funding issue has not been resolved through the normal channels (via Schools Forum). The key benefit will be the council will be able to re-set a rate considered to be to be affordable and sustainable. Risks:

Secretary of State has not approved many of applications in order for Councils to dis-apply the MFG regulation

DfE introduce MFG rules to be applied to to 2 year olds

Any application by the council can be perceived negatively by DfE and can have an impact on reputation

Mitigation: To actively seek engagement from DfE advising the Council on this

option Work with other local authorities in collaboration to submit joint

applications as this is area is a funding pressure for many local authorities (although we don’t know if other LAs have the appetite to do so.)

Lead Officer

Chrissie Elam in collaboration with Finance, subject to School Forum approval

Proposed Saving

The possible saving is not known at this stage. This is dependent on what new formula is employed.

EY03 Reducing the hourly rate for 2 year olds by 1.5%

Impact on MFG : You cannot normally change the EYSFF as it is subject to MFG but as there is no DSG baseline in 2014/15 for 2 year olds the normal MFG rules cannot be applied unless DfE introduce this in 2016/17.

Consultation Requirements: Will need to consult with the Schools Forum and PVI’s

Benefits: The saving proposed is in line with 1.5% being proposed across the other DSG funding blocks relating to MFG linked budgets.

Risks: Impact of PVI rate reduction of 9p:

Any reduction in the rate with PVIs would need consultation





Page 24 of 41


EY03 Reducing the hourly rate for 2 year olds by 1.5%

Schools may choose not to engage with offering 2YO provision.

Schools currently involved may disengage with offering 2YO provision.

Impact of reducing the PVI rate may impact on delivering the Council’s statutory duty because: a. PVI disengagement with the LA with no free places offered b. Some PVIs may not be sustainable or may close c. Quality may decrease meaning they can’t be used for free places.

Reduction in the hourly rate is further exacerbated by the increase in minimum wage along with the new legal requirement to offer employees pensions with the associated employer contributions.

Our most disadvantaged children may not be able to access this free entitlement


Lead Officer

Chrissie Elam

Proposed Saving

Estimated Saving = £51k (full year effect)

EY04 Reducing the 2 year old hourly rate from £6.05 to £5.53

Impact on MFG : You cannot normally change the EYSFF as it is subject to MFG but as there is no DSG baseline in 2014/15 for 2 year olds the normal MFG rules cannot be applied unless DfE introduce this in 2016/17. Consultation Requirements: Will need to consult with the Schools Forum and PVI’s

Benefits: The saving proposed is in line with the hourly rate funded by DSG Risks: Impact of PVI rate reduction of 52p:

Any reduction in rate with PVI would need consultation


Impact of reducing the PVI rate may impact on delivering our statutory duty because: a. lead to disengagement with the LA with no free places offered

impacting on our b. PVIs may not sustainable or may close c. Quality may decrease meaning they can’t be used for free places.



Page 25 of 41


EY04 Reducing the 2 year old hourly rate from £6.05 to £5.53


This could have an impact on the number of places being made available



Lead Officer

Chrissie Elam

Proposed Saving


EY05 Reducing the hourly rate for 2 year olds by 2%

Impact on MFG : It is it normally possible to change the EYSFF as it is subject to MFG but as there is no DSG baseline in 2014/15 for 2 year olds the normal MFG rules cannot be applied unless DfE introduce this in 2016/17. Consultation Requirements: Will need to consult with the Schools Forum and PVI’s

Benefits: The saving proposed will reduce some of the pressure on the DSG created by the disparity between the funding rate received and that paid out to providers. (£5.53 v £6.05). Risks: Impact of PVI rate reduction of 12p:




Other schools may choose not to engage with offering 2YO provision.


Impact of reducing the PVI rate may impact on delivering our statutory duty because:



Page 26 of 41



a. Some PVIs may disengage with the LA with no free places offered

b. Some PVIs may not be sustainable or may close c. Quality may decrease meaning they can’t be used for free places.




Lead Officer

Chrissie Elam

Proposed Saving



Impact on MFG : It is not normally possible to change the EYSFF as it is subject to the MFG but as there is no DSG baseline in 2014/15 for 2 year olds the normal MFG rules cannot be applied unless DfE introduce this in 2016/17. Consultation Requirements: Will need to consult with the Schools Forum and PVI’s







Impact of reducing the PVI rate may impact on delivering the Council’s statutory duty because:

Lead Officer

Chrissie Elam

Proposed Saving




Page 27 of 41



a. Some PVIs may disengage with the LA with no free places offered

b. Some PVIs may not be sustainable or may close c. Quality may decrease meaning they can’t be used for free places.





Impact on MFG : It is not normally possible to change the EYSFF as it is subject to MFG but as there is no DSG baseline in 2014/15 for 2 year olds the normal MFG rules cannot be applied unless DfE introduce this in 2016/17. Consultation Requirements: Will need to consult with the Schools Forum and PVI’s







Impact of reducing the PVI rate may impact on delivering the Council’s statutory duty because: a. Some PVIs may disengage with the LA with no free places

offered b. Some PVIs may not be sustainable or may close c. Quality may decrease meaning they can’t be used for free places.

Lead Officer

Chrissie Elam

Proposed Saving




Page 28 of 41








Page 29 of 41

The calculation below provides example, using the 2015/16 budget information of what the impact will look like for each School if the early year’s rate was reduced by 1.5%.

Total Number of Weeks 38 38

Weekly Hours 12.5 / 15 15

2015/16 Hourly Rate £4.25 £0.60

1.5% Reduction (£0.06) (£0.01)

Proposed Hourly Rate £4.19 £0.59

2015/16 Early Years Budget Saving based on 2015/16 Budget Numbers

School Name

We

ekly

Ho

urs

Allocation (£)

De

priva

tion

units

De

priva

tion

Allo

catio

n (

£)

Allocation

(£)

Pro

po

sed

Sa

vin

g

De

priva

tion

Allo

catio

n (

£)

Pro

po

sed

Sa

vin

g

To

tal

Pro

po

sed

Sa

vin

g

Belmont Primary School 780 125,970 1 342 124,080 (1,890) 337 (5) (1,895)

Cranford Primary School 1,140 184,110 3 1,026 181,348 (2,762) 1,011 (15) (2,777)

Oriel Academy West London 780 125,970 25 8,550 124,080 (1,890) 8,422 (128) (2,018)

Cardinal Road I & N School 1,185 191,378 33 11,286 188,507 (2,871) 11,117 (169) (3,040)

Cavendish Primary School 300 48,450 9 3,078 47,723 (727) 3,032 (46) (773)

Alexandra Primary School 1,140 184,110 181,348 (2,762) 0 0 (2,762)

St Richard's CE Primary School 330 53,295 17 5,814 52,496 (799) 5,727 (87) (887)

Feltham Hill Infant & Nursery School 1,560 251,940 9 3,078 248,161 (3,779) 3,032 (46) (3,825)

Grove Park Primary School 360 58,140 1 342 57,268 (872) 337 (5) (877)

Hounslow Heath Infant & Nursery School 1,378 222,466 5 1,710 219,129 (3,337) 1,684 (26) (3,363)

Hounslow Town Primary School 1,155 186,533 2 684 183,735 (2,798) 674 (10) (2,808)

Isleworth Town Primary 1,035 167,153 12 4,104 164,645 (2,507) 4,042 (62) (2,569)

Lionel Primary School 855 138,083 26 8,892 136,011 (2,071) 8,759 (133) (2,205)

Marlborough Primary School 1,140 184,110 9 3,078 181,348 (2,762) 3,032 (46) (2,808)

Norwood Green Nursery And Infant School 1,500 242,250 32 10,944 238,616 (3,634) 10,780 (164) (3,798)

Southville Infants School 1,335 215,603 37 12,654 212,368 (3,234) 12,464 (190) (3,424)

Sparrow Farm Infant & Nursery School 960 155,040 3 1,026 152,714 (2,326) 1,011 (15) (2,341)

Spring Grove Primary School 390 62,985 62,040 (945) 0 0 (945)



Page 30 of 41

Springwell Infant And Nursery School 1,545 249,518 19 6,498 245,775 (3,743) 6,401 (97) (3,840)

Strand On The Green Infant & Nursery School 1,050 169,575 9 3,078 167,031 (2,544) 3,032 (46) (2,590)

Wellington Primary School 765 123,548 3 1,026 121,694 (1,853) 1,011 (15) (1,869)

Worple Primary School 390 62,985 2 684 62,040 (945) 674 (10) (955)

Ivybridge Primary School 585 94,478 31 10,602 93,060 (1,417) 10,443 (159) (1,576)

Westbrook Primary School 930 150,195 24 8,208 147,942 (2,253) 8,085 (123) (2,376)

Edward Pauling Primary School 765 123,548 11 3,762 121,694 (1,853) 3,706 (56) (1,910)

The Smallberry Green Primary School 570 92,055 7 2,394 90,674 (1,381) 2,358 (36) (1,417)

Grove Road Primary School 390 62,985 7 2,394 62,040 (945) 2,358 (36) (981)

Beavers Community Primary School 1,035 167,153 21 7,182 164,645 (2,507) 7,074 (108) (2,615)

Berkeley Primary School 780 125,970 40 13,680 124,080 (1,890) 13,475 (205) (2,095)

Crane Park Primary School 705 113,858 16 5,472 112,150 (1,708) 5,390 (82) (1,790)

Fairholme School 1,230 198,645 50 17,100 195,665 (2,980) 16,844 (257) (3,236)

Green Dragon Primary School 855 138,083 42 14,364 136,011 (2,071) 14,149 (215) (2,287)

The William Hogarth School 285 46,028 2 684 45,337 (690) 674 (10) (701)

Bedfont Primary School 945 152,618 8 2,736 150,328 (2,289) 2,695 (41) (2,330)

The Blue School 780 125,970 8 2,736 124,080 (1,890) 2,695 (41) (1,931)

St. Paul's C.E. Primary School 390 62,985 11 3,762 62,040 (945) 3,706 (56) (1,001)

Our Lady & St John's School 390 62,985 8 2,736 62,040 (945) 2,695 (41) (986)

St Lawrence RC Primary School 780 125,970 19 6,498 124,080 (1,890) 6,401 (97) (1,987)

St Mary's Catholic Primary School, Isleworth 390 62,985 2 684 62,040 (945) 674 (10) (955)

St Mary's RC Primary, Chiswick 390 62,985 62,040 (945) 0 0 (945)

St. Michael & St. Martin School 650 104,975 5 1,710 103,400 (1,575) 1,684 (26) (1,600)

The Rosary Catholic Primary School 690 111,435 11 3,762 109,763 (1,672) 3,706 (56) (1,728)

The Orchard Primary School 1,155 186,533 19 6,498 183,735 (2,798) 6,401 (97) (2,895)

Chatsworth Primary School 1,110 179,265 1 342 176,576 (2,689) 337 (5) (2,694)

Heston Primary School 600 96,900 19 6,498 95,447 (1,454) 6,401 (97) (1,551)

Reach Academy, Feltham 885 142,928 25 8,550 140,784 (2,144) 8,422 (128) (2,272)

Total 38,358 6,194,736 644 220,248 6,101,815 (92,921) 216,944 (3,304) (96,225)

APPENDIX 4 – High Needs DSG Budget and Saving Proposal Report

Page 31 of 41

Contact: Merle Abbott – Head of SEN and Disability Shabana Kausar – Finance Manager (Strategic Lead for Schools)

Tel: 020 8583 6279 / 0208 583 3997 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Schools Forum: 9 November 2015

HIGH NEEDS DEDICATED SCHOOL GRANT (DSG) BLOCK – 2016/17 PROVISIONAL BUDGET AND SAVINGS PROPOSAL

Report by: Merle Abbott – Head of SEN and Disability, Children’s and Adult’s Services;

Shabana Kausar, Finance Manager (Strategic Lead - Schools), Finance and Corporate Services

Summary: At the last School’s Forum meeting in September, members requested an additional meeting be held to discuss further information on saving proposals for the high needs block. The report outlines the financial strategy being developed by the service in conjunction with the SEN Task and Finish group, to reduce costs of the service and identify saving proposals.

1.0 Recommendations

1.1 The following are recommendations for the Schools Forum:

1. To consider and make recommendations to the Lead Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services in respect of the continuance in 2016/17 of the previously approved transfer of DSG between the High Needs and Schools block of £5.5m (4.1)

2. To consider the unfunded pressures and funding shortfall in high needs DSG block of £2.95m and make recommendations to Lead Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services to agree a reduction of 1.5% in funding for Special Schools and the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) (appendix 3)

3. To consider either 15% or 20% reduction to the SEN statement top-up rates (appendix 2) put forward by the SEN Task and Finish Group (5.3)

4. To note and consider the following recommendations and task the SEN Task and

Finish group: a) to review Hounslow’s admission thresholds for children with special education

needs in mainstream schools, special schools and SEN centres and make recommendations (appendix 1)

b) to identify options for implementing SEN Top-Up Bands (5.4)




Page 32 of 41

c) to review the non-statutory services within the high needs block and identify savings (appendix 1)

d) to identify and consider other cost reductions and saving options which will help mitigate against the projected funding shortfall of £2.7m

5. To note and consider the following and task Officers to:

a) review the administration function relating to SEN in order to identify any

efficiency savings (appendix 1)

b) work with local Health service commissioners to investigate areas where funding can be secured i.e. home schooling as a result of medical needs, cost of equipment required at school, hospital tuition, interim funding for extra support for those with challenging behaviour (appendix 1)

2.0 Background

2.1 The DfE issued a funding announcement in July 2015 indicating that there will be no

additional funding allocation to schools next year and the DSG will be frozen at the same cash levels as 2015/16. The only increase in DSG funding will be related to pupil number changes. Whilst information on the Schools Block pupil rates was provided in July 2015, the high needs block allocation will not be confirmed until after the Government’s spending review, which is due to be issued on 25th November 2015.

2.2 For purposes of planning DfE have advised local authorities to plan changes in place numbers on a cost neutral basis and assume high needs block funding will remain at the same overall level as in 2015/16.

3.0 2015/16 High Needs DSG Block Funding Gap and Projected Outturn

3.1 In 2015/16 the High Needs DSG block is projecting a funding shortfall of £3.9m, of

which £2.6m is estimated to be funded from one-off reserves. However, it is anticipated that the additional pressures identified will be partially offset by clawback of top-ups in respect of vacant SEN places in schools, centres and other SEN establishments projected to be £1.35m. There is, however, a financial risk to the DSG should the anticipated clawback of top-ups not materialise during 2015/16.

Table 1: 2015/16 Projected High Needs DSG Funding Shortfall

2015/16 Projection (High Needs) £m

High Needs Projected Spend (40.99)

High Needs DSG Block Funding (31.58)

Funding Shortfall before Transfer 9.41

Approved Transfer from Schools Block (5.48)

Funding Shortfall after Transfer 3.93

Estimated clawback of high needs top-ups in respect of unfilled places

(1.35)

2015/16 Estimated Use of One-off DSG Reserves 2.58

3.2 The main reasons for the funding shortfall can be attributed to:


Page 33 of 41

c) Increase in SEN demand and complex needs d) The High Needs DSG block funding being frozen at 2010 levels

3.3 As these are demand led and volatile budgets it makes it difficult to accurately project the cost and demand, however, working alongside with the service the 2015/16 financial position has been updated to reflect the current statement and Education Health Care Plans (EHCP) information relating to 2016/17 (as at August 2015).

4.0 2016/17 Provisional High Needs DSG Funding

4.1 The estimated shortfall for 2016/17 in DSG funding on the High Needs block is £6.38m, which assumes that the Schools Forum will continue to approve the transfer of £5.5m from the Schools Block. Table 2: 2016/17 Projected High Needs DSG Funding Shortfall

2016/17 Projection (High

Needs) £m

Projected Spend 43.44

DSG Funding (31.58)

Funding Shortfall before Transfer 11.86

2015/16 Approved Transfer from Schools Block (assumed continuance)

(5.48)

Funding Shortfall after Transfer 6.38

Estimated clawback of high needs top-ups in respect of unfilled places

(1.35)

Use of One-off DSG Reserves (2.28)

2016/17 DSG Funding Shortfall 2.75

4.2 £6.38m of the funding shortfall is being expected to be funded from the following

leaving an estimated funding shortfall in 2016/17 DSG of £2.75m;

an assumption that similar clawbacks of high needs SEN top-ups in respect of unfilled places will arise, as in 2015/16

£2.28m of remaining DSG one-off reserves

4.3 As outlined above these are volatile demand led budgets and therefore very difficult to provide accurate projections on patterns and behaviours across this cohort. The detailed budget will need to be based on up to date information in Spring term but due to funding pressures across the DSG it is vital that:

a) a balanced budget to be set so that service provision can be delivered within the

overall DSG funding envelope b) decisions are made on savings options that will be sustainable and deliver the

required outcome and contribute towards the overall DSG funding shortfall c) a timetable is agreed on the delivery of any saving proposals and outcomes that

will support the authority in meeting the increase costs associated with the growing pupil population

d) funding options agreed by Schools Forum support the Local Authority in the delivery of the statutory duty


Page 34 of 41

5.0 Financial Strategy

5.1 The long term aim is to stay within the allocated funding but with growth in children with significant and complex needs and the Council’s statutory duty to meet those needs is a growing pressure on the DSG with very limited options in the short to medium term that can be adopted some of which are:

1. Undertake a review of admission thresholds for access to specialist provision 2. Review SEN criteria and funding to implement new banding level 3. Identify savings across non-statutory services funded from high needs block 4. Undertake a review to identify any efficiency savings that can be delivered from the

administration function relating to SEN in centrally held funding 5. SEN Service delivers some key benefits which link with the local health service. A

more strategic approach by the council in discussing the SEN agenda with its partners can secure some funding i.e. home schooling as result of medical needs, hospital tuition, cost of equipment required at school, interim funding for extra support for those with challenging behaviour are some areas of spend that should be investigated with local health commissioners.

6. Implement a more robust evidence based requirement statutory assessment requests

5.2 Appendix 1 details the saving’s proposals identified which need to be carefully

considered by the Schools Forum. The service is currently working on a three year cost projection plan which it intends to discuss at the next forum meeting. With a principled steer from Schools Forum the service can work with the SEN task and Finish group to review these options and bring an update back to forum.

5.3 The SEN Task and Finish Group meet on 16th October reviewed the savings options

outlined in the 12th October report to Schools Forum. Following detail deliberations the group agreed that the following options should be considered by schools forum:

a) 15% or 20% reduction to the current SEN statement top-up rates (appendix 2) which can generate circa £0.63m - £0.84m for in borough places

b) £50 AWPU reduction to deliver a circa of £0.99m, with a recognition that this may not be supported by secondary schools

c) 1.5% reduction to Special Schools funding to deliver circa £0.23m (appendix 3). This ensures that the special schools are comparatively effected in relation to the proposed AWPU cut

5.4 Following agreement from Schools Forum the SEN task and finish group have agreed

for the service to undertake a detail review of SEN banding proposal with worked examples, providing an understanding of the impact.

5.5 Key Risks:

5.6 The key risks that can have an impact on the service being able to deliver a balance

budget in 2016/17 are:

savings proposals may not be realised fully in next financial year

increase in projected demand

the level of clawbacks expected from vacant/unfilled places are not realised

further shortfall in 2015/16 can reduce the level of one-off DSG reserves available in 2016/17 thus increasing the shortfall


Page 35 of 41


6.1 This report covers the funding through the High Needs DSG block, which forms part of

the overall DSG a specific ring-fenced grant.

6.2 There are no financial implication for the Council’s General Fund in 2015/16. However, there is a serious risk in 2016/17 and beyond if the changes to service delivery, cost reductions and savings are not delivered for the DSG.


7.1 The projected shortfall in the High Needs DSG block indicates unfunded pressures of £11.87m before the application of the DSG transfer from Schools block of £5.5m, leaving estimated unfunded pressures within the High Needs DSG block of £6.38m for 2016/17. Going forward into 2017/18 further pressures are anticipated in respect of demand growth in SEN. There will be no available DSG reserves to fund any of the additional pressures next year and the Council will need to consider measures to avoid an overspend on the DSG impacting on the Council’s General Fund.

7.2 There is concern about the increasing spend and volume of activity across High Needs and Early Years pupil numbers increase and needs become more complex and funding through the DSG does not increase. There is already an indication of significant budget gap for 2015/16 and also 2016/17 in the high needs block which will further be impacted by any shortfall within early years. These need addressing, and some possible options for offsetting the deficit, i.e. reduction in hourly rates have been identified in the report.

7.3 There is clearly a need to find a way of managing the increase in high needs pressures within the existing DSG funding envelope and for the schools community, officers and finance to work together to manage this to affordable levels which do not destabilise mainstream schools and the private and voluntary sector delivering the provision. It is not feasible simply to correct the position for this year by seeking schools block to fund the pressure, as the funding available from the schools block is limited due to the operation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) regulations and also any funding released from the schools block will need to fund pressures within the high needs block. Measures will need to be agreed that make a significant contribution to the underlying funding shortfall.

7.4 The overall position of the DSG is not financially sustainable going forward and the current situation would certainly affect the budget of all schools in the borough, both maintained and academies.

APPENDIX 4 – High Needs DSG Budget and Saving Proposal Report Appendix 1

High Needs Funding Block Saving Proposals

Page 36 of 41

Ref Proposal Details £ Recommendation

HN01 Reducing the SEN Allowance within the Schools Funding Formula notional SEN allocation

A maximum reduction on mainstream is capped at 1.5% as it is subject to the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) regulations. School Forum have already agreed in principle to an AWPU cut, which is already limited by the allowable MFG level. Thus this saving proposal is not an option that can considered.

nil N/A

HN02 Reducing the current SEN statement top-up rate by 5,10,15% for in borough placements

Currently 1 SEN point equates to 30 minutes support of teaching assistant pay for the year. 2015/16 funding per point is £372.89 per annum A reduction of: 15% = £55.93 per point 20% = £74.58 per point The saving is based on the estimated cost of known SEN statements in 2016/17.

Between £0.627m - £0.836m (full year effect) For detail refer to appendix 2

Schools Forum to consider the rate reduction and agree a reduction in principle requiring SEN Task and Finish group to bring back proposals linked to HN03, HN04, HN07, HN08, …..

HN03 Reducing the current SEN statement top-up rate for out of borough placements

It is very difficult to realise savings from current out of borough placements. Mainly because the costs have already been negotiated and the council will not be intending on moving the child from the placement. It is more realistic and practical to introduce a cut in the current rate for any new placements. This can have an operational impact on administering a two tier system (old and new rates) but this can be mitigated by reviewing the process and identifying any additional resource as the cost saving is likely to outweigh any administration cost.

Further work is required to determine the cost and operational impacts to determine whether a savings can be realised. Further details can be brought to next forum.

School Forum to note and consider saving proposal and agree for Officers to bring proposals back at next meeting.



Page 37 of 41


HN04 Reducing Special Schools and PRU funding formula by 1.5%

The reduction is in line with reduction being sought from AWPU and Early Year hourly rates across primary, secondary and nursery schools and private/independent provisions.

Estimated saving £0.228m (full year effect) For detail refer to appendix 3.

School Forum to agree to a cut of 1.5% for 2016/17

HN05 Implement a more robust evidence based requirement statutory assessment requests

By implementing a more robust evidence process which reflects the schools duty to provide initial support from its notional SEN budget this will enable the SEN team to more effectively target resources.

£nil School Forum to note

HN06 Review criteria for inclusion funding .

A review of the criteria of inclusion funding in early years settings and transition to reception will enable more robust decision making in resource allocation and managing expectations.

£nil School Forum to note the proposal and agree for officers to bring proposals back to next meeting

HN07 Review of admission thresholds

A review is required of Hounslow’s admission thresholds for children with special education needs in mainstream schools, special schools and SEN centres. With the on-going pressure on DSG funding and growing number of children with SEN there is urgent need to review and employ revised policy and strategy with regards to this.

Further work is required by the service.

School Forum to note proposal and task the SEN Task and Finish group to undertake review and report back to schools forum meeting in January

HN08 Implement SEN Top-Up Bands

Hounslow currently do not employ a band system, unlike some local authorities that have some sort of banding structure. This was an action identified for the SEN task and finish group to complete. Due to the current financial pressures it is recommended that the SEN task and finish group continue to complete their task on identifying banding proposals across SEN

Further work is required.

School Forum to note proposal and task the SEN Task and Finish group to bring proposals back to schools forum meeting December.



Page 38 of 41


and include proposal for special schools and SEN centres.

HN09 Linkage to Pupil Premium Grant

Pupil premium grant is an additional grant passported directly to schools to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils and close the gap between them and their peers. Currently the SEN top-funding does not take into account the pupil premium grant allocated to the child. There is some link with SEN and pupil premium outcomes and thus there is a need to join these up. Some work is required to review some case studies to determine the level of saving (if any) can be made as a result of this.

School Forum to note and consider this proposal and task SEN and Task finish group to investigate this and inform school forum of the outcome.

HN10 Review non-statutory services

A review should be undertaken of all non-statutory services that are funded from the high needs block. This will identify services currently paid from the high needs block and identify areas of savings that can be considered which do not impact the statutory function.

Further work required School Forum to note and consider this proposal and task the SEN task and finish group to undertake this piece of work and bring associated outcomes and saving proposal.

HN11 Review SEN Administration Function

Undertake a review to identify any efficiency savings that can be delivered from the administration function relating to SEN in centrally held funding.

School Forum to note and consider proposal and task officers to undertake this review and bring further details to next meeting

HN12 Other Funding Sources

SEN Service delivers some key benefits which link with public health and health service. A more strategic approach by the council in discussing the SEN agenda with its partners can secure some funding i.e. home schooling as result of medical needs, cost of equipment required at school, hospital tuition, interim funding for extra support for those with challenging behaviour are

Schools forum should note and consider the proposal and task Officers to explore these options with Public Health and local Health Services. Outcome of which should be brought back to



Page 39 of 41


some areas of spend that should be looked at in detail with public health and local health commissioners.

School Forum.


Estimated Savings relating to SEN Top-Ups

Page 40 of 41

Table 1: 2016/17 number of points received for SEN top-up

2016/17 Projection (points)

Minimum number

of SEN Points Maximum number

of SEN Points Average number of

SEN Points

Mainstream 2 70 21

PRU 5 36 21

Alternative 10 20 17

The table above reflects the range of points allocated across these settings. Table 2: 2016/17 Estimated Saving Proposals

2016/17 Projection (£) In Borough Out Borough

Hounslow Out of Borough Total Total Points 15% 20% 15% 20%

Mainstream 3,621,694 704,389 4,326,083 11,602 (543,254) (724,339) (105,658) (140,878)

SEN Centres 377,365 31,696 409,060 1,097 (56,605) (75,473) (4,754) (6,339)

Special Schools 163,512 57,798 221,310 594 (24,527) (32,702) (8,670) (11,560)

PRU 15,288 15,288 41 (2,293) (3,058) 0 0

Alternative 0 18,645 18,645 50 0 0 (2,797) (3,729)

Total 4,177,860 812,527 4,990,387 13,383 (626,679) (835,572) (121,879) (162,506)


Estimated Impact on Special Schools and PRU of reduction in funding of 1.5%

Page 41 of 41

The calculation below provides example, using the 2015/16 budget information of what the impact will look like for each Special School if the funding rate was reduced by 1.5%.

Current Core Funding Formula Rate £10,000 % Budget Reduction 1.50%

2015/16 FTE Places

Funded

2015/16 Budget Saving based on 2015/16 Budget Numbers

Core Top-Up Total Reduction 2016/17 Proposed

Budget

Marjory Kinnon School 164.50 1,645,000 2,340,990 3,985,990 (59,790) 3,926,200

Oaklands School 93.92 939,200 1,613,268 2,552,468 (38,287) 2,514,180

Lindon Bennett School (including nursery) 129.67 1,296,700 1,744,022 3,040,722 (45,611) 2,995,111

Cedars Primary School 53.00 530,000 938,161 1,468,161 (22,022) 1,446,139

Total Special Schools 441.09 4,410,900 6,636,441 11,047,341 (165,710) 10,881,631

2015/16 FTE Places

Funded

2015/16 Budget Saving based on 2015/16 Budget Numbers

Core Top-Up Total Reduction 2016/17 Proposed

Budget

Woodbridge Park 176.00 1,760,000 2,402,342 4,162,342 (62,435) 4,099,907

Total PRU 176.00 1,760,000 2,402,342 4,162,342 (62,435) 4,099,907

Total estimated saving at 1.5% reduction to Special Schools and PRU Budgets (228,145)

Documents

DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) 2016/17 DSG BUDGET AND ...... · DSG shortfall. 7.0 Proposals for Early Years Block Funding 7.1 It is estimated that the 2016/17 DSG funding shortfall