Agenda item

1. Ms Fordham introduced the decision. 

2. Ms Stone explained that this paper was brought to the Committee to highlight the need for a decision to be taken before 28 February 2026, which was the statutory deadline for publishing school budgets. The current high needs funding for 2026/27 had been frozen and whilst there had been indications of possible additional funding from the Government, there was no certainty. 

3. In response to comments and questions it was said: 

a.    Members explored the potential of allocating additional funding from base budget, including via increased Council Tax levy.?It was clarified that this would be a political decision, however specific approval from the Secretary of State would be required to permit any additional allocations from KCC's budget to the High Needs block, therefore there were technical challenges. 

b.    A Member highlighted that the table detailing SEND expenditure and the cost of the 2% uplift had been referenced but not included in the papers. They also expressed concern about passing unexpected financial pressures on to schools at short notice. The Member suggested maintaining the 2% uplift for this year and using the time to engage with schools and consider the forthcoming White Paper before making changes next year.  

              i.        Mrs Fordham agreed to take this into account within the options analysis. She cautioned, that granting an immediate uplift without clarity on future funding could make it difficult to withdraw later, ultimately impacting taxpayers. She confirmed the team would seek further information on upcoming funding and ensure any support for schools was fair, equitable and aligned with potential changes to the funding formula. 

            ii.        Ms Stone apologised for the omission of the table and confirmed it would be added to the Decision Report. 

c.    Concerns were raised around unequal funding between special and mainstream schools. The Member highlighted that in some cases teaching assistants and support staff in special schools had specialised skills and due to this had higher salaries, expecting schools to cover these costs without additional funding would be challenging. Mrs Fordham acknowledged the issue, emphasising the importance of proper resourcing despite the wider financial deficit.  

d.    A Member criticised the timing of Government announcements and requested a briefing on the impact of delaying an uplift. They also asked for clarity on the Schools Funding Forum’s position. Ms Stone explained that a delay would increase financial risk for schools, which must set multiyear budgets and may need to implement difficult savings before any funding announcement. Mr Chapman confirmed early engagement with the Schools Funding Forum but no formal recommendation had yet been made. 

e.    A Member raised concerns about staffing pressures in SEND settings and queried whether temporary funding could later be reclaimed if Government funding followed. Ms Stone confirmed budget rules prevented in-year adjustments, making such repayment mechanisms impossible.  

f.     On clarification, the Member explained the intention was only to reclaim funding if Government later paid schools directly. Ms Stone reiterated that Government rules currently do not allow such arrangements, particularly across both maintained schools and academies. Also, it was highlighted that any funding applied would affect both maintained schools and academy trusts and that similar agreements could not be made unilaterally with academy trusts. It was confirmed that the matter would be reviewed further when all proposals were considered. Mrs Fordham explained that additional funding did not guarantee effective allocation and the primary concern was a delay and approach to the process rather than the amount. Mr Chapman clarified that while further announcements remained possible, there was no guarantee of them. Therefore, the Council faced a choice between covering the funding shortfall, with the previously discussed financial risks and consequences within an already overspent and high risk budget area. Otherwise, delay in the hope of future funding, thereby passing pressure onto schools. Any potential future offer was described as desirable but not guaranteed and the Council was required to proceed on the basis that the current offer could represent the Government's final position for Kent this year. 

g.    A Member asked that the Council and others nationally, write to Government about the unsustainability of annual funding uncertainty. Mrs Fordham agreed to raise this through the appropriate channels. 

h.    A Member suggested applying a 1% uplift, costing around £3 million to the High Needs Block, to give schools certainty. Ms McInnes stressed this would increase already significant High Needs Block deficit, without assurance of future Government funding and could have long term implications for Council Taxpayers. Mrs Fordham suggested that all Members received information about the safety valve and its implications in simpler terms as it was a complex subject matter. To ensure that Members understood both the short term financial implications and the longer term risks, particularly if the deficit was not reduced by March 2028. 

i.      Concerns were expressed about repeated delays in national funding decisions, which continue to create instability for schools. 

j.      A Member commented that a £3m uplift could be met through a Council Tax rise of around 4.2%. Ms McInnes advised this would add to the existing deficit, projected to reach £136m by yearend. It was emphasised that the cumulative deficit would ultimately fall on the taxpayers and that costs were continuing to rise. Mr Chapman added that some councils had not met their safety valve savings or efficiency requirements, resulting in the cessation of additional payments.  

k.    A Member asked whether a 0.3% Council Tax increase could generate £3 million without increasing the Safety Valve deficit. Mr Chapman explained that the Council was already over spent and an additional £3 million would add to the existing in-year deficit rather than balancing the budget. 

l.      Further questions were raised about whether Council Tax income could offset the uplift. Ms Stone clarified that the Council could not just make further contributions to the high needs funding at this time using Council Tax. Any additional funding would require approval from the Secretary of State. 

m.  A Member emphasised the seriousness of Government scrutiny and highlighted the need for Members to review the Council’s Budget Report. 

n.    A Member queried delays around the Government White Paper, additionally, asking why planning for schools had not started earlier and whether the delay was due to a lack of information or other constraints. Ms Stone explained that recent high needs funding announcements had been unpredictable, with the flat cash settlement arriving unexpectedly and with little notice, officers had limited preparation time. 

RESOLVED that the Committee noted the update and that the Cabinet Member for Education & Skills will make a decision on the future payment rates for SEN services and agreed that this update report concludes the Cabinet Committee consideration process for the decision.