SCHOOLS have blasted ‘morally reprehensible’ plans to slash funding for special needs pupils – as the county council looks to plug a £5.2m hole in the budget.

Governors, parents and headteachers have spoken out against the proposals, with many warning that implementing them would plunge schools into debt, force them to make staff redundant and harm the chances of some of the county’s most vulnerable children.

It comes as Ofsted raises ‘significant concerns’ about how well the needs of children with special needs are being met.

The plans – which Dorset County Council stresses ‘have not been finalised’ – are:

  • Lower the budget of mainstream top ups and consider a banded funding system. A report to the Dorset Schools’ Forum states this would be a ‘more transparent’ approach and would give schools freedom to meet children’s needs in a range of ways, rather than only providing hours of TA support. This option would save between £1,620,800 and £2m.
  • Either remove the tipping point scheme altogether or adjust the ratio, saving from £351,468 to £400,000.

In letters published in the agenda to a meeting of the Dorset Schools Forum held on March 17, eight schools warn that the proposals will lead to redundancies. Bridport Primary School said they would have to make at least four staff redundant, while St Mary’s Church of England Primary School, also in Bridport, said they would have to cut eight staff to balance the books.

A spokesman for the Minerva Trust, which represents Burton Bradstock Primary, Bridport Primary, St Mary's Church of England Primary and the Sir John Colfox Academy, said these figures are a 'worst case scenario' estimate and their budgets have not been finalised.

The other schools did not quote a number.

A report to the Dorset Schools Forum in January by group finance manager Tom Wilkinson outlines how the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) has been underspent in previous years – but the carry forward balance isn’t enough to offset the £5.2m overspend forecast for 2016/17 in the Higher Needs Block (HND). In addition, Mr Wilkinson told the forum that the ability to move funding between different blocks is likely to be removed – meaning that the DSG is facing a deficit for the first time in a number of years and that the only way to deal with the HND overspend is through spending cuts.

Two schools - Wey Valley and Shaftesbury School - have accused the county council of ‘financial mismanagement’ of the budget, leading to the proposed cuts, but a spokesman for the local authority denied there had been any error in accounting. The chair of governors at Bridport St Mary's Primary School questioned if the proposals are even legal.

A report to the Dorset Schools’ Forum stated: “There appears to be a myth that the overspend of the High Needs Block is a local authority overspend. It is the high needs budget which is the fund that supports Dorset pupils. It is paid to schools (of all types) to support specific pupils and is not therefore an LA budget, but a budget held centrally so that it can be directed to schools where there are high needs pupils. If there are more pupils in the system than the budget can support at the levels currently being paid, the only options available are to reduce the funding paid, reduce the support available to schools or find additional income.”

Gemma Brayshaw is mum to four-year-old Dexter, who attends Wyvern School, and the chair of the Friends of Wyvern charity.

She said: "Any cuts to funding in the education sector are always a worry. As a parent of a child with complex additional needs, my view is that my son needs what he needs. Regardless of cosy, regardless of convenience, he must be safe and have a productive learning environment. Pressure on teachers and TAs who are doing an amazing job and going above and beyond is already so high, we shouldn't be pushing them further.”

Sara Tough, Dorset County Council director of children’s services, said: “We work with the Dorset Schools’ Forum, which includes head teachers, governors and non-school members, to oversee the budget set by government that is directed to schools, early years providers and for those with higher needs. 

“Together with them, we are working on proposals for how we can deal with unprecedented budget pressures over the past 12 months, especially on the portion of school funding that supports ‘high needs’ children. 

“These proposals have not yet been finalised. We are continuing to work with the forum to find ways we can collectively achieve balanced budgets and make the best decisions for children and young people with additional needs.”

A spokesman for the county council added: “The Schools Forum considered a proposal by the county council seeking to bring the spending plans for 2017/18 within the Government allocated funding, which is our statutory responsibility.

“We have been consulting with schools about this challenging position over the last six months and understand their concerns. We will be contacting schools on Monday, March 27 with a final decision.” 

What the schools said

LETTERS from schools which have been published in the minutes of the Dorset Schools Forum meeting outline the devastating effect the proposals could have. Here are just some of the comments.

  • Powerstock Primary School

“Before withdrawal of the Tipping Point funding and TA reduction, we were licensed with a minor deficit budget already due to the amount of TAs we need for particularly vulnerable children in order for them to make any progress. We had worked very hard to make every conceivable cut and measure taken in other areas of school spending and were pleased to have brought the school finances into almost a surplus balance. The removal of the Tipping Point money and reduction of TA 1:1 funding will mean that our budget will be back in deficit by £21,000 in the first impacted year.”

  • Stalbridge Church of England Primary School

“I am writing to express my utter frustration and disappointment at the SEN funding cuts, which will take place from April 2017. We feel that we are being significantly penalised for being inclusive, we have always welcomed children with complex needs into our mainstream school. I feel it is morally wrong to remove funding from the most vulnerable.”

The letter adds the cuts would mean the school falling into £20,000 deficit.

  • Shaftesbury School

“I do understand that there is much difficulty in reconciling a budget that has been managed to allow such a ludicrous deficit to be achieved and it is not my place to apportion blame on this. However the young people who are currently in the SEN system should not and must not be the ones made to pay for this.”

  • The Wey Valley School

“We have absolutely no capacity within our budget to make up the shortfalls that your proposal would necessitate. You are, in effect, asking me, as a Head, to make up the shortfalls that have been brought about by the LA’s mishandling of the central SEN budget, and creating a situation where our most vulnerable students are being asked to pay for this financial mismanagement.

“As a school Requiring Improvement [the proposal] places me at severe risk of these students failing and would make it almost impossible to move to Good as outcomes for students with SEN would only decline. In addition you would be placing us at risk of, quite frankly, justifiable legal challenges from parents.

“As a headteacher serving a school with some of the most vulnerable young people in our county I cannot stress strongly enough the damage that the current proposal would incur. It is, in my opinion, morally reprehensible and directly goes against the most fundamental values underpinning the support and education of Dorset’s most vulnerable SEN students.”

  • Bridport Primary School

“For us where many of our EHCP (education, health and care plan) pupils are also at high levels of SEMH (social, emotional, mental health) it may well result in permanent exclusions as without the additional support they will undoubtedly fail to thrive.”

  • Bridport St Marys Primary School (letter from the chair of governors)

“Are these proposals even legal? The governors believe that this proposal will mean that the SEN of some pupils will not be fully met and the Local Authority will therefore be failing in its statutory duties.”

  • Chair of Special School Heads and Deputies (SSHAD)

“We feel strongly that the proposal…is counter-productive and will have significant, far-reaching and damaging consequences for our schools and the pupils in them.

“We believe that the Local Authority has not considered this as part of a careful strategic plan and is making poor, short-term decisions with limited recognition of the consequences.”