Schools Forum Update - 24 September 2025
On this page
This update provides a summary of key discussions and decisions taken by Forum at their most recent meeting. If you want to find more detail, the minutes and papers from all meetings are in the public domain and can be found on the Norfolk Schools Forum website, along with contact details for Forum representatives.
Strategic oversight report
Government response to non-school alternative provision
Following a recent consultation, the government has outlined proposed reforms to non-school alternative provision with the aim of fostering greater structure and introducing enhanced flexibility within this sector. Key recommendations include permitting full-time access to unregulated alternative provision for up to 12 weeks, after which students may attend on a part-time basis as needed. Additionally, there is a proposal to limit schools not on roll to offering only regulated online provision. The introduction of national standards for the unregulated alternative provision sector is also suggested to support providers, facilitate local authority commissioning, and ensure quality assurance and consistency across the board. In Norfolk, where there are over 60 providers, Norfolk County Council has expressed its commitment to working collaboratively to uphold safety standards within the system. While these measures are not yet statutory, voluntary adoption is encouraged in preparation for potential future legal requirements. Members of the Schools Forum welcome these changes, recognising the significant contributions of alternative provision, and acknowledge the clarified quality assurance procedures; NCC colleagues are prepared to brief AP providers on the forthcoming requirements.
Forum members asked about the financial implications of expanding the quality assurance function as the alternative provision sector continues to grow. The response highlighted that the local authority is exploring income-generating options with unregulated alternative provision providers to recover associated costs. Currently, there is no established mechanism for cost control in this area, so close monitoring and active engagement with the Department for Education will be necessary to prevent cost inflation. It was also clarified that Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding cannot be used for school improvement purposes, but as unregulated alternative provision settings are not classified as schools, this area remains somewhat indistinct.
Forum members asked for a sense of the timeline for these changes. The answer indicated that, at present, there is no clear timeline available, but it is anticipated that any implementation will be connected to broader statutory changes in the sector.
Forum members also asked about the implications for vocational qualifications and further education colleges in this context.
In response, it was confirmed that the local authority is working with the University of East Anglia Trust and City College to explore opportunities and develop seamless pathways for students moving through the alternative provision sector and into further education.
Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life - Implications for schools and alignment with the Norfolk Learning Ambition
The strategy is structured around three main pillars:
- providing better support for families through the introduction of integrated family services and targeted assistance for vulnerable groups
- expanding and improving access to early education and childcare, including increased funded hours and greater inclusion for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)
- Raising quality in early years and reception through workforce development and stronger partnerships between nurseries and schools.
For schools, the implications are significant. There is an expectation that children will arrive at school better prepared for learning, with a national target set for 75% of children to reach a good level of development by the end of reception by 2028. Norfolk's local target is 76.3%, rising to 55.7% for disadvantaged children. Schools are expected to collaborate closely with nurseries, childminders, health services, and Family Hubs, particularly to support children with additional needs.
Additionally, there is a strong focus on the reception year as a national priority, with a range of support offers including access to programmes like the Nuffield Early Language Intervention and support from Maths Hubs. Increased funding will be provided, especially for early years and SEND support, with the aim of embedding inclusive practice across all settings. Improved data and accountability measures will enable schools to benchmark their provision and track progress, supported by local authorities who are responsible for developing ambitious plans to drive child development outcomes. The Best Start for Life approach demonstrates strong alignment with local initiatives, including the efforts of Family Hubs, the Norfolk Learning Collaborative, and RISE advisers. Norfolk County Council is currently exploring ways to further enhance collaboration across these areas.
SEND & AP Improvement Report to NCC's Children, Families and Community Select Committee
The latest SEND and AP Improvement Report was presented to this committee on 12 September 2025, with the full report and meeting minutes available for public reference.
Key aspects of the report include updates on governance and collaboration, reflecting new systemwide arrangements designed to strengthen oversight and foster greater cooperation across the Norfolk SEND and AP system. The report also details efforts by the local authority and its partners to elevate the voice of children, young people, families, and carers, ensuring their feedback informs service enhancements.
The committee were updated regarding capital investment, specifically addressing delays in the construction of special schools and the development of Specialist Resource Bases. The Department for Education has recognised the challenges these delays have presented and has expressed a desire to move forward, though noted that progress may be affected by upcoming SEND reforms. The committee is preparing a cross-party letter to formally express its concerns
Additionally, the report examines the implications of recent government announcements, including delays to national SEND reforms and updates regarding funding. The committee were also updated regarding the challenging financial context for SEND and AP provision both locally and nationally, referencing the Safety Valve agreement and its impact on the local authority's finances.
Education Policy & Strategic Programme to NCC's Cabinet
Following its recent presentation to the Norfolk County Council Children, Families and Community Select Committee, the Education Policy and Strategic Programme paper will move to the NCC Cabinet in October, marking the next step in improving the county's education system. The Cabinet report will set out the Council's updated approach to its educational role, aiming to improve outcomes for Norfolk's children and young people. This update responds to demographic and legislative changes and builds on Committee recommendations, aligning with the proposed Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
The policy redefines the Council's role, positioning it as a champion for all children (including vulnerable groups), a convener to unite the education system, a supporter of collaboration toward self-improvement, a provider of infrastructure, and a leader in using data to inform decisions. To achieve these goals, the Council will focus on key areas: implementing a unified Education Strategic Framework across Children's Services; boosting collaboration through the Norfolk Learning Collaborative and similar initiatives; providing support and challenge for LA maintained schools, especially in governance and targeted improvement; and working with Schools Forum on financial sustainability. The Sustainable Schools Strategy will also address demographic decline, ensuring local education remains viable and effective; this process has begun in the form of area planning meetings.
Provisional Dedicated Schools Grant Allocations for 2026-27 and Autumn DSG Consultations
Funding Allocations and block transfer
Norfolk County Council has not yet received confirmation of funding allocations or APT modelling. This information is expected in autumn, so a principles-based approach will be used for now instead of confirmed figures. Norfolk is aligning with the National Funding Formula but has no indication if the government will implement the direct formula. The LA plans to mirror the National Funding Formula, setting factors within the permitted +/-2.5% range. If allocations and modelling are provided in time, NCC will issue documentation; otherwise, technical papers will use 25/26 data as the best alternative until updates arrive. Information will be shared promptly once published, even post-consultation.
The LA does not plan to request a block transfer, resulting in more money going directly into schools budgets, with a commensurate reduction in Element 3 funding. £9.7m would remain within the mainstream schools budget share.
Forum members raised the question of whether indicative information is available, even if the modelling tools cannot yet be updated. In response, it was confirmed that the intention is to provide figures based on the current APT, which will give a demonstration of the type of movement expected.
Forum members also expressed concern that the Schools Forum is being asked to consult on information that does not fully reflect the actual situation. This limitation, they noted, prevents a completely open consultation process. It was acknowledged that schools need to be made aware of this context, and that clear communication will be particularly important. Forum members agreed that it is essential to recognise this is not an ideal picture.
With respect to block transfers, Forum members enquired whether the Department for Education has provided a solution to the differences between local authority and academy financial years, especially in relation to not having a block transfer. The response was that every SEND and AP area will be asked to identify pathway plans post-reforms, which has been interpreted as an update to DSG recovery plans. The local authority has requested technical advice on the matter, and will continue to follow up with the Department for Education, considering contingency measures such as a potential dispensation to treat academies and local authority schools differently for one term.
Forum members emphasised that schools' understanding is critical, and clear, effective communications will be essential to ensure all schools are fully informed.
Forum members asked how the Department for Education would react to this approach in relation to the Safety Valve agreement and its year-on-year modelling. The answer given was that, as yet, the details are not exactly clear. Continued dialogue at the national level is underway to support understanding and to present Norfolk's case.
Finally, Forum members queried whether there is information being shared about the implications for schools' Element 3 (E3) allocations, noting the potential risk of disadvantage for schools with high E3 allocations. The response clarified that the move is neutral in cash terms; however, the conversation about Notional funding will be important. The Element 3 model is not cash limited, and allocations are based on need. If increased need is demonstrated within mainstream schools, funding will naturally shift away from the independent sector. The ultimate outcome will depend on national policy and the direction of travel.
Notional SEN
Proposal to Increase Notional SEN Funding - Consultation on Two Options:
The consultation seeks feedback regarding a proposed increase in the notional SEN funding formula equivalent to the 2025-26 block transfer amount of £9.7 million. Additionally, there is a need to further adjust the percentage applied within the existing notional SEN methodology to align with the national average. Options will be presented during the Dedicated Schools Grant consultation.
Schools Forum members stressed the importance of using consistent financial terms and providing more detail in questions to improve clarity.Members also wanted the strategic intent of the proposed changes to be clearer.
Members asked if the consultation would address the moral responsibility of allocating Notional SEN funding fairly, and whether it would be made clear that increasing Notional SEN funding could reduce Element 3 (E3) funding. It was explained that the goal is to align Norfolk's SEN funding with national averages by 2025-26. If schools spend above their Notional allocation, they will be expected to direct more resources towards SEND provision. The local authority will continue supporting schools as needs arise.
Members suggested rewording consultation questions to focus on 'reallocation' rather than just an 'increase' of Notional SEN funding, to make the function clearer. They agreed this should be reflected in consultation materials, and noted that any percentage increase would require schools to update their Graduated Provision Maps accordingly.
Review of methodology for ensuring affordability of the mainstream schools funding model (MFG levels)
The local authority (LA) is reviewing the methodology used to ensure the affordability of the mainstream schools funding model, particularly regarding Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) levels. In November 2023, the Schools Forum decided to remove the hard cap on funding gains for 2024-25 and instead reduced National Funding Formula factor values, as permitted by the Department for Education (DfE), to keep school allocations within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) limits. This adjustment followed a 1.5% transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block, which was approved in line with Norfolk's Safety Valve agreement.
For the 2026-27 financial year, a reduction in funding values may not be necessary if the Schools Block to High Needs Block transfer does not occur. This could allow Norfolk to align its formula factor rates more closely with the National Funding Formula. Each year, alongside these adjustments, the LA has applied the maximum allowable MFG protection to shield schools from year-on-year funding losses.
Specifically, for 2025-26, the MFG range for mainstream schools was set between -0.5% and 0.0% per pupil. The LA chose a 0.0% MFG, which safeguarded schools against any per-pupil funding decreases and maintained consistency with prior agreements to mirror the National Funding Formula as closely as possible. However, Schools Forum members have questioned whether continuing to use the maximum MFG is still appropriate given the current context.
The arrangements for MFG in 2026-27 will be announced in autumn by the DfE, but it is currently assumed the range will be similar to that of 2025-26. Due to a lack of provisional DSG allocations and modelling tools, the LA cannot yet provide technical examples of how different options would affect individual schools in 2026-27. Furthermore, it is unclear whether an MFG would be necessary if there were no block transfer, making it crucial to consider the underlying principles.
As an initial step, the LA will supply a technical paper illustrating the impact of different MFG levels for the 2025-26 formula, both with and without the block transfer, to inform consideration of the potential options and their effectsand suggest offering three options within the DSG consultation - continue the MFG at the maximum, mid-point or lowest percentage allowable.
Schools Forum members raised the question of what the implications might be of offering a range of Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) options within the consultation. They emphasised the need for the consultation to include a clear explanation of the historic position, noting that previous discussions on this topic have not resulted in any changes to the matter at hand.
Schools Forum members highlighted that the impact of these options, particularly on smaller schools, should be carefully considered. They pointed out that changes could have a knock-on effect on the sustainability of such schools, especially in the context of demographic shifts. Members recommended that the consultation provide sufficient context to reflect these factors. In addition, Schools Forum members stressed the importance of having a broader conversation about the significance of stability within school funding. They suggested that the consultation should be underpinned by the core principles held by the Forum, ensuring that both stability and sustainability remain at the forefront of any proposed changes.
Early Years Technical Consultation
The Early Years Technical Consultation outlined recent and upcoming changes to the funding and delivery of early years education in Norfolk. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) finances funded entitlements for 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds, with allocations determined by the Early Years National Funding Formula and Local Authority formulae. Following the Spring Budget 2023, funded entitlements have expanded, allowing more working parents access to up to 30 hours for children from 9 months, particularly increasing funding for children under 3.
National policy emphasises reducing inequalities, supporting disadvantaged and SEND children, and integrating funding streams for maximum impact. Locally, the expansion of entitlements has shifted the age profile and take-up rates, with a decline in 2-year-olds eligible for the Families Receiving Additional Support (FRAS) entitlement. Funding rates for under 2s are significantly higher, which may influence provider behaviour and the availability of places for 2-year-olds. There are ongoing challenges in ensuring adequate provision and support for disadvantaged and SEND children, and national and local reviews have identified areas for improvement; The final underspend in this area at year end was a total £4.011m.
The Early Years Consultative Group recommends a survey to explore ways to improve take-up among disadvantaged 2-year-olds, focusing on barriers, support needs, successful strategies, and potential changes to funding or processes. The DSG consultation will ask for feedback from the education system regarding barriers, improvement and information sharing in this area.
Forum Members raised questions regarding the ongoing underspend within the Early Years block, specifically asking what measures are in place to address the use of this underspend to offset overspends in other areas. The response explained that the current funding mechanism leads to more funding being allocated than is actually taken up. This is largely because the formula must be set 18 months in advance. Analysis has been undertaken to identify patterns between the census data submitted and the actual claims made, but this process is complicated by factors such as pupil movement, changes in entitlement, and the formula itself, which is based on Department for Education projected hours for distribution. Notably, the Early Years block is unique in that it can be amended throughout the year, making it particularly challenging to predict funding requirements with certainty. The forthcoming move to termly counts for entitlements introduces further uncertainty, as the impact on census and claim patterns remains unknown. Forum Members were also reassured that this issue is not unique to Norfolk and is experienced more widely.
Forum Members commented that parental choice continually presents challenges. Although families may be entitled to up to 30 hours of provision, many parents opt for fewer hours, such as 18, 20, or 24, contributing to the underspend in the sector. Forum Members emphasised the sector's desire to minimise underspends to ensure resources are fully utilised.
Medical Needs provision and AP
The DSG consultation will update schools regarding changes to how funding is allocated for pupils receiving Medical Needs Alternative Provision (AP) arranged by the local authority (LA).
Currently, schools retain full funding for these pupils even when the LA provides their entire education, resulting in double funding from both the school's budget and the high needs block. Updated AP Census guidance clarifies when such pupils should be included in the AP Census rather than solely the school census, shifting funding responsibility. The consultation proposes new technical arrangements for identifying and recording these pupils, including how to handle hybrid scenarios where both the school and LA provide education, and seeks views on appropriate thresholds and coding practices.
Schools forum members commented that while the principle is valid, consultation questions need to reflect that some schools will be financially impacted by changes to arrangements.
Disapplication requests
Schools Members and PVI representatives were asked to agree the disapplication request for a second (and final) year of amalgamation protection for Hilgay Riverside Academy at 40% of the second lump sum, for the 2026-27 financial year.
Forum members asked how the disapplication requests operate in practice, noting that it might occur at any point during the year. They were particularly interested in understanding the practicalities of how budget allocations would be managed if the change happened mid-year.
The response clarified that, within the year, the two budget shares would be merged into one. For the second year, a single lump sum protection would be applied, ensuring financial continuity through the transition.
Forum members further commented that it would be extremely challenging to remove those protections at a later stage. They advised that both years' arrangements should be agreed upon from the outset to provide clarity and stability to all those affected.
Exceptional premises factor:
Schools Members and PVI representatives are asked to agree the proposed disapplication for use of the exceptional premises factor for hire or lease of buildings or land where the school premises is unable to provide the necessary facility.
Schools Forum members asked, with the potential changes to budget allocation, whether a check would be conducted once the final figures are released to determine if the disapplication applies. The response confirmed that this would indeed take place.
Schools Forum members also queried whether there is a value for money check. It was confirmed that the Department for Education is monitoring these figures very closely.
Schools Forum Constitution
Schools Forum was asked to approve the constitution following the amendments made to the draft. In addition, Non-school member groups were requested to provide the clerk with details of the process they use to select members, so this information could be included in the appendices of the constitution.
Each member group was also asked to supply the names of suitable substitutes, who could attend meetings in the absence of regular members. Furthermore, the Forum was invited to agree the Terms of Reference for the High Needs Working Group, after reviewing and amending the draft presented in Appendix 2 of the constitution as necessary.
The Forum was also asked to determine and agree the minimum number of Schools Forum members who should participate in the High Needs Working Group, as well as the minimum required sector representation within the group. Finally, nominations were sought from Schools Forum members to serve on the High Needs Working Group, including appointing a Chair. The Forum was also asked to confirm whether any non-Schools Forum members should be sought ahead of the initial meeting, or if the Working Group itself could agree to co-opt non-Forum members to ensure a broad and representative membership.
Schools Forum thanked officers for their work on development of the updated constitution - the constitution was agreed unanimously.
Schools Forum members queried who holds responsibility for finding substitutes. It was suggested that a central list be created and that the clerk take on the responsibility of contacting substitutes, thereby avoiding placing the burden on individual representatives.
Nominations for the High Needs Working Group were taken from members - members formed the group and will elect a chair.
Schools Forum Regular Update Report
As part of their ongoing work, Schools Forum are recommended to appoint a representative and a substitute for the Local Inclusion Partnership, with the aim of ensuring that issues raised within the Schools Forum can be discussed with the Partnership and vice versa. Additionally, Schools Forum are advised to appoint two representatives to the Early Years Consultative Group.
Schools Forum members asked whether Forum members could be appointed as full members of the Early Years Consultative Group, or are they only permitted to attend specific meetings? The response was given that it is important to have Schools Forum representation, but wish to clarify that the Early Years Consultative Group is not a sub-committee, but rather a consultative body; the constitution of the EYCG be clarified accordingly.
