Schools Forum Update - 26 November 2025

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

The Oversight report provided a strategic overview of key developments that affected Norfolk's education system, focusing on the financial and operational implications of delayed national SEND reforms, uncertainties around government funding for new special schools, and the council's ongoing local transformation efforts. It highlighted Norfolk's updated education policy and strategic framework, which aimed to balance local provision with financial sustainability, and detailed the introduction of a new Ofsted inspection framework that emphasised inclusion and curriculum quality. The document discussed challenges such as capital planning for SEND and alternative provision, the role of small schools, the priorities of the Norfolk Learning Collaborative, and the anticipated impact of recent government announcements on curriculum and inspection.

Schools Forum members noted that hopes that there had been an anticipation of publication of the SEND reforms, in the hope that these would resolve existing challenges. However, with confirmation of considerable delays, it is now necessary to turn attention to a broader set of issues.

DSG Monitoring 2025-26

This paper presented an overview of Norfolk's Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) financial position for 2025-26, highlighting a projected in-year deficit of approximately £70 million and a cumulative deficit that was expected to reach around £180.4 million by March 2026, despite planned contributions from the Department for Education and Norfolk County Council. It detailed key budget variances across High Needs, Schools, Central Services, and Early Years blocks, outlined drivers such as increased demand for special and alternative provision, and discussed ongoing capital investment to expand specialist places. The report also addressed significant financial and operational risks, particularly delays in national SEND reforms and funding uncertainty, and underlined the need for continued partnership working—both locally and with government—to manage SEND pressures, deliver reforms, and secure the council's financial stability. Schools Forum was invited to review, comment on, and provide feedback regarding the current monitoring and future planning for DSG budgeting and modelling.      

Members noted the importance of assessing value for money across placements, emphasising the need for ongoing evaluation to ensure resources are used efficiently.

It was acknowledged that there is growing demand for high needs support in the Post-16 sector; however, the budget had been set prior to the release of the most up-to-date data. Subsequent modelling, based on more recent figures, indicated a lower level of demand and the financial projections were updated accordingly.

Clarification was requested regarding variances in the budgeted figures for Alternative Provision, with members seeking further detail on the reasons behind any discrepancies.

High Needs Block Working Group report

Members of the Working Group noted that the budget projections for the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) are now closely aligned with actual expenditure, providing a clearer understanding of the council's financial position. A significant overspend remains within Element 3, particularly relating to placements in independent special schools, despite a reduction in the number of such placements.

Members discussed the importance of robust accountability mechanisms to monitor the effectiveness of initiatives such as the Zone Inclusion Partnership. There was a focus on ensuring that partnership working delivers measurable impact and that variability in outcomes across different areas is addressed.

Mainstream Schools Autumn DSG Consultation Outcomes and Recommendations for Funding Formula

As reported in the paper, the autumn 2025 consultation with Norfolk mainstream schools focused on proposed changes to the funding formula for 2026/27, including the removal of the Schools Block to High Needs Block transfer, adjustments to Notional SEN levels, the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG), medical needs alternative provision, and updates to the Scheme for Financing Schools. Fourteen responses were received, representing 170 schools and over 52,000 pupils, with feedback indicating broad support for discontinuing the block transfer to improve funding stability and planning. However, respondents also highlighted the need for clear communication regarding funding implications, particularly for SEND allocations and the differences in financial years between academies and maintained schools.

Regarding Notional SEN, most respondents supported increasing its proportion to reflect the end of the block transfer and progressing towards the national average, though concerns were raised about the adequacy of the increase and potential impacts on schools with high SEND needs. The majority favoured a staged, incremental approach to raising Notional SEN, balancing the need for alignment with national funding levels against the financial pressures faced by schools. For the Minimum Funding Guarantee, option 1 (maximum allowable percentage) was most supported, with stability and protection of per-pupil funding cited as key reasons, especially in the context of rising costs and ongoing SEND demands.

Feedback on medical needs alternative provision was mixed, with some supporting shared funding and pro-rata contributions from schools based on provision, while others voiced concerns about the financial strain on small schools and the fairness of clawing back funding when costs are not easily reduced. Respondents emphasised the need for transparency, ongoing engagement, and consideration of fixed costs in implementing changes to funding arrangements. Technical updates to the Scheme for Financing Schools were generally supported by maintained schools. Overall, the responses reflect a preference for gradual change, clear communication, and a careful balance between system-wide reforms and the realities faced by individual schools.

Information released in the last week does not suggest any significant changes, other than those specified in the supplementary document. There has not been an Authority Proforma Tool released; this is likely to be released in December along with the final DSG allocations.

Based on the consultation responses, the Local Authority has proposed the following:

1. Discontinue the Schools Block to High Needs Block transfer from 2026/27.
2. Increase Notional SEN by 1.3% to reflect the removal of the transfer, distributed using the existing local methodology.
3. Further raise Notional SEN by 1.09% to move closer to national expectations for SEND funding.
4. Distribute additional Minimum Funding Guarantee funding for 2026/27 via the local formula, aligned with National Funding Formula values, with no technical amendments.
5. Develop a new model for medical needs alternative provision, treating it as a temporary intervention to help students reintegrate into mainstream schools.
6. Require multi-disciplinary assessment before starting a medical needs pathway and create comprehensive plans for children and families.
7. Introduce pro-rata contributions from 2026/27 for medical needs alternative provision, based on each school's BPPE and the proportion of provision delivered, using a 25-hour per week benchmark. (Example: 15 hours/week = 60% x £4,000 = £2,400 annually; £63 weekly for 12 weeks = £757 contribution.)
8. Implement the consulted changes to the Scheme for Financing Schools (Section 7) for maintained schools, based on feedback received.

Forum members noted that, despite low attendance, those who participated engaged in in-depth discussions with numerous other leaders, which subsequently influenced the broader system. It was highlighted that more than 40% of schools were represented in the responses.

Forum members emphasised the importance of overcoming the misconception that consultation responses do not impact the outcomes. Forum members identified a need to demystify the consultation process and also observed that the lack of final numbers made it more challenging to respond effectively.

It was commented that, as the area is technical and an increasing number of headteachers no longer manage budgets directly, it is essential to ensure the appropriate meetings are reached.

Forum members highlighted the critical importance of schools receiving clear and timely information from the local authority when setting their budgets, particularly regarding Element 3 funding. Concerns were raised about the risk that schools might not fully grasp the implications of the changes to Notional SEN and Element 3 funding, which could potentially result in reduced overall funding for some schools. Members noted that the way SENDCos interpret these changes would be significant. Officers responded by suggesting the use of the finance consultative group to determine the most effective way to communicate these updates to maintained schools and that trust leadership would need to support academies. Forum members acknowledged that it was necessary for Norfolk to move towards the national average for Notional SEN Funding.

 A question was raised by members concerning discussions with the Department for Education (DfE) about the discontinuation of the block transfer and timing differences with GAG funding changes, with members noting that while the DfE was aware of the issues, no solution had been offered. Regarding the block transfer, members accepted the inherent risk should the DfE not approve its discontinuation, then the block transfer would need to be revisited.

Forum members also expressed concerns about the charging for Medical Needs Alternative Provision, particularly the potential impact of other costs on the sustainability of smaller schools. There was apprehension that the set percentage might be too high due to term time vs full year cost assumptions in the example, and that lagged funding could further challenge schools. Officers explained that efforts were underway to balance ambitions to revise the approach to medical needs responsibilities, moving towards a shared responsibility model. Members agreed in principle to introducing a contribution but asked the High Needs Working Group of Schools Forum to work with officers to consider how this could be progressed, to be brought back to Forum for future consideration.  

Outcomes:

Agreement to proposals 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 8 with 7 agreed in principle but to return to Forum for final decision following further work by the High Needs Working Group

Early Years Autumn DSG Consultation Outcomes and Recommendations for Funding Formula

The report outlined feedback from the Autumn 2025 consultation with Norfolk early years providers regarding the sufficiency of places and access to funded entitlements for disadvantaged families. Although the response rate was low, the findings highlighted ongoing challenges in meeting demand—particularly for children under two from working families and two-year-olds eligible for additional support. Respondents noted waiting lists, limited capacity, staffing shortages, and barriers such as literacy, late eligibility notification, and travel costs. Outreach and partnership efforts, especially with health professionals and community organisations, were identified as areas that needed improvement to better inform and support families. Providers suggested that enhanced advertising, earlier identification of eligible families, and increased funding or financial incentives could have helped address these issues.

The report also proposed removing the 0.25% contingency from the local early years funding formula, as it had gone largely unused, and sought Schools Forum approval for a centrally retained budget for early years services set at 3% of entitlements funding for 2026-27. This reduction aligned with a national increase in the minimum pass-through rate to providers. The estimated central budget covered essential services including administration, support, training, and inclusion work, with a small projected funding gap remaining until final allocations were confirmed.

Schools Forum member responses:

• The sector has had a lot of change this academic year, which may have influenced participation rates.
• The EY consultative group was a really useful meeting to gather impactful suggestions.

Forum members noted that the sector had experienced considerable change throughout the current academic year, which may have contributed to lower participation rates. Members also highlighted the value of the Early Years consultative group, recognising it as an effective forum for gathering constructive and impactful suggestions.

Centrally Retained Decisions Report:

Growth Fund (Schools Block)

Schools Forum was asked to approve a centrally retained Growth Fund of £813,433 for the 2026-27 financial year, which included provision for pre-16 pupil growth and post-opening costs for new schools. The forum considered criteria for distribution, reflecting previous under and overspends, and reviewed allocations and outcomes from the 2025-26 period. Specific funding requirements for several schools and catchment areas were detailed, with adjustments made for inflation once National Funding Formula rates were published by the Department for Education.

Decisions regarding the Growth Fund's size and allocation criteria were required, with the local authority proposing that any underspend at the end of the financial year would be reported and offset against Norfolk's cumulative DSG deficit. The fund aimed to support both basic need growth in maintained schools and academies, as well as costs associated with new school openings. Any overspend at year-end would have contributed to the overall DSG deficit, with the process ensuring transparency and compliance with grant conditions.

Forum members queried whether funding adjustments are made for schools that close or open during the academic year. Officers confirmed that, in accordance with Department for Education guidance, funding may be reallocated from closed schools to those absorbing the displaced pupils. Additionally, members asked if funding could be mapped directly to the schools receiving these pupils. Officers clarified that established growth funding thresholds apply, and, wherever feasible, allocations are maintained within the system to ensure funding accurately follows the children. Officers will draft an update to the principle that the funding will follow moved children, and bring to the January meeting.

Falling Rolls Funding

The Department for Education updated its guidance for Growth and Falling Rolls funds in October 2025, stipulating that allocations for 2025-26 would be determined by both growth and falling rolls factors. At the November 2024 Schools Forum, it had been agreed that the methodology for a Falling Rolls fund would be reviewed annually to support vulnerable primary schools facing demographic decline, but no such fund was approved or included at that time. Instead, a data review was initiated to assess whether the fund should be introduced as part of the annual consultation cycle for the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The review, as outlined in this report, found that the current data did not support the introduction of a Falling Rolls fund, since no school met the necessary criteria, and the surplus capacity across Norfolk's schools continued to grow with little indication of recovery. The Place Planning Team had examined admissions numbers, catchment forecasts, and parental preference trends, concluding that pupil numbers remained in decline and schools would need to adapt to this new norm. Therefore, the recommendation was made not to introduce a Falling Rolls funding mechanism for the 2026-27 funding formula, but to continue with annual reviews of the data and consult with Schools Forum should the situation change and warrant future support.

Schools Forum members approved the proposal.

Central School Services Block 2026-27

In this paper, members of the Schools Forum had been requested to approve the allocation of funding from the Central School Services Block (CSSB) for 2026-27. The CSSB had been designed to support statutory duties for both maintained schools and academies, consolidating funding from various sources including the Education Services Grant and central function budgets. For reference, the 2025-26 CSSB allocation had amounted to £5,011,403, which covered centrally retained budgets for all schools.

Schools Forum were asked to approve the following decisions for 2026-27:

• Admissions funding at £487,000.
• Funding for the Schools Forum at £30,000.
• Funding for fees to independent schools for pupils without SEN at £100,000.
• Funding for responsibilities held for all schools at £3.479 million (plus any inflation to be received through the CSS Block).

It had been noted that the estimated costs for central licences for all schools were £915,000 for 2026-27, and that the exact final amounts would depend on pupil numbers and the final DSG allocation to be confirmed in December 2025. The Schools Forum's approval had been required for the retention of these funds, with the local authority indicating that, if not agreed, the matter would have to be referred to the Department for Education for adjudication. The paper had outlined the continued importance of the Assisted Boarding Partnership and detailed the breakdown of service areas and funding sources for the previous year.

Schools Forum member responses:

Forum members queried the associates referenced within the funding tables for service areas. Officers confirmed that these figures had been drawn from prior budget allocations and advised that an updated table would be presented at the January meeting. It was noted that three areas—NGN, NSLA and NASSH—currently receive funding, yet there has been no reporting on their impact. Officers responded that impact reports for these areas will be provided at the January meeting.

The Forum suggested it may be timely to reconsider the rationale behind the central services block. Officers agreed to return with further information for discussion in January.

De-delegation and buy-back (maintained schools)

This paper outlined a number of decisions to be taken by maintained schools - context for these can be found in the paper.

Summary of De-Delegation and Buy-Back Decisions for 2026-27
 

Maintained School Internal Audits

•  Decision 8a - The maintained primary and secondary representatives are asked to decide whether to charge the cost of internal audits to maintained primary/secondary schools' budgets for a minimum risk-based assurance approach in 2026-27. - Yes
• Decision 8b - The maintained nursery school representative is asked to decide whether to charge the cost of internal audits to maintained primary/secondary schools' budgets, for implementation of a minimum risk-based assurance approach in 2026-27.-Yes
• Decision 8c - The maintained special school representative is asked to decide whether to charge the cost of internal audits to maintained -Yes

Schools Forum Regular Update Report

This report highlighted that members were invited to self-nominate for the roles of Chair and Vice Chair ahead of the January meeting, provided updates on the activities and membership of the Finance Consultative Group (FCG), the High Needs Working Group, and detailed appointments to the Local Inclusion Partnership and Early Years Consultative Group. It noted that Lacey Douglass and Jo Tuttle became representatives for the Early Years group, while Owen Jenkins and Jo Tuttle were appointed as the representative and substitute, respectively, for the Local Inclusion Partnership.

The High Needs Working Group held its initial meeting and considered its future reporting format, with several members volunteering, and the FCG had been reestablished with future meeting dates set and responsibility for policy and guidance recommendations confirmed. Members were encouraged to submit nominations for the leadership roles by the updated deadline.