Councils shun trial to move SEND funding into mainstream schools

At least one in five councils has ruled out taking part in a landmark government trial to transfer more cash directly to schools to support pupils with SEND.

 The Department for Education announced in July it was looking at how town halls could“rebalance funding” by moving money currently distributed to schools through the high-needs funding stream directly into mainstream budgets.

The aim is to support earlier intervention and a more proactive approach to meeting need as mainstream schools become more inclusive – the crux of the SEND reforms.

But an expression of interest round, which closed on Friday, appears to have attracted little take-up from councils.

Schools Week has established the names of just three councils out of 153 that said they were interested, although one council has suggested that 12 may have gone ahead.

A further 32 have declined to take part, while the status of the rest is unknown.

Many councils have said it would be “a risk” to “experiment” with their SEND finances for the pilot – especially on the precipice of other major reforms.

Stephen Morales, the chief executive of Centre for Education Operational Excellence, said this was another example in a “history of money not being passed forward to schools…because of the pressures at a local authority level”.

“Competing pressures”

 “I’m sympathetic to the point of local authorities and understand that they’re dealing with competing pressures, but I really welcome the idea of getting the money to the frontline.

“You cannot realise reforms without investment in those reforms. You cannot make this system more inclusive without backing that initiative with investment.”

Currently, £6,000 per pupil is given to mainstream schools to support children’s additional needs. This has not changed since 2013 and is based on costs from 2009.

As part of the DfE’s trial, participating councils would consult with their schools’ forum to increase this amount, with the amount approved by the department.

Forum documents for Richmond upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames, whose children’s services are run by Achieving for Children, said this month “to date 12 LAs have expressed an interest in participating in this pilot”.

But we were unable to confirm their names.

Thirty-two councils confirmed to Schools Week they had not expressed an interest in the scheme, while Sheffield, Central Bedfordshire and South Tyneside said they had.

While many councils supported the principle of the scheme, they raised concerns about the timing – and risks – of taking part.

The Local Government Association wrote in its consultation response that the proposals were being “developed in isolation from wider reforms”, and that better inclusive mainstream education “will only be possible with the allocation of additional funding”.

“Redistribute financial pressure”

It added that if councils were to participate in this pilot, ministers should guarantee a complete write-off of any linked increases in high-need deficits.

Gloucestershire’s schools’ forum documents said: “Moving a larger share of funding upfront without increasing the overall funding available would not resolve that underlying problem.

“It would redistribute financial pressure between LAs and schools while leaving the total system inadequately resourced.”

Christine Townsend, Bristol’s chair of the children and young people committee, agreed that future action would need to be supported by “sufficient funding”.

Barnet in north London said the proposal would “effectively require LAs to experiment with their high-needs block at a time when many are already managing significant pressures”.

Norfolk officers told the schools’ forum they had “very real concerns about the feasibility of this approach”.

They argued it was not clear how a new formula could make sure resources were being allocated in schools with the greatest need.

East Sussex schools’ forum documents said there was “insufficient evidence” that changes in the wider system have “progressed far enough to allow funding to redistributed on a sustainable basis without increasing risks” to the high-needs block.

The DfE’s consultation said it had “built in safeguards to manage risks”, as officials would sign off any transfers before they were implemented.

Safeguards needed

Some school leaders have also raised concerns about the pilot.

Margaret Mulholland, SEND and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said while she recognised the intent to reduce reliance on top-up funding linked to individual pupils, union members “do not think there are sufficient safeguards against unacceptable local variation in the inequitable treatment of pupils”.

She suggested a nationally consistent funding formula that would make allowances for “limited” local adjustments would “be a better way forward”.

ASCL’s consultation response said while additional funding had been made available for the SEND reforms, the “system is not yet in a steady state”, and leaders “urge caution when introducing an additional layer of local flexibility”.

Leora Cruddas, the chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, said she expected funding to be moved for schools “in the longer term”, but that she agreed that “it may be better to wait for a more system-wide approach than try to make existing funding models fit”.

Schools Week asked the DfE to confirm the number of expressions of interest it received and to respond to concerns raised by councils, but received no reply.

The consultation said there were “no requirements” for LAs to make changes ahead of broader reforms in 2029-30.