The Richmond Schools Forum was scheduled to meet to discuss the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget for 2026/27, and receive an update on the 2025/26 financial year. They were also scheduled to review the terms of reference for the High Needs Block Sub-group.

2026/27 Budget

The Schools Forum was scheduled receive an update on the 2026/27 budget, and to make recommendations on several elements of the Schools Block formula. These included:

• The Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) level
• A growth fund budget
• Funding and criteria for a falling rolls fund¹

The Forum was also scheduled to discuss a transfer from the Schools Block to support high needs pressures, and a survey on union duty cover.

Minimum Funding Guarantee

The Schools Forum was asked to recommend a Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) rate at either minus -0.50% or 0.00%. The MFG protects each school from significant year-on-year reductions in per pupil funding. The protection is funded by reallocating money away from schools that will gain more on a per pupil funding basis.

A consultation with schools showed that 74% of respondents voted in favour of setting the MFG at 0.0 %, with 26% voting in favour of -0.5%. One respondent commented:

We have a significant falling roll and cannot afford to lose any more funding.

Growth Fund

The Schools Forum was asked to approve a budget of £150,000 for the growth fund in 2026/27. Any unspent funds would be redistributed to schools. The fund can only be used for the purposes of supporting growth in pre-16 pupil numbers to meet basic needs, to support additional classes needed to meet the infant class size regulation, and to meet the costs of new schools.

A consultation with schools showed that 52% of respondents agreed to a Growth Fund of £150,000, 30% did not agree, and 18% were unsure. Some respondents felt that the funds should instead be put towards the falling rolls fund.

Falling Rolls Fund

The Schools Forum was asked to vote on whether they wished to top slice funding from the schools block to create a budget for the falling rolls fund in 2026/27. The level of the fund and criteria also needed to be determined.

The consultation results showed that the majority of schools were in favour of a falling rolls fund, with just over 81% voting for one of the options that included a fund amount. 18.5% voted against having a falling rolls fund. Of those in favour:

• 48.1 % voted for a fund of £175,000
• 11.1 % voted for a fund of £200,000
• 22.2 % voted for a fund of £250,000

The consultation asked schools to consider the criteria for the fund. The majority (56%) voted in favour of '% of permanent PAN² that is not being used plus schools that have had a temporary PAN within the last 3 years'.

Block Transfers

The Schools Forum was scheduled to be updated on Section 7 of Consultation 2 and a question relating to the Schools Block Transfer to support high needs pressure, and the submission of a Disapplication Request to the DfE³.

The report pack noted that a disapplication would be submitted to the DfE if the schools block transfers agreed exceeded the 0.5% allowable amount.

The consultation asked schools to vote on transferring a balance of 0.5% of approximately £225,600 to support high needs pressures. However, the report pack noted that the Forum had already agreed a transfer from the Schools Block of £959,700, an estimated £119,200 over the permitted 0.5%.

Union Duty Cover Fund

The Schools Forum was asked to consider and vote on whether they wished to set up a Union Duty Cover Fund in 2026/27. If in favour, the Forum needed to agree both the value and which schools were eligible to claim.

A survey was conducted to gather information from schools on what union representatives they have in their schools, what union duty cover they currently provide, how this is provided, and the cost. 13 schools responded to the survey, which equates to 37% of the 35 maintained schools included. Of the 13 responses, 8 schools (or 23% of all maintained schools) confirmed that they have a member of staff who is a union representative. All 8 schools confirmed their representative was with the NEU union.

With regards to how schools cover the union duty release time, 1 school did not require any cover, 4 schools covered this internally, 2 used external supply, and 1 school employed a cover teacher one day a week.

2025/26 Finance Update

The Schools Forum was scheduled to receive an update on the 2025/26 budget. The report pack included a breakdown of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocation, and the projected DSG position for the 2025/26 financial year.

The Borough was projecting spend of £240.001m on DSG funded education services in 2025/26, compared to a grant allocation of £234.976m. This represents a projected shortfall of £5.025m, including £0.500m for EHCPs[^5] that have not yet been approved but are expected to be approved before the end of the financial year. The overall fund was expected to be in deficit this year, with the cumulative deficit forecast at £5.250m at 31 March 2026.

The number of EHCPs had increased by a net 41 since 31 March 2025, from 2,046 to 2,087.

The report pack noted that the underfunding of high needs education remains a challenge in 2025/26. The position included projected spend of £46,652,908 against a budget allocation of £41,296,700, representing an overspend of £5,356,208.

High Needs Block Terms of Reference

The Schools Forum was scheduled to review the Terms of Reference for the High Needs Block Sub-group. The subgroup's objectives include:

• Examining the detail of the spend from the High Needs Block and considering factors affecting the costs of supporting children and young people with High Needs Block funds
• Tracking progress against expenditure projections to deliver improved impact outcomes and value for money
• Reviewing issues as identified by Schools Forum and proactively providing recommendations to Schools Forum relating to High Needs Block funding.