Date: 8 February 2012
Schools Forum Meeting Minutes of Wednesday 11 January 2012
Shire Hall, Chelmsford
(subject to Forum approval)
In Attendance
Ruth Bird (RBD) / Richard Bassett (RBT)Linda Oliffe (LO) / Claire Claydon (CC)
Rob Fox (RF) / Richard Foster (RDF)
Sally Davies (SD) / Jeff Fair (JF)
Debbie Rogan (DR) / John Hunter (JH)
Russell Ayling (RA) / John Crane (JC)
Miles Bacon (MB) / Rod Lane (RL)
Caroline Haynes (CH) / Helen Roberts (HR)
Peter Malcolm (PM)
LA Officers:
Rob Baxter (RBX) / Nicoli Thompson (NT)
Yannick Stupples-Whyley (YSW) / Lisa Stobbie (LS)
Terry Reynolds (TR) / Joanne Cannings (JCa)
Denise Murray (DM) / Gareth Jones (GJ)
Observers:
George Constantinides (GC)
Derek Adams (DA)
1 / Apologies for Absence (and substitute notices)
RL welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were received from Alison Fiala (AF), David Bolton (DB), Julia Thomas (JT) and Cllr. Castle (SC).
Miles Bacon (MB) was substitute for Carol Skewes (CS) and Caroline Haynes (CH) substitute for Simon Knight (SK).
RL also introduced two observers, Derek Adams (DA) and George Constantinides (GC)
RL gave apologies to the meeting for the lateness of the agenda and accompanying papers, which under the terms of reference should be sent out seven days prior to the meeting, but he explained that due to the specific grants review group meeting taking place the previous day and the schools consultation process, timescales were extremely tight and under the terms of reference would be classed as an emergency, bearing mind that prior notice of date of meeting and main agenda item was given at the meeting on8th December 2011.
2 / School Funding 2012-15 – Consultation with schools and academies
JF thanked the members of the Specific Grants Review Group for their work under tight timescales. RA asked if any modelling of the revised recommendations had been done, JF confirmed that no modelling had been done, but the impact was known. He added that in 6.5 in the paper it would be difficult to model as the funding changes from year to year. RA also asked what the implications of a deferment of a decision at the today’s meeting would be. DR replied that there would be no change to the funding formula and JF added that there would be late notification of budget to schools. RL reminded members that the forum was a consultative group and although decisions are reached it was ultimately a recommendation to councillors.
It was agreed to allow some time for the meeting to read Agenda Item 2 (Annex A).
JF gave an overview of the history of the group and explained Annex A. He said that questions 1 to 5 relate to the formula review proposals, and question 6 relates to the mainstreaming of specific grants. RL added that there was a finite amount sum of money and any extra funding to a particular school would just mean moving it from another.
JF reported that fewer than 21% of schools responded to the consultation which were publicised at both EPHA and ASHE meetings.
JF said that question 1 was based on principles and that the national consultation was looking at weighting ratio between primary and secondary of 1:1:27 whereas the Essex proposal is 1:1:31. RL suggested accepting the current ratio, with a review in 12 months time. MB replied that the question of differentiation had been discussed at length during forum meetings. JC raised an issue with the forum going over the history of the principles but said the need would be to look at them from a different angle not just going over the same ground. TR added that outcomes have shown improvement in secondary but not in primary.
CH responded by saying that education is in a state of flux and the new framework, with a heavy emphasis on reading, writing and communication will have a huge impact on costs and it would be a case of wait and find out, and it was not a good time to cut funding. RBT concurred with CH and added that the political climate is changing and small schools are becoming more vulnerable as the overall ‘pot’ diminishes. JH added that parameters for reviewing where the money goes to get the best outcomes, JF said that this was a piece of work best suited for the LA and Councillors to complete.
RF asked what the view was on the weighting of the consultation document in regards to the views expressed on the responses and whether these would be taken into account. MB replied saying that those schools negatively affected were more likely to return a response.
RL suggested looking at the principles and noting the responses, MB said it was important to look at funding as a whole, and LO added that a review group be set up, it was agreed for the next meeting. TR reminded the meeting that in May 2013 local elections would be taking place and this could have an impact.
JF continued his presentation on the paper, questions 2 to 5, looking at the impact of the formula changes on small schools, noting that the defining criteria for small schools was currently difficult to quantify. He added that all aspects need to be covered, adequate funding for outcomes for all pupils. The process emphasises the potential challenges, within Essex, with middle-sized schools having budget issues caused by gaps in funding. Referring to the table at 6.5 in the paper, JF explained the changes to the teaching cost adjustment, the recommendation that it be removed from the formula. He also explained that a more robust monitoring and review process of statements for SEN is undertaken, and that SEN is not possible to formularise.
[At this point, RL adjourned the meeting at this point to allow comments from the two observers, GC and DA. These comments have been included to put further comments from Forum members into context.
DA was heavily critical of the forum, expressing concerns in regard to the lateness of the papers and agenda, the content of the papers and the clarity of presentations. He voiced his concerns regarding the impact on small schools that the formula review would have, noting that 233 small primary schools would lose £700K. He advised the members that he would be taking his concerns further.
GC thanked the meeting for the opportunity to observe and comment. He commented on the difference between the DfE lump sum of £95K and the Essex amount of £77K, noting the small school subsidy and the need to show how the funding gap is met through the various funding streams.]
At this point the meeting reconvened.
LO confirmed that the funding impact had been discussed and the data had evidenced that Essex had had put more funding to small schools than other LA’s.
RL said that the Audit Commission had put a large emphasis on small schools; and DR added that the impact of the MFG would be seen over time.
PM said that it was important to know the baseline, the LA need to be transparent and explain funding to schools. DR said that unhelpful comments, consultation responses and the current political climate did a disservice to small schools. RA added that equity is most important and referred to the severe underestimate of baseline costs in Annex A, question 2, key comments. JH said that schools and governors are aware of the changes within schools’ budgets regarding BiP/EiC funding and should be planning for reductions, there are still issues around inflation, but small schools are benefiting from LDG’s.
CH and HR concurred with DR with regard to her comments about unhelpful comments and added that schools need to be creative with their budget planning.
RF commented that small Church of England Schools will be greatly affected.
SD and GJ gave their apologies as they left the meeting.
TR said that schools are concern over the cuts at the Local Authority, although schools do have a level of protection. He went on to say that there were key issues around small schools
(i) The definition of a small primary school currently is 210 pupils on roll
(ii) Lump sum – and flexibility
(iii) Level of subsidy that is put into small schools, relates to definition.
He went on to say that Basildon, Harlow and Tendring were affected by the loss of BiP/EiC funding and arrangements need to be looked at for those schools most affected. PM added that headteachers who have been in post for the past ten years have only seen increases in budgets, they must now learn to manage reductions and, along with the Local Authority be more transparent.
A vote was cast to accept the proposals set out in table 6.5 and provide a contingency for those schools who claim financial hardship due to the cuts (this would be dependant on strict criteria).
The meeting voted
13 for
1 against
2 abstained
JF gave background to the identification of the target groups and the decision to maintain the current level of grants for 12 months. The academies situation was discussed and there was no differentiation. The consultation document was given out, but the contingencies held could be subject to LACSEG. He added that BiP/EiC have been excluded from MFG as they are only one year programmes, and the modelling was done on this principle.
YSW said that other LA’s who have applied to have BiP/EiC excluded have been declined to allow this money to go to children in need and just to the locality.
PM said that clarity was needed on question 6a and 6b – to treat all grants as SDP, targeted to need, with weighting based on education.
JF said that funding devolved to schools via certain standards funds and grants, question 6c refers, is moderated and monitored but questioned whether funding given to LDG’s is moderated to ensure effective use? TR confirmed that no monitoring or moderation is carried out; employee liability costs are the responsibility of the LDG. PM expressed concerns. RBD explained how her LDG worked, that each school pays a proportion per pupil. JF thanked SC for retaining the extended schools grant.
The meeting then voted on the proposals set out in 6.5
13 voted for
1 abstained.
RBT suggested that good criteria would be needed in regard to 6.6, the provision of a contingency to provide financial support to schools in financial hardship as a result of the formula changes. Members were asked to think about the criteria to bring back to the next meeting.
3 / Academy Funding Transfer for 2011/12 and 2012/13 – Response to Consultation
RBX had prepared the paper and gave an overview of the content. RA commented that it wouldn’t be appropriate for the forum to respond. RL added that contingencies could be taken as LACSEG.
RBX said that there were 2 key areas
(i) LA LACSEG was not part of DSG and had no relevance for individual academies.
(ii) The DfE are looking at data (section 251) for pupil trigger LACSEG.
RY said that it would be more appropriate for the LA to respond and not the Forum, and MB added that the Forum was not representative.
TR said it would be useful for conversations with academies to administer some services.
It was recommended that the report be noted.
4 / Chair’s Closing remarks
Members of the forum raised concerns regarding the venues for the next round of school forum meetings. It was agreed that the Great Baddow centre would be unsuitable for future meetings. JCa to investigate the possibility of booking Shire Hall.
5 / Date of next meetings
8 February 2012 – Hylands House
23 May 2012 – Shire Hall, Chelmsford
11 July 2012 – Shire Hall, Chelmsford
10 October 2012 – Shire Hall, Chelmsford
5 December 2012 – Shire Hall, Chelmsford.