Schools Forum 14th October 2009 Agenda Item 12

This is the LA response to the School Forum Regulations Consultation.

Consultation on the Schools Forums (England) Regulations 2009.

Part 1: Do the re-written regulations achieve their stated purpose?

  • Whilst it is understood that the Regulations may be amended each year, membership of Academies should only continue whilst the recoupment approach to funding Academies (or any other approach which leaves an Academy exposed to decisions of the LA) persists;
  • 4(4) will either:
  • reduce the membership of maintained secondary schools by at least one; or
  • increase the number of primary school representatives on the Forum.

This has the potential to make Schools Forums more unwieldy.

  • Ensuring at least one Academy representative on the Forum will (where Academy numbers are very low) offer them more influence than they should have. Some kind of minimum share of secondary aged pupil numbers in Academies might be employed before entitlement to membership of the Forum becomes mandatory; whilst allowing Forums to offer membership below such a threshold;
  • Election to the Forum of Academies members should be consistent with those for other elected members, namely in accordance with 5. (1);
  • With the advent of the Single Funding Formula, should Membership: general 4.(6) stand? With the inclusion of Early Years P, V and I settings in the ISB, should the early years sector be represented pro-rata to the numbers of children in that sector as with Primary and Secondary and should maintained Nursery School representatives be subsumed within that total? [in Essex we have but two Nursery Schools with a representative on the Schools Forum; this is out of proportion to the sector size];
  • Perhaps PV and I representatives should be included in 4. (3) rather than be seen as Non School Members?
  • The Essex Schools Forum disagrees with 5. – (4) (a) and (c). It believes that if the profile of Schools Forums is to be maintained then only headteachers and governors (i.e. not their representatives) should be members; whilst
  • The Forum has no objection to 8. – (8) offering the option of their representatives. However, substitutes should come from the same categories (see 4. (8)) as the member they are substituting for.
  • 7. – (5) sounds onerous. Why not a general duty to ensure LAs maintain a record of School Forum membership on a public website?
  • The regulations do not set out the full role of the Schools Forum (e.g. its executive powers and its scrutiny role) whilst it does allude to its right to be consulted on contracts. Could reference be made in these Regulations to The Financing of Maintained Schools (England) Regulations so that a complete picture of Forum responsibilities is at least recorded in one place?

Part 2

Sufficiency of places has been addressed by the LA to date by applying Surestart grant (as the duty applies equally to childcare). The Schools Forum has had no oversight of the application of Surestart grant in the past.

The Schools Forum would be concerned about taking on a responsibility to have a regard to secure sufficiency if that inferred meeting its costs from the Schools Budget. Such an approach could lead to significant reductions to current funding levels for Early Years settings exacerbated by the requirement to differentiate on social deprivation and (possibly) quality grounds (assuming no new money is available through DSG or Standards Funds for this purpose).

Part 3

  • Essex LA has set up 27 Local Delivery Groups which are coterminous with District Councils; Primary Care Trusts as far as possible. The arrangements support the wider Every Child Matters Agenda. Would the proposal require a representative from each LDG PLUS Academies PLUS non school representatives;
  • Our existing area network does not include school governors;
  • It is fair to say that members of the Essex Schools Forum come from close to the centre of the County for the most part and tend to represent schools from reasonably affluent areas. Whilst the LA has tried positively to recruit from other areas to ensure a balanced view on the Forum, this has proved very difficult. An Area based approach might make recruiting to the Forum more difficult;
  • The Schools Budget is funded by DSG, other school facing government grants and, to some degree Area Based Grants (general grant often with performance expectations attached). Engaging with area groups which exist to consider the wider children’s agenda might wish to use these resources beyond Regulations. Individual schools or types of school might not wish to support such an approach whilst having no voice on the Schools Forum to oppose such an approach.

Jim MacDonald

Clerk to the Schools Forum

7 August 2009.

1