.
Schools Forum Meeting Minutes of Wednesday 29th November2017
Hamptons Sports & Leisure Ltd, Chelmsford
(subject to forum approval)
In Attendance
Rod Lane (RL) - Chair / Pam Langmead (PL) / John Crane (JC)Nigel Hookway (NH) - observing / Harriet Phelps-Knights (HPK) / Sean Moriarty (SM)
Ruth Bird (RB) / John Hunter (JH) / Elizabeth Drake (ED)
Jo Barak (JBa) / Philomena Cozens (PC) / Steve Clark (SC)
Miles Bacon (MB) / Bruce Tuxford (BT) / Jeff Brindle (JBr)
Gary Smith (GS) / Stephen Hale (SH) / Toni Stanford (TS)
Sally Brisley (SBr) / Leanne Hedden (LH) / Jeff Fair (JF)
Nardeep Sharma (NS) / Sue Bardetti (SBa) / Sharon White (SW)
Joyce Woodham (JW)
LA Officers
Yannick Stupples-Whyley (YSW) / Clare Kershaw (CK) / Andrew Page (AP)
Val Cleare– Minutes / Ralph Holloway (RH) / Sally Relfe – Shadow Minute Taker
Tracey Kelsbie (TK) / Carolyn Terry (CT)
1 / Apologies for Absence and substitute notices
RL welcomed everyone to the meeting. RL welcomed back Bruce Tuxford and Leanne Hedden.
Sue Bardetti was welcomed as elected representative for maintained primary headteachers.
Apologies were received from Cllr Ray Gooding, Joan Costello, Simon Thompson, Debbie Rogan and Richard Green.
Pam Langmead substituted for Simon Thompson.
Debs Watson was welcomed to the meeting as an observer.
2. / School Funding Consultation 2018/19
YSW gave an update on the outcome of the consultation with schools on the proposed changes to the Formula for Funding Schools. There had been seven responses. The majority were supporting the proposals.
2.5 (3.8) YSW reported that the LA is applying to the Secretary of State to vary the MFG for the PFI affordability gap.
MB: Are PFI contracts fixed?
YSW: Each contract has a set date for inflation which uses RPI. Each contract is funded by PFI credits, contributions from each school based on their FM costs and the gap is the affordability gap which is funded through the Formula for Funding Schools.
MB: What about special schools?
CK: It is not the same. It is dependent on the contract and contractor.
Action: CK to produce a paper to explain the equitability and make sure do not breach each contract. For next meeting.
Recommendations:
The Forum
- Noted the outcome of the consultation
- Agreed to remove the Looked After Children Factor
- Agreed to setting a Local MFG of 0%
- Agreed to setting a Local MFG at 3.43
- Agreed to introduce a new factor to implement a minimum funding per pupil of £3,300 for primary schools and £4,600 for secondary schools, and
- Agreed on the Authority’s proposal to vary the MFG for PFI.
3. / Schools Broadband – Confidential Item
4. / De-delegation 2018/19
There was discussion about Table 1.
HP-K – EPHA Executive Working Party did not agree to the School Meals service being de-delegated when it met during the past term with the School Meals Service.
YSW – Would the LA be able to get structure in place by April 2018?
CK – Difficult to get in place for 1 April 2018 as there would be redundancy costs incurred. Can we work towards 1 September 2018?
HP-K – What happens with the de-delegation?
YSW – We can pro rata the amount to September 2018.
PL – School Meals service argument is that despite being de-delegated we do not use this service.
CK – No issue about moving to Traded Services. Need to know degree of buy back by May.
PL – Informed decision that the expectation that it would be moving to a Traded Service sooner rather than later.
CK – We can go for September 2018 to commit to this.
HP-K – Table 1 – Behaviour Support Services – what is it and not High Needs. What is the difference?
YSW – see 4.5.
CK – There will be a reduction in overall deduction as School Meals will come down.
SH – Why are secondary schools paying less than primary schools?
YSW - It is based on funding in each sector but on a per pupil basis. There are a lot more people in primary schools and that is why different costs.
Recommendations:
2.1 – Agreed to the Authority’s proposals for de-delegation for maintained primary schools at 4.3 (maintained primary members) with the revision to Schools Meal Service
Voting
For / Against / Abstained
Behaviour Support Services / 7 / 0 / 0
School Meals / 7 / 0 / 0
Licences / Subscriptions / 7 / 0 / 0
Public Duties / 7 / 0 / 0
Schools Broadband / 5 / 1 / 1
2.2 – Agreed to the Authority’s proposals for de-delegation for maintained secondary schools at 4.4 (maintained secondary member)
Voting
For / Against / Abstained
Behaviour Support Services / 1 / 0 / 0
School Meals / 1 / 0 / 0
Licences / Subscriptions / 1 / 0 / 0
Public Duties / 1 / 0 / 0
Schools Broadband / 0 / 1 / 0
2.3 – Agreed to the Authority’s proposals for the former retained duties element of ESG in Table 3 (all members)
SBr – Do maintained nursery schools vote?
YSW – You are excluded. It does not affect the Early Years Block.
SM – Amounts we agreed de-delegation in present financial year to cover certain levels of expenditure. How is this expenditure working out? Is it overspent or underspent?
YSW – Confirmed that all areas are currently on line to spend to their budget.
2.4 – Agreed to the Authority’s proposals for former general duties element of ESG in Table 3 (maintained members)
PL – De-delegation discussions held late in the year. We do not talk about de-delegation figures very much.
YSW – Once per year. We could have the discussion one meeting earlier, i.e. in September. This would give an indication about funding and also opportunity to have conversation about School Meals earlier.
Voting
For / Against / Abstained
Primary / 7 / 0 / 0
Secondary / 1 / 0 / 0
Special / 1 / 0 / 0
PRUs / 1 / 0 / 0
5. / PRU Funding
RH reported on the revenue funding of alternative provision. RH explained that the top up funding does not work on the current model. RH is currently looking at options and will provide a paper on the next steps in the New Year. RH referred to Table 1 on page 3. The devolved funding was based on the agreed number of places to be commissioned at each PRU and pre-paid top up was based on the existing staffing structure and budget of each PRU.
PC – Income we have is not accounted for. I would be in a deficit budget. Whatever changes will have to be discussed at Board level. Everything is paid up-front from the High Needs Block. Need to take into account all these options. The number of places needs to be considered alongside the funding.
MB – Need equality and transparency. Also need system for schools to be inclusive.
JF – Need to be doing far more research. There are lots of unknowns. It is apupil based system. Needs the modelling done and refer to the Finance Group to be modelled and impact assessed. How to increase pupil places – need ASHE to encourage secondary Headteachers to minimise exclusions and model what is sustainable. We do not have enough information as to what is sensible and the overall impact.
NS – Need to explore further funding and look at alternative ways of doing things. Still doing things traditionally. Prevention work is required on how to make the transition from the PRU for a better turnaround. Need to look at how to unblock Year 11’s.
RL – The scope of the review might need to include some parts of special needs.
MB – Ideas used before – top-slicing funding approach to unblock the system to encourage the schools to take predominantly excluded pupils.
GS - Need to refresh everything. Have an Essex approach. Teaching School Alliance to take this on board longer-term.
CK – We want to do something more inspirational. Need to unblock the current system. There will be a period of time when the current systems keep going until we create the new system. We may have to double fund the system for a time to move from the old to the new rate costs. Do we hold the system as it currently is and recognising it is not fair at this time, or inject more quality and fairness. There is a review of AP and Headteachers will be accountable to hold to those outcomes.
PC – This should not be separate from the AP review. Hope to work with RH on this.
JB – Include positive referral and manage moves. Need to include AWPU and medical ASRs.
PC – There is a national debate about ASRs.
SBr – Think about working in a bigger way. Working with East Anglian nursery schools.
JH – Problems experienced in exclusion where pupils are named and schools do not have capacity. Why are we not investigating more at an early age?
Recommendations
2.1 The Forum noted the purpose and scope of the review of alternative provision – Unanimous.
2.2 The Forum noted the current inequality in the budget allocations of the Mid, North East and South Essex PRUs and the funding arrangements for LA commissioned places at Aspire Academy.
2.3 The Forum felt that more work needs to be done on the proposal to ensure consistency in funding across Mid, North, East and South quadrants.
2.4 To consider the revenue implications for the High Needs Block of any expansion in PRU place numbers arising from the review of alternative provision including plans to address the current arrangements for funding following a pupil after permanent exclusion.
? Part of the review.
2.5 That the Forum gives a view on whether any additional funding required for an expansion of PRU numbers should be drawn from the Schools Block.
Not until we have had the review.
6. / SEND Capital Investment Project
RH gave a progress report on the SEND and PRU Capital Investment project update. RH said that with regard to Table 1 relating to the updated position of SF and ECC funded projects, all is proceeding as planned. With regard to Table 2 for free school projects, a decision will be made by Easter 2018 regarding St Peter’s site. With regard to SEMH enhanced provision, these deliver very quickly. Project sponsors are in place.
Appendix 1 showed a capital investment total of £31.2m.
8. Next steps – confirmation from the ESFA on funding and delivery of the three free schools.
MB – One of the risks we invest money in a free school, what will it charge for places and can have a higher market rate.
RH – We have an agreed funding mechanism in principle based on achieving savings on High Needs Block.
Recommendations
2.1 The Forum noted the progress of the Schools Forum and ECC funded projects.
2.2 The Forum noted the progress of the special free school projects.
2.3 The Forum noted the progress of the proposals for SEMH provisions in mainstream primary schools.
2.4 The Forum was not agreeing to the engagement of independent advice for individual SEMH projects. This was unanimous and further details to be made available. The project should be value for money.
CK – When boarding provision comes up there will be investment to save and costs will come down.
JF – High Needs pupils already move around. Need to provide a solution.
CK – You are comparing like for like. Need to commit to bringing back information on when we have done value engineering, designs and bring information about what we are paying for.
JF – School Forum needs to be engaged in the process.
2.5 The Forum noted the budget profile for the SEND capital programme.
2.6 The Forum noted the PRU projects proceeding to feasibility studies.
7. / Any other business and feedback from schools through Associations Feedback from Schools Forum representatives on other Bodies.
ASHE
PL advised on behalf of ST – funding, teacher supply.
EPHA
HPK – Funding, joint association trip to Westminster about funding. Focus on SEND and have been involved in Headteacher roundtable meetings and held SEND area meetings – 160 schools represented and a number of LA officers who were there and continued joint working.
Special Schools
GS – Headteacher roundtable meetings. Year of SEN and forward looking.
PRUs
PC – Capacity is full.
TS – Early Years new funding and how it affects us and sustainability.
SBr – Making progress on 30 hours. Working with other areas including the East Anglian group.
Governors
RB – Funding.
Unions
JF – Pupil retention, teacher retention.
SW – Year on year LSA hours rates. Capacity to carry out roles are starting to show effects where not enough capacity to follow policies.
SEN Sub Group
SEN Sub Group had met and minutes have been discussed.
Finance Review Group
Finance Review Group had met and minutes have been covered/discussed.
Comments, views on issues and updates around the table
RL – email received from Chair of Governors of Wimbish primary school about mobility at census time – 67 pupils. It is 79 today and the numbers are going up to 83 by end of January 2018. It is the second increase in numbers on a small school and no extra funding. YSW has gone back and explained the situation.
YSW –part of the email – second increase in pupil numbers. October to October no funding. Secondly, mobility data from DfE is not recognised as accurate. We do not use mobility factor in our formula.
JC – where is the money to come from?
RL – It is a military school with normal funding formula. Their mobility is part of the National Funding Formula. If Authority has not used before they do not have allocation for 2018. Once issued the budget and shared with the school, we cannot re-determine. It is a maintained school.
MB – Can they borrow money?
YSW – Operating a loan scheme which they can apply for and come up with a plan to repay over 3 years.
Action: CK – Feedback on work being done in small schools.
8. / Minutes of 27th September 2017
The Minutes of the meeting on 27th September 2017 were accepted as a true reflection of the discussion.
8a. / Minutes Action Log
27 September 2017 – outcome of apprenticeship levy – this is to be reported back at the January 2018 Forum.
PL pointed out the item 8 on previous September minutes about General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). This was not listed as an action.
PL said that at the meeting it was agreed that the IGS would provide a GDPR tracker and that this would be available to schools at the end of October. Not aware that this has been produced. In the meantime PL has sourced this from elsewhere. PL wanted to flag this up as we have not seen this.
9. / Early Years and Childcare Update
CT updated the Forum on the forecast budget requirement for 2017/18 of the two, three and four year old Free Early Education Entitlement (FEEE), including the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP). CT also gave an update on the future of Nursery Schools with regard to the DfE Early Years Capital Fund, the status of the Preschool SEN budget and provided an update on the introduction on the extended entitlement for working parents (30 hours).
4.2 Two year old FEEE final take up is expected to be around 72% for the county.
4.6 The Disability Access Fund (DAF). It was noted that in the autumn term 34 providers had applied for DAF and received funding for a total of 43 children in their care.
5. Financial forecasting continues to be in line with previous predictions.
6. Nursery schools –ECC will be providing an additional lump sum to Woodcroft to cover a deficit in their 2016/17 budget. However, the LA is not able to provide any additional funding to cover any shortfall for the 2017/2018 financial year onwards. There needs to be a conversation on alternatives as to how this can be managed for the future.
7. Update on DfE Early Years Capital Funding – of 5 projects either have been completed or in process of starting and are on track.
9. Update on introduction of the extended entitlement for working parents. It was noted that 270 children have been funded.
Comments:
SBr – Provision of nursery schools are ringfenced outside budgets. SBr reiterated that nursery schools are beacons of excellence in ECC having served communities for 70 odd years and have a lot to offer to the sector and this should not be lost. Having written to the DfE recently the intention is to be funded up the end of 2019/20. A top up deficit had been received from last year. There was confusion about the way forward in these challenging times.
Recommendation:
The report had updated the Forum of the financial forecast for 2017/18, an update on nursery schools and the extended entitlement for working parents.
The Forum noted the report.
10. / Schools Forum Operational Guide and Responsibilities
YSW presented and updated the Forum on the revised Schools Forum and Good Practice Guide. In particular the section on the powers of the Schools Forum had been updated to reflect the following new power for 2018/19:
- Moving up to 0.5% from the schools block to other blocks.
The Forum noted the report and to be aware of the revised guidance.
11. / LA Benchmarking
YSW provided the Forum with s251 benchmarking data which shows how Essex compares with other LAs in terms of schools and education funding.
Recommendations
The Forum noted the report.
12. / Forward Plan
The following item was added:
Wednesday 26th September 2018
De-Delegation
13 / Closing Comments
RL thanked everyone for attending and wished everyone an enjoyable Christmas.
The next meeting is on 17thJanuary 2018at Hamptons Sports & Leisure Ltd (Marconi), Chelmsford.
1