Hampshire Schools Forum

Date / 19 October 2016
Time / 09:30 -
Location / Wessex Conference Centre, Sparsholt College, Winchester SO21 2NF
Present / Nursery / Peter Higgs
Primary / Esther Jones, Ella Palmer, Charlotte Bailey, Shirley Nellthorpe, Simon Walker, Andy King
Secondary / Sylvia Vine, Amanda Rowley, Ria Allen
Special / Anna Dawson, Rob Thompson, David Drew, Keith Norman
Education Centres / Dominic Coburn
Academy / Justine Roberts, Jim Duckham
EY / Jane Dyke, Suzanne Shields (substitute), Kimberley Norris
TLP / Liz Muir, Faye Mylward
Post 16 / Stephen Carville
Also Present
Observers / Cllr Peter Edgar, Felicity Roe, Andrew Minall, Kathryn Stevens, Erica Meadus, Tracey Sanders, Tracey Messer, Dave Harvey, Martin Goff, Anwen Foy, Helen Hardy (Clerk)
Apologies / Nursery
Primary / Ian Waine, Jilly Myers, Martina Humber, Shirley Nellthorpe
Secondary / Robin Gray
Academy / Chris Willsher, Julie Turvey
Special
Other members / Sarah Rolls,
Officers / Steve Crocker
Elected Members
Action
1 / Welcome and Apologies
The Chair welcomed all members to the meeting. Apologies were noted and agreed as above.
2 / Declaration of Interests
Cllr Edgar declared that he is a life member of the NAHT.
3 / Election of Vice-Chair
There were no nominations and this will be deferred to the next meeting.
4 / Minutes of 6 July 2016
Page 3 – clarification was sought around apprenticeship levy for VA schools where governors are the employer. Officers are still waiting for confirmation from the DfE, a number of internal workstreams are looking at this and more information will be available at the December meeting.
5 / Primary Behaviour Service
With changes to the funding formula, there is a need to think ahead on how this service develops and is funded. There are six PBS centres across the Hampshire supporting 1000 children at any one time. Most receive outreach support for social emotional and mental health (SEMH) issues. Schools do a lot internally before seeking support. For about 30% of the children, it’s not enough to have school support; they need to come to the centres on a part-time basis. 94% remain in mainstream schools during primary school which only costs £1800 / pupil compared with £19000 in a BESD special school. There is also a low permanent exclusion rate as a result of the work of the PBS. In the recent HT survey, 86% rated the service as good or outstanding.
There is more work to do, doesn’t always operate consistently across both sides of the county. They would like to:
·  Meld PBS with SEMH and SEN to support this cohort of children.
·  Use PBS as key funnel for all outreach requests to stop the duplication of referral or risk of children falling through the net.
·  Offer more consistent working with early help and family support services.
·  Develop work around transition (into primary schools, during the school day, and into secondary school).
The report states that PBS helps children remain in mainstream school, is this throughout their whole school career? This data isn’t available but officers agreed it would be a useful measure and will look at collecting it. They do have data to show those who get an EHCP and go to Education Centres.
What is the impact of option 1 on an individual school? The proposal is that the school would see no difference – the money just wouldn’t go in in the first place. For academies it is slightly different because they have had to buy the service in independently.
Will this cost remain fixed? It will go into the High Needs Block and should generate improved outcomes for children and additional high needs costs.
Members highlighted the sustainability of PBS that option 1 offers which ensures that children with SEMH issues are supported at the earliest stage possible to reduce the impact of dealing with them when they reach secondary school. What is the implication of PBS going into the High Needs Block if this is the area causing greatest concern in the budget This provides a more secure basis for continuing the service with the introduction of the NFF. Is there a risk in putting PBS into the High Needs Block that secondary top-ups would be lost? No, it would go with its own funding.
Will there be a change in accountability? It would still be a separate budget to be reported on at Schools Forum.
How can Schools Forum make a decision and offer advice to schools and groups without the clarity that will be provided by the NFF? Unfortunately, decisions have to be taken at this stage based on the available information at this point.
Para 4.9 suggests future pressure on the service, what are the reasons for this? The pressures come from children who haven’t had support before coming into year R who are able to cope in pre-schools where there is a higher child to adult ratio. They will look to help pre-schools identify those children who might need support and provide advice and training to those staff in future. If PBS goes into High Needs Block will it limit who can be helped? It will still help those children with SEMH as this is a SEN.
Given significant pressure on HNB, will the PBS money be ring-fenced? This would be a decision for Schools Forum in the future.
With staffing reductions in the Early Help Hub, how will PBS ensure that those children are picked up? They are developing ways of working with the Family Support Service to prioritise those families who come through the PBS and are confident that they will be picked up.
Will Education Centres be reshaped to form part of the “continuum of SEN support” like PBS? Education Centres have their own statutory role and governance model so are distinct from special provision.
Forum members felt that option one seemed to be the best in terms of developing, improving and ensuring the continuation of the service.
Why has the authority decided to change of delegation/de-delegation and move the PBS into the High Needs Block? The thinking has changed and officers have looked at it more strategically in light of the NFF and believe this is a better way forward. The DfE are happy with this proposal.
Schools Forum voted unanimously to go with option 1.
6 / Changes to County’s sold service for appeals
VA schools are own admissions authority and if they refuse an admission, they (largely Winchester and Portsmouth Diocese VA schools) have previously used the HCC appeals service.
The changes will allow VA schools to buy into the appeals service but will hand back the responsibility for the paperwork to the school. The cost of the Independent Appeals Service is typically £500 for a hearing for a single appellant. What is the cost if a group of, say 7, families appeal together? The cost would be greater than £500 but not equivalent to 7 times £500.
If VA schools don’t buy the service, where is the guidance for the school? If schools want to provide their own service, they must do everything that the LA does which is a huge undertaking, for example training panel members in all aspects of the law is a big job and county benefits from scale as it has 40 – 60 panel members on its books at any one time (making a more cost effective model). Some academy trusts and other own admission authority schools have created their own appeals services.
There is more that could be done during the admissions process and prior to appeal hearings to explain to parents how it works. In junior and upper primary, so called normal prejudice cases, parents have a greater chance of winning, but with infant class sizes, parents almost never appeal successfully. The DfE have entertained discussions of offering some kind of “pre-hearing” which is cheaper but this work seems to be on hold at the moment. Officers have discussed whether they make better information available to parents, however currently it is made clear that 95% of infant appeals are unsuccessful.
What is the trend around appeals, can we get it to go down? It is an upward trend, they are hearing more appeals partly because of the pressure on primary school places and unsuccessful applications to catchment schools where parents feel let down. Is there enough information out there for parents? Legally, the authority must say that parents have the right to appeal and provide other advice to parents which we do currently.
There are issues around the quality of schools along with the additional wraparound care that schools can offer that influence parental preference.
Schools Forum noted the changes to Hampshire County Council’s sold services for appeals for the 2016/17 academic year onwards.
7 / Pupil Premium for Looked after children: annual update 2016
This report relates to 2015/16. Under the national funding formula proposals, the DfE announced an uplift to the LAC pupil premium because the DSG element for LAC is likely to be removed. However, this is unlikely to be the same amount.
The VSHT has responsibility for use and impact of the LAC PP and how it is passported to schools. In Hampshire 80% was passported straight to schools and 20% was held centrally in 2015/16.
The priorities this last year have been: training around LAC for designated teachers; developing the PEP toolkit; attachment and trauma aware programme in line with NIHCE guidance for schools; work with HIAS inspector team but changed the model to use English, Maths and Science inspector time to develop the toolkit; pupil-focussed interventions for those below ARE, 1:1 tuition for year 11 pupils; SLAs with partner services such EP; and improving quality of PEPs. They have undertaken a comprehensive audit of around 1000 PEPs. Schools are asked for a termly report on pupil progress. The Pupil Premium Manager is working on an electronic PEP so that the data can be extracted without schools needing to do a manual return each term and this should be in place by September 2017.
Next year the VSHT hopes to be able to report on how schools use their PP for LAC when there is more meaningful data available. There are some examples of outstanding PEPs and use of PP in schools already and they will develop case studies and guidance for schools. There are no proposed changes to the 2017/18 funding arrangements but this is always under review to ensure children make best possible progress, and the VSHT continues to work with colleagues across the South-East to benchmark provision.
How do we know the quality of the outcomes of the pupils who receive this PP funding? The focus is largely on improving secondary outcomes. Only 6.4% achieved 5 A-C including English and Maths in 2015/16, this year’s provisional results are up to 12% (compared with 13% nationally). Primary results have been increasing year on year but it is very difficult to compare this year’s data as with all children. Interestingly, there is less of a difference for this cohort of children than for the all Hampshire cohort this year in KS2 data. Each intervention for each child is extremely bespoke so finding patterns of effectiveness is difficult. It is also important for secondary schools to ensure that LAC have good destinations and that post-16 providers have the flexibility to recognise that these children have different needs and still offer them places. Using progress as a measure for these children is very important as is currently used in Education Centres.
What pressure is there on schools to make sure that the data they return is better quality? The return is inherited and some of the questions need developing to provide better answers. The quality of the PEP and the way they are implemented (section on what PP funding has been used for and the impact) needs working on. The way that the top-slice is being reported on can be used as a guideline for schools. If the VSHT is not confident that the money is being spent well in schools, action must be taken.
Schools Forum noted the content of the report.
8 / Schools Budget Update – 2016/17 and 2017/18
The forecast overspend is currently £3.9m this year, greater clarity on this will be available towards the end of the financial year. The uncommitted balance of the reserve is around £2.9m. Specific pressures are outlined in the paper.
The introduction of the National Funding Formula will be delayed by one year.
An uplift for High Needs funding is likely in 2017/18 but the amount is not yet known for Hampshire.
Consultation with schools will be sent out at the end of October to mid-November so that Forum can make decisions in December and January. The questions are being finalised. What questions will be included? It will be about building schools’ understanding of the process and current situation with the aim of getting a sense of principles to be used for making decisions; it is too early to provide individual impact for schools. There are a number of areas: reduction in lump sum / reduction in AWPU; impact of MFG; one-offs which are easy wins. It will be critical to develop understanding in schools.
Forum members noted that it is difficult for schools to make a decision on principles without understanding what the impact on their school. Officers understand this but unfortunately the DfE timescale would mean consulting with schools within a very short period of time and probably over the Christmas holidays. As in previous years, officers would like to look at it as a shared problem and find shared solution with preferred options.
Following the September briefing, HTs are aware of the potential lump-sum reduction, one-offs. A member suggested starting with things that schools are already expecting and those that can be unravelled if NFF allows.