Swindon Borough Council s2

SWINDON BOROUGH COUNCIL

Education Joint Consultative Committee

Wednesday 9 February 2011

Present Organisation

Elizabeth Band (EB) ATL

Ian Bickerton (IB) Children Services – Director, Access & Provision (part of meeting)

Paddy Bradley (PB) Children Services – Director, Schools & Learning (part of meeting)

Simon Byford (SB) Children Services – School Place Planning Information Manager

Bob Cretchley (BC) Unison – Branch Secretary (part of meeting)

Anne English (AE) SBC Principal HR Officer, Schools (part of meeting)

Candida Gee (CG) NASUWT

Teresa Martin (TM) NUT

Ian Scott (IS) ATL –Regional Official

Peter Smith (PS) (Chair) NUT – Branch Secretary

Caleen Stephens (CS) NASUWT – Branch Secretary

Peter Wells (PW) SHA

Action

1 /

Apologies for absence

Karla Bradford – Unison
Joy Greaney – NUT
Paul Sunners – NAHT
Claire Taylor – SBC, Senior HR Consultant
Mandy Wishart – SBC, HR Business Partner
2 /

School holiday dates update

SB circulated two options for School Terms & Holidays 2012/13. These options had been on schoolsonline since mid-January 2011. The options were very similar and WCC were consulting on the same. Other neighbouring Authorities favoured Option 1. Consultation period with schools would finish at end of February but, so far, split was 60% Option 2 and 40% Option 1. TM observed that by the time the dates came into force many schools would no longer be in SBC and would be making their own decisions. PW suggested that, in Option 1, 22 July could be a training day. SB advised of the possibility of the Government launching a consultation on moving the May Bank Holiday to October, probably in 2013. Extra Bank Holiday in 2012 for Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.
(SB left the meeting.)
3 /

Minutes of meeting held on 3 November 2010

The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2010 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following:
· Elizabeth Band to be shown as representing ATL.
· Item 4 – last sentence to read, “PSm echoed the comments from school staff perspective.”
· Item 7 – third paragraph to read, “BC said that timescale for Unions’ consultation had not been reasonable in the case of Goddard Park.”
4 /

Matters arising from Minutes of last meeting

Item 5: PID and Summary of Direction of Travel to be recirculated
Item 9: AE contacted Governor Support regarding Acceptable Behaviour Policy.
5 /

School budgets

IB reported that there had been close working with the Schools Forum and its Sub-group in terms of what funding could be delegated from the retained part of the DSG to individual schools’ budget. £16-17m retained to be used essentially for services to schools’ pupils and families. Two drivers:
1) DfE threshold had been crossed as to how much was retained at the centre. Commitment made to get more money to schools.
2) Increase in number of Academies - take topslice of DSG as well as receiving money from national funding formula.
Approximately £2m to schools; following year would be £2m+.
The following questions were raised:
EB / If delegating money to schools, how are services going to run?
IB / Some of the funding going to schools is not necessarily around services, eg, maternity cover funding. Those services have the opportunity to set up as Traded Services but whether viable or not remains to be seen.
EB / How do you know they will be bought? Who pays staff until you know whether they are going to buy back?
IB / Carried out soft market testing with schools: every Secondary school and special meeting with SAPH.
EB / When will services know?
IB / Budgets go to schools probably mid-March. We have agreed with Schools Forum there will be an opportunity for those services to bed in to get a feel for how many schools are likely to buy back. If sufficient number, those services will be able to continue, although may well be with reduced staffing level.
EB / When reducing staff?
IB / Transitional period for some of those services, so we have a feel for how many schools are going to buy back. If sufficient number, services can continue but, if not,, those services will go and possible redundancy implications.
EB / Trying to work out how many staff will be made redundant?
AE / Process of “at risk” has started but if schools buy back there may be jobs for people to apply for. There may be posts throughout consultation process. Process has had to start because of notice periods.
IB / Teaching & Learning Service, School Meals Advisory Service, ESS: no decisions made in all cases whether they become Traded Services. Could be hosted by schools. No absolute certainty and in some cases will depend on how many schools buy back. By mid-March schools will have their budgets and then will have clear idea of how much funding they have and whether they want to buy back. Market testing gave broad indication.
PW / Did Head Teachers agree maternity cover funding? What happened with last year’s budget? Different because driven by need and beyond Head Teacher to anticipate. Going to central pool makes sense because in one year may not need. Why delegate? Example of delegated responsibility but not effective resources to meet
IB / Head Teachers agreed. Believe went over budget last year due to late claims and will check. Had rigorous debate through Schools Forum. Trying to get more money into schools. Less administrative capacity due to reduction in staffing levels centrally.
PW / Funding for redundancies?
IB / Held centrally – LA’s legal responsibility
PS / Due to some of that uncertainty, not sure Head Teachers are clear.
IB / These were purely indicative and depend on budget. Needs to be transitional period for new Traded Services to bed in to see whether viable. Not large number of Traded Services involved.
CS / On what basis did Head Teachers agree maternity cover funding?
IB / Overall view is that they want to see more money in schools. Report to Schools Forum shows there was a lot of detail around options. General view that Head Teachers and Governors manage budgets. Acknowledged counter-views and reservations.
BC / Decisions have knock-on effects. Schools will try to pay out as little as possible and will lead to tribunals.
PW / Is there implicit encouragement for schools to become Academies? If Academy, go to central Government pot and, if not, reducing amount. Objective advice would be to become Academy. Head Teachers are being given responsibilities but cannot attract level of resourcing.
IB / Not encouraging schools to become Academies – their decision. Agreed with Head Teachers and Schools Forum last summer that we would aim to maximise amount of money that we got to schools from retained DSG and move towards Academy funding model as far as possible.

AE

/ Maternity budget is for teachers only and schools have always had statutory responsibility..
CS / In Primary schools there is nothing more to draw on because budget is so small. Can see industrial action.
PW / Primaries have majority and Chair of Sub-group is Primary Head Teacher.

IS

/ Was one option that Primaries could be retained centrally?

IB

/ Could but would be unusual to treat two phases differently. Options were (1) retaining (2) all (3) hybrid model
PS / Do you know percentage you expect to retain and funding per student?

IB

/ At threshold level there is a particular percentage. Not looking at delegating if statutory requirement or does not make sense. Is going to be decreasing amount.
IS / Equality assessment? Age profile of Primary and Secondary teachers.

IB

/ Need to check age information available.
PS / There was confusion about amounts of money DfE was telling Academies they were going to get. Any progress in trying to work it out? NUT document refers to education costs funded from other sources, which should not be factored into school budgets.

IB

/ There has been a lot of uncertainty from central Government about where money is coming from for Academies. Understand some will come from locally retained DSG but most initially topsliced from LA revenue settlement.
(This item was returned to later in the meeting.) /

IB

IB/AE

6 /

School reorganisations

· Gorse Hill Infant & Junior Schools – take off Agenda. Schools Adjudicator agreed to them becoming Primary from this September.
· Drove Primary School – take off Agenda.
· Westrop Primary School – take off Agenda.
· Croft Primary School – extensive consultation during Autumn. Parents who expressed view were generally keen but local residents not keen because of access and other issues. Reported to Cabinet in December. Going through competition arrangements to determine who runs proposed new school. Cabinet decided to put in application to be Community school but has to be approved by Secretary of State. However, Education Bill states new schools to be Academies. Do not know of other bids to run the school at this stage.
· East Wichel Primary School – permanent build is almost complete, next two to three months. Open 2FE Primary in September 2011.
IB reported on expanding number of places in North of Borough again. From September 2011 three existing Primaries will expand: Greenmeadow, Bridlewood and Orchid Vale. Looking at further Primary places in North from September 2012 and having discussions with schools. Planning new Secondary places from 2015. (BC left the meeting.)
The following questions were raised:
PW / Implications for Secondaries in North?

IB

/ Will need a lot of new places. (Graph circulated.) Study carried out by CEA. Dependent on new housing developments but new pupils already in system. By 2020 will probably need 25+FE. Rapid increase. Have some surplus capacity across the Borough but obviously aim to provide places locally, particularly Primary but also Secondary. Focus on potentially expanding Nova Hreod School to 10FE. Potentially expanding Isambard School. In longer-term may well need additional Secondary school.

PW

/ PFI schools. Completely messed up in terms of cost. To be additional FE, contractual issues and will hit gross costs.

IB

/ Options are fairly limited. Currently carrying out benchmarking exercise to compare costs. Has to be affordable and working with Finance colleagues. Extremely conscious of financial implications. Capital funding budget is much reduced next year.

PW

/ PFI wrong decision by previous officers. Private sector topslices from present schools. Expressing cautionary observations. Members need to realise.

PS

/ How would expansion programme be affected if these schools become Academies?

IB

/ Work currently underway and DfE looking at ways to enable PFI-operated schools to become Academies. Believe SBC would still have contract with PFI schools but school would have all the other freedoms and central Government funding. Secretary of State would not want to preclude PFI schools from becoming Academies.

PS

/ Important to learn from lessons

/ Have been in contact with other Authorities about place planning. Have to try and keep ahead of the game. Largely we have achieved but take nothing for granted.
(This item was continued later in the meeting.)
7 /

Academies update (This item was taken later in the meeting.)

8 /

Traded Services

IB circulated flyer for Traded Services Fair and At a Glance summary of services. He advised that there had been some Traded Services for a number of years but not great emphasis on Traded Services compared to some other Authorities and trying to change that for next year. Everybody welcome to drop in at Fair on
2 March. All Service managers would be there. New services:
1) Where money is being delegated, eg, School Meals Consultancy Service;
2) Teams across Council who have decided to offer additional Traded Services.
Sending out Traded Services Prospectus 2011/12 next week.
The following questions were raised:
EB / EOTAS?

/ PB to advise. If they are offering Traded Service, will be shown. Otherwise, services not shown will continue to be provided.

/ Believe they are not.

/ Data ntelligence – asking schools to pay for data they have to provide?

/ This is an additional service.

/ There is imperative for Head Teachers to cut costs and Traded Services will often help teachers. Wish Head Teachers, Governors and teaching staff had been invited.

/ Will specifically mention teachers when sending flyers. Driver is we have to generate income. Some Traded Services will be bought back heavily but others will be variable.

/ If new services, recruiting new staff?

/ May be, or using existing staff.

/ Protecting staff at risk?

/ Yes

/ For example, School Admissions Service will continue to have statutory responsibilities but, particularly for Foundation and VA schools and Academies, could handle admissions appeals. If significant level of buy-back, may have to look at employing additional staff.

/ Uncertainty year on year

/ NQTs and induction year?

/ Will check but assume will be retained as responsibility for that.

/ Traded Services will be offered further than Swindon?

/ That is what we want to do. Looking at possibility of marketing to surrounding schools. If we want to generate income and provide good services, will hinge on maximising amount of money. Maybe into non-schools organisations but fully recognise could work both ways.
/

IB

AE

9 /

Redundancy update

AE reported that many schools were hanging back until they knew their budget and could make staffing decisions. Had had informal discussions with schools and meetings about new redundancy procedure if schools asking LA for funding.
· PSAs – very complicated because some were employed centrally and some employed by schools. Going through process.
· Schools Sports Partnership – funding had ceased. Reduced money going to schools’ budget. AE writing to schools to find out position. 60% continuing to employ and others making posts redundant but not yet formalised.
· EOTAS – Schools Forum had agreed funding would cease.
· YEP – Schools Forum had agreed funding would cease.
· Secondary Support Team – Schools Forum had agreed funding would cease.
· Wanborough School – resolved through voluntary reduction in hours
· Churchfields School – potential redundancies
· Drove School – not aware of an issue
The following questions were raised:
TM / Do schools have to adopt policy? No formal consultation with Unions or Education JCC?