Schools Forum Meeting Minutes of Wednesday 8 February 2012
Hylands House, Chelmsford
In Attendance
Mike Alder (MA) / Rod Lane (RL) (Chair)Jeff Fair (JF) (Vice Chair) / Linda Oliffe (LO)
Ruth Bird (RBD) / John Hunter (JH)
Helen Roberts (HR) / Richard Bassett (RBT)
Peter Malcolm (PM) / Richard Thomas (RT)
Richard Foster (RDF) / Caroline Haynes (CH)
Debbie Rogan (DR) / Sally Davies (SD)
Carol Skewes (CS) / Rob Fox (RF)
Jane Youdale (JY)
LA Officers
Yannick Stupples-Whyley (YSW) / Terry Reynolds (TR)
Lou Williams (LW) / Denise Murray (DM)
Alison Fiala (AF) / Harriet Hill (HH)
Cllr. Stephen Castle (SC) / Nicoli Thompson (NT)
Joanne Cannings (JCa)
Observers
Derek Adams (DA) / Joanna Eastoe (JE)
Terry Hollingsworth (TH) / Liz Norton (LN)
Carolyn Terry (CT)
1 / Apologies for Absence (and substitute notices)
RL welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were received from Julia Thomas (JT), Russell Ayling (RA), Tom Austin (TA), John Crane (JC), Claire Claydon (CC), Dave Bolton (DB) and Simon Knight (SK). RL also welcomed JE, TH, LN and CT from Early Years.
2 / Increasing cost of independent School Places: Implications for Dedicated Schools Grant.
LW Presented the paper, which provided further information on the increasing pressure on the DSG arising from the number of SEN pupils in out of county independent placements. He explained that following his attendance at the Schools' Forum meeting in October, he attended the SEN sub group. He briefed the meeting on the outcomes of these meetings, explaining that the focus of his report would be on (Behavioural, Emotional, Social Difficulties) BESD. He highlighted that there is under-provision in Essex for this cohort of children and young people and that it was the largest group placed in out of county provision, and that numbers are likely to increase, currently there are 129 children in these placements.
The cost of this provision is significantly higher than in-house provision, and the provision does not achieve good outcomes or value for money. He added that including travel costs (which also included day provision) the cost per pupil, per annum, could vary between £49K and £80K
He suggested that it would be a good idea to visit some of the other LA's to gain an understanding of their provision, although it is difficult to compare as there is no direct correlation.
He directed the meeting to the table set out on page 6 of his paper, which showed a table of other LA's and the provision for pupils with statements of SEN. RT commented that it highlighted the percentage of SEN pupils in mainstream schools, which in special schools was lower. DR asked if there was a breakdown available in age groups, LW said there wasn't.
LW also added that the number of children in Essex with statements was only slightly higher than average.
SD said that looking at the history, the closure of schools in Clacton and Harlow, which previously provided BESD provision resulted in the loss of 300 places with more children placed in mainstream schools. LW responded saying that addressing under provision is a complex task.
DR added that the lack of early intervention between ages 4-6 is still a big issue and not right. RT asked LW for a breakdown of SEN needs, LW agreed to send it out.
JF reminded the meeting that Cllr. Candy was currently working on an investigation into SEN provision in Essex, and that Gary Bloom (GB) and LW would be working together. DM said that a long term strategy was needed, invest to save. RT asked if the sites of the closed schools, which are still owned by Essex County Council, could be re-opened. DM said that there is some funding in the capital programme, which is earmarked for investment in special schools, and she agreed to bring proposals to the next meeting. JH added that more information was needed from other agencies such as health regarding their financial input for children with mental health issues.
The forum agreed the recommendations at number 2 on the paper, to agree to further work to explore the benefits of increasing maintained provision for pupils with BESD, including a business case to explore the benefits of developing additional maintained provision including a full options appraisal.
3 / Market Field Special School – Funding Arrangements
JF explained the background to the paper, that Market Field School has a significant number of NMSS level statements. Under the new designation of specials schools (CLiP and NMSS) funding was provided for transition into these categories. Market Field decided to be designated as a CLiP School but had 55 out of 156 with severe needs. The school was given £151K 2008/9, increased to £211K in 2009/10. He said that a methodology needed to be established to fund CLiP schools that admitted significant numbers of pupils with severe needs (NMSS). SD added that CLiP schools do have a range of NMSS pupils and there was no cohesion of strategies in Essex. She said that Special School Headteachers (ESSHA) would be meeting with Cllr. Candy on 27th February for provision mapping.
The forum agreed to the recommendations set out in 2.1
- The Schools’ Forum is asked to approve the formulisation of a methodology for resourcing CLiP Schools that currently have on roll a significant number of pupils with severe needs as detailed in 8.1.
- The Forum is also asked to continue to fund Market Field School with £233,295 from the Opening, Closing and Reorganisation budget within the Special Schools ISB subject to a review of SEN funding.
4 / Secondary BESD
JF presented the paper on behalf of GB. The paper highlighted an inaccuracy in the current Local Management of Special Schools funding arrangements for secondary aged residential Special Schools for BESD pupils. JF explained that there were two main points, that out of county day places are used, and provision should be looked at elsewhere. He explained that there is no increase in funding, just a restructure.
The forum agreed the recommendations set out in 2, to agree the revised rates for day and residential places in secondary BESD Special Schools, currently only one school, which offers both day and residential pupils is affected, Ramsden Hall.
Day Place / Residential Place Supplement / Total
Current / £15,336 / £18,683 / £34,019
Proposed Secondary / £19,834 / £10,173 / £30,007
Proposed
Primary / £17,342 / £16,677 / £34,019
5 / Early Years and Childcare Update
JY presented the paper to update the Schools' Forum on the Free Element Formula and 3 and 4 year old free entitlement funding for 2011/12 and 2012/13.
JY explained that funding has remained constant for three years, but there has been a 4.6% increase in minimum wage for staff in the PVI sector, and an increase in training requirements and increased standards. There has been a knock-on effect of 2 year old funding; the 15 hour offer has had an effect on 3 and 4 year old funding. Many parents access the free entitlement but no additional hours. The working group would like to propose an increase in the level of funding in line with other areas, as noted in 2.2 of the paper, an extra 11p per pupil per hour. PM raised concerns regarding the control of staffing in PVI's? JY replied that staffing of PVI's cannot be controlled, but that the majority of staff are on the minimum wage, with some differentiation. PM replied that he wasn't comfortable giving funding to PVI's, but JY explained that it wasn't impacting on PVI's. She added that there was a business support team in the LA, looking at pay etc. HH said that in the context of these volatile times, changing environments and early entry into school, it was hard to monitor the impact because of the different year end financially and academically. DR questioned the £7m under spend. DM replied that with an overall budget of £50m, 11p flat rate represents a 2.6% increase, but a percentage increase would have a negative effect of further increasing differentials between sectors.
The forum noted 2.1
- For 2011/12 there is a forecast under spend of £7.282m
- For 2011/12 the release of the Early Years risk contingency £1.976m
- For 2012/13 there is an agreed increase to 2 Year Old funding as a result of the Early Intervention Grant allocation
- For 2012/13 a proposed budget requirement of £41.155m
- For 2012/13 a proposed contingency requirement of £0.412m
- For 2012/13 there is a proposed increase to the funding formula of 11p per hour
6 / Schools Budget 2011-12: Third Quarter Report
DM presented the paper and updated the forum on the likely outturn for the year ending 31 March 2011, period 9 and to seek views on underspends.
The mid term report previously reported an overspend, but the forecast now is for an £8m underspend, mainly due to an underspend in the Early Years sector.
She continued to summarise the various under and over spends as outlined in 4.2. She explained the ‘miscellaneous’ under spend at 4.2.10. This was due to under spends in virtual schools (£57K), Corporate Parenting and Children Support packages (£156K). She explained the difficulty in forecasting termination of employment costs resulting in an over spend in 4.2.12 (£563K) and at 4.2.13 (£505K under spend) which included school specific contingencies (£482K, of which £397K relates to rents and rates).
The carry forward at 4.2.14 (£1,050m) will be carried over under school finance regulations, and remain on the balance sheet.
DR asked if school balances/carry forwards were available. DM replied that they would be ready at year end and be on the outturn report.
At 4.3 DM set out the proposed usage of the 2011/12 DSG forecast under of £8.841m. She said the £1.3m would be held pending a review of nursery budgets leaving £7.5m to use as one-off funding or carry forward allocations. The proposals are set out below
Proposed Allocation / £
2010/11 DSG Carry Forward Over spend / 1,050,000
SEN / AEN Project / 282,000
Formula Changes Tapered Protection / 3,604,000
Sawyers Hall - School Closure / 500,000
Autism Support Centres – Minor Capital Works / 200,000
Redistribution to Schools / 1,864,000
Total / 7,500,000
4.3.3consultancy and research for the special school review by Cllr. Candy as set out in 4.3.4, TR explained that the funding would be used to look at processes and the Essex position with the number of Special School places compared to other LA’s, utilising route maps to ensure correct provisions. CH asked for clarification that the £282K, DM confirmed that as the result of a corporate pushback, that this funding would be met from the Transformation
Reserve, but if there was headroom at year end, the project would be funded from the DSG. RT asked if the Transformation reserve was over spent. DM confirmed it wasn’t. TR added that savings wouldn’t be coming back into the LA. RT asked if the £1.3m would be going back into schools. DM confirmed that it was subject to the final year end position.
The forum noted recommendation 2.1 Noting the outturn position reported as at period 9 at section 4.2and were happy with the proposals made for use of the forecasted 2011/12 budget underspend at 2.2.
RL welcomed AF and SC to the meeting.
7 / Looked After Children Dowry
TR presented the paper on behalf of Cathryn Adams (CA). The paper proposed the cessation of the Looked After Children (LAC) Dowry, which totals £1,536, 456. TR gave a background history of the dowry and said that Ofsted had highlighted in 2010 that there was little governance of the dowry. LAC children are eligible to receive the Pupil Premium which increases to £600 in2012/13. The Achievement Service for Children in Care (previously Virtual Schools) hold a £400K commissioned needs led budget which schools can make requests to utilise these funds.
CH asked what the mechanism would be to access funding. TR explained that the Achievement Service contact schools with the procedure and criteria. HR asked if this would be available to all schools including nursery. TR confirmed it would be.
RL commented that if the under spend was due to difficulty accessing the funds for children, the process of claiming needs to be made clear and should funding follow the child?
It was agreed to support the decision to cease dowry funding to schools.
9 / Any other business and feedback from schools through Associations. Feedback from Schools Forum representatives on other bodies.
No feedback was reported.
10a / Minutes from 8 December 2011
These were agreed as an accurate record
10b / Minutes from 11 January 2012
These were agreed as an accurate record.
11 / Forward Plan and Dates of Next Meeting
YSW presented items for future School Forum meetings following a review of forum agendas from 2009-10 and 2010-11.
DM advised that a detailed paper would be forthcoming regarding the carbon reduction commitment
Regular and Administrative items
Apologies
Any other business and feedback from schools through Associations
Feedback from Schools Forum representatives on other bodies
Minutes from previous meetings
Forward Plan and dates of next meetings
Sub Group updates (SEN, Early Years, Specific Grants)
Date of Schools Forum / Agenda Items
23rd May 2012 / National Funding Formula Consultation
Section 251 2012-13 Budget
Review of the Work of the Forum 2011-2012
SEN Formula Review
Independent Special Schools Business Case
BSF Update
PRU Update
11th July 2012 / 2011-12 Draft Outturn of Schools Budget
First Quarter Budget 2012-13 update
2011-12 Schools Balances
Update on Funding agreed in February 2010
SEN Formula Review
Carbon Reduction Commitment
10th October 2012 / Second Quarter Budget 2012-13 update
SEN Formula Review
5th December 2012 / LA Benchmarking
Budget 2013-15
13th February 2013 / Third Quarter Budget 2012-13 update
2013-14 DSG Budget
Early Years Annual Report
At a meeting to be determined / Raising the Participation Age
8 / Schools Budget 2012-13
SC began by thanking everyone for their work on the Schools Budget 2012-13.
He added that there were winners and losers in the formula for funding schools and the proposal that has been put forward will help protect schools, and those facing redundancies.
YSW briefed the meeting on budget planning 2012-13, setting out the agreed changes to the formula
- To increase the Primary Lump Sum from £70,260 to £77,448;
- To decrease the Secondary Lump Sum from £327,592 to £267,321;
- To redefine a small school in the Primary sector as being either an infant school with less than 90 pupils on roll, a junior school with less than 120 pupils on roll or a primary school with less than 210 pupils on roll;
- To change the funding methodology of the Small Schools Subsidy;
- To remove the Teaching Cost Adjustment factor from the Formula;
- To fund the Key Stage 1 adjustment on actual numbers;
- To correct the SEN/AEN anomaly;
- To increase the on-cost rate for SEN statements to 21%;
- To allocate former specific grants associated with deprivation through AEN funding; and
- To distribute former specific grants calculated on a per pupil basis through Key Stage Funding
Protection on 2011/12 Funding
Year 1 – 2012/13 / -1.5%
Year 2 – 2013/14 / -3%
Year 3 – 2014/15 / -4.5%
Year 4 – 2015/16 / -6%
Year 5 – 2016/17 / -7.5%
Year 6 – 2017/18 / No protection
This would be fixed subject to a national funding reviewand any advantageous changes to a school’s profile. RT mentioned that at a formula review group meeting he understood the BiP/EiC money would be redistributed, CH raised concerns that specific children would be losing out if this wasn’t distributed fairer. YSW said that funding is being redistributed by the AEN factor. DM said that the proposed protection would be coming out of the retained DSG of £3.6m over five years.
CS said that in areas of severe deprivation, they do not have the same level of access to funding, quoting Canvey Schools as an example. SC added that he had a different view on the deprivation on Canvey, that most areas were quite affluent. CS argued that it shouldn’t be a post code approach and that the process needed to be fair and open. SC agreed.
DR said that all applications to the Secretary of State to exclude BiP/EiCfrom the calculation of the MFG have been refused. She added that having been through the process before, a small proportion of schools have been over funded, and that BiP/EiC does not show outcomes for children. SC agreed and accepted the principle, but there were issues around the speed of change. JF said that timescales were tight and although there were concerns with the five year period, something is needed to be in place. TR said that the previous allocation of BiP/EiC put in millions of pounds but with no demonstrable effect, but will have to accept that this money is being focused on children and outcomes. He added that there was no track record from the Secretary of State of any removals from the MFG and the amount of change and timescales for schools, this would help small schools absorb the impact with the tapering of cuts. RT accepted TR’s comment, and added that it was expected to lose BiP/EiC, there was no justification for BiP/EiC being protected, and the AEN factor was still deducted from the budget.HR commented that the early years funding formula for nursery schools stood to lose 25%, which was spread over a transitional 2 year period but this was cut to 1 year and now schools have been given a five year window.
JH said that schools affected by BiP/EiC would be cushioned by MFG. He added that schools should have prepared to lose this money. PM said that there was no indication of government input into the changes the LA have made to the formula and questioned the capability of the LA to support schools to operate within their budgets. Transparency is needed and help for school leaders to make decisions as an interim measure, SC agreed. AF added that headteachers needed to plan to invest this money on outcomes. LO agreed with AF and TR, BiP/EiC money should be the responsibility of the Headteacher and they should be held accountable.
RDF said that budgets can reduce for a number of reasons but the main concern is that children get the best education, often money is targeted at areas of deprivation, but pockets of deprivation in affluent areas often get missed out.
RT asked if the protection factor would remain if pupil numbers decreased. YSW confirmed that schools would be protected at their current level of pupil numbers.JF said that MFG would protect a falling roll. RF agreed with PM’s earlier point and added that small schools would need more support, but there is less LA school improvement support available due to cuts. DR added that EPHA meetings were more important than ever, with colleagues offering school to school support, but in some cases the lack of financial expertise in Primary Schools would benefit from partnership working with large secondary that have good finance officers. RT suggested a review of the protection after 1 year, but JH disagreed and said that due to the length of time needed for financial planning, a review after two years would be more appropriate. PM said that the tapering and protecting of schools over a five year period could set a precedent for future budget modelling. TR reminded the meeting that the purpose of the forum was to make recommendations to the portfolio holder and not to make decisions. SC added that he appreciated the hard work the forum did, but there were time issues, he reiterated that the five year calculation was the best scenario.
RL proposed a vote on the proposals:
4.3.2 - For 14, Against 0 and Abstained 0
4.3.3 – For 3, Against 4 and Abstained 7
4.3.4 – It was decided to Note the proposal. For 9, Against 0 and Abstained 5
4.3.8 LA Service Pressure and Savings, RT asked if academies were part of the Carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme. DM replied that all schools were included and that a more detailed paper would be tabled at afuture meeting. YSW explained the pressures and savings.
- Children in Care out of County, saying that there is currently a 37% charge on the DSG, transfer of £17.6m, transferred at £3m per year subject to headroom
- The removal of DSG contribution to Educational Psychology Service would be a saving to DSG.
- Special Teaching Early Years Foundation Stage would be a 50% charge to DSG.
- Education Rangers – this is for numeracy work within the country parks.
- Extended schools – SC agreed funding for one year, funding has gone to schools. £1.6m is needed to replace the one off carry forward. The funding will be reduced over a five year period, via a tapering mechanism. DM added that the 11-12 grant was redistributed to schools, but the ISB element would be given directly to the LDG’s.
- The level of school specific contingencies at 4.3.7 were agreed (14 for)
- It was agreed for the breech of the CEL (14 for).
Next meeting – 23rd May 2012, Shire Hall, Chelmsford
Corrections to the Minutes of 11th January 2011