Location: 5 the Strand, London WC2N 5HR

Westminster Schools Forum

Minutes

Date and time of meeting: Monday13th November 2017 at 4.45 pm

Location: 5 The Strand, London WC2N 5HR

Representing / Name / Organisation / Attendance
Primary Schools / 6 Members
Primary Head / Sandra Tyrrell (ST) / Christchurch Bentinck Primary / Present
Primary Head / Vacancy - Joffy Conolly has left the LA
Primary Head / Mary Wilson (MW) / St Mary of the Angels Primary / Present
Primary Governor / Vacant
Primary Governor / Andrew Garwood-Watkins (AGW)(Chair) / St Stephens CE Primary / Present
Primary Governor / Ti Chen (TC) / Christchurch Bentinck Primary / Absent
Secondary schools / 1 Member
Secondary Head / Eugene Moriarty (EM) / St Augustine’s High / Present
Academies / 5 Members
Secondary Non Recoupment Academy Principal / Vacancy - Samantha Green (SG) attending as representative / Pimlico Academy / Present
Secondary Recoupment Academy Head / Vacancy -Seema Solani(SS)attending as representative / Westminster Academy / Present
Secondary Recoupment Academy / Michael Bithell (MB)(Vice Chair) / United Westminster Schools Foundation / Present
Alternative Provision Academy / Nathan Crawley-Lyons (NCL) / TBAP / Absent
Primary Recoupment Academy Head / Louisa Lochner (LL) / Gateway Academy / Present
Maintained Nursery Schools / 1 member
Nursery Head / Liz Hillyard (LH) / Tachbrook Nursery / Present
Special Schools / 1 member
Special Schools Head / Andy Balmer (AB) / Westminster Special Schools / Absent
Early Years (PVI) / 1 member
John Trow-Smith (JTS) / LEYF / Present
14-19 Representative / 1 member
Vacant
Officers in Attendance
Director of Education / Ian Heggs (IH) / Tri-Borough Children’s Services / Present
Director of Resources / Andrew Tagg (AT) / Tri-Borough Children’s Services / Present
Finance / Lize Ferreira (LF) / Tri-Borough Children’s Services / Present
Commissioning / Steve Comber (SC) / Tri-Borough Children’s Services / Present
Commissioning / Holly Holmes (HH) / Tri-Borough Children’s Services / Present
Clerk / Amanda Price (AP / Tri-Borough Children’s Services / Present
Observers
Director of Finance / Mr John McDonald / St Marylebone CE School / Present
Governor / Andrew Heffernan / St Joseph’s Catholic Primary / Present
Finance / Nicholas Grey / Tri-Borough Children’s Services / Present
Item / Action
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies had been received from Councillor Karen Scarborough, Andy Balmer and Ti Chen.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
Andrew Garwood-Watkins was nominated as Chair and unanimously voted in. Michael Bithell was nominated as Vice Chair but his appointment was deferred to any other business as he had not yet arrived.
Membership:

• AH, Chair of Governors at St Joseph’s RC Primary, was attending as an observer today and would be interested in being appointed to the current Parent Governor vacancy. AT would look into the procedure for appointing to this vacancy.
• The two secondary academy vacancies will be appointed to following elections at the secondary headteachers’ meeting this term.

/ AT to look into parent governor appointment process
RESOLVED
AGW appointed as Chair of Schools Forum.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (A2)
LL advised that the query she raised under item 7 regarding academies having access to certain DSG funds had been omitted from the minutes. TA confirmed that the funds being referred to were top-sliced funding received by the LA. The same funding for academies was paid directly to them in their ESG. The LA holds this funding centrally and would not de-delegate it, as it is deemed to be inside the ESG received by academies.
The minutes of the last meeting held on 20th Junewere approved with the amendment above. / Clerk
RESOLVED
The meeting approved the minutes of its meeting held on 12thJune 2017 with the amendment to Item 7.
4. / HIGH NEEDS FUNDING REVIEW – Update and action plan (Verbal)
AT advised that following the report by Peter Gray that had been presented and discussed at previous meetings, the LA is now considering the implications of the high needs funding following the High Needs Block (HNB) consultation, together with the recommendations in Peter Gray’s review. A high needs strategy for SEND is being developed, including how the HNB should be spent. This will be shared with headteachers in January and will then be brought to Schools Forum in March.
AT invited feedback on SEND and provided an update on the National Funding Formula (NFF) for high needs:

• 32 London boroughs will experience an overspend in the HNB in 2018/19. This is also a national problem, with some LAs overspending by £9m.
• The outcome of the NFF consultation was disappointing.
• Westminster will receive an additional £633k in the HNB when experiencing pressures in the region of £2m-£2.5m. These pressures come from the expansionof SEND to 0-25 year olds with no new funding, continued high levels of need and increasing demand for SEND places and EHC Plans.
• Schools Forum can transfer up to 0.5% of the schools block to the HNB. This has to be decided by 30th November and a request submitted to the DfE.
• The DfE is looking to see how many authorities are having difficulties in this area, therefore, AT would recommend that the LA submits a disapplication request. A decision can then be made later regarding whether to implement the transfer but this will show the DfE the pressures education is under, particularly for high needs.
• From 2020 the only funding remaining under the LA’s control will be the HNB.
• London authorities continue to lobby and the majority are putting in a disapplication request.

MB arrived and joined the meeting.

• The Chair asked if the increase in HNB was subject to a cap. AT advised that there is a guaranteed increase of 0.5% in the DSG for the next two years, which includes the HNB.
• The minimum funding guarantee was discussed. AT advised that this should be included in the disapplication form. If funds are transferred to the HNB, it will give flexibility on how to use that money going forward, unlike if it remains in the schools block.
• IH advised that the report being brought back in the spring term will include figures illustrating the increased SEN expenditure and the related pressures.
• The LA is looking at the current SEN outreach offer, which it wants to develop and enhance. This is funded from the HNB.
• EM asked if all of the resource units were part of the HNB. AT advised that there has been one slight change to the HNB in that place planning has been transferred into the schools block. The top-up funding for SEND will continue to come from the HNB. The LA is looking at the number of specialist places being funded and the specialist provision currently in place. Schools have been asked if they could host specialist provision and the LA recognises there is a need for more places for children with ASD.

/ Agenda item for March
RESOLVED
5. / SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY (A4)
SC referred to his paper A4 which proposes a new graduated model for speech and language therapy (SALT).
The LA, CCG and CLCH undertook a review of the SALT service one and a half years ago, which included consulting with headteachers. That review raised issues, including a lack of capacity and time for SALT to be flexible, long waiting times for assessment and support and a lack of support across the three authorities. In response, the CLCH has worked with the LA and CCG on a programme to improve the overall model for delivering SALT.
The current provision is jointly commissioned between the LA and CCG, with the CCG funding around 80% of the service, which reflects the level of work in the early years phase. The review looked at problems experienced by schools and found that the main way schools accessed SALT was through a statement/EHC Plan. There was no middle tier of support. Some schools have therefore provided additional support by buying it in. Some schools have implemented the Communications Champions Programme, which provides a middle tier of SEN support in the school.
SF asked the Forum to consider providing £57,954 to enable the CLCH to run training for all schools on the Communications Champion Programme from January 2018. From September 2018, schools would then implement the programme and purchase support from SALT to provide assessment, review, programme planning and group session delivery. The cost for this would be £7,000 for one day per week, £3,500 for half a day. This cost is based on all schools buying in the support. If all schools do not buy in, these costs would have to be reviewed.
LL clarified that the expectation is that all schools will have a trained communications champion and will thenbuy in additional SALT support, creating a standardised offer across all schools. This will not replacethe statutory offer, which will exist to accompany it. SC confirmed this to be correct.
EM asked about secondary schools. SC advised that the report focused on primary schools as only a small number of students at secondary level are covered, as indicated by only 20% being outside of the years. Secondary schools need to be looked at separately, particularly as there are different issues.
MW had implemented the Communications Champion Programme in her school and fed back on some of the issues. A teacher had trained as the champion in her school but most champions being trained were teaching assistants. Some of the TAs had dropped out and MW questioned whether this should be a role for a TA. There is a high level of work involved, both in training and carrying out the role in school. If a teacher takes on the role, the school needs to consider whether that teacher has the time. There are also cost implications to cover the release of staff, which could be an issue with reduced school funds. MW also advised that many schools already provide a highly effective communications environment.
SC confirmed that when the Champion is a TA, they work with a senior leader and that most TAs are HLTAs. Headteachers pointed out that not all schools have a HLTA.
LH asked that EY staff be invited to take part in the training. SC will speak to CLCH about this but could not see this being a problem.
The move to bi-borough will not impact on this programme as the costs have been worked out on a borough basis.
JTS pointed out that from 2020 the LA will only be responsible for the HNB therefore a different system would need to be in place. AT confirmed that this support would possibly move to an SLA at that time. IH also said that it could be considered as part of the contingency funding being looked at by the SEN Partnership Working Party, which LH sits on.
LL stated that schools cannot cope with the number of SEND pupils in their schools without the top-up funding from EHC Plans. IH said that the LA needs to look at how provision can be offered at a more effective cost and emphasised the importance of working with parents to ensure they understand the support that is available in the school.
JTS asked about PVI places on the programme. SC advised that he would need to speak to the provider about costs.
Referring to the required implementation from January, AT pointed out that there would be no costs to schools until September 2018 so current budgets would not be affected. The £57,954 is required to get the training in place so that the programme can be rolled out from September.
The meeting discussed the possibility of deferring the start to April as it may be difficult for schools to release staff next term. SC advised that the programme would need to be started in January so that the full programme can be in place for September.
It was agreed that SC and HH would attend the Headteachers’ Partnership on 1st December to get a decision on implementation from January. There will be an Extraordinary Schools Forum on 14th December that the decision can be brought to.
AGW asked that any decisions to be made by Schools Forum be included in reports being submitted.
SC and HH left the meeting.
RESOLVED
Headteachers to decide at their Partnership on 1st December whether they will agree to sign up for the Communications Champion Programme starting in January 2018. Their decision to be brought to Schools Forum on 14th December for a decision to be made regarding the £57,954 funding.
6. / DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT MONITORING (A5)
LF tabled a revised A5 report (attached) and a report on school balances as at 31sth March 2017 (A3 attached).

Year End Close (A3)
The LA will be supporting schools this year in finalising their year-end figures, particularly around income, to ensure there is not the variance in year-end figures and actuals seen in 2016/17. It is important that accruals are correct. The finance team have a timetable in place to support schools and training is being provided this week.
Westminster has an ambitious timescale as it plans to publish final accounts for 2017/18 on 1st April 2018.
LF referred to the key dates in A3, item 3.2. The finance team will work with those schools that believe they will have a problem meeting these deadlines.
AT recognised that there were issues with last year’s close due to Agresso and payroll, which was reflected in the variances. However, it is important that headteachers understand their school’s financial situation, particularly as budgets become tighter. A robust financial management system must be in place.
AT confirmed that the LA will be moving away from Agresso on 31st March 2019. The LA is currently looking at a number of models to replace this and there will be an offer for schools around payroll, HR and finance.
LF advised that there is currently a lot of scrutiny from Westminster’s corporate finance who are going through CFRs and checking that monitoring is in place, with the correct sign-off from headteachers.
It was agreed that it may be challenging for some schools to meet the tight deadlines. However, by following the timetable of hard closes from period 9, schools should only need to make final adjustments at the end of the financial year.
Schools should see an increase in the support from the finance team.
AWG questioned the benefit of a hard close at period 9, which is effectively creating a false set of accounts. AT pointed out that around 80% of a school’s budget is spent on staffing, therefore, schools should understand what their expenditure is likely to be in the final periods of the year. LF also pointed out that it is only the material items above £5k that schools need to be aware of to ensure they are accrued for.
MW stated that prior to Agresso schools did close their accounts effectively. The LA also needs to ensure that all invoices have been put through by the end of the financial year.
AH referred to conversations he has had with finance officers in schools who do not fully understand the procedure and the importance of schools having clear instructions. The LA confirmed that it is happy to arrange additional training sessions for any schools that require it.
AGW suggested that next year an appropriate closing date is considered.
JTS asked if there would be any impact on the payment timescale of early years – AT would check and return with the information.
Budget Monitoring (A5)
LZ referred to report A5:

• Early Years is expected to break even, although there may be a slight underspend.
• There is a projected underspend of £25k in the Schools Block, which could beused towards SALT.
• HNB is showing an overspend of £326k.
• The final projection is therefore an overspend of £301k in 2017/18.
• This recognises that the original budgets were not set adequately to deal with overspends or adjusted throughout the year; hence the work currently being done on the HNB.
• The LA is comfortable with this overspend as there was an underspend in the last two years.

/ AT to confirm EY payment timescales to JTS
RESOLVED
(i)Members noted the schools’ balances and LA closing timetable.
(ii)Members noted the total DSG allocation and current financial position, and the projected overspend for 2017/18.
7. / NATIONAL FUNDING FORMULA (A6)
AT referred to report A6.
The LA previously expected an increase in funding of £183,000 but as a result of the National Funding Formula (NFF) consultation, the DfE has confirmed that all local authorities will receive an increase of at least 0.5% in 2018/19 and 0.5% in 2019/20.
As stated in point 2.5 of the report, Schools Forum can agree to transfer up to 0.5% from the Schools Block. From 2021, there will be no flexibility for relocating funding and the Dedicated Schools Grant will be based purely on the NFF.
Schools Forum has previously agreed to a £175,000 lump sum as part of the local formula. Under the NFF the maximum lump sum is £110,000. This will have an impact on smaller schools, which the higher lump sum was agreed to support. Appendix C shows two options for consideration as the LA transitions to the NFF in two years’ time. The yellow columns illustrate funding if NFF is implemented, the blue columns include a minimum funding guarantee to enable a transition. From 2021, the figures in the yellow columns will be in place, which favours schools with higher numbers of children on roll. AT pointed out that the figures are based on the census datain October 2016, including pupil characteristics, ie, IDACI and FSM. It is important that a decision is made using the up-to-date information.
AT suggested that reserves could be used to ensure a safe transition period to the NFF. AT recommended a further meeting on 14th December to look at various models in detail. A decision can then be made on whether to move straight to the NFF and use reserves or stay with the minimum funding guarantee model and introduce changes over the next two years. Westminster has more challenges in implementing the NFF due to the local funding formula that was in place. AT is happy to fund the SALT programme at £57k from contingency funding but the LA then needs to use this funding to support the implementation of the NFF.
LL asked how much flexibility there is to adapt the NFF. AT responded that it is limited. The aim is to support schools to be able to implement the NFF in 2021. One suggestion was to reduce the lump sum over two years.
It was agreed that all members of Schools Forum would be invited to the meeting on 14th December but not observers. This would negate the possibility of disagreement at the January meeting, as has occurred in the past when a working group was tasked with making the recommendation. It also ensures a shared responsibility for the decision.