Education service:

minutes of the MEETING OF cardiff SCHOOLs’ BUDGET FORUM /
Time: / 08.30 – 10.30
Date: / 21st January, 2015
Location: / Monmouth Suite, East Moors
Present: / Sarah Griffiths (SG), Paul Jeffries (PJ), Jane Jenkins (JJ), Mike Flynn (MF), Robert Smyth (RS), Rod Phillips (RP),Barbara Cooke (BC), Ivor Gittens (IG), David Harris (DH), Susan Jones (SJ), Adrian Dinsmore (AD),Geraldine Foley (GF), Meinir Howells (MH),Marc Belli (MB), Joyce Slack (JS), Angela Jardine (AJ), Nic Naish (NN), Lorraine Felstead (LF)Nick Batchelar (NB), Christine Salter (CS), Neil Hardee (NHar), Ian Allwood (IA), Nicola Hayward (NHay), Spencer Pearson (SP), Iwan Pritchard (IP),Carolyn Gatt (CG).
Ref / Who / By when
1 / Apologies
Apologies received from and Cllr Graham Hinchey (GH), Cllr Julia Magill (JM), Kevin Tansley (KT), Carol Jones (CJ),Huw Jones-Williams (HJW),
2. / Minutes & Matters Arising from previous meeting of 19th November, 2014
SG welcomed everyone and explained that the main focus of the meeting will be to discuss the SBFresponse to the Council budget proposals for 15/16 and the subsequent implications for schools.
The minutes of the meeting held on the 19th November 2014 were approved for accuracy.
  • Self Assessment – Control Governance IA
IA reported that a second group meeting with Audit had taken place
and no amendments were reported. IA will keep a watching brief.
  • Legality of Health and Safety Advice
NHar reported thatGovernor Training on finance will be taking place on the 27th January, 2015 and 20th April, 2015 and this information will be fed back into these meetings and to the Health and Safety Training.
  • Music Development Fund – Invoices
NHar reported that he had met with the Business Manager Nicola Piggin. Over the next couple of months significant improvements will be made to the processes and how this information goes out to individual schools.
  • School Budget Forum Webpage
NHay reported that the Webpage is now live and the link would be sent to all SBF Members by CG. The agenda, minutes andthe constitution will be published on the webpage and regular updates will take place. There will also be live links to documents and a contact form whereby CG will pick up communication and feedback. All documents on the webpage will be bilingual.
  • Benchmarking
SG confirmed that Governors have now received the benchmarking reports.
  • Redeployment
IA reported that a meeting involving Trade Union representatives and a Headteacher Redundancy Group are meeting on the 27th January where both redeployment and redundancy will be discussed. IA to report back to the next SBF their discussions.
  • Complex Needs Enhancement
IA explained that using recent information from the new national tests in the SEN formula has been problematic. A decision needs to be made about using historical data based on an average of 3 years data. Jennie Hughes will be contacting Headteachers to get a view on this to build into the formula. It was agreed that this information would also be circulated round the Forum. The LA preference is to use historical data.There was general agreement by Headteachers that this was the fairest method of distribution. Bring forward next meeting and include in wider discussion in issues round complex needs.
  • Post 16 Funding
NHar reported that the Post 16 Grant was expected to be reduced by £1.5m however the reduction has come out at £115k. John Fabes is currently looking at the data set of pupil numbers and will report back to next meeting with further details. Bring forward to next meeting.
  • Models for SEN Formula & SLAs
Bring forward to next meeting.
SG reported that the Constitution now includes the vacancy for a Special School Governor and we are awaiting nomination. / CG
IA
CG
Jennie Hughes
CG
CG / Next Meeting
Next meeting
Next meeting
Next meeting
3 / Forum Response to Budget Proposals
SG asked the Forum for their views on proposed 2015/16 Budget Proposals. All of the proposed savings are challenging but it is important to identify the best possible scenarios for young people and to give a measured response back to the Council.
The following views were given :-
MF -asked if there was any more information on the Education Improvement Grant.
IA replied that WG have begun to give some information and are still indicating that the grants will be outcome orientated grants. IA is unsure if the match funding will come from the Consortium or individual authorities if required. NHar added that it has been confirmed that the overall figure for Wales is £141m for the grant. It is to be shared between the 4 Consortia as a block amount with the usual conditions attached. More robust governance arrangements will be put in place on how the Consortia distribute the grants. It is envisaged that the regularity elements of the existing grants will be identified to ensure they are fulfilled first. NB assured SBF that he is putting pressure on CSC to acknowledge, when distributing funds, that the size of the block grant for CSC is proportionally larger because of Cardiff.Cardiff currently receives approximately 45% of the total allocation for MEAG in Wales.
IA said that the 16/17 allocation of the MEAG grant will be very different to the 15/16 allocation.
NHar added that the Consortium will look at what we achieve with the grant over a range of issues and then look at what elements need to be retained by individual local authorities and Consortia.
Concern was expressed about the legality of this process and about administration costs
CS said that clarification is needed that the Consortium is now a body that can sign for grants.
MF -said that we need as a Forum an assurance that the rigour and speed of delegations is assured.
NB added that there is a strong preference for accountability for outcomes, rather than invoice checking. The body accountable for grants is the local authority and that the MEAG grant needs to move to a different model.
RP -asked if there are plans to take EMTAS forward as the current model is unsustainable.
NHar replied that schools have been protected from any in-year cuts within the MEAG. The departmenthave not backed filled any vacancies and have given notice to temporary staff. Gill James is preparing a set of proposals around a restructure of the service. There will be a much reduced central team with most of the resources going directly out to schools.
The Forum expressed concern over the lack of clarity about the education improvement grant for example whether the will be elements of match funding. This makes budgeting and planning difficult.
NHar explained that the elements of match funding are only against specific grants. The expectation is that there will be an element of matching funding required to support the new grant arrangement.
SG asked for feedback on the cuts within the education budget particularly the SEN provision and inter authority recoupment.
RP -asked for more clarity as to what exactly is being cut and the authorities’ views on the impact of that cut.
A summary of the proposed budget reductions were given by NHar. He explained that we are challenging the Vale Council with regards to additional charges for SEN placements and jointly with the Vale, Health Authority and Children’s services are funding a project officer post to look at available delivery models.
RS-expressed concern regarding permanent exclusions and the costs to schools and the need for a mechanism to place the young people that does not penalise the school whilst an alternate place is being sought.
SG asked, with regards to SEN, what is the impact fed down to schools.
NB replied that the policy approach on making savings is to find a more cost effective way of meeting needs adequately.
MB -expressed concern regarding the entire Cardiff budget savings asnearly half of them are notviable within the education budget and asked are savings proportionate in the right areas.
CS explained that red risks need to be managed closely and that Directors have detailed plans in place. With regards to Out of County Placements, the recommendation to the CEx is that we could not go forward with the £500,000 and suggested that the saving be reduced to £250,000 next year.
NB added that the Council collectively is backing a very strong prioritisation on education. Also being looked at in the red area is management and support central education costs. There is a £350k projected saving from that which has implications and some functions will have to be cut in relation to what schools can expect from a local authority.
RP -asked could more thought be given to generating savings around catering and cleaning.
NHar replied that in order to cut expenditure in this area we would need to generate more income by charging schools more for cleaning and with catering charge parents more.
SG asked if Headteachers shared the view regarding appropriate savings being made to catering and cleaning and the impact to individual schools.
LF -asked if it is appropriate to explore this. Some schools have SLAs whereas other schools have taken over the control of catering and cleaning directly.
MB -replied that this is an area of DSU provision that he has always been impressed with.
NHar explained that a merger of the Councils cleaning with the Schools DSU could provide savings. This is being discussed. However, the catering function is different and more technical. Other models of delivery are being considered over the next 3 years to try to generate more savings in these areas.
RP -said there should not be subsidy and that the system should be fair. He asked if an impact evaluation had been done on putting up school meal prices and how many families would opt out of using this service.
NHar replied that historically there is always an initial drop off but then it picks up. Our current charge is middle of the road when compared with other local authorities. All secondary schools will benefit from the introduction of the biometric pay system and this will also take the stigma out of free school meals.
NB added that we are proposing to maintain the service offered to schools but to reduce the element of subsidy that goes into it.
JJ -expressed concern about the most vulnerable and the most challenging pupils in schools. Having the budget cut even further is an increasing pressure.
Discussion took place regarding the Youth Service. NB said that the approach that has been outlined for consultation is entirely consistent with the view to engage with the voluntary sector and to try and foster, with the use of a small budget, the sustainability of some of the other provision in Cardiff. Cathays Centre is a good example of this.
RS -said that the resources needed to run the Youth Centre that was on his site were completely out of proportion. For all the wrong reasons it is not missed.
RP -added that there is an enormous amount of youth provision through churches and the voluntary sector and other parties are heavily involved in.
SG summed up that there is a collective agreement to move towards more engagement with the voluntary sector for the Youth Service. PJ added that we also need to find a financial model for extended use of adult community centres.
RS -asked for an update on value for money and facilities management.
CS replied that we recognise there are issues. A study by Construction Excellence Wales was recently commissioned which will be published shortly.
DH -expressed concern about the issue around liability and asked where the liability would be apportioned with regards to the health and safety aspects of works.
NB replied that H&S is paramount and this has to be acknowledged and changed.
CS replied that we are concentrating on the revenue budget and we don’t have the information on the capital programme at SBF to talk about. CS suggested that this could be discussed at a future meeting so the forum understands the 21st Century Schools Programme and the financial situation.
SBF reiterated that they are disappointed with the level of investment into the asset renewal of individual school buildings.
SG raised the increase in demographic pressures, pay awards and complex needs. She said that we welcome the WG protectionfor school budgets and the additional funding the council has proposed to meet some of the rising financial pressures. However there is still a shortfall. She asked SBF how this pressure could be managed and absorbed.
RP -said it would be managed by staffing reductions.
PJ -by taking the hard decisions early enough.
IA explained that there is a proposal to reduce the severance payment lump sum from the 1st April, 2015.
MB -raised concern about the claw back with regards to schools not making redundancies but are getting large bills.
IA replied that he is taking a paperto the Redundancy Working Group which he will send to the SBF so they can feedback any comments.
AJ added we are moving forward to having more predictability and manageability of individual school budgets and that is what is going to be proposed in the paper.
SG asking what should be fedback regarding schools being in charge of their own fates.
RP -said we need to look at a sustainable and robust process in dealing with these financial pressures going forward. Also for SBF to be able to scrutinise the SOP plan.
SG referred to the letter received from the Chair of the Secondary Heads Conference asking to see an increase in delegation in the secondary sector.
This was discussed. NHar said that if we are to move to an increased delegation we need to decide what needs to be in place in both financial and responsibility terms. He felt that a meeting with all the figures would be advisable.
IA added that work is going on identifying all the areas but that there are certain items that cannot be delegated.
RP -asked, that if secondary Headteachers decide not to buy back into Pupil Support Services, have the authority modelled how they would manage that situation and outcomes that are meant to be achieved.
NHar replied that discussion on SLAs will take place in the February meeting that models for the delegation of the SEN would be with effect from the start of the academic year and not to put any significant change in the system part way through the academic year.
MB -said that Secondary Headteachers are looking for the maximum amount of delegation possible of the quantum available.
NN -added that a piece of work needs to be done so we are clear on what can and cannot be delegated and it needs to be a collective view point.
IA added that it is about understanding effective pooled arrangements and how we are harnessing those collective budgets effectively.
4. / Financial Position of Redundancy ; Mutual Supply Fund; Complex Needs Enhancement
IA to email the Financial Position on redundancy.
RP -asked if there are any clawbacks coming to schools in this financial year and what sums of money these would be.
IA replied that there will be no clawbacks later than the 31st January, 2015. IA to email details to the SBF.
IA added with regards to the Mutual Supply Fund, if there are any overs or unders they will be dealt with next year. With regards to redundancies, no bill this year as it stands. However there is a £400k underspend on threshold. / IA
IA
5. / Feedback on Training Day
Very good feedback was received from the Budget Forum Members to the Training Day.
6. / AOB
Nil

Next meeting: 25th February, 2015

Issue: 1 / Date: 21/1/2015 / Process Owner: Education / Authorisation: Chair / Page 1 of 7