Hampshire Schools Forum
Date / 14 December 2015Time / 14:00 – 16:20
Location / Gilbert White Suite, Westley Court, Building 7, Sparsholt College Winchester SO21 2NF
Present / Nursery / Peter Higgs
Primary / Charlotte Bailey, Martina Humber, Esther Jones, Rebecca Kingsland, Roy Lee, Jilly Myers, Katy Pinchess (substitute), Paul Street, Ian Waine, Simon Walker (Chair), Craig Williams
Secondary / Robin Gray, Paul Nicholson (Substitute), Grahame Sammons, Sylvia Vine
Special / Philip Coverdale, Anna Dawson, David Drew, Rob Thompson
Education Centres / Dominic Coburn
Academy / Jim Duckham, Graham Payne, Justine Roberts, Julie Turvey, Chris Willsher
EY / Jane Dyke, Kimberley Norris (substitute)
TLP / Belinda Davis, Liz Muir
Also Present
Observers / Cllr Peter Edgar, Cllr Keith Mans, Steve Clow, Steve Crocker, Martin Goff, Helen Hardy (Clerk), Martin Kent, Andrew Minall, Gordon Shinn, Kathryn Stevens
Apologies / Nursery
Primary / Sarah Crowdy, Andrew Turk
Secondary / Ria Allen
Academy / Beyhan Ercan-Razvi, Stuart Parker-Tyreman
Special
Other members / Donna Beynon, Sarah Rolls, Sheila Spooner
Officers
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
There were no declarations of interest.
3 / Minutes of 20 October 2015
The minutes of the meeting of 20 October 2015 were accepted as a true and accurate record.
4 / Schools Budget Presentation to cover all agenda items below
Andrew Minall gave a presentation (which can be found at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/education/education-meetings/education-meetings-schoolsforum.htm), during which there were questions of clarification, detailed below. Recommendations from the reports were then considered under the separate items, with questions and responses recorded accordingly.
Is the £2m from CERA “spare money” or is it saved out of last year’s budget? Officers confirmed the pooled revenue and CERA budget for schools is £20m this year, and they are looking to reduce this to £18m from next year. They have made some savings already and are looking at proposals for delivering more cost effective services e.g. in the minor works framework from late 2016. This will be followed by new generation term contracts in 2017. Officers believe they can deliver the same level of services by working to a managed reduction in the overall budget. The £2m is from efficiency savings and not from a reduction in service.
What was the response rate to the consultation? The suggestion in the consultation was that schools may wish to discuss with their Schools Forum representatives; centrally officers received a few questions but these were mostly points of clarification; where clear preferences were stated they tended to be based on the school phase.
What is the reduction in deprivation funding likely to be? Officers stated that based on initial high level calculations, the reduction in deprivation funding is approximately a £5 – 7m out of current funding of around £33m; however, approximately £5m of this will come back in through the MFG. Further analysis is required to confirm this and understand the impact at a school level.
How long does it take to do the analysis to submit dis-application requests? The LA will do this over the next few weeks and will make the dis-application requests for all schools by the end of December. It only affects a small number of schools.
When considering Option D in “central budgets – growing schools”, does this include Education Centres and Special Schools? Officers confirmed that these school types are dealt with separately.
Given that Hampshire is one of the poorest funded councils, is it possible that Hampshire could benefit from the introduction of the National Funding Formula? Officers stated that Hampshire is the third least well funded authority in the country therefore it would seem likely that Hampshire will benefit from it, although there will be a fairly long transitional arrangement and there is always uncertainty. Officers stated that they would not recommend deferring any budget decisions in the hope that there will be a significant change in fortunes.
Is there any more information available about the Apprenticeship Levy? Officers are seeking more information but the initial figures they have seen suggest that the trigger point is a £3m turnover or having 250 or more employees. Charities are included in this and it therefore seems likely that it will apply to schools. It is based on “employers” but the definition is not yet clear. Cllr Mans has asked the Director of Corporate Resources to produce a full account on how this levy will affect Hampshire both as an authority and for schools. The results of this should be available soon. Officers have also raised queries with the DfE. The formula of 0.5% of staff bill is the figure being quoted but again this is unclear.
Slide 6 states that similar savings are planned from special schools, is there more detail on what this might entail? Officers stated that discussions are ongoing with special school colleagues with a report to come back to Forum in the new year but they are fully aware of the pressures on the High Needs Block. Rob Thompson added that Special Schools don’t have lump sum funding, so any changes would impact highly on them but they are keen to work with finance officers. One of the key cost pressures is spending on non-Hampshire special schools where any reduction in funding for special schools may end up with an increase in high cost out of county placements. Members stated that they would not want to see small special schools to be disproportionately hit.
5a / Growing Schools Policy Changes from 2016/17
Members agreed to disregard options A and B as not being viable.
What are the different impacts between options C and D?
This is pump-priming for a new class so any loss is against another school where they might have needed an additional class. There is no loss as such but the differentiation is around the funding for the 7 months of the year under option D. Option C will provide all schools with the same amount of money rather than the current basis of school level AWPU.
Is there a figure for savings? Both are designed to make the £800,000 saving required. Currently, schools receive the 7/12’s based on 30 pupils on school-level AWPU. The knock on effect of option C for those schools who have taken a bulge class and are receiving a top-up will get a reduction for their forward planning. This would not have an effect if option D was taken.
Does Option D bring less likelihood of redundancies? Officers clarified that this is about funding an additional class and one additional teacher. There will be the possibility that when that bulge class leaves the school, there will be no need for that extra teacher. Schools are only asked to a bulge year where the authority is almost certain that there will be 30 children requiring that additional class.
Is there a preference that officers would like? As a school-place planner, officers would like schools to be in a good financial place to take the extra children. Option C was initially felt to be the preferred option but Option D also works well. Schools may feel that AWPU doesn’t necessarily reflect what they would need.
With regard to school’s ability to manage each option, will the county provide support so that schools get the numbers right for implementing any change? Officers stated that hopefully either option provides more clarity – it’s either in the budget share (option D) or a fixed upfront amount.
Headteacher groups stated that they discussed this in detail and had no particular preference. Governors had also discussed this and preferred option D.
Schools Forum agreed to Option D detailed within paragraphs 5.14 – 5.21.
Schools Forum agreed to Option 1 as the timescale of implementation of any new policy, as detailed within paragraphs 6.1 – 6.5.
Schools Forum agreed to proceed with reviewing the Growing Schools policy for the secondary sector.
5b / Schools Funding Policy Pack – updated for 2016/17This new policy for Education Centres has caused some consternation amongst Education Centre colleagues about the possible impact of the policy which de facto exists. Is there any urgency to approve the policy today? Officers stated that they had produced the policy as a result of a number of questions received in order to provide clarity for all.
Members stated that the effect has been the opposite and there has been no consultation and they would propose a postponement to consult a little more widely with both education centres and mainstream schools.
What does it say that isn’t current policy? It is hard to say, because it hasn’t previously been written down. There may be different interpretations of guidance in the seven centres. Some of the decisions have been taken already through Schools Forum e.g. EV unwell.
Members stated that they understood that they could not use their AWPU to fund Local Agreements. Officers confirmed that it is this type of example that led them to develop the policy to provide clarification. Some of the content is clarification from the DfE around the commissioning of places (e.g. via the Education Inclusion Service or via schools). Members also commented on Pupil Premium and felt that it would be useful to discuss this further. The Chair summed up the discussion by suggesting that it is clear that further consultation would be appropriate on this policy.
Schools Forum approved the revisions to policy numbers 1 – 6, with the exception to the growing schools policy that is considered within a separate paper on this agenda. The revisions to the Policy Pack will be effective from April 2016.
Schools Forum agreed that wider consultation was required on the inclusion of a policy for Education Centre Funding (policy 7) and that any decision on including it be postponed to a later meeting. / A Minall / K Stevens
6 / Property Services SLA
A member sought clarification around paragraph 2.5 that this wouldn’t be a 10% reduction in the contribution from schools but that schools would in fact see a 2% saving in their expenditure. Officers clarified that there is a 10% reduction in the cost to the overall schools budget. How Schools Forum wish to use this saving is a separate decision. One option being discussed was that the £2m saving can be used against the £4m pressure. If we don’t take the second decision then schools individually would see the 10% saving.
If Forum agrees to this, can the decision on the lump sum be deferred? Officers stated that the proposal is that £2m comes from the CERA and a further £2m from the lump sum reduction. At the last meeting, officers were not aware of this potential saving. So this has provided an opportunity to achieve the full £4m ongoing saving. The pressure on the deficit budget must be addressed as soon as possible to close the gap in the budget. This is likely to reduce the pain over the next few years where much harder decisions are going to have to be made. The size of this year’s deficit has grown by £1.4m since the last meeting. If this deficit grows further, then this will have to come from the reserves. If pressures continue to rise, then the reserves will very quickly dwindle.
The figure quoted of £0.4m affects individual schools budgets as a saving in their budget regardless of the decision on how to use the £2m CERA saving.
Schools Forum agreed the proposed reductions in CERA, including the net 10% reduction in the contribution charges to the Property Services SLA and JWA and that these changes are to take effect from April 2016.
Schools Forum agreed that an additional £3m of the central CERA fund, over and above the planned £0.4m reduction, is delegated to the overall schools budget from April 2016, £2m of which will be the 10% saving in 5.1 above, and £1m will be calculated into the SLA charges for 2016/17.
7 / Schools Budget 2015/16 and 2016/17
For the lump sum, the agreement at the last meeting was that there would be £2m savings from schools and £2m from the equal pay fund, what has happened here? Officers stated that the opportunity is now available to address the full £4m, thanks to the CERA reductions. There is around £7m after current known commitments in reserves (including any balance of the equal pay fund) and this will be used to meet any residual overspend.
Why isn’t the option to use the reserve first rather than asking schools? Officers confirmed that the budget is currently showing a £4m overspend, which could be paid for from the reserve in the following year the overspend could be bigger than any reserve and there would be nowhere else to take the money from. The other option is the current proposal. Schools Forum is responsible for the whole allocation of the schools budget, including early years and high needs and therefore has collegiate responsibility for the whole budget.
Members stated that they need real clarity about the decisions we have to make over the next 12 – 18 months because it will become increasingly difficult to fulfil officer’s requests for money to support specific projects and teams etc.
In table 3.29, to what does the £97,000 for school leadership refer? Slide 12 sets out the details of these but officers can bring back further clarification on this and other miscellaneous items at the next meeting.