Date: 3 December 2008
Schools Forum Meeting Minutes of Wednesday 22 October 2008
Pontlands Park Hotel
(subject to Forum approval)
In Attendance
David Crowe (DC) - Chair / Joan Binder (JB) / Cllr Peter Martin (PM)Jeff Fair (JF) / Richard Foster (RF) / Rod Lane (RL)
Canon Peter Hartley (PH) / Simon Knight (SK) / David Wood (DW)
Debbie Rogan (DR) / Sue Shenton (SS) / Lesley Brennan (LB)
Joyce Woodham (JW) / Tim Barrett (TB) / Jane Youdale (JY)
Helen Roberts (HR)
LA Officers:
Jim MacDonald (JMC) / Rob Baxter (RB) / Stephanie Mitchener (SM)
Val Cleare (VC)
minutes / Terry Reynolds (TR) / Gary Pocock (GP)
Keren Prior (KP)
Item 2 / Ralph Holloway (RH)
Item 5 / Jackie Mitchell (JM)
Item 5
1.0
1.1 / Apologies for Absence (and substitute notices)
DC chaired the meeting. DC welcomed everyone and in particular Cllr Peter Martin andRob Baxter. Also DC thanked Val Cleare who had volunteered to take the minutes. Apologies were received from Bob Hough, Peter Malcolm, Elizabeth Marshall, David Coleman and Linda Oliffe.
DC reminded the meeting that it had previously been agreed that collectively everyone had read the reports circulated with the agenda and when presenting it was only necessary to give a summary in order to focus on the discussions.
2. / School Workforce: Teacher Recruitment and Retention (KP)
KP summarised that she had been working with APC to look at proposals and possibilities for the teacher Recruitment and Retention budget for the current year. Further areas for development had been looked at to formulate solutions for ongoing issues, in particular Secondary sector issues relating to English, Science and Maths. Areas had been investigated for new teachers coming into Essex to be deployed as and when needed across our schools. A current year underspend prediction of £38K had been noted. KP emphasised the purpose of the discussion was to ask for views on what the budget should be used for along with proposals to be considered from APC and suggestions for moving forward.
DC said there is a concern we may become net exporters of teachers.PH advised that there are increasing problems with recruiting Deputy Headteachers in Primary Schools and the particular issue of recruiting Headteachers for small schools. PH drew on experience in Norfolk whereby a bonus applied in Norfolk for small schools which federated. PH suggested that there is a need for a bonus for federating.
It was reported that there may be a retention issue with regard to age profile of leadership of both Primary and Secondary Schools in Essex in a couple of years.
JB supported PH’s idea of attracting a bonus but was less certain that it should be continuous. JB suggested that there was an argument for a period of change and consolidation in which there should be additional funding to oil the wheels. JB stressed that she would not want this to be continuous.
JW said that Headteachers need to look at problems of succession which will affect both Primary and Secondary Schools. Action: To be discussed with Graham Handscomb.
[current statute regards schools which federate or opt for a Trust approach as individual institutions; as such schools which proceed down this route continue to receive a full lump sum; an amalgamating junior and infant school would be viewed as a new single institution with one lump sum. As such there is an incentive to Federate through reducing costs.]
JF expressed from a union point of view that he was aware of the increasing difficulty looking at the turnover of the workforce and supported the initiatives being carried out by the county. It was agreed that there is a need to engage schools and LA to look outside the box to try to tackle the problem of overall performance of standards in these schools. There had been concern with the overall budget having been reduced significantly in the last two years because the LA had to change to meet budget pressures.
Adverts – value for money exercise. DC advised the Forum that £1-2m per annum had been spent on advertising with TES. The issue is significant for schools in difficult financial times.
Concerns about rent and mortgage subsidies were raised. KP – rent and mortgage subsidy funding had been removed from the budget. Discussions had been held about whether this was the right thing to do and a decision had been taken that was what would happen. DC was of the view that this initiative had worked in his school.
DC said that the Essex NQT “pool” is the largest of all LAs.
DR asked how much involvement had schools had in the additional initiatives. She felt that there seemed to be a lack of creativity and that there should be more cost effective ways of recruitment and retention. KP confirmed that there is a collaborative approach with APC. KP was conscious that there were no representatives from Primary Heads.
The current funding does not come from DSG.
Advice was sought on whether further funding not from LA but from DSG could be made available. DC said that decisions had been taken in the past which had a wider impact eg. Funding the BSF affordability gap through agreed top-slicing for all schools.
DC asked about cost savings. KP advised there were several possibilities. Overseas recruitment of £38K as a package including providing resources for new border immigration across ASHE groupings; schools had tried under their own initiative to undertake overseas recruitment in the past.KP explained that there was a package of proposals totalling £800K here for all issues some of which would be recouped – charging Secondary Schools for the process and from the placement of the pool of 20 additional staff identified under iv. Over staffing.
The over-staffing proposal was discussed. An initial allocation of 5 teachers per area was proposed. The cost would be recouped by the school employing them byloaning them out to a school in challenging circumstances that had an issue in a particular area. Upfront costs – will recoup through cost for schools buying into the service. PH said, in his opinion, that with falling roles there is over staffing in some schools and the DSG would be paying twice if it contributed to this approach. SM stressed that if the Forum decided to provide further funding; the LA would need to look at this in terms of budget setting and would need to consider the impact. TR explained that the LA is under huge pressure to look at efficiency savings to meet new inflation cost and prioritise across the board. He said that it was also about policy changes and taking a different approach.
DW raised issues around the retention of teachers from the GTP programme within Essex. Not sure if any data available from schools regarding how many potential trainees in Essex.
KP advised there was funding from the TDA for a foundation degree for Teaching Assistants to go on to GTP.
PM, having listened to the views expressed, said he would take these views back to the Cabinet.
DC was concerned about inadvertent savings for his school in terms of the budget. He commented that 16 newly qualified teachers have elected not to join the Teachers Pension Scheme because they cannot afford to live in Essex.
3. / Business Case for Funding to Support BSF Schools (JMC)
This paper had been produced as a result of meetings which Roger Abo Henriksen had with those schools involved in the first Wave 4 of BSF. As a result there is a lack of capacity in their schools to fully engage in this process. SM noted the issue raised by headteachers and primarily the highest impact comes in the first wave and lessens in future waves. The first wave is setting the parameters. From the LA perspective there is a huge amount of investment. SM stated that £2M had been set aside to support the whole programme. Discussion took place on how schools should be supported in the process and the possibility of support through DSG. GP said that money was being used to enhance proposals for a brand new special school which would have an impact on other schools. PH was unsure of buying into the concept [of providing additional support to Wave 4 schools] as all schools involved with building projects faced additional management costs. JB agreed that they all had building projects which had to be cut due to finances not being available and they should be looking at BSF in the same light. DW expressed concern about the levels of balances held by many of the schools. JF said from a staffing perspective there was a need to tackle building projects in a different way from previously looked at with a different skill set. There was a need to obtain support to do things differently. JMC clarified that for those 4 pilot schools to be effectively involved, they are having to engage in a full procurement. As part of the first wave the LA is engaging a procurement partner, (LEP)which will result in a much more streamlined approach. Schools had identified a need for 1 full time staff member to engage in the procurement with0.5 staff member would be required for the remainder of Wave 4.
JW asked if schools had approached and asked for this money; there appeared to be plenty of balances. SK proposed a project manager to oversee the various schools, not necessarily a full-time teacher. It would need to be someone appointed centrally. TR expressed concern because this is a new process and not as straightforward as a capital project which needs additional investment to improve educational standards. DC said if accepted there needs to be capacity. He referred to balances at 31 March 2008 of schools in Wave 4 with the exception of De La Salle and Shorefields.
RF stated that resources sucked out the experience of Headteachers and Senior Management. DW said that additional resources would be needed but that there were plenty of resources in the schools. TR agreed with this view. The suggestion that LA person might be employed is problematic. There should be a proposal from within the school to the capacity of the leadership team. There is a need to look at funding for additional teachers to replace the capacity of those promoted upwards.
The Forum considered whether it was appropriate for the Schools Budget to support the capacity requirements of schools subject to BSF. All were against this proposal with one abstention – JF
4. / Early Years Update (verbal report of meeting on 10/10/2008) (JMC)
RL reported that the sub group had met and following the bidding process with Capita a presentation was given. Hedra appointed as consultants in June 2008. On 12 August 2008 Hedra met with officers to scope the timetable. Sub group expanded with 3 members. On 10 October 2008 they met as a working group to agree provision. It was noted this week that there are changes to the methodology regarding the formula and proposed increase in hours.Future meetings are on 5 November 2008, 2 December 2008 and 3 February 2009.
5. / Access to the Integrated Support Service (GP)
Ralph Holloway (RH) and Jackie Mitchell (JM) had been invited to attend for this discussion. GP said that they were looking to improve Behaviour and Attendance and to reduce exclusions this term. GP reported that Headteachers had been working collaboratively and had been pleased with early results. There is a working commission and other provision which will be reported back to the Forum about findings and implications for the future. GP stated that a year ago mechanisms did not support Headteachers and permanent exclusions, and that now there was a need to do things differently. It was noted that RH had taken a strong lead on this. In the next 2 weeks RH is working on a bid for a new type exclusion centre and how we fund alternative education without the need to exclude. RH said that each case would be taken on an individual basis. It is now hoped to offer schools a short-term arrangement. There would be an improved role of parents in order to put agreement in progress.
JW highlighted the parent support role carried out by TASCC teams and the links between schools and parents.. Impact of this is not yet known. It was noted that national schools appointed a prime person to find out about abuse etc. and one partnership which is funding this had been seen as beneficial.
LB - How does this link in with support from other parts of LA? Liaise with colleagues/corporate parenting and many provisions consolidated. Can attend Governing Body meetings and get involved prior to the process with a better outcome for the pupils. Positive referrals and moving back into the system.
DR questioned the package of support on offer through this new arrangement and the implications for younger pupils. RH confirmed that there were no differences between this and the permanent exclusion offer with a place in an ISS unit an option.
JMC highlighted where the arrangement differed from the approach that the Forum supported in the case of permanent exclusions, a recovery of £4½K as opposed to £5½K.
JMC reiterated that the recovery of the balance of delegated funding for the year plus pupil retention grant (the lump sum of £5,500 in the case of permanent exclusions) was required for funding to integrated support and to offer some additional resources to schools prepared to accept the excluded pupil on to their roll .
JM was very supportive and noted that this would give the opportunity to get a better management structure which would reduce potential risk of the Health and Safety of all unions represented.
DC welcomed this and wanted it put on record that the work being done by Pupil Support is excellent and very supportive in developing far greater collaboration and partnership. The Forum agreed full support behind these proposals.
6. / Balance Control Mechanism – Distribution and Timing Methodology (RB)
RB reported that excess balances will be determined at the end of March 2009. It was agreed that in November 2009 there should be clawback and redistribution of funds. JMC quickly explained the BCM and the need to test that there was evidence behind claims of future capital projects which was an excepted item. JMC explained that his teams would be looking at the way school balance sheets might start to change. DC agreed that the Forum would need to review the whole scheme and finalise agreement. DC advised that letters had been sent to all Headteachers and Chair of Governors.
TR expressed concern over how this lines up with effectiveness of School Improvement. He commented that the Government recognised in the National Challenge for Secondary Schools below floor targets with additional funding. He said that discussions are about to be launched on Primary Schools that are at risk “for extended period of time and programmes needed to bring about rapid improvement”. If we have the mechanism we should be involved more directly in tracking what is spent in the schools. JW thought that by reducing Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) would be helpful to raise standards. Timeframe to be agreed. RF thought that there needed to be agreed criteria for procedures to be set up.
Alternative methods of distribution were discussed.
8.2 It was agreed that the wording be amended to: “Balances will be clawed back (or ‘recycled’) into the Dedicated Schools Grant for distribution to schools using a key stage weighted pupil/place number allocation.”
JF noted that there had been a recommendation at a previous meeting supporting BSF and affordability gap where it had been considered in terms of using surplus balances for costs rather than by money arriving in November to be put in the following financial year.
Query raised by SS – spending of £8K in 4 months on children. JMC explained that it had been communicated that there would be an allocation of £4M across 570 schools. TR believed an alternative argument would be to formally fund across schools a targeted amount of money which may have better effect. A grant from this via the Schools Forum could have an impact on children’s progress.
The Forum agreed unanimously to adopt 8.2 as amended for the first year and review.
7. / Any other business and feedback from schools through Associations
It was proposed that for future meetings the table layout, where possible, should be arranged in a “U” shape.
Comments were made about the bright orange paper used for some of the papers in the agenda pack. RB noted.
SS volunteered at the suggestion for a Primary Head representative to attend Early Years and Childcare Partnership. Jane Youdale to advise on the requirements of the role at the next meeting.
JW thanked the LA for supporting the Essex Schools Governors Association.
TR gave an update on the National Challenge which Gareth Jones, Interim Head of School Improvement, is leading on with DCSF. Provisional agreement had been obtained which was to be moderated by the DCSF. The total funding for 16-17 schools over 3 year period amounted to the proposal of a little over £3M to ensure that, by 2011, no schools would be below floor targets. It was noted that the DCSF is putting additional money into this initiative.