Date: 7th July 2010
Schools Forum Meeting Minutes of Wednesday 5th May 2010
Ivy Hill Hotel, Margaretting
(subject to Forum approval)
In Attendance
Rod Lane (RL) – Chair / John Hunter (JH) / Simon Knight (SK)Simon Mason (SM) / Elizabeth Marshall (EM) / Valerie Lucking (VL)
Peter Malcolm (PM) / Tim Barrett (TB) / Jane Youdale (JY)
Lynn Skinner (LS) / Richard Foster (RDF) / Jenny Moore (JM)
Helen Roberts (HR) / Joan Binder (JB) / David Wood (DW)
Jeff Fair (JF) / John Crane (JC)
LA Officers:
Jim MacDonald (JMC) / Rob Baxter (RB) / Terry Reynolds (TR)
Stephanie Mitchener(SM) / Harriet Hill (HH)
Nicky Merrell (minutes)
1. / Apologies for Absence (and substitute notices)
RL opened the meeting and welcomed Elizabeth Marshall who was substituting for Rob Fox and Jenny Moore substituting for Russell Ayling.
Terry Reynolds and Harriet Hill were also welcomed.
Apologies were received from Bob Hough, Rob Fox, Russell Ayling, Lesley Brennan, Debbie Rogan, Mike Alder and Councillors Stephen Castle, Sarah Candy, Ray Gooding and Valerie Metclaffe.
RL asked that item 6 of the Agenda be addressed first.
6. / Early Years Single Funding Formula – Implications of not achieving Pathfinder Status
HH introduced the report and asked the Forum to recall in January a situation where the minister had deferred the implementation of the single funding formula – discussions following this indicated that this was to provide a longer lead-in time. As the implementation has been deferred for a year it is proposed that the transition year to the new formula be removed, as there is now an opportunity to take schools through the process whilst they remain fully funded and full support can be given. The level of support needed would be established by May half term.
JMC referred to the table on pages 1 and 2 of the report which detailed the proposed hourly rates for settings for 2010/11. After consultation with P V and I and mainstream settings and prices that demonstrated an affordability baseline it was agreed that each setting could expect a budget increase of 3% per pupil and the increased rates were shown in the table.
Pre-Schools differ as the baseline would have produced an hourly rate of £3.53 which is less than the guarantee offered. The increase has been applied to the baseline and as this is still less than the guarantee, the rate remains at £3.71 to achieve the guarantee.
JY commented that she was aware that this would mean that pre-schools would have no increase, but she was happy with the suggestion.
HH mentioned that this is a flexible offer before the full formula is implemented and the flexible offer comes in from September this year. Schools will be taking forward the Flexible Offer from September.
HH confirmed that schools would remain on place-led funding for 2010/11.
HH said that settings would be encouraged to engage with the new offer for 3 and 4 year olds. The additional 2.5 hours from September will be funded from the standards fund and providers will not therefore have to meet the additional costs.
PM questioned how profitability was being judged, if pre-school nurseries were offering this mechanism this year, recognising that they would have a greater fall of income the following year when funding would be diverted away.
HH responded that conversations were being held with every school individually about the removal of the transition year and that individually crafted plans would be put in place judged on what each individual school may need.
JB asked if this 'double funding' would cease in April 2011
RL responded that he expected this to be the case as long as HH had ensured sustainability for the settings.
HH confirmed that there would be individual cases for each school, outside of the formula funding.
JMC commented that settings would need to take the necessary steps to continue, close down or change provision.
HH confirmed that 9 nurseries were in contact at the moment, but she suspected there would be a few more.
HR commented that there were issues with the Funding Formula for her setting and as a result they have moved forward knowing the change was coming and increased numbers accordingly to account for the change.
HR would argue that it was not actually 'double funding' as suggested as this funding pays for the additional staffing costs.
JB asked how expansion of settings was managed – at what point does someone make the decision that a provider has reached capacity?
HH mentioned that everyone would be in the same position from the following year and they would hope to manage the situation by bringing providers together.
JF expressed concern over the removal of the transition year, as a large number of schools fail to deal with situations like this positively and are often faced with redundancy situations late on and employees are not aware - instead of putting in positive plans to re-structure staffing.
HH said it was difficult to respond
JMC confirmed that all schools had been written to about the removal of the transition year.
RDF responded that it was down to the individual facility management to keep employees informed.
RL seconded this and confirmed that his school had had a meeting with all staff and their suggestions were taken on board and staff have reacted positively to the change. The school has now increased its intake in readiness for the change.
HH mentioned SEN and the concerns raised in January with regard to these settings. There are 5 schools which have SEN facilities such as hearing impaired units and particular classes where SEN will be catered for. These settings will be sustained.
Other SEN resources tend to follow the child to whichever setting the parent may choose.
JF queried whether the pre-school rate of £3.71 would increase or if the base rate stays at £3.71 until such a time as it catches up?
JMC confirmed that this sum would not increase until inflation applied to the baseline figure took the amount above £3.71.
HH informed the Forum that through the process there have been regular area meetings with P V and I settings and that these would continue to ensure settings are sustainable.
RL asked the forum to consider the two recommendations as outlined in the report.
Recommendations:
- the removal of a transition year, and
- a funding approach to the introduction of an entitlement to 15 hours per week delivered from September 2010.
In Favour 12, Against 1, Abstained 4
2. / DCSF Paper: Consultation on The Future Distribution of Schools Funding
JMC directed members of the Forum to Annex 1 and the salient points on page 9.
Key Points
Point 3 -Funding for schools will increase by 0.7% in real terms. This additional 0.7% does no more than fund the additional demand in pupil population. There is a national level of 1.9% increase in pupils funding year on year in 2011-2012 with 2.3% in 2012/13; compared to funding increases over 4% per pupil per year in past years. Cost pressures have been assumed at 1.9% and 1.3% as there is expected to be a 1% cap on pay increases.
Point 4 - efficiency gains are expected as funding will only match inflation. The situation is not as healthy for schools as it has been for the past five years.
Point 5 – Grants such as the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant and School Lunch Grant may be added to DSG. In the past, the grants have been devolved to schools to meet identified need. There is now a challengefor the FRWG (Forum Review Working Group) in how to get that money out to the school communitiesin a more objective way.
Point 8 – DCSF requires the LA to 'passport' the funds delegated at targeting Social Deprivation. Essex has made some strides towards this and is currently at approximately 85% of the target; moving to 100% will result in winners and losers.
Point 9 – In 2007 the Government were considering moving from spend plus to a needs led approach to annual funding; the consultation talks about a needs led approach. This may mean that Essexcould receive less than the 1.9% increase.
The paper describes a future minimum funding guarantee with will continue for2011/13, the government will not announce the level of MFG until the autumn.
The minimum funding guarantee needs to be set below that of the per pupil rate.
JMC invited comments.
HH warned that the mainstreaming of Early Years Funding could be missing 3 or 4 year olds coming into the system if in January there is not a full take up of the full 15 hour offer. There would be an ongoing need for the Schools Forum to support that.
VL queried the clawback position and how the LA uses these funds.
RB responded that all issues related to the clawback must come back to the Schools Forum. These funds can either be re-distributed to schools or can be held to use collectively, the position is fairly flexible.
JM questioned whether Essex had any forecasts for the increase in pupil numbers of 11/12 or 12/13 yet?
JMC confirmed that they have looked at the Early Years child population of 0-5 year olds across the county. There are 0.25% more 3 year olds than 4 year olds, 1.25% more 2 year olds than 3 year olds. This would indicate that Primary numbers will grow.
The 0.9% talked about in Annex 1 is not reflecting costs it is more about increasing numbers.
JM asked if the specific grants were going into DSG then will the LDG's be reviewed.
JMC said that this was an issue for the FRWG as to how we organise the funding. Some of the grants will need to be 'passported' through to schools. Each case by case basis may have to be handled in a different way.
TR touched on the 16-19 funding. The 0.9% year on year for additional learners is questionable.The issues surrounding this funding and the provisions for 16-19 learners have resulted in unfunded learners in one year. 16-19 funding is an issue.
PM queried if there would be any mileage in the LA defining services schools should offer and working out schools costs. Consideration needs to be given to the baseline and to what schools should be providing.
JF told the Forum that it is the remit of the FRWG to try and find a reasonable solution within the timescales. Ensuring schools can deliver within their budget, by either taking an historical view or going back to basics and highlighting the unrealistic costs; these are options which the consultants are considering.
JMC mentioned the small cross sector working group which were meeting so that the consultants could try and understand the relativities across the Key Stages.
JH expressed concerns of monies disappearing such as National Strategies and the implications this has on funding. His school alone could loose approx £1M in funding next year. There is a real need to warn people of the implications on budgets next year. The decrease in Standards Fund is an implication that will go through all schools – what deduction will be lost on budgets?
Making savings of 0.9% what is that in cash terms for schools? This could mean a 'stay still' budget which could affect staffing. Schools need to know by December if they are to go down the redundancy route.
JMC confirmed that the Government have acknowledged on paper the short period of time LA's have. There is a need to identify schools delegated budgets, the schools Standards Grant/Development Grant at the beginning of each year, and then form a baseline.There will be protection for individual schools in the form of MFG and possibly transition.
JH asked for an indication of what happens to funding used outside of schools budgets.
TR told the Forum that school improvement and outcomes for Social Deprivation groups are always associated with Free School Meals and SEN. Free School Meal children are not improving at the same rate in Essex as they are nationally which suggests that we do not do very well with Social Deprivation in Essex, which is an issue of concern.
The relationship between funding and outcomes is hard to measure.
TB mentioned that his highest performing children were those with SEN, which would indicate that it was how the resources were being used.
TR reported that pupils with statements achieve at the same level inEssex as they do nationally.
PM raised 2 points; 1) there should be a reasoned argument that schools success in not linked to funding, but that it is about leadership etc and 2) his understanding is that nationally there is no moderation of action and action plus. Essex is more structured and this is not the case nationally. Therefore, should we return to the moderation of what makes an action/action plus child?
JF thanked JMC for his 'well worded' report. He expressed concern about the overall impact, when students in Essex make good progress.
It is difficult for schools when we are looking at a reducing amount of funding to continue achieve success.
RL asked the Forum to note the implications and move onto the consultation document.
SK mentioned that the consultation had not finished yet so there would be a delay in completion.
JMC pointed out that this consultation document had been specifically labelled for the Schools Forum Group.
SK was happy that this consultation document would be a response from Essex and other consultations would follow from other parties.
TR commented that LA funding based on need, he is concerned that this is at a low level compared to other authorities and skills in the adult workforce is deprivation.
JMC confirmed that the deadline for comments is 7th June and that feedback should go through RB.
Schools Forum noted the funding implications for the period 2011-13 of the proposals and supported the proposed response to the consultation.
3. / Update 2010-11 Schools Budget
JMC apologised to the Forum for the delay in circulating the report.
The level of feedback from schools on the budget was mainly on the basis of distribution of resources this year.
The comments and issues raised by schools were no more in 2010/11 than in previous years.
There were staffing issues delaying the calculation of the budget and a small error of principal affecting secondary schools which was corrected within a few hours. Info Link was also down for a period and JMC apologised for that
Schools had commented on the difference they are seeing between the indicative and the actual budgets.
JMC referred to the table on Page 1 of the report. The assumptions that had been made around pupil numbers were thought to be robust but the January census showed 700 pupils down, which caused the reduction.
JMC referred to Annex A of the report and in particular SEN and Free School Meals
There is an 18% increase in free school meals in primary and a 10% increase in secondary this year.
The increase in budget should be around 3% per pupil and that has just about been achieved.
JMC commented that they had tried to do the calculations honestly and openly but acknowledged that they had been over optimistic in the indicative budgets.
RL invited comments.
JM commented that schools across the county had become annoyed about the position, and this was largely due to the way it was communicated. An email alert to all schools could have perhaps minimised the complaints.
JH could see that there would be more implications next year because of the funding formula changes and re-iterated JM's point that good communications are needed so that the implications can be addressed early.
JMC commented on the low attendances at some of the formula review consultation meetings and informed the Forum that Headteacher associations are in detailed conversations with the FRWG and that a Newsline was issued although the message had not been communicated early enough.
RB mentioned to the Forum that the Gatekeeping Reference Group (GRG) is currently looking at how we link to schools and that this is ongoing.
JMC said that it was difficult to communicate because of the late changes, and warned that next year would be worse – they had tried to be conservative with the figures but these were still over-estimated.
SK commented that budgets are tight this year and schools are already planning for next year and the worries about the impact on schools now.
PM expressed concern over messages received from different departments within the LA and the need for firmer guidance – particularly over redundancy costs.HR had originally said that for Community Primary Schools no temporary contracts could be issued. Schools are now faced with the possibility of meeting redundancy costs, which will take quite a considerable amount out of the schools budget; schools need to know if these costs will be funded by the LA?If schools need to bear the costs they need to know that now, especially when they are faced with a tight budget.
SM said that she would pick this up with HR colleagues.
PM commented that schools need to know if they must hold budget for redundancies.
JH suggested that the clawback may need to be used.