Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chair of Schools Forum for 2015/16.

Resolved:

The Forum agreed to appoint Mr Neil Baker as Chair of Schools Forum for 2015/16.

To elect a Vice Chair of Schools Forum for 2015/16

Resolved:

The Forum agreed to appoint Mr Martin Watson as Vice-Chair of Schools Forum for 2015/16.

Apologies were received from:

George Croxford

John Proctor

Nigel Roper

David Whewell

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2015 (copy attached)

Resolved:

To agree and sign the minutes as a true and correct record of the meeting held on 18 June 2015.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

None.

None.

To receive a verbal update.

Susan Tanner, Head of Commissioning and Joint Planning, was in attendance to deliver an update.

It was noted that there were no significant updates from the Trust Board meeting. Local changes to the Education Bill were referenced and had been circulated; documents relevant to this are attached to the minutes of this meeting.

To receive budget monitoring information against the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for the financial year 2014-15.

There was no update regarding this.

The Schools Forum will receive a report which presents the position of revenue balances of Wiltshire maintained schools as at 31st March 2015 and identifies those that are in deficit.

Schools Forum members are invited to comment on this report.

Jane Ralph, School Support Accountant, was in attendance to present the report.

The report presented the position of revenue balances of Wiltshire Council maintained schools as of 31st March 2015, and identified those which were in deficit. The analysis of the net revenue balances excluded schools that converted to academy status during the financial year but included those that converted post 31^st March 2015.

The Schools Forum last considered a report on schools’ balances and deficits in November 2014. In that report the value of surpluses was £9.943 million and 15 schools were in deficit with a total value of £1.314 million.

Significant underlying trends were referenced, and note was made to the table in paragraph 5 which displayed the deficit balances. It was noted that the deficit balance for Primary Schools and Secondary Schools had increased over the 2014/15 year.

When considering individual revenue balances it was explained that the underlying factors and causes generating or reducing balances should be taken into consideration. This included the pupil premium which did not have to be spent during the year. Some, or all, of the pupil premium could be carried forward to future financial years.

Appendix 1 provided a breakdown of the balances for the 2014/15 year. There were 24 Primary Schools and 2 Special Schools with balances above the limit. A total of 128 Primary Schools, 4 Secondary Schools, and 2 Special Schools had reasonable balances. There were 13 Primary Schools and 5 Secondary Schools with deficit balances.

Appendix 2 provided an analysis of schools that have had revenue balances in excess of 15% of their total School Budget Share (excluding Pupil Premium funding) for the last 5 years. It was noted that this would not trigger a DfE investigation.

Appendix 3 contained an analysis of schools that had revenue balances in excess of 5% and 8%, for secondary and primary/special schools respectively, within the last 5 years.

Appendix 4 provided an analysis of schools that had been in a deficit position over the last four years (2011/12 to 2014/15). It was noted that three schools had been in a deficit of 2.5%, or more, for each of the last 4 years. This equated to 1.69% of Wiltshire’s Local Authority schools, as at 31^st March 2015. As this was below the 2.5% threshold set by the DfE it was explained that it would not trigger an enquiry.

In answer to a question it was explained that converted academies required reimbursement. Reference was made to paragraph 17 of the report. This stated that for converter academies the local authority was reimbursed the value of the deficit, with the money being recovered through the abatement of the academy’s General Annual Grant. In the case of sponsored academies, the deficit remained with the local authority to be funded from the core budget.

A question was asked regarding the schools which had experienced the biggest growth in their deficits. One of the schools was being dealt with by Michael Hudson, Associate Director  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The Schools Forum will be provided with an overview of the work of the f40 group and form a view as to Wiltshire would like to join the f40 group.

The Schools Forum is asked to:

1.    Note the content of the report.

2.    Give consideration to and decide whether to join the f40 group.

3.    Should Schools Forum opt to join the f40 group, then the LA’s Lead Member should be requested to advise local MP’s of the decision and an appropriate press release issued to confirm the LA’s membership decision.

Grant Davis, Strategic Financial Support Manager, was in attendance to present the report.

The report provided an overview of the work of the f40 group and form a view as to Wiltshire would like to join the f40 group. The f40 group had been established 40years ago to lobby the government for increase cash allocations for lowest funded education authorities in England. Wiltshire was noted as poorly funded in this area.

It was noted that the group has the support of MPs, councillors, education directors, governors, head teachers, parents and teaching union representatives. The current membership of the f40 comprised of 38 member authorities representing 2,472,620 pupils (31.5% of the total in England) in 7,944 schools (36.2%).

The work of the f40 group was noted as already having secured additional funding for the authorities through the ‘fairer funding’ allocations which provided Wiltshire with extra funding of £5.7m in 2015-16

Wiltshire was noted as not currently being a member of the f40 group, but was however eligible to be one due to its position as the 7^th least funded local authority, in England, out of 151 authorities.

The cost of joining the f40 group was explained as £1000 per annum.

Resolved

1.     To note the content of the report.

2.     To support Wiltshire Council joining the f40 group’s membership.

3.     For Wiltshire Council’s Lead Member should to advise local MP’s of the decision and for an appropriate press release to be issued to confirm the LA’s membership decision.

The Schools Forum will be presented a report which aims to seek clarification regarding the funding for Infant Class Size Growth, from the Wiltshire Growth Fund.

The Schools Forum is asked to note the content of the report and to give consideration to re-establishing a two pronged approach and setting a minimum threshold for the increase in pupil numbers.

Grant Davis presented the report which aimed to seek clarification regarding the funding for Infant Class Size Growth, from the Wiltshire Growth Fund.

Wiltshire Council operates a growth fund and Schools Forum agreed to a number of criteria for the allocation of funding for pupil growth in the 2015-16 financial year. The Growth Fund is compliant with the EFA guidance and is confirmed annually.  A revision to the scheme factored for in-year infant pupil growth. This was explained as because funding could only be provided for either growth due to basic need, or to meet infant class size regulations.

It was noted that the historical position, prior to 2014-15 stated that:

“In Year pupil number increases: Funding for in year pupil growth is allocated is the in year increase in numbers would necessitate provision of an additional class. For primary schools total funded NOR is divided by 30 to arrive at a theoretical class number for the school. Total NOR from the following census is also divided by 30 to arrive at a new class number. If the total increase in NOR is greater than 13 and an extra class would be generated then additional funding is allocated per additional class.”

The above wording had been changed to the following for the 2014-15 financial year was amended due to the changes in the regulations introduced by the Education Funding Agency:

“Infant Class Size Increases: This is payable to a Primary School with infant classes which is required to set up an additional class in the Autumn term as required by the infant class size regulations, and the school cannot accommodate all of its additional Reception and Key Stage 1 pupils in classes of 30 or less, i.e. the total number of pupils in the 3 year groups exceeds a multiple of 30. If the total increase in NOR necessitates that an extra class would be required, then additional funding is allocated per additional class.”

It was explained that the original scheme required a two-pronged approach. This included an increase of at least 13 pupils; and dividing school pupils by 30, which requires an extra class.

The revised wording proposed a single-pronged approach. This involved dividing school pupils by 30, and awarding additional funding where the additional pupil numbers required an extra class

The above change in wording was explained as having been made due to its original non-compliance. It was confirmed that the Education Funding Agency (EFA) would not declare that this change could not be done.

Resolved

1.     To note the content of the report.

2.     To re-establish a two-pronged approach and set a minimum threshold for the increase in pupil numbers.

The Schools Forum will be presented with a report providing the options and proposals for the funding of additional High Needs places for 2016-17 onwards.

The Schools Forum is asked to note the content of the report and to give consideration to implementing the revised methodology for the funding of additional places from April 2016-17.

Grant Davis presented the report which provided the Schools Forum with options and proposals for the funding of additional High Needs places for 2016-17 onwards.

Place funding was explained as providing institutions with a guaranteed budget for the year. Top-up funding was explained as funding required over and above place funding in order to enable a pupil or student with high needs to participate in education and learning.

The report aimed to set out the situation where if a school had more than the planned number of pupils, what needed to be done to fund those extra pupils. Two scenarios were given.

-        The first was when a pupil moves from a mainstream school setting to a High Needs School setting, and;

-        the second was when a pupil moves from one High Needs School to a new High Needs School.

Within the first scenario a problem was highlighted where the paying of £10,000 per additional place resulted in schools being over funded for the additional High Needs place.  If the school is already in receipt of an AWPU for the child, then to receive additional place funding of £10,000 would result in double funding.

Under the second scenario a principle of enabling the High Needs funding to follow the child in order to meet their individual needs was noted as being needed. In the situation where a child transferred from one secondary school with ELP provision to another secondary school with ELP provision, which then exceeds its number of planned places, then the £10,000 (pro-rata) funding would follow the child.

It was noted that care would also be required to ensure that funding was in place for new  year 7’s starting with ELP.

Resolved

1.     To note the content of the report.

2.     To revise the methodology and include within the first scenario that it does not include new Y7 ELPs.

3.     To include that when school is already in receipt of AWPU it will receive a reduced  top up (£10,000 – AWPU), when it is not in receipt of AWPU then it will receive the full £10,000.

The Schools Forum will be provided with an update regarding the recoupment from schools in relation to High Needs place funding.

The  Schools Forum is asked to note the content of the report and in response to the EFA’s guidance, asked to give consideration to the most appropriate method for recoupment of High Needs funding whilst remaining compliant with the schools funding regulations. 

Grant Davis was in attendance to present the report which provided an update regarding the recoupment from schools in relation to High Needs place funding.

At the March 2015 Schools Forum meeting it was agreed to implement a number of measures to help address the overspend within the High Needs block. One of these measures was to recoup place funding from schools from unfilled places within both Resource Bases and ELP provision.

It was noted that a number of schools within Wiltshire had unfilled places within their High Needs provision and some others had exceeded their number of High Needs places.

A total of 12 Resource Base schools had been invoiced a total of £115,833, and 11 ELP schools had been invoiced a total of £207,500.

Some members from the Schools Funding Working Group had been contacted to help deal with queries from schools once they had received their invoices.

The EFA opinion was a suggestion that the LA use the top ups mechanism as a tool to make any adjustments to an individual school’s funding, through either not paying, or paying reduced top ups to schools which are operating with unfilled places.

It was noted that top-ups for October 2015 had already been performed, and as such they could only be recouped from November/December 2015 to March 2016.

The total anticipated recoupment funding for 2015-16, using the original approach was estimated to save the LA through unfilled place funding a total of £776,000. However, the fully compliant recoupment was estimated to save £186,190 or £239,927. This would be a result of only recouping from top-ups and taking back what had already been paid to schools.

Appendix 2 was noted as displaying information on what amounts could be recouped from schools under both scenarios.

The methodology for the recoupment needed to be endorsed by the Schools Forum. This was proposed as recouping from top-ups rather than place funding.

The top-ups considered for recoupment were used for specific resource base places and ELP’s. Named Pupil Allowances were also noted as an area that could be recouped.

The Forum discussed the recoupment situation and it was noted as partly being a result of the financial crisis, which had resulted in looking into funding areas which had previously not been looked at. 

Resolved

1.     To note the contents of the report.

2.     To continue to recoup through top-ups as near to what has been overpaid for the rest of the 2015/16 financial year.

3.     To note that the definition of top-ups includes Resource Bases/ELP’s/NPA’s/and any other top-up as a part of SEN.

4.     To recoup using the NPA allowances as well as the top ups.

The Schools Forum will be  provided with an update regarding the recent document issued by the Education Funding Agency (EFA), “High Needs funding 2016 to 2017” and “High needs: place change request process – Technical Note for 2016 to 2017”.

The Schools Forum is asked to:

1.    Note the content of the report.

2.    Agree that Wiltshire should use this opportunity to review the number of High Needs places at all of its schools and submit the amendments to the EFA by the deadline of the 16th November 2015.

3.    Give consideration to adopting one of the options detailed in paragraph 15.  (A different option could be selected for Resource Bases and ELPs).

Grant Davis presented the report which provided an update regarding the recent document issued by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) entitled “High Needs funding 2016 to 2017” and “High needs: place change request process – Technical Note for 2016 to 2017”.

The EFA issued the guidance in September 2015 which allowed local authorities the flexibility to make changes to the number of pre-16 places funded in maintained schools. It was noted that the changes can apply from April 2016; however the expectation was that the number of places would be amended from the start of the 2016-17 academic year.

It was noted that with academies the agreement must be more formalised, but with maintained schools they could be by LA agreement. Any changes to the place numbers for academies needed to be agreed between the local authority and the academy and would form the basis of the EFA funding.

The Wiltshire Schools Forum approach was noted. The approach had always supported the principle of ‘the money following the child’. The principle aimed to enable the High Needs funding to follow the child in order to meet their individual needs.

Five options had been provided as a part of the EFA guidance:

Option 1

Retain the status quo.

Option 2

Revise the ‘place’ numbers at each school, to the actual number of pupils within the Resource Base or ELP provision in the 2015-16 year.

Option 3

Agree a core number of funded places with each school and then fund each additional place, above the core number.

Option 4

Agree zero places at each school and simply pay for place funding monthly, based upon the actual number of High Needs pupils.

Option 5

Revise the number of ‘places’ agreed to mirror a certain point in time in the 2015-16 year to maximise the number of filled places to be funded, but retain the mechanism to recoup from top ups.

It was noted that if the zero figure is returned to the EFA, would take that as a sign that there were no high needs places at the schools. As a result the future funding from the EFA could be zero if this option were to be taken. Option four was noted as being high risk due to the EFA not confirming what their approach would be.

If there were to be any fluctuation in numbers, as a result of army rebasing for example, it was confirmed that these would be funded. A consultation was expected in spring 2016 on the future of High Needs Funding..

It was emphasised that SEND young people needed to be counted as pupils even if they weren’t in resource bases, so that the EFA knew of their existence in the future.

Resolved

1.     To note the content of the report.

2.     To accept option five in the report “Revise the number of ‘places’ agreed to mirror a certain point in time in the 2015-16 year to maximise the number of places funded, but retain the mechanism  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To receive minutes, reports and/or verbal updates from the following working groups:

·         School Funding Working Group

·         SEN Working Group

School Funding Working Group

Minutes of the Working Group’s meeting of 20th October 2015, 8:30am were included in the agenda.

SEN Working Group

Minutes of the Working Group’s meeting of 13th October 2015, 9:30am were included in the agenda.

Early Year’s Reference Group

It was agreed to bring these back for consideration at the next Schools Forum meeting.

Resolved

1.     To note the minutes of the School Funding Working Group and the SEN Working Group.

2.     To bring back the minutes of the Early Year’s Reference Group to the next Schools Forum meeting for consideration.

To confirm the dates of future meetings, as follows:

14 January 2016

10 March 2016

16 June 2016

The date of the next meeting was confirmed as Thursday, 14th January, 2016 1.30 pm in the Kennet Room - County Hall, Trowbridge.

Resolved

To propose that the date of the Thursday, 10th March, 2016 1.30 pm be changed as it clashed with a meeting of WASSH.

Delegation of Central Expenditure 2016-17

Grant Davis presented Schools Forum with the results from the recent consultation with schools regarding the delegation or de-delegation of central services.  A consultation document was sent out to all maintained schools in the middle of September to seek views on the delegation of central budgets. 

The results have been analysed and were presented to Schools Forum.  The budgets/services which had been consulted on are as follows:

·                 Schools contingency

·                 Free School Meal Eligibility Service

·                 Licences and Subscriptions (including SIMS, HCSS)

·                 Trade Union Facilities costs

·                 Maternity costs

·                 Ethnic Minority Achievement Service

·                 Travellers Education Service

·                 Behaviour Support Service

The resposes received from schools had proposed that the services were delegated and de-delgated as per the current situation for 2015-16. 

Resolved:

To agree that the Delegation of Central Expenditure 2016-17 as per 2015-16 and the responses received.