Meeting documents

Schools Forum
Tuesday 16 October 2012 3.30 pm


SCHOOLS FORUM

16 OCTOBER 2012


Present: Mark Eynon (Chairman & Furze Platt Senior Governor), Gill Cocklin (South Ascot Primary Head Teacher), Clive Haines (Wessex Governor), Phyllis James (Windsor Girls Governor), Gina Kendall (Non Schools Rep / PVI Rep), Alison Penny (Woodlands Park Head Teacher), Richard Pilgrim (Charters Head Teacher).

Also present: Councillor Eileen Quick.

Officers: Dominic Asater, Edmund Bradley, Tanya Leftwich and Angela Wellings.


PART I

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Liz Clark (Hilltop Head Teacher), Gaynor Goodman (Churchmead Head Teacher), Kathleen Higgins (Altwood Head Teacher), Gill Labrum (Windsor Girls Head Teacher), Gillian May (Non Schools Rep / Berkshire College of Agriculture), Helen McHale (Maidenhead Nursery Head Teacher), Stuart Muir (Dedworth Middle Head Teacher), Cynthia Pitteway (Knowl Hill Primary Governor), David Rooney (Lowbrook Head Teacher) and Nick Stevens (Wessex Primary Head Teacher).

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None were received.

MINUTES

The minutes from the 26 September 2012 were agreed as a correct record.

The Chairman apologised to the Forum for his poor attendance at the last few meetings.

Matter arising from the minutes:

      · High needs funding (SEN)
        Councillor Eileen Quick informed the Forum that a report asking for agreement to go out to consultation on the best usage of a building at Manor Green School (in order to increase teaching space and the needs of the pct and respite care) would be going to Cabinet on the 24 October 2012.
        • Action: A copy of the Cabinet report be made available to the Forum by Councillor Eileen Quick once Cabinet had made its decision.
        • Action: To roll forward the action for the Finance Partner (Children & Schools), Edmund Bradley, and the Finance Consultant, Dominic Asater, clarify the area of funding relating to SEN and independent schools.

      · High needs working group
        • Action: To roll forward the action that High Needs Working Group dates needed to be arranged and circulated by the Finance Partner (Children & Schools).

      · Vacancy for an Academy Head Teacher & Pupil Referral Unit Head Teacher
        • Action: Clive Haines agreed to manage the process for the new appointment to the vacant academy post.
        • Action: The Interim Strategic Director of Children’s Services, Angela Wellings, agreed to appoint to the Pupil Referral Unit Head Teacher vacancy.
ITEMS
    i) Confidential Information
    The Forum noted the details of the Access to Information Procedures as detailed in the Council’s Constitution.
    ii) Substitutes
    The Finance Partner (Children & Schools), Edmund Bradley, informed the Forum that the legislation with regard to substitutes stated that ‘The authority must make arrangements to enable substitutes to attend and vote at meetings of the forum on behalf of schools members……’ However, the approach taken in the terms of reference (para 11), ratified at the meeting of 12 June, stated that ‘Substitutes will not normally be allowed because of the difficulties in fully briefing substitutes and achieving continuity. Those absent should take responsibility for briefing those from their representative group before the meeting and those present have a duty to report back. On material matters absent members should make their views known before the meeting, preferably in writing. The Forum reserves the right to accept substitutes but only in exceptional circumstances, e.g. when the quorum will not be met or it is not balanced. Where substitutes are accepted, they will have the right to vote.’ The Finance Partner (Children & Schools) explained that Karen Williams in Democratic Services did not believe the approach taken in the terms of reference satisfied the requirement in the legislation, and had therefore suggested that the issue be revisited.

    In the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:
      Ø The Chairman expressed his concern at appointing named substitutes and suggested the Forum consider proxy voting which he was happy could be done via himself.
      Ø It was noted that the people appointed to the Schools Forum had been elected and were not volunteers.
      Ø Concerns were raised that substitutes would not be up to speed with fundamental issues and could possibly struggle to understand topics.
        • Action: It was agreed that the Chairman and the Finance Partner (Children & Schools) would arrange to meet Karen Williams in Democratic Services face to face in order to find out whether proxy voting through the Chairman was an option open to the Forum. The Chairman agreed to explain that the Forum believed named substitutes were not an option open to them as matters discussed were too complicated and due to tight time constraints fully briefing substitutes was not always possible.
        • Action: The Chairman agreed to email the Forum to highlight the importance of attending meetings.
    iii) Finalised 2012-13 Dedicated Schools Grant Allocation – Update
    The Finance Partner (Children & Schools) informed the Forum that the paper sought to inform members about the RBWM’s finalised 2012-13 dedicated schools grant allocation and how the budget allocation would be affected by the change between the estimated and the final dedicated schools grant allocation.

    In the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:
      Ø It was noted that the £24k increase in the finalised 2012-13 dedicated schools grant allocation meant there was a shortfall of £24k in the allocated amount, which equated to an additional five pupils.
      Ø The Forum was informed that the return deadline date for the return of the Chief Finance Officers signing off the 2012-13 Budget Statement had been extended from the 30 September 2012 to the end of this week.
    The Chairman informed Members that as they were inquorate with only seven voting members in attendance it was agreed that an indicative vote was taken.
          The Forum unanimously noted:
            1. That the RBWM’s finalised 2012-13 DSG allocation was £96,512 million, an increase of £24k on the March 2012 estimate of £96,488 million.
            2. The only consequential change to the allocation of the 2012-13 Schools Budget discussed by Schools Forum on 12 June and attached at Annex A would be an addition of £24k to the central contingency budget.
    iv) RBWM 2013-14 School Funding Consultation – Summary of Responses and Proposals for 2013-14 School Funding Formula
    The Finance Consultant, Dominic Asater, informed the Forum that the report sought agreement to the recommendations set out throughout the paper highlighted in the grey shaded boxes and sought the Forums view on a number of outstanding consultation proposals.

    It was noted that the report set out:
      · An overview of the issues raised in the consultation.
      · The recommendations arising from the consultation.
      · An analysis of the responses given by schools to each of the 26 questions posed in the consultation document.
      · Proposals for changes to the primary, secondary and academy schools formula including the move to an October Pupil count.
      · Proposals to topslicing gaining schools budgets to fund the Minimum Funding Guarantee – a further option (not included in the consultation) presented to the Schools Forum for consideration.
      · Proposals to fund Pupil Number Growth - because the consultation proposal was not clear enough and consultation responses were not conclusive.
      · A revised proposal for the implementation of a Reception Uplift factor
      · Proposals for additional delegation of centrally held budgets in line with DfE requirements.
      · Proposals for the further delegation of funding for SEN in line with the DfE’s strong recommendation of £6,000.
      · Proposals for the de-delegation of Schools’ budget where there was evidence of the minimisation of risk or the achievement of economies of scale.
    In the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:

      Ø It was noted that the consultation had run from the 07-28 September 2012.
      Ø The Royal Borough had received 41 responses (approximately 70%) to the 26 questions asked in the consultation, the majority of which were very conclusive and agreed with the report.
      Ø It was noted that the report listed actions in order to move forward with the formula for 2013/14 and populate the Education Funding Agency Proforma Return, which was due on the 31 October 2012.
      Ø The final date for submission changes to the Education Funding Agency proforma was noted to be the 18 January 2013.
      Ø The final date for issue of Schools Budgets was noted to be the 15 March 2013.
      Ø It was noted that the number of responses had been encouraging especially due to the timing of the consultation.
    The Chairman asked the Finance Consultant to identify the risks associated with each question asked in the consultation, and the following points were noted:
        § Question 1 (Funding Control Totals) – Concerns were raised with regard to the relativities between primary and secondary totals, in particular between Key Stage 3 & 4. A number of schools felt that the ratio probably should not be as great.
        § Question 2 (Age Weighted Pupil Unit Funding to Basic Per Pupil Entitlement & Other Formula Factors Transferring into the Basic Per Pupil Entitlement) – Concerns were raised with regard to whether there should be protection for smaller schools with regard to the transfer threshold.
        § Question 3 (Pupil Mobility) – That the majority present requested that the funding for Pupil Mobility should be allocated through the Basic per Pupil Entitlement rather than using the DfE Pupil Mobility data.
        § Questions 4 & 5 (Pupil Number Growth) – The Forum believed funding for Pupil Number Growth should be topsliced from both Primary and secondary phases for allocation to Primary Schools only at this stage (question 4). The Forum believed that no minimum threshold should be set for additional funding pupil number growth (question 5). The Forum agreed to allocate funding for Pupil Growth on 7/12ths of the Basic Per Pupil Entitlement per additional place agreed with the Local Authority.
        § Questions 6 & 7 (Deprivation funding using income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI)) – Concerns were raised that more deprived children should be allocated additional funds. It was noted that Acorn 4 & 5 used a different count of pupils to IDACI and that the IDACI figures were 2007 figures based on the 2005 assessment of 2001 data. Forum agreed to allocate funding for IDACI using a single unit rate rather than an increasing unit rate for each band.
        § Questions 8 & 9 (Free School Meals / Free School Meals Ever 6) – Concerns were raised FSM ever 6 was a historical count and did not adequately fund the incidence of FSM in schools now. It was noted that Infant Schools, in particular, feared some of their pupils would not be eligible for Free School Meals Ever 6 as they did not have six years of history behind them, which automatically put them at a disadvantage.
          • Action: Confusion arose as to where the data in the eligibility lists was sourced from which the Finance Consultant agreed to investigate and update the Forum on.
          The table on page 31 of the agenda = the responses received with regard to free school meals was noted that Option A – FSM and Option B – FSM Ever 6 titles were the wrong way around, results were correct.
        § Questions 10 & 11 (Special Education Need and Low Prior Attainment) – Concerns were raised as to how to address Special Education Need and Low Prior Attainment in the future. It was suggested that Karen Butler could mention SEN funding, when appropriate, with regard to funding and supporting specific needs if they arose.
        § Questions 12 & 13 (Lump Sum) – It was noted that smaller schools preferred higher Lump Sum options B and C. The table on page 34 of the agenda = the responses received with regard to lump sum was noted should read 22% for Option C, percentage of school count.
        § Question 14 (Mainstreaming of Standards Fund Grants) – It was noted that concerns were the impact of the loss of specialist school status funding, the impact of the loss of Advanced Skills Teacher Funding and that the proposals might unfairly advantage Key Stage 3 / 4 pupil funding.
          • Action: The Interim Strategic Director of Children’s Services to look into whether schools in the Royal Borough would be able to buy in the services of Advanced Skills Teachers as and when necessary.
        § Questions 15, 16 & 17 (Rent, Safeguarded Salaries and Joint Use) – Concerns were raised that schools with joint agreements would be disadvantaged.
        § Questions 18 & 19 (Looked After Children) – It was noted that the Royal Borough had approximately 100 Looked After Children on their books.
        § Question 20 (Reception Pupils) – The Forum agreed to reject the implementation of the Reception Uplift Factor. Under the new admissions policy, most children would be on role in September, and the number of referrals to January were likely to be relatively few.
        § Question 21 (Minimum Funding Guarantee and Topslice of gaining School) – It was noted that 23 primaries, 3 middle, 1 upper and 1 secondary school had an increase in budget of more than 1.1% per pupil. The Forum believed Option B ‘a cap on budget increases per pupil’ to be the fairer option. This would mean that schools with gains below 1.1% per pupil would get their full gain, and those with gains above 1.1% per pupil would receive part of their gain. Option B was consistent with how the Minimum Funding Guarantee operates.
          • Action: The Chairman suggested a letter be sent out at budget time to bursars and Head Teachers to explain what could have happened if Option A had been chosen.
        § Question 22 (Additional Central Schools Block Budget Delegation) – It was noted that the rates might change slightly.
        § Questions 23 & 24 (Maintained Schools by Phase) – It was noted that the table on page 48 of the agenda, para 21.7 had been superseded – an updated version was distributed to everyone present.
        § Questions 25 & 26 (Additional Delegated Funding for SEN) – It was noted that the additional £450 of SEN funding which would take the total of delegated SEN funding to the DfE’s strong recommendation of £6,000 should equate to a total of 16 hours of SEN support to be provided by schools.
      The Chairman informed Members that as they were inquorate with only seven voting members in attendance it was agreed that an indicative vote was taken.

            The Forum unanimously agreed to the recommendations and proposals contained in paper arising from the outcomes of the consultation questions 1-26, subject to the following caveats:
                · Funding for Pupil Number Growth should be topsliced from the specific phase (Primary / Secondary) that will receive the funding (question 4).
                · That no minimum threshold of additional school places be set for funding pupil number growth (question 5).
                · That a contingency fund for Looked After Children, if possible, be investigated with the £1 per pupil money (question 19).
                · To reject the implementation of the Reception Uplift Factor (question 20).
                · Option B ‘a cap on budget increases per pupil’ was agreed (question 21).
                · That should any additional funding become available as a result of RBWM’s 2013-14 DSG allocation, uncommitted underspends and other budget changes, consideration be given to allocating additional funding to areas where schools had raised comments and concerns in the consultation – for example, protecting schools with higher proportions of younger pupils, smaller schools, and looked after children.
      • Action: The Chairman agreed to email all members of the Forum to explain the unanimous vote and the reasons behind it.

      The Chairman thanked the Finance Partner (Children & Schools) and the Finance Consultant for all their hard work, which was echoed by the Forum.

    DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS

    The dates of the future meetings were noted as follows:
    • 6 December 2012 – Desborough 2/3, Town Hall, Maidenhead.
    • 28 January 2013 – Council Chamber, Town Hall, Maidenhead.
    • 5 March 2013 – Ascot/Bray, Town Hall, Maidenhead.

    MEETING

    The meeting, which opened at 3.30pm, ended at 6.10pm.