Meeting of the Lancashire Schools Forum to Be Held on Wednesday 17 October 2018

MEETING OF THE LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER 2018

10.00 a.m. in the Savoy Suite, The Exchange Conference Centre, County Hall, Preston

A G E N D A

1. Election of Forum Chair To elect the Forum Chair for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 academic years.

2. Election of Forum Vice-Chair To elect the Forum Vice-Chairman for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 academic years.

3. Attendance and Apologies for Absence To be recorded in accordance with the agreed membership of the Forum.

4. Substitute Members To welcome any substitute Members.

5. Forum Membership (Enclosure) To note the Forum membership report.

6. Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 3 July 2018 (Enclosure) To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 3 July 2018.

7. Matters Arising To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2018 that are not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

8. 2019/20 De-Delegations(Enclosure) To consider and formally vote on 2019/20 service de-delegation proposals.

9. Schools Block Transfer to the High Needs Block (Enclosure) To consider and formally vote on 2019/20 proposals to transfer funding from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block.

10. Recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group held on 4 October 2018.

11. Recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 25 September 2018.

1 12. Recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group There was no meeting of the Early Years Working Group in this cycle of meetings.

13. Schools Forum Urgent Business Procedure (Enclosure) To note decision taken by the Forum under the Urgent Business procedure.

14. Forum Correspondence (Enclosure) To consider the Forum related correspondence since the last meeting.

15. Any Other Business

16. Date of Future Meetings To note that the next scheduled Forum meeting will be held at 10.00am on 15 January 2018 at County Hall, Preston.

2 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 17 October 2018

Item No 5

Title: Forum Membership Appendices (if applicable) N/A

Executive Summary

This report summarises the changes to the membership of the Forum since the last meeting.

Forum Decision Required

The Forum is asked to:

a) Note the report; b) Thank Janet Hamid and Mike Wright for their contribution to the Forum; c) Welcome Brendan Hassett, Jill Wright, Gill Donohoe, Angela Holdsworth, Holly Clarke, Vicky Allen, Paula Burdess and Lesley Millard, to the Forum; d) Welcome John Davey in his new capacity as a secondary school governor representative.

Background This report provides information on Forum membership issues that have arisen since the last Forum meeting. Details are provided below.

Summer Term 2018 Appointments As part of the Forum annual membership review, a number of elections and appointments occurred in the summer term 2018. These appointments were reported to the Forum in July 2018, and the new members will be attending their first Forum meeting in October.

Members will wish to welcome the following members to the Forum:

Primary School Headteachers  Brendan Hassett, Carter's Charity Primary School;  Jill Wright, Trinity Church of England/ Methodist Primary School;

Secondary School Governors  Gill Donohoe, St Mary's Catholic High School in Leyland;

Academy Special School  Angela Holdsworth, Tor View Specialist Learning;

Alternative Provision Academy Representative  Holly Clarke, Coal Clough Academy (Holly may be represented at Forum meetings by Vicky Allen);

Unison  Paula Burdess.

Primary School Governor A further election process took place towards the end of the summer term 2018, with the closing date occurring after the July Forum meeting. This election related to a single primary school governor vacancy, in which 4 candidates stood.

Lesley Millard, a governor at St Anne's Edgeside CE Primary School was successful in the election process, receiving 24 (44%) votes.

55 votes were cast in the election, representing a 12% turnout.

Members will wish to welcome Lesley to the Forum.

Secondary School Governor Secondary school governor representative Janet Hamid is a governor at Carnforth High school, which has recently converted to an academy. Due to this conversion, Janet is no longer eligible to represent secondary school governors on the Forum.

John Davey, a governor at Haslingden High School has been appointed to Forum to fill the vacancy.

Members will be aware that John is an existing observer member of the Forum appointed by LASGB and the Association will nominate a replacement representative.

Members will wish to thank Janet for her contribution to the Forum and welcome John in his new capacity as a secondary school governor representative.

Secondary School Headteacher Mike Wright, secondary school headteacher represented has resigned from the Forum after agreeing to support another school. Mike has asked LASSH to nominate a replacement secondary headteacher.

Members will wish to thank Mike for his contribution to the Forum.

5 Item 6 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT 10:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY 3 JULY 2018 AT THE EXCHANGE, COUNTY HALL, PRESTON

Present: Schools Members: Primary School Governors Academy Governor Pamela Baxter Kathleen Cooper (for Chris McConnachie) Stephen Booth (Chair) Louise Shaw Gerard Collins Patricia Eastham Academy Principal/Headteacher Simon Gillespie Alan Porteous Eleanor Hick John Tarbox Louise Martin Laurence Upton Alternative Provision Academy Robert Waring Special School Academy Primary School Headteachers Liz Astbury Special School Governor Sarah Barton Lucy Sutton Special School Headteacher Shaun Jukes

Short Stay Governor

Secondary School Governors Short Stay Headteacher Janice Astley Janet Hamid Nursery School Headteacher Brian Rollo Jan Holmes (for Kay Burke)

Secondary School Headteachers Nursery School Governor Steve Campbell Thelma Cullen Mark Jackson

Members: Early Years - PVI Other Voting Members Sharon Alexander CC Anne Cheetham Peter Hindle Robin Newton- Syms Sam Johnson

Observers Observers - Members of the Public Julie Gordon (ATL) Alison Collinge (PRU headteacher) Eric Harrison (NASUWT) Shamim Ashraf (Nursery school headteacher) Liz Laverty (ASCL) Les Turner (NAHT) Ian Watkinson (NUT)

6 In attendance: Paul Bonser For Item 6: Andrew Good David Higham and Paul Geary – National Christine Hurford Westminster Bank Neil Rogerson Kevin Smith Heather Stevens Kevin Smith Observing: David Graham (SEND) Janet Quinn (Finance) Robert Rimmer (Finance) Neil Smith (SFS) Kirsteen Walmsley (SEND)

In the absence of the Forum chair, Stephen Booth, vice-chair, chaired this meeting of the Forum

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE. Apologies for absence were received from: Daniel Ballard, Kay Burke, Ivan Catlow, CC Susie Charles, Holly Clarke, Tim Cross, John Davey, Gill Donohoe, CC David Foxcroft, Angela Holdsworth, Susanne Kime, Julie Langham, Jan Marshall, Chris McConnachie, Rod Marsden, Steve Robinson, David Swaffield, Sandra Thornberry and Mike Wright.

2. SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS Kathleen Cooper attended as substitute for Chris McConnachie (Academy Governor) Jan Holmes attended as substitute for Kay Burke (Nursery School Headteacher) Julie Gordon attended as substitute for Rod Marsden (ATL) Les Turner attended as substitute for David Fann (NAHT)

3. FORUM MEMBERSHIP A report was presented about the Forum membership changes since the last meeting.

Primary School Governors Felicity Ackroyd, a governor at Casterton Primary School became ineligible to continue on the Forum in her current role when the school converted to an academy.

Elections are being held to find a replacement primary school governor representative.

Secondary School Governors An election has been held for a secondary school governor vacancy. 3 candidates stood in the election and the successful candidate was:  Gill Donohoe, St Mary's Catholic High School in Leyland. Gill received 50% of the votes cast.

Academy Special School Andy Squire is retiring from Tor View Specialist Learning Community and will be replaced on the Forum by Angela Holdsworth.

Alternative Provision Academy Representative Holly Clarke, headteacher of Coal Clough Academy will be the new Alternative Provision Academy Representative, replacing Gary Holding.

Unison

7 The Unison Forum representative Elaine Brookes has retired and will be replaced by Paula Burdess, with previous Forum representative Elaine Cotterell currently covering on a temporary basis.

Labour Group CC Lorraine Beavers is the new Labour Group observer member replacing CC Sobia Malik.

The Forum:

a) Noted the report; b) Welcomed Brendan Hassett, Jill Wright, Gill Donohoe, Angela Holdsworth, Holly Clarke, Paula Burdess (and temporarily, Elaine Cotterell) and CC Lorraine Beavers to the Forum; c) Thanked Lisa Davison, Susanne Kime, Felicity Ackroyd, Andy Squire, Gary Holding, Elaine Brookes and CC Sobia Malik for their contributions to the Forum.

4. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING The minutes of the last meeting held on 20 March 2018 were agreed as a correct record.

5. MATTERS ARISING

a. From item 8 iv Nursery Schools with Neighbourhood Centres Officers agreed to remind relevant teams of the small number of outstanding issues relating to the statements of occupancy at Nursery Schools with Neighbourhood Centres.

b. From item 9 i Schools in Financial Difficulty Officers provided further explanation of the various SIFD categories now being used to analyse the financial health of Lancashire schools. It was noted that the categorisation was kept under continual review and members requested the presentation of updated information broken down into school phase.

6. PRESENTATION BY NAT WEST Paul Geary and David Higham from NatWest, and Janet Quinn from the LCC Banking Control Treasury Management Team attended the Forum for this item.

NatWest colleagues provided a presentation focusing on the Moneysense programme, which is a free financial education programme for 5-18 years olds. It offers information for parents, teachers and pupils and could include individual school visits.

Members asked a number of questions in connection to the programme and it was suggested that the information may be useful to present at children's homes, to assist young people in the care of the Council with their financial understanding

The Forum: a) Noted the information provided; b) Thanked NatWest for their presentation; c) Requested that the presentation be disseminated to Forum members and that Children's Social Care colleagues be alerted to the programme.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SCHOOLS BLOCK WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group held on 19 June 2018.

i. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2017/18– Schools Block The report provided information on the Schools Budget outturn position for 2017/18.

It was noted that the overall Schools Budget outturn position for 2017/18 shows an overspend of some £2.6m. This figure already incorporated a circa £3.5m release from reserves to bridge the forecast core funding gap and an additional release from the strategic reserve of approximately £4.5m, as part of the 2017/18 de-delegation proposals. Expenditure was therefore some £10.6m greater than income in 2017/18, although circa £4m was recouped through the agreed strategic reserve de-delegation.

Central Expenditure The total Central Expenditure year end position was an underspend of circa £1.3m. This underspend is reduced from the level of previous years. Information was provided around some of the key variances.

Reserves and Provisions The Total Schools Reserves and Provisions at 31 March 2018 was £65.063m, down from £72.806m at 31 March 2017, a reduction of some £7.743m. Further information on some of the key is provided below in connection to the 2017/18 movement in Schools Reserves and Provisions:

The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) reserve fell by over £6m in 2017/18, to £14.4m. This was largely due to the significant net DSG Budget overspend, which was partially offset by the net underspend on central items expenditure. It was noted that this level of reserve only provided just over a year's buffer against the current level of DSG overspend.

The Supply Reimbursement reserve closed 2018/18 at £1.252m, some £0.296m higher than the previous year. This leaves the reserve circa £250k above of the desired £1m reserve level deemed appropriate to mitigate against the risk of an exceptionally high claims year.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the 2017/18 Schools Budget final financial outturn position; b) Recommended that the Supply Reimbursement Scheme should now hold a reserve the at the £1.25m level.

ii. School Balances and Clawback 2017/18 The report set out the year end position of schools' delegated budgets at 31 March 2018.

The final outturn position against schools delegated budgets at 31 March 2018 was an overspend of £1.131m. This means that school balances had decreased by £1.131m in 2017/18, to a total of £44.150m.

It was noted that there was continuing pressure across all school sectors and the school balances information at 31 March 2018 continued to demonstrate this pressure:

9  The level of aggregate balances held by schools had again fallen and were now at their lowest level since 2009/10,  almost 50% of schools used reserves in year to set their budget and  more schools than ever before ended the year in deficit (47).

By way of context for the aggregate year end position, it was noted that if all Lancashire schools held the guideline balance, the total balance would have been circa £103m, compared to the actual balances held of circa £44m.

Individual School Balances Details were provided about the movement in balances at an individual school level in 2017/18. As previously requested by the Forum, in addition to the year-end balance by school, information is included in this annex setting out:  Year-end balance adjusted for approved exemptions;  Adjusted balance as a % of CFR income;  Adjusted balance per pupil.

Clawback Arrangements 2017/18 In accordance with the Balances and Clawback policy agreed by the Forum for 2017/18, exemptions have been applied by the LA to balance figures at 4 schools, under the late allocation criteria, and to 1 school that had an exemption business case supported by the Forum in March 2018. Requests for exemptions at 2 further schools were rejected as they did not comply with the policy.

In accordance with the 2017/18 policy, clawback is to be applied to 13 schools in relation to their balances at 31 March 2018, totalling circa £232k. The application of clawback at 31 March 2018 reverses the trend of recent years.

Clawback appeals Following notification of clawback allocations, three appeals to an initial clawback calculation has been received. The Working Group gave detailed consideration to the information provided by each of the schools.  In connection with the secondary school appeal members held an informal vote in which 20 members voted to reject the appeal, 0 members voted to support the appeal and 4 members abstained;  For special school appeal 1, members requested additional information;  For special school appeal 2, members held an informal vote which unanimously agreed to reject the appeal.

Subsequent to the Working Group meeting, additional details in connection with 'special school appeal 1' had been received, and information was shared with the Forum.

Clawback 2016/17 No specific projects for the use of this clawback funding were proposed during 2017/18 and, as previously agreed by the Forum, the unallocated clawback funding of £33k was transferred to the Schools in Financial Difficulty Reserve at year-end.

School Balances and Clawback 2018/19 Members also consider what School Balances and Clawback arrangements should be put in place for 31 March 2019, including the current financial climate and the operation of the clawback arrangements at 31 March 2018.

10 There was some discussion around the capital bond scheme and alternative arrangements that were available to support schools on a one off basis to deliver larger capital projects, if these were supported by the LA.

Subsequent to the Working Group meetings, a further representation was received from a nursery school requesting an increase to guideline balance levels or the suspension of clawback be considered in order to allow schools that are able to build 'war chests' to mitigate against the increased budget pressures that are forecast in the coming years.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2018 and the individual school level information provided in the report; c) Noted the application of clawback to 13 schools as at 31 March 2018, in accordance with the arrangements previously agreed by the Forum; d) In connection with the clawback appeals received, recommended to the Forum that two appeals be rejected and that further information be requested on the third appeal; e) Recommended that the school balances and clawback arrangements to be applied at 31 March 2019 remain unchanged subject to the removal of the clawback exemption for 'Existing capital bonds will be honoured until project completion', as all of the existing capital bonds have now reached completion.

The Forum: a) Noted the additional information in respect of one 2017/18 clawback appeal and the additional correspondence from a nursery school about 2018/19 School Balances and Clawback arrangements ; b) Ratified the Working Group's recommendations in connection with the School Balances and Clawback arrangements for 2018/19; c) Ratified the Working Group's recommendations in connection with the rejection of two 2017/18 clawback appeals; d) Supported the 2017/18 clawback appeal for one special school following considering of the additional information.

iii. Schools Forum Annual Report 2017/18 Members considered the draft report for 2017/18.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommend to the Schools Forum that the 2017/18 Annual Report be approved for publication, subject to the correction of a typographical error.

iv. Trade Union Facilities Agreement Jeanette Whitham HR Service Manager, Schools, attended the Working Group for this item.

This report provided information on the Trade Union Facilities Agreement funding, which is provided by an annual de-delegation.

11 This report had prepared in response to a request made by one of the County Union Secretaries to extend the existing trade union facilities times arrangements in order that funding can also be used for representatives to support non-teaching staff on casework matters.

Clarification was provided that the original request was to provide this additional support for non-teaching staff from within the existing resources.

Historical position In 1989 the Authority developed a Consolidated Facilities Agreement, which allocated 15 FTE posts for the purposes of TU facilities in schools. This was reviewed in 1998 when Blackburn and Blackpool became unitary authorities and 25% of Lancashire teachers transferred out of Lancashire Authority. At this time, the number of FTE facilities posts was reduced to 12. However, the number of posts has not been reviewed since.

Funding position On an annual basis, schools are asked whether they wish to de-delegate funding for Public Services duties. The large majority of this budget funds 12 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) posts of trade union representative for the five main teaching unions

On 1 September 2017 NUT and ATL amalgamated to form the National Education Union (NEU). NEU is currently in a transition phase, whereby until 31 December 2018, the two former unions retain a separate branch of NEU (NEU-NUT and NEU-ATL). In addition to the representatives funded by the Schools Forum, many schools have a workplace representative who may deal with HR casework for their school. The cost of any release for school representatives is met by the school budget and not by the Schools Forum. Each trade union also has regional officials, funded by their association. Within Lancashire, experience shows that the regional officials deal with very serious casework matters, usually where employment is at risk for a member.

Current allocations The current allocations to the five unions (from the 12 FTE) were determined as a result of membership numbers when the initial agreement was written.

In approximately 2010, the Council took a decision to reduce the number of centrally funded UNISON posts by 2 FTE. At that time, due to the increasing numbers of support staff in schools and the fact that the Equal Pay and terms and conditions reviews were ongoing, Schools Forum agreed to fund one post for a schools UNISON officer. This arrangement has remained in place ever since.

Based on the most recent School Workforce data, the number of teaching staff in Lancashire Schools is 10,345. Of these, 13% (1,324) are based in Academy (former maintained) schools. When a school converts to become an Academy, they are no longer able to draw on the Facilities Agreement funding, unless they arrange a separate buy-in arrangement. Despite this, there has been no equivalent reduction in the number of funded FTE trade union representatives.

Financial implications The total annual budget provision for funding under the Trade Union Facilities Agreement amounts to circa £472k, including oncosts.

12 If a decision is taken to reduce the current level of funding, it would result in a saving to the Schools Forum. However, there may be indirect costs incurred by schools, as they may need to release school-based representatives to undertake trade union activity within their school, and provide representation to fulfil the statutory obligations.

County Council's position With effect from 1 April 2018, the County Council withdrew all funding for trade union representatives. From this date, workplace representatives have been required to undertake the role within their service areas, supported by regionally/nationally funded colleagues.

The Group held a significant debate on the issues involved, splitting consideration into two areas:

Request for the teacher unions to support non-teaching members Members noted that the teacher unions are not currently officially recognised by the Authority to represent non-teaching staff in schools and, on balance, did not support this proposal.

Review of existing number of representatives supported by the facilities time agreement Whilst it was noted that the number of teaching staff in maintained schools had reduced by 13% due to academisations, a number of members felt that the current financial climate was placing many more schools in financial difficulty, which meant a rise in staffing reorganisations and related issues in schools and consequently the workload of the teacher unions would only increase. Therefore, the current level of posts should remain unchanged.

Other members indicated that all parts of the school system were having to make savings at the current time and the facilities time posts should be subject to review if there were changes to the number of teaching staff being supported, particularly as unions had their own resources to carry out their functions.

It was noted that the number of teaching staff in Lancashire when the agreement was introduced was not provided in the report, nor was the split of membership across the teacher unions compared to the original allocations. Further information was therefore requested to assist in deliberations.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended that the Forum did not support the proposal for some teacher unions to extend their support to non-teaching members; c) Requested further information on current teacher union membership compared to when the original facilities time agreement was introduced, to assist in deliberations about the overall support provided.

At the Forum meeting, further information was provided about the historic teaching staff numbers in Lancashire and the membership split across the teacher unions.

The Forum again debated the issues around the Facilities Time agreement and decided it would be appropriate to seek the views of all maintained schools as part of the annual de-delegation consultation. This consultation could present schools with the available options along with their advantages and disadvantages.

The Forum: a) Noted the report to the Working Group and their recommendations; b) Ratified the recommendation not support the proposal for some teacher unions to extend their support to non-teaching members; c) Noted the additional information that had been provided; d) Recommended that the views on the Facilities Time Agreement be sought from all maintained schools as part of the annual de-delegation consultation.

v. Scheme for Financing Schools in Lancashire: Revised Statutory Guidance and Directed Revisions This report provided information on proposed revisions to Lancashire's Scheme for Financing Schools, following updated DFE Statutory Guidance.

In March 2018, the DfE issued a 9th update to Statutory Guidance on schemes, which included a directed revision from the Secretary of State about loan schemes. The Lancashire scheme has therefore been reviewed and changes are proposed, which incorporate updates from issues 8 and 9 of the DfE Statutory Guidance. A consultation was issued to headteachers and Chair of Governors of all maintained schools on 13 April 2018, setting out the proposed scheme amendments. Any comments on the proposed changes to the scheme were requested by 5 June 2018.

Further Update to Section 12 After the consultation was launched, the LA subsequently recognised that a further local scheme amendment was required in order to update Section 12: Responsibility for Repairs and Maintenance, to reflect the fact that Devolved Formula Capital (DFC) allocations were delegated to non-aided schools for the first time from September 2017. Further correspondence was therefore issued to schools on 11 May 2018 to seek views on this additional proposal.

School Responses By the closing date, 1 response had been received to the consultation. This comment pointed out a typographical error on the updated Section 12, which has now been corrected.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the comment received; c) Recommended that the Forum approve the revised Lancashire Scheme.

A copy of the updated Scheme was provided for the Forum.

This was a formal Forum decision and members voted unanimously to approve the revised Scheme for Financing Schools.

vi. Split Site Funding Policy An update was provided around the review of split site funding.

14 The Forum supported the slit site allocations being awarded to two schools for 2018/19, as they met the current criteria, but requested that a fundamental review of the split site criteria be undertake.

Since the last Forum cycle, all current split site schools were invited to a meeting on 16 May 2018 to discuss the revised proposals. The Forum Chair attended the meeting. Schools had also been able to submit information in support of their levels of expenditure due to operating a split site.

Having considered these factors a revised set of 2019/20 proposals were presented, as set out below:  Removal of separate phased based funding levels, as there was no clear justification  Introduction of differential levels of support for qualifying schools: o Criteria 1 – Distance between buildings o Criteria 2 - Divided by a public road

School colleagues offered some initial thoughts on the 2019/20 proposals, including issues around:  Supervision of pupil movements between sites  Safeguarding issues  Health and Safety considerations  Issues around kitchen and meal time implications  Educational considerations

It was agreed to commission a review by a school adviser to independently asses the additional costs being incurred, to take place in the autumn term 2018.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

vii. Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) SFVS is a statutory requirement for all maintained schools and consists of 25 questions which governing bodies must formally discuss annually with the head teacher and senior staff. This report provided an update on the SFVS returns for 2017/18.

Due to the number of outstanding claims at 31 March 2014 the Forum introduced revised sanctions for none compliance. This included:  Reminder letter to schools yet to submit (copy to COG) mid April each year  Schools which have still to submit their return by 30 April will receive a pre-warning notice giving them three weeks to 21 May in which to comply.  Schools which fail to meet this deadline will receive a formal warning notice.

2017/18 Returns All returns have were received without the need for any formal warning notices to be issued. The SFVS assurance certificate showing 100% returns compliance has been signed by the Chief Finance Officer and returned to the DfE. The County Council expressed its thanks to schools for their patience and persistence in ensuring returns were submitted and enabling Lancashire to declare 100% compliance.

Analysis of Returns

15 As per DfE guidance the local authority uses schools’ SFVS returns to inform their programme of financial assessment and audit. It was reported that the Lancashire's Internal Audit Service had recently conducted a thematic audit around school budget setting and governance, which involved around 15 schools. The audit had provided a 'substantial assurance' outcome.

Future of SFVS Members were informed that SFVS was likely to be updated from 2019/20 to incorporate a school benchmarking type element.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the 100% SFVS compliance for 2017/18; c) Supported the continuation of the current returns timescale and sanctions policy introduced in 2014.

At the meeting it was reported that central government had recently contacted LAs challenging Section 151 officers to ensure that the annual SFVS returns were properly validated. This was likely to increase the amount of SFVS auditing undertaken by the authority. viii. Interest Payments on School Balances A report provided revised proposals on the calculation of interest payments on schools balances from 2018/19.

The interest arrangements had been reviewed and for 2018/19 onwards it is proposed that interest will be paid as follows:  the interest rate to be paid by the authority on school balances is intended to never be less than 0.2% above the year-end average interest calculation of the Bank of England base rate.

For example for 2017/18 the year-end average interest calculation for schools balances under the above policy would have been calculated as follows:

The Bank of England base rate changed from 0.25% to 0.5% part way through the financial year  The calculated average Bank of England base rate for the year is 0.36%  Plus a 0.2% uplift.  Giving a rate for schools balances of 0.56% (0.36% + 0.2%)

The Council will keep the policy under review each year.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the proposed policy change on the calculation of school balances for 2018/19 onwards to base the interest calculation purely on the school year end outturn position as set out in the report.

ix. LCC Banking Tender The LCC bank contract will be subject to tender, implementation from 1st April 2019 and some initial information was provided for the Forum.

The LCC bank contract will be subject to tender, implementation from 1st April 2019. This is a legal requirement and the County Council cannot roll over again with Nat West. There will be an official letter of notification produced to advice that LCC are tendering for this contract and we will share this information with schools and advise once the tender has been awarded.

If Nat West do not apply/win the contract there will be a need for a LCC internal working party to be put in place to implement the timetable of the many changes needed. The Council are specifying in the tender document that we will require a phased implementation of account change in order to mitigate any potential risks.

The Working Group: a) Noted the information: b) Noted that a posting will be provided for schools, perhaps in September 2018; c) Requested a school representative be part of any working party considering changes in the banking arrangements, if a new bank were successful in the banking tender process.

The Forum ratified the Working groups recommendations.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HIGH NEEDS BLOCK WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 12 June 2018.

i. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2017/18 – High Needs Block The report provided information on the Schools Budget outturn position for 2017/18. The overall High Needs Block budget at 31 March 2018 shows an overspend of almost £4m, in addition to the £3.5m release from reserves included in the budget.

A particular area of additional concern related to Mainstream deductions for exclusions. In 2017/18 income of just over £1m accrued from deductions from primary and secondary schools relating to exclusions. Changes in the ESFA exclusions guidance mean that the level of income will reduce in 2018/19 placing greater pressure on the HNB budget.

ii. School Balances and Clawback 2017/18 The report set out the year end position of schools' delegated budgets at 31 March 2018.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2018 and the individual school level information provided in the report;

17 c) Noted the application of clawback to 13 schools as at 31 March 2018, in accordance with the arrangements previously agreed by the Forum; d) In connection with the clawback appeals received, recommended to the Forum that two appeals be rejected and that further information be requested on the third appeal; e) Recommended that the school balances and clawback arrangements to be applied at 31 March 2019 remain unchanged subject to the removal of the clawback exemption for 'Existing capital bonds will be honoured until project completion', as all of the existing capital bonds have now reached completion. iii. Schools Forum Annual Report 2017/18 The group gave consideration to the 2017/18 annual report.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended to the Schools Forum that the 2017/18 Annual Report be approved for publication. iv. High Needs Block Overspend 2018/19 Members were aware that the 2018/19 Schools Budget forecast an overspend of £8.5m, attributable to the HNB. This report provided an update on the various savings proposals.

Some recent developments include:

Funding for SERF Units A communication has been received from a school with a SERF unit, requesting that implementation of the revised arrangements be delayed until September 2018, but for this group of schools it was judged appropriate to retain the April 2018 implementation, as this coincided with the introduction date for revised DfE Regulations around SERF unit funding and incorporated some transitional protection for schools in the form of increased Schools Block allocations.

Realignment of School Specific Funding in Special Schools Discussions with special school headteachers have been held, via LASSHTA, to help develop proposals for a more fundamental review of school specific funding for 2019/20.

Commissioned Places at Special Schools A review of the commissioned place process is being undertaken in conjunction with LASSHTA, which includes the option of determining place numbers on the basis of lagged actual pupil numbers, and incorporating specific authority planned expansions or growth requirements.

Reduce HNB payments on a pro rata basis SEND are continuing to work with the FE sector to review the payment process and funding from the HNB and a further meeting is organised for July 2018.

Additional Place Top-Up Funding at FE Colleges One college has sent an email stating that they will charge £6,000 for places not commissioned. This indicates the importance of the need for SEND to negotiate the costs for additional pupils.

18 Reduction in Weighted Pupil Number (WPN) Top-up Funding The SEND team will undertake a fundamental review of the SEN banding structure, which will be carried out in consultation with special schools and a task and Finish Group is being convened to take matters forward.

Central Budgets

Alternative Provision Budgets Current proposals see the PASS system cease in August 2018, but following representations from the Task and Finish Group, consideration is being given to whether any interim arrangements can be implemented for the September 2018 to March 2019 period, ahead of any revised system from April 2019.

The Working Group also discussed the school implications around some of the LCC savings proposals, particularly for the CFW service. It was recommended that as many schools as possible should respond to the County Council's consultation on these issues

It was noted that new data to analyse the impact of 2018/19 savings proposals and any possible continued growth in demand was not yet available, but further information would be available for the autumn term cycle of meetings.

National Position Information was provided, including from the County Councils Network (CCN), to indicate that many LAs were facing pressure on their HNB budgets and various representations were being made to national government.

The Working Group: a) Note the report; b) Noted the continued work taking place on the High Needs Block proposals for 2018/19 and beyond; c) Asked to be kept informed of developments.

An update and discussions on work undertaken around some of these areas since the Working Group meeting was provided for the Forum, particularly around the PASS arrangements

The Forum ratified the Working groups recommendations.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE EARLY YEARS BLOCK WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group held on 14 June 2018.

i. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2017/18– Early Years Block The report provided information on the Schools Budget outturn position for 2017/18.

The overall Early Years Block budget at 31 March 2018 shows an overspend of £0.791m. The Early Years PVI, Schools Delegated and DSG Grant. These figures all showed a financial year outturn variance from the financial year budgeted figures, but members noted that the complexities of how the Early Years Block is funded mean that we will not receive final income figures until July 2018.

19 As ESFA funding allocation adjustments are usually only provided to LA's in July, so updated figures will be provided to the next meeting.

A number of questions were raised in connection with the outturn position, reserves and wider DSG funding issues in relation to the Early Years Block and a summary is provided below:

 Schools in Financial Difficulty Reserve SIFD is a de-delegation, de-delegations can only be applied to maintained settings, meaning that the authority cannot de-delegate money from non-maintained settings, or academies, or EY PVI providers. Hence PVI settings do not contribute to SIFD funding.

 Maintained Nursery School (MNS) Supplementary Funding Maintained Nursey Schools have been challenging the authority on progress towards the strategic direction of MNS since outcomes from the EY ESFA consultation. A working group of officers and headteacher representatives has been established and has met to look at the future direction of MNS. There was a report to the Education Scrutiny Committee later this month to keep elected members informed of issues impacting on nursery schools.

 Children and Family Wellbeing (CFW) Service It was noted that the CFW had launched a consultation about their service delivery, as they grappled with further budget reductions due to ongoing savings targets on the LCC budget. The consultation proposed to withdraw provision from a number of schools including 5 nursery schools, which had significant budget implications for the establishments. Individual schools were encouraged to respond to the consultation and it was confirmed that this issue was being raised at the MNS Working Group.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the 2017/18 Schools Budget final financial outturn position; b) Noted that updated Early Years analysis would be presented to a future meeting to take account of July 2018 ESFA payments to the LA that related to 2017/18 early years provision; c) Noted the responses provided to the supplementary questions raised by members.

ii. Schools Forum Annual Report 2017/18 The group gave consideration to the 2017/18 annual report.

In response to the queries received, supplementary information was provided giving more detailed breakdown of the funding rates, transitional protections and base rates across all types of providers for 2016/17 to 2018/19. A forecast position for 2019/20 was also provided for the Group, offering a possible range for the Universal Base Rate for 2019/20.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the supplementary information provided on funding rates and transitional protections: c) Recommended to the Schools Forum that the 2017/18 Annual Report be approved for publication.

20 iii. Disability Access Fund (DAF) Information was provided on revised DAF funding arrangements in Lancashire, introduced as a result of updated ESFA guidance.

Guidance now stipulates that the second payment should only be made after a year following the first payment.

This new arrangement has been implemented for the 2018/19 financial year to ensure that Lancashire is compliant with the revised ESFA guidance, but this report was provided for the information of the Working Group.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

iv. Local Authority Agreement for the Provision of Early Education Funding (EEF) A report updated members on the final 2018/19 Early Education Funding agreement and consultation process.

The Funding Agreement is reviewed on an annual basis to reflect any changes in statutory guidance, regulations, or local operational changes required. The Local Authority has consulted with the Early Years Consultative Group and Schools Forum Early Years Working Block Group in finalising the Funding Agreement for the 2018-2019 academic year.

The sector provided comments/feedback on a small number of areas, which were shared with Legal Services, and a final version has been agreed by the County Council.

A copy of final funding agreement was provided for the Working Group and a summary of the changes were detailed in the report. Changes made to the draft version of the agreement to reflect views expressed from the sector were highlighted, to demonstrate that the changes had been made.

It was noted that the final funding agreement also incorporated the preferred option for updated Payment Terms, which were agreed following the recent consultation exercise undertaken with the sector.

Officers thanked colleagues from the sector for the constructive involvement in the review process for the funding agreement.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

v. Lancashire SEND Partnership Board and Working Groups - Early Years Membership This report sought nominations for the SEND Partnership Board and Working Groups.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report;

21 b) Supported the Nursery Headteachers Federation nomination of Tara Entwistle as the single Partnership Board representative; c) Nominated Philippa Perks for the Strategy Group.

The Forum ratified the Working groups recommendations.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM APPRENTICESHIP LEVY STEERING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group held on 14 June 2018.

i. Apprenticeship Levy Update The Group were provided with an update on school related Apprenticeship Levy issues, including:

 Staffing appointments ;  Local Government Association network support;  Public Sector Target – the Government have set public sector organisations a target to employ 2.3% of their workforce as apprentices by March 2021. This would be 722 apprentices on the current workforce and is a challenging target for Lancashire.  10% Transfer – the ESFA were introducing arrangements where 10% of unused AL funding could be transferred to another organisation to train their staff. The group gave some initial consideration to options on the school side, but it was noted that there were a number of specific requirements to consider around this transfer.

The Group: a) Noted the report.

ii. Apprenticeship Levy Finance Information was provided about the school Apprenticeship Levy financial position and engagement with schools. Data showed that circa 50% of Levy paying community and controlled schools were had yet to engage with the service.

An assessment of the funding committed to date was provided and this was used to forecast the spending for the year end, which equated to circa £380k. Concern was expressed that there remained considerable unutilised Levy contributions from schools, which could be lost to Lancashire if they remained unused. Current estimates put the first wave of funding at risk by August 2019, which could equate to circa £200k.

The challenges for schools and the team were discussed with some key issues including:

Apprenticeships Team  Increasing Engagement

Schools  Ability to recruit (budgets)  Myth Busting (for new recruit's only/20% off job/prior learning)  Training not fitting enough (Counselling/SENDCO/IAG/HLTA)  Amount they can access

The Group:

22 a) Noted the report; b) Expressed concern about the unused school apprenticeship levy contributions; c) Suggested possible additional avenues of communications, some utilising SI service contacts; d) Thanked the Apprenticeship Levy team for their enthusiasm and professionalism.

The Forum ratified the Working groups recommendations.

11. FORUM CORRESPONDENCE Members considered the Forum related correspondence since the last meeting.

a) Letter to United Utilities (UU) The Forum have been corresponding with UU to lobby on behalf of maintained nursery schools, arguing that they should be eligible to the concessions to the Surface Water Drainage (SWD) charges that UU have agreed for other schools. A copy of the latest Forum letter was provided. In response to this letter, a meeting has been arranged with UU representatives and the Forum Chair, to take place on 4 July 2018. Representatives from Sefton Council, who led the original campaign seeking reduced water charges for schools in the region, have also been invited to the meeting.

b) Letter from a Primary School with a SERF Unit A letter was received in April 2018 from a school with a SERF Unit, addressed to the LA and the Chair of the Forum. The letter set out the impact of budget reductions on the school related to the revised methodology for SERF unit funding in 2018/19 and requested that a phased introduction of the SERF unit proposals be considered, in order to allow schools time to adjust to the new arrangements. The reply reiterated the overall pressures on the HNB budget, which were forcing the savings proposals, and explained that the particular proposals and timescales for SERF units were driven by changes in DfE regulations. Some contextual information about increased funding elsewhere in the school's 2018/19 budget was also included in the reply.

c) Correspondence from Forum Member Stephen Booth On 22 May 2018, correspondence was received from Stephen Booth, Forum Vice-Chair, requesting that information be provided to the Forum about the forecast HNB overspend in 2018/19. An update about the HNB budget position for 2018/19 was provided to the HNB Working Group on 12 June.

d) Nursery School Representations about Clawback Email correspondence was received on behalf of a nursery school on 19 June 2018, which indicated that the school had spent more funding than they wanted in 2017/18, in order to avoid clawback. The school requested that an increase to guideline balance levels or the suspension of clawback be considered in order to allow schools that are able to build 'war chests' to mitigate against the increased budget pressures that are forecast in the coming years.

e) Forum Letter Valuation Office Agency Officers have been in discussions with a school in a deficit budget situation. One issue that arose was in connection with the rates bill for the school and an ongoing rateable

23 value appeal. The Forum Chair has written to the relevant Valuation Office Agency requesting any assistance that can be given in resolving the appeal.

The Forum: a) Noted the report and the correspondence received; b) Noted that the clawback correspondence has been considered as part of the clawback report earlier in the agenda.

12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS There were no items of AOB

13. DATE OF FUTURE MEETINGS It was noted that the next Forum meeting will be held at 10:00 am Wednesday 17 October 2018 at County Hall in Preston. Members noted the Wednesday day for this meeting, due to the non-availability of suitable rooms on other dates.

I was also agreed that the next meeting of the Schools Block Working Group would be altered to 13 December 2018 due to the non-availability of the room on the original date of 6 December.

24 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

Date of Meeting: 17 October 2018

Item No: 8 Title of Item: Service De-delegations 2019/20

Annex A refers

Executive Summary

Each year, the primary and secondary school members of the Schools Forum must decide on Service De-delegation proposals put forward by the authority.

This report sets out the authority's proposals for 2019/20 and provides information on the consultation with schools.

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report; b) Formally vote on service de-delegation proposals for 2019/20.

(Voting will take place by primary and secondary phase)

25 Background The school funding framework continues to allow service de-delegations in 2019/20. Funding for de-delegated services must be allocated through the formula but can be de-delegated for maintained mainstream primary and secondary schools, subject to consultation with schools and with Schools Forum approval.

De-delegations must be approved on an annual basis and a consultation document setting out proposals for 2019/20 was issued to schools on 13 September 2018 via the Schools Portal. A copy of the consultation documentation is attached at Annex A.

For 2019/20, the LA is again proposing to de-delegate the following services:

 Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions;  Museum Service - Primary Schools Only;  Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty.

Members will be aware that the 'Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions' de- delegation proposals for 2019/20 included various options around the treatment of trade union duties following a review of the Trade Union Facilities Time Agreement, including consideration of:

 The total teaching staff covered by the Facilities Time Agreement, as the number of academies in Lancashire increases;  The formation of the new National Education Union from the amalgamation of the NUT and ATL.

The 2019/20 consultation documentation therefore provided more detailed information around the 'Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation, including supporting papers produced by the teaching unions and by Unison.

Members will be aware that it is extremely important for the Schools Forum to be able to reflect the views of Lancashire schools when making decisions about de-delegation arrangements for 2019/20, as these decisions are binding on all primary and secondary schools.

The closing date for views on the possible de-delegations for 2019/20 is 12 October 2018 and final responses will be reported to the Schools Forum on 17 October 2018.

Primary and secondary school members will be asked to formally vote on the relevant de-delegation proposals.

26 Annex A

Consultation on the Schools Block Funding Arrangements and Service De-delegations 2019/20

27 Executive Summary 2019/20 is the second year of the 'soft' National School Funding Formula (NFF) arrangements.

This document outlines changes that are being introduced at a national level for April 2019 and sets out the challenges and issues that exist in Lancashire. Key to this are the cost pressures being faced in the High Needs Block (HNB) and views are sought around possible options to transfer some Schools Block funding into the High Needs Block in 2019/20, to help mitigate the forecast overspend and help reduce the level of cuts necessary from the HNB.

The school funding framework continues to allow de-delegations in 2019/20. Funding for de-delegated services must be allocated through the formula but can be de- delegated for maintained mainstream primary and secondary schools, subject to consultation with schools and with Schools Forum approval.

De-delegations must be approved on an annual basis and this consultation document sets out proposals for 2019/20 and seeks your views.

It is extremely important to the County Council and the Schools Forum to be able to reflect the views of Lancashire schools when making decisions about de-delegation arrangements for 2019/20, as these decisions are binding on all primary and secondary schools.

De-delegations are not permitted for academies, special schools, nursery schools or PRUs, however, some services will be offered as a buy-back and separate information will be provided about these options, where appropriate.

Please let us know your views on the possible Schools Block transfer options for 2019/20 and on the de-delegations proposals for 2019/20, by completing the consultation questionnaire available from the link below, by 12 October 2018: https://lccsecure.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/questionnaires/runQuestionnaire.asp?q id=759389

28 Background 2019/20 is the second year of the 'soft' National School Funding Formula (NFF) arrangements. This is where the allocations for each Local Authority (LA) are calculated on the aggregated individual school NFF amounts, but a locally agreed formula still applies in making actual allocations to schools. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) also apply the various locally agreed formulae in determining academy allocations in each area.

ESFA allocations to LA's in 2019/20 will also include the second instalment of the additional £1.3 billion increase in DSG funding, which accompanied the NFF introduction.

This consultation seeks views about possible Schools Block funding transfer proposals in 2019/20 and about de-delegation proposals in Lancashire from April 2019, as these remain allowable.

A. LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS BLOCK FUNDING 2019/20 – INCLUDING POSSIBLE TRANSFER TO THE HIGH NEEDS BLOCK Colleagues will know that following a consultation with schools and academies, the NFF methodology was used from 2018/19 as the Lancashire funding model.

Government announcements in July 2018 have confirmed planned updates to the NFF for 2019/20, which include:

 The minimum per pupil funding (MPF) levels of £4,800 for secondary school pupils and £3,500 per pupil for primary schools;  The funding floor will increase to ensure that all schools will attract at least a 1% gain per pupil against their 2017/18 baselines;  The gains cap will increase to 6.09% per pupil against 2017/18 baselines.

Other relatively small policy changes are also being introduced by the DfE from April 2019, including amended arrangements for growth funding and primary low prior attainment, and revised flexibility in the allowable formula requirements, which should enable the NFF to be mirrored more easily at a local level.

The NFF methodology locally will be updated with these changes as a starting point for modelling the Lancashire schools funding formula in 2019/20.

However, considerable cost and demand led pressures remain on the Schools Budget in 2019/20. This is due to the High Needs Block funding being insufficient to meet increased demand. Therefore views on the possibility of transferring funding from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block are set out in this document.

In a wider context, it is worth noting that the pressures on Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budgets is of national concern. The DfE have indicated that there are an increasing number of local authorities that are now incurring a deficit on their overall DSG accounts, because of overspends on the High Needs Block.

29 Lancashire, at the start of the current year, retained a positive DSG reserve, but colleagues will be aware that the level of reserve had already reduced by over £6m at 31 March 2018. The LA is making every effort to remain in surplus, as any DSG deficits will need to be repaid in future years, putting even greater pressure on the funding available for schools.

Lancashire has asked to participate in a Local Government Association (LGA) Project to help develop greater understanding of the High Needs Block pressures and look for possible solutions.

There are also ongoing discussions with representative school groups to ensure school views help to shape proposals and reduce pressure on the High Needs Block in Lancashire.

Proposals for Transferring Funding out of the Schools Block The Schools Block will be ring-fenced in 2019/20, but LAs are able to transfer up to 0.5% of their Schools Block funding to other blocks with the agreement of the Schools Forum, following a consultation with schools. Transfers of more than 0.5% may be allowed in certain circumstances, but additionally require agreement from the Secretary of State.

Locally, in 2018/19, following a consultation with schools, the Schools Forum supported a transfer of circa £0.7m from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block to help mitigate the forecast overspend in the High Needs Block, which represented 0.1% of Schools Block funding. The level of transfer was identified as headroom, once the full Schools Block NFF methodology had been calculated.

Due to the ongoing High Needs Block pressures, it is again envisaged that the DSG will be under considerable stress in 2019/20 and options to transfer various amounts from Schools Block to High Needs Block need to be considered.

It is worth remembering that historically any pressures on school funding would have been met from the total Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) resources available. Funding decisions would have been considered in totality, with aggregate resources used to mitigate any forecast overspend in one funding area. The recent introduction of national funding formulae to allocate resources in distinct blocks, combined with regulation changes that ring fence the Schools Block, require any options to transfer funding to be the subject of consultation.

The options, and their possible implications on the NFF methodology, Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) and capping levels and wider implications are set out below:

 Transfer headroom only from Schools Block (current estimate £0.15m transfer) This option would mirror the methodology agreed in 2018/19 and would allow the DfE calculated NFF allocations to be passported to primary and secondary schools.

30 Modelling of 2019/20 allocations indicates that the level of Schools Block headroom available from April 2019 will be at a reduced level compared to 2018/19, with a current estimate totalling around £0.15m, representing about 0.02% of Schools Block funding.

This methodology would allow the DfE's NFF calculations to be passported in full to Lancashire schools and academies, including:  The use of all the allowable 2019/20 NFF factors;  Application of all 2019/20 National NFF funding rates;  Implementation of the funding floor of 1% against 2017/18 baselines;  Use of the maximum 3% per pupil cap on gains against 2018/19 levels (6.09% against 2017/18 baselines);  Full introduction of the updated Minimum Pupil Funding (MPF) levels of £4,800 for secondary school pupils and £3,500 per pupil for primary schools.

Appendix A to this consultation document sets out the full list of the 2019/20 NFF factors, unit values, total funding and proportion of funding for each factor in the formula at a national level.

If this option were favoured it would provide only a small contribution to the forecast High Needs Block overspend, which could be as high as circa £10m, and significant savings will need to be found from within the HNB. This would mean finding a 10% saving on the HNB budget.

For primary and secondary schools and academies, this would mean 10% cuts on HNB funding, most notably the Weighted Pupil Number (WPN) rates paid to schools for High Needs pupils. HNB WPN funding rates could reduce from £4,100 per WPN to £3,700.

The implications of the required HNB savings would have a significant impact on special schools and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs), as they receive all their funding from this Block. The level of savings required could have serious consequences to the provision that can be made by these schools.

Impact assessment information is shown below and individual primary and secondary school analysis data is provided at Appendix B.

 Capping Reduced to 1.5% (current estimate £1.35m transfer) In other options to generate an increased level of transfer to the HNB, the 2018/19 decision to implement the NFF in Lancashire has been protected, so the factors and rates set out in Appendix A will be applied in full whatever decision is preferred about the HNB transfer.

One option to generate an increased level of transfer, in addition to 'headroom' only, would be to cap gains in 2019/20 to 1.5% of 2018/19 funding per pupil, instead of 3%.

Modelling indicates that this option would generate a transfer of circa £1.35m, representing around 10%-15% of the forecast HNB overspend, which would

31 begin to make inroads into the savings required, but would still require significant cuts to schools and pupils funded from the High Needs Block. This level of transfer represents approximately 0.18% of the total 2019/20 Schools Block allocation in Lancashire.

Many primary and secondary schools would be unaffected by this change, but some schools would see their gains in 2019/20 restricted to 1.5% per pupil, rather than the maximum allowable level of 3%. Under this option, the Minimum Pupil Funding (MPF) levels would apply and override any funding cap, to ensure all school receive the minimum levels of funding set out in the NFF (£4,800 for secondary school pupils and £3,500 per pupil for primary schools).

Impact assessment information is shown below and individual primary and secondary school analysis data is provided at Appendix B.

 Removal of 1% Funding Floor and Capping Reduced to 1.5% (Circa £4m transfer) Under this option, the 2018/19 decision to implement the NFF in Lancashire has again been protected, and the factors and rates set out in Appendix A will be applied in full.

However, an increased contribution to the High Needs Block could be generated if the 1% funding floor were removed in addition to the cap being set at 1.5%.

This option would generate a circa £4m to transfer to the HNB, representing 0.55% of Schools Block funding. This would provide a more significant level of support to the forecast overspend than the previous option alone, contributing around 40% of the savings target.

A transfer of over 0.5% from Schools Block to High Needs Block would need to be agreed by the Secretary of State, but we are aware that a number of LAs had proposals approved in 2018/19, where schools and Schools Forums supported such proposals.

Allocations to many schools would be unaffected by this change, but in addition to those seeing funding capped at 1.5%, as in the previous option, other schools could see their per pupil funding level reduce marginally in 2019/20 if the floor is removed. Protection against losses in 2019/20 would be provided by the application of the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG), which would ensure that no school could lose more than 1.5% per pupil against their 2018/19 level.

Under this option, the MPF levels would apply and ensure all school receive the minimum levels of funding set out in the NFF (£4,800 for secondary school pupils and £3,500 per pupil for primary schools).

Impact assessment information is shown below and individual primary and secondary school analysis data is provided at Appendix B.

 No transfer from Schools Block This option would allocate the total Schools Block allocation received by Lancashire to primary and secondary schools, including a small amount of additional headroom, which could not be guaranteed in future years. The headroom is currently estimated at £0.15m, which is equivalent to just under £1 per pupil.

However, this option would not provide any contribution to the HNB funding pressures and the forecast Schools Budget overspend would need to be managed from within the overall HNB resources available. This option would require the savings from other proposals to be maximised, which could include significant reductions in the WPN and top-up levels in other HNB areas.

A summary of the options is provided below (Please note that figures are illustrative based on 2018/19 pupil data and actual Local Authority 2019/20 allocations will be issued by the ESFA in December 2018.)

Possible Transfer to % of Schools Option Total Funding Cumulative High Needs Block Block Transfer headroom £733,082,234 £157,335 £157,335 0.02% Cap reduced to 1.5% £731,884,979 £1,197,255 £1,354,590 0.18% No 1% Floor £729,225,648 £2,659,331 £4,013,921 0.55% No transfer £733,239,569

Impact Assessment

An impact assessment for primary and secondary schools of various options is provided below:

Impact Option Remove Passport Cap at 1.5% baseline + reduce cap No of Schools Losing 53 53 374 No of Schools No change 33 33 37 No of schools gaining up to 0.5% 338 338 13 No of schools gaining in excess 0.5% 142 142 142 Max impact 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% Average impact 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% Min impact -0.3% -0.3% -0.5%

Please note:

 Figures are illustrative based on 2018/19 pupil data;  Schools 'losing' under the 'passporting' and 'cap at 1.5%' options are at this stage due to the reduced unit value of the primary low prior attainment factor,

33 which has decreased to £1,022 in 2019/20, from £1,050 in 2018/19. DfE indicate that this reduction in unit value will be offset by an increased number of pupils achieving the qualifying threshold, so the impact when 2019/20 data is available should be net nil, although this cannot be guaranteed at individual school level;  53 of the losing schools under the 'remove baseline' option are also attributable to the primary low prior attainment change;  Under all options, some schools receive the same level of per pupil level funding as allocated in 2018/19. This is because the NFF expressly guaranteed per pupil level increases as 1% against the 2017/18 baseline. Schools that received a 2018/19 increase of 1% per pupil may not receive any per pupil increase between 2018/19 and 2019/20, as the guaranteed funding rise was all provided in NFF year 1;  The maximum gain under all options is 5.2%, which is above the NFF capping level of 3% and is generated by the application of the Minimum Pupil Funding (MPF) levels which would override capping limits in all options to ensure all schools receive the minimum levels of funding set out in the NFF (£4,800 for secondary school pupils and £3,500 per pupil for primary schools);  Individual primary and secondary school analysis data is provided at Appendix B;  The impact analysis at County or individual school level does not incorporate the effect of the High Needs Block savings that would be required at various levels depending on the level of any transfer from Schools Block;  Under any of the options available, individual schools can still receive less Schools Block funding in 2019/20 in cash terms, if pupil numbers fall.

Q1. What is your preferred option on a possible transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block in 2019/20?  Transfer circa £0.15m from Schools Block (headroom only);  Transfer circa £1.35 from Schools Block (by reducing capping to 1.5%);  Transfer circa £4m from Schools Block (by removal of 1% Funding Floor & reducing cap to 1.5%);  No transfer to Schools Block;  Not sure.

B. 2019/20 DE-DELEGATION PROPOSALS The School Funding framework continues to allow service de-delegations in 2019/20. Funding for de-delegated services must be allocated through the formula but can be de-delegated for maintained mainstream primary and secondary schools, subject to consultation with schools and with Schools Forum approval.

De-delegations apply to a limited range of services where central provision for maintained schools (but not academies) may be argued for on the grounds of economies of scale or pooled risk. These services and their funding are delegated to schools and academies in the first instance, however if maintained primary and secondary schools in a phase agree, via a majority vote through the Schools Forum,

34 the services can be provided centrally by returning the funding to the Local Authority. The final net delegated budget available to each school would then exclude these amounts.

For 2018/19, the Schools Forum approved a number of de-delegations, following consultation with schools. However, service de-delegations must be approved on an annual basis and this consultation document sets out proposals for 2019/20 and seeks your views.

Proposals for 2019/20 include the following services, which were approved by the Forum in 2018/19:

 Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions;  Museum Service - Primary Schools Only;  Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty.

Decision taken by the primary and secondary school members of the Schools Forum will be binding on all schools in that phase, so it is important that members are aware of the views of schools when they are making the de-delegation decisions.

De-delegations are not permitted for academies, special schools, nursery schools or PRUs, however, some services will be offered as a buy-back arrangement and separate information will be provided about these options where appropriate.

Further information on the 3 specific de-delegation proposals for 2019/20 is provided below:

1. Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions Historically the Schools Forum has provided support to schools that release staff to undertake public duties, including trade union duties under the County Council's facilities agreement and for staff suspensions. This arrangement pools the risk across all schools and provides a source of funding where schools can reclaim the costs of cover whilst a member of staff is undertaking public/trade union duties or is suspended from duty.

In the lead up to the 2019/20 de-delegation consultation, the Schools Forum considered information on the Trade Union Facilities Time Agreement, as it had not been reviewed for some time.

A number of issues about the 2019/20 arrangements were given careful consideration, including:

The Forum decided that options should be presented to schools as part of this consultation, to help inform the final de-delegation decision about arrangements from April 2019, including possible pros and cons associated with each alternative.

35 Legal position There is no statutory requirement to provide specific funding solely for trade union "duties" and "activities". The law requires that individual schools allow reasonable time off for trade union representatives during working time to be released from their workplace to undertake trade union "duties" and "activities". If this occurs, the school will be compliant with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

An employer who permits union representatives time off for trade union duties must pay them for the time off. Trade union duties include supporting members in relation to casework (e.g. discipline, grievance, redundancy etc) and formal consultation and negotiation with the employer.

In addition, employees can take reasonable time off to undertake the duties of a Union Learning Representative (ULR), provided that the union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is a ULR. The functions for which time off as a ULR is allowed include analysing, arranging, promoting and undergoing training.

There is no statutory requirement that union representatives be paid for time off taken on trade union activities e.g. Branch, area or regional meetings of the union or executive committee, annual conference etc.

Trade Union Facilities Time Agreement - Background In 1989 the Local Authority developed a Consolidated Facilities Agreement, which allocated 15 FTE posts for the purposes of TU facilities in schools. This was reviewed in 1998 when Blackburn and Blackpool became unitary authorities and 25% of Lancashire teachers transferred out of Lancashire Authority. At that time, the number of FTE facilities posts was reduced to 12.

In recent years, the funding for all these trade union posts has been included in the Staff Costs de-delegation arrangements, which are the subject of annual considerations and decisions by the Schools Forum, following consultation with schools.

For 2019/20, some additional information is included in the consultation relating to the review of the Trade Union Facilities Time Agreement and this provides 4 Staff Costs de-delegation options for consideration, as set out below:

a) Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation at the 2018/19 levels; b) Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation but with a reduced Trade Union Facilities Time contribution; c) Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation but without any Trade Union Facilities Time contribution; d) Completely discontinue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de- delegation.

Further details on each of the options are provided below: a) Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation at the 2018/19 levels One option available in 2019/20 is to continue the 2018/19 de-delegation arrangements without amendment.

The 2018/19 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation incorporated reimbursement to schools for staff costs associated with duties including:

 Magistrates/Justices of the Peace;  Jury Service;  Attendance at Court/Tribunal as a Witness;  Teachers who are Governors of schools other than their own;  Territorial Army/Royal Naval Reserve/Royal Air Force Reserve;  Trade Union Duties under the County Council's Facilities Time Agreement.

 And, if a member of staff is suspended from duty.

The total 2018/19 de-delegation budget equated to circa £672,000, including public duties, trade union duties and suspensions. The costs of the de-delegation at school level are set out below:

Primary Secondary £ £ Rate per pupil 2.50 5.00 Lump sum 400.00 400.00

Advantages of this option

 The Facilities Agreement for teacher trade unions demonstrates the commitment that the schools and Schools Forum have towards fostering and maintaining good relations with employee representatives;  Continuing the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation will assist in maintaining the very positive relationships with the trade unions when dealing with issues affecting staff in schools in addition to financially supporting schools for staff undertaking other public service duties;  In the current financial climate in the school sector, with increasing numbers of schools facing financial difficulties, the input from trade union representatives to assist with school reorganisation proposals will be in greater demand and it may be counterproductive to reduce the support available by decreasing the level of the de-delegation;  This option minimises the risks financially and otherwise on individual schools of needing to provide time off for school based trade union representatives during working time to deal with casework in their own school and of bearing such costs, which would need to be met from individual schools budgets.

37 Disadvantages of this option

 The number of school staff covered by the de-delegation has reduced in recent years as the number of academies in Lancashire has increased, but this option does not reflect that change (figures are provided below);  Other options for the Staff Costs de-delegation reduce its costs, which would release some funding back to individual school budgets;  It does not take into account Trade Union members paying fees and subscriptions to their associations that provide for Regional Officials to deal with very serious casework matters;  From 1 April 2018, the County Council withdrew all funding for trade union representatives. From this date, workplace representatives have been required to undertake the role within their service areas, supported by regionally/nationally funded colleagues. The continuation of any Facilities Time Agreement funded by the de-delegation is not necessarily consistent with the County Council's decision.

b) Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation but with a reduced Trade Union Facilities Time contribution; A second option for consideration proposes to continue the Staff Cost de-delegation in 2019/20, but to reduce the Trade Union Facilities Time contribution.

FTE teacher numbers in Lancashire in 1999, the year after Blackpool and Blackburn LAs went unitary, are broadly similar those in 2010. Since 2011, the number of teachers covered by the Facilities Time Agreement has been affected as schools convert to academies.

Based on the most recent School Workforce data, the number of teaching staff in Lancashire Schools is 10,345. Of these, 13% (1,324) are based in Academies, which are no longer able to draw on the Facilities Time Agreement, unless they arrange a separate buy-in arrangement. However, there has been no equivalent reduction in the number of funded FTE trade union representatives.

This option proposes to reduce the financial contribution to support the Facilities Time Agreement in line with the % of staff now employed in academies (13%).

Considerations of the Facilities Time Agreement by the Schools Forum also noted that on 1 September 2017 NUT and ATL amalgamated to form the National Education Union (NEU). The number of union members was not affected by this change. However, it was also noted that in future, the requirement for attendance at meetings will reduce from two to one representative (rather than one from each of the former unions). In addition, NEU will run fewer branch offices than NUT/ATL combined formerly did. As a result, an additional reduction in funding of the 12 FTE teachers in the Facilities Time Agreement up to 17% may be appropriate, which would provide a total reduction in the teacher unions support of 30% and could alter the teacher union allocations as follows:

38 Union Current Allocation (FTE) Proposed allocation (FTE) ASCL 1.2 1.0 NAHT 1.6 1.4 NASUWT 3.2 2.8 NEU 6.0 3.2 Total 12.0 8.4

As mentioned previously, a UNISON post is also funded from this de-delegation, and this proposal would require a reduction in their allocation equivalent to 13%.

The trade union costs represented circa £472k of the total Staff Costs de-delegation of £672k in 2018/19. It is estimated that the reductions in the Facilities Time Agreement set out in this option would decrease the costs to schools from April 2019 by approximately 20%, which equates to the following school level savings compared to the cost of maintaining the de-delegation at 2018/19 levels (based on 2018/19 costs and pupil numbers):

 £1.00 per pupil in secondary schools;  £0.50 per pupil in primary schools.

Advantages of this option

 This option realigns the costs of the 2019/20 Facilities Time Agreement to one equivalent to that when the agreement was originally created in terms of teaching staff supported and reflects the number of staff now employed in academies that are no longer covered by the agreement;  This option recognises that through the creation of the NEU, there will be fewer responsibilities for NUT and ATL to jointly attend and thus less need for facility time for the NEU;  All parts of the school sector are facing considerable costs pressures and this proposal shares that burden with the unions benefitting from the de- delegation;  A significant level of funding would still be provided for the Facilities Time Agreement, so the existing benefits of the de-delegation arrangements should, for the most part, be able to continue;  A reduced amount of funding would be deducted from individual schools budgets, as set out above;  Going forward, if de-delegations remain allowable, the level of contribution for the Facilities Time Agreement could perhaps be reviewed annually on the basis of any changes to the number of staff being supported and the budget position of Schools Forum.

Disadvantages of this option

 The level of funding released on a school by school basis is relatively small, and given that demand for union support in budget driven reorganisations is

39 likely to increase as school funding gets tighter, it may be a better use of resources to leave the de-delegation at the 2018/19 level;  Any decrease in the level of funding provided for the Facilities Time Agreement risks increasing demand on individual schools to provide time off for school based trade union representatives.

c) Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation but without any Trade Union Facilities Time contribution Another option for consideration is to continue the Staff Costs de-delegation, but without the Facilities Time Agreement contribution.

This option would release circa £472k costs associated with the Facilities Time Agreement into individual school budgets. This would equate to the following school level savings compared to the cost of maintaining the de-delegation at 2018/19 levels (based on 2018/19 costs and pupil numbers):

 £3.50 per pupil in secondary schools;  £1.75 per pupil in primary schools.

Advantages of this option

 This option would provide a more substantial level of funding to release into individual school budgets;  It would mirror the decision taken by the County Council to withdraw funding for trade union representatives;  Regional Trade Union officials would still be available to provide support with serious casework matters;  The de-delegation would still provide insurance type cover to schools for other 'public duties and suspensions'.

Disadvantages of this option

 The relationships with Lancashire level trade union officials could be lost; as would considerable local knowledge and expertise that benefits employee relations in Lancashire schools;  There would be greater demand on individual schools to provide time off for school based trade union representatives during working time to deal with casework in their own school, the costs of which would need to be met from individual schools budgets;  Delays could be caused in resolving HR issues in schools, particularly where the school must rely on the availability of regional officials to manage HR casework;  The occurrence of costs on individual schools would not be even, and schools facing the prospect of reorganisations due to budgetary constraints would face a higher risk that their budgeted resources would be needed to release staff to undertake trade union duties and activities.

40 d) Completely discontinue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de- delegation A final option for consideration would be to discontinue this de-delegation completely. This would release circa £672,000 that could be distributed to individual schools, which equates to the following school level savings compared to the cost of maintaining the de-delegation at 2018/19 levels (based on 2018/19 costs and pupil numbers):

 £5.00 per pupil in secondary schools;  £2.50 per pupil in primary schools;  Plus lump sums of £400 per school for both phases.

However, it is important to note that if this service is not de-delegated the County Council has no proposals to develop a traded service and schools would need to make their own arrangements.

Advantages of this option

 This option provides the largest saving against the 2018/19 de-delegation proposals and would minimise the de-delegation deduction in individual school budgets;  In a given year, some schools do not benefit from this de-delegation, if they have no cause for trade union involvement, no staff undertaking public duties and do not suspend anyone from duty;  This option also mirrors the decision taken by the County Council to withdraw funding for trade union representatives;  Regional Trade Union officials would still be available to provide support with serious casework matters;

Disadvantages of this option

 The relationships with Lancashire level trade union officials would be lost; as would considerable local knowledge and expertise that benefits industrial relations in Lancashire schools;  There would be greater demand on individual schools to provide time off for school based trade union representatives during working time to deal with casework in their own school, the costs of which would need to be met from individual schools budgets;  Delays could be caused in resolving HR issues in schools, particularly where the school must rely on the availability of regional officials to manage HR casework;  The occurrence of costs on individual schools would not be even, and schools facing the prospect of reorganisations due to budgetary constraints would face a higher risk that their budgeted resources would be needed to release staff to undertake trade union duties and activities;  The 'insurance' type cover offering protection for individual school budgets from this de-delegation would be lost, and some schools risk considerable additional costs if they have staff who undertake significant levels of public duties or are suspended.

41 In response to the consideration of the de-delegation options for 2019/20, trade union colleagues have submitted further information setting out their positions on the facilities time issue and the advantages the agreement provides.

The teacher trade unions have produced a position paper for the Schools Forum on the funding of facilities’ time and the benefits provided through the agreement. This paper is provided at Appendix C to this consultation and includes Lancashire case studies.

Appendix D is a paper from Unison setting out their position on the Trade Union Facility Time in Schools and incorporates a copy of a 2016 TUC commissioned report from Bradford University about the benefits of paid time off for trade union representatives

Q2. What is your preferred de-delegation option for 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' in 2019/20?  Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation at the 2018/19 levels;  Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation but with a reduced Trade Union Facilities Time contribution to reflect academisations and union amalgamations;  Continue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de-delegation but without any Trade Union Facilities Time contribution;  Completely discontinue the 'Staff Costs - Public Duties/Suspensions' de- delegation;  Not Sure.

Please note that charges quoted in this section may vary marginally, based on pupil numbers from the October 2018 school census.

2. Museum Service - Primary Schools Only The Schools Forum have historically supported the work the museum service undertakes for primary schools to help meet the national curriculum and to support wider cultural learning and learning outside the classroom. With the emphasis being placed on cultural education by the government's Culture White Paper, it is proposed that this budget continues to be de-delegated in 2019/20 to ensure that this service is maintained.

The money currently de-delegated is used by the Heritage Learning Team and pays for the creation, design, curriculum development and resourcing of the learning sessions provided across LCC's museums, Lancashire Archives and a range of partner museums across the county. Learning is offered both at the museums and as outreach into schools. It also covers staff training for the freelance deliverers and the on-going monitoring/evaluation of the quality standards. The funding also enables new sessions to be developed in response to requests from teachers and curriculum changes. Free monthly CPD events are also offered to teachers at museums across the county and as INSET days in school. The learning team holds five Sandford

42 Awards for excellence in Heritage Education, recognising the high quality and relevance of the sessions it offers to schools. The service has also been able to offer longer term projects to schools across Lancashire, including 'When Lancashire Sings', 'Sounds of Identity', 'Trench Brothers' and 'Picture a Story'. Developments for 2018/2019 will include new STEAM sessions across the county, special events for the WWI commemorations, a Schools Storytelling Festival and funded projects covering a range of cross curricular themes.

The schools loans service offered by the Heritage Learning Team is a subscription scheme, but the charges are kept to a minimum, covering delivery and collection of loans boxes. Support from the de-delegated money enables development and resourcing of new loans boxes in line with the curriculum and teacher requests. During the last academic year, this has included new resources linked to Prehistory, Anglo Saxons, WWI, Romans, Vikings and Explorers.

Schools will continue to receive a small charge for museum visits, but only to cover the cost of paying the freelance delivery staff. Continued de-delegation will mean current charges for school visits, outreach sessions and loans boxes will again be held during the coming academic year.

Lancashire County Council recently chose to find new operators for five of its museums. The learning team have continued delivery at all these museums, ensuring Lancashire schools can still access high quality sessions at Helmshore and Queen Street mills, the Museum of Lancashire, Judges Lodgings and Fleetwood museum.

If delegated, this service would only allocate just under £2.00 per pupil. If a traded service were to be offered the central service would only remain viable if all schools entered into the arrangement. On this basis, the authority would suggest that if schools would wish to see the service continue, the primary school museums budget should be de-delegated.

The cost of this de-delegation in 2018/19 is provided in the table below.

The Schools Forum have agreed that the per pupil rates should remain unchanged for 2019/20, although it should be noted that the charges for individual schools may vary, subject to pupil numbers from the October 2018 school census.

Museum Service Primary Secondary £ £ Rate per pupil 1.97 0.00 Lump sum 0.00 0.00 Total De-delegation 185,650 0

43 Q3. Do you support the de-delegation of the Museums Service in 2019/20? (Primary schools only)  Yes;  No;  Not Sure.

3. Support For Schools In Financial Difficulty Currently support for schools in financial difficulty is offered in a number of ways which include:

 Brokering school to school support with schools sharing expertise at various levels e.g. leadership, teaching, subject leadership, assessment, curriculum models;  Providing teaching and learning support through teaching and learning consultants e.g. bespoke professional development for teachers;  Providing financial management support for schools e.g. complex recovery plans;  Providing HR and financial support to enable schools to reduce staffing;  Providing one off financial support, via a bid to the schools forum to enable the school to develop a sustainable recovery plan.

There are occasions when schools do not have sufficient resources available to meet the needs of their pupils and in these cases the Schools in Difficulty fund provides schools with the resources to help them overcome the challenges they are facing. There are clear, published eligibility criteria for access to these funds and these are managed on behalf of Schools Forum by the School Improvement Challenge Board (SICB). The funds are provided in order to help schools to raise achievement and create sustainable improvements in the quality of provision.

The de-delegation also includes some Termination of Employment costs (formerly Premature Retirement Costs), which can be a useful mechanism to facilitate staffing reorganisations in schools, particularly when they are in financially difficulty.

Current evidence indicates that this approach is well received and highly valued by headteachers and governors. The partnership between schools and the local authority has also proved invaluable in helping schools to improve the quality of provision in a sustainable way. This is evident in the proportion of schools that have improved to gain a good Ofsted judgement with over 92% of schools judged good or better in their latest inspection. This is above the national average (89%), the North-West average (90%), and places us second against our statistical neighbours

It is important to note that if this service is not de-delegated, the County Council has no proposals to develop a buy-back service to support schools in financial difficulty and schools would need to make their own arrangements.

The cost of this de-delegation in 2018/19 is provided in the table below.

44 The Schools Forum have agreed that the lump sum and per pupil rates should remain unchanged for 2019/20, although it should be noted that the charges for individual schools may vary, subject to pupil numbers from the October 2018 school census.

Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty Primary Secondary £ £ Rate per pupil 5.18 11.32 Lump sum 1,000.00 1,000.00 Total De-delegation 962,158 573,063

Q4. Do you support the de-delegation of Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty in 2019/20?

 Yes;  No;  Not Sure.

Responding to the consultation It is extremely important to the County Council and the Schools Forum to be able to reflect the views of Lancashire schools when making decisions about funding and de- delegation arrangements for 2019/20, as these decisions are binding on all primary and secondary schools.

Please let us know your views on the possible de-delegations for 2019/20 by completing the consultation questionnaire available from the link below, by 12 October 2018, so that responses can be reported to the Schools Forum on 17 October: https://lccsecure.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/questionnaires/runQuestionnaire.asp?q id=759389

45 Appendix A The final National Funding Formula 2019/20 This table provides a full list of the 2019/20 NFF unit values, total funding and proportion of funding for each factor in the formula at a national level

Factors Unit Total Funding Proportion of values (including ACA) core total Basic per-pupil funding £24,525m 73.1% Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU): Primary £2,747 £12,722m 37.9% Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU): Secondary - KS3 £3,863 £6,823m 20.3% Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU): Secondary - KS4 £4,386 £4,793m 14.3% Minimum per pupil funding level NA £187m 0.6% Additional needs funding £5,922m 17.6% Deprivation £3,022m 9.0% Current FSM top up (Pupils currently claiming FSM at £440 £287m 0.9% the last census): Primary Current FSM top up (Pupils currently claiming FSM at £440 £171m 0.5% the last census): Secondary FSM6 (Any pupil that has ever claimed FSM in the past £540 £608m 1.8% 6 years): Primary FSM6 (Any pupil that has ever claimed FSM in the past £785 £646m 1.9% 6 years): Secondary IDACI band F: Primary £200 £95m 0.3% IDACI band F: Secondary £290 £82m 0.2% IDACI band E: Primary £240 £102m 0.3% IDACI band E: Secondary £390 £98m 0.3% IDACI band D: Primary £360 £131m 0.4% IDACI band D: Secondary £515 £110m 0.3% IDACI band C: Primary £390 £123m 0.4% IDACI band C: Secondary £560 £104m 0.3% IDACI band B: Primary £420 £166m 0.5% IDACI band B: Secondary £600 £139m 0.4% IDACI band A: Primary £575 £89m 0.3% IDACI band A: Secondary £810 £70m 0.2% Low prior attainment £2,472m 7.4% Low prior attainment: Primary £1,022 £1,548m 4.6% Low prior attainment: Secondary £1,550 £924m 2.8% English as an additional language £407m 1.2% English as an additional language: Primary £515 £301m 0.9% English as an additional language: Secondary £1,385 £106m 0.3% Mobility £21m 0.1% School led funding £2,933m 8.8% Lump sum £2,266m 6.8% Lump sum: Primary £110,000 £1,884m 5.6% Lump sum: Secondary £110,000 £383m 1.1% Sparsity £25m 0.1% Sparsity: Primary £25,000 £21m 0.1% Sparsity: Secondary £65,000 £5m 0.0% Premises £641m 1.9% Area Cost Adjustment: A multiplier that is applied to basic per £831m pupil, additional needs and school led funding (ACA is already included in each of the factor subtotals) Core Total (Excluding funding floor) £33,380m Funding Floor £681m Total (including funding floor) £34,061m

To note, total funding is rounded to the nearest £1m. Proportion of core total funding is rounded to the nearest 0.1%. The total funding and proportion of core total funding columns are based on implementing the formula in full, without transition, using 2018-19 authority proforma tool data and 2017/18 general annual grant data. To note, we have excluded growth funding from this table as we are changing the way we allocate growth funding in 2019-20 and will confirm growth spend in December.

46 Appendix B Proposals for Transferring Funding out of the Schools Block

Impact assesment of options at Individual School Level

Please note:

Figures are illustrative based on 2018/19 pupil data;

The 2018/19 allocation for one school has been adjusted for comparison purposes, as it is classed as a 'growing school'; Schools 'losing' under the 'passporting' and 'cap at 1.5%' options are at this stage due to the reduced unit value of the primary low prior attainment factor, which has decreased to £1,022 in 2019/20, from £1,050 in 2018/19. DfE indicate that this reduction in unit value will be offset by an increased number of pupils achieving the qualifying threshold, so the impact when 2019/20 data is available should be net nil, although this cannot be guaranteed at individual school level; 53 of the losing schools under the 'remove baseline' option are also attributable to the primary low prior attainment change; Under all options, some schools receive the same level of per pupil level funding as allocated in 2018/19. This is because the NFF expressly guaranteed per pupil level increases as 1% against the 2017/18 baseline. Schools that received a 2018/19 increase of 1% per pupil may not receive any per pupil increase between 2018/19 and 2019/20, as the guaranteed funding rise was all provided in NFF year 1; The maximum gain under all options is 5.2%, which is above the NFF capping level of 3% and is generated by the application of the Minimum Pupil Funding (MPF) levels which would override capping limits in all options to ensure all schools receive the minimum levels of funding set out in the NFF (£4,800 for secondary school pupils and £3,500 per pupil for primary schools);

The impact analysis at County or individual school level does not incorporate the effect of the High Needs Block savings that would be required at various levels depending on the level of any transfer from Schools Block; Under any of the options available, individual schools can still receive less Schools Block funding in 2019/20 in cash terms, if pupil numbers fall.

Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 01001 2017 Bowerham Community Primary and Nursery School Primary School 1,482,031 1,482,031 1,482,031 1,482,031 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 01002 2019 Dallas Road Community Primary School Primary School 1,460,100 1,460,100 1,460,100 1,460,100 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 01003 2024 Willow Lane Community Primary School Primary School 1,015,858 1,020,298 1,020,298 1,011,418 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01005 3530 Lancaster Christ Church Church of England Primary School Primary School 804,241 807,677 807,677 800,805 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01006 3531 Scotforth St Paul's Church of England Primary and Nursery School Primary School 771,055 774,327 774,327 767,782 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01008 3705 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Lancaster Primary School 873,857 895,673 884,765 884,765 2.5% 1.2% 1.2% 01009 3533 Skerton St Luke's CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 847,412 860,604 858,432 858,432 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 01010 3706 The Cathedral Catholic Primary School. Lancaster Primary School 811,646 820,126 820,126 820,126 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 01011 2020 Ridge Community Primary School Primary School 981,262 985,534 985,534 976,990 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01012 2021 Ryelands Primary and Nursery School Primary School 1,601,417 1,642,061 1,623,478 1,623,478 2.5% 1.4% 1.4% 01013 3520 Arkholme Church of England Primary School Primary School 346,789 347,960 347,960 345,619 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01014 3521 Caton St Paul's Church of England Primary School Primary School 678,701 681,522 681,522 675,881 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01015 2370 Moorside Primary School Primary School 1,803,150 1,864,813 1,864,813 1,864,813 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 01016 3527 St Wilfrid's Church of England Primary School. Halton Primary School 897,798 901,700 901,700 893,896 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01017 3528 Hornby St Margaret's Church of England Primary School Primary School 317,729 318,760 318,760 316,698 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01018 2031 Nether Kellet Community Primary School Primary School 490,090 491,947 491,947 488,232 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

47 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 01019 3670 Over Kellet Wilson's Endowed Church of England Primary School Primary School 523,627 525,676 525,676 521,577 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01020 3534 Leck St Peter's Church of England Primary School Primary School 233,054 233,540 233,540 232,568 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 01021 3535 Melling St Wilfrid Church of England Primary School Primary School 276,414 277,240 277,240 275,588 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01022 3082 Quernmore Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School Primary School 459,105 460,814 460,814 457,396 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01023 3084 Tatham Fells CofE Voluntary Controlled Primary School Primary School 300,725 301,536 301,536 299,915 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01024 3607 St Bernadette's Catholic Primary School. Lancaster Primary School 793,600 796,987 796,987 790,212 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01025 2653 Caton Community Primary School Primary School 283,616 284,450 284,450 282,783 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01027 3017 Wray with Botton (Endowed) Primary School Primary School 315,846 316,857 316,857 314,834 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01028 3519 Carnforth Christ Church. CofE. Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 455,950 457,664 457,664 454,235 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01029 3543 Slyne-with-Hest. St Luke's. Church of England Primary School Primary School 879,577 883,389 883,389 875,764 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01030 3518 Bolton-le-Sands Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,088,969 1,088,969 1,088,969 1,088,969 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 01031 3703 Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Primary School. Carnforth Primary School 418,115 419,642 419,642 416,588 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01032 3168 Warton Archbishop Hutton's Primary School Primary School 502,013 503,906 503,906 500,121 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01034 3551 Yealand Church of England Primary School Primary School 222,734 223,293 223,293 222,176 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01035 3542 Silverdale St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 346,756 347,802 347,802 345,710 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01036 3546 Thurnham Glasson Christ Church. Church of England Primary School Primary School 248,096 248,781 248,781 247,411 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01038 3522 Cockerham Parochial Church of England Primary School Primary School 418,775 420,306 420,306 417,243 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01039 3524 Dolphinholme Church of England Primary School Primary School 361,655 362,780 362,780 360,530 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 01041 3525 Ellel St John The Evangelist Church of England Primary School Primary School 778,529 781,843 781,843 775,215 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01042 3539 Cawthorne's Endowed School. Abbystead Primary School 240,304 240,826 240,826 239,781 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 01044 2014 Carnforth North Road Community Primary School Primary School 680,717 683,504 683,504 677,929 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01046 3538 Overton St Helen's Church of England Primary School Primary School 660,574 659,642 659,642 659,161 -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% 01049 2576 Great Wood Primary School Primary School 1,414,254 1,448,264 1,448,264 1,448,264 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 01050 2425 Torrisholme Community Primary School Primary School 1,449,066 1,483,380 1,483,380 1,483,380 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 01051 2025 Morecambe Bay Community Primary School Primary School 1,405,137 1,407,800 1,407,800 1,400,487 0.2% 0.2% -0.3% 01052 2029 West End Primary School Primary School 928,039 932,046 932,046 924,032 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01053 2028 Sandylands Community Primary School Morecambe Primary School 1,616,628 1,660,163 1,638,395 1,638,395 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 01054 2027 Lancaster Road Primary School Primary School 1,876,788 1,927,794 1,902,661 1,902,661 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 01055 3537 Poulton-le-Sands Church of England Primary School Primary School 821,884 820,467 820,467 820,467 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 01056 3536 St Peter's Church of England Primary School. Heysham Primary School 875,010 878,803 878,803 871,217 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 01057 3707 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Morecambe Primary School 719,949 720,269 720,269 720,269 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 01058 2368 Trumacar Nursery and Community Primary School Primary School 1,371,762 1,401,542 1,390,182 1,390,182 2.2% 1.3% 1.3% 01059 3605 St Patrick's Catholic Primary School. Morecambe Primary School 803,046 801,017 801,017 801,017 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 01060 2827 Westgate Primary School and Children's Centre Primary School 2,142,264 2,201,384 2,171,824 2,171,824 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 01061 2831 Morecambe and Heysham Grosvenor Park Primary School Primary School 1,133,792 1,135,133 1,135,133 1,135,133 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 01062 2832 Mossgate Primary School Primary School 851,989 853,890 853,890 853,890 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 02001 2396 Carr Head Primary School. Poulton-le-Fylde Primary School 836,571 835,150 835,150 835,150 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 02002 2541 The Breck Primary School. Poulton-le-Fylde Primary School 1,005,412 1,009,769 1,009,769 1,001,054 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02003 2622 Carleton Green Community Primary School Primary School 1,127,655 1,132,597 1,132,597 1,122,712 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02005 3570 Poulton-le-Fylde St Chad's Church of England Primary School Primary School 874,697 874,296 874,296 873,160 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 02006 3719 St John's Catholic Primary School. Poulton-le-Fylde Primary School 753,490 756,678 756,678 750,302 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02007 3571 Carleton St Hilda's Church of England Primary School Primary School 764,574 767,818 767,818 761,330 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02008 2822 Fleetwood Chaucer Community Primary School Primary School 1,143,688 1,174,038 1,158,863 1,158,863 2.7% 1.3% 1.3%

48 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 02009 3709 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Fleetwood Primary School 665,745 665,217 665,217 665,217 -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 02013 2527 Larkholme Primary School Primary School 1,150,980 1,148,907 1,148,907 1,148,907 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 02014 2404 Fleetwood Charles Saer Community Primary School Primary School 1,369,391 1,405,640 1,387,516 1,387,516 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 02016 2821 Shakespeare Primary School Primary School 1,577,054 1,620,126 1,598,590 1,598,590 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 02017 3711 St Wulstan's & St Edmund's Catholic Primary School & Nursery Primary School 1,092,211 1,089,845 1,089,845 1,089,845 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 02018 2836 Fleetwood Flakefleet Primary School Primary School 1,632,262 1,677,101 1,654,682 1,654,682 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 02019 3126 Preesall Carter's Charity (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School Primary School 717,978 716,071 716,071 716,071 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 02020 3572 Preesall Fleetwood's Charity Church of England Primary School Primary School 571,541 573,829 573,829 569,252 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02022 3568 Pilling St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 456,978 458,698 458,698 455,258 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02023 3718 St William's Catholic Primary School. Pilling Primary School 208,162 208,648 208,648 207,676 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 02024 3554 Great Eccleston Copp Church of England Primary School Primary School 505,564 507,518 507,518 503,609 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02025 3712 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Great Eccleston Primary School 258,278 259,014 259,014 257,542 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 02027 2045 Stalmine Primary School Primary School 384,008 385,348 385,348 382,668 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 02030 2517 Stanah Primary School Primary School 1,431,469 1,441,054 1,441,054 1,441,054 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 02031 2492 Thornton Cleveleys Northfold Community Primary School Primary School 810,799 814,221 814,221 807,377 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02032 3720 Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. Thornton Cleveleys Primary School 812,588 816,071 816,071 809,105 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02033 3125 Thornton Cleveleys Baines Endowed VC Primary School Primary School 777,530 780,765 780,765 774,294 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02035 2047 Thornton Primary School Primary School 501,426 500,094 500,094 500,094 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 02036 2048 Thornton Cleveleys Royles Brook Primary School Primary School 1,069,200 1,084,043 1,083,185 1,083,185 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 02037 3016 Kirkland & Catterall St Helen's Church of England Primary School Primary School 564,699 566,946 566,946 562,451 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02038 2030 Nateby Primary School Primary School 383,680 385,023 385,023 382,337 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02039 2016 Forton Primary School Primary School 372,505 373,786 373,786 371,224 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 02040 3548 St Michael's-on-Wyre Church of England Primary School Primary School 479,907 481,737 481,737 478,077 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02041 3517 Bleasdale Church of England Primary School Primary School 196,088 196,515 196,515 195,662 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 02042 3704 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Claughton-on-Brock Primary School 228,432 229,020 229,020 227,845 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 02043 3516 Bilsborrow John Cross Church of England Primary School Primary School 311,574 312,574 312,574 310,574 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 02044 3515 Calder Vale St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 215,211 215,733 215,733 214,689 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 02045 3529 Inskip St Peter's Church of England School Primary School 321,365 322,413 322,413 320,316 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 02046 3526 Garstang St Thomas' Church of England Primary School Primary School 693,014 695,899 695,899 690,129 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02047 3550 Winmarleigh Church of England Primary School Primary School 257,139 257,870 257,870 256,408 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 02048 3668 Scorton Church of England Primary School Primary School 337,934 339,065 339,065 336,802 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 02049 2530 Garstang Community Primary School Primary School 751,766 754,888 754,888 748,644 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02050 3702 SS Mary and Michael Catholic Primary School. Garstang Primary School 675,608 678,413 678,413 672,804 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 02051 3075 Staining Church of England Primary School Primary School 872,783 892,062 884,021 884,021 2.2% 1.3% 1.3% 02052 2826 Thornton Cleveleys Manor Beach Primary School Primary School 1,006,414 1,032,727 1,019,571 1,019,571 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 02501 2040 Hambleton Primary Academy Primary Academy 780,425 783,745 783,745 777,106 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04029 3575 Weeton St Michael's Church of England Primary School Primary School 288,124 289,009 289,009 287,240 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 04030 3573 Ribby with Wrea Endowed Church of England Primary School Primary School 612,376 614,869 614,869 609,882 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04031 3552 Bryning with Warton St Paul's Church of England Primary School Primary School 472,922 474,716 474,716 471,127 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04032 3553 Freckleton Church of England Primary School Primary School 739,557 742,671 742,671 736,443 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04033 3574 Singleton Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 465,290 467,046 467,046 463,535 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04034 5200 Newton Bluecoat Church of England Primary School Primary School 747,675 750,830 750,830 744,521 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04035 3616 Holy Family Catholic Primary School. Warton Primary School 534,958 537,062 537,062 532,855 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

49 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 04036 2446 Freckleton Strike Lane Primary School Primary School 784,886 788,200 788,200 781,571 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04037 3557 Kirkham St Michael's Church of England Primary School Primary School 623,189 625,725 625,725 620,653 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04038 3713 The Willows Catholic Primary School. Kirkham Primary School 746,313 749,469 749,469 743,157 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04039 2041 Kirkham and Wesham Primary School Primary School 794,140 797,483 797,483 790,796 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04040 3717 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Medlar-with-Wesham Primary School 491,879 493,775 493,775 489,984 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04041 3565 Medlar-with-Wesham Church of England Primary School Primary School 674,208 676,838 676,838 671,577 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04042 3976 Treales Church of England Primary School Primary School 315,120 316,138 316,138 314,103 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 04043 2406 Weeton Primary School Primary School 942,127 946,244 946,244 938,010 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04044 2426 Lytham St Annes Mayfield Primary School Primary School 1,308,325 1,330,821 1,325,971 1,325,971 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 04045 2497 Clifton Primary School Primary School 956,851 954,547 954,547 954,547 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 04046 2042 Lytham St Anne's Ansdell Primary School Primary School 867,465 871,162 871,162 863,768 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04047 3814 Heyhouses Endowed Church of England Primary School Primary School 2,071,892 2,178,708 2,178,708 2,178,708 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 04048 3715 Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School.Lytham St Annes Primary School 767,302 770,556 770,556 764,049 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04049 3562 Lytham Church of England Primary School Primary School 836,532 840,128 840,128 834,810 0.4% 0.4% -0.2% 04050 3716 St Peter's Catholic Primary School. Lytham Primary School 780,335 783,656 783,656 777,015 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04051 3564 St Annes on Sea St Thomas' Church of England Primary School Primary School 756,761 759,962 759,962 753,561 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 04052 2615 Lytham Hall Park Primary School Primary School 1,414,820 1,467,785 1,467,785 1,467,785 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 06001 3638 The Blessed Sacrament Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 1,552,897 1,596,027 1,574,462 1,574,462 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 06002 2185 Brookfield Community Primary School Primary School 777,541 783,055 783,055 783,055 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 06005 2188 Eldon Primary School Primary School 873,993 877,728 877,728 870,258 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06007 3639 English Martyrs Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 849,427 871,490 860,459 860,459 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 06008 2189 Brockholes Wood Community Primary School Primary School 935,021 953,387 947,177 947,177 2.0% 1.3% 1.3% 06009 2190 Frenchwood Community Primary School Primary School 1,254,661 1,288,421 1,271,541 1,271,541 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 06010 2191 Preston Grange Primary School Primary School 848,037 869,825 858,931 858,931 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 06011 2192 Preston Greenlands Community Primary School Primary School 892,677 896,486 896,486 888,867 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06012 2193 Holme Slack Community Primary School Primary School 879,257 901,921 890,589 890,589 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 06013 3653 Holy Family Catholic Primary School. Ingol. Preston Primary School 675,752 678,552 678,552 672,952 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06014 2200 Ingol Community Primary School Primary School 652,732 660,793 660,689 660,689 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 06016 2196 Moor Nook Community Primary School Primary School 1,036,897 1,041,421 1,041,421 1,032,373 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06019 2195 Ribbleton Avenue Infant School Primary School 943,023 947,085 947,085 938,961 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06020 3001 Ribbleton Avenue Methodist Junior School Primary School 1,108,042 1,137,615 1,122,829 1,122,829 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 06021 2197 The Roebuck School Primary School 1,251,126 1,284,535 1,267,830 1,267,830 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 06022 3642 Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 815,309 820,938 820,938 820,938 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 06023 3634 Ashton-on-Ribble St Andrew's Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,481,553 1,478,596 1,478,596 1,478,596 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 06024 3643 St Augustine's Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 1,053,914 1,082,161 1,068,037 1,068,037 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 06025 3352 St Bernard's Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 853,580 851,465 851,465 851,465 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 06026 3646 St Gregory's Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 862,540 885,044 873,792 873,792 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 06027 3647 St Ignatius Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 820,288 823,811 823,811 816,765 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06028 3322 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 1,182,881 1,214,936 1,198,909 1,198,909 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 06029 3645 St Maria Goretti Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 858,823 881,202 870,013 870,013 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 06030 3636 Preston St Matthew's Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,611,944 1,656,901 1,634,422 1,634,422 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 06031 3009 Preston St Stephen's Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,057,322 1,084,847 1,071,085 1,071,085 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 06033 2198 Ashton Primary School Primary School 888,348 892,146 892,146 884,550 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

50 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 06035 2704 Preston Fishwick Primary School Primary School 838,518 842,118 842,118 834,918 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06036 3954 St Teresa's Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 843,067 846,694 846,694 839,440 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06037 2054 Lea Community Primary School Primary School 855,712 859,584 859,584 859,584 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 06038 3582 Lea Endowed Church of England School Primary School 588,676 591,047 591,047 586,305 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06039 3726 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Lea Town Primary School 461,895 463,634 463,634 460,156 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06040 2062 Catforth Primary School Primary School 374,954 376,239 376,239 373,669 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 06041 2818 Sherwood Primary School Primary School 1,477,358 1,506,087 1,506,087 1,506,087 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 06042 2838 Cottam Primary School Primary School 814,342 812,556 812,556 812,556 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 06043 3597 Woodplumpton St Anne's Church of England Primary School Primary School 468,429 470,205 470,205 466,654 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06044 3578 Broughton-in-Amounderness Church of England Primary School Primary School 884,029 887,861 887,861 880,228 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06046 3577 Barton St Lawrence Church of England Primary School Primary School 641,947 644,581 644,581 639,313 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06047 3339 St Mary and St Andrew's Catholic Primary School. Barton Newsham Primary School 506,525 508,487 508,487 504,563 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06048 3579 Goosnargh Oliverson's Church of England Primary School Primary School 646,343 648,998 648,998 643,688 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06049 3725 St Francis' Catholic Primary School. Goosnargh Primary School 374,614 375,922 375,922 373,305 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 06050 2053 Goosnargh Whitechapel Primary School Primary School 434,225 435,679 435,679 432,771 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 06051 3580 Grimsargh St Michael's Church of England Primary School Primary School 765,819 769,050 769,050 762,589 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06052 3601 Our Lady and St Edward's Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 771,977 775,255 775,255 768,698 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06053 3949 St Anthony's Catholic Primary School. Fulwood. Preston Primary School 1,137,647 1,135,432 1,135,432 1,135,432 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 06054 3611 St Clare's Catholic Primary School. Preston Primary School 899,908 903,822 903,822 895,993 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06055 2052 Kennington Primary School Primary School 963,655 977,382 976,220 976,220 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 06056 3301 Fulwood St Peter's Church of England Primary School and Nursery Primary School 768,652 771,911 771,911 765,393 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06057 2050 Fulwood and Cadley Primary School Primary School 1,163,755 1,162,740 1,162,740 1,162,740 -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 06058 2051 Harris Primary School Primary School 810,970 814,362 814,362 807,578 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06060 2509 Queen's Drive Primary School Primary School 1,559,251 1,580,214 1,580,214 1,580,214 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 06062 2703 Pool House Community Primary School Primary School 671,613 674,360 674,360 668,865 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06064 3129 Brabin's Endowed School Primary School 367,384 368,638 368,638 366,130 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 06065 3743 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Chipping Primary School 260,204 260,949 260,949 259,459 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 06066 3727 Alston Lane Catholic Primary School. Longridge Primary School 729,252 727,847 727,847 727,847 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 06067 3583 Longridge Church of England Primary School Primary School 704,339 707,283 707,283 702,129 0.4% 0.4% -0.3% 06068 5203 Barnacre Road Primary School. Longridge Primary School 660,526 676,937 668,732 668,732 2.5% 1.2% 1.2% 06069 3728 St Wilfrid's Roman Catholic Primary School. Longridge Primary School 706,357 709,291 709,291 703,422 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06070 3589 Ribchester St Wilfrid's Church of England Primary School Primary School 403,356 404,697 404,697 402,489 0.3% 0.3% -0.2% 06071 2833 Longsands Community Primary School Primary School 800,265 801,105 801,105 798,193 0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 06604 2187 Deepdale Community Primary School Primary School 2,300,575 2,353,452 2,332,923 2,332,923 2.3% 1.4% 1.4% 07001 2842 Cuerden Church School Primary School 743,720 745,496 745,496 745,496 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 07004 3736 Our Lady and St Gerard's RC Primary School. Lostock Hall Primary School 1,094,070 1,113,459 1,108,759 1,108,759 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 07005 3127 Higher Walton Church of England Primary School Primary School 475,239 476,983 476,983 473,495 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07006 3738 St Patrick's Roman Catholic Primary School. Walton-le-Dale Primary School 748,341 751,505 751,505 745,177 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07007 3085 Bamber Bridge St Aidan's Church of England Primary School Primary School 628,299 630,817 630,817 625,780 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07008 3596 Walton-le-Dale. St Leonard's Church of England Primary School Primary School 993,592 997,200 997,200 993,592 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 07009 2060 Lostock Hall Community Primary School Primary School 1,445,516 1,460,884 1,460,884 1,460,884 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 07012 2437 Walton-le-Dale Primary School Primary School 1,454,322 1,480,355 1,480,355 1,480,355 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 07013 2637 Coupe Green Primary School Primary School 543,495 545,617 545,617 541,372 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

51 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 07014 3981 St Mary and St Benedict's RC Primary School. Bamber Bridge Primary School 1,081,103 1,088,150 1,088,150 1,088,150 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 07015 3025 Leyland St Andrew's Church of England Infant School Primary School 762,783 760,687 760,687 760,687 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 07016 3141 Leyland Methodist Junior School Primary School 971,702 975,918 975,918 967,486 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07017 3411 Leyland St James Church of England Primary School Primary School 900,626 909,878 909,878 909,878 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 07018 3793 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Leyland Primary School 1,090,127 1,119,407 1,104,767 1,104,767 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 07019 2150 Woodlea Junior School Primary School 900,403 923,586 911,995 911,995 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 07020 2554 Lever House Primary School Primary School 1,012,360 1,012,360 1,012,360 1,012,360 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 07021 3608 St Catherine's Catholic Primary School. Leyland Primary School 802,136 805,563 805,563 798,709 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07022 3600 St Anne's Catholic Primary School. Leyland Primary School 830,172 849,160 840,918 840,918 2.3% 1.3% 1.3% 07024 2837 Northbrook Primary School Primary School 775,462 773,026 773,026 773,026 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 07025 2427 Seven Stars Primary School Primary School 869,484 873,196 873,196 865,771 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07026 2814 Moss Side Primary School Primary School 1,007,342 1,015,353 1,015,353 1,015,353 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 07028 3666 Farington Moss St Paul's Church of England Primary School Primary School 704,465 702,646 702,646 702,646 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 07029 2049 Farington Primary School Primary School 775,355 776,747 776,747 773,613 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 07030 2830 Longton Primary School Primary School 783,163 786,408 786,408 779,919 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07032 3729 St Oswald's Catholic Primary School. Longton Primary School 843,421 847,056 847,056 839,787 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07033 3585 New Longton All Saints' Church of England Primary School Primary School 762,309 765,544 765,544 759,075 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07036 3586 Hoole St Michael Church of England Primary School Primary School 477,177 478,998 478,998 475,356 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07037 2055 Little Hoole Primary School Primary School 773,658 776,891 776,891 770,425 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07039 3018 Cop Lane Church of England Primary School. Penwortham Primary School 779,165 782,478 782,478 775,852 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07040 3089 Penwortham Middleforth Church of England Primary School Primary School 807,446 810,841 810,841 804,051 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07041 3019 Howick Church of England Primary School Primary School 467,192 468,937 468,937 465,448 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07042 3730 St Mary Magdalen's Catholic Primary School Primary School 772,703 775,986 775,986 770,417 0.4% 0.4% -0.3% 07043 2058 Penwortham Primary School Primary School 784,394 787,676 787,676 781,113 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07044 2514 Whitefield Primary School Primary School 1,392,472 1,408,136 1,408,136 1,408,136 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 07045 3953 St Teresa's Catholic Primary School. Penwortham Primary School 987,395 987,395 987,395 987,395 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 07046 2405 Kingsfold Primary School Primary School 648,746 651,378 651,378 646,113 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 07047 2815 Penwortham Broad Oak Primary School Primary School 811,012 809,167 809,167 809,167 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 07051 3590 Samlesbury Church of England School Primary School 352,245 353,445 353,445 351,045 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 07616 3143 Leyland Methodist Infant School Primary School 795,349 798,678 798,678 792,021 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08001 3078 Burscough Bridge St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 681,685 684,464 684,464 678,906 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08002 3146 Burscough Bridge Methodist Voluntary Controlled Primary School Primary School 344,872 346,029 346,029 343,715 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08003 3800 St John's Catholic Primary School. Burscough Primary School 462,093 463,836 463,836 460,350 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08004 3029 Ormskirk Lathom Park Church of England Primary School Primary School 277,783 278,608 278,608 276,959 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08005 3426 Newburgh Church of England Primary School Primary School 530,499 532,582 532,582 528,417 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08006 3080 Westhead Lathom St James' Church of England Primary School Primary School 442,782 444,414 444,414 441,150 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08007 3424 Burscough Lordsgate Township Church of England Primary School Primary School 772,982 776,269 776,269 769,695 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08009 2597 Ormskirk Asmall Primary School Primary School 642,811 645,418 645,418 640,204 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08011 3031 Ormskirk Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,317,707 1,314,784 1,314,784 1,314,784 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 08012 3801 Ormskirk St Anne's Catholic Primary School Primary School 1,374,173 1,428,802 1,428,802 1,428,802 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 08014 2415 Ormskirk West End Primary School Primary School 495,414 497,289 497,289 493,538 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08016 2695 Burscough Village Primary School Primary School 776,044 779,258 779,258 772,830 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08018 3087 Bickerstaffe Voluntary Controlled Church of England School Primary School 375,922 377,240 377,240 374,605 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

52 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 08019 2443 Aughton Town Green Primary School Primary School 1,101,185 1,106,480 1,106,480 1,106,480 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 08020 3026 Aughton Christ Church CofE Voluntary Controlled Primary School Primary School 786,274 789,571 789,571 782,976 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08021 3108 Aughton St Michael's Church of England Primary School Primary School 744,869 747,974 747,974 741,764 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08022 5206 Rufford Church of England Primary School Primary School 544,233 546,381 546,381 542,084 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08023 3147 Holmeswood Methodist School Primary School 262,268 263,012 263,012 261,524 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08024 3185 Richard Durnings Endowed Primary School Bispham Primary School 378,392 379,698 379,698 377,085 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08025 3419 Downholland - Haskayne Voluntary Aided CofE Primary School Primary School 287,149 288,029 288,029 286,270 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08026 3420 Halsall St Cuthbert's Church of England Primary School Primary School 598,156 600,574 600,574 595,738 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08027 3191 Scarisbrick St Mark's Church of England Primary School Primary School 358,444 359,656 359,656 357,232 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08028 3803 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Scarisbrick Primary School 492,125 494,014 494,014 490,237 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08029 2156 Pinfold Primary School. Scarisbrick Primary School 295,012 295,925 295,925 294,099 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08031 3804 St Richard's Catholic Primary School. Skelmersdale Primary School 834,600 838,187 838,187 831,013 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08033 2656 Holland Moor Primary School Primary School 1,900,261 1,909,019 1,909,019 1,891,503 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 08034 2696 Cobbs Brow School Primary School 1,147,579 1,148,239 1,148,239 1,148,239 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 08036 3614 St James' Catholic Primary School. Skelmersdale Primary School 613,149 611,767 611,767 611,767 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 08038 3179 Skelmersdale Trinity Church of England/Methodist Primary School Primary School 835,044 841,319 841,319 841,319 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 08040 2705 Skelmersdale Crow Orchard Primary School Primary School 652,337 650,996 650,996 650,996 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 08503 2551 Moorside Academy Primary Academy 894,443 917,887 906,165 906,165 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 08043 2525 Little Digmoor Primary School Primary School 513,892 515,820 515,820 511,964 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08045 3677 Bishop Martin Church of England Primary School Primary School 893,186 916,572 904,879 904,879 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 08046 2526 Hillside Community Primary School Primary School 887,532 910,425 898,978 898,978 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 08050 3618 St Edmund's Catholic Primary School. Skelmersdale Primary School 504,773 512,404 510,661 510,661 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 08051 3610 St John's Catholic Primary School. Skelmersdale Primary School 936,387 940,473 940,473 932,300 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08054 2552 Delph Side Community Primary School Primary School 804,148 807,537 807,537 800,760 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08060 3833 St Teresa's Catholic Primary School. Up Holland Primary School 743,083 741,994 741,994 741,994 -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 08061 3459 Up Holland Roby Mill CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 245,800 246,473 246,473 245,126 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08062 3457 St Thomas the Martyr Church of England Primary School Primary School 710,886 713,861 713,861 707,910 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08063 2183 Crawford Village Primary School Primary School 333,648 334,750 334,750 332,546 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08064 2184 Wrightington Mossy Lea Primary School Primary School 233,165 233,734 233,734 232,596 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 08066 3461 Appley Bridge All Saints Church of England Primary School Primary School 646,692 649,348 649,348 644,036 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08067 3834 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Wrightington Primary School 543,070 545,213 545,213 540,928 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08069 3831 Our Lady and All Saints Catholic Primary School Primary School 454,559 456,263 456,263 452,855 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08070 3448 Dalton St Michael's Church of England Primary School Primary School 334,611 335,721 335,721 333,502 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08071 2059 Tarleton Community Primary School Primary School 999,696 1,004,008 1,004,008 995,384 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08072 3592 Tarleton Mere Brow Church of England Primary School Primary School 365,788 367,057 367,057 364,520 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08073 3591 Tarleton Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School Primary School 671,408 671,968 671,968 669,848 0.1% 0.1% -0.2% 08074 3581 Hesketh with Becconsall All Saints CofE Primary School Primary School 750,643 753,815 753,815 747,471 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08076 3169 Banks Methodist Primary School Primary School 291,628 292,522 292,522 290,735 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 08077 3098 Banks St Stephen's Church of England Primary School Primary School 639,173 639,314 639,314 637,963 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 08078 3995 Brookfield Park Primary School Primary School 778,186 781,446 781,446 774,926 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08079 3996 Woodland Community Primary School Primary School 1,509,629 1,550,912 1,530,270 1,530,270 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 08080 3998 St Francis of Assisi School Primary School 1,103,441 1,108,344 1,108,344 1,098,538 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 08501 3451 Parbold Douglas Church of England Academy Primary Academy 751,398 754,571 754,571 748,225 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

53 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 09001 3389 Chorley All Saints' CofE Primary School and Nursery Unit Primary School 979,256 983,566 983,566 974,945 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09002 2835 Duke Street Primary School Primary School 1,251,604 1,272,817 1,268,455 1,268,455 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 09003 2145 Highfield Primary School Primary School 1,123,290 1,153,225 1,138,257 1,138,257 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 09005 3390 Chorley. The Parish of St Laurence CofE Primary School Primary School 778,545 781,860 781,860 775,230 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09006 3783 Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. Chorley Primary School 767,861 771,120 771,120 764,602 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09007 3393 St George's Church of England Primary School. Chorley Primary School 947,818 951,974 951,974 943,661 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09008 3397 Chorley St James' Church of England Primary School Primary School 829,240 827,540 827,540 827,540 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 09009 3785 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Chorley Primary School 835,123 837,294 837,294 837,294 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 09010 2679 Gillibrand Primary School Primary School 829,104 831,426 831,426 827,373 0.3% 0.3% -0.2% 09011 3786 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Chorley Primary School 773,213 776,493 776,493 769,932 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09012 5201 Chorley St Peter's Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,252,196 1,286,352 1,269,274 1,269,274 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 09014 3789 St Gregory's Catholic Primary School. Chorley Primary School 829,402 828,776 828,776 827,485 -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% 09015 2146 Buckshaw Primary School Primary School 844,916 844,243 844,243 844,243 -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 09019 3481 Rivington Foundation Primary School Primary School 475,395 477,210 477,210 473,580 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09021 3384 Adlington St Paul's Church of England Primary School Primary School 716,840 722,158 722,158 722,158 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 09022 2698 Adlington Primary School Primary School 544,454 546,593 546,593 542,314 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09023 3796 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Withnell Primary School 434,023 435,633 435,633 432,414 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09024 2684 Lancaster Lane Community Primary School Primary School 807,104 810,504 810,504 803,703 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09025 2636 Clayton-le-Woods Manor Road Primary School Primary School 897,728 901,549 901,549 893,907 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09026 2817 Clayton-le-Woods Westwood Primary School Primary School 743,795 746,858 746,858 741,223 0.4% 0.4% -0.3% 09027 3781 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Anderton Primary School 738,520 741,632 741,632 735,409 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09028 2140 Anderton Primary School Primary School 767,354 770,570 770,570 764,139 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09029 3386 Bretherton Endowed CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 475,374 477,180 477,180 473,568 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09030 3387 Brindle St James' Church of England Primary School Primary School 358,890 360,120 360,120 357,659 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 09031 2142 Brindle Gregson Lane Primary School Primary School 722,716 725,649 725,649 719,783 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09032 3782 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Brindle Primary School 441,663 443,306 443,306 440,020 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09033 3388 Christ Church Charnock Richard Church of England Primary School Primary School 712,312 715,297 715,297 709,327 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09034 3790 St Bede's Roman Catholic Primary School. Clayton Green Primary School 757,533 760,734 760,734 755,723 0.4% 0.4% -0.2% 09035 3401 Clayton-le-Woods Church of England Primary School Primary School 757,361 757,963 757,963 755,361 0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 09036 3402 Coppull St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 507,456 509,423 509,423 505,488 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09037 3403 Coppull Parish Church of England Primary School Primary School 744,495 747,635 747,635 741,356 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09038 3791 St Oswald's Catholic Primary School. Coppull Primary School 556,282 558,488 558,488 554,075 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09039 2147 Coppull Primary School and Nursery Primary School 1,011,734 1,037,179 1,024,457 1,024,457 2.5% 1.3% 1.3% 09040 3343 Croston Trinity and St Michael's CofE / Methodist Primary School Primary School 776,205 779,503 779,503 772,908 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09042 3406 Eccleston St Mary's Church of England Primary School Primary School 753,380 756,566 756,566 750,194 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09043 3407 Euxton Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 763,024 766,260 766,260 759,788 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09044 3792 Euxton St Mary's Catholic Primary School Primary School 750,277 749,011 749,011 749,011 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 09045 2572 Euxton Primrose Hill Primary School Primary School 1,090,603 1,090,603 1,090,603 1,090,603 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 09046 3409 Heskin Pemberton's Church of England Primary School Primary School 479,131 480,959 480,959 477,303 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09048 3412 Mawdesley St Peter's Church of England Primary School Primary School 431,331 432,922 432,922 429,739 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09049 3794 SS Peter and Paul Catholic Primary School. Mawdesley Primary School 298,158 299,089 299,089 297,227 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 09050 2577 Balshaw Lane Community Primary School Primary School 1,010,874 1,015,273 1,015,273 1,007,300 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09052 2574 Eccleston Primary School Primary School 739,615 742,689 742,689 736,541 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

54 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 09053 2702 Clayton Brook Primary School Primary School 771,567 777,204 777,204 777,204 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 09054 3795 St Chad's Catholic Primary School Primary School 566,670 568,928 568,928 564,412 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09055 3414 Whittle-le-Woods Church of England Primary School Primary School 873,955 877,745 877,745 870,165 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09060 3997 Brinscall St John's Church of England/Methodist Primary School Primary School 757,838 761,047 761,047 754,629 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09062 2565 Abbey Village Primary School Primary School 412,209 413,615 413,615 410,804 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 09063 2564 Withnell Fold Primary School Primary School 441,628 443,256 443,256 440,000 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 09064 5207 Trinity Church of England/Methodist Primary School Primary School 1,788,524 1,844,537 1,844,537 1,844,537 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 11001 3334 Baxenden St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 751,545 754,724 754,724 748,366 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11002 3336 Accrington Benjamin Hargreaves CofE Primary School Primary School 707,817 706,148 706,148 706,148 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 11003 3337 Accrington Green Haworth Church of England Primary School Primary School 428,299 429,879 429,879 426,720 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11004 2096 Accrington Huncoat Primary School Primary School 798,475 805,562 805,562 805,562 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 11005 2097 Accrington Hyndburn Park Primary School Primary School 1,905,825 1,903,868 1,903,868 1,899,495 -0.1% -0.1% -0.3% 11006 2099 Accrington Peel Park Primary School Primary School 2,232,026 2,295,497 2,263,761 2,263,761 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 11008 3762 Accrington St Anne's and St Joseph's RC Primary School Primary School 1,066,848 1,095,431 1,081,139 1,081,139 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 11010 3340 Accrington St John with St Augustine CofE Primary School Primary School 866,518 889,153 877,836 877,836 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 11011 3342 Accrington St Mary Magdalen's Church of England Primary School Primary School 891,388 894,064 894,064 889,527 0.3% 0.3% -0.2% 11012 3763 St Oswald's Roman Catholic Primary School. Accrington Primary School 655,067 653,569 653,569 653,569 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 11013 3105 Accrington St Peter's Church of England Primary School Primary School 837,214 837,115 837,115 835,658 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 11014 2101 Accrington Spring Hill Primary School Primary School 1,814,645 1,846,891 1,839,616 1,839,616 1.8% 1.4% 1.4% 11015 2820 Accrington Woodnook Primary School Primary School 889,645 912,661 901,153 901,153 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 11018 3134 Oswaldtwistle Hippings Methodist Primary School Primary School 825,548 828,971 828,971 822,124 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11020 3195 Oswaldtwistle St Andrew's Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,151,988 1,175,136 1,167,415 1,167,415 2.0% 1.3% 1.3% 11021 3353 Knuzden St Oswald's Church of England Primary School Primary School 805,319 817,878 815,724 815,724 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 11023 3766 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Oswaldtwistle Primary School 1,011,930 1,010,086 1,010,086 1,010,086 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 11024 2108 Oswaldtwistle West End Primary School Primary School 786,838 790,147 790,147 783,529 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11025 2107 Oswaldtwistle Moor End Community Primary School Primary School 783,636 781,996 781,996 781,996 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 11026 3355 Oswaldtwistle St Paul's Church of England Primary School Primary School 707,860 710,828 710,828 704,892 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11029 2105 Clayton-le-Moors Mount Pleasant Primary School Primary School 1,509,904 1,551,312 1,530,608 1,530,608 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 11030 3765 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Clayton-le-Moors Primary School 541,890 540,731 540,731 540,731 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 11031 3347 Church. St Nicholas Church of England Primary School Primary School 834,803 856,466 845,634 845,634 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 11033 3764 Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School. Church Primary School 893,522 904,280 904,280 904,280 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 11036 3599 Altham St James Church of England Primary School Primary School 352,967 354,172 354,172 351,761 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 11038 3307 Great Harwood St Bartholomew's Parish CofE VA Primary School Primary School 775,191 777,249 777,249 773,607 0.3% 0.3% -0.2% 11039 3308 Great Harwood St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 697,943 696,463 696,463 696,463 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 11040 3746 St Hubert's Roman Catholic Primary School. Great Harwood Primary School 634,746 637,349 637,349 632,143 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11041 3747 St Wulstan's Roman Catholic Primary School. Great Harwood Primary School 701,116 704,047 704,047 698,911 0.4% 0.4% -0.3% 11042 2067 Great Harwood Primary School Primary School 698,998 697,589 697,589 697,589 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 11045 3130 Rishton Methodist School Primary School 747,695 746,520 746,520 746,520 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 11046 3316 Rishton St Peter's and St Paul's CofE Primary School Primary School 752,660 755,840 755,840 749,479 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11047 3752 St Charles' Roman Catholic Primary School. Rishton Primary School 762,870 777,398 772,625 772,625 1.9% 1.3% 1.3% 11048 3741 St Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School. Hurst Green Primary School 374,447 375,634 375,634 373,260 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 11050 3302 Langho and Billington St Leonard's CofE Primary School Primary School 985,685 985,685 985,685 985,685 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11051 3742 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Langho Primary School 883,489 887,323 887,323 879,655 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

55 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 11052 3809 Bolton by Bowland CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 290,688 291,461 291,461 289,915 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 11053 3810 Thorneyholme Roman Catholic Primary School. Dunsop Bridge Primary School 259,808 260,426 260,426 259,190 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 11054 3303 Chatburn Church of England School Primary School 490,968 492,855 492,855 489,081 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11055 2651 Clitheroe Brookside Primary School Primary School 725,690 728,672 728,672 722,708 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11056 2391 Clitheroe Edisford Primary School Primary School 821,187 824,631 824,631 817,744 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11057 2064 Clitheroe Pendle Primary School Primary School 1,212,625 1,222,840 1,222,840 1,222,840 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 11058 3304 St James' Church of England Primary School. Clitheroe Primary School 1,098,286 1,112,814 1,112,814 1,112,814 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 11059 3744 St Michael and St John's RC Primary School. Clitheroe Primary School 653,988 656,683 656,683 651,293 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11060 3319 Simonstone St Peter's Church of England Primary School Primary School 509,989 511,971 511,971 508,007 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11061 2266 Gisburn Primary School Primary School 553,612 555,754 555,754 551,469 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11063 3807 Grindleton Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 285,229 286,098 286,098 284,360 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 11064 3111 Read St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 748,065 751,181 751,181 744,949 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11065 2073 Sabden Primary School Primary School 375,631 376,913 376,913 374,349 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 11066 3753 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Sabden Primary School 385,865 387,226 387,226 384,504 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11067 3408 Brennand's Endowed Primary School. Slaidburn Primary School 292,045 292,823 292,823 291,266 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 11068 3808 Waddington and West Bradford CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 605,123 607,579 607,579 602,667 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11069 3321 Whalley Church of England Primary School Primary School 957,870 962,069 962,069 953,671 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11070 3131 Barrow Primary School Primary School 570,791 573,006 573,006 568,576 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11071 3300 Balderstone St Leonard's Church of England Primary School Primary School 449,573 451,255 451,255 447,891 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11072 3312 Mellor St Mary Church of England Primary School Primary School 561,599 563,833 563,833 559,365 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11073 3748 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Osbaldeston Primary School 376,996 378,317 378,317 375,675 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11074 5202 Salesbury Church of England Primary School Primary School 973,666 973,666 973,666 973,666 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11504 5205 Belthorn Academy Primary Academy 725,396 728,446 728,446 722,345 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 11506 3348 Clayton-le-Moors All Saints Primary School Primary Academy 981,573 984,118 984,118 984,118 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 12001 2076 Briercliffe Primary School Primary School 1,170,572 1,173,837 1,173,837 1,173,837 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 12002 2095 Worsthorne Primary School Primary School 784,770 783,335 783,335 783,335 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 12003 3324 St John's Church of England Primary School. Cliviger Primary School 800,000 803,252 803,252 796,748 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 12005 3021 Padiham Green Church of England Primary School Primary School 906,488 929,681 918,085 918,085 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 12006 2071 Padiham Primary School Primary School 1,220,808 1,253,126 1,236,967 1,236,967 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 12007 3749 St John the Baptist Roman Catholic Primary School. Padiham Primary School 855,761 853,915 853,915 853,915 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 12008 3313 Padiham St Leonard's Voluntary Aided CofE Primary School Primary School 1,096,638 1,113,958 1,111,357 1,111,357 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 12011 3181 Hapton Church of England/Methodist Primary School Primary School 596,608 598,999 598,999 594,216 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 12012 2228 Barden Primary School Primary School 2,076,269 2,085,029 2,085,029 2,067,508 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 12013 2164 Burnley Brunshaw Primary School Primary School 1,664,802 1,703,260 1,687,651 1,687,651 2.3% 1.4% 1.4% 12015 3434 Christ The King Roman Catholic Primary School. Burnley Primary School 835,478 843,650 843,650 843,650 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 12020 2230 Burnley Heasandford Primary School Primary School 2,478,457 2,548,623 2,513,540 2,513,540 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 12021 3431 Burnley Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School Primary School 917,839 941,956 929,897 929,897 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 12022 2237 Burnley Ightenhill Primary School Primary School 1,389,272 1,427,207 1,408,240 1,408,240 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 12023 2162 Burnley Lowerhouse Junior School Primary School 854,946 869,893 865,941 865,941 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 12025 2226 Rosegrove Infant School Primary School 713,109 711,650 711,650 711,650 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 12028 3438 St Augustine of Canterbury RC Primary School. Burnley Primary School 847,347 845,716 845,716 845,716 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 12029 3433 Burnley St James' Lanehead Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,052,320 1,070,506 1,066,400 1,066,400 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 12031 3980 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Burnley Primary School 880,852 891,263 891,263 891,263 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

56 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 12032 3435 St Mary Magdalene's Roman Catholic Primary School. Burnley Primary School 788,639 787,339 787,339 787,339 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 12033 3430 Burnley St Peter's Church of England Primary School Primary School 958,752 964,056 964,056 964,056 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 12034 3432 Burnley St Stephen's Church of England Primary School Primary School 894,646 918,121 906,384 906,384 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 12035 2224 Burnley Stoneyholme Community Primary School Primary School 2,060,444 2,069,963 2,069,963 2,050,926 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 12037 2235 Burnley Whittlefield Primary School Primary School 869,518 891,796 880,657 880,657 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 12505 2006 Casterton Primary Academy Primary Academy 1,151,900 1,182,014 1,167,257 1,167,257 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 12040 3440 Wellfield Methodist and Anglican Church School Primary School 766,136 781,836 775,929 775,929 2.0% 1.3% 1.3% 12041 2839 Rosewood Primary School Primary School 1,598,515 1,629,419 1,620,221 1,620,221 1.9% 1.4% 1.4% 12042 2840 Cherry Fold Community Primary School Primary School 1,743,043 1,750,959 1,750,959 1,735,127 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 12043 2841 Burnley Springfield Community Primary School Primary School 1,008,271 1,012,636 1,012,636 1,003,906 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 12044 2015 St John the Baptist Roman Catholic Primary School. Burnley Primary School 1,041,782 1,047,285 1,047,285 1,047,285 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 13001 2087 Bradley Primary School Primary School 1,698,888 1,745,939 1,722,414 1,722,414 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 13503 2001 Great Marsden St John's Church of England Primary School Primary Academy 855,015 853,082 853,082 853,082 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 13004 3757 Holy Saviour Roman Catholic Primary School. Nelson Primary School 864,843 887,407 876,125 876,125 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 13005 3330 Nelson St Philip's Church of England Primary School Primary School 654,695 652,744 652,744 652,744 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 13006 3331 Nelson St Paul's Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,449,965 1,489,849 1,469,907 1,469,907 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 13007 2090 Lomeshaye Junior School Primary School 1,507,081 1,513,925 1,513,925 1,500,237 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 13009 3759 St John Southworth Roman Catholic Primary School. Nelson Primary School 862,797 883,930 874,035 874,035 2.4% 1.3% 1.3% 13010 2092 Nelson Walverden Primary School Primary School 1,677,789 1,724,265 1,701,027 1,701,027 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 13011 2093 Nelson Whitefield Infant School and Nursery Unit Primary School 1,406,831 1,413,084 1,413,084 1,400,578 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13012 2089 Marsden Community Primary School Primary School 1,855,540 1,864,112 1,864,112 1,846,967 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 13504 2002 Castercliff Primary Academy Primary Academy 1,193,897 1,226,338 1,210,118 1,210,118 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 13014 3323 Barrowford St Thomas Church of England Primary School Primary School 508,486 510,456 510,456 506,517 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13016 2074 Barrowford School Primary School 1,460,855 1,500,821 1,480,838 1,480,838 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 13017 3754 Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Primary School. Brierfield Primary School 465,190 466,943 466,943 463,437 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13501 2000 Pendle Primary Academy Primary Academy 1,705,742 1,753,477 1,729,609 1,729,609 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 13019 2075 Blacko Primary School Primary School 455,598 457,303 457,303 453,893 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13506 2005 Newchurch-in-Pendle St Mary's Church of England Primary School Primary Academy 296,366 297,290 297,290 295,441 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 13022 3979 Wheatley Lane Methodist Voluntary Aided Primary School Primary School 776,455 779,759 779,759 773,151 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13023 3094 Roughlee Church of England Primary School Primary School 304,773 305,740 305,740 303,805 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 13024 3107 Higham St John's Church of England Primary School Primary School 588,090 586,556 586,556 586,295 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 13027 3325 Colne Christ Church Church of England Primary School Primary School 722,275 725,313 725,313 719,238 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13028 2079 Laneshaw Bridge Primary School Primary School 806,544 809,878 809,878 803,210 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13029 2080 Lord Street Primary School. Colne Primary School 1,483,403 1,523,964 1,503,683 1,503,683 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 13030 2082 Colne Park Primary School Primary School 1,472,413 1,512,731 1,492,572 1,492,572 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 13031 2083 Colne Primet Primary School Primary School 833,523 835,276 835,276 835,276 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 13032 3755 Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School. Colne Primary School 833,530 837,106 837,106 829,954 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13033 2085 West Street Community Primary School Primary School 975,136 979,389 979,389 970,884 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13034 2094 Trawden Forest Primary School Primary School 768,322 766,154 766,154 766,154 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 13035 3326 Foulridge Saint Michael and All Angels CofE VA Primary School Primary School 784,300 802,874 794,379 794,379 2.4% 1.3% 1.3% 13036 2646 Reedley Primary School Primary School 1,554,707 1,597,153 1,575,930 1,575,930 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 13040 3011 Barnoldswick CofE Voluntary Controlled Primary School Primary School 1,288,670 1,286,392 1,286,392 1,286,392 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 13041 2812 Barnoldswick Coates Lane Primary School Primary School 788,344 791,666 791,666 785,022 0.4% 0.4% -0.4%

57 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 13042 2238 Barnoldswick Gisburn Road Community Primary School Primary School 775,016 772,854 772,854 772,854 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 13044 3805 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Barnoldswick Primary School 559,174 561,398 561,398 556,950 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13046 2214 Kelbrook Primary School Primary School 476,899 478,689 478,689 475,109 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13048 2240 Salterforth Primary School Primary School 483,781 485,613 485,613 481,949 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13049 2215 Earby Springfield Primary School Primary School 711,557 729,015 720,286 720,286 2.5% 1.2% 1.2% 14001 2109 Bacup Britannia Community Primary School Primary School 853,743 857,383 857,383 850,103 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14002 2114 Bacup Thorn Primary School Primary School 1,151,351 1,156,472 1,156,472 1,146,230 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14003 2111 Northern Primary School Primary School 736,537 738,851 738,851 735,034 0.3% 0.3% -0.2% 14005 2113 Sharneyford Primary School Primary School 376,149 377,458 377,458 374,841 0.3% 0.3% -0.3% 14006 3768 St Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School. Stacksteads. Bacup Primary School 608,436 607,257 607,257 607,257 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 14007 3769 Bacup St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School Primary School 739,587 758,411 748,999 748,999 2.5% 1.3% 1.3% 14008 2112 Bacup St Saviour's Community Primary School Primary School 456,400 458,051 458,051 454,748 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14011 3196 Bacup Holy Trinity Stacksteads Church of England Primary School Primary School 1,020,170 1,046,766 1,033,468 1,033,468 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 14015 3022 St Paul's Church of England Primary School. Rawtenstall Primary School 1,035,130 1,034,079 1,034,079 1,034,079 -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 14016 3776 St James-the-Less Roman Catholic Primary School. Rawtenstall Primary School 778,092 781,398 781,398 774,787 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14018 3023 St Mary's Rawtenstall Church of England Primary School Primary School 817,197 817,363 817,363 817,363 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14019 2595 Crawshawbooth Primary School Primary School 1,119,669 1,119,669 1,119,669 1,119,669 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14022 2129 Waterfoot Primary School Primary School 1,191,096 1,221,967 1,206,746 1,206,746 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 14023 3775 St Peter's Roman Catholic Primary School. Newchurch Primary School 630,419 633,001 633,001 627,837 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14024 3113 Newchurch St Nicholas Church of England Primary School Primary School 625,642 628,138 628,138 623,145 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14025 3366 St Anne's Edgeside Church of England Primary School Primary School 633,035 635,459 635,459 630,612 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14026 2409 Balladen Community Primary School Primary School 889,992 891,696 891,696 888,159 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 14027 2128 Water Primary School Primary School 576,031 578,330 578,330 573,732 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14028 3357 Haslingden St James Church of England Primary School Primary School 779,558 782,873 782,873 776,243 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14029 2117 Haslingden Primary School Primary School 1,564,308 1,607,800 1,586,054 1,586,054 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 14030 2687 Broadway Primary School Primary School 799,149 802,521 802,521 795,778 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14031 2118 Helmshore Primary School Primary School 1,426,687 1,467,000 1,467,000 1,467,000 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 14032 3771 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Haslingden Primary School 612,302 610,603 610,603 610,603 -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 14033 3359 St John's Stonefold Church of England Primary School Primary School 554,697 556,902 556,902 552,491 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14034 3615 St Veronica's Roman Catholic Primary School. Helmshore Primary School 705,597 708,544 708,544 702,650 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14038 3099 Edenfield Church of England Primary School Primary School 726,141 729,139 729,139 723,142 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14039 2121 Stubbins Primary School Primary School 766,336 769,538 769,538 763,133 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14040 3058 St Bartholomew's Church of England Primary School Primary School 730,399 728,848 728,848 728,848 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 14042 2272 Whitworth Tonacliffe Primary School Primary School 1,134,850 1,139,839 1,139,839 1,129,862 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14044 3889 Our Lady & St Anselm's Roman Catholic Primary School. Whitworth Primary School 719,951 722,978 722,978 716,925 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 14045 3811 St John with St Michael CofE Primary School. Shawforth Primary School 501,989 503,926 503,926 500,051 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 06503 2004 Oilve School Primary Free 1,053,137 1,053,137 1,053,137 1,053,137 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 01504 4022 Bay Leadership Academy Secondary Academy 3,804,332 3,804,332 3,804,332 3,804,332 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 01109 4302 Morecambe Community High School Secondary School 6,243,414 6,273,266 6,273,266 6,236,446 0.5% 0.5% -0.1% 01505 4167 Carnforth High School Secondary School 3,018,146 3,018,146 3,018,146 3,018,146 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 01112 4717 Our Lady's Catholic College. Lancaster Secondary School 3,423,319 3,430,944 3,430,944 3,423,319 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 01113 4405 Lancaster Central Lancaster High School Secondary School 3,231,484 3,231,484 3,231,484 3,231,484 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 01501 5402 Lancaster Girls' Grammar School Secondary Academy 2,923,515 3,046,903 3,046,903 3,046,903 4.2% 4.2% 4.2%

58 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 01502 5401 Lancaster Royal Grammar School Secondary Academy 3,456,854 3,602,504 3,602,504 3,602,504 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 01503 4689 Ripley St Thomas CE Academy Secondary Academy 6,257,742 6,430,575 6,430,575 6,430,575 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 02101 4011 Millfield Science and Performing Arts College Secondary School 4,222,645 4,222,645 4,222,645 4,222,645 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 02103 5404 Baines School Poulton-le-Fylde Secondary School 4,000,695 4,000,695 4,000,695 4,000,695 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 02104 4628 Saint Aidan's Church of England High School Secondary School 3,799,626 3,846,373 3,846,373 3,846,373 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 02105 4408 Fleetwood High School Secondary School 4,645,720 4,667,512 4,667,512 4,623,928 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 02106 4718 Cardinal Allen Catholic High School. Fleetwood Secondary School 4,096,082 4,115,832 4,115,832 4,076,331 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 02502 4010 Hodgson Academy Secondary Academy 5,335,182 5,405,517 5,405,517 5,405,517 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 02503 4160 Garstang Community Academy Secondary Academy 3,450,978 3,589,145 3,589,145 3,589,145 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 04114 4137 Lytham St Anne's Technology and Performing Arts College Secondary School 6,249,550 6,317,580 6,317,580 6,317,580 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 04115 4155 Carr Hill High School & 6th Form Centre Secondary School 5,188,832 5,188,832 5,188,832 5,188,832 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 04116 4627 St Bede's Catholic High School. Lytham Secondary School 3,873,978 3,925,804 3,925,804 3,925,804 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 06103 4232 Broughton High School Secondary School 4,313,928 4,468,572 4,468,572 4,468,572 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 06104 4000 Ashton Community Science College Secondary School 3,689,373 3,697,657 3,697,657 3,689,373 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 06105 4410 Moor Park High School and Sixth Form Secondary School 3,533,514 3,550,471 3,550,471 3,516,558 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 06112 5405 Archbishop Temple School. A Church of England Specialist College Secondary School 3,668,272 3,704,905 3,704,905 3,704,905 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 06115 4168 Longridge High School - A Maths and Computing College Secondary School 3,880,737 3,899,083 3,899,083 3,862,392 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 06116 4721 St Cecilia's RC High School. Longridge Secondary School 1,765,891 1,774,074 1,774,074 1,757,708 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 06117 4610 Christ The King Catholic High School Secondary School 1,983,372 1,992,653 1,992,653 1,974,092 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 06118 4606 Our Lady's Catholic High School. Preston Secondary School 4,299,348 4,310,013 4,310,013 4,299,348 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 06121 4609 Corpus Christi Catholic High School Secondary School 3,408,280 3,424,595 3,424,595 3,391,965 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 06122 4001 Preston Muslim Girls' High School Secondary School 2,745,011 2,757,578 2,757,578 2,732,444 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 06501 6906 Fulwood Academy Secondary Academy 4,299,859 4,320,530 4,320,530 4,279,187 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 07101 4500 Balshaw's Church of England High School Secondary School 4,397,601 4,512,265 4,512,265 4,512,265 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 07102 5407 St Mary's Catholic High School. Leyland Secondary School 3,008,391 3,008,391 3,008,391 3,008,391 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 07104 4036 Wellfield High School Secondary School 2,047,432 2,056,808 2,056,808 2,038,209 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 07105 4623 Brownedge St Mary's Catholic High School Secondary School 3,409,878 3,420,416 3,420,416 3,409,878 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 07106 4741 All Hallows Catholic High School. Penwortham Secondary School 4,147,498 4,326,898 4,326,898 4,326,898 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 07107 4150 Walton-le-Dale High School Secondary School 3,780,916 3,798,808 3,798,808 3,764,466 0.5% 0.5% -0.4% 07109 4685 Hutton Church of England Grammar School Secondary School 3,438,477 3,523,777 3,523,777 3,523,777 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 07111 4332 Penwortham Girls' High School Secondary School 3,666,685 3,666,685 3,666,685 3,666,685 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 07501 4193 Lostock Hall Academy Secondary Academy 2,676,974 2,683,491 2,683,491 2,683,491 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 07502 4135 Penwortham Priory Academy Secondary Academy 3,460,325 3,476,919 3,476,919 3,443,731 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 07503 4140 Academy@Worden Secondary Academy 2,728,336 2,741,315 2,741,315 2,715,357 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 08103 4631 St Bede's Catholic High School. Ormskirk - A Specialist Arts College Secondary School 3,279,843 3,399,283 3,399,283 3,399,283 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 08104 4159 Burscough Priory Science College Secondary School 3,363,819 3,447,624 3,447,624 3,447,624 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 08105 4173 Up Holland High School Secondary School 3,715,673 3,715,673 3,715,673 3,715,673 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 08113 4411 Lathom High School - A Technology College Secondary School 3,490,865 3,507,622 3,507,622 3,478,799 0.5% 0.5% -0.3% 08114 4621 Our Lady Queen of Peace Catholic Engineering College Secondary School 4,746,084 4,769,051 4,769,051 4,723,117 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 08115 4412 Ormskirk School Secondary School 6,168,454 6,192,567 6,192,567 6,192,567 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 08502 4178 Tarleton Academy Secondary Academy 2,847,246 2,847,246 2,847,246 2,847,246 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 09506 4131 Southlands High School SecondaryAcademy 4,146,713 4,166,199 4,166,199 4,133,759 0.5% 0.5% -0.3% 09103 4742 Holy Cross Catholic High School Secondary School 3,949,244 3,949,244 3,949,244 3,949,244 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

59 Saving £157k Saving £1.35m Saving 4.0m % Change from 2018/19 19/20 no 19/20 no School or 18/19 19/20 Passport 19/20 Cap at 19/20 19/20 Cap Baseline + Sch No DfE No School No Type Baseline + cap Academy allocation (£) (£) 1.5% (£) Passport at 1.5% cap at 1.5% at 1.5% (£) (£) 09501 4686 St Michael's Church of England High School Secondary Academy 5,217,030 5,443,030 5,443,030 5,443,030 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 09502 4626 Bishop Rawstorne Church of England Academy Secondary Academy 4,272,452 4,457,452 4,457,452 4,457,452 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 09504 4403 Albany Academy Secondary Academy 3,310,030 3,325,883 3,325,883 3,302,734 0.5% 0.5% -0.2% 09505 4311 Parklands Academy Secondary Academy 5,150,131 5,150,131 5,150,131 5,150,131 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11509 4021 The Hyndburn Academy SecondaryAcademy 2,461,099 2,461,702 2,461,702 2,461,099 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11102 4195 The Hollins Secondary School 4,238,194 4,258,325 4,258,325 4,220,757 0.5% 0.5% -0.4% 11103 4797 Mount Carmel RC High School Secondary School 4,112,094 4,131,929 4,131,929 4,092,259 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 11105 4026 Rhyddings Business and Enterprise School Secondary School 3,235,576 3,250,686 3,250,686 3,220,465 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 11109 4725 St Augustine's Roman Catholic High School. Billington Secondary School 4,910,677 5,019,545 5,019,545 5,019,545 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 11113 4013 Ribblesdale High School Secondary School 5,591,424 5,808,265 5,808,265 5,808,265 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 11501 6905 Accrington Academy Secondary Academy 5,209,377 5,234,504 5,234,504 5,184,249 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 11502 5403 Clitheroe Royal Grammar School Secondary Academy 3,132,880 3,177,769 3,177,769 3,177,769 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 11503 4041 Bowland High School Secondary Academy 2,655,448 2,741,057 2,741,057 2,741,057 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 11505 4630 Accrington St Christopher's Church of England High School Secondary Academy 4,922,146 4,971,529 4,971,529 4,971,529 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 12110 4801 Shuttleworth College Secondary School 4,758,304 4,759,097 4,759,097 4,758,304 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12111 4802 Hameldon Community College Secondary School 3,070,385 3,106,630 3,088,507 3,088,507 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 12112 4806 Unity College Secondary School 6,585,350 6,614,392 6,614,392 6,556,307 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 12113 4803 Sir John Thursby Community College Secondary School 7,165,048 7,194,705 7,194,705 7,135,392 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 12114 4804 Blessed Trinity RC College Secondary School 6,595,699 6,627,730 6,627,730 6,595,110 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 13505 4040 West Craven High School Secondary Academy 2,872,192 2,891,190 2,891,190 2,891,190 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 13107 4018 Colne Park High School Secondary School 5,298,517 5,323,919 5,323,919 5,273,116 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 13108 4624 SS John Fisher and Thomas More Roman Catholic High School. Colne Secondary School 3,773,411 3,791,556 3,791,556 3,761,079 0.5% 0.5% -0.3% 13110 4800 Marsden Heights Community College Secondary School 6,186,443 6,197,036 6,197,036 6,186,443 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 13111 4799 Pendle Vale College Secondary School 6,506,980 6,534,426 6,534,426 6,479,533 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 13502 4003 Colne Primet Academy Secondary Academy 1,758,682 1,758,682 1,758,682 1,758,682 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14101 4030 Alder Grange School Secondary School 3,823,700 3,823,700 3,823,700 3,823,700 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14105 4709 All Saints' Catholic High School Secondary School 2,601,063 2,613,405 2,613,405 2,588,722 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 14107 4184 Whitworth Community High School Secondary School 3,317,275 3,332,909 3,332,909 3,301,640 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 14108 4158 Fearns Community Sports College Secondary School 1,780,973 1,780,973 1,780,973 1,780,973 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14109 4402 Haslingden High School and Sixth Form Secondary School 6,615,965 6,615,965 6,615,965 6,615,965 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14501 5400 Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School Secondary Academy 4,077,680 4,178,127 4,178,127 4,178,127 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 08139 6018 Maharishi Free School All-ThroughFree 983,103 981,904 981,904 981,904 -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 12503 4008 Burnley High School Secondary Free 2,252,207 2,262,776 2,262,776 2,241,639 0.5% 0.5% -0.5% 06502 4014 Eden Boys' School Secondary Free 2,529,867 2,541,769 2,541,769 2,517,964 0.5% 0.5% -0.5%

60 Appendix C

POSITION PAPER ON BEHALF OF THE TEACHER TRADE UNIONS FOR LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS’ FORUM ON THE FUNDING OF FACILITIES’ TIME

1. INTRODUCTION This paper provides detailed information about Facilities’ Time for representatives from the teaching unions which we hope will serve as a reminder to those who currently pay into the facilities fund and persuade those who don’t to reconsider their position, based on the huge benefits the system brings to schools. The Local Authority Facilities’ Time Fund is currently collected by Lancashire Local Authority through the process of de-delegation by Schools’ Forum for maintained schools and from Academies which decide to buy-in to the pooled arrangements rather than operate their own systems. This method of funding facility time for representatives is in place in all North West local authorities and is not only the most cost-effective method but also ensures smooth running of all employment related matters without delay and provides the foundation of professional, working relationships between employers and their employees’ teacher trade unions. This paper has been prepared following a recent discussion at a Schools’ Forum meeting about future funding arrangements where further information was requested. The current practice across the Local Authority enables schools to discharge their legal obligations in respect of release for trade union duties in a time-tested, practical and cost-effective way. It also consistent with existing practice that is in place across the entire North West region. 2. THE LEGAL POSITION Union representatives have had a statutory right to reasonable paid time off to carry out trade union duties since 1975, and most of the current provisions come under the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, introduced by the then Conservative government. Guidance on the practical application of these provisions is provided in the recently revised ACAS Code of Practice ‘Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities’. In Lancashire, local elected trade union officials and local representatives have used this legal entitlement to time off from their substantive posts effectively to undertake trade union duties, including:

 negotiating with employers;  resolving individual and collective casework;  health and safety work; and  training. Clearly it is a legal requirement for all employers to provide a reasonable amount of time off with pay to undertake these very important trade union duties. It is not a question of whether an employer

61 wishes to pay or not, but rather what the best mechanism is for employers to discharge this legal obligation. 3. THE BENEFITS OF FACILITIES TIME Employers’ organisations, including the CBI and NEOST, recognise the value of Facilities’ Time and the work of trade union representatives using that Facilities’ Time, estimating that for every £1 spent on Facilities’ Time, the employer saves between £3 and £9 on reduced staff absence, informal early resolution of potential disputes, and avoidance of legal and industrial action (see Case Studies Section below). The Lancashire Facilities’ Time arrangements have helped schools to save significant amounts of time and money through the pooled funding of Facilities’ Time by de-delegation of school budgets money over the longer term. This is supported by a recent study carried out by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform which found that:

 Dismissal rates are lower in unionised workplaces with union reps – this resulted in savings for employers related to recruitment costs of at least £107m per annum  Workplace-related injuries are lower in unionised workplaces with union reps resulting in savings to employers of £126m-371m per annum.  Employment tribunal cases are lower in unionised workplaces with union reps resulting in savings to government of £22m-£43m per annum.

Although the perception of employers is often that the trade unions exist simply to support employees who are under threat of a disciplinary procedure, many employees raise concerns in relation to whether their treatment by the employer is just and equitable. This is an area of employment relations over which the employer has significantly less control and if good employer/employee relations are not established and maintained, the employer can be surprised when the workforce expresses their discontent. Employees who are discontented with actions taken by their employer have the right under Employment Law to raise their concerns with their trade union and employer and this may be done individually or collectively, sometimes it may be both. These concerns often relate to bullying and harassment, objections raised about restructuring proposals, claims of discrimination or that the employer has been negligent in their duty of care. This report includes recently experienced case studies detailing an individual case of alleged discrimination, and a collective dispute case together with details of the costs that an employment tribunal awarded against one of the parties involved in another case. These case studies show clearly that in addition to the generally damaging issues for schools around the public arena that being taken to an Employment Tribunal represents, these situations can cost employers a great deal in time and money. The trade union representative has a vital role in working with the employer to achieve the best outcome and resolve issues as locally and informally as possible. This undoubtedly reduces the risks of litigation and is a benefit that assists all schools. We believe that the benefits of funding Facilities’ Time centrally far outweigh the costs involved and are urging all schools and academies in Lancashire to make, or continue to make, this commitment in recognition of the universal benefits involved.

62 Although all unions employ regionally based staff to deal with high level cases, resolutions being found at the earliest opportunity are always the most beneficial to all parties. This is why supporting paid time off for local union representatives makes so much business sense. There would be no advantage to the employer in waiting for a full-time officer to become available every time a low level negotiation needs to be carried out. Indeed, it is often a significant disadvantage because nothing can happen locally in the meantime and involving a full-time officer prematurely has a tendency to escalate any situation somewhat precipitously by definition. Local union officers have a much better understanding of the schools in our area and can form positive working relationship with individual headteachers and key local authority officers such as the Schools’ HR team. Fortunately, in Lancashire, due to the tried and tested current Facilities’ Time Agreement, the vast majority of cases are resolved at the informal local level which prevents disputes escalating to the Employment Tribunal level, saving very significant amounts of time, money and stress for all concerned. 4. CASE STUDIES Case Study 1 - Costs for a Discrimination Case in a North West School The North West may be thought of as an area with few black and minority ethnic teachers and a relatively low level of equality issues on a more general level. However, experience has shown that the frequency of cases where these teachers feel that they suffer from discrimination is actually relatively high, particularly when assessed against the local demographics. Discrimination claims can include not only race discrimination but also discrimination on the grounds of faith or belief which can be quite wide ranging. The legislation also allows claims for alleged discrimination on grounds of sex, disability, sexuality and age, all of which may also be pursued as separately identified cases against a school. Employees can also pursue claims for victimisation where they have made a complaint of discrimination (whether internally or externally) and feel they received treatment that victimised them in response to that complaint. Other key pieces of legislation that teachers pursue claims under include the Fixed Term Employee Regulations, the Part Time Worker Regulations, the Agency Worker Regulations, Unfair Dismissal and Unfair Selection for Redundancy. These are the commonest claims the trade unions generally handle for teachers, although there are other heads of law that could be relied upon. This case study demonstrates the costs associated with a case where a teacher in a North West school believed that he was being discriminated against on grounds of race and disability. This teacher raised the issue of race discrimination with the school but was not satisfied with the way in which his complaint was handled or resolved. This led to extreme stress and anxiety which after a period of time manifested itself in physical illness diagnosed as severe and chronic irritable bowel syndrome and severe migraines. This teacher was then off sick for a considerable length of time resulting in the school commencing procedures to dismiss the teacher on grounds of ill health. This teacher was convinced that his illness was caused by the racial discrimination he experienced in his workplace and intended to take a claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of race and disability to employment tribunal. There was medical evidence to support this view for legal purposes. The case was eventually settled by way of a compromise agreement after more than 18 months of meetings and negotiation.

63 The local union representative spent in the region of 168 hours or approximately 24 days over 18 months on this case. The associated cost of release from normal duties at the respective supply rate is £2,340. Had the member not had union representation, he would undoubtedly have taken the case to tribunal. The union would have covered the member’s legal costs but the school would have had to prepare and defend themselves in an employment tribunal which would have been listed as a 5 day hearing. The legal costs for the school would have been solicitor’s fees of approximately £20,000 plus VAT. Since the case involved two strands of discrimination, the school would have considered using a barrister. Barristers’ fees are at least £1,500 per day (and may be much more) so including preparation time this could easily have been in the region of a further £10,000 plus VAT. The potential costs of this case had it not been resolved by the intervention and support of the trade union concerned have been assessed as follows:

Union rep 24 days @ £130 per day supply rate £ 3,120

Solicitor’s fees £ 24,000

Barrister’s fees £ 12,000

TOTAL £ 39,120

Further associated costs for the school would have been the time for staff in the school in preparing for the case and being witnesses at the hearing. If we take conservative figures of:

Headteacher 12 days @ annual salary of £90,000 £ 2,959

Admin support 12 days £ 657

Witnesses x 8 2 days per person @ supply rate £ 2,080

TOTAL COST £ 5,696

If the school in question had been a maintained school or an academy paying into the facilities budget, their annual rate for this would have been £2,040. If the school were releasing their school rep to support this member at an hourly rate the cost would have been £4,244. This represents a saving of £1,452 even with no additional costs as indicated above. However, a School Representative can neither advise on nor represent a member in an employment tribunal claim. By settling via a settlement agreement rather than having to represent themselves at employment tribunal, the school saved at least £39,120 before consideration is given to any award that would have been made if the member won his claim. The teacher would not have signed a settlement agreement without union support and would certainly have continued to pursue his intended course through the employment tribunal if not given timely and competent advice regarding case prospects and

64 settlement terms by his trade union. The employment tribunal service is well-known for being inundated with claims from unrepresented claimants with little understanding of legal processes and ultimately poor case prospects, whereas none of the teacher trade unions would ever support a member in pursuing a claim without reasonable prospects of success being clearly assessed and identified. The trade union rep’s input into this at an early stage is a key element that needs to be supported properly by schools. Paying into the facilities budget saved this school at least £40,572 after taking into consideration their contribution to the facilities budget.

Case Study 2 – Dispute Resolution Case Whether they are an employer or a trade union representative, everyone is generally committed to transparent, effective and positive employment relations. This is stipulated under recognition agreements but in any case is a good practice model. Dispute issues do occasionally arise within a school, usually around working conditions or practices or the introduction of new measures, and the maintenance of positive employment relations in that context becomes especially critical. It is in the interests of all employees and employers to resolve potential dispute issues as near to their point of origin as possible and with the minimum amount of conflict and disruption occurring. Schools want to see matters resolved in a timely and effective manner so that their focus can return to the proper business of teaching and learning and the management of their establishment. It is also the wish of every trade union to work in such a manner. For these reasons, all parties always work hard to achieve agreement and constructively negotiated outcomes that are mutually beneficial and agreeable. If it is to be achieved successfully, this takes time (and therefore money.) Without that commitment to resources being given, any dispute that came to the attention of the unions, no matter how trivial it may be in its origins, would translate immediately into collective balloting activity and/or collective employment tribunal applications, which we do not see as being in the interests of schools or members. This is particularly relevant in the initial stages as all evidence demonstrates that disputes are most capable of constructive resolution at their early phase. Below is an outline of a dispute issue that arose in a school which we have analysed for time spent and costs to illustrate how and why we believe the intervention of trade union representatives saves schools considerable time and money. Context and Progress of Dispute: The school wished to change its Directed Time formula to lengthen the school day. In addition, there was a wish to introduce one late finish per week (5pm) for teachers in exchange for leaving earlier (2pm) on a Friday afternoon once a month. Although the members understood the school’s rationale and were not totally unhappy about all of the proposals, the effect of the school’s proposal overall was to add 35 minutes to each teacher’s contact time each week. This they were extremely unhappy about and the view of all three unions involved was that this would breach the relevant teacher conditions if implemented.

65 There was a mix of locally-based representation, with two out of the three main teacher unions having a School Representative. Joint and separate members’ meetings had been held to consult and discuss the issues and, in the case of the represented unions, indicative ballots had been conducted because there was a strong request made for industrial action in response to the proposal from members almost immediately. These meetings had demonstrated virtually unanimous support for action to oppose the proposals being requested and both the local reps were asked to take this up with the Headteacher immediately. There had been one local meeting to discuss the situation but this had not gone well: the reps had essentially refused to discuss the proposals because it was outside of their union defined remit to do so, but had informed the Headteacher that everyone was upset, ballots were being requested and he had no prospect of implementing his proposal. The Headteacher had become extremely defensive and had stated that he intended to complain about the behaviour of both reps to their respective unions. At this point, the matter was referred to the Local Secretaries, all of whom worked at other schools. There was also consultation with the Regional Officers of the unions, both paid and elected. A joint Secretaries’ letter was produced detailing the concerns expressed by members and sent to the Headteacher and Chair or Governors. A meeting was requested as a matter of urgency to discuss the situation and see if it might be resolved. In the case of one union, there was also ‘behind the scenes’ involvement from their National Officers because of the potential for a formal dispute. In tandem with this, the Headteacher wrote a letter to each of the unions formally complaining about the attitude of the local reps. This greatly complicated the situation and led to an almost irretrievable break down in relations locally because of the entrenchment of positions. However, it was believed he may have done this in the heat of the moment, so the Headteacher was contacted by telephone by one of the Local Secretaries and was persuaded to withdraw these complaints in favour of assistance towards a dispute resolution process, since no progress could ever have been made otherwise. An initial dispute meeting was held with the Headteacher, three Governors, a Personnel Officer from the school and a HR Adviser from the relevant Local Authority. At the first meeting, the key issues from each side were explored in a controlled and appropriate manner, agreement was reached regarding how the negotiating process would be facilitated and barriers to progress each side felt existed were identified. This meeting took 4 hours and included specifications from each side for a joint document to agree how the resolution process would go forwards. This was drafted and shared afterwards, outside of the meeting process and it was the used to inform all of the meetings that followed. The document took around 6 hours to produce, consult and come to agreement upon. There followed a series of six further meetings, all of around 3 hours duration, in which negotiations continued and progress was achieved. The trade union side also held a joint pre-meeting for an hour before each of these to ensure continuity and assist progress of the dispute. Eventually, it was possible to come up with a re-negotiated proposal that met the needs of both the school and its teacher employees and the school was able to implement this positively for the following September after an effective consultation exercise to complete the process.

Commentary and Costing

66 The involvement of the locally based Association/Branch contacts in this dispute was absolutely crucial to its successful resolution. Without it, there could not have been the same level of commitment to a joint process and partnership to succeed in getting to a satisfactory resolution. The local representatives at the school were under significant pressure from their members and the Headteacher found it very difficult to negotiate on his original proposal because of the way in which it had been introduced and responded to right at the beginning. All of the Association/Branch reps’ time was funded via the existing facilities arrangement, which would not be possible without the LAFTP continuing in Trafford Authority. There was also considerable activity involved outside of the meeting schedule, to ensure good liaison and communication at all levels and a continuing commitment to the process. This time also included the drafting and sharing of documents, for both the school and the members the school was under an obligation to consult with. In this case, the three Secretaries met together and undertook those activities jointly, to maximise the best use of their available facilities time. As travel time also had to be factored in reps were absent from their schools for longer than just their contact time, for several this was a whole day at a time just to attend the meetings in themselves. Had the local representatives been unable to assist the situation because of the lack of appropriate facilities support, then the situation would have relied on the employed officials of the three unions becoming involved in the alternative. This would have inevitably made the dispute appear much more serious and high-level than it needed to be, particularly at the outset. In the case of at least one union involved, it would also have necessitated the direct involvement of the General Secretary because a dispute was declared and then the procedure outlined in the Burgundy Book would have been invoked, meaning nothing could be changed or negotiated upon until there had been a National/Local Deputation meeting. That involves a large number of people and can take months to see through to fruition. It is also likely there would be a simultaneous ballot for industrial action if this route were to be taken. Had it been adopted, that approach would have severely limited capacity for resolution on both sides, it ran the risk of missing locally-based knowledge and intelligence and the whole situation would have taken much longer, become intractable and would have remained extremely difficult to resolve. In addition, owing to their wider level of functioning and resulting commitments, it is highly probable that all of the employed officials would struggle to find many days and times on which they could all be available which would also suit the school. The school would then have had to meet with each union separately (in the case of at least one union after the National/Local Deputation process had taken place.) In that circumstance, assuming the pattern of meetings above, the Governors, the Headteacher, the Personnel Officer and the HR representative would have to attend three times as many dispute meetings – even if there were only the seven above that were actually needed to resolve this case, this would amount to twenty-one meetings to resolve the issue overall. That has a significant cost implication for the school, even without anything else being accounted for. As it was, since facilities funding was available to the key local activists of each union, the costs to the school were as follows:

67 3 x secretaries attending 7 meetings, inc pre-meets NIL COST Facilities funded – 84 hours total

2 x local reps attending 7 meetings, inc pre-meets NIL COST Facilities funded – 58 hours total, inc 1 hour for liaison/prep

Secretaries (3) and reps (2) consulting with employees NIL COST Facilities funded 4 mtgs – 80 hours total

Secretaries drafting reports, agreements, updates etc NIL COST Facilities funded – 30 hours total

Time spent travelling to/from school (assuming 1 hour each way) NIL COST for Secretaries x 3 Facilities funded – 66 hours total

Had the school not been part of its local authority’s LAFTP, and assuming supply cover costs at a figure of £130 per day (approx. £21.66 per hour), these costs would have been:

3 x secretaries attending 7 meetings £ 1,819 84 hours total

2 x local reps attending 7 meetings £ 1,256 58 hours total

Secretaries (3) and reps (2) consulting with employees £ 1,733 80 hours total

Secretaries drafting reports, agreements, updates etc £ 650 30 hours total

Time spent travelling to/from school £ 1,429 66 hours total (assuming 1 hour each way)

GRAND TOTAL COST TO SCHOOL £ 6,887

(NOTE: Both tables assume that the consultation with employees is a cost that falls to the employer because of the legal obligation to consult where new contractual proposals are being negotiated in recognised workplaces.)

68 Had the school been an academy paying into the facilities fund to support the resolution activity by the local trade union reps, their costs for this would have been the schools delegated sums – this would range from £633 for 300 pupils up to £1,899 for 900 pupils in a school. On the figures above, this would represent a saving of between £6,254 and £4,988 in a single year after taking into account the school’s contribution to the fund. Costs Not Included Above These figures only represent costs for trade union and/or member consultation time, they do not include any time that was required for school or Local Authority representatives to engage in and seek to resolve the dispute amicably, so the true business costs would have been considerably higher, probably at least twice the amount indicated above. For the purposes of this case study, we have only assessed the trade union time and costs as these are the figures we would present to any school that decided not to purchase the facilities of the Local Union Representatives as invited. Further to the costs indicated above, without Local Union Secretarial intervention, it is extremely likely that this dispute would have proceeded into a legal arena at a very early stage, with the possibility of failure to consult claims being lodged by all three unions on behalf of each and every member (almost every teacher working there in this case.) Instead of this, the facilities fund enabled constructive attempts to be made by our Secretaries to resolve it as locally as possible. Had that not been available, the spectre of accumulating legal costs is raised immediately for any school, even before any tribunal process takes place, as in the case study example given above. Had such claims been lodged and won by the three unions involved, the award for failure to consult may have been quite considerable in a dispute case as it is calculated on the basis of amount awarded for each member who is part of the relevant bargaining group. This case study was costed only on the basis of the real trade union time taken to resolve it. We believe it demonstrates clearly that the benefits to a school of purchasing facilities time far outweigh the costs of any significant dispute resolution activity, even where no recourse is taken to legal proceedings by either party. In that context, it represents very good value for money to a school. 5. FACILITIES TIME POTS VERSUS ALTERNATIVE MODELS As explained earlier, it is not a question of whether an employer wishes to pay or not, but rather what the best mechanism is for employers to discharge this legal obligation. It has been suggested that alternative systems of fulfilling the legal obligation to provide Facilities’ Time for union duties should be explored. A common misconception is that local union officers are employed by their unions and funded by membership subscriptions – this is not the case. Local Officers are elected and are employed by local schools and released to undertake union work which is mutually beneficial to the employer. a. ‘Pay As You Go’ System One Multi-Academy Trust has suggest that schools/academies could be billed at an hourly rate of £30-40 per hour for any casework done in their establishments, perhaps with the option to book time in blocks of 10 hours and/or pay a small annual retainer (eg £200). We do not believe that this system is viable for the following reasons:

69  It will not be possible for schools to budget for such costs as it cannot be predicted how much time will be needed for cases each year;  Casework (like maternity leaves) does not fall evenly between schools and between years. Some years schools may find they save money and do not need the service of union reps at all but in other years the costs could vastly exceed the current formula allocations;  The time spent doing cases that involves meetings with Heads and HR etc is only the tip of the iceberg with union officers spending a great deal of extra time meeting with members and preparing for meetings;  There is also a lot of time spent resolving members’ concerns informally and management will not be aware that this has taken place until unions have to account for this time spent;  There is a risk that it will create a perverse incentive to escalate rather resolve cases in order to ensure that there is sufficient funding to meet the current FT bill;  This will create a great deal of extra administration in operating this invoicing system;  This system does not provide any funding for the other duties of union reps such as meetings with the LA, Policy Development, Health & Safety etc.

b. ‘Home Grown’ Reps Other MATs have suggested their preferred model is that, rather than paying into their LA Facilities’ Time pots, members of their own schools’ staff could become ‘chain reps’ and be given time out of class to undertake union duties on behalf of their colleagues. This suggestion has some merit and is supported in principle by some unions. However, there are some serious obstacles to making this work in practice:

 All the unions are struggling to find volunteers to act as official School Representatives, because many staff are afraid to ‘put their heads above the parapets’ and see becoming union reps as potentially detrimental to their personal career progression, let alone wishing to become ‘super reps’ for whole MATs;  School/Chain Reps will need considerable training to develop the level of knowledge and expertise of our current team of local officers. A minimum of 10 days per year will be required for every rep for every union in every school for this to even begin to be feasible;  There is a frequent turnover of school reps as staff move jobs which means finding and training new school-based reps is always going to be a constant battle;  Some casework is simply not appropriate for school-based reps to undertake, such as redundancy situations where reps have a vested interested in the outcome of staffing reduction consultations for example, or when reps themselves are involved in sensitive situations or concerns about confidentiality arise.

6. TRAINING Should schools choose not to buy in to collective facilities arrangements, each school will need to be trained to an appropriate level. Reps are entitled to paid time off for training. The ACAS code for training of trade union reps states, “It is necessary for union representatives to receive training to enable them to carry out their duties. Such training will enable them to

70 undertake their role with greater confidence, efficiency and speed and thus help them work with management, build effective employment relations and represent their members properly.” The Burgundy Book states that accredited representatives of recognised teachers organisations are entitled time off for functions connected with the training of teacher representatives including attendance at training courses arranged by the recognised teacher organisations at national, regional or authority level for this purpose. We would anticipate that each school would need a union rep, health and safety rep and union learning rep (ULR) for each union, although it is likely that the head teacher unions will not have a ULR or H&S rep in each school as well as a workplace rep. Whilst the provision of training for an equality rep has not been included it is possible that there would be at least one equality rep from each union within the chain. These reps would need to be released for training as follows and this pattern reflects the costs in the table below:

Union Role Year 1 Year 2 onwards School Representative 10 days 4 days School Union Learning Rep. 5 days 2 days School Health & Safety 5 days 3 days

Table of associated costs for release of reps for training*:

Year 1 Days per rep Cost of supply Days overall Cost of supply @£165/day per rep for (teaching teaching unions unions)

Union rep 10 1,650 40 6,600

ULR 5 825 15 2,475

H&S rep 5 825 15 2,475

Total 20 3,300 70 11,550

Support Staff Days per rep Cost of Cover @54/day Days overall Cost of Cover per rep for support (Support Staff staff unions unions)

Union rep 10 540 50 2,700

ULR 5 270 10 540

H&S 5 270 10 540

Total 20 1080 70 3,780

Grand Total 40 4,380 140 15,330

71 Subsequent Days per rep Cost of supply Days overall Cost of supply years † @£165/day per (4 unions) (approx) teaching union rep

Union rep 4 660 16 2,640

ULR 2 330 6 990

H&S rep 3 495 9 1,485

Total 9 1,485 31 5,115

Support Staff Days per rep Cost of cover @54per Days overall Unions day per rep (2unions)

Union rep 4 216 16 864

ULR 2 108 4 216

H&S rep 3 162 6 324

Total 9 486 26 1,404

Grand Total 18 972 78 6,519

*These figures represent minimum costs per school based on M6 and are subject to variation as the release of representatives of the Heads unions will be substantially more. † These figures are for representatives who remain in post after year one. Should a new rep be elected each year then year one figure would apply.

7. NATIONAL EXECUTIVE MEMBERS Whilst the work of National Executive Members is often undertaken outside of Lancashire the benefits of this work are reaped by Lancashire schools and the LA. Our efforts campaigning nationally recently to fight cuts to school funding have had a positive impact locally. Likewise, over the years there have been a number of national funding streams we have helped LA officers access (such as the Schools’ Access Initiative) which have benefitted Lancashire schools. We would support a joint funding agreement with other LAs in the North West to spread the cost of National Executive Members more fairly and would encourage Lancashire to explore such a system with its NW neighbours.

72 8. CONCLUSION We firmly believe that the current system of shared funding of FT through de-delegation by Schools’ Forum remains the most cost effective and viable way of meeting this legal entitlement and will continue to benefit the schools, staff and pupils of Lancashire. We hope that the case studies described above will provide sufficient detail for Principals, Headteachers and Governors to appreciate the real cost savings that paying into local authority facility time pots brings. The costs of de-delegation/buy-in are very modest compared to the very real risk of disputes escalating, and represent the most affordable best-value option for schools. We believe that it is an investment well worth making to secure peace of mind and positive employment relations regarding the issues discussed in this report. We very much hope you will be persuaded by this information as well as your stated support for trade unions. We are now asking you to commit your schools to funding this agreement on an annual basis so the local officers of all unions can work with you in the best interests of the schools, the pupils, and our members across Lancashire Local Authority, for the future. Thank you for taking the time to read this report we hope it has been useful to you and your school or academy.

73 Appendix D

UNISON Submission regarding School’s Facility Time

This report is UNISON’s submission into the wider review of Trade Union Facility Time in Schools. UNISON is the largest public sector trade union in the UK with 1.4 million members and has hundreds of thousands of members working in schools. UNISON represents and organises all non-teaching staff in schools (school support staff) and is the largest trade union for school support staff in the UK.

UNISON agree with the Schools Forum to reject a request to extend facility time for a trade union that is not recognised for school support staff. UNISON believe the current system of shared funding of facility time through de-delegation is the best and most efficient system to operate facility time and allow schools to meet their statutory obligations on facility time. UNISON is supportive of a review and fairer distribution of facility time allocations on the basis that the current arrangements are 20 years old and are not reflective of today’s modern school workforce.

UNISON also wish to highlight the real benefits of facility time and the benefits of the current shared funding system.

Statutory rights to paid facility time

There are three main trade union roles with statutory rights to time off and these are the traditional trade union workplace steward/rep, union learning reps and union health and safety reps. There are also some other legal time off rights where someone is representing a trade union.

An employer must give trade union representatives paid time off to carry out their trade union duties as per the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). Examples of duties are;

• Negotiations with the employer; • Functions which the employer has agreed may be performed by the trade union; • Receiving information and being consulted on redundancies, business transfers or pensions changes; • Training in industrial relations matters.

Time spent in negotiations/collective bargaining is set out in TULRCA as involving;

• Terms and conditions of employment or physical conditions of work; • Recruitment, suspension, dismissal; • Allocation of work; • Discipline; • Trade union membership or non membership; • Facilities for trade union reps and officers; • Procedural matters – eg consultation.

Trade union side meetings are also an example of a trade union duty as union reps need to meet separately from management to discuss and share information. In addition to statutory

74 provision there is substantial case law which clarifies the right to paid time off and there is guidance set out in the ACAS Code of Practice.

Union health and safety reps have paid time off rights under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Health and safety reps must be permitted time off under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 (SRSCR). They have similar rights to time off as other representatives however the SRSCR defines safety reps as having “functions” rather than duties and an employer must permit them time off with pay “as shall be necessary”.

This time off covers;

• attending meetings; • undergoing training; • investigating hazards and dangerous occurrences; • investigating complaints and welfare at work; • making representations to the employer.

There other matters set out within the SRSCR also. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) also provide guidance that adds to the time that union health and safety reps need to take off.

Union learning reps (ULR) help open up learning opportunities for union members and supports them during the learning along with encouraging and developing a learning culture in workplaces. ULR has a right to paid time off under TULRCA to carry out their duties. ULR duties involve analysing learning/training needs, arranging and promoting learning/training and consulting with the employer about these matters.

All reps have rights to time off when acting as a companion. The statutory right to be accompanied at a grievance or disciplinary hearing allows workers to request and have a union rep/officer as a companion. Paid time off used in this way by a rep is equivalent to a trade union duty and is part of facility time and the employer must permit a rep to take the paid time off. This extends beyond the hearing to meeting with the employee in advance for example.

There are also extensive statutory obligations on employers to consult when making collective redundancies under TULRCA. This consultation is with the trade unions and must be sufficient and meaningful with a view to reaching agreement. The employer must provide specified information to the trade unions and the employer must consider representations from union reps and reply to them. Reps need reasonable paid time off in order for this to be achieved and the rights for this are set out in TULRCA.

There are similar statutory obligations on an employer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. Here employers are required to inform and consult with representatives. Again paid time off is required to achieve this.

In addition following the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in UNISON, Vining & Ors v LB Wandsworth & the Secretary of State, trade unions have a right to be consulted under article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights on any workplace issue which affects their members.

75 Where reasonable paid time off is not granted claims can be brought in the employment tribunal and there is case law which expands upon the legislation as written. In addition where an employer fails to properly collectively consult over redundancies or TUPE transfers there exists a punitive measure called a protective award can be brought for each employee affected which can result in massive financial penalty to the employer of 90 days gross pay in collective redundancy situations or 13 weeks pay for transfers.

Benefits of facility time in general and the current shared funding system

The cost argument

UNISON recognises the obvious financial challenges facing schools. Trade union facility time is often described as a cost and in very simple terms a cost can be associated with a member of staff being fully or partly released as a “seconded rep”. There are two issues with that simplistic measure;

1. it does not factor in the benefits of trade union facility time in general and the efficiencies realised in shared funding of facility time through de-delegation , a matter which is elaborated upon elsewhere in this report; and 2. those released on facility time via this system, either partly or wholly, carry out duties which schools would be obligated to grant paid time off for anyway.

Therefore simply reducing the amount spent on facility time would not generate the expected savings for schools and would in UNISON’s experience create additional costs, a matter elaborated upon elsewhere in the report.

It is worth noting that UNISON as of April 2018 has seen a reduction in facility time of 0.14fte as a result of electing a new Schools Convenor who is term time only rather than full time.

Benefits of facility time

Notwithstanding that reps have a statutory right to paid time off as set out above there are benefits arising from paid facility time in general. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has commissioned reports and analysis of the Government’s own data from their Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS). One such TUC report by Bradford University from 2016 is included as an appendix. Key points to note from this report are;

• Research commissioned by the trade union UNISON found that facility time; o Improved workplace relations and helped build the reputation of the employer as a good place to work. o Union representation enabled earlier intervention in relation to complaints, grievances and disciplinaries, which stopped them escalating which was less costly to the employer and the taxpayer as a result of reduced staff and legal costs. o Union reps enabled better communication with staff during restructuring and redundancy processes, which led to greater understanding of management’s rationale for the changes, and reduced industrial action. • In 2007 the then Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR – now BIS Department for Business Innovation and Skills) found the following benefits from trade union facility time based on WERS data from 2004;

76 o Dismissal rates were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps – this resulted in savings related to recruitment costs of £107–213m pa. o Voluntary exit rates were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps, which again resulted in savings related to recruitment costs of £72–143m pa. o Employment tribunal cases were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps resulting in savings to government of £22–43m pa. o Workplace-related injuries were lower in unionised workplace with union reps resulting in savings to employers of £126–371m pa. o Workplace-related illnesses were lower in unionised workplace with union reps resulting in savings to employers of £45–207m pa. • This gave £327-977m in savings across all sectors with around 60% being public sector equating to £223-586m pa. • Updating this to 2014 figures to reflect the reduction in the size of the public sector and taking into account changes in real values gives a benefit of £250-674m to the public sector. • Using the Taxpayers Alliance estimated total cost of public sector facility time (£108m in 2012-13) means that for every pound spent on facility time, the accrued benefits have a value of between £2.31 and £6.24.

There are clear benefits based on the Government’s own data of paid trade union facility time in improving the working environment, promoting good and safe working practices free from discrimination and working with the employer to save jobs, protect services, retain skills and avoid compulsory redundancies.

UNISON believes in maintaining decent working relationships with schools to resolve any issues at the earliest possible stage and in the main the above benefits have been borne out in schools through that relationship.

Benefits of shared funding of facility time and the issues and risks if reduced

There are clear benefits to trade union facility time in general. UNISON believe the current system of shared funding of facility time through de-delegation by Schools Forum remains the most efficient and viable way of Schools meeting their statutory obligations on facility time. If the current system were to be substantially changed or reduced then the cost of facility time is a cost that individual schools would ultimately incur anyway through local school representatives having to be trained and released instead.

The current system ensures that there are highly trained and knowledgeable union representatives available for schools to work with to fulfil their legal obligations. It allows for good working relationships to be built between the reps and schools which assists in resolving workplace issues at the earliest possible stage. This then saves the school both the difficulty and cost of workplace issues escalating. UNISON believes that there are currently good working relationships with schools and UNISON have worked effectively and professionally with schools and LCC HR Officers. Given the pressures and challenges that schools face UNISON believe that Lancashire Schools will need experienced and knowledgeable trade union representatives available.

If there were no de-delegation funding of facility time then every school would need to have their own trade union representative and each school would have a legal obligation to release these staff during the school day with paid time off for any trade union duties required. Having

77 to release representatives on an “as and when” basis for trade union duties and training would be an inefficient method to implement facility time arrangements for schools and cause additional difficulties around cover during the school day. This would also lead to disputes around granting of facility time and release of representatives.

Whilst some schools do already have local representatives it is usually those representatives with facility time funded through the current system that undertake the majority of trade union duties – for example representation or consultations – allowing for minimal disruption to schools.

UNISON expect that if the current arrangements are substantially changed or reduced then this will result in a need for UNISON to retrain existing representatives across Lancashire Schools and recruit and train new representatives. This will be necessary to ensure there are representatives available when members need them but also when schools need them too. Paid time off would have to be granted by each school for a substantial number of representatives to be trained.

In the event of a school not having a local rep there will be a considerable delay in having issues resolved or meetings heard. There are no regional officials who would simply step in to cover and this will result in delays addressing employee relations and industrial relations issues.

In light of the above the following risks of substantially changing the current arrangements are highlighted;

• The desired savings will not be realised and it may actually increase costs; • A possible worsening of industrial and employee relations; • Disruption of day to day employee relations matters such as disciplinary hearings; • Lack of staff engagement and consultation resulting in a less engaged and de- motivated workforce; • More workplace issues, disputes and accidents resulting in greater cost through more demand on time and increased litigation against schools; • Increased disputes and issues relating to requesting facility time itself, including increased claims brought against schools at the employment tribunal; • Schools struggling to meet their legal obligations to consult, including increased claims brought against schools at the employment tribunal;

UNISON’s recommendations

UNISON believe the current system of shared funding of facility time through de-delegation by Schools Forum remains the most efficient and viable way of Schools meeting their statutory obligations on facility time. There is no need to vary this system.

There is a suggestion that the amount of funding be reduced to reflect the numbers of teaching staff who have transferred to academies – that is a 13% reduction. UNISON has already seen a reduction of 0.14fte (14%) since April 2018 and so has already contributed to such a saving and there should not be any further reduction should this reduction be the decision.

78 UNISON has long stated that the current allocations of facility time are unfair on support staff. Schools have for many years now employed both teaching and non-teaching staff and both groups of staff are equally entitled to trade union representation. The current allocations of facility time do not reflect today’s school workforce and does not recognise the important role of support staff. The role and numbers of support staff has greatly developed and increased since School Facility Time was last reviewed around 20 years ago.

This review of School Facility Time should take this into consideration when looking at allocation of facility time to each trade union. UNISON currently has the least amount of facility time (0.86fte) despite having the largest membership in schools of over 6000 members. If allocation of facility time is to be looked at then proportionality based on membership would be the fairest method.

To summarise;

• The current system of shared funding of facility time remains the best way for Schools to meet their statutory obligations and maintain good employee and industrial relations; • The allocation to each trade union of facility time should not discriminate between teaching and non-teaching staff and should be proportionate based on membership numbers. UNISON are by far the largest trade union in schools with over 6000 members and this should be reflected in the allocation of facility time; • UNISON has already seen a reduction in facility time of 0.14fte in April 2018 and so should face no further reduction.

The benefits of paid time off for trade union representatives

Gregor Gall, Professor of Industrial Relations University of Bradford

80 Contents

3 Introduction The proposals in the trade union bill

4 Assessing the benefits of facility time The 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study Other research Evidence presented to Parliament Updating government estimates of the benefits The cost of facility time

10 Conclusion

81 Section one 1 Introduction

A key aspect of the government’s proposed trade union bill concerns so-called “facility time” – that is, paid time away from their usual duties for union reps to represent their colleagues – in the public sector. The bill, if passed, will require public bodies to report on facility time and gives ministers the power to cap it. The government’s intention appears to be to reduce or end facility time in the public sector, yet none of their impact assessments have considered the benefits of facility time. Facility time for trade union reps in the public sector has been the target of organised opposition for a number of years,1 with the trade union bill being the latest manifestation. This paper sets out to examine the value of facility time, and whether the government’s proposals are a proportionate response that supports the efficient working of the public sector.

The proposals in the trade union bill

The government’s proposals will require public sector employers and publicly- funded bodies to publish information about how many employees carry out union duties in work time and the cost of this. Ministers may then consider it appropriate to exercise their reserve powers to make regulations to ensure “the percentage of the working time of any relevant union official of an employer that is taken as paid facility time does not exceed a percentage that is so specified” and that “the percentage of an employer’s total pay bill spent on paying relevant union officials for facility time does not exceed a percentage that is so specified”.2 It is clear that this will allow the government to reduce the provision of facility time. Nick Boles, the minister responsible for the trade union bill at BIS, gave an indication of what the government had in mind when he stated in Parliament that: “The government [is] confident that our proposals will deliver efficiency savings. A reduction in spending on facility time across the wider public sector to levels similar to the civil service currently would deliver estimated savings of around £150m annually – £150m that could be spent on employing more nurses, on schools and on better serving the people who elect us to this place.”3

1. See, for example, “If Facility Time Cuts Strikes, What is Happening in the Public Sector?” Taxpayers’ Alliance, 25 November 2011, www.taxpayersalliance.com/if_facility_time_cuts_strikes_what_is_happening_in_the_public_sector 2. Trade Union Bill, p9 see www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2015-2016/0074/16074.pdf 3. Pyper, D. “Trade Union Bill – Committee Stage Report” House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, Number CBP 7369, 5 November 2015, p24.

82 Section two 2 Assessing the benefits of facility time

The 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study

WERS is the major government-funded study of employment relations, and is widely considered the most authoritative study of its kind available. The sixth survey (a representative sample of 2,680 British workplaces) took place between March 2011 and June 2012, surveying managers, workers and union representatives. Kim Hoque and Nicolas Bacon analysed the WERS6 data with regard to facility time in the public sector,4 and also specifically in the health sector. They found that only 2.8 per cent of public sector workplaces (1.5 per cent in health5) with recognised unions have a union representative that spends all or nearly all of their working time on their representative duties – statistically indistinguishable from the equivalent 2.2 per cent in the private sector.6 Hoque and Bacon found that public sector workplaces with full-time union representatives tend to be much larger workplaces (an average of 509 employees) than those with non-full-time union representatives (an average of 97 employees). In health, the average number of employees in workplaces with a full-time representative is 2,500, compared with 371 for workplaces with a non-full-time representative.7 A similar pattern is reported in the private sector: workplaces with full-time union representatives had an average of 583 employees compared with workplaces with non-full-time representatives, which had an average of 167 employees. This suggests where representatives work on a full-time basis (in both public and private sector workplaces), they do so because they represent large numbers of employees with implications for their workloads.8

4. Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. Workplace Union Representation in the British Public Sector: evidence from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, No. 101, 2015, Industrial Relations Research Unit, University of Warwick. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/research/irru/wpir/wpir101-_hoque_and_bacon.pdf 5. Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2015) Workplace Union Representatives in the British Healthcare Sector: evidence from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, Universities of Warwick and City. 6. Hoque and Bacon (2015), p11. 7. Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2015) Workplace Union Representatives in the British Healthcare Sector: evidence from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Survey, Universities of Warwick and City. 8. Hoque and Bacon (2015), pp11–12.

83 They also found that fewer lead representatives in the public sector (84 per cent) report they are paid by the employer for the time spent on their representative duties than in in the private sector (95 per cent).9 As a result of their analysis, Hoque and Bacon concluded that ‘… government concerns about the number of union representatives in the public sector (and in particular the number of representatives that are operating on a full-time basis) may be overstated’.10 This research also demonstrates that there is little if any basis for claims that facility time in the public sector runs at three times the rate of the private sector.11 The private sector workforce (19 million) is nearly three times as large as that of the public sector (7 million), and there is no data – other than that provided by WERS6 – to assess the current extent of facility time in the private sector. The second major issue examined by Hoque and Bacon was whether the outcomes of facility time were constructive and productive, leading to stable and effective industrial relations. They also compared this to the private sector. Concerns have been raised that public money is used by full-time union representatives to organise strikes and industrial action to oppose management and to engage in political campaigning.12 Hoque and Bacon first considered the extent of joint consultative councils (JCC) where union recognition existed. JCCs are the traditional mechanism for consultation and negotiation between unions and management – and union reps would usually use facility time to prepare for and attend these meetings. Hoque and Bacon found that the proportion of workplaces that have a JCC was little different in the public sector (16 per cent) from the private sector (17 per cent) while 8 per cent of public sector workplaces with union recognition and 9 per cent of private sector workplaces with union recognition have a JCC on which a union representative sits.13 WERS6 found that 84 per cent of management respondents in public sector workplaces with full-time representatives present either agreed or strongly agreed that full-time union representatives can be trusted to act with honesty and integrity.14 Indeed, management attitudes towards unions in the public sector compared to the private sector (with regard to whether unions can be trusted) showed public sector managers think more highly of public sector unions than do private sector managers of private sector unions.15 The researchers noted that “It is doubtful that public sector

9. Hoque and Bacon (2015), p12. 10. Hoque and Bacon (2015), p11. 11. “If Facility Time Cuts Strikes, What is Happening in the Public Sector?” Taxpayers’ Alliance, 25 November 2011, www.taxpayersalliance.com/if_facility_time_cuts_strikes_what_is_happening_in_the_public_sector and Jonathan Isaby, Chief Executive, Taxpayers’ Alliance, Committee Stage of Trade Union Bill, 13 October 2015, afternoon, p76 (www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmpublic/tradeunion/151013/ pm/151013s01.pdf) 12. See, for example, Taxpayers’ Alliance, 25 November 2011, Ibid. 13. Hoque and Bacon (2015), p14. 14. Hoque and Bacon (2015), p15. 15. Hoque and Bacon (2015), pp22–23.

84 managers would hold such positive views if the full-time union representatives in their workplaces were not using facility time appropriately to help address organisational problems, or if, as alleged, they were using facility time and facilities to engage in inappropriate political activities”. Hoque and Bacon also concluded from the WERS6 data that “there is no evidence that full-time [facility union] representatives are unwilling to engage in partnership working with management in the public sector”.16 Indeed, they found union attitudes toward management more positive in the public sector than in the private sector.17 In the healthcare sector, most workplace union representatives (90 per cent) also report working closely with management when changes are being introduced.18 The analysis of the health sector shows that staff turnover is almost three times higher in workplaces without union representatives than in workplaces with representatives – amounting to a saving of more than £66m pa for the NHS in recruitment costs alone.19 Hoque and Bacon also found that “managers in public sector healthcare workplaces that have a union representative are considerably more likely to report labour productivity, quality of service and financial performance as ‘better’ or ‘a lot better’ than are managers in public sector healthcare workplaces that do not have a union representative”.20

Other research

NatCen was commissioned by Unison in 2012 to conduct research on facility time.21 They surveyed 129 local branches in health, local government and higher education and conducted three focus groups with branch reps and HR professionals in the public sector. The research found that the HR professionals valued partnership working with trade unions as it improved workplace relations and helped build the reputation of the employer as a good place to work. Union representation enabled earlier intervention in relation to complaints, grievances and disciplinaries, which stopped them escalating which was less costly to the employer and the taxpayer as a result of reduced staff and legal costs. And union reps enabled better communication with staff during restructuring and redundancy processes, which led to greater understanding of management’s rationale for the changes, and reduced industrial action.

16. Hoque and Bacon (2015), p18. 17. Hoque and Bacon (2015), pp16-17. 18. Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2015) ‘Workplace union representatives in the British healthcare sector: evidence from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Survey’ Universities of Warwick and City. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Mitchell, M., Coutinho, S. and Morrell, G. (2012) The Value of Trade Union Facility Time: Insight, Challenges and Solutions, NatCen Social Research. The report was commissioned by UNISON.

85 Evidence presented to Parliament

During the Commons and Lords passage of the trade union bill, expert evidence was submitted by a number of organisations, including local government employers such as COSLA, the North-East local government employers’ association, the Welsh LGA and eleven local authorities, and NHS Wales.22 These submissions argued that paid time off for union representatives was an important factor in establishing stable and effective industrial relations.23 The evidence of the Royal College of Nursing to the Commons committee scrutinising the trade union bill is particularly worth highlighting: • Independent evidence funded by the RCN shows that facility time for union representatives is linked to increased productivity, crucial in the NHS for delivering high quality, cost effective care. There is therefore an economic case for retaining the current arrangements: • Facility time is beneficial to the safety of practice environments, staff welfare and consequently, to patients. The RCN is warning that clauses 12 and 13 [of the Bill] may have unintended consequences for patient safety. • The RCN and all other trade unions invest in their representatives to bring skills, knowledge and experience to the workplace and to facilitate effective partnership working. This is a cost effective way of developing practice and managing organisations. Alternative provision would increase costs for employers and, therefore, the tax payer. • Employers report good working relationships with trade union representatives and there is a clear feeling among employers and trade unions alike that this bill will do little to improve industrial relations. Writing in the Guardian, the crossbench peer and former head of the civil service, Bob Kerslake, criticised the attempt to centrally determine the extent of facility time in local government. He said: ‘This seems to me to be a quite extraordinarily centralising step to take for a government that is championing devolution. Local government at least ought to be trusted to come to its own arrangements’.24

Updating government estimates of the benefits

In 2007, the (then) Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR, now BIS – Department for Business Innovation and Skills) conducted a

22. See http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/tradeunion/documents.html 23. Ibid. 24. “I've Had Bruising Encounters With Trade Unions, But I Condemn Efforts to Silence Them”, the Guardian, 11 January 2016, www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/jan/11/trade-union-bill- silence-civil-service-bob-kerslake?CMP=share_btn_tw

86 review of the facilities and facility time available to workplace representatives.25 Using data from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS5), this review calculated the costs of union representatives and the benefits accrued from such representation.26 A 2012 report for the TUC updated these figures to 2010 levels to give an idea of the scale of the benefits of facilitating union representatives to carry out their duties and roles in work time.27 In 2004, the following benefits for union facility time were identified: • Dismissal rates were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps – this resulted in savings related to recruitment costs of £107–213m pa. • Voluntary exit rates were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps, which again resulted in savings related to recruitment costs of £72–143m pa. • Employment tribunal cases were lower in unionised workplaces with union reps resulting in savings to government of £22–43m pa. • Workplace-related injuries were lower in unionised workplace with union reps resulting in savings to employers of £126–371m pa. • Workplace-related illnesses were lower in unionised workplace with union reps resulting in savings to employers of £45–207m pa. Thus, the 2004 BERR research showed that £372–977m pa in savings were accrued across all sectors, in large measure as a result of the presence and work of union representatives. The public sector ‘worth’ here is some 60 per cent of the total – equating to £223–586m pa.

25. Department of Trade and Industry (2007), Workplace Representatives: a review of their facilities and facility time, see pp77–104 for the workings out of the estimates. 26. Unfortunately, neither the management nor financial questionnaires used for WERS6 asked questions about the value of facility time (as has been done for WERS5). Consequently, no figures from WERS6 data can be calculated about the worth of facility time in 2011. 27. Gall, G. (2012), Facility Time for Union Reps – Separating Fact from Fiction, TUC, 2012. A number of assumptions had to be made in working out the benefits. These were that: • Most workplace representatives are union representatives. • Union representatives’ duties and roles are best and most appropriately carried out within the workplace and within working hours when union members and managers are available. • The overall benefit from the funded provision of facility time in the public sector is a proportion of that set out in the BERR report, which included both public and private sectors. The working assumption used to divide the calculated accrued benefit was 60 per cent in 2012 and is now 58 per cent on 2014 figures – the proportion of union members to be found in the public sector. • Accrued benefits for the taxpayer relate to the entire public sector workforce, not just union members, because of coverage of collective bargaining, and any benefits of union representation are likewise spread across the whole workforce, not just those in membership.

87 Merely updating these estimates for 2014, taking into account changes in real values,28 shows an all-sectors benefit of £476–1,250m pa. The public sector proportion of this is 58 per cent – giving a crude public sector benefit of £276–725m pa. However, the public sector environment in which facility time existed in 2004 is not the same as in 2014. We need to consider the impact of the fall in the size of the public sector workforce as well as other factors such as the introduction of the compulsory early conciliation scheme, the huge fall in employment tribunals as a result of increased fees and the extent of redundancy exercises. It would therefore be appropriate to reduce the assumed benefit of facility time in the public sector by an equivalent percentage to public sector employment, which has fallen by 7 per cent since 2004.29 This then equates to an assumed benefit of public sector facility time of £250–674m pa in 2014.

The cost of facility time

The government has not published figures relating to costs. However, the impact assessment for the facility time aspects of the trade union bill estimates that if facility time decreases along similar lines to those seen in the civil service after earlier reforms, the reduction in facility time costs would be over £100m per annum.30 There is no additional evidence given to support this figure, nor any assessment of the value lost to the taxpayer as a result of this reduction. Other estimates of the cost of facility time have been made by third parties. The Taxpayers’ Alliance estimated a cost of £108m (£85m in staff time, £23m in direct costs) in 2012–13.31 However this research also did not attempt to cost benefits and savings to the taxpayer of facility time.

28. This is based upon the latest published Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) GDP deflator index of 19 March 2015, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414714/ GDP_Deflators_Budget_2015_update.csv/preview 29. Total adjusted public sector employment stood at 5.244 million in September 2015, having been 5.63 million in September 2004 – a fall of around 7 per cent. The adjusted figures exclude further education corporations and sixth form college corporations in England moving into the private sector in June 2012; Royal Mail being included in the private sector from December 2013; Lloyds Banking Group being included in the public sector from December 2008 to December 2013; Royal Bank of Scotland being included in the public sector from December 2008; Northern Rock being included in the public sector from December 2007 to December 2011; Bradford and Bingley being included in the public sector from September 2008; and Welsh further education colleges being included in the private sector from March 2015. See p10, Office of National Statistics ‘Public Sector Employment’ September 2015 www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_427938.pdf 30. See www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493638/ BIS-16-71-trade-union-bill-impact-assessment-reporting-of-facility-time-in-the-public-sector.pdf 31. Taxpayers Alliance, “Taxpayer Funding of Trade Unions 2012-13”, Research Note 140, 10 September 2014 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/5083/attachments/original/1422278685/t axpayerfundingtradeunions2013.pdf?1422278685

88 Section three 3 Conclusion

Proponents of limits to facility time have not adequately considered the evidence about the value of facility time – and the more extensive losses to the public sector that might accrue should facility time be reduced. In particular, the government’s impact analysis for the trade union bill has failed to follow what would be regarded as good business practice in conducting any cost-benefit analysis, and it failed to take into account the views of public sector employers, many of whom value facility time. In contrast, this analysis has shown that estimated expenditure of around £108m pa leads to benefits totalling (at the lower end of estimates given here) around £250m pa. So, for every pound spent on facility time, the accrued benefits have a value of between £2.31 and £6.24. This paper also decisively undermines the case made by the government and others that facility time in the public sector is disproportionate. It has demonstrated that in comparison to the private sector, the amount of facility time for trade union representatives in the public sector is not excessive. It also shows that in light of the quantifiable benefits to employers (as well as employees) that the work of union representatives brings, the so-called cost of facility time would more accurately be described as an investment in modern and effective industrial relations. Given the scale of expenditure cuts in the public sector, it could reasonably be assumed that the role of union reps and facility time would be more rather than less relevant currently, not least as union reps with significant release from their day-today duties might have developed considerable expertise and the pace of change might be faster than previously. Reducing facility time might well undermine co-operation between union representatives and employers, thereby threatening efforts to deliver improvements to public services in the future.

Trades Union Congress Congress House Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LS www.tuc.org.uk

For more copies of this title contact our ordering point on 020 7467 1294 or [email protected]. Bulk discounts may be offered.

All TUC publications can be provided for dyslexic or visually impaired readers in an agreed accessible format, on request, at no extra cost.

90 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

Date of Meeting: 17 October 2018

Item No: 9 Title of Item: Schools Block Transfer to High Needs Block 2019/20

Executive Summary A consultation seeking views on the possible Schools Block transfer proposal was issued to schools on 13 September 2018 and responses will be reported to the Schools Forum on 17 October 2018.

A copy of the consultation document provides further details of the options available

The final consultation analysis will be reported at the Forum meeting and the Forum will be asked to formally vote on the proposals.

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report; b) Formally vote on Schools Block Transfer to High Needs Block for 2019/20.

91 Background The DfE's Operational Guidance for 2019/20 confirms that the Schools Block will again be ring-fenced in 2019/20, but LAs will be able to transfer up to 0.5% of their Schools Block funding out with the agreement of the Schools Forum, following a consultation with schools. Transfers of more than 0.5% may be allowed in certain circumstances, with agreement from the Secretary of State.

The LA can also seek Secretary of State approval for a transfer, if Schools Forum refuse, although this would not be in keeping with the positive relationship with the Lancashire Forum.

A consultation seeking views on the possible Schools Block transfer proposal was issued to schools on 13 September 2018 and responses will be reported to the Schools Forum on 17 October 2018. A copy of the consultation document is provided at Annex A to the Service De-Delegations report at item 8 on the agenda.

Options included in the transfer were:  Transfer headroom only from Schools Block (current estimate £0.15m transfer);  Capping Reduced to 1.5% (current estimate £1.35m transfer);  Removal of 1% Funding Floor and Capping Reduced to 1.5% (Circa £4m transfer);  No transfer from Schools Block.

More details around each option, including impact analysis, is provided in the consultation document and the proposals have been considered at both the High Needs and Schools Block Working Groups. Both groups noted the provisional analysis of responses received from schools at the time of their meetings.

The High Needs Block did not make any specific recommendations at that time.

Schools Block colleagues were extremely concerned about the possible required 10% reduction on High Needs which will affect funding going to schools and especially the significant impact this would have on special schools and PRUs if such cuts were to be implemented without any transitional protection. The working group were therefore in favour of a £4m transfer from Schools Block to afford Special Schools and PRUs some transition to reducing budgets. Members suggested that correspondence could perhaps be sent from the Forum to all schools explaining that the Forum was minded to support the higher level transfer, and explaining the reasons behind such a recommendation. Any correspondence could provide illustrative examples of the impact of cuts on schools funded entirely from the High Needs Block.

The consultation closing date on the possible Schools Block Transfer Proposals for 2019/20 was 12 October 2018 and final responses will be reported at the Forum meeting.

The Forum will be asked to formally vote on the proposals.

92 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 17 October 2018

Item No 10

Title: Recommendations of the Schools Block Working Group

Executive Summary

On 4 October 2018, the Schools Block Working Group considered a number of reports, including:

 LCC Banking Tender;  Schools Block Budget 2019/20;  Schools in Financial Difficulty (SIFD) Update;  Clawback Appeal – Further Information;  3 Year Budget Forecasts;  Alternative Provision Intervention Proposals.

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the Schools Block Working Group held on 4 October 2018; b) Ratify the Working Group's recommendations.

93 Background On 4 October 2018, the Schools Block Working Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.

1. LCC Banking Tender A Schools Portal posting was issued to schools on 18 September to:  Alert schools to potential changes to banking arrangements for schools banking with the County Council, arising from the banking tender process;  Seek volunteers to be part of any working party considering changes in the banking arrangements, if a new bank were successful in the banking tender process.

The Working group noted the information.

2. Schools Block Budget 2019/20 In July 2018, the Government made announcements about school revenue funding in 2019/20.

Context 2019/20 is the second year of the 'soft' National School Funding (NFF) arrangements. Allocations in 2019/20 will also include the second year of the additional £1.3 billion investment in core school funding, which accompanied the NFF introduction.

Members noted that following a consultation with schools, the Forum supported the introduction of the NFF methodology from 2018/19 as the Lancashire funding model.

NFF 2019/20 Updates Information was provided about the planned updates to the NFF for 2019/20 that were confirmed in the July announcement, including those around the minimum per pupil funding (MPF) levels. The MPF level for secondary schools will increase to £4,800 and the minimum per pupil funding level for primary schools will increase to £3,500 (from the 2018/19 transitional levels of £4,600 and £3,300 respectively). A full list of allowable funding factors in 2019/20 was provided for the working group.

In addition, the DfE announcements confirm some further, relatively small NFF policy changes for 2019/20, which included:

 Growth Funding will be based on the actual growth in pupil numbers experienced the previous year, using middle layer super output area (MSOA) level, which can detect ‘pockets’ of growth within LAs;  Primary Low Prior Attainment (LPA) factor values in the primary sector will reduce from £1,050 in 2018/19, to £1,022 in 2019/20 to balance the increase in the cohort caused by changes in the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile

A full list of the 2019/20 NFF unit values, total funding and proportion of funding for each factor in the formula, at a national level, were provided for the working group.

Premises and mobility factors in 2019/20

94 In 2019/20, these factors will be calculated based on LA spend in 2018/19. Calculating the mobility factor based on historic spend again disadvantages Lancashire, as we did not use the factor historically, so do not generate a 2019/20 mobility allocation. DfE are continuing to consider the long-term approach to premises/mobility factors in the NFF.

Primary Unit of Funding (PUF) and Secondary Unit of Funding (SUF) The DfE have updated their school and LA level illustrative allocations for 2019/20, and provided the actual primary unit of funding (PUF) and secondary unit of funding (SUF) that will be used to calculate each LA schools block allocation for 2019/20, which for Lancashire are shown below:

Actual primary unit of funding (PUF) Actual secondary unit of funding (SUF) £4,064 £5,097

These units of funding will be multiplied by the relevant pupil numbers recorded on the October 2018 census to calculate Lancashire's 2019/20 Schools Block funding. In addition, LA level allocations will be made for the premises and mobility factors. Following representations, Lancashire has received confirmation that our premises allocation will be increased from the original illustrative allocation, which contained some discrepancies.

Cost Pressures 2019/20 Any increases in funding at individual school level will need to be considered against the cost pressures facing the sector. Further cost pressure information is provided below:

Teachers Pay Government announcements for teachers pay from September 2018 provide for a:  3.5% increase for classroom teachers on the main pay range,  2% increases for those on the upper pay range;  1.5% increases for those in leadership positions.

Announcements indicate that the grant will cover, in full, the difference between the teachers' pay award and the cost of the 1% award that schools would have anticipated under the previous public sector pay cap.

For primary and secondary schools allocations will be based on the number of pupils at the school, with a minimum allocation equivalent to 100 pupils. The allocation rates include an Area Cost Adjustment, and the rates applicable in Lancashire are provided below.

Rates for primary schools

Region Rate in 2018 to 2019 (£) Rate in 2019 to 2020 (£) Rest of England 16.40 28.29

Rates for secondary schools (with same rate for all 11-19 year olds)

Region Rate in 2018 to 2019 (£) Rate in 2019 to 2020 (£) Rest of England 26.54 45.56

95 DfE indicate that they will make payments later in the autumn.

Support staff The new pay arrangements for 2019/20 provide for a general pay increase of 2%, but also 'bottom loads' the lower spinal column points (SCP), up to SCP 19, where increases can be up to circa 7%. Also, some of the existing SCPs are merged on the NPS and some additional SCPs are added.

There is no extra funding contribution from the Government towards NJC pay rises, and the cost implications for individual schools will need to be borne from the 2019/20 NFF resources as allocated.

Employer's Pensions Contribution Provisional announcements indicate that there could be significant rises in employer's pensions contributions from September 2019, although information suggests that the DfE expect to provide additional funding in 2019/20 to cover this increase.

Inflation As of August 2018, UK inflation, using the Consumer Price Index CPIH measure was 2.4%.

Transferring Funding out of the Schools Block The Schools Block will again be ring-fenced in 2019/20, but LAs will still be able to transfer up to 0.5% of their Schools Block funding out with the agreement of the Schools Forum, following a consultation with schools. Transfers of more than 0.5% may be allowed in certain circumstances, with agreement from the Secretary of State.

The LA can also seek Secretary of State approval for a transfer, if Schools Forum refuse, although this would not be in keeping with the positive relationship with the Lancashire Forum.

Due to the ongoing High Needs Block pressures it is again envisaged that the DSG will be under considerable stress in 2019/20 and options to transfer various amounts from Schools Block to High Needs Block need to be considered. A consultation seeking views on the possible Schools Block transfer proposal has been issued to schools and responses will be reported to the Schools Forum on 17 October 2018.

Outlines of the options are given below:  Transfer headroom only from Schools Block (current estimate £0.15m transfer) Modelling of 2019/20 allocations indicates that the level of Schools Block headroom available from April 2019 will be at a reduced level compared to 2018/19, with a current estimate totalling around £0.15m, representing about 0.02% of Schools Block funding.

 Capping Reduced to 1.5% (current estimate £1.35m transfer) Modelling indicates that this option would generate a transfer of circa £1.35m, representing around 10%-15% of the forecast HNB overspend, which would begin to make inroads into the savings required, but would still require significant cuts to schools and pupils funded from the High Needs Block. This level of transfer represents approximately 0.18% of the total 2019/20 Schools Block allocation in Lancashire.

96  Removal of 1% Funding Floor and Capping Reduced to 1.5% (Circa £4m transfer) This option would generate a circa £4m to transfer to the HNB, representing 0.55% of Schools Block funding. This would provide a more significant level of support to the forecast overspend than the previous option alone, contributing around 40% of the savings target.

This option would leave the largest savings burden on the HNB, requiring 10% reductions on the budget, which would have significant implications particularly for special schools and PRUs.

An impact assessment for primary and secondary schools of various options was provided in the report. Information was also shared from other LAs in the North West that indicated that the vast majority were also proposing Schools Block to High Needs Blok transfers in 2019/20, many at a level of 0.5% or above.

It was noted that of the school responses to date the £1.35m transfer option had received the most support.

Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Balances The DfE's Operational Guidance for 2019/20 indicates that there are an increasing number of local authorities that are now incurring a deficit on their overall DSG accounts, largely because of overspends on the High Needs Block. For 2019/20, DfE have therefore tightened up the rules under which local authorities have to explain their plans for bringing the DSG account back into balance.

Lancashire currently retains a positive DSG reserve, but members were aware that the level of reserve reduced by over £6m at 31 March 2018, to £14.4m, and significant High Needs Block overspends are again forecast during 2019/20.

Free School Meals (FSM) Universal Credit As a result of this change to the benefit system, the number of pupils eligible for free school meals will increase because of the transitional protections during the universal credit rollout, which mean that pupils who were eligible for free school meals on 1 April 2018, and those who become eligible during the Universal Credit rollout period, will retain eligibility until the end of the rollout period. For those still in education at this point, protections will continue until the end of their current phase of education; this covers until at least summer 2023.

97 This means that schools should not remove FSM eligibility from pupils until at least 2023, continuing to offer them meals and record them as eligible on the census.

DfE are therefore introducing a Free school meals supplementary grant. This grant will provide schools with additional funding to help them meet the higher costs of providing extra meals before the lagged funding system catches up.

2018/19 allocations are expected to be made as follows:  February 2019 - ESFA pay local authorities for their maintained schools;  March 2019 - ESFA pay academies and free schools.

Queries had been raised about whether this grant should be treated as a 'late allocation' and be exempt from the clawback calculation at 31 March 2019 and about whether schools had been notified about the revised policy and if FSM lists on the Schools Portal reflected this eligibility change.

Information from the Pupil Access Team confirmed that information had been shared with schools about this change and that the FSM lists on the Schools Portal did reflect the revised eligibility. However, a number of working group members remained unaware of the changes.

Central School Services Block (CSSB) 2019/20 is the second year in which a distinct fourth DSG funding block has operated for central school services. This block will continue to be calculated on a formulaic allocation for ongoing responsibilities and a cash sum for historic commitments. Historic commitment funding is expected to reduce each year, and DfE will monitor compliance.

School Funding 2020/21 The DfE's July 2018 announcements included some initial references to school funding arrangements in 2020/21 and further analysis of local authority decisions' in the first 'soft' year of the NFF in 2018/19.

It was noted that 73 local authorities have moved every one of their factor values in their local formulae closer to the national funding formula, with 41 mirroring the national funding formula factor values almost exactly.

In light of this progress, DfE had decided that LAs will continue to determine local formulae in 2020-21.

Members debated the information about the Schools Block funding arrangements for 2019/20 and the possible options for a Schools Block transfer to HNB. The complexities and length of the funding consultation were acknowledged and some members indicated that the severity of cuts being faced by special schools and PRUs was not immediately apparent.

Whilst acknowledging the current option preferred in school responses to date, it was felt that Forum members had had a greater opportunity to discuss the key issues and understand the wider implications across all schools and sectors. Schools Block colleagues were extremely concerned about the possible required 10% reduction on High Needs which will affect funding going to schools and especially the significant impact this would have on special schools and PRUs if such cuts were to be implemented without any transitional protection. The working

98 group were therefore in favour of a £4m transfer from Schools Block to afford Special Schools and PRU's some transition to reducing budgets. Members suggested that correspondence could perhaps be sent from the Forum to all schools explaining that the Forum was minded to support the higher level transfer, and explaining the reasons behind such a recommendation. Any correspondence could provide illustrative examples of the impact of cuts on schools funded entirely from the High Needs Block.

The Group held an informal vote which overwhelmingly supported the proposed course of action with two members abstaining and no opposed,

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information provided; b) Noted the school responses to date; c) Recommended that the Schools Forum support the £4m transfer option and if agreed, this be communicated to schools providing a clear explanation of the reasons; d) Recommend that the Free school meals supplementary grant be treated as a 'late allocation' and be exempt from the clawback calculation at 31 March 2019; e) Expressed concern that a number of schools appeared to be unaware of the FSM supplementary grant and the revised eligibility criteria.

3. Schools in Financial Difficulty (SIFD) Update At the Forum meeting on 3 July 2018, members requested additional information around Schools in Financial Difficulty Categorisations. Further information was provided on updated SIFD categorisations, using 31 March 2018 outturn data. Categories are:

Category Description Category 1 Structural deficit beyond recovery, school is financially non-viable, Structural Deficit strategic solutions required Category 2 Schools have significant deficits requiring intensive intervention and Significant Deficit focussed support to recover, or have no agreed recovery plan – pushing boundaries of 3 year timescale Category 3 Incorporates schools burning through reserves, losing significant Vulnerable pupil numbers, moving into or on the brink of deficit, or schools that Position are recovering from more significant financial problems, but where the recovery plan is agreed and is on track - require intervention and monitoring in order to prevent failure in the next 3 years – education, challenge and forecasting support Category 4 No budget issues but continued monitoring of financial indicators to No financial issues confirm ongoing financial health.

The analysis across all school is shown below for all maintained schools:

Category No. of schools % 1 6 1.0% 2 9 1.5% 3 58 9.8% 4 520 87.7% 593

A phased base analysis was also provided for the working group.

Enhanced Financial Training During the summer term 2018, a series of financial seminars were provided at venues across the county. Invitations were extended to Headteachers, Chairs of Governors and School Business Managers in primary and nursery schools and over 150 delegates attended.

It was proposed that the next seminar arrangements would focus on secondary schools.

Enhanced Commissioned Support The LA is enhancing the support that is provided to SIFD, particularly those identified in Category 2. The categorisation data will be used to identify the most vulnerable schools and phases. Additional targeted support will then be commissioned to assist individual school recovery. Specialist support will be directed across phases, utilising best practice, benchmarking data and successful strategies from similar schools. Initially, priority will be given to the nursery sector and the secondary sector. The de-delegated SIFD Budget will be used to fund this additional targeted support.

Treatment of surplus and deficit balances when maintained schools become academies In March 2018 the DfE issued updated Guidance on the 'Treatment of surplus and deficit balances when maintained schools become academies'. This guidance confirms a number of the existing arrangements about the treatment of school balances when maintained schools become academies.

However, where the Secretary of State (SoS) issues an Academy Order (AO) in respect of a school eligible for intervention guidance now provides that a surplus balance remains with the LA (though the surplus can be transferred).

Members will be aware that, in order to be compliant with the guidance, and following a consultation with schools, the Forum's Strategic Reserve was delegated and de-delegated in 2017/18. The de-delegated Strategic Reserve amounts to circa £4m. However, the current risk associated with school closures/sponsored academies converting with a deficit budget is estimated at circa £9.6m.

In this context, the Authority has taken the decision that where the SoS issues an AO in respect of a school eligible for intervention, any surplus balance will, in future, be retained by the LA.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the decision that the Secretary of State issues an Academy Order in respect of a school eligible for intervention, any surplus balance will, in future, be retained by the LA.

4. Clawback Appeal – Further Information As part of the School Balances and Clawback report presented to the Forum on 3 July 2018, a number of appeals to clawback at 31 March 2018 were considered. One school, where the

100 clawback appeal was rejected, has submitted further information for consideration by the Forum.

Members considered the additional mitigating information provided by the school in response to the Forum's original decision and a more sympathetic view to the appeal in this case was expressed. Members agreed that a compromise would be that 50% of the clawed back funding attributable to issues associated with this appeal around coding of building works costs should be repaid to the school.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended to the Forum that 50% of the clawed back funding attributable to issues associated with this appeal around coding of building works costs should be repaid to the school.

5. 3 Year Budget Forecasts As members will be aware, the LA requires all schools to prepare and approve a formal budget plan each year and submit this to the Authority (the 'Income and Expenditure Form'). Under the current financial framework, where only single year funding statements are issued, the I&E return requires only a single year budget plan to be submitted.

Schools should plan their budgets over a longer period, indeed this is a requirement of the Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) and forms part of the DfE's guidance. In addition Schools Financial Services (SFS) do offer a 3 Year Financial Forecast option as part of their Service Level Agreement (SLA) that a majority of schools purchase.

Where schools fall into deficit, the budget anticipation arrangements provide that a recovery plan is submitted, which can be for a maximum of three years. In effect requiring a school in financial difficulty to produce a 3 year budget plan, considering a forecast of income and expenditure over that period and making decisions and adjustments to return the school to surplus.

However, we are aware that the ESFA have, from 2018/19, introduced a requirement on all academies to provide a 3 year budget forecast.

The LA wish to introduce a similar requirement for all maintained schools in Lancashire to produce 3 year budget plans going forward. The LA are mindful that with the number of schools that are finding themselves in financial distress along with the current financial environment that schools need to plan at least on a 3 year financial basis to ensure that they are able to make appropriate decisions and actions early enough to avoid or minimise both educational as well as financial issues.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the introduction of 3 Year Budget Forecasts for maintained schools, perhaps targeting high risk schools in the first instance.

101 6. Alternative Provision Intervention Proposals Steve Belbin, Head of School Improvement Service attended the Working Group for this item.

Steve had attended the High Needs Block Working Group to discuss some initial discussions about AP intervention proposals, but it was suggested that much a similar presentation should also be provided to the Schools Block WG because of the impact of proposals on mainstream schools.

The LA shares some concerns expressed as part of the original 2018/19 savings proposals and is considering the Alternative Provision Intervention options available within the context of the financial constraints. In summary, initial proposals were:

Primary:  Seek financial support from schools:  Additional targeted support from SEND budget:  PASS funding to districts (High Needs support). Responsibility lies with the districts:  Lancashire pledge to be replaced with DfE/NASEN pledge

Secondary:  Existing Fair Access Panel;  Meet in districts: special, secondary, PRU;  Devise a local offer of support;  Introduce Extended Access panel: HTs, SENDos, SENCos, Behaviour & Attendance, CSC/CAMH.

The Working Group: a) Noted the presentation; b) Supported the outline proposals presented in connection with the intervention options and recommended that more detailed proposals be developed; c) Noted that more the financial implications of the more detailed proposals would be considered as part of the overall DSG budget proposals, including any transfer from Schools Block to high Needs Block.

102 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 17 October 2018

Item No 11

Title: Recommendations of the High Needs Block Working Group

Executive Summary

On 25 September 2018, the High Needs Block Working Group considered a number of reports, including:

 Historic Commitments Funding: o Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH); o Prevention and Early Help;  High Needs Block, Central School Services Block and Central Items Monitoring 2018/19;  High Needs Block Budget 2019/20 DfE Guidance;  Initial Lancashire High Needs Block Proposals for 2019/20, including proposals for Commissioned Places;  Specialist Equipment Guidance for Schools;  Pupil Premium Grant + update circulated on 21/09/18.

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 25 September 2018; b) Ratify the Working Group's recommendations.

103 Background On 25 September 2018, the High Needs Block Working Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.

1. Historic Commitments Funding: Members were reminded that the DfE guidance indicated that the funding for historic commitments in 2019/20 will be allocated at the same level as in 2018/19, and included the expectation that expenditure from DSG will reduce over time as contracts and other commitments reach their end points.

Information was provided on two areas currently funded from historic commitments, but it was noted that the due to the ongoing pressures on the High Needs Block budget, the Forum would like to receive information on the overall DSG funding situation but making decisions on historic commitments funding.

a) Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) Rose Howley, County Manager, MASH & EDT will attend for this item

The MASH is made up of a range of agencies including: Police, Health, Probation, Children family and Wellbeing service (CFW), Adult Social Care, Fire and Rescue and has established links with YOT and Drugs and Alcohol Services.

MASH has been developed as a result of learning from previous experiences, especially from lessons by reviews of serious safeguarding incidents across the country. A recurring theme of these reviews is the importance of information-sharing and close working arrangements between relevant agencies.

The MASH model has been strongly endorsed in the OFSTED report and ‘The Munro Review of Child Protection’.

We now have the right infrastructure which includes an established locality model within MASH with a single point of contact (SPOC). Operational procedures, performance framework and reporting and an increased social work resource.

The main function of the MASH is to identify which level a child and family sit on the Continuum of Need (CON) and identify the most appropriate intervention available.

Education links in MASH There are currently two MASH education officers plus two education BSO's funded by the schools forum based within MASH to enable information sharing with schools. There is an agreement in place that all Police PVP's coming into MASH regarding domestic abuse will be shared with a child's school.

Since December 2014 two grade nine workers have been in post and have established links with schools in Lancashire. The two workers are qualified teachers and have an understanding of the pressures that face safeguarding leads.

104 The two MASH posts are seen as critical to continued engagement, establishing effective relationships with schools and developing pathways and working processes that benefit their pupils and their families. The report sets out the MASH Objectives, including:

 Improved Safeguarding Decision Making;  Early Identification of Harm and Risk;  Improved Interface with Early Help Services.

Why the Education posts in MASH are so valuable The report sets out detailed information about why MASH is so valuable.  Multi-agency working  Quality Assurance  Direct Point of Contact  Police Reports  Missing from home reports  LSCB Representation

Future developments The reports references the development of a specific Early Help module that will be integrated into an Lancashire Children's System (LCS), ensuring that MASH has information regarding the journey and lived experience of the child and their involvement with early help CAF and TAF and statutory services.

There are plans for the Police to bring in Encompass which will enable at the scene info sharing with school from the attending Police officer.

The Hub and Spoke model is being developed that will have a number of hub schools which will support a number of spoke schools with early help developing closer links with CFW and MASH.

It was estimated that funding required for 2019/20 would equate to circa £80k to £100k.

Members noted the update provided and spoke highly of the support they received from MASH. Discussion of the possible consequences at school level if the MASH education posts were discontinued also ensued, which included a likely increase in the workload for Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) staff.

A query was raised by the nursery sector about why police reports are not given to Nursery Schools. Officers agreed to raise this query with the MASH Project Board and report back.

b) Prevention and Early Help Helen Green, Quality and Review Officer, Children and Family Wellbeing Service and Dave Carr, Head of Service, Policy, Information and Commissioning (Start Well) will attend for this item

The Schools Forum has supported the development of early help across the county for several years providing a funding contribution of £450k during 2018/19 which supports two county wide commissioned services;

105  Emotional Health and Wellbeing Service  Support for Children and Young people who have witnessed or been affected by Domestic Abuse

Emotional Health and Wellbeing Service The need for early specialist emotional health and wellbeing provision for children and young people was identified following completion of a comprehensive needs assessment and a contract was awarded to the Child Action North West Partnership. This service acts as an appropriate pathway for children and young people at level 2, 3 and 4 on the Lancashire Continuum of Need who are experiencing escalating emotional health and wellbeing needs. The service is delivered within both an individual and family context and includes a range of approaches including specialist early help counselling provision.

The contract is delivered partly on a payment by results basis to ensure that the authority receives optimum value for money with 40% of the annual contract value being paid up front with the remaining 60% paid based upon the achievement of agreed outcomes.

Information was provided about the monitoring arrangements and some case studies setting out the impact of work on improving outcomes for children, young people and families.

During 2017/18 the service received 1,775 referrals against a contract capacity of 1,394 places which led to the implementation of waiting times across most Districts.

For 2018/19 £1.45m funding was set aside for this contract; £250k from Schools Forum together with £1.1m redirected from Tier 2/3 mental health services and £100k from CFW service.

The investment in the 2018/19 contract has increased capacity to 1763 places which should enable the provider to meet the level of demand based on last year's referral numbers. In addition to increased capacity the 2018/19 contract includes amendments to improve the quality of service received by children, young people and their families. These amendments include a contract requirement to keep waiting times under 4 weeks and a change to the referral pathway to include a fully completed CAF assessment with all referrals to the provider.

Support for Children and Young People affected by Domestic Abuse commissioned service From 01 April 2017 the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner (OPCC) took on the role as lead commissioner on behalf of partners for Domestic Abuse services as part of a wider contract titled 'Lancashire Victims Services' which includes services specifically for victims of domestic abuse, rape, CSE, forced marriage, honour based violence, FGM, hate crime, young victims of crime and road traffic crime.

The contract was awarded to Victim Support and is delivered across Lancashire as part of the NEST service with children and young people receiving a programme of 6 week's support designed to enable children and young people to understand and manage their situation and emotions and most importantly to keep safe.

106 During 2017/18 the service received 431 referrals which included children and young people who had been witness to domestic abuse. Of those 29% (125) completed the NEST programme.

For 2018/19 the Schools Forum provided £200k funding into the pooled budget to support children and young people who have either been victims of, or witnessed domestic abuse as part of this contract. The contract is monitored on a quarterly basis by the OPCC.

2019/20 Proposals The levels of demand for early support for some of County's most disadvantaged and vulnerable children and young people continues to rise. The services supported by the Schools Forum funding make an important difference to delivering improved outcomes for children, young people and their families. Similar levels of DSG funding were requested for 2019/20 as were provided in 2018/19, totalling £450k

Members noted the information provided in the report and noted that the impact of providing a reduced DSG allocation to early help in 2019/20 would result in a reduced provision being available in the county to support children needing access to these services. Some members also queried the completion rates for the NEST project and asked for more information on the arrangements to judge the value for money the service provided.

The Working Group: a) Noted the reports and thanked officers for the information; b) Confirmed that decisions about any DSG funding support for these 'Historic Commitments' would need to be judged against the overall budgets pressures being faced, particularly in the High Needs Block, so could not be taken at this stage; c) Requested further information be provided to the next meeting on the queries relating to the provision of police reports for nursery schools via the MASH and about completion rates for NEST children.

2. High Needs Block, Central School Services Block and Central Items Monitoring 2018/19 Previous reports to members have highlighted the forecast overspend on the High Needs Block in 2018/19.

At the Forum's request, reports to the Group in the summer term 2018 provided an update on the various proposals to mitigate the forecast overspend, but it was noted that no detailed budget monitoring information was included, as termly pupil data for the term was not available at that time.

Data from the summer term has since become available and detailed analysis has been undertaken for High Needs Block and also the Central School Services Block (CSSB) and Central Items, as expenditure in these budgets relates to the forecast HNB overspend.

A report was presented setting out the latest monitoring and analysis which had been reproduced in a similar layout to the budget reports previously presented to the Forum, so that members could recognise the format and the budget headings and agreed amounts.

107 The analysis provided in the report included information on any budget adjustments and the reasons for significant budget variances to date were highlighted.

Based on the summer term monitoring provided, the position at 31 March 2019 was forecast to be an overspend of £6.75m, although it was noted that this position did not take into account any increase in demand that may occur in the new academic year.

It was noted that the level of funding available had increased in 2018/19, but this had not kept pace with increasing demand. Members discussed the continued pressures on the budget and queried various monitoring figures provided. In responses to questions, it was noted that 'invest to save' initiates were no longer allowable under DSG funding rules.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the 2018/19 HNB budget monitoring information provided,

3. High Needs Block Budget 2019/20 DfE Guidance Last year, DfE set out the details of the high needs national funding formula for 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020. July 2018 announcements confirmed that the basic structure of the high needs national funding formula in 2019/20 is not changing.

DfE are taking forward a small number of technical changes to high needs funding for 2019/20, some of which will be subject to further consultations before final DSG allocations are made. Areas for possible change included

 Special free schools’ places;  Hospital education;  Post-16 high needs: o Allowing local authorities more flexibility to develop bespoke arrangements with schools and colleges for funding students with special needs; o Possible use of a flat rate to replace some elements of post-16 funding.

2019/20 High Needs Block Provisional Allocation The July 2018 announcements about the arrangements for High Needs block funding in 2019/20 were accompanied by provisional HNB allocations for each LA. The provisional 'gross' High Needs block allocation for Lancashire is £114,339,773. Further details of the allocation calculation were provided in the report. The equivalent 'provisional' gross HNB allocation that was notified for 2018/19, equated to a total of £110,125,166. The 2019/20 provisional allocation is circa £4m higher than the 2018/19 figure.

Cost Pressures 2019/20 There are a number of cost pressures facing schools from 2019/20 and some information is provided below:

108 Teachers Pay Government announcements for teachers pay from September 2018 provide for a:  3.5% increase for classroom teachers on the main pay range,  2% increases for those on the upper pay range;  1.5% increases for those in leadership positions.

For special schools and PRUs allocations will be based on the number of places at the school, with a minimum allocation equivalent to 40 places. The allocation rates include an Area Cost Adjustment, and the rates applicable in Lancashire are provided below.

Rates for special and alternative provision schools

Region Rate in 2018 to 2019 (£) Rate in 2019 to 2020 (£) Rest of England 65.65 113.46

DfE indicate that they will make payments later in the autumn.

There is no extra funding contribution from the Government towards NJC pay rises, and the cost implications for individual schools will need to be borne from the 2019/20 NFF resources as allocated.

Inflation As of July 2018, UK inflation, using the Consumer Price Index CPIH measure was 2.3%.

109 Lancashire currently retains a positive DSG reserve, but members were aware that the level of reserve reduced by over £6m at 31 March 2018, to £14.4m, and significant High Needs Block overspends are again forecast during 2019/20.

School Funding 2020/21 The Operational Guidance document also highlighted some further conditions that DfE expect to introduce into the Central school Services Block (CSSB) arrangements from 2020/21, including information about the DfE intention to monitor and reduce historic commitments. "From 2020 to 2021, we expect to start to reduce the historic commitments element of the CSSB where local authorities’ expenditure has not reduced. We do not believe it is fair to maintain indefinitely significant differences in funding between local authorities which reflect historic decisions"

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information provided.

4. Initial Lancashire High Needs Block Proposals for 2019/20, including proposals for Commissioned Places Steve Belbin, Head of School Improvement Service attended the Working Group for this item.

This report provided initial information about the development of HNB funding proposals for 2019/20 in Lancashire. It was noted that discussions are continuing with representative groups, to further shape and refine proposals, and a brief outline of the current position was presented.

Special Schools Since the last Forum meeting in the summer term, discussions have been held with a working group of special school representatives and a dialogue with the full LaSSHTA group took place on 19 September 2018, where recommendations emerged including:

 A revised methodology for commissioned place numbers in special schools, based on simple average pupil numbers from previous year;  Suggested arrangements for the special school, ‘core school specific' allocations is either average across all special schools or transfer to pupil funding;  WPN funding proposals look to fund on average funding per pupil primary need.

It had been agreed to circulate a consultation document to all special schools to obtain final views to feed into the 2019/20 budget proposals.

Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) A revised funding formula was introduced for PRUs in 2018/19, following consultation with primary and secondary PRU representatives. As part of this arrangement, it was agreed that a review would be carried out during the year to assess the implementation and operation of the revised formula. The LA is arranging a meeting for PRUs to discuss the 2018/19 formula and any adjustments that may be needed for 2019/20, particularly due to the ongoing HNB budget pressures.

110 In addition, 2018/19 HNB savings options included a proposal to discontinue the non- statutory PASS payments system in the primary sector, from September 2018.

Feedback from some providers and through the Forum's AP Task and Finish Group expressed serious concerns about the risk of a significant potential increase in permanent exclusions following the cessation of PASS and before new working arrangements are implemented.

LA decided to make two interim payments in 2018/19 to partially cover the staffing arrangements at each of the providers supporting primary schools. Information about these transitional arrangement was issued to providers early in the autumn term 2018, but there is further concern about the timing and level of support from PRUs and schools.

The LA shares concerns on the availability of intervention support and is considering the options available within the context of the financial constraints, and Steve Belbin, Head of School Improvement Service presented some proposals for intervention support going forward. In summary, initial proposals were:

FE Colleges Positive meetings had been held with FE colleges around the future funding arrangements. FE college representative Robin Newton-Syms update the group on discussions, including how to determine pro-rata hours, moving from funding 25 hours per week to 21 hours, and about the payment processes and transitional arrangements.

Transferring Funding out of the Schools Block Locally, in 2018/19, the Forum supported a transfer of circa £0.7m from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block to help mitigate the forecast overspend in the High Needs Block. This figure was generated from the headroom available once 2018/19 Schools Block NFF allocations had been calculated. A consultation has been issued early in the autumn term, seeking views on proposals to transfer various levels of funding from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block to help mitigate the overspend in 2019/20. Options included:

 Transfer headroom only from Schools Block (current estimate £0.15m transfer);  Capping Reduced to 1.5% (current estimate £1.35m transfer);  Removal of 1% Funding Floor and Capping Reduced to 1.5% (Circa £4m transfer);  No transfer from Schools Block.

111

Information was also shared on the proposals being developed in other LAs in the region, with almost all proposing a Schools Block to HNB transfer in 2019/20, with the majority planning on a 0.5% level or above.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and updated information on 2019/20 HNB proposals; b) Supported the continued development of the proposals in partnership with the various representatives groups; c) Supported the outline proposals presented in connection with the intervention options and recommended that more detailed proposals be developed; d) Recommended that the outline intervention proposals should also be presented to the Schools Block Working Group, as they included significant implications for mainstream school.

5. Specialist Equipment Guidance for Schools David Graham, Head of Service Special Educational Needs and Disability presented this report. LCC has in place a procedure around the provision of Specialist Education Equipment. The County Council has recently reviewed the guidance that accompanies the Specialist Education Equipment Procedures and a copy of the September 2018 update was provided.

Since July 2016 the provision of specialist equipment in Lancashire has been centralised through the use of Medequip Assistive Technology limited. Lancashire will provide equipment for pupils in early years settings who are eligible for the 2 to 4 year old Free Early Education (FEE) and in schools who have physical, medical, and sensory or communication difficulties to enable them to facilitate their access to EYFS provision the school curriculum.

The guidelines set out information on:  Definition of Specialist Equipment;  Funding Thresholds;  Requesting Specialist Equipment;  Application Form SEQ1;  Approval of SEQ1 Forms;  Lancashire Pupils in other Authority Schools;  Other Authority Pupils in Lancashire Schools;  Ownership of and Responsibility for Specialist Equipment;  Lost Equipment;  Sensory Equipment;  Technical Support (Sensory);  Maintenance of Equipment;  Repairs and Faults;  Returning Equipment;  Transferring Equipment between schools;  Transition to Further Education (College settings).

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and updated guidance;

112 b) Supported the publication of the revised guidance to schools.

6. Pupil Premium Grant + update Audrey Swann Headteacher for Children Looked After presented this report.

The DFE allocate funding to each local authority to provide PPG+ for looked after children of statutory school age who are looked after to each LA. The funding is allocated from April 2018 at the rate of £2,300 for each CLA in the LA's care. The conditions of the grant state:

The LAC premium must be managed by the designated virtual school head (VSH) and used for the benefit of the looked-after child’s educational needs as described in their personal education plan. The VSH should ensure there are arrangements in place to discuss how the child will benefit from pupil premium funding with the designated teacher in the child’s education setting.

Any PPG+ grant allocated to a LA cannot be carried forward but would be recouped by the DFE. Lancashire has not returned funding to the DfE in 2016, 2017 or 2018.

Lancashire Virtual School Policy for the Allocation of PPG+: 2018-19  Each CLA will be allocated £600 per term is response to needs and use of funding identified and detailed as part of the Personal Education Plan. Discussions of the use and impact of PPG+ also to be part of the monitoring/discussion held between the Designated Teacher /Head and the Virtual School and/or School Advisor;  PPG+ will be allocated for CLA with EHCP within mainstream schools, PRUs and maintained special schools;  PPG+ is not allocated for CLA in independent special schools as it is expected that all needs are met within the agreed fees.

The remaining £500 per CLA will continue to form PPG+ high needs fund to allow funding support to be provided for pupils who have additional short term needs identified, or a period of crisis that is impacting directly on learning progress. Schools request this additional funding directly to the Virtual School with evidence of need, details of proposes use and predicted outcomes/impact. Evidence of impact is also required following an appropriate period.

Requests for additional PPG+ can only be made once a term for any pupil. It is for short term needs and cannot replace long term funding to meet on going needs, such as significant SEN.

The recent Ofsted Inspection of Lancashire Children's Services (August 2018) stated:

''Additional funding is used well to ensure that there is appropriate support in schools''.

PPG+ allocation to LA for financial year 2018-19

Allocation No of CLA £ Current 1375 3,162,500 Estimate 1486 3,417,800 Estimated redetermination 111 255,300

113

PPG+ allocation 2017-18 (most recent complete financial year). PPG+ allocated at rate of £1,900 per CLA.

Total PPG+ allocated to Lancashire: Total: £2,612,500. Number of pupils: 1,375 The majority of PPG+ was allocated directly to schools, through the termly allocation of £600 (£1,800) per pupils and additional allocations for individual need from high needs fund.

Other expenditure covered statutory training of Designated Teachers (no cost to schools), and short periods of 121 tuition for pupils not on a school roll.

In 2017-18 there was a continued focus on raising attainment in Maths and Reading at KS1 and 2 through targeted use of High Needs Funding (HNF). Attainment data for this cohort for those areas had previously increased and was above the national average for looked after children for the 2016-17 cohort.

Impact of HNF:  Avoidance of permanent exclusion;  Improved attainment at end of KS1, KS2 for cohort, and at end of KS4 for individuals;  Individual additional needs identified;  Improvements to wellbeing/emotional health;  Improved attendance and engagement;  Improved behaviours.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information provided; b) Congratulated the service on the positive comments received in the Ofsted report.

114 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 17 October 2018

Item No 13

Title: Schools Forum Urgent Business Decisions

Appendices (if applicable)

Executive Summary

The Schools Forum's Urgent Business Procedure has been used to agree a disapplication submission to the DfE. This report provides further information.

Forum Decision Required

The Forum is asked to note the report.

115 Background The 2019/20 School Block funding guidance from the ESFA brought forward the first deadline for the submission of 'Disapplication' requests to 28 September 2018. This date was before the early autumn term meetings of the Schools Block Working Group and the Schools Forum. The disapplication submission proforma includes a section requesting the views of the Schools Forum.

Views were therefore being sought using the Urgent Business Procedure. An email was distributed on 19 September 2018 setting out the proposed 'disapplication' in connection with the calculation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) for the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Split Site factors to mirror that used in the National Funding Formula, affecting 4 Lancashire schools.

By the closing date of 27 September 2018, 21 responses were received. All responses were in support of the disapplication and the formal submission was therefore made by the DfE deadline of 28 September.

The final wording from the disapplication submission is provided below:

As in 2018/19, Lancashire wishes to implement and mirror the NFF factors in our local formula in 2019/20. We welcome the aspects of the updated 2019/20 operational guidance and draft 2019/20 APT, which assist LAs to replicate the NFF methodology in local formulae.

However, our initial modelling of the Lancashire formula in 2019/20 suggests that we need to seek approval to include a technical adjustment to replicate the NFF methodology in respect of the MFG to exclude split site funding and PFI funding from the MFG calculation to mirror the NFF methodology which treats these factors differently to the APT calculation.

If a disapplication is not required for this situation, is it possible that the December 2018 release of the APT can be checked, as our modelling on the current APT version indicates some minor discrepancies between the operation of the MFG calculation for PFI/split site factors when compared to our understanding/modelling of the MFG methodology to mirror NFF.

116 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting: 17 October 2018

Item No 14

Title: Forum Correspondence

Executive Summary This report provides an update on Forum related correspondence since the last meeting.

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report; b) Express any views on the correspondence received.

117 Background This report provides an update on Forum related correspondence since the last meeting.

a) Schools forum operational and good practice guide The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) publish a regular round-up of information and actions for ESFA-funded organisations. The 19 September 2018 bulletin included a link to updated Schools Forum guidance.

This guide is for all parties interested in schools forums. It details the requirements of the meetings as well as setting out roles and responsibilities of the schools forum members.

A schools forum self-assessment toolkit is also included in the update, which officers have undertaken in relation to the Lancashire arrangements. No alterations to current practice are proposed.

The updated guidance is available from the Schools Forum website and can be accessed here.

b) Correspondence from a small primary school about SEN funding Email correspondence was received from the headteacher of a primary school in connection with SEN funding. The email sets out that the school is small, and has a low number of pupils eligible for pupil premium or generating IDACI income and was finding it difficult to meet the needs of the SEN children on roll.

The school provided detailed illustrations of the funding situation using their own budget and pupil characteristics and included supporting extracts and questions. The full correspondence has been shared with the Forum Chair's Group.

The email asked that the Forum be made aware that the current funding formula has massive implications for small schools and for schools with low pupil premium numbers and asked that possible alternative ways to fund are considered that are fairer for all children.

A draft response has been shared with the Chair's group, which sympathises with the pressures facing the school and also provides some context around the Schools Block and High Needs Block formulae in Lancashire and the national pressures and constraints facing the Forum at County level.

c) Correspondence from United Utilities (UU) Previous reports to the Forum have set out the concessions to surface water charges for schools in the North West. The Forum have written to and met with United Utilities who have recently confirmed that for 2019/20 they will treat all schools equally so concessions on water costs will be applied to all schools in the North West.

From the 2019/20 charging year UU will accept having an establishment number on the DfE's EduBase database as sufficient evidence of eligibility for our concessionary charge for schools.

118