Schools Forum agenda

Date: Tuesday 8 December 2020

Time: 1.30 pm

Venue: MS Teams Virtual Meeting

Membership:

Ms J Antrobus (Newton School), Ms J Cochrane (Sir Henry Floyd Grammar School), Ms P Coppins (Manor Farm Community Infant School), A Cranmer, Ms S Cromie (Wycombe High School), Ms J Freeman (Rye Liaison Group), Mr A Gillespie (Burnham Grammar School), Mr D Hood (Cressex Community School), Mrs J Male (Alfriston School), Mr K Patrick (Chiltern Hills Academy) (Chairman), Mrs D Rutley (Aspire PRU), Ms S Skinner (Growing Together Federation (Bowerdean & Henry Allen Nursery Schools)), Mr S Sneesby (Kite Ridge School), Ms E Stewart (Stoke Mandeville Combined School), Ms K Tamlyn (Cheddington Combined School) (Vice-Chairman), Mr B Taylor (Special School Representative), Mr A Wanford (Green Ridge Academy) and Ms J Watson (Lent Rise School)

Webcasting notice

Please note: this meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the council's website. At the start of the meeting the chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.

You should be aware that the council is a data controller under the Data Protection Act. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the council’s published policy.

Therefore by entering the meeting room, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If members of the public do not wish to have their image captured they should ask the committee clerk, who will advise where to sit.

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the monitoring officer at monitoringofficer@buckinghamshire.gov.uk.

Agenda Item Time Page No

1 Chairman's Welcome 13.30

2 Apologies for Absence

3 Declarations of Interest

4 Minutes of the Previous Meeting 13.35 5 - 10

5 Schools Forum Funding Group Update 13.40 Update to be provided by Ms K Tamlyn, Head Teacher Cheddington School- Chairman of the Schools Forum Funding Group.

6 Revenue Budget Monitoring 13.45 11 - 16 To be presented by Ms E Williams, Head of Finance- Childrens Services, Buckinghamshire Council.

7 Report of the Maintained Schools Committee 14.05 17 - 24 To be presented by the Chairmn of the Maintained Schools Committee.

8 Schools Budget Proposals 2021-22 14.25 25 - 44 To be presented by Ms E Williams, Head of Finance- Childrens Services, Buckinghamshire Council.

9 Allocation of Top Up Funding 2021-22 14.45 45 - 52 To be presented by Ms E Williams, Head of Finance- Childrens Services, Buckinghamshire Council.

10 Update from Local Authority 15.05 Update to be provide by Mr S James, Service Director for Education, Buckinghamshire Council.

11 AOB 15.15 53 - 74 Update from F40- To be presented by Ms E Williams, Head of Finance- Childrens Services, Buckinghamshire Council.

Update to Contingency TOR- To be presented by Ms E Williams, Head of Finance- Childrens Services, Buckinghamshire Council.

12 Date of Next Meeting 15.45 19 January 2021, 1.30pm. MS Teams Meeting

13 Exclusion of Press & Public To resolve to exclude the press and public as the following item is exempt by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 because it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

14 2021 Support Staff Pay Award Update 15.50 75 - 80 To be presented by Mr G Lamb- HR Policy & Reward Consultant, Buckinghamshire Council.

If you would like to attend a meeting, but need extra help to do so, for example because of a disability, please contact us as early as possible, so that we can try to put the right support in place.

For further information please contact: Christina Beevers on 01296 382938, email [email protected]. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4

Schools Forum minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Schools Forum held on Tuesday 13 October 2020 in MS Teams Virtual Meeting, commencing at 1.30 pm and concluding at 3.50 pm.

Members present

Ms J Antrobus, Ms J Cochrane, Ms P Coppins, CllrA Cranmer, Ms C Glasgow, Ms S Cromie, Ms J Freeman, Mr A Gillespie, Mr D Hood, Mrs J Male, Mrs G Bull, Dr K Simmons, Mr K Patrick, Mr S Sneesby, Ms F Smalley, Ms E Stewart, Ms N Lovegrove, Ms S Stephens, Ms K Tamlyn, Mr H Beveridge and Mr B Taylor

Others in attendance

Ms S Bayliss, Ms C Beevers, Mr G Drawmer, Mr S James, , Ms H Slinn, , and E Williams

Agenda Item

1 Election of Chairman & Vice-Chairman Ms K Tamlyn opened the meeting and asked for nominations for the election of Chairman. Mr K Patrick was nominated. The forum was asked to vote on the nominee.

RESOLVED: The forum APPOINTED Mr K Patrick as the Chairman.

Mr K Patrick as the new Chairman asked for nominations for the Vice- Chairman. Ms K Tamlyn was nominated and the forum took a vote.

RESOLVED: The forum APPOINTED Ms K Tamlyn as the Vice- Chairman.

Election of sub-groups- The chairmen of the subgroups were agreed as follows:

Contingency Group: Meet once yearly. David Hood (Chairman)

SFFG- meet prior to each School Forum (SF) meeting: Kathryn Tamlyn- Primary Sector (Chairman)

Page 5 Maintained Schools Sub-committee (De-Delegation)- Annual meeting. Janice Freeman (Chairman). A date was confirmed for the next meeting of 10 November 2020.

Action Deadline To be completed by To send out an email to ASAP Ms C Beevers all school forum member for volunteers to the sub-groups.

RESOLVED: The forum APPOINTED the Chairman of the sub-groups.

2 Apologies & Changes in Membership Apologies were received from: Roy Page (Chalfont Community College) and Aaron Wanford (Green Ridge Academy).

3 Declarations of Interest There were none.

4 Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2020 were AGREED as an accurate record.

All actions were reviewed and confirmed as completed. Action Deadline To be completed by To update the Next Meeting Ms C Beevers attendance list for members from the last meeting to show under correct heading. To add timings to the Next Meeting Ms C Beevers next meeting agenda.

5 Schools Forum Funding Group Update Ms K Tamlyn, Head Teacher Cheddington School- Chairman of the Schools Forum Funding Group gave an overview of the SFFG meeting held on 28 September. The action log was appended to the minutes.

6 Revenue Budget Monitoring Ms E Williams, Head of Finance- Childrens Services, Buckinghamshire Council gave an overview of the report provided.

Recommendation: Schools Forum is asked to note the revenue budget monitoring position at the end of August and the requirement for a DSG Deficit Management Plan.

Page 6

Resolved: Schools Forum NOTED the revenue budget monitoring position at the end of August and the requirement for a DSG Deficit Management Plan.

Action Deadline To be completed by To include a clear budget Next update Ms E Williams plan for ARP’s in future years. To send out the deficit Before next meeting of Ms E Williams/ Ms C management template SFFG Beevers to Schools Forum members at the same time as it is distributed to SFFG members for consideration.

7 High Needs Update Ms H Slinn Head of Integrated SEND, Buckinghamshire Council gave an overview of the report provided.

Recommendation:  Schools Forum Funding Group is asked to note the impact of the revised budget monitoring position on the High Needs budget for 2020-21, specifically the independent placements budget.  Moving forward, the budget will be split by school type to allow for increased monitoring and scrutiny. Schools Forum is asked to note the data trends and the proposed next steps.

Resolved:  Schools Forum NOTED the impact of the revised budget monitoring position on the High Needs budget for 2020-21, specifically the independent placements budget.  Moving forward, the budget will be split by school type to allow for increased monitoring and scrutiny. Schools Forum NOTED the data trends and the proposed next steps.

Action Deadline To be completed by To share what has been Next update Ms H Slinn the impact of more children moving into the county and the breakdown of those needs. To continue offline Next meeting Ms H Slinn conversation with Mr D Hood.

Page 7 8 National Funding Formula and Operational Guidance 2021-22 Ms E Williams, Head of Finance- Childrens Services, Buckinghamshire Council gave an overview of the report provided.

Recommendation: a) To note the information contained in this report. b) To confirm the principles to be adopted for 2021-22 local funding formula within the over-arching principle that the local funding formula reflects the National Funding Formula (NFF) (paragraph 6.1). c) To agree whether a consultation is required with schools on a change to the level of the MFG. d) To agree whether a consultation should take place with schools on any transfer of funding between DSG Blocks. e) To note that the local funding formula for 2021-22, and indicative impact at school level, will be brought back to Schools Forum for consideration in December. Resolved: a) Schools Forum NOTED the information contained in this report. b) Schools Forum CONFIRMED the principles to be adopted for 2021-22 local funding formula within the over-arching principle that the local funding formula reflects the National Funding Formula (NFF) (paragraph 6.1). c) Schools Forum AGREED that the level of MFG should not be changed and therefore no consultation would be required with schools. d) Schools Forum AGREED that there should be no transfer of funding between DSG Blocks and therefore no consultation would be required with schools. e) Schools Forum NOTED that the local funding formula for 2021-22, and indicative impact at school level, will be brought back to Schools Forum for consideration in December.

9 De-delegation 2021-22 Ms E Williams, Head of Finance- Childrens Services, Buckinghamshire Council gave an overview of the report provided.

Recommendation: To continue with the arrangements agreed last year, that the details of any de- delegation proposals for 2021-22 be considered at a meeting of the maintained schools subcommittee with recommendations to be brought back to Schools Forum in December 2020 for final decision.

Resolved: Schools Forum AGREED to continue with the arrangements agreed last year, that the details of any de-delegation proposals for 2021-22 be considered at a meeting of the maintained schools subcommittee with recommendations to be brought back to Schools Forum in December 2020 for final decision.

Page 8 Action Deadline To be completed by To set up a date for the ASAP Ms E Williams Maintained Schools Sub- committee (De- Delegation).

10 Update from the Local Authority Mr G Drawmer, Head of Achievement and Learning- Buckinghamshire Council gave a verbal update, appended to the minutes.

11 AOB Dr K Simmons gave an overview of the report appended to the minutes.

Action Deadline To be completed by All supported an offline ASAP Dr K Simmons/ Mr G discussion with Mr G Drawmer Drawmer to discuss how this issue can be raised if possible with the Select Committee. To look at a way of Ongoing All members of the sharing awareness more forum. widely. To produce a ASAP Mr G Drawmer newsletter/paper over half-term to outline the county response to disadvantage and mobility in Bucks

AOB- There were no further items of AOB.

12 Date of the Next Meeting 08 December 2020-1.30pm MS Teams Virtual Meeting.

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

Report to Schools Forum

Date: 8th December 2020

Title: Dedicated Schools Budget – Revenue Budget Monitoring 2020-21

Author: Liz Williams, Head of Finance (Children’s Services)

Recommendations: Schools Forum is asked to note the revenue budget monitoring positon at the end of October (Period 7).

Reason for decision: For Information

1. Purpose of the Report

1.1. This report updates Schools Forum on the current forecast for the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget for the 2020-21 financial year, based on the spend to 31st October 2020 (period 7).

2. Forecast 2020-21

2.1. The current projected position against the DSG blocks is summarised in the following table:

Budget Forecast Forecast DSG Block 2020-21 Outturn Variance £m £m £m Schools Block 174.712 173.585 (1.127) Central Schools Services Block 5.535 5.344 (0.191) High Needs Block 82.120 84.260 2.141 Early Years Block 32.601 32.753 0.152 Total 294.968 295.943 0.975

2.2. It has previously been reported that pressures within the High Needs Block (HNB) can be managed within the overall Dedicated Schools Budget. Risks against the HNB have continued to grow as costs of supporting pupils with EHCPs across all different types of settings are confirmed, and currently show a projected overspend of

Page 11 £2.1m. This means that it is now projected that there will be an overspend against the overall DSG. 3. Schools Block

3.1. The Schools Block is currently projected to underspend by £1.127m. This relates to a projected underspend against the growth fund in the current year. A summary of all growth fund costs in 2020-21 and 2021-22 is provided in Appendix 4 to the School Budget Proposals report on the agenda for this meeting. The report identifies that the underspend against the growth fund in the current year will be required to support costs associated with pupil growth in 2021-22. 3.2. The schools revenue funding guidance from the Department for Education (DfE) states that “local authorities should report any unspent growth funding remaining at the year-end to the schools forum. Funding may be carried forward to the following funding period, as with any other centrally retained budget, and local authorities can choose to use it specifically for growth. Any overspent growth funding will form part of the overall DSG surplus or deficit balance.” 4. Central Schools Services Block (CSSB)

4.1. The CSSB is projected to underspend by £191k in the current year due to savings made within the Early Years service against the historic commitment element of the budget. 5. High Needs Block (HNB)

5.1. The HNB is projected to overspend by £2.140m. This reflects updated forecasts for the costs of support across all types of school settings, taking into account starters and leavers in September. 5.2. The key variances and risks within the HNB are shown in Appendix 1 to this report. The table also includes a comparison with the outturn from 2019-20 to show how spend patterns have changed compared with last year. 5.3. Key areas of concern are:  Exceptional Support costs, which include costs relating to Supply Teaching to support pupils at home – as previously reported to Schools Forum, costs have been reduced in this area compared with last year however the budget is still projected to overspend in 2020-21.  ARP placements are expected to be over plan by £296k.  Independent placements, at the latest forecast position, is at risk of a £247k overspend. A detailed report was considered at the October Schools Forum

Page 12 meeting on the types and costs of placements in Independent Schools. Expenditure is lower than in previous years.  Placement costs for Buckinghamshire pupils with EHCPs placed in other local authority schools are now forecast to overspend by £1.538m, a significant increase compared with last year. This budget line also includes income from other LAs where pupils are placed in our schools. These placements tend to be a lower cost than placements in the independent sector however in a number of local authority areas, unit costs have increased significantly in the current year. Analysis of the data for this shows that there has been a net increase of 15 pupils in this financial year compared with March 2020 and that unit costs have also increased. The total increase in forecast spend compared with last year is £593k, of which £215k is as a result of the increased number of pupils and £378k relates to increases in average unit cost.  Analysis of placements in other local authority schools shows that high functioning Autism and SEMH are the main areas of need. This is consistent with the pattern in independent special school placements outlined to Schools Forum at the October meeting. 5.4. There are a number of areas where further work is required to confirm the forecast and this may include areas where there is the opportunity to reduce the forecast. These areas include:  Post-16 Colleges – expenditure is currently forecast to be on budget, in line with spend in 2019-20. Work is taking place to review the forecast now that we have the data on September starters and leavers. 6. Early Years Block

6.1. Early Years budgets are currently projected to overspend by £152k. 6.2. In recent years there has been an underspend against the Early Years block which has helped to mitigate some of the pressures in High Needs. There are a number of uncertainties against the early years budgets this year that make it more difficult to confirm the likely outturn, these are mainly due to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the sector. In accordance with DfE Guidance the Council is continuing to fund providers which have been advised to close, or left with no option but to close, due to public health reasons. These setting are being funded at autumn 2019 levels. This is to support sustainability within the sector during the pandemic. Where providers have increased numbers of pupils compared with last year, these are also being funded. It is currently unclear whether adjustments will be made to the Council’s DSG following the January 2021 census. This may impact on the final funding level for 2020-21 as if numbers of pupils recorded in the census is reduced compared with last year, funding will be reduced.

Page 13 7. DSG Reserve and Deficit Management Planning

7.1. Any variance against the DSG is to be managed through the DSG reserve which is ringfenced. At the start of the 2020-21 financial year the council had a deficit of £1.153m against its DSG reserve. Following contributions agreed by Schools Forum in January from former Historic Commitment budgets and additional early years funding received in July to reflect the impact of the January 2020 census on the 2019-20 DSG allocation, the reserve now has a positive balance of £86k. Part of this reserve will be required to meet the costs of any claims for TU facilities costs as no funding was de-delegated for this purpose in 2020-21. 7.2. The current projection will result in a year end deficit against the DSG reserve. The development of the DSG management plan is under way and will be reported to Schools Forum in January. This is expected to be a multi-year plan and will take into account the latest projections of demand in future years and the impact on cost.

Page 14 HIGH NEEDS BLOCK BUDGET MONITORING 2020/21 Period 7 - October 2020

Forecast Forecast Change in Budget Budget Outturn Service Area Outturn variance spend from Notes 2020/21 2019/20 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2019-20 £ £ £ £ £ £ Additional spend budgeted for - inflationary increase to top up payments and H1 Special Schools Funding 31,889,501 31,463,519 -425,982 30,130,078 29,991,974 1,471,545 additional places funded across Buckinghamshire schools, reducing the need for external placements H1A Additional places and Exceptional Support 513,000 946,017 433,017 513,000 1,461,334 -515,317 Spend on supply teaching reduced compared with previous year Reduced numbers of placements - detail reported to previous Schools Forum H2 Independent Schools 14,600,236 14,847,769 247,533 14,289,724 15,473,099 -625,330 meeting H3 Post 16 Colleges 6,742,000 6,742,000 0 6,132,000 6,961,103 -219,103 Further analysis required to confirm forecast Budget increased in 2021-21 to reflect expected increase in activity as more H4 Support above £6k for pupils with plans 8,873,065 8,973,338 100,273 7,169,000 8,381,178 592,160 children with plans in mainstream schools. H5 Pupil Referral Unit funding 2,494,276 2,403,600 -90,676 2,324,496 2,325,000 78,600 H6 Hospital and home tuition funding 454,600 454,600 0 454,600 421,000 33,600 H7 Alternative Resource Provision in mainstream 3,211,933 3,507,962 296,029 3,209,600 3,389,675 118,287 Increased demand H11 Therapies (SALT and OT) 1,657,000 1,657,000 0 1,657,000 1,659,229 -2,229

Page 15 Page Lower spend in 2019-20 was due to underspends within the Early Help Service H12 Contribution to early Help services 871,000 871,000 0 871,000 466,000 405,000 during transition to the new service model. Spend currently projected to be on budget in 2020-21 H13 Specialist teaching service 2,057,000 2,057,000 0 2,057,000 2,057,000 0 Lower spend in 2019-20 was due to underspends within the Education H14 Education Psychology contribution 680,000 680,000 0 680,000 419,000 261,000 Psychology Service. Spend currently projected to be on budget in 2020-21 Updated for starters and leavers. Increased spend in 2020-21 is due to increased H15 Placements in Other LA Special Schools 2,497,000 4,035,920 1,538,920 2,377,000 3,341,645 694,275 numbers of placements and increased unit costs across a number of other local authorities. H16 Re-integration 412,500 379,470 -33,030 412,500 455,490 -76,020 Expenditure in 2019-20 was below budget. Review of spend in the current year is H18 High Needs Block Funding Schools 1,076,000 1,107,563 31,563 1,076,000 712,429 395,134 taking place to confirm the forecast. H19 High Needs Block Funding Early Years 167,641 167,641 0 167,641 212,038 -44,397 H20 Portage 200,001 208,131 8,130 200,000 209,546 -1,415 H21 Educational Equipment 250,000 296,520 46,520 250,000 286,288 10,232 H22 Educating Children in Public Care (ECPC) 705,820 713,284 7,464 705,820 692,847 20,437 H23 Early Years EHC Plans 303,168 309,069 5,901 303,168 456,710 -147,641 H24 Alternative Provision 496,000 471,000 -25,000 496,000 360,950 110,050 H30 High Needs Block overheads 1,968,000 1,968,000 0 1,968,000 1,968,000 0

High Needs Block Total 82,119,741 84,260,403 2,140,662 77,443,627 81,701,536 2,558,867 Appendix This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

Report to Schools Forum

Date: 8th December 2020

Title: De-Delegation Proposals 2021-22

Author: Liz Williams, Head of Finance – Children’s Services

Recommendations: To consider and agree the proposals for de-delegation in 2021-22 based on the recommendations of the Maintained Schools Sub-Committee as outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B to this report. Reason for decision: to set de-delegation levels for 2021-22.

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. The purpose of this report is to set out the proposals for existing de-delegations and former ESG funded services de-delegations 2021-22 for consideration by Schools Forum. The latest DfE Operational Guide published in August 2020 makes no changes to the De-delegation definition or guidance.

1.2. The Maintained Schools sub-committee met on 10th November 2020 with an open invitation to representatives from maintained schools. The recommendations from that meeting are attached to this report.

2. Maintained Schools Sub-committee

2.1. The committee met on 10th November 2020. The notes of that meeting are attached to this report.

2.2. Supplementary information was provided to the committee including expenditure in previous years and a further update on the trade union facilities costs and educational visits service. All of this information was taken into account in the discussions in the group.

Page 17 2.3. Based on that information the committee made the following recommendations.

3. “Existing” De-delegated Services

3.1. It is recommended that de-delegation for “existing” de-delegated services across primary and secondary schools should be as follows:

 Contingency fund for schools in deficit - It was agreed to recommend maintaining the same per pupil rates as 2020-21 (£7 per primary pupil, £8.75 per secondary pupil)

 Contingency for deficits of closing schools – it is recommended that there is no de-delegation in 2021-22 and that this should be reviewed on an annual basis.

 Trade union facilities – it is recommended that there is no de-delegation in 2021-22 and that this should be reviewed on an annual basis.

 Supply cover for small schools – it is recommended that this should be de- delegated at 20p per pupil

4. Former ESG funded Services

4.1. It is recommended that de-delegation for former ESG funded services is continued at the same rates as in 2020-21:

 Finance support for schools in financial difficulties – £2.50 per pupil primary and secondary/ £10 per place Special and PRU

 Educational Visits Service - £1 per pupil for primary and secondary/ £4 per pupil Special and PRU

Page 18 Appendix A: Existing De-delegated services 2021-22 Proposed

Proposal Proposal Estimated Agreed 2020- Estimated Total De-delegation Area Primary £ per Secondary £ Secondary Comments 21 rates Primary Total £ pupil per pupil total

Primary : £7 per pupil A. Contingency OPTION 1 Secondary 7.00 8.75 249,200 55,125 304,325 £8.75 per pupil No de- delegation in B. Contingency- deficits of closing 2020-21.To be - - - - - To be reviewed annually schools

Page 19 Page reconsidered in 2021-22 No de- delegation in c. Union Facilities 2020-21.To be - - - - - To be reviewed annually reconsidered in 2021-22

D. Cover for small schools 30p per pupil 0.20 0.20 7,120 1,260 8,380 Rate as per 2020-21.

Total - Maximum 7.20 8.95 256,320.00 56,385.00 312,705.00 Appendix This page is intentionally left blank Appendix B: Former ESG funded Services

2021-22 rates De-delegation Area (former ESG) Notes Proposed rates Primary Secondary Special & PRU estimated Proposals 2021-22 budget

The service helps identify financial risk and provides targeted support to £2.50 per pupil Finance Support Specialist Finance schools in managing budgets to primary and support for schools with deficit avoid deficits. Schools needing secondary/ £10 £89,000 £15,750 £12,000 £116,750 Rates as per 2020-21 budgets (Services provided by BLT support outside of the targeted per place Special have now transferred to BCC) support as detailed above will need and PRU to purchase the relevant support package from BC.

It is proposed to keep the rates the same as 2020-21

The traded offer proposed to Page 21 Page academies from September 2021 £1.00 per pupil will be £50 per school plus £1 per primary and Educational Visits (Evolve) Service pupil/ £4 per place for secondary/ £4 Rate as per 2020-21 provided by Buckinghamshire £35,600 £6,300 £4,800 £46,700 specials/PRUs. The difference per place Special Council between traded services to schools and Academies and maintained schools PRUs through de-delegation is the £50 per school fee which covers administration costs of supporting academies. £3.50 per pupil Primary/Secondary Total £124,600 £22,050 £16,800 £163,450 and £14 per place for special/PRU Appendix This page is intentionally left blank Appendix

Notes of the Maintained Schools Sub-Committee

Date: 10th November 2020

Present: Janice Freeman (Chair) - Kings Wood School, David Hood – Cressex School, Eileen Stewart – Stoke Mandeville Combined School, Kathryn Tamlyn – Cheddington Combined School, Julia Antrobus – Newtown School, Jane Young – Buckingham School, Ian Garner – Burford School, Rebecca Campbell – Holmer Green Junior School, Liz Williams, Head of Finance – Children’s Services.

Apologies: Howard Beveridge – The Grange School 1. Contingency Fund

1.1. The sub-committee considered the potential impact of covid-19 on the levels of contingency that may be required in 2021-22. It was recommended that the terms of reference for the Contingency Panel would need to be reviewed to ensure that the contingency fund would not be used to cover costs related to the pandemic. 1.2. It was agreed that, given the constraints on school budgets arising from covid-19, the approach for de-delegation should be to maximise the amount of money retained by schools where possible. 1.3. It was agreed that Option 1 should be recommended to Schools Forum, maintaining the same per pupil rates as 2020-21 (£7 per primary pupil, £8.75 per secondary pupil)

2. Contingency – deficits for closing schools

2.1. It was agreed that Option 1 should be recommended to Schools Forum with no de- delegation of funds for deficits in closing schools in 2021-22. It was agreed that this should be reviewed on an annual basis based on risk.

3. Trade Union Facilities

3.1. The sub-committee recognised the importance of facilitating union involvement to support staff across maintained schools. Expenditure in previous years had been lower than budget and it was noted that there was no spend to date in the current year. It was agreed that the carry forward from previous years could be expected to cover costs in 2020-21 and 2021-22. It was therefore agreed to recommend that there should be no further de-delegation in 2021-22. It was also agreed that this

Page 23 should be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that a level of funding could be maintained.

4. Cover for small schools

4.1. Expenditure in previous years was reviewed and it was agreed to recommend to Schools Forum that funding is de-delegated at 20p per pupil across both primary and secondary. This is a reduction of 10p per pupil compared with previous years however it was estimated that this would still be sufficient to cover expenditure.

5. Finance Support for Schools in Financial Difficulties

5.1. The sub-committee requested that the Service Offer is further developed to provide more detail on the support that schools receive and to flesh out the Monitoring and Quality Assurance section in the document. Action: Liz Williams 5.2. It was agreed to recommend de-delegation at the same rates as 2020-21 (£2.50 per pupil primary and secondary/ £10 per place Special and PRU)

6. Educational Visits

6.1. It was agreed to recommend that de-delegation for the Educational Visits Service remain at the same rates as 2020-21 (£1 per pupil for primary and secondary/ £4 per pupil Special and PRU).

7. AOB

7.1. The sub-committee discussed the impact of covid-19 on school budgets in the current financial year and whether there was any intelligence on the overall position in Buckinghamshire. It was noted that the NAHT have recently circulated some data and a template for schools to lobby their MPs. The F40 Group have also gathered information and lobbied the DfE – Action Liz Williams to circulate the most recent letter from F40. (update – this will now be included as a separate paper to Schools Forum on 8th December)

Page 24 Agenda Item 8

Report to Schools Forum

Date: 8th December 2020

Title: School Budget Proposals 2021-22 Author: Liz Williams, Head of Finance – Children’s Services

Recommendations: Schools Forum is asked to: a. Note the information set out in the report, including the accompanying appendices and to note the modelling is on indicative allocations. Final allocations are due in December 2020, which will be used to update the model. b. Confirm the MFG value at 0.5%. c. To note the updated modelling for the Central Schools Services Block and the increased allocation for the High Needs Block for 2021-22.

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. The purpose of this report is to update Schools Forum on the modelling of the local funding formula for 2021-22.

1.2. Updated modelling is also provides for the Central Schools Services Block.

1.3. Work continues on the development of the DSG Management Plan template and this will inform the future model for demand against high needs budget to be considered by Schools Forum in January 2021.

2. Background

2.1. In October Schools Forum considered the updated Schools Revenue Funding 2021 to 2022 Operational Guide issued by the DfE and agreed the principles for the local funding formula in 2021-22 as follows:

a) Adopt the National Funding Formula factors.

Page 25 b) Adopt the Minimum Per Pupil funding levels at the values defined in the NFF and prorate (scale) of all other factors in the formula to match the available allocation of funding from the DfE.

c) Set a Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) at +0.5%.

d) Use capping of gains per pupil to pay for the cost of protecting schools where the formula reduces their budget by more than the MFG of 0.5%.

2.2. It was further agreed not to consult with schools on any change to the MFG or on any proposals to move funding between DSG blocks.

3. Indicative DSG Allocation 2021-22

3.1. The provisional DSG allocation for the Schools Block, High Needs Block and Central Schools Services Block is as follows:

Provisional DSG Allocation 2021-22

Provisional Comparative Allocation figure for Increase/(De % DSG Block 2021-22 2020-21 crease) Change £m £m £m

Schools 368.613 353.466 15.147 4% High Needs 98.811 89.957 8.853 9% Central Schools Services 5.641 6.454 (0.813) -14% Total 473.066 449.878 23.188 5% 3.2. The provisional allocation is based on the October 2019 census and will be updated for the October 2020 census in December. It should be noted that the IDACI data within the schools block allocation has been updated in the provisional allocation, all other pupil characteristic data remains unchanged.

3.3. The allocation for the schools block excludes the allocation for growth funding, a calculator is provided to local authorities to enable the potential growth funding to be estimated.

4. Schools Block – Modelling of the 2021-22 Formula

4.1. Using the indicative allocations as noted above, the local funding formula has been modelled. As a result of the changes to IDACI data initial calculations indicated that the number of schools that may lose funding compared with the previous year has increased. As a result of this two options for the MFG have been modelled:

 Model 1: 0.5% MFG – as agreed by Schools Forum in October  Model 2: 2.0% MFG

Page 26 4.2. If the second option is favoured, further consultation with schools would be required in order to change the value of the MFG. Based on the October 2019 census data, both models are affordable within the Schools Block allocation without needing to cap any gains.

4.3. Appendices 1 to 3 show the impact of the two models on funding rates, funding levels and school by school allocations. The impact is summarised below:

2021-22 2021-22 Indicative Indicative Funding Funding 2020-21 Model 1 Model 2 Illustrative Funding Levels Final Rates (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Scaling Factor (% of NFF) 100% 100% 100% £m £m £m Total through funding formula 341.982 370.659 370.739 Growth Fund 1.653 1.612 1.532 Total Cost to Schools Block 343.635 372.271 372.271 Met from: Pupil Led Funding 336.666 364.282 364.282 Premises Funding 3.831 4.332 4.332 Growth Fund 3.138 2.464 2.464 Transfer from Reserves/Growth Fund underspend from Previous Year 0 1.193 1.193 Total Funding Available 343.635 372.271 372.271

Number of Schools Protected 5 14 22 Number of Schools Capped 0 0 0

£ £ £ Cost of MFG Protection 186,421 172,558 251,900 4.4. Schools Forum Funding Group considered the two models at their meeting of 20th November and have recommended that the principle set by Schools Forum on 13th October of a 0.5% MFG should continue to be applied.

5. Growth Fund

5.1. Appendix 4 shows the estimated use of growth funding in 2021-22 based on the current agreed criteria. The summary for the current year indicates that there will be an underspend against the allocation in the current year however costs in 2021- 22 are projected to be higher and therefore the underspend will need to be rolled forward as an earmarked reserve to support the growth fund requirements in 2021- 22.

Page 27 5.2. The schools revenue funding guidance from the Department for Education (DfE) states that “local authorities should report any unspent growth funding remaining at the year-end to the schools forum. Funding may be carried forward to the following funding period, as with any other centrally retained budget, and local authorities can choose to use it specifically for growth. Any overspent growth funding will form part of the overall DSG surplus or deficit balance.” 6. Central Schools Services Block (CSSB)

6.1. The CSSB continues to provide funding for local authorities to carry out central functions on behalf of maintained schools and academies, comprising two distinct elements:

 ongoing responsibilities  historic commitments

6.2. Local authorities will continue to be protected so that the maximum per-pupil year- on-year reduction in funding for ongoing responsibilities is -2.5%, while the year-on- year gains cap will be set at the highest affordable rate of 6.45%.

6.3. In 2021 to 2022 historic commitments funding will be reduced by 20%. The guidance confirms that local authorities will be protected against a reduction that takes the allocation below the level of spend on Premature Retirement Costs. Whilst this is not an issue for Buckinghamshire in year 1, it will become important in future years that this protection is retained.

6.4. The indicative reduction in the CSSB for 2021-22 is £813k. Appendix 5 summarises the projected allocation for the CSSB over the next 4 years. It is projected that the reduction can be met in 2021-22 without reduction to front line service delivery however in future years proposals will need to be brought to Schools Forum to reduce costs in line with the reduction in funding.

7. High Needs Block

7.1. The provisional allocation for the High Needs Block in 2021-22 is £98.811m, an increase of £8.853m compared to the current year. This increase includes provision of £1.298m for the former teachers’ pay grant (TPG) and teachers’ pension and employer contribution grant (TPECG) which will need to be passed on to schools and alternative providers. This leaves an increase of £7.555m to be allocated to pressures within the High Needs Block.

7.2. As part of the work on the DSG Management Plan template modelling work is taking place to project the numbers of children and types of need requiring support over the next few years. This modelling will enable the commitments against the high needs budget to be better understood for budget setting purposes. Potential calls on this funding will include the demand for placements in other local authority

Page 28 schools and supporting the transition to the new top up funding model, initially for special schools.

7.3. Detailed modelling on the HNB, to include updated forecasts for this year and projected demand in future years, will be brought to the January meeting.

8. Early Years Block

8.1. The Early Years Block for 2021-22 will be announced in December 2020. The initial allocation will be based on the January 2020 census.

9. DSG Balances

9.1. In the budget monitoring report the current level of DSG reserve is confirmed as £86k. The projected overspend in 2020-21 will therefore result in a deficit against the DSG reserve. Paragraph 5.1 in this report also identifies the requirement for a projected underspend against the growth fund in 2020-21 to be earmarked against expenditure in 2021-22. This will impact on the level of DSG deficit in 2021-22.

Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank 2021/22 2021/22 2020/21 Illustrative Funding Rates Indicative Indicative Final Budget Funding Factors Model 1 Model 2 Rates (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Scaling factor (% of NFF) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Primary AWPU £ 2,938.80 £ 3,212.41 £ 3,212.41 KS3 AWPU £ 4,133.04 £ 4,530.09 £ 4,530.09 KS4 AWPU £ 4,691.58 £ 5,105.09 £ 5,105.09 Primary MFL £ 3,750.00 £ 4,180.00 £ 4,180.00 Secondary MFL £ 5,000.00 £ 5,415.00 £ 5,415.00 Primary FSM £ 462.88 £ 473.17 £ 473.17 Secondary FSM £ 462.88 £ 473.17 £ 473.17 Primary FSM6 £ 576.03 £ 591.46 £ 591.46 Secondary FSM6 £ 838.33 £ 864.05 £ 864.05 Primary IDACI band F £ 216.01 £ 221.16 £ 221.16 Secondary IDACI band F £ 308.59 £ 318.88 £ 318.88 Primary IDACI band E £ 257.16 £ 267.44 £ 267.44 Secondary IDACI band E £ 416.60 £ 426.88 £ 426.88 Primary IDACI band D £ 385.74 £ 421.74 £ 421.74

Page 31 Page Secondary IDACI band D £ 550.32 £ 596.61 £ 596.61 Primary IDACI band C £ 416.60 £ 457.74 £ 457.74 Secondary IDACI band C £ 596.61 £ 648.04 £ 648.04 Primary IDACI band B £ 447.45 £ 488.60 £ 488.60 Secondary IDACI band B £ 642.89 £ 699.47 £ 699.47 Primary IDACI band A £ 617.18 £ 637.75 £ 637.75 Secondary IDACI band A £ 864.05 £ 889.76 £ 889.76 Primary Low Attainment £ 1,095.49 £ 1,126.35 £ 1,126.35 Secondary Low Attainment £ 1,656.09 £ 1,707.53 £ 1,707.53 Primary EAL £ 550.32 £ 565.75 £ 565.75 Secondary EAL £ 1,481.32 £ 1,527.52 £ 1,527.52 Primary Mobility £ 900.05 £ 925.77 £ 925.77 Secondary Mobility £ 1,285.79 £ 1,326.93 £ 1,326.93 Lump Sum £ 117,675.27 £ 121,172.61 £ 121,172.61 Sparsity Primary (up to) £ 26,744.38 £ 46,288.35 £ 46,288.35 Sparsity secondary (up to) £ 69,535.39 £ 72,004.10 £ 72,004.10 MFG 0.50% 0.50% 2.00% Capping No Cap No Cap No Cap Appendix Fringe uplift where applicable 1.75% 1.76% 1.76%

All funding rates include the Area Cost Adjustement (ACA)

No. of Schools Protected 5 14 22 No. of Schools Capped 0 0 0 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix

2021/22 2021/22 Illustrative Funding Levels 2020/21 Indicative Indicative Funding Factors Final Rates Model 1 Model 2 (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Scaling factor (% of NFF) 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Primary AWPU £130,150,636 £142,464,828 £142,464,828 KS3 AWPU £79,170,448 £86,696,796 £86,696,796 KS4 AWPU £55,468,550 £60,357,487 £60,357,487 Primary MFL £1,745,872 £3,887,217 £3,887,217 Secondary MFL £4,363,317 £4,482,429 £4,482,429 Primary FSM £2,022,243 £2,067,714 £2,067,714 Secondary FSM £970,067 £990,242 £990,242 Primary FSM6 £3,259,235 £3,348,373 £3,348,373 Secondary FSM6 £3,455,743 £3,557,228 £3,557,228 Primary IDACI band F £605,906 £1,321,013 £1,321,013 Secondary IDACI band F £621,399 £1,065,111 £1,065,111 Primary IDACI band E £910,935 £282,289 £282,289 Secondary IDACI band E £806,510 £301,782 £301,782 Primary IDACI band D £55,232 £36,543 £36,543 Secondary IDACI band D £103,677 £35,837 £35,837 Primary IDACI band C £232,448 £129,291 £129,291 Secondary IDACI band C £188,459 £113,804 £113,804 Primary IDACI band B £37,737 £2,466 £2,466 Secondary IDACI band B £33,477 £4,197 £4,197 Primary IDACI band A £4,975 £0 £0 Secondary IDACI band A £4,320 £3,559 £3,559 Primary Low Attainment £13,556,153 £13,945,752 £13,945,752 Secondary Low Attainment £8,477,950 £8,731,055 £8,731,055 Primary EAL £2,323,613 £2,390,161 £2,390,161 Secondary EAL £757,950 £780,811 £780,811 Primary Mobility £387,442 £397,866 £397,866 Secondary Mobility £4,860 £5,016 £5,016 Lump Sum £25,888,559 £26,728,659 £26,728,659 Sparsity Primary (up to) £74,898 £135,940 £135,940 Sparsity secondary (up to) £39,172 £40,562 £40,562 MFG £186,421 £172,558 £251,900 Capping £0 £0 £0 Other factors £206,849 £206,849 £206,849 Rates £4,124,232 £4,086,720 £4,086,720 Fringe uplift where applicable £1,742,487 £1,888,441 £1,888,441 Total through funding formula £341,981,771 £370,658,595 £370,737,937 Growth Fund £1,653,217 £1,611,689 £1,532,347 Total cost to schools block £343,634,988 £372,270,284 £372,270,284

Pupil Led Funding £336,666,466 £364,282,343 £364,282,343 Premises Funding £3,830,840 £4,331,081 £4,331,081 Growth Funding £3,137,682 £2,464,176 £2,464,176 Transfer from Reserves £0 £1,192,684 £1,192,684 Total Funding Available £343,634,988 £372,270,284 £372,270,284

No. of Schools Protected 5 14 22 No. of Schools Capped 0 0 0

Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank Pupil No.s Pupil No.s 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 Final October October Indicative Indicative MFG Indicative Indicative Illustrative School Level Funding - School Name Budget 2019 + 2019 + Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Sept 20 Sept 21 (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Growth Growth The Disraeli School # 2,607,402 2,738,877 2,738,877 0 0 0 623 605 Oak Green School * 2,334,223 2,493,342 2,493,342 0 0 0 564 564 Buckingham Park C of E School 1,658,274 1,768,087 1,768,087 0 0 0 412 412 Cedar Park School 796,649 885,622 885,622 0 0 0 206 206 Millbrook Combined School * 2,307,138 2,463,226 2,463,226 0 0 0 550 550 Mary Towerton School # 381,544 371,767 371,767 0 0 0 69 60 Bledlow Ridge School 672,815 726,241 726,241 0 0 0 170 170 The Downley School 1,610,641 1,789,584 1,789,584 0 0 0 414 414 Chalfont Valley E-ACT Primary Academy 674,724 720,781 720,781 0 0 0 145 145 Princes Risborough Primary Academy 1,029,394 1,107,612 1,107,612 0 0 0 261 261 Denham Green E-ACT Primary Academy 835,351 887,532 898,886 0 9,643 20,996 188 188 Lace Hill Academy 716,114 768,937 768,937 0 0 0 169 169 Chalfont St Giles Infant School 653,496 700,981 700,981 0 0 0 152 152 George Grenville Academy 778,841 846,994 846,994 0 0 0 180 180 Ivingswood Academy 827,552 878,746 878,746 0 0 0 163 163 Cheddington Combined School 835,262 907,875 907,875 0 0 0 212 212 Page 35 Page Chenies School 481,552 515,253 515,253 0 0 0 101 101 Newtown Infant School 802,146 857,192 857,192 0 0 0 178 178 Dagnall School * 279,533 298,409 301,045 0 3,333 5,970 43 43 Denham Village Infant School * 328,402 348,105 348,105 0 0 0 56 56 Dorney Academy 736,267 792,489 792,489 0 0 0 183 183 Drayton Parslow Village School 271,179 289,977 292,457 0 3,326 5,807 44 44 Dropmore Infant School 326,641 348,017 349,539 0 0 1,522 61 61 East Claydon School # 430,001 445,122 445,122 0 0 0 88 79 Edlesborough School 818,673 881,699 881,699 0 0 0 205 205 Fulmer Infant School 360,050 384,203 384,203 0 0 0 74 74 Roundwood Primary School 758,230 788,015 797,823 34,516 11,966 21,773 175 175 Haddenham Community Infant School 407,973 435,836 435,836 0 0 0 88 88 Marsh First School 785,976 836,390 836,390 0 0 0 171 171 West Wycombe Combined School 595,867 638,416 638,416 0 0 0 130 130 Hyde Heath Infant School 347,766 372,870 372,870 0 0 0 68 68 Ickford Combined School 529,418 570,225 570,225 0 0 0 127 127 Iver Village Junior School 926,890 993,038 993,038 0 0 0 219 219 Jordans School 339,934 362,488 362,488 0 0 0 65 65 Ley Hill School 851,291 915,308 915,308 0 0 0 210 210 Little Kingshill Combined School 824,351 909,289 909,289 0 0 0 212 212

Prestwood Infant School 706,272 761,519 761,519 0 0 0 171 171 Appendix Steeple Claydon School 735,987 790,563 790,563 0 0 0 178 178 Stoke Mandeville Combined School 845,529 908,498 908,498 0 0 0 210 210 Thornborough Infant School 196,790 215,216 216,583 0 8,894 10,262 22 22 Tylers Green First School 695,071 744,541 744,541 0 0 0 171 171 Pupil No.s Pupil No.s 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 Final October October Indicative Indicative MFG Indicative Indicative Illustrative School Level Funding - School Name Budget 2019 + 2019 + Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Sept 20 Sept 21 (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Growth Growth The Meadows Combined School 671,596 718,790 718,790 0 0 0 143 143 Booker Hill School 919,724 1,007,648 1,007,648 0 0 0 206 206 Ash Hill Primary School 997,360 1,060,159 1,060,159 0 0 0 209 209 Farnham Common Junior School 949,513 1,022,407 1,022,407 0 0 0 236 236 Woodside Junior School 974,435 1,049,070 1,049,070 0 0 0 242 242 Holmer Green First School 713,159 765,962 765,962 0 0 0 175 175 Chalfont St Peter Infant School 707,116 759,773 759,773 0 0 0 174 174 Broughton Junior School 957,690 1,028,196 1,028,196 0 0 0 241 241 Little Chalfont Primary School 850,390 937,135 937,135 0 0 0 219 219 Carrington Junior School 1,012,671 1,072,488 1,074,993 0 0 2,506 243 243 Haydon Abbey Combined School 1,869,102 2,004,414 2,004,902 0 0 488 452 452 Grendon Underwood Combined School 755,346 811,060 811,060 0 0 0 187 187 Iver Heath Junior School 958,042 1,029,499 1,029,499 0 0 0 228 228 Bedgrove Junior School 1,812,450 2,020,176 2,020,176 0 0 0 483 483 Bedgrove Infant School 1,356,800 1,511,708 1,511,708 0 0 0 360 360 Carrington Infant School 784,277 830,716 830,716 0 0 0 182 182 Broughton Infant School 752,357 806,192 806,192 0 0 0 181 181

Page 36 Page Elmhurst School 1,738,368 1,867,142 1,867,142 0 0 0 408 408 Chalfont St. Giles Junior School 925,337 998,165 998,165 0 0 0 234 234 Oakridge School 1,752,306 1,887,031 1,887,031 0 0 0 392 392 Butlers Court Combined School 1,580,157 1,758,245 1,758,245 0 0 0 413 413 The John Hampden School 1,040,482 1,157,776 1,157,776 0 0 0 272 272 Chestnut Lane Infant School 741,577 797,612 797,612 0 0 0 180 180 Manor Farm Infant School 875,590 939,083 939,083 0 0 0 217 217 Chartridge Combined School 849,668 913,405 913,405 0 0 0 209 209 Juniper Hill School 1,589,071 1,768,412 1,768,412 0 0 0 416 416 Holmer Green Junior School 987,648 1,061,242 1,061,242 0 0 0 247 247 Tylers Green Middle School 985,061 1,095,168 1,095,168 0 0 0 255 255 Prestwood Junior School 952,146 1,024,403 1,024,403 0 0 0 235 235 Thomas Harding Junior School 1,003,858 1,082,188 1,082,188 0 0 0 239 239 Elmtree School 835,983 897,003 897,003 0 0 0 179 179 Thomas Hickman School 1,789,355 1,902,005 1,902,005 0 0 0 410 410 Burford School 1,597,462 1,779,409 1,779,409 0 0 0 418 418 Bearbrook Combined School 1,806,661 1,923,831 1,923,831 0 0 0 451 451 Lent Rise Combined School 1,680,484 1,879,850 1,879,850 0 0 0 448 448 Lane End Primary School 765,452 834,843 834,843 0 0 0 164 164 Chepping View Primary Academy 1,746,982 1,877,793 1,877,793 0 0 0 430 430 Hannah Ball Infant School 816,761 880,957 880,957 0 0 0 172 172 Claytons Primary School 1,172,588 1,303,455 1,303,455 0 0 0 303 303 Hughenden Primary School * 862,247 923,935 923,935 0 0 0 204 204 Buckingham Primary School 1,532,643 1,703,309 1,703,309 0 0 0 395 395 Pupil No.s Pupil No.s 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 Final October October Indicative Indicative MFG Indicative Indicative Illustrative School Level Funding - School Name Budget 2019 + 2019 + Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Sept 20 Sept 21 (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Growth Growth Aston Clinton School 1,522,896 1,693,777 1,693,777 0 0 0 396 396 Whitchurch Combined School 827,947 887,534 887,534 0 0 0 208 208 Widmer End Combined School 862,024 924,782 924,782 0 0 0 212 212 Spinfield School 817,254 890,573 890,573 0 0 0 207 207 Waterside Combined School 698,788 750,220 750,220 0 0 0 143 143 Long Crendon School 800,272 889,674 889,674 0 0 0 207 207 Manor Farm Community Junior 939,664 1,007,009 1,007,009 0 0 0 235 235 Stokenchurch Primary School 1,684,057 1,872,316 1,872,316 0 0 0 436 436 Iver Heath Infant School 763,268 818,493 818,493 0 0 0 176 176 Farnham Common Infant School 701,612 752,422 752,422 0 0 0 164 164 Haddenham Junior School # 1,319,819 1,394,136 1,394,136 0 0 0 342 324 Turnfurlong Junior School 1,363,195 1,515,888 1,515,888 0 0 0 361 361 Elangeni School 923,504 1,026,706 1,026,706 0 0 0 239 239 Ashmead Combined School 2,442,949 2,646,756 2,646,756 0 0 0 631 631 William Harding Combined School * 2,871,362 3,194,611 3,194,611 0 0 0 750 750 Turnfurlong Infant School 1,075,284 1,153,172 1,153,172 0 0 0 269 269 Page 37 Page Robertswood School 1,367,472 1,520,327 1,520,327 0 0 0 354 354 Iver Village Infant School 722,666 773,176 773,176 0 0 0 168 168 Waddesdon Village Primary School 862,579 943,054 943,054 0 0 0 221 221 Halton Community Combined School 822,385 884,727 884,727 0 0 0 206 206 Naphill and Walters Ash School 1,426,926 1,587,393 1,587,393 0 0 0 372 372 The Bourton Meadow Academy 2,233,929 2,489,012 2,489,012 0 0 0 593 593 Holtspur School 966,918 1,042,595 1,042,595 0 0 0 223 223 Highworth Combined School 1,766,248 1,876,019 1,882,804 0 0 6,785 417 417 The Stoke Poges School 1,668,298 1,825,730 1,825,730 0 0 0 427 427 Foxes Piece School 837,293 903,762 903,762 0 0 0 192 192 St James & St John C of E Primary School 686,761 712,359 721,070 37,261 15,186 23,897 157 157 Marsh Gibbon C of E School 645,575 693,394 693,394 0 0 0 163 163 North Marston C of E School 442,839 472,685 472,685 0 0 0 98 98 Padbury Cof E School 460,802 479,798 485,135 28,512 17,088 22,425 99 99 St Michaels C of E Combined School 776,834 844,109 844,109 0 0 0 201 201 Whaddon First School 256,251 274,362 276,635 0 4,836 7,109 39 39 St Mary's C of E School 1,694,197 1,887,898 1,887,898 0 0 0 450 450 Bierton C of E Combined School 1,088,630 1,286,127 1,286,127 0 0 0 289 307 Brill C E School 741,556 800,955 800,955 0 0 0 191 191 High Ash C of E School 1,120,734 1,245,362 1,245,362 0 0 0 297 297 Stone C of E Combined School 824,805 885,178 885,178 0 0 0 208 208 Wendover C of E Junior School 1,457,915 1,622,867 1,622,867 0 0 0 386 386 Weston Turville C of E School 833,638 894,771 894,771 0 0 0 207 207 Wingrave C of E Combined School 795,563 852,815 852,815 0 0 0 198 198 St George's C of E Infant School 742,083 796,932 796,932 0 0 0 175 175 Pupil No.s Pupil No.s 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 Final October October Indicative Indicative MFG Indicative Indicative Illustrative School Level Funding - School Name Budget 2019 + 2019 + Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Sept 20 Sept 21 (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Growth Growth Chesham Bois C of E Combined School 826,516 905,776 905,776 0 0 0 216 216 Coleshill C of E Infant School 293,272 310,675 311,628 0 0 953 49 49 Great Missenden C of E Combined School 1,611,956 1,794,054 1,794,054 0 0 0 427 427 Lee Common C of E School 288,697 305,676 307,032 0 0 1,355 47 47 Curzon C of E Combined School 647,280 695,054 695,054 0 0 0 151 151 Great Kimble C of E School * 353,798 376,983 376,983 0 0 0 72 72 Great Kingshill C of E Combined School 1,518,614 1,691,971 1,691,971 0 0 0 403 403 Longwick C of E Combined School 702,990 752,101 752,101 0 0 0 176 176 Marlow C of E Infant School 700,862 761,573 761,573 0 0 0 178 178 Monks Risborough C of E Primary School 841,353 887,476 887,476 0 0 0 206 206 St. Mary's Farnham Royal Church of England Primary School 1,178,569 1,260,578 1,260,578 0 0 0 279 279 Twyford C of E School 444,524 475,436 475,436 0 0 0 97 97 Maids Moreton C of E School 266,674 318,417 321,353 0 5,028 7,965 43 52 Newton Longville C of E Primary School 824,168 882,525 882,525 0 0 0 207 207 Great Horwood C of E Combined School 406,355 447,478 447,478 0 0 0 73 73 Westcott C of E School 412,544 440,189 440,189 0 0 0 89 89 Mursley C of E School 273,571 291,607 294,134 0 2,888 5,415 44 44

Page 38 Page Hawridge & Cholesbury School 832,345 886,438 886,438 0 0 0 199 199 Haddenham St Marys C of E School 684,872 747,925 747,925 0 0 0 178 178 Quainton C of E Combined 734,047 784,007 784,007 0 0 0 168 168 Oakley C of E Combined School 402,734 430,072 430,072 0 0 0 85 85 Winslow C of E Combined School 1,269,681 1,391,965 1,391,965 0 0 0 331 331 St Peter's C of E Combined School 871,888 951,623 951,623 0 0 0 211 211 Swanbourne C of E School 589,545 613,250 620,569 81,359 69,404 76,723 120 120 Cuddington & Dinton C of E School 702,403 750,169 750,169 4,772 0 0 174 174 Marsworth C of E Infant School 219,903 238,482 240,222 0 7,504 9,245 26 26 St Mary's C of E Primary School 1,252,164 1,395,038 1,395,038 0 0 0 332 332 Chalfont St Peter Church of England Academy 1,312,725 1,468,665 1,468,665 0 0 0 350 350 Little Missenden C of E Infant School 267,813 286,660 289,084 0 3,664 6,088 42 42 Seer Green C E School 832,820 908,207 908,207 0 0 0 212 212 St Mary & All Saints C of E Primary School 1,566,541 1,745,525 1,745,525 0 0 0 416 416 Cadmore End C of E Combined School 356,775 380,641 380,641 0 0 0 64 64 Frieth C of E Combined School 524,561 566,942 566,942 0 0 0 122 122 Hazlemere C of E Combined School 829,565 888,817 888,817 0 0 0 210 210 High Wycombe C of E Combined School 821,476 885,475 885,475 0 0 0 198 198 Ibstone C of E Infant School 341,221 381,625 381,625 0 0 0 58 58 St John's C of E Combined School 878,424 978,299 978,299 0 0 0 233 233 Little Marlow C of E School 389,000 417,456 417,456 0 0 0 80 80 Radnage C of E Primary School 382,803 408,749 408,749 0 0 0 82 82 Speen C of E School 182,987 201,069 202,254 0 9,796 10,981 18 18 St Paul's C of E Combined School 844,225 916,197 916,197 0 0 0 218 218 Pupil No.s Pupil No.s 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 Final October October Indicative Indicative MFG Indicative Indicative Illustrative School Level Funding - School Name Budget 2019 + 2019 + Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Sept 20 Sept 21 (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Growth Growth St Nicolas C of E Combined School Taplow 855,097 924,360 924,360 0 0 0 215 215 Holy Trinity C of E School 1,328,422 1,480,286 1,480,286 0 0 0 353 353 St Peter's Catholic Primary School 675,639 726,752 726,752 0 0 0 159 159 St Edward's Catholic Junior School 1,011,637 1,083,481 1,083,481 0 0 0 257 257 St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School 1,359,419 1,496,623 1,496,623 0 0 0 356 356 St Joseph's Catholic Infant School 767,362 815,969 815,969 0 0 0 175 175 Our Lady's Catholic Primary School 872,057 940,949 940,949 0 0 0 218 218 St Louis Catholic Primary School * 1,444,262 1,598,756 1,598,756 0 0 0 380 380 King's Wood School 1,764,264 1,887,692 1,887,692 0 0 0 415 415 Chiltern Hills Academy * 4,696,490 5,046,253 5,046,253 0 0 0 865 865 The Highcrest Academy * 4,768,701 5,118,870 5,118,870 0 0 0 845 845 Buckinghamshire UTC 578,945 582,758 585,078 0 0 2,319 70 70 The Buckingham School * 5,035,552 5,467,810 5,467,810 0 0 0 957 957 Sir Thomas Fremantle 2,279,791 2,462,262 2,462,262 0 0 0 431 431 Khalsa Secondary Academy 2,508,965 2,680,758 2,682,071 0 0 1,313 452 452 Bourne End Academy 3,874,550 4,169,946 4,169,946 0 0 0 705 705 Page 39 Page John Hampden Grammar School 4,148,841 4,490,693 4,490,693 0 0 0 823 823 The Grange School 6,083,209 6,564,667 6,564,667 0 0 0 1,169 1,169 Princes Risborough School 4,211,624 4,540,765 4,540,765 0 0 0 796 796 The Misbourne School 4,569,432 4,950,059 4,950,059 0 0 0 891 891 John Colet School 4,762,885 5,156,143 5,156,143 0 0 0 947 947 Burnham Grammar School 4,281,423 4,634,828 4,634,828 0 0 0 851 851 Aylesbury High School 4,596,819 4,975,633 4,975,633 0 0 0 912 912 Dr. Challoner's High School 4,587,216 4,965,574 4,965,574 0 0 0 911 911 Sir Henry Floyd Grammar School 4,610,000 4,991,040 4,991,040 0 0 0 916 916 Mandeville School * 5,099,273 5,494,943 5,494,943 0 0 0 927 927 Holmer Green Senior School * 4,558,744 4,930,667 4,930,667 0 0 0 874 874 Cressex Community School 4,202,862 4,537,643 4,537,643 0 0 0 749 749 Chesham Grammar School 4,630,321 5,007,831 5,007,831 0 0 0 909 909 The Beaconsfield School 3,890,097 4,204,815 4,204,815 0 0 0 733 733 Sir William Ramsay School 5,035,904 5,438,709 5,438,709 0 0 0 937 937 Amersham School * 4,189,945 4,540,564 4,540,564 0 0 0 811 811 Aylesbury Grammar School 4,673,714 5,058,770 5,058,770 0 0 0 927 927 The Royal Latin School 4,405,211 4,767,501 4,767,501 0 0 0 872 872 Wycombe High School 4,778,299 5,172,436 5,172,436 0 0 0 949 949 Dr Challoner's Grammar School 4,650,026 5,032,776 5,032,776 0 0 0 922 922 Sir William Borlase's Grammar 3,357,216 3,633,484 3,633,484 0 0 0 665 665 Saint Michael's Catholic School * 6,988,773 7,565,978 7,565,978 0 0 0 1,498 1,498 Brookmead School 1,287,172 1,434,306 1,434,306 0 0 0 342 342 Overstone Combined School 772,497 835,350 835,350 0 0 0 198 198 Hamilton Academy 2,396,911 2,603,463 2,603,463 0 0 0 608 608 Pupil No.s Pupil No.s 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 Final October October Indicative Indicative MFG Indicative Indicative Illustrative School Level Funding - School Name Budget 2019 + 2019 + Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Model 1 Model 2 2020/21 Sept 20 Sept 21 (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) (0.5% MFG) (2.0% MFG) Growth Growth Beechview School 935,825 996,945 996,945 0 0 0 205 205 Castlefield School 2,166,509 2,299,269 2,299,269 0 0 0 490 490 Brushwood Junior School 1,157,141 1,233,240 1,233,240 0 0 0 287 287 Loudwater Combined School 853,824 912,661 912,661 0 0 0 209 209 Danesfield School 1,604,560 1,787,852 1,787,852 0 0 0 426 426 The Gerrards Cross C.E. School 1,575,106 1,761,986 1,761,986 0 0 0 420 420 Beaconsfield High School 4,490,862 4,861,323 4,861,323 0 0 0 892 892 Chalfonts Community College 6,528,236 7,063,566 7,063,566 0 0 0 1,262 1,262 Royal Grammar School 5,040,000 5,456,730 5,456,730 0 0 0 1,002 1,002 The Cottesloe School 4,853,955 5,250,975 5,250,975 0 0 0 951 951 Waddesdon Church of England School 3,630,158 3,908,594 3,908,594 0 0 0 717 717 Great Marlow School 5,795,348 6,342,140 6,342,140 0 0 0 1,149 1,149 The Aylesbury Vale Academy # 7,871,110 8,304,658 8,304,658 0 0 0 1,549 1,532 Green Ridge Academy # 1,188,413 1,335,942 1,335,942 0 0 0 277 295 Abbey View Academy * 390,979 426,078 426,078 0 0 0 76 76 Kingsbrook Primary Academy (Openning Sept 21) # 0 319,602 319,602 0 0 0 0 70 INFANT SCHOOLS 26,384,542 28,365,667 28,394,405 28,512 66,360 95,098 5,892 5,883

Page 40 Page JUNIOR SCHOOL 19,720,275 21,350,536 21,360,362 81,359 69,404 79,229 4,960 4,942 COMBINED SCHOOLS 95,442,007 103,786,358 103,812,150 76,549 27,152 52,944 23,656 23,656 PRIMARY ACADEMIES 36,170,449 39,783,873 39,795,227 0 9,643 20,996 8,924 9,012 PRIMARY TOTAL 177,717,275 193,286,435 193,362,143 186,421 172,558 248,267 43,432 43,493 UPPER SCHOOLS 32,263,623 34,882,015 34,882,015 0 0 0 6,250 6,250 ACADEMIES 132,000,874 142,490,145 142,493,778 0 0 3,633 25,584 25,566 SECONDARY SCHOOLS 164,264,497 177,372,160 177,375,793 0 0 3,633 31,834 31,816 ALL SCHOOLS 341,981,771 370,658,595 370,737,937 186,421 172,558 251,900 75,266 75,309

MFG Protection 186,421 172,558 251,900 Gains Cap 0 0 0

No. of Schools Protected 5 14 22 No. of Schools Capped 0 0 0

Growth Funding As in the previous year growth funding is now included in the formula for those schools where growth has been agreed - please note growth in September 2020 is not included in the 2021/22 models above * These schools are currently in receipt of growth funding and are proposed to continue in September 21 at the same level # These schools maybe currently in receipt of growth funding but the level is proposed to change in September 21

Funding in 2021/22 now includes the previous teachers pay and teachers pensions grants Appendix

Estimated Use of Growth Fund

2020/2021 Estimated Total Additional Additional Yr7 Additional DfES No. School Name Type Sector Reception Pupils Funding Pupils NFF Expansion of Existing Schools 8252022 Dagnall School I Primary 15 0 31,413 8252027 Denham Village Infant School I Primary 15 0 31,258 8252000 The Disraeli School C Primary 30 0 68,329 8252025 East Claydon School I Primary 15 0 25,611 8253039 Great Kimble C of E School P(A) Primary 15 0 28,588 8252276 Haddenham Junior School J Primary 30 0 65,625 8252242 Hughenden Primary School C Primary 15 0 30,890 8252007 Mary Towerton School I Primary 15 0 33,135 8252006 Millbrook Combined School C Primary 30 0 67,044 8252001 Oak Green School C Primary 30 0 67,563 8253376 St Louis Catholic Primary School C Primary 30 0 60,608 8252288 William Harding Combined School C Primary 30 0 65,625 8254095 AMERSHAM SCHOOL S(A) Secondary 0 30 83,801 8254004 The Buckingham School U Secondary 0 30 83,813 8254000 Chiltern Hills Academy S(A) Secondary 0 30 89,044 8254001 THE HIGHCREST ACADEMY S(A) Secondary 0 30 91,690 8254070 Holmer Green Senior School S(A) Secondary 0 60 168,836 8254067 Mandeville School U Secondary 0 30 88,029 8254701 Saint Michael's Catholic School U Secondary 0 180 504,767 8256905 The Aylesbury Vale Academy S(A) Secondary 0 60 183,984 Expansion of Existing Schools Through the Schools Funding Formula - Sub-Total 270 450 1,869,652 New & Growing Schools Abbey View Academy C Primary 30 0 63,349 Green Ridge Academy C Primary 60 0 134,660 New & Growing Schools Through the Schools Funding Formula - Sub-Total 90 0 198,009 Projects/Contingencies Outside the Schools Funding Formula Primary (Expected Increase in Demand) Primary 60 0 132,166 Secondary (Expected Increase in Demand) Secondary 0 30 87,500 Green Ridge Academy - Diseconomies Primary 0 0 15,000 Abbey View Academy - Diseconomies Primary 0 0 66,000 St Michaels (Aylesbury) - Diseconomies (Est.) Secondary 0 0 180,000 Kingsbrook Primary Academy - Start up (Est.) Primary 0 0 45,868 Reserve for DfE Clawback for Bourne End Academy 0 Growth Fund Contingency/Underspend 1,126,684 Expansion Sub-Total 780 930 1,653,218 Grand Total 870 930 3,720,879

Budget 3,720,879

2021/2022 Estimated Total Additional Additional Yr7 Additional DfES No. School Name Type Sector Reception Pupils Funding Pupils NFF Expansion of Existing Schools 8253022 Bierton Church of England Combined School C Primary 30 0 73,150 8252022 Dagnall School I Primary 15 0 36,693 8252027 Denham Village Infant School I Primary 15 0 33,781 8253039 Great Kimble C of E School P(A) Primary 15 0 31,001 8252242 Hughenden Primary School C Primary 15 0 33,371 8253057 Maids Moreton Church of England School I Primary 15 0 33,760 8252006 Millbrook Combined School C Primary 30 0 73,303 8252001 Oak Green School C Primary 30 0 72,376 8253376 St Louis Catholic Primary School C Primary 30 0 73,150 8252288 William Harding Combined School C Primary 30 0 73,150 8254095 AMERSHAM SCHOOL S(A) Secondary 0 30 90,668 8254004 The Buckingham School U Secondary 0 30 91,686 8254000 Chiltern Hills Academy S(A) Secondary 0 30 96,145 8254001 THE HIGHCREST ACADEMY S(A) Secondary 0 30 98,288 8254070 Holmer Green Senior School S(A) Secondary 0 60 183,344 8254067 Mandeville School U Secondary 0 30 95,063 8254701 Saint Michael's Catholic School U Secondary 0 180 549,004 8256905 The Aylesbury Vale Academy S(A) Secondary 0 30 98,441 Expansion of Existing Schools Through the Schools Funding Formula - Sub-Total 225 420 1,836,374 New & Growing Schools 8252042 Abbey View Academy C Primary 30 0 68,356 8252039 Green Ridge Academy (2FE + Additional 1FE from Sept 21) C Primary 90 0 215,637 8259999 Kingsbrook Primary Academy C Primary 120 0 319,602 New & Growing Schools Through the Schools Funding Formula - Sub-Total 240 0 603,595 Projects/Contingencies Outside the Schools Funding Formula Primary (Expected Increase in Demand) Primary 30 0 71,165 Secondary (Expected Increase in Demand) Secondary 0 120 372,183 Abbey View Academy - Diseconomies (Est.) Primary 0 0 39,600 St Michaels (Aylesbury) - Diseconomies (Est.) Secondary 0 0 180,000 Kingsbrook Primary Academy - Start up (Est.) Primary 0 0 91,737 Kingsbrook Secondary Academy - Start up Primary 0 0 44,667 Growth Fund Contingency 666,996 Expansion Sub-Total 930 960 1,466,347 Grand Total 1170 960 3,906,316

Growth Funding (Est) 2,464,176 Potential Carry Forward 1,126,684 Un-Allocated Schools Block 315,456 Potential Budget 3,906,316

Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix

Appendix 5 For information Central Schools Service Block Budgets 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Budget 2020- 21 On- going central functions Ex Education Services Grant £1,178,000 £1,178,000 £1,178,000 £1,178,000 £1,178,000 DfE Licences (DSG) increase by 2.5 % each year £438,266 £449,223 £460,453 £471,965 £483,764

Admissions Parental Information £4,547 £4,547 £4,547 £4,547 £4,547 Transfer Appeals £27,465 £27,465 £27,465 £27,465 £27,465 Admissions Team increase by 2.5% each year £836,011 £856,911 £878,334 £900,292 £922,800 Admissions Appeals /Legal Service Cost £0 £0 £0 £0 £0

BASL and TSAN £35,000 £35,000 £35,000 £35,000 £35,000 Schools Forum £9,000 £9,000 £9,000 £9,000 £9,000 Safeguarding in Ed. Project Team/Advisory service £210,000 £210,000 £210,000 £210,000 £210,000 Central overheads £264,000 £264,000 £264,000 £264,000 £264,000 Contribution from Historic commitments (£338,207) -£338,207 -£338,207 0 0 Savings to be found 0 (£33,130) (£132,353) (£568,936) (£666,525) Total budgets On- going central functions as above £2,664,083 £2,662,811 £2,596,239 £2,531,333 £2,468,050 met from projected allocations On- going central functions -£2,771,363 -£2,662,810 -£2,596,239 -£2,531,333 -£2,468,050

Historic Commitments Contribution to Combined budgets (ex BLT) £1,972,794 £1,666,265 £1,666,265 £1,666,265 £1,666,265 Contribution to on-going central services £338,207 £338,207 £338,207 £0 £0 Rev Contrib to Capital (CERA) transfer to High Needs £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Rev Contrib to Capital (CERA) transfer to DSG reserves £844,205 £339,088 0 0 0

DSG Practical Learning Opportunities £224,000 £224,000 £224,000 £224,000 £224,000 Raising Participation Age £139,000 £139,000 £139,000 £139,000 £139,000

Schools Premature Retirement Costs (PRC) PRC - Primary £121,000 £121,000 £121,000 £121,000 £121,000 PRC - Secondary £138,000 £138,000 £138,000 £138,000 £138,000 DSG Funded PRC - Special £13,000 £13,000 £13,000 £13,000 £13,000

Savings to be found 0 0 (£133,552) (£539,985) (£1,284,625) Total budgets Historic Commitments as above £3,790,205 £2,978,560 £2,505,920 £1,761,280 £1,016,640 met from projected allocation Historic Commitments (£4,654,000) (£2,978,560) (£2,505,920) (£1,761,280) (£1,016,640)

CSSB Total savings to be Found: 0 (£33,130) (£265,905) (£1,108,921) (£1,951,150)

Table 5 :Central Schools Service Block 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 20204-25 CSSB Total savings to be Found: 0 (£33,130) (£265,905) (£1,108,921) (£1,951,150)

Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Report to Schools Forum

Date: 8th December 2020

Title: Proposals for the Allocation of Top-Up Funding for Special Schools 2021-22

Author and contact officer: Liz Williams, Head of Finance (Children’s Services)

Schools affected: All Special Schools

Recommendations:

Schools Forum is asked to

a) Agree the proposed band values b) Agree the proposed transitional arrangements c) Agree to apply for an exemption from the Special School MFG It is also proposed that a review of the impact of the model on special schools is carried out after 6 months. Reason for decision: to implement a needs led funding model in line with the outcomes of the consultation with schools.

Executive summary

The report outlines the proposed model for the allocation of top up funding for special schools in 2021-22 including the calculation of band values and proposals for transitional support in moving towards the new funding mechanism. The report also outlines the requirement for an exemption to the special school minimum funding guarantee (MFG). The proposed funding mechanism will

i. Bring funding in line with government guidance to ensure funding is allocated on a needs led basis; ii. Deliver on the Council’s priorities and the Local Area SEND Strategy; iii. Ensure the way that top-up funding is allocated is fair, simple, consistent and transparent, and enables us to plan how we meet the increasing number of pupils with EHCPs.

Page 45 1. Background

1.1. A report was considered by the Buckinghamshire Schools Forum on 30th June 2020 confirming the outcomes of the consultation on the allocation of top-up funding to support pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and the implementation of a needs led funding system based on an adapted model for Buckinghamshire which was agreed by Cabinet Member decision on 17th June 2020. Implementation of the new funding model is to be phased with initial implementation in special schools from the 2021-22 financial year.

1.2. On 30th June Schools Forum agreed:

a) The principles behind the band values in June 2020. b) The principles for transition to the new model including support for schools that would see a reduction in funding under the proposed model. c) To apply to the Secretary of State for an exemption to the Minimum Funding Guarantee for Special Schools to enable implementation of the new top up allocation process from April 2021. 1.3. In order to progress towards implementation in special schools from April 2021 next steps were identified as

a) Implementation of the moderation process, as part of the banded funding model; b) Calculation of band values and modelling of the phased transition to the new funding allocation method; c) Piloting of implementation within other provision; the next phase of this will be with Additionally Resourced Provisions (ARPs) and SEN Units within mainstream schools, and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). One Secondary ARP, one Primary ARP and one PRU were piloted using the model in November 20. d) The Needs and Provision Group will plan the next phase of implementation of a banded model. This will be considered in future reports to Schools Forum. 2. The Proposed Funding Model

2.1. The High Needs Operational Guide 2021 to 2022 states that “top-up funding is the funding required over and above the core funding an institution receives to enable a pupil or student with high needs to participate in education and learning” and that this “should reflect the costs of additional support to meet the individual pupil or student’s needs.”

2.2. The principles for developing top-up values were agreed by Schools Forum as follows:

Page 46 1) There will be 5 Bands for use across all settings from mainstream to special schools;

2) A further “exceptional” band is proposed to recognise the most complex needs that may be met within Buckinghamshire schools;

3) Average group sizes and numbers of adults providing specialist support (excluding teachers) working with pupils will be used as a basis for the calculation of top-up values.

4) A single band value should be calculated for each of the bands set at a level determined to meet the needs of the children in that band rather than variable values according to the differing primary SEND needs (para 1.6 above).

5) A fringe uplift be applied to special school top-ups for schools in the relevant part of the county. For 2021-22 this is set at 1.75%.

2.3. Having applied the agreed principles the values of the bands are proposed as follows:

BAND Top up Fringe 2 5,820 5,922 3 9,701 9,870 4 19,401 19,741 5 29,102 29,611 Exceptional 58,203 59,222 .

3. Affordability and Transition

3.1. Through the autumn term, banding and moderation has been carried out for special schools to confirm the agreed process, which has informed the financial modelling. The financial values of the bands have been applied to the outcome of the banding process to give an indicative financial impact for each special school. Top up funding in any financial year will be dependent on the mix of pupils within a school and therefore any modelling is indicative as it reflects the pupils in a school at a point in time.

3.2. A summary of the outcomes of the banding process and the financial impact is shown in Appendix 1 to this report. Application of the new top up figures to the outcome of the moderation results in changes in funding for individual schools compared with the previous year. Some schools will receive an increase under the new model and some will receive a reduction compared with 2020-21. It should be noted that the modelling compares the indicative funding under the proposed funding mechanism with the funding the school would receive in a full year based

Page 47 on the agreed September 2020 places. In some cases this means the stated budget for 2020-21 does not match actual funding but it enables like for like comparison between the models.

3.3. A transition process and level of support therefore needs to be applied. The following principles were agreed by Schools Forum in June as being essential to an equitable model:

1) Gaining schools need to move as quickly as possible to the new model to ensure they are appropriately funded for the needs of pupils in the school;

2) Schools facing a reduction in funding will have a longer transition period in order to manage reductions, with less disruption to staffing and provision.

3.4. Having reviewed the outcome of the banding and moderation exercise it is proposed that a “stepped” approach is applied to the transition phase as the impact on individual schools needs to be managed as fairly as possible and in a way that does not de-stabilise the finances of any single school. Having completed the initial modelling it is not felt possible to have a single transition period for all schools given the scale of change in some cases.

3.5. The proposed model is therefore as follows:

Change Transition yrs Increase 3 Decrease under 500k 3 Decrease 500k-1m 5 Decrease 1m+ 10

3.6. Under this proposed model the maximum in year loss to any school in 2021-22 is 5% compared with 2020-21 on a like for like basis. The maximum gain in year 1 is 6%.

3.7. This model does give an affordability gap of £517k as transition for some of the reductions is longer than for the increases in funding. This will need to be funded from within the High Needs Block.

3.8. It is important that the financial impact of the model is monitored and it is proposed that a 6 month review is carried out during the 2021-22 financial year.

4. Minimum Funding Guarantee for Special Schools

4.1. The minimum funding guarantee (MFG) protection for special schools in 2021 to 2022 is set by a condition of grant that applies to local authorities’ dedicated schools grant (DSG), and protects schools from seeing a reduction in funding from

Page 48 year to year assuming that the number and type of places remains the same between 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 financial years.

4.2. In order to implement the transition to the new model it will therefore be necessary to seek permission from the Secretary of State to be exempted from the Special Schools Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG), so that we can manage the appropriate changes in funding. This is provided for within the High Needs Operational Guidance and can be applied in cases where local authorities are proposing to change their banding systems. In considering any application for exemption from the MFG, the DfE will need to see that there is agreement from Schools Forum and that the schools affected have been consulted.

4.3. Without an exemption to the MFG it will not be possible to reduce funding to any school.

5. Legal and financial implications

5.1. The proposals in this report relate to the implementation of a revised methodology for the allocation of top-up funding to support pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans. Funding to support pupils with EHCPs is allocated from the High Needs Block within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Indicative modelling shows that there is an additional cost of £517k in 2021-22 if the proposals are implemented as recommended in this report. 5.2. Legal Implications The Local Authorities legal responsibilities are set out in Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014. In particular:

Section 37 of the Children and Families Act 2014 provides:

(1)Where, in the light of an EHC needs assessment, it is necessary for special educational provision to be made for a child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan—

(a)the local authority must secure that an EHC plan is prepared for the child or young person, and

(b)once an EHC plan has been prepared, it must maintain the plan.

Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 provides, as relevant:-

(2) The local authority must secure the specified special educational provision for the child or young person.

(6) 'Specified', in relation to an EHC plan, means specified in the plan.

Page 49 The Council fully expects that the level of funding at each band will continue to meet the needs specified in EHCPs.

S 175 of the Education Act 2002 provides that a local authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that their education functions are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. In doing so, authorities have to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance. The proposed model for allocation of top up funding is consistent with the duty under s 175 of the Education Act 2002 as it is in line with the High Needs Operational Guidance 2020-21 and the aim of the model is to ensure fairer distribution of resources for the education of children with high needs, within the context of all children’s EHCPs being met.

S149 of the Equality Act requires public authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the need to

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

An Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken in relation to the proposed model for allocation of top up funding. The EIA concludes that as the project is focused on developing a new funding model for schools/settings, any impact on service users is minimal, and the transition arrangements proposed will minimise disruption to any impacted school. These arrangements would ensure children and young people are not disadvantaged. The policy aims to provide a fairer, more transparent and equitable approach to funding allocation, based on need so that children presenting with similar needs are funded at the same rate.

Page 50 Allocation of Top Up Funding - Special Schools Indicative Financial Impact Based on Autumn 2020 Moderation

BAND Top up Fringe Change Transition yrs 2 £5,820 £5,922 Increase 3 3 £9,701 £9,870 Decrease under 500k 3 4 £19,401 £19,741 Decrease 500k-1m 5 5 £29,102 £29,611 Decrease 1m+ 10 Exceptional £58,203 £59,222

Comparison Based on September 2020 agreed place numbers % Agreed Total Budget 20- Gain/loss Indicative change 10k Place Additional funding if 21 based on % Per Year Budget in Year from 20- Total top up funding places Full Sept Movement change Transition 1 21 Page 51 Page Booker Park 3,874,380 2,250,000 - 6,124,380 5,236,203 888,177 17% 296,059 5,532,262 6% Stocklake Park 1,389,112 800,000 20,000 2,209,112 1,968,104 241,008 12% 80,336 2,048,440 4% Chilternwood 3,333,092 2,150,000 - 5,483,092 4,893,914 589,178 12% 196,393 5,090,307 4% Stony Dean 1,263,393 1,960,000 - 3,223,393 3,151,791 71,602 2% 23,867 3,175,659 1% Furze Down 2,318,420 1,770,000 50,000 4,138,420 3,877,340 261,079 7% 87,026 3,964,367 2% Alfriston 998,870 1,550,000 - 2,548,870 2,346,448 202,422 9% 67,474 2,413,922 3% Chiltern Way Academy 1,198,827 1,920,000 - 3,118,827 6,369,651 (3,250,824) -51% (325,082) 6,044,568 -5% Pebble Brook 1,034,073 1,250,000 110,000 2,394,073 2,584,543 (190,470) -7% (63,490) 2,521,053 -2% Heritage House 1,186,405 900,000 - 2,086,405 2,482,351 (395,946) -16% (131,982) 2,350,369 -5% Westfield 735,298 560,000 - 1,295,298 1,504,989 (209,691) -14% (69,897) 1,435,092 -5% 17,464,576 15,110,000 180,000 32,754,576 34,240,334 (1,485,757) 222,440 34,462,774 Appendix This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

Report to Schools Forum

Date: 8th December 2020

Title: Update from the F40 Group

Author: Liz Williams, Head of Finance – Children’s Services

Recommendations: Schools Forum is asked to note the correspondence from the F40 group to the Department for Education highlighting the cost implications of Covid-19 for schools and local authorities.

1. Background

1.1. The F40 group is made up of 42 local authorities who are among the lowest funded for education in England. Buckinghamshire is one of those local authorities and therefore is a member of the F40 Group.

1.2. The purpose of this report is to update Schools Forum on the recent correspondence between the F40 Group and the Department for Education (DfE) to highlight the impact of Covid-19 on school budgets.

1.3. The Chair of the F40 Group has written to the DfE on two occasions during the Covid-19 pandemic to highlight the financial impact on schools. The letters sent in August 2020 and October 2020 are attached as appendices to this report and have also been published on the F40 Website. The letters highlight the additional costs from the first period of lockdown and also the costs associated with reopening of schools since September.

2. Proposal

2.1. Schools Forum is asked to note the attached correspondence from F40.

Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix

August 12, 2020

Impact of Covid-19 on school and education funding

Dear Mr Goldman

I hope you are well and managing to navigate your way around the Covid-19 pandemic. I’m sure it has been, and continues to be, a major challenge for the Department for Education.

These are unprecedented times and you have our continued support as you try to work through all of the issues and return schools to some sort of normality.

The f40 group thought it would be beneficial to share with you some of the concerns and feedback we have received during recent weeks, from both local authorities and schools, relating to extra costs and funding pressures during the pandemic.

We appreciate that you are likely to be updating guidance for schools on claiming additional expenses in the coming weeks and thought our insight might be useful.

While the original guidance produced by the DfE was very helpful in the early stages, things have moved on significantly. We have found a number of areas where more clarity is required and where one set of rules cannot apply to all.

Our insight is as follows:

1. Existing issues are exacerbated f40 is made up of 42 local authorities who are among the lowest funded for education in England.

Our members have expressed concern that existing pressures within the school system, such as lack of funding, insufficient resources for special needs, the need for early intervention, and the impact of MPPFL on rural and small schools and those supporting pupils with greater levels of additional need in low funded areas, have been further challenged by the coronavirus.

Covid-19 has focused a sharp lens on issues that already existed. This is particularly the case with High Needs funding.

In many ways, our members are less able to cope with the additional demands of the pandemic than better-funded schools, further highlighting the need for fairer distribution of budgets.

Similarly, with Early Years, while the inflationary 8p increase in funding this year was welcomed, this was the first increase in funding for a number of years. The sector is under immense strain. The loss of private income to Early Years providers has left the future of many in doubt, which could result in a severe lack of places for children.

1

Page 55

While some Early Years providers have been able to apply for grants, others have not been eligible. Without financial help, they may close.

Suggestion: f40 believes short and long-term funding and support measures need to be in place to support schools, the High Needs Block and Early Years.

Clarity as to the department’s view on the future of the maintained nursery school sector would also be useful.

2. Clarity of guidance

There was confusion around which additional costs schools and local authorities could reclaim during the pandemic.

For example, it is unclear whether Maintained Nursery Schools were eligible to claim for extra expenses as there was no mention of them in the guidance.

Requests for clarification, either directly with the EFSA or through conversations with Regional Schools Commissioners have thrown up similar contradictions, such as whether extra staffing costs can be reclaimed and how they are recorded and recouped.

Suggestion: We believe schools and local authorities need more clarity on the process for reclaiming expenses in any future claim window, and more recognition of the breadth of extra costs they are facing. One size does not fit all.

3. Breadth of additional costs

The current guidelines have been in place since the beginning of lockdown and, while helpful at the time, they have been superseded by changes to guidance and the length of school closures. We now have the benefit of hindsight and can better understand widespread extra costs, as well as extraordinary costs that may only be relevant to some. f40 believes that schools should be as flexible as possible in their approach to extra expenditure and should be maximising on areas where they can make savings.

However, there are extra costs that all schools are facing, which we believe they should receive financial support with, such as:

 Additional deep, preventative cleaning  Extra water usage for hand washing  Providing hand sanitiser  Displaying floor stickers and signage  Using large quantities of PPE in special schools  Subscription to E-learning platforms

There have also been many exceptional costs, such as:

 Posting of homework to pupils for one school amounted to £7,500  A small school with only one set of toilets had to hire portable toilets to aid social distancing  Providing mobile phones to teachers to enable them to carry out wellbeing/safeguarding calls with pupils – especially vulnerable pupils.

2

Page 56 Schools and local authorities have experienced a number of funding pressures in recent weeks, but everyone is agreed that these issues will be magnified when schools return in September. The true financial cost of the pandemic to schools may not become clear until next year.

Suggestion: f40 believes schools should not be worse off due to the coronavirus and should receive financial support with extra costs that are common to all.

Suggestion: We believe allowance should be given for schools to recoup extraordinary expenses that may be specific to their situation. At the end of the financial year(s), it should become clearer whether there is a need for any schools to pay back funds.

4. Additional teaching costs

A number of schools have incurred additional teaching costs as a result of the pandemic. The current guidelines do not stipulate whether extra teaching costs will be met.

While many schools have been able to operate a rota system, either internally or with neighbouring schools, to provide on-going teaching to vulnerable children and children of key workers, we know of several instances where this has not been possible.

There are a number of instances where teachers had to work through their Easter and half- term holidays and have been unable to take time off later in the term to compensate, as suggested by the Department for Education.

Special schools, for example, provide specialist care and have not been able to rotate with others for two reasons:

1) They were open during the Easter holidays and half-term. Some staff were unable to take holidays and were unable to take time off in lieu during term time as they were required to support the number of small bubbles of children. 2) In some cases, pupils with special needs required support from staff they knew well.

Most schools have had reduced numbers of teaching staff, either because of sickness or because some teachers have been shielding, which has put more strain on those teachers available to work.

As a result, the rota system, has not always been a practical option. In some cases, schools have had to rely heavily on the use of supply teachers. The use of supply teachers has added pressure to the budgets of some of the lowest funded schools, with some reporting that their annual budget for supply costs have been spent within the first term.

For low funded schools, many of the staffing flexibilities have been removed in recent years to ensure schools remain viable. The use of teaching assistants in some cases is limited to support named children through an EHCP. Some schools do not even have a supply budget, with the headteacher often having to provide cover (on top of what may already be a regular class commitment).

Many teachers have worked additional hours to set up E-learning platforms for pupils, while continuing to provide homework and ongoing support. This requirement has increased with year groups returning, as in many cases a full teaching establishment has been necessary to cover the returning year groups.

Many support staff required to work in the holidays are on term-time only contracts. They have not been budgeted for or paid during the holidays – but were still needed when the

3

Page 57 schools were open (e.g. admin/finance/reception and teaching assistants for pupils with EHCPs who were counted as vulnerable.)

All of this has led to additional staffing costs for many schools, which they are now struggling to meet.

Suggestion: f40 believes schools should be able to recoup extra staffing costs where they can show exceptional circumstances, where a rota system could not be utilised, and where staff could not be compensated with time off.

5. Loss of income

The greatest financial concern for many schools has been the loss of income caused by the pandemic. As schools closed, so did many of their private income streams.

Many schools within f40’s member authorities struggle financially and rely heavily on private income, such as from breakfast and after school clubs and the hiring out of facilities, to help fund core education delivery.

The DfE has actively encouraged schools to create private income initiatives like these, but those schools that have are now among the hardest hit.

In many cases, while their private income has stopped, some costs have continued. For example, staff who run the breakfast club may have a second contract within the school, so may not be eligible for furlough, and the school must continue to pay their salaries.

And despite school astro-turf pitches and sports facilities being unavailable for hire, some schools may have to continue paying for their leases. This has placed a greater burden on budgets.

Suggestion: f40 believes the DfE should support schools who have lost income by agreeing to subsidise a percentage of it – for example, funding 75% of lost income. This would be in line with the approach taken with local authorities.

6. Catch-up grant f40 welcomes the Government’s £1bn Coronavirus catch-up grant – with £650m going directly to schools and £350m for a tutoring programme.

However, we believe more information and clarity is needed on how the grant will be distributed and how it is to be used in the months ahead.

Concerns have been raised about the long-term loss of funding through the Year 7 catch up, with any gains received through the National Funding Formula being eroded in meeting this loss in revenue. Special schools have raised particular concerns as, depending on need type, this could represent a substantial loss. f40 believes SEND pupils will remain vulnerable unless a needs-based funding formula is introduced at the earliest opportunity.

Suggestion: The introduction of a needs-led funding formula for High Needs that protects the funding made available through the year 7 catch up grant.

Suggestion: Additional High Needs funding provided to schools to assist with additional pupil need (eg emotional support) as a result of the pandemic. This is especially important

4

Page 58 for pupils in special schools with higher needs which have been exacerbated by the pandemic.

7. September return

a. Allowing a phased return

Many local authorities and school leaders believe that when children return to school in September, a number of issues will arise that may require additional support and discretion.

For example, while it is desirable to have all children back in school at the earliest opportunity, there are going to be instances where it is not practical or safe, such as with special schools.

Suggestion: Schools should be encouraged to bring all of their pupils back to school in September at the earliest opportunity but understanding and discretion should be used where particular challenges arise. Schools should be permitted to use phased returns if they can demonstrate the benefits to both staff and pupils.

b. Reassurance to parents

Some parents are understandably concerned about their children returning to school and f40 believes schools, local authorities and the DfE should provide reassurance to encourage all children to attend – rather than threats of prosecution.

c. Early intervention

Many local authorities and school leaders believe there will be a spike in special educational needs and exclusions when schools return in September. The pandemic and school closure will have had an adverse impact on many children, who may require short-term funding and support to assist them.

While some local authorities are expecting the number of EHCP applications to rise, we do not believe this is necessarily the answer to the expected increase in short-term issues. Rather than increasing the number of EHCPs, we believe early intervention programmes should be available to restore emotional well-being and provide additional support where needed.

Local authorities can play a key role in this bringing together large numbers of schools along with other key associated services such as social care. The importance of the role local authorities play has been highlighted during this current crisis and has demonstrated the impact they can have working closely with their local schools and families.

Suggestion: Early intervention funding, over and above the £1bn catch-up grant, should be provided, where needed, to ensure additional emotional and learning support can be accessed – reducing the likelihood of children needing EHCPs and to help children progress.

d. School transport

Many concerns have been raised by local authorities about how school transport will be managed when schools return in September.

Keeping children socially distanced on buses will be near impossible. It will also be extremely difficult for local authorities to timetable the additional school transport required.

5

Page 59 While local transport authorities welcome the £40 million funding package dedicated for transport during the autumn term, it is still unclear how children will be able to arrive at school by public transport on time, due to the double running of routes and additional transport arrangements required to cover multiple destinations.

Suggestion: f40 believes local authorities should be given more guidance and clarity on how the £40 million funding package will ensure children are able to travel to school while social distancing measures remain in place.

Conclusion

Thank you for taking the time to read the insight we have gathered during recent weeks. We hope you find it useful and would be only too happy to discuss it in more detail if you wish.

Don’t hesitate to contact either myself or Karen Westcott, Secretary of the f40 group, if you feel a call would be beneficial.

Kind regards

James McInnes Chairman F40 07961 275814 cc. Karen Westcott 07545 210067

6

Page 60 Appendix

October 20, 2020

Continuing impact of Covid-19 on school and education funding

Dear Mr Foot/Mr Goldman

I hope you and your colleagues at the Department for Education continue to be well through these difficult times.

Since I last wrote to you in August, the f40 group has been in dialogue with our members, both from local authorities and schools, about the continuing impact of Covid-19.

While f40 would very much welcome an opportunity to meet with you remotely later in autumn, we felt it would be useful to share now some of the feedback we have received.

We appreciate you are under increased pressure, but feel a grassroots perspective is of benefit. f40 believes the impact on schools should be continually monitored, and the criteria for claiming back extra expenses regularly reviewed.

While we welcomed the additional funding announced for schools last year, much of it is being swallowed up by the increases to teachers’ pay and pensions, and now Covid-19.

In real terms, schools are much worse off than they were five years ago and simply cannot meet the additional demands placed on them now due to the pandemic.

1. Additional teaching costs

Since schools returned in September, one of the greatest challenges for headteachers has been ensuring that their schools have sufficient teaching staff in place every day.

As the number of Covid cases rises, more and more teachers are having to isolate if they have possible symptoms, or if they have been in contact with someone who has tested positive.

Some teachers are also having to stay home to look after their own children who are isolating.

The impact on schools is enormous.

The squeeze on education budgets in recent years has led many schools to reduce the number of teaching staff to the bare minimum. That means they now have no spare capacity when teachers are absent.

During the pandemic, schools are having to increasingly rely on supply teachers to provide cover. This is exacerbated when Covid tests are not quickly or locally available.

If teachers could be tested immediately, those that receive a negative result could return to the classroom, rather than having to spend unnecessary time away from school.

Such is the extent of the issue, many schools have already spent their annual supply teaching budget. As time goes on and costs continue to be incurred, schools are having to consider the

1

Page 61 trade-off between opening in full and the threat that may pose to the future financial sustainability of the school.

A number of headteachers have considered using their school budgets to buy testing kits themselves – in order to get teachers with a negative result back in the classroom quickly. They were eager to know whether it would be an appropriate use of budget, claiming it was the only way they could keep costs down and schools open during particularly trying times.

We do not believe schools should have to use their teaching budget to pay for Covid tests but agree with them that it would be a better use of their budget if it saved them substantial sums on supply teachers.

Suggestion: f40 believes Government should pay the additional staffing costs of schools, where they have arisen due to the pandemic.

Suggestion: Priority should be given to schools and teachers during the testing process, similar to that given to health care workers, to ensure teachers can return to the classroom at the earliest opportunity.

Suggestion: Additional testing kits should be supplied to schools on a rolling programme.

2. Additional teaching resources

Schools, particularly primary schools, are having to spend more on teaching resources.

Social distancing measures mean children can no longer sit together and share learning resources and equipment, as in the past. This is a direct additional cost to schools caused by the pandemic.

Suggestion: Schools be allowed to claim back extra costs for learning resources brought about by Covid-19.

3. Extraordinary additional costs

The current guidelines around reclaiming additional expenses have been in place since the spring, and we believe they are now too narrow for the current situation. The range and breadth of additional costs for schools is constantly expanding as they navigate their way through the pandemic.

Schools need ongoing assistance with generic extra costs, such as deep cleaning and the displaying of information signs, however, a range of additional ‘other’ costs are also emerging.

While we encourage schools to make savings where they can, we believe no school should be worse off because of Covid-19.

Some schools may also have unique costs to them, which we believe should be included in the criteria for claiming back expenses.

For example, special educational needs schools are spending substantial sums on PPE, such as aprons, masks, and gloves. This is considered essential as some children with additional needs are prone to spitting, biting, and licking, increasing risk of infection, but it is costly.

Examples of emerging additional extra costs include:

 Additional water usage due to extra hand washing  More frequent emptying of cesspits due to the increase in water usage  PPE  Remote learning platforms

2

Page 62  Extra toilet blocks  Additional lunch/dining room equipment to aid social distancing (trays, cutlery, crockery)

Suggestion: f40 believes allowance should be made for schools to recoup ‘other’ extra expenses that are not already included on the claims form, and which may be specific to their situation. At the end of the financial year(s), it should become clear if they need to pay back funds.

4. Winter costs

Schools are expecting their heating costs to rise this winter as a direct result of the pandemic.

In order to reduce the risk of Covid infections passing between pupils and teachers, schools have been advised to keep buildings well ventilated by keeping windows open wherever possible.

This hasn’t posed a problem during the warmer months, but now autumn is here, schools are having to use their heating systems more frequently, and increase the temperature, to compensate for the open windows.

Suggestion: Schools should be allowed to claim for additional heating costs by submitting this year’s heating bill along with a comparative bill from the same period last year.

5. Loss of income

Many schools are facing financial hardship because their income streams continue to be frozen. These could be after school clubs, or the hiring out of sports and community facilities.

In many cases, while the income is no longer coming in, the costs associated with them, such as staff and leasing costs, are continuing.

Some schools have had no choice but to wind up certain activities, which is a loss to their community and has also incurred associated redundancy costs.

Suggestion: We believe the DfE should support schools who have lost income by agreeing to subsidise a percentage of it – for example, funding 75% of lost income. This would be in line with the approach taken with local authorities.

6. Extra learning support

Many local authorities are reporting a sharp spike in EHCP applications since September. f40 does not believe EHCPs are the right solution for all children and should only be used when long-term special educational needs are identified.

We feel they should not be applied to children who have fallen behind due to coronavirus, or who have anxieties relating to the pandemic.

However, greater funding for early intervention programmes should be available to restore emotional well-being and provide additional support to children who need it due to the impact of Covid.

While the catch-up grant goes somewhere towards this, it will not be sufficient to meet the demand of every school. Also, schools may have to use the catch-up grant to ease wider funding pressures, rather than targeting it at specific pupil need.

By putting additional funding into learning support now, Government will save money in the long- term on EHCPs and special educational needs.

3

Page 63 Local authorities can play a key role in bringing together large numbers of schools, along with other key services, such as social care.

Suggestion: Additional early intervention funding, over and above the £1bn catch-up grant, should be provided to ensure additional emotional well-being and learning support can be provided – reducing the likelihood of children needing EHCPs and to help children progress.

7. School transport

Local authorities and schools welcomed the additional funding to assist with school transport in September and have done incredibly well to ensure children get to and from school according to the new safety measures.

While we welcome the new injection of funds for school transport announced last week, £27m, we fear this will not be enough to meet demand, especially in large rural counties.

For example, in Devon we had a shortfall in extra school transport costs of £100,000 between the start of September and the October half-term. That is additional spending that Devon County Council cannot afford.

We need a commitment to fund the extra school transport required until the Covid restrictions end – whenever that might be.

Suggestion: f40 believes Government should make a long-term commitment to fund all additional extra school transport costs brought about by the pandemic until social distancing measures and restrictions are removed.

8. School census

The school census is taking place this month and concerns have been raised around the accuracy of the census in relation to the funding requirements of each school next year.

In recent weeks there has been a noticeable rise in Elective Home Education (EHE), with one council claiming a 500% rise in applications, from 70 during this period last year to 350 now.

We believe this is a direct result of the pandemic.

Children who are being educated at home will not be included in the school census, and thus not included in school budget forecasts for next year.

However, a large number of these children may return to the school system later this academic year – creating a funding shortage for their schools.

When these children return, they may also require greater learning support and may qualify for Free School Meals, yet their school will not receive funding to cover either purely because they missed the census.

Suggestion: f40 believes the Department for Education should prepare for discrepancies in the census due to the high number of children taken out of schools due to Elective Home Education. We believe schools should be paid an additional sum to cater for the likelihood of children being brought back into the system next year, and to enable them to provide extra learning support where needed.

9. SEND

Special Educational Needs continues to be a major concern for f40, with the needs of pupils outstripping available budgets, and EHCP applications continuing to rise.

4

Page 64 The situation is only going to get worse unless the High Needs system is overhauled, with less reliance on EHCPs and greater emphasis on school inclusion.

Many councils have growing deficit SEND budgets and these will continue to increase unless action is taken now to deal with the High Needs crisis.

We urge Government to resume its review of SEND as soon as possible, and report back with recommendations at the earliest opportunity.

Schools need support systems, guidance and additional funding to enable them to be flexible in the way they work, which can enable them to be properly inclusive of pupils with SEND.

And local authorities need additional funding to settle the huge deficit budgets they currently have, which is running close to £20m in some councils.

Suggestion: The review into SEND be resumed as soon as possible.

Suggestion: The SEND system be overhauled, with less reliance on EHCPs and greater emphasis on inclusion at mainstream schools. Schools should be given greater funding, guidance and support in order to provide the right level of care and education to pupils with High Needs.

Suggestion: Local authorities should be given additional funding to pay off the deficit SEND budgets they have accrued.

Conclusion

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read some of the feedback we have received from our members.

If you would like to discuss it in more detail, don’t hesitate to contact me, or f40 Secretary Karen Westcott, and we will be happy to arrange something.

Kind regards

James McInnes Chairman f40 07961 275814 cc. Karen Westcott 07545 210067

5

Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix

Report to Schools Forum

Date: 8th December 2020

Title: Contingency Panel Terms of Reference

Author: Liz Williams, Head of Finance – Children’s Services

Recommendations: Schools Forum is asked to agree a change to the Terms of Reference to the School Specific Contingency Fund.

1. Background

1.1. In Buckinghamshire, a contingency fund has been established, in accordance with current regulations, to assist maintained schools where, for a range of potential reasons they are experiencing financial difficulty to a degree likely to impact adversely on the education of pupils. This fund is known as the Schools Specific Contingency Fund (SSCF). The SSCF is a de-delegated service.

1.2. Schools are expected to take all reasonable issues into account when setting their financial plans and to ensure that they have capacity within their plans to deal with unforeseen eventualities. The Schools Specific Contingency Fund is necessarily very limited and is therefore allocated only in exceptional circumstances.

1.3. The Maintained Schools Sub-Committee met on 10th November to consider proposals for the de-delegation of funding in 2021-22. As part of that discussion the sub-committee considered the potential impact of covid-19 on the levels of contingency that may be required in 2021-22. It was recommended that the terms of reference for the SSCF would need to be reviewed to ensure that the contingency fund would not be used to cover costs related to the pandemic.

1.4. The proposed amended terms of reference for the SSCF are attached at Appendix 1 to this report. Proposed changes are highlighted in red in the Appendix and are detailed as follows:

Page 67 1) It is proposed include the following additional principle on page 2 of the document:

Please note that unforeseen additional expenditure or loss of income attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic will not be eligible for support through the SSCF. 2) It is proposed to add the following item to the list of types of expenditure that are outside of the scope of the SSCF (page 4):

(vi) for funding that is attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic 2. Proposal

2.1. Schools Forum is asked to agree the proposed changes to the terms of reference to the School Specific Contingency Fund.

Page 68 Appendix SCHOOL SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY FUND TERMS OF REFERENCE Approved by Schools Forum: DDMMYY Effective: DDMMYY

Background

The Schools Budget consists of the delegated budgets allocated to individual schools and a budget for other provision for pupils which local authorities fund centrally. The allocation to each school is made according to formulae, either set nationally or agreed on a local basis.

In Buckinghamshire, a contingency fund has been established, in accordance with current regulations1, to assist maintained schools where, for a range of potential reasons they are experiencing financial difficulty to a degree likely to impact adversely on the education of pupils. This fund is known as the Schools Specific Contingency Fund (SSCF). The SSCF is a de-delegated service. Funding for de-delegated services must be allocated through the formula but can be passed back, or ‘de-delegated’, for maintained mainstream primary and secondary schools with Schools Forum approval. De-delegation is not an option for Special schools, Nursery schools and PRUs. Primary and secondary maintained school members of the Schools Forum can vote to approve a local authority proposal to pool funding from maintained school budgets.

Any unspent balance at the year-end should be reported to Schools Forum. Funding may be carried forward to the following year and can be used specifically for de-delegated service if the authority wishes. If a local authority carries forward an overspend, then the Schools Forum must specifically agree for it to be funded from the following year’s budget.

The SSCF is central expenditure deducted for the purpose of ensuring that monies are available to enable increases in a school’s budget share after it has been allocated where it subsequently becomes apparent that a governing body have incurred expenditure which it would be unreasonable to expect them to meet from the school’s budget share which may include expenditure in relation to -

(i) schools in financial difficulty,

(ii) the writing-off of deficits of schools which are discontinued, excluding any additional costs and overheads,

(iii) new, amalgamating or closing schools, or

(iv) other expenditure where such circumstances were unforeseen when initially determining the school’s budget share

Regulations1 give the Schools Forum members for Primary maintained schools and Secondary maintained schools the power to agree the level of the Schools Specific Contingency.

The Schools Specific Contingency Group (SSCG)

The Schools Specific Contingency Group has delegated authority from the Executive Director of Children’s Services and the Schools Forum to make allocations of funding to schools from the Schools Specific Contingency Fund.

1

Page 69 SCHOOL SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY FUND TERMS OF REFERENCE Approved by Schools Forum: DDMMYY Effective: DDMMYY

Membership of the group shall include:

Head of Finance Children’s Services or representative Head of SEN or representative And At least three Members of the Schools Forum The group has the authority to determine appropriate criteria for the allocation of contingency funding to schools; such criteria may need to change from time to time to reflect available funding and the number and nature of applications from schools.

The SSCG will meet once a year, in late February/March, when all cases submitted by schools will be considered. Meetings will be chaired by a Schools Forum member.

In order to avoid any conflict of interest that might exist for a member of the Group in the consideration of a specific application with which he/she may have a connection as a Governor, IEB member, Headteacher or Business Manager, then such a conflict will be eliminated by such a member withdrawing from the discussions and decision making surrounding the case.

Principles and criteria

Schools are expected to take all reasonable issues into account when setting their financial plans and to ensure that they have capacity within their plans to deal with unforeseen eventualities. The Schools Specific Contingency Fund is necessarily very limited and is therefore allocated only in exceptional circumstances.

Please note that unforeseen additional expenditure or loss of income attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic will not be eligible for support through the SSCF.

In considering applications for support except those relating to errors in budget shares, in all cases the school is required to demonstrate that “financial difficulty”* would result. The SSCG will require evidence of the size and nature of the expenditure together with an explanation of steps taken to mitigate the impact on the school’s budget. The group will take account of such steps and in cases where the expenditure could have been avoided or substantially reduced (e.g. through the purchase of appropriate insurance) applications will be discounted accordingly. * Financial difficulties shall be recognised when either a) The latest forecast of the year end results show a deficit or b) As a result of the additional costs (being the subject of the Contingency application), the in- year deficit of the school exceeds 2% of the school’s Budget share

Applications will be considered for the issues arising in the academic years covered by the current financial year. However, funding is only available on a financial year basis and therefore schools should ensure that applications are made within the correct financial year. Consideration of applications will be limited by the level of the budget set aside for the SSCF.

2

Page 70 SCHOOL SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY FUND TERMS OF REFERENCE Approved by Schools Forum: DDMMYY Effective: DDMMYY

Where allocations are agreed, the following criteria will generally be applied;

(i) For errors in school budget shares arising from incorrect data or incorrect application of the funding formula – the full amount of the error for the current financial year.

(ii) Support for significant unforeseen costs – no more than 50% of the cost accepted by the SSCG

The following are examples of applications falling under point (ii).above – unforeseen costs – which the SSCG may consider:-

a) Long term absence of teachers through sickness/maternity leave etc. where it has proved necessary to engage agency staff (N.B. the SSCG will require valid reasons if no insurance has been arranged) b) Net redundancy costs2 for staff declared redundant in the first 9 months of the financial year. Redundancies arising in the last 3 months of the financial year will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. c) Child Protection issues resulting in staff suspensions and/or legal costs.

(iii) Support for additional pupil numbers In cases where schools experience or need to plan for, a known (not forecasted) significant rise in pupil numbers since the date of the previous funding census (October) until the start of the financial year when those pupils begin to be funded through the funding model, they may apply for additional funding to cover costs incurred in providing education to those pupils. Each case will be considered on an individual spend or need to spend basis.

Schools need to demonstrate: a) That necessary additional staffing costs have been incurred or need to be incurred, b) That financial difficulty will arise without additional funding i.e. that insufficient free reserve and balances are available to cover those costs. "Free reserves refer to such reserves held by a school which are not specifically held for some future defined expenditure.” c) Marginal non-staffing costs will be expected to be met by the schools themselves, but significant non-staffing costs will be considered provided that there is clear evidence to prove the cost would not have been incurred if the pupil numbers had not risen.

Contingency panel will grant the actual amount that the school can justify it has incurred due to the increase in pupils up to a maximum of 7/12 AWPU

3

Page 71 SCHOOL SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY FUND TERMS OF REFERENCE Approved by Schools Forum: DDMMYY Effective: DDMMYY

iv) Traveller Children For Traveller children who do not receive pupil premium an amount equal to Pupil Premium shall be paid for the period at which the child is registered at that school. Claims should be made in arrears.

Applications which fall outside the scope of the Contingency Fund which will not be accepted and for clarity include those:- (i) for funding appertaining to prior financial years (ii) for capital expenditure (iii) from academies (iv) for circumstances which fall under the criteria of the growth fund, i.e. pupil growth beyond PAN to meet basic need (v) for SEN funding (vi) for funding that is attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic

Application Process

Schools that believe their budget share is incorrect should contact the Schools Funding and Support Team to verify the calculations. Any errors established will be corrected as a matter of course and will be reported to the SSCG.

Additional information or evidence may be included in covering letters etc. to support the school’s application.

The application must be supported by an up-to-date forecast of the school’s projected year end income & expenditure and resulting surplus/deficit (such forecasts to be provided by utilising the standard financial reporting process), Updated for 4 weeks before the panel meeting. The date of the meeting will be announced on the SchoolsWeb.

Notification of Decisions

The BCC Finance team will notify Schools of the decision on their contingency applications within 15 working days of the SSCG meeting.

Appeals Schools wishing to appeal against the decision made on their application should put the details of their appeal in writing enclosing all additional and supporting information within 5 working days of the decision and submit using the Schools Contingency Fund Request Form on the Service Desk Portal. Any appeals will be heard and considered by the SSCG at a special meeting.

(Amended by Schools Forum 15th January 2019)

Note 1: THE SCHOOL AND EARLY YEARS FINANCE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2017

4

Page 72 SCHOOL SPECIFIC CONTINGENCY FUND TERMS OF REFERENCE Approved by Schools Forum: DDMMYY Effective: DDMMYY

Note 2: Net redundancy costs to be calculated as the costs of the redundancy less the amount ‘saved’ in salaries, including on-costs, for the balance of the financial year. (Schools should be aware however that the SSCF would only cover up to 50% of the net redundancy costs)

5

Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank