MEETING OF THE SCHOOLS FORUM TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY 4 JULY 2019

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

A G E N D A

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

2. Substitute Members To welcome any substitute Members.

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

4. Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 21 March 2019 (Enclosure) To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 21 March 2019.

5. Matters Arising To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2019 that are not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

6. Recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group from 20 June 2019.

7. Recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group from 11 June 2019.

8. Recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group from 13 June 2019.

9. Recommendations from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group from 13 June 2019.

10. DfE Call for Evidence: Funding for SEND and those who need AP (Enclosure) To consider the draft Schools Forum response to the DfE's call for evidence consultation on Funding for SEND and those who need AP

11. Forum Correspondence There is no Forum related correspondence to consider at this meeting.

1 12. Any Other Business

13. Date of Future Meetings To note that the next scheduled Forum meeting will be held at 10.00am Thursday 17 October 2019 at County Hall, Preston.

2 Lancashire Schools Forum meeting of 4 July 2019 at County Hall, Preston

Executive Summary

1. Attendance and Apologies for Absence and 2. Substitute Members To note attendance and apologies for absence and welcome any substitute members.

3. Forum Membership To note the Forum membership changes since the last meeting and consider any nominations for the Schools Forum Chair for the 2019/20 and 2020/21 academic years.

4. Minutes of the Last Meeting and 5. Matters Arising To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 21 March 2019 and any matters arising.

6. Recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group To consider the recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group from 20 June 2019.

i. 2020/21 De-Delegation Proposals The school funding framework continues to allow service de-delegations in 2020/21. This report provides information on the proposed continuation of service de-delegations approved in 2019/20 and updates members on the considerations relating to possible new de-delegation options.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported of the proposed 2020/21 de-delegation consultations being issued in September 2019 c) Requested that the comments on the current operation of primary inclusion hubs be passed to relevant officers.

ii. Trade Union Facilities Agreement Jeanette Whitham, Head of Schools HR Team, attended the Working Group for this item.

As requested by the Forum, updated information was provided around the trade union facilities time agreement.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information about the updated Trade Union Facilities Agreement; b) Supported Trade Union Facilities options being presented in the 2020/21 de-delegation consultations with schools.

iii. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19

3 The Overall Schools Budget outturn position for 2018/19 shows an overspend of some £1.7m. This report provides further details of the Schools Block outturn position.

The Working Group a) Noted the report and the 2018/19 Schools Budget final financial outturn position.

iv. School Balances and Clawback 2018/19 The final outturn position against schools delegated budgets at 31 March 2019 is an overspend of £1.409m. This report provides further details of the Schools Block outturn position.

Information was provided showing analysis of school balances by phase at the end of the financial year 2018/19, and a copy of the full Schools Balances and Clawback Report 2018/19,

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2019 and the individual school level information provided in the report; c) Recommended that there should be no general suspension of clawback at 31 March 2019; d) Recommended that the 2 appeals should be supported and therefore no clawback should be applied to these 2 schools; e) Recommended that there should be no change to the Schools Forum's school balances and clawback arrangements to be applied at 31 March 2020.

v. Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19 A draft Forum Annual Report for 2018/19 was provided for the Working Group.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommend to the Schools Forum that the 2018/19 Annual Report be approved for publication.

vi. High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group Andrew Good provided a verbal update on the work of the HNB Provision Task and Finish Group.

The Working Group: a) Noted the update; b) Welcomed the fact that the report would be shared with the Forum in due course.

vii. Notional SEN Proposals 2020/21 As part of the ongoing review of High Needs Block expenditure, the LA has formulated a possible simplification to the notional SEN calculation.

4

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the issuing of a consultation to simplify the notional SEN calculation.

viii. Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) from September 2019 On 10 April 2019, DfE published information and confirmed that they would be funding maintained schools and academies for TPS increase in 2019 to 2020.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

ix. PE and sport premium funding for 2019/20 Following a number of enquiries from schools, the DfE have confirmed that the £320m PE and sport premium will continue in the 2019/20 academic year.

The Working Group a) Noted the report.

x. Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20 SFVS is a statutory requirement for all maintained schools and this report provides information on the 2018/19 SFVS returns and the changes to be introduced for 2019/20

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the continuation of the current returns timescale and sanctions policy; c) Supported the proposed funding arrangements for governors attending the briefing sessions; d) Suggested that information about the new SFVS arrangements could be highlighted via the Chairs' conferences.

xi. Invoices 'on approval' for on-line resources Internal Audit have again been alerted to invoices being sent to schools 'on approval' in respect of a yearly subscription providing access to on-line resources.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

The Forum are asked to ratify the Working groups recommendations.

7. Recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group

5 To consider the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group from 11 June 2019.

i. Inclusion Hub Proposals 2019/20 Paul Duckworth, Head of Service – Education, Quality and Performance (Acting) attended the Working Group for this item. Updated information was provided about the proposals for the use of funding by the District Inclusion Hubs, including strengthened governance and monitoring arrangements.

The Working Group a) Thanked Paul for his report and supplementary information; b) Noted the information provided; c) Expressed support for the strengthened governance arrangements for the project; d) Recommended that the £80k per district Inclusion Hub pump priming allocations for 2019/20 be released to relevant 'banker' schools; e) Welcomed the intention to develop pupil number based allocation as part of the 2020/21 proposals to reflect the differing sizes of district.

ii. 2019/20 De-Delegation Proposals The school funding framework continues to allow service de-delegations in 2020/21. This report provides information on the proposed continuation of service de-delegations approved in 2019/20 and updates members on the considerations relating to possible new de-delegation options.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the continuation of existing de-delegations in 2020/21, subject to the annual school consultation; c) Supported the consultation on the de-delegation of primary inclusion hub funding for 2020/21; d) Requested consideration of the methodology to distribute de-delegated inclusion hub funding, if agreed, to districts.

iii. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19 The Overall Schools Budget outturn position for 2018/19 shows an overspend of some £1.7m. This report provides further details of the High Needs Block outturn position.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the supplementary information; b) Requested that the commentary on the out-county budget be amended.

iv. School Balances and Clawback 2018/19

6 The final outturn position against schools delegated budgets at 31 March 2019 is an overspend of £1.409m. This report provides further details of the High Needs Block outturn position.

Information was provided showing analysis of school balances by phase at the end of the financial year 2018/19, and a copy of the full Schools Balances and Clawback Report 2018/19,

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2019 and the individual school level information provided in the report; c) Recommended that the application of clawback at 31 March 2019 be suspended, due to the relatively small amounts involved and in recognition of the overall financial pressures across the school sector; d) Recommended that the existing school balances and clawback arrangements continue to be applied at 31 March 2020.

v. Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19 A draft Forum Annual Report for 2018/19 was provided for the Working Group.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommend to the Schools Forum that the 2018/19 Annual Report be approved for publication.

xii. High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group Andrew Good provided a verbal update on the work of the HNB Provision Task and Finish Group.

The Working Group: a) Noted the update; b) Welcomed the fact that the report would be shared with the Forum in due course.

xiii. Notional SEN Proposals 2020/21 As part of the ongoing review of High Needs Block expenditure, the LA has formulated a possible simplification to the notional SEN calculation.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the issuing of a consultation to simplify the notional SEN calculation.

xiv. Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) from September 2019 On 10 April 2019, DfE published information and confirmed that they would be funding maintained schools and academies for TPS increase in 2019 to 2020.

7

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

xv. PE and sport premium funding for 2019/20 Following a number of enquiries from schools, the DfE have confirmed that the £320m PE and sport premium will continue in the 2019/20 academic year.

The Working Group a) Noted the report.

xvi. Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20 SFVS is a statutory requirement for all maintained schools and this report provides information on the 2018/19 SFVS returns and the changes to be introduced for 2019/20

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the continuation of the current returns timescale and sanctions policy; c) Supported the proposed funding arrangements for governors attending the briefing sessions.

The Forum are asked to ratify the Working groups recommendations.

8. Recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group To consider the recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group from 13 June 2019.

i. Early Years Block Budget Pressures Reports had been presented to previous working group meetings about the financial pressures facing the sector. This report provided an update on early years budget pressure issues.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information provided; b) Recommended that the Forum letter to District Councils lobbying for a reduction in business rates for nurseries be resent, except for Chorley BC; c) Recommended that a consultation be issued to providers about the possible cessation of the discretionary payments for additional vulnerable groups in the 2 year old formula, including data on the usage of the different groups, an impact assessment and any transitional arrangements; d) Recommended that the current policy for supplementary payments in the 3 and 4 year old formula should continue for the time being.

8 ii. Early Education Funding Agreement 2019/20 The proposed changes to the Early Education Funding Agreement for the 2019/20 academic year were considered at the Early Education Consultative Group on 24 May and a number of comments and suggestions were made. This report provided information on the final decisions taken by the County Council.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the final decisions taken in connection with the Early Education Funding Agreement 2019/20. iii. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19 The Overall Schools Budget outturn position for 2018/19 shows an overspend of some £1.7m. This report provides further details of the Early Years Block outturn position.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report;

vi. School Balances and Clawback 2018/19 The final outturn position against schools delegated budgets at 31 March 2019 is an overspend of £1.409m. This report provides further details of the Early Years Block outturn position.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2019 and the individual school level information provided in the report; c) Noted the ongoing work to stabilise the financial position at maintained nursery schools; d) Recommended that the application of clawback at 31 March 2019 be suspended, due to the relatively small amounts involved and in recognition of the overall financial pressures across the school sector; e) Recommended that the existing school balances and clawback arrangements continue to be applied at 31 March 2020.

iv. Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19 A draft Forum Annual Report for 2018/19 was provided for the Working Group.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommend to the Schools Forum that the 2018/19 Annual Report be approved for publication.

v. Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20 SFVS is a statutory requirement for all maintained schools and this report provides information on the 2018/19 SFVS returns and the changes to be introduced for 2019/20

9

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the continuation of the current SFVS returns timescale and sanctions policy; c) Supported the proposed funding arrangements for governors attending the briefing sessions; d) Noted that officers would raise the nursery benchmarking issue at future national and regional events with DfE.

The Forum are asked to ratify the Working groups recommendations.

9. Recommendations from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group To consider the recommendations from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group from 13 June 2019. A number of reports around Apprenticeship Levy Finance were provided, including: o Transfer of Unspent Levy Funds Update; o Teacher Qualification Update; o Apprentice Ambassadors; o Finance Position; o Engagement with Schools; o Part time Learners.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the latest financial forecast; b) Congratulated the Apprenticeship team on their national recognition; c) Recommended that their suggestion that the 25% transfer of Levy funds to support relevant training at non-levy paying schools in Lancashire, should be extended to academies and early years PVI providers, in order to prevent unspent funding being returned to central government. (Subject to confirmation of the eligibility of these areas against the Regulations and the practical and resource implications for the Team).

The Forum are asked to ratify the Working groups recommendations.

10. DfE Call for Evidence: Funding for SEND and those who need AP To consider the draft Schools Forum response to the DfE's call for evidence consultation on Funding for SEND and those who need AP

11. Forum Correspondence There is no Forum related correspondence to consider at this meeting.

12. Any Other Business

13. Date of Future Meetings To note that the next scheduled Forum meeting will be held at 10.00am Thursday 17 October 2019 at County Hall, Preston.

10 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 4 July 2019

Item No 3

Title: Forum Membership

Appendix A refers

Executive Summary

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

Forum Decision Required

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report; b) Welcome Michelle Howard, Mark Evans and CC Phillippa Williamson to their first Forum meeting; c) Welcome CC Jennifer Mein back to the Forum; d) Thank Kay Burke, Keiran Bellis, Simon Gillespie, Liz Astbury, Tim Cross, Janice Reynolds, Steve Robinson, Chris Shields, Jane Beckford, David Swaffield, Sharon Taylor, Julie Burnside, Paula Burdess, CC Susie Charles and CC Lorraine Beavers for their contribution to the Forum; e) Appoint new Forum Chair for the 2019/20 and 2020/21 academic years from any nominations received.

11

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

Schools Forum Annual Membership Review for September 2019 The Schools Forum regulations require that the balance of Forum membership is kept under review to ensure that the number of primary, secondary and academy members are reflective of the pupil population at those schools.

The latest breakdown of pupil numbers, based on the January 2019 census data, adjusted for known academy conversions and rounded to the nearest even number (to facilitate an equal split of headteacher/principal and governance members) is provided below:

Adjusted % of Adjusted pupil Adjusted Current Membership Phase numbers pupils Variance Membership September January January 2019 2019 2019 Primary schools 22 97,862 57.7 22 0 Secondary schools 12 42,040 24.8 10 -2 Academies 6 29,705 17.5 6 0 Total 40 169,607 100 38 -2

Over recent years, the academy representation on the Forum has increased from 4 to 6, as pupils numbers in academies have risen following the conversions of maintained schools. During the same period, the number of maintained primary and secondary members on the Forum has not been decreased, as the calculation to round to an even number has not changed sufficiently to necessitate a reduction in Forum representation.

On the latest calculation of pupil numbers, the maintained secondary membership has tipped below the point where the rounding to the nearest even number is now 10, which is a reduction of 2 places. The latest calculation does not suggest any change to the membership for academies or maintained primary schools.

This reduction in the number of secondary members provides for 38 places in total across maintained primary and secondary schools and academies at September 2019, down from 40 places in recent years, but which returns the total to the level in 2014/15.

The number of places across these phases will continue to be reviewed going forward.

The Schools Forum annual membership review also seeks responses from schools representatives about whether members wish to continue on the Forum in the next academic year. A number of members have indicated that they will not be continuing on the Forum in September 2019, and this meeting will be their last.

Members leaving the Forum as part of this annual membership review include:

Kay Burke Nursery School Headteacher

12 Keiran Bellis Primary School Governor Simon Gillespie Primary School Governor Liz Astbury Primary School Headteacher Tim Cross Primary School Headteacher Janice Reynolds Primary School Headteacher Steve Robinson Primary School Headteacher Chris Shields Primary School Headteacher Jane Beckford Governor David Swaffield Secondary School Governor Sharon Taylor Special School Governor Julie Burnside Academy Headteacher/Principal

A number of these colleagues are active and longstanding members, and the Forum will want to express thanks for their contributions and wish them well for the future.

The LA is making arrangements to seek replacement representatives for September 2019.

FE College Representative Michelle Howard has now taken up post with The Lancashire Colleges, replacing Robin Newton-Syms and will join the Forum to represent the post 16 college sector.

Members will wish to welcome Michelle to her first Forum meeting.

Unison Representative The Unison observer representative on the Forum has recently changed, with Paula Burdess, replaced by Mark Evans.

Members will wish to thank Paula for her contribution to the Forum and welcome Mark to his first meeting.

Cabinet Member for Children Young People and Schools The County Council member with executive responsibility for the schools budget, and therefore an observer member of the Schools Forum is the Cabinet Member for Children Young People and Schools. At a recent meeting of the full council, CC Phillippa Williamson was appointed as the new Cabinet Member for Children Young People and Schools.

CC Susie Charles, who previously held the position, is now the Vice-Chair of the County Council.

Members will wish to welcome Councillor Williamson to her first Forum meeting and thank Councillor Charles for her contribution to the Forum.

LCC Labour Group Observer Member

13 The LCC Labour Group have changed their observer member on the Forum. CC Lorraine Beavers has been replaced by CC Jennifer Mein. Members will recall that CC Mein has previously been a member of the Forum.

Members will wish to thank Councillor Beavers for her contribution to the Forum and welcome Councillor Mein back to the Forum.

Schools Forum Chair As has been previously reported, Tim Cross has indicated that he is to retire from his headship at the end of the current academic year and will therefore resign from the Forum at the same date. The Forum will need to elect a new chair for the 2019/20 academic year. The election of the Chair would be for the 2019/20 and 20/21 academic years.

Attached at Appendix A is information on the Role of the Schools Forum Chair.

Any members who wish to nominate themselves to stand as Forum Chair are asked to inform the Forum clerk by emailing [email protected] ahead of the meeting, if possible.

A document is attached to the membership item setting out the Role of the Schools Forum Chairman.

If more than one nomination is received, it will be necessary to conduct a vote at the Forum meeting.

14 Appendix A

Role of the Schools Forum Chair

Eligibility The Schools Forum must elect a Chair from amongst its own voting members, but this cannot be an elected member or officer of the local authority.

Duties/Tasks The role of Chair of the Lancashire Schools Forum includes a number of duties and responsibilities, which are listed below. Whilst the list is wide-ranging, many of these are only required on an infrequent basis.

Duties include:  Chairing meetings of the Lancashire Schools Forum

 Chairing the Schools Forum's Chair's Working Group, including: o Recommending additional representatives from other groups be invited to a particular meetings of the Chair's group if this was relevant to issues being discussed at that meeting; o In conjunction with other representatives of the Group offering a steer to the County Council around any issues affecting schools or the Schools Budget that may be confidential in nature; o In conjunction with other representatives of the Group offering a sounding board for the County Council in the development phase of Schools Budget proposals; o Receiving briefings in advance of meetings to ensure the smoothing running of the Forum meetings.

 Liaison with the Press on Schools Forum related issues, including: o Issuing press releases on key Forum issues, via the County Council's Media Team; o Commenting to the press on relevant School Budget related issues on behalf of the Forum.

 Being the public face of the Forum

 Contributing to the annual Schools Forum induction session for new members.

 Representing the Schools Forum on BT Lancashire Services (BTLS) school user groups for ICT and HR/Payroll.

 Contributing to the Schools Forum's relationship with constituent groups, including attendance at relevant meetings, for example the Lancashire Academy Principals Group, Lancashire Academy Governors meeting or the Primary Heads in Lancashire (PHiL) Executive.

 Presenting a Schools Forum perspective a County events, such as District Chairs of Governors meetings and County Council school funding consultation seminars.

15  Communicating directly with Lancashire schools and academies on key issues where the Schools Forum has been involved.

 Receiving information from DfE on School Funding matters.

 Responding to DfE consultations on school funding related matters on behalf of the Schools Forum.

 Corresponding with the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Education, Lancashire MPs and other DfE and EFA officials on behalf of Lancashire schools and the Forum.

 Attending and contributing to relevant Schools Forum related events and surveys at a national and regional level.

 Receiving and responding to written and verbal communication with Lancashire schools on relevant school funding issues.

 Making representations on key issues on behalf of schools and the Forum to the County Council and its partner organisations, including meetings with: o the Leader of the County Council; o Chief Executive of the County Council; o the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools; o the Executive Director of Education and Children’s Services and the Director of Education and Skills; o other LCC and BTLS Directors.

 Attending meetings with senior County Council members and officials to provide a school perspective and insight on County Council initiatives, for example the living wage.

16 Item 4 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT 10:00 A.M. ON THURSDAY, 21 MARCH 2019 AT THE EXCHANGE, COUNTY HALL, PRESTON

Present: Schools Members: Primary School Governors Academy Governor Chris Bagguley Louise Shaw Stephen Booth (Vice-chair) Gerard Collins Academy Principal/Headteacher Patricia Eastham Alan Porteous Eleanor Hick Lesley Millard Alternative Provision Academy Laurence Upton Robert Waring Special School Academy

Primary School Headteachers Special School Governor Daniel Ballard Sarah Barton Special School Headteacher Tim Cross (Chair) Shaun Jukes Laura Dean (for Liz Astbury) Brendan Hassett Short Stay Governor Steve Robinson Lucy Sutton Short Stay Headteacher Anne Kyle

Secondary School Governors Nursery School Headteacher Janice Astley Jan Holmes ( for Kay Burke) Brian Rollo Nursery School Governor Secondary School Headteachers Thelma Cullen Julie Langham

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

Observers Observers - Members of the Public David Fann (NAHT) CC Lorraine Beavers Eric Harrison (NASUWT) Kathleen Cooper Liz Laverty (ASCL) Andy Stannard (Governor Medlar with Wesham CE Primary) Sam Ud-din (LASGB)

17 In attendance: Paul Bonser For Item 6 Andrew Good Carl Fagan, Funding Policy Unit, DfE Christine Hurford Jane Rimmer Robert Rimmer Kevin Smith Neil Smith (SFS) Heather Stevens

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from: Liz Astbury, Paula Burdess (Unison), Kay Burke, Steve Campbell, John Davey, Edwina Grant OBE, Julie Gordon (NEU), Mark Jackson, Angela Johnstone, Jan Marshall, Louise Martin, Chris McConnachie, Janice Reynolds and Sandra Thornberry.

2. SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS Laura Dean attended as a substitute for Liz Astbury. Jan Holmes substituted for Kay Burke at the meeting.

3. FORUM MEMBERSHIP A report was presented setting out the Forum membership changes since the last meeting:

GMB Trade Union Representative The GMB have informed the County Council that their new Forum representative will be Sandra Blight, replacing Michael Clark.

FE College Representative Robin Newton-Syms is retiring from his post with The Lancashire Colleges, and, as such, will be leaving the Forum. He will be replaced by Michelle Howard.

Officer Support Heather Stevens, Accountant (School Funding, Regulation and Compliance), who is integral to the school budget and payment processes, is leaving the County Council to take up a new role with an NHS trust. A replacement will be sought to fill the post.

Schools Forum Annual Membership Review for September 2019 All schools members of the Forum will be contacted to ascertain if members wish to continue on the Forum in September 2019. Responses will be requested by Friday 5 April 2019, so that any necessary appointments and elections can take place in the summer term 2019.

Schools Forum Chair Tim Cross has indicated that he is to retire from his headship at the end of the current academic year. The July round of Forum meetings will therefore be Tim's last. Members will be asked to elect a new Chair for the 2019/20 academic year, and nominations will be sought in advance.

The Forum: a) Noted the report; b) Thanked Heather, Michael and Robin for their contributions to the Forum.

18

4. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING The minutes of the last meeting held on 15 January 2019 were agreed as a correct record.

5. MATTERS ARISING There were no matters arising not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

6. DFE PRESENTATION: SCHOOL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: BENCHMARKING AND SELF-ASSESSMENT Carl Fagan, Funding Policy Unit, DfE, attended the meeting for this item and delivered a presentation and demonstration of DFE resource management tools.

The Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) helps to provide schools with assurance that they are meeting the basic standards necessary to achieve a good level of financial health and resource management. At the end of 2019/20, the DfE will update the SFVS. The purpose of the new self-assessment tool is:

 To support schools to make a self-assessment of their use of resources;  To provide a robust and consistent method to help schools and academy trusts identify where a school sits in the distribution of data across the sector; to identify reasons for that position; and to decide if changes in how resources are managed are required.

The tool can be used to identify possible areas for change to ensure that resources are being used to support high-quality teaching and the best education outcomes for pupils and is in two parts:

 A checklist, which asks a number of questions of governing bodies in six areas of resource management to provide assurance that the school is managing its resources effectively (similar to the current SFVS);  A dashboard, which shows how a school's data compares to thresholds on a range of statistics that have been identified as indicators for good resource management and outcomes.

The Forum received a demonstration and presentation about the latest version of the self- assessment tool, which is available here. The self-assessment is a part of a suite of DfE tools to help schools benchmark or understand their efficiency, which includes  Efficiency metric https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schools-financial- efficiency-metric-tool  Financial benchmarking service https://schools-financial- benchmarking.service.gov.uk/

Members felt that the new tool provided an extremely useful device for schools to assess their use of resources and has also fed back some comments to the DfE, including a request to develop a nursery school version of the service.

It was noted that the LA would be offering support and training around would incorporate it into Schools in Financial difficulty support

19 The Forum: a) Noted the information provided; b) Thanked Carl for his presentation; c) Requested that Forum comments be considered by the DfE; d) Welcomed the intention of the LA to offer support on the use of the new DfE tool.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SCHOOLS BLOCK WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group held on 7 March 2019.

i. Address by the Executive Director of Education and Children’s Services Edwina Grant OBE, Executive Director of Education and Children’s Services, attended the Schools Block Working Group for this item.

Edwina thanked members for their contribution to the Forum, especially governor members who are volunteers. She also thanked members for the decision to agree the 0.5% transfer from Schools to High Needs Block to help mitigate the pressures facing High Needs funding.

Some of the key challenges facing the County Council and schools were also highlighted.

Edwina also shared her insight from recent roles with the LGA, which suggested that all LAs have their own issues, and Lancashire's are often created by the size of the County.

The Working Group: a) Thanked Edwina for attending the meeting and sharing her insight on the challenges being faced.

ii. Advertising on LCC Vacancy Site. The Working Group requested that correspondence be sent to BTLS requesting clarification around the why the policy appeared to have changed and reiterating the Forum's stance that all schools and academies should have access to this site, at a cost, if the school was not already buying a package that included this service.

The Working Group a) Noted the information; b) Requested that BTLS be asked to provide a response about this change of policy.

Subsequent to the Working Group meeting, feedback had been received about the delays in responding and it was hoped that a decision on this issue would be communicated in the next few weeks.

iii. Schools Block Budget 2019/20 Steve Belbin, Interim Director if Education and Skills, attended the Working Group for this item

20 This report provided an update on the finalisation of the Schools Block budget for 2019/20, including final decisions around split site funding and approval of the proposals by the ESFA.

In connection with the High Needs Block, reference was made to correspondence issued from the School Improvement Service, dated 4 February 2019, that provided an update on Inclusion Hubs. Steve Belbin, Interim Director if Education and Skills, attended the Working Group and provided an update on discussions that had taken place with primary schools and other key stakeholders to help shape the inclusion hub proposals going forward. School Improvement colleagues were currently considering feedback from the latest round of engagement that would then be collated into a comprehensive document, but training for primary school staff was emerging as a key theme.

It is envisaged that further reports will be presented to the Forum on Inclusion Hub proposals, as part of the overall budget strategies for high needs block provision that will be developed through an internal High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group.

One future possibility for inclusion hubs, or similar behaviour related options, is to develop de-delegation proposals for 2020/21, if the Forum were supportive.

It was also noted that the work was ongoing to look at secondary sector AP issues via a consultant engaged by the LA.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Thanked officers for their efforts in the finalisation and issuing of 2019/20 school budgets; c) Requested that further reports be presented on the outcomes from the High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group, including the Inclusion Hub developments. (Perhaps via the HNB Working Group).

Subsequent to the Working Group meeting a letter was distributed to primary schools and primary PRUs clarifying the Inclusion Hubs financial situation. The correspondence had been copied to Forum members.

iv. Scheme for Financing Schools In February 2019, the DfE issued a 10th update to Statutory Guidance on schemes. The Lancashire scheme has therefore been reviewed and a number of amendments were proposed to the local scheme.

As required by Regulations, a consultation was launched with all maintained schools on 26 February 2019, seeking views on the proposed local changes to the scheme.

A summary of all the scheme updates set out in issue 10 of the Statutory Guidance was provided as an Appendix to the report.

It was noted that Annex A in the statutory guidance is included within section 1:1 of the Lancashire scheme. The relevant changes have been made to the local scheme as proposed by the statutory guidance, which remove advice to publish a statement showing outturn expenditure “at both central level and for each school, and balances held in

21 respect of each school” and that each school must receive a copy of each year’s budget and outturn statements so far as they relate to that school or central expenditure.

However, Lancashire intends to continue to provide this information directly to schools, over and above the scheme requirements, believing that it is useful and appropriate information for schools in undertaking their financial responsibilities.

No consultation responses had been received by the date of the Working Group.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Welcomed the LA's decision to continue the current practice of providing outturn data directly to schools.

At the Forum meeting it was confirmed that no consultation comments had been received.

The Forum; a) Noted the information and the Working Group's recommendations.

Maintained schools members voted unanimously to approve the revised Lancashire scheme.

v. Schools in Financial Difficulty Update This report provided an update on Schools in Financial Difficulty (SIFD).

School Categorisation Previous reports have been presented to the Forum around Schools in Financial Difficulty (SIFD) Categorisations.

Reports emphasised that school data used in the SIFD process was kept under regular review, against the agreed categories:

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

The last update was provided to the Forum based on January 2019 outturn data and, as requested by the Forum, included a phased base analysis, in addition to the overall position across all schools:

22 Enhanced Financial Training An update on the financial training was provided, including information on, a seminar held for secondary schools in February 2019, which included input from DfE and ASCL.

Enhanced Commissioned Support The LA is enhancing the support that is provided to SIFD, particularly those identified in Category 2.

Early Warning Process The LA has issued a number of 'early warning' letters, to provide schools with a 'heads up' that they may be heading towards financial difficulties. LA data was used to analyse school finances and to target schools that met certain thresholds.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the ongoing work to support schools in financial difficulty.

Subsequent to the Working Group meeting, it was confirmed that a seminar to look at secondary school issues in more details has been arranged for 29 April 2019, again with input from ASCL.

vi. Legal Services SLA Update A brief verbal update was provided that the Legal Services SLA was being reviewed, together with an update of the charging methodology.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

vii. Pooled Resource 2020 – Looking Forward Paul Dunne attended the Working Group for this item.

The Pooled Resources Operational Plan (PROP) scheme is open to all Primary, Nursery, Special schools and PRUs and is managed over a 3 year period comprising 3 strands including Reactive maintenance, Service Contracts and Planned repairs and improvements. There are currently 360 schools in the scheme.

The service were now looking to shape the service vision for 2020 onwards and were considering various service improvements.

The Group thanked Paul for his informational and offered some initial comments on the scheme going forward.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Asked that their initial comments be considered when shaping the service vision.

Individual members were asked to consider joining a small group to consider the 2020 service offer in more detail.

23 viii. Customer Access Opening Hours Reduction - Schools HR Information was provided on a decision to close the Schools HR line at 5.00pm from 1 April 2019.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HIGH NEEDS BLOCK WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 28 February 2019.

i. Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) Sally Richardson, Head of Inclusion Service (SEND) attended the Working Group meeting for this item

A presentation was provided setting out the latest position on the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) and the key themes and priorities, including

 Key Education issues;  Health focus;  Issues around Education, Health and Care.

The presentation also provided a link to the SEND dashboard: Lancashire insight. Data from the dashboard was being used to inform policy and practices.

One of the main limitations identified was the inability to link LA and health data. The project group was looking into this issue.

The Working Group: a) Thanked Sally for her presentation; b) Noted the JSNA updated; c) Requested further reports on the JSNA at future meetings.

ii. HNB Budget 2019/20 update This report provided an update on the finalisation of the High Needs Block budget for 2019/20 and the issuing of individual school budgets.

LCC Budget Decisions 2019/20 Members asked for an update on the LCC budget decision that impacted on transport for permanently excluded pupils attending PRUs. It was confirmed that representations from secondary PRUs has been considered as part of the LCC budget process, but that no changes to the original proposal had been made. However, officers were considering the implications of this decision and it was agreed that a communication would be sent to the secondary PRUs to confirm the position from April 2019.

Combined Budgets 2020/21

24 Ahead of the Government's comprehensive spending review, Lancashire had recently asked services to contribute to evidence that the DfE are collating via regional finance groups about the impact of the combined budget funding reductions.

LCC services had been asked for evidence about the impact of these reductions that could be submitted as part of this process.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the final 2019/20 Schools Budget funding decisions; b) Requested that information be provided to secondary PRUs in connection with the LCC budget decision on transport for permanently excluded pupils from April 2019.

Subsequent to the Working Group meeting:  Various communications took place with secondary PRUs that culminated in confirmation that the County Council is to carry out an exercise to assess the agreed savings on taxi transport for permanently excluded pupils and that no changes to the current transport arrangements will be implemented from 1 April 2019;  Information has been submitted about the possible impact of combined budget reductions in Lancashire.

iii.High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group In response to the ongoing High Needs Budget pressures, the LA has established a High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group to look holistically at the HNB expenditure to identify possible savings and more efficient and cost effective ways to use funding

This is an internal LCC officer group with Head of Service representation from key services, plus the Chair of the HNB Working Group is on the Group.

The Task and Finish Group reports to the Executive Director of Education and Children’s Services, and the Forum will be updated on progress.

A key focus of the Group will be to drill down into the data and information surrounding high need provision and expenditure to assist and inform strategic policy direction.

In connection with Inclusion, some members may have seen correspondence issued from the School Improvement Service, dated 4 February 2019, that provided an update on Inclusion Hubs. This correspondence incorrectly stated £80,000 per district had been agreed. Forum did not specifically agree to this but supported further development of inclusion hubs.

It is envisaged that further reports will be presented to the Forum on Inclusion Hub proposals, as part of the overall budget strategies for high needs block provision that will be developed through the Task and Finish Group, with one future possibility for inclusion hubs, or similar behaviour related options, is to develop de-delegation proposals for 2020/21, if the Forum were supportive.

The Working Group debated elements of this report:  Concern was expressed about the message being given to schools about Forum agreement for inclusion hubs funding. Officers agreed to provide further clarification to colleagues in the relevant services that were developing inclusion hub charges, to ensure it was clear that Forum had not agreed this district level funding.

25  Members welcomed the establishment of the Task and Finish Group and it was noted that the overall strategy for high needs block expenditure would be developed through the Group, including Inclusion Hub developments.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Asked to be kept updated as the HNB Task and Finish Group developed its proposals.

Subsequent to the Working Group meeting a letter was distributed to primary schools and primary PRUs clarifying the Inclusion Hubs financial situation. This correspondence was copied to Forum members.

iv.Life Skills/Healthy Relationships Training This report sought agreement to carry forward underspends into 2019/20, for use on healthy relationships training.

The Forum had previously agreed a central items allocation towards Life Skills/Healthy Relationships. Following a progress report to the Working Group in November 2017, the Forum agreed to support the restructuring of the remaining budget to allocate circa £100k in both 2017/18 and 2018/19, to maximise the course provision that could be made for schools for healthy relationships training.

The Service have recently contacted finance staff to request that an amount of £40k, which is estimated to remain unspent at 31 March 2019, can be carried forward into 2019/20, for use on healthy relationships training.

In such circumstances, officers supported the £40k carry forward to 2019/20.

The Working Group: a) Supported the decision to allow the service to carry forward £40k into 2019/20 to deliver healthy relationships training; b) Requested a summary report around the overall use of this funding and the outcomes achieved at the end of the project.

The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE EARLY YEARS BLOCK WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group held on 26 February 2019.

i. Early Years Block Budget Pressures This report provided an update for members on the final early years block budget setting process and on actions agreed at the last working group in responses to continuing budget pressures in the sector.

In January 2019, the Schools Forum and the Lancashire County Council Cabinet finalised the 2019/20 Early Years Block Budget. A communication was issued to all providers on 24 January 2019, setting out the decisions taken and a supplementary communication was issued following queries from some providers.

26 It was confirmed that following compliance approval by the ESFA on some parts of the Schools Budget, individual budget statements for 2019/20 had been issued on 26 February 2019.

Follow up Action from the November Early Years Block Working Group The Early Years Block Working Group made a number of recommendations at the 29 November 2018 meeting and an update was provided for members:

 Recommended that the Forum write to central government to lobby for additional funding for early years in Lancashire A letter was sent to Nadhim Zahawi MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families, setting out the Forum's concerns about the sustainability of early years settings in Lancashire. A response dated 17 December 2018 was received from the Minister, which was provided for the Working Group.

Members reiterated that they were facing severe financial pressures, and provided emotional first hand experiences of the consequences of the cash flat funding, including examples of decisions to close settings and the impact this can have on children and families. The internal procedures to be followed on receipt of closure notifications were discussed.

The overall impact of closures on the County Council's statutory duty to secure sufficient childcare was also a concern going forward, and it was suggested that this may impact most severely in areas of high deprivation.

 Requested that further investigations be carried out into discretionary payments, which do not generate equivalent DSG income for Lancashire; The timing of this request and the timescales involved in finalising the Schools Budget for 2019/20 meant that this option could not be considered for implementation from April 2019.

The Working Group were asked to consider which discretionary payments should be included within the scope of any review for possible implementation in 2020/21.

 Investigation of the Early Years Statutory Guidance to see if any discretion exists in the legal interpretation of requirements around introducing additional charges to parents to bring the hourly rate in line with the costs; Advice received from the County Council's Legal Services indicated that there is no opportunity to charge for the early entitlement, as there is a statutory obligation to provide it for free.

 Investigation of the Lancashire funding agreement for settings that receive an Ofsted 'Inadequate' inspection judgement in connection with the timescales for the withdrawal of funding from the Provider "as soon as is practicable". The current funding agreement runs until the end of August 2019 and cannot be modified mid-year. This request will be considered as part of the funding agreement review for the 2019/20 academic year, which will be implemented from September 2019.

 Investigation of any discretion that Lancashire may be able to provide in connection with business rates (It was noted that Harrogate Borough Council has introduced a 50 per cent reduction in business rates for nurseries) The setting of business rates and any discretion with rate relief schemes are a matter for District Councils in Lancashire. On 17 December 2018, correspondence was sent to each district council in Lancashire from the Chair of the Early Years Working Group. The letter

27 lobbied for councils to consider offering Business Rate Relief for childcare providers, as has been introduced by Harrogate Borough Council.

To date, only one formal response has been received, from the Deputy Director of Housing & Inclusion at Borough Council. The correspondence concludes that there is significant diversity in Early Years providers, and therefore does not believe that a 'one size fits all' policy would be appropriate.

 Requested that the Working Group Chair meet with the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools to seek assistance with any political representations that could be made. On 17 December 2018, Forum representatives met with the Leader of Lancashire County Council and the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools.

Elected members were very sympathetic to the issues raised but stressed that many of the matters were outside the control of the County Council. However, the elected members agreed to raise awareness of the issues and make representations on behalf of Lancashire providers.

 CC Beavers agreed to raise Early Years funding concerns at a meeting with some Lancashire MPs.

A further paper was tabled, which set out the Government's response to a national on-line petition, as follows: "The national minimum wage will increase again in April therefore the government needs to increase the childcare funding rates in line with these for settings to survive".

A copy of the Government response was attached provided as an Appendix to the report. Much of the response contained similar information to that included in the reply from Nadhim Zahawi MP. Members noted that some of the figures quoted in the Government's response to the petition were national averages and not reflective of the lower rates paid to Lancashire.

The Working Group discussed the financial pressures across all types of settings, and reiterated the view that many providers, of all types, were at risk of becoming unsustainable. It was confirmed that no additional funding was provided to maintained settings from the County Council. The separate legal frameworks governing different types of establishments were also highlighted.

It was noted that officers and members continued to raise Lancashire's situation at national and regional groups and events.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the final 2019/20 financial year funding decisions; b) Noted the actions taken to date in response to Working Group recommendations, and any further information received; c) Requested that the County Council investigate the internal communication procedures associated with cessation of lease notifications; d) Noted that support was available from the County Council and from professional bodies, such as the NDNA, to help PVI settings facing financial difficulty and that the County Council could consider the further development of the in-house model of traded support;

28 e) Requested that all discretionary payments be included with the scope of the initial analysis that these payments have on the Lancashire funding rates.

Subsequent to the Working Group meeting:  A letter to the Secretary of State from the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and the Chair of the Education Scrutiny Committee was sent. A copy of the letter has been shared with Lancashire early years settings and was provided for the Forum;  The Chair of the Early Years Working Group requested clarification of various issues relating to early years block funding pressures and actions being taken. Detailed responses have been sent to the questions posed.

In discussions, early years members highlighted that they were aware of payment errors and delays in some other parts of the country that were impacting on settings at a time when funding levels were already creating a challenging financial environment. Members emphasised the efficient and supportive service they received from the early years team in Lancashire.

Early Years representatives were therefore prompted to formally write to the early years team to express thanks for the professional and effective support received and the Forum supported this.

ii. 2017/18 Early Years Expenditure Outturn Trial Outcome Lancashire has participated in a DfE voluntary data collection exercise, which ran alongside the routine annual Section 251 2017/18 outturn return to collect detailed information about early years expenditure.

In the main, DfE were pleased with the overall findings, as the vast majority of the local authorities were able to meet their funding rules at outturn position despite 2017/18 being the first year of key early years reforms, and the introduction of the new 30 hours childcare programme. Lancashire was compliant with all three aspects of the EY funding requirements.

DfE have indicated that they may collect early years expenditure data again in future years.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

iii. SEN Inclusion Fund Consultation This report provided an updated on the outcome of the consultation about SEN Inclusion Fund Arrangements.

Comments on a draft LA consultation relating to proposals around the Early Years SEN inclusion fund were obtained using the Forum's urgent business procedure in the autumn term 2018 and a consultation was issued to all providers, with a closing date of 18 December 2018.

Consultation The following proposals were put forward for consultation  Option A: one off payments to pay for additional resources or training in order to meet the additional needs of an individual child. The payments can be used to buy specific software packages, specialist resources not readily available within the setting, or

29 training for identified members of staff. This would not include specialist equipment that is provided separately via a separate budget.  Option B: regular payments for individual children based upon their need for a time limited period. These payments would be used to implement a specifically targeted intervention, in order to achieve identified and specific outcomes for an individual child.  A combination of Option A and Option B.

Outcomes of the consultation There were 71 responses provided to questions 1 and 3 and 70 for question 2 and 4.

QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 Option A 15.5% Capped ≤ £250 5.7% Option B 26.8% Capped to <£250 0.0% Option A & B 57.7% Capped to >£250 4.3% Based on child's needs 90.0%

QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 3 & 4 year olds only 5.6% Capped ≤ £32 week-1 5.7% All pre-school children 94.4% Capped to <£32 week-1 0.0% Capped to >£32 week-1 4.3% Based on child's needs 90.0%

It can be seen then that nearly 60% of respondents selected a combination of Option A and B and therefore both options will be available.

Members commented that the amount of funding available to meet the needs of some children with more complex needs was insufficient an also commented on some of the processes involved in applying for additional support and the feedback received.

It was noted that under the proposed new system the levels of funding available would increase, but that fewer children would be eligible. The new system should also help streamline the application process and help with feedback.

The updated SEN Inclusion Fund arrangements would also include childminders in the process.

The Working Group requested that members be copied into the communication to be issued to providers confirming the revised arrangements.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Requested that members be copied into the communication to be issued to providers confirming the revised SEN Inclusion Fund arrangements.

The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations.

10. FORUM CORRESPONDENCE Since the Forum paper were distributed, additional items of Forum correspondence had been received.

30 a) Insurance costs at Maintained Nursery Schools An email was received from the nursery school headteacher representative, requesting the Forum's support as insurance premiums for the sector have seen significant increases in 2019/20. (Example 47% increase).

This was because for 2019/20, the insurance costs reflect both the 15 Universal hours and the 15 Extended hours, when provided. 2018/19 insurance cost only reflected the 15 hours Universal provision

Nursery HTs asked for the Forums support in raising concerns with the County Council.

The Forum, a) Noted the contents of the email; b) In response to this correspondence about the School Insurance Offer for Nursery Schools in 2019/20, asked if the offer could be reviewed based on the following issues:  The actual impact of the offer on nursery schools is significant, with substantial increases in the cost of almost all nursery schools;  This comes at a time when nursery schools are already under significant financial pressure;  The offer letter went out with only 3 weeks notice to reply, which did not provide a realistic opportunity for schools to look into alternative provision;  The County Council would normally provide some level of transition or tapering if it were introducing increases of this magnitude;  The costs quoted for nursery schools do not seem comparable to other providers including: o Small primary schools of a roughly similar size to nursery schools; o PVI early years providers; o Nursery schools in other LAs;  The inflationary increase in the offer seems to have been rounded up.

b) Waterplus Correspondence Waterplus have written to the Forum to say that the due to processing errors, they have made overpayments on the credits for a number of school customer accounts for 2017/18.

Waterplus have indicated that they have several options for the schools to pay the money back, including payment plans, phased payments, and payments over this year and next financial year, and that they will be writing to those affected in the next month.

The LCC energy team are investigating this further and will get a list of schools that they say owe money so the County Council can let them know of their obligation prior to year-end. Information will also be posted on the schools portal.

The Forum: a) Noted the Waterplus correspondence and the work being undertaken by the LCC Energy Team.

c) Correspondence from a primary school about High Needs Funding Email correspondence was received from a primary school about how support for children is agreed.

31 The correspondence had been forwarded to the Inclusion Service and colleagues had agreed to contact the school to assist with the query.

The Forum: a) Noted the correspondence and the proposed response.

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS There were no items of AOB.

12. DATE OF FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled Forum meeting will be held at 10.00am Thursday 4 July 2019 at County Hall, Preston.

32 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 4 July 2019

Item No 6

Title: Recommendations of the Schools Block Working Group

Appendices A, B and C refer

Executive Summary

On 20 June 2019, the Schools Block Working Group considered a number of reports, including:

 2020/21 De-Delegation Proposals  Trade Union Facilities Time Agreement  Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19  School Balances and Clawback 2018/19  Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19  High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group  Notional SEN Proposals 2020/21  Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) from September 2019  PE and sport premium funding for 2019/20  Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20  Invoices 'on approval' for on-line resources

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the Schools Block Working Group held on 20 June 2019; b) Ratify the Group's recommendations.

33 Background On 20 June 2019, the Schools Block Working Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.

1. 2020/21 De-Delegation Proposals The school funding framework continues to allow service de-delegations in 2020/21.

Continuing De-delegations In 2019/20, the Forum formally approved 3 service de-delegations, relating to: o Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions; o Museum Service - Primary Schools Only; o Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty.

For 2020/21, the LA is again proposing to consult on the continuation of these services as de-delegations, with arrangements and costs expected to be broadly in line with those in 2019/20.

Further information about the Trade Union Facilities Time Agreement that is included within the Staff Costs de-delegation is provided as a separate agenda item.

Possible Additional De-delegations for 2020/21 For 2020/21, the LA has been looking at other de-delegation possibilities. The rationale for considering these proposals is linked to the ongoing financial pressure facing the High Needs Block of the DSG. Locally, modelling indicates that the Lancashire HNB deficit may be in the region of £13.2m by the end of 2020/21, without any further mitigating actions.

Intervention Provision Behaviour support is amongst the limited list of services that are eligible for de- delegation under the DfE's current school funding regulations.

Primary Inclusion Hub proposals formed around school views are now proposed for de-delegation proposals for 2020/21. Further information about the current Primary Inclusion Hub arrangements was provided for the Working Group.

It was noted that at the High Needs Block, members supported the release of funding from that block for the 'interim' year of 2019/20, following further presentations about intended outcomes and strengthened governance.

Initial calculations by the LA suggest that in 2020/21, Inclusion Hub de-delegation proposals might equate to the following costs:

Inclusion Hubs Primary Rate per pupil £11.00 Total De-delegation £1,000,000

It was also noted that a review of secondary SEMH support and alternative provision took place in 2018/19 with the aim of developing a system-led approach, which is in

34 alignment with the developments in the primary phase. The recommendations from the review are being implemented in partnership with secondary leaders.

Copyright Licencing Since April 2015, the DfE have negotiated a number of copyright licences for schools and academies at a national level. The cost of these licences for Lancashire schools and academies are deducted from our Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocation each year.

From April 2019, the total gross cost of the Lancashire licences was £1.12m. However, the County Council is able to reclaim the VAT element of the charge, which leaves a net cost to the DSG for 2019/20 of circa £937k.

Licences and subscriptions are currently on the list of allowable de-delegations and initially, the LA was considering if the cost of the copyright licences could be de- delegated, with the aim of freeing up headroom in the CSSB, which could in turn be used to offset ongoing cost pressures in the High Needs Block.

However, further examination of the ESFA Operational Guidance for 2019/20 reveals that the national licences negotiated by DfE are specifically excluded from the de- delegation arrangements, so this option is no longer considered viable.

Members considered the report and were supportive of the proposed 2020/21 de-delegation consultations being issued. Some additional questions relating to the operation of Inclusion Hubs were raised, including possible flexibilities for some pupils around current 12 week placements level and some inconsistencies between districts.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported of the proposed 2020/21 de-delegation consultations being issued in September 2019 c) Requested that the comments on the current operation of primary inclusion hubs be passed to relevant officers.

2. Trade Union Facilities Agreement Jeanette Whitham, Head of Schools HR Team, attended the Working Group for this item.

The Facilities Agreement for teacher trade unions demonstrates the commitment that the Schools Forum and Council have towards fostering and maintaining good relations with employee representatives.

In June 2018, a report was submitted to Forum for consideration of the level of trade union facilities agreement funding, which had been set in 1998 and had remained at the same level, despite the fact that 13% of teachers were employed in Academy schools and therefore not covered by de-delegation decisions, including access to paid local trade union officials via the Facilities Agreement.

In October 2018, Forum voted on the staff costs de-delegation and decided to continue the de-delegation in 2019/20, at the existing level. This had also been the option receiving the

35 highest overall response from schools during the Forum consultation process. However, Forum members agreed to keep the contribution level of the facilities time agreement under review, as some members had supported the option to reduce the level in line with the teacher numbers/union reorganisation adjustment. This report was presented to provide the current position and allow Forum members to re-consider this issue.

Historical position The current level of funding was set in 1998, when Blackburn and Blackpool became unitary authorities and 25% of Lancashire teachers transferred out of Lancashire Authority. At this time, the number of FTE facilities posts was reduced from 15 to 12.

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

Funding position On an annual basis, schools are asked whether they wish to de-delegate funding for Public Services duties. The large majority of this budget funds facilities time equating to 12 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) teaching posts for the four main teaching unions – NAHT, ASCL, NASUWT and NEU, and the 1 FTE post for UNISON.

In addition to the representatives funded by the Schools Forum, many schools have workplace representatives who may deal with HR casework for their school. The cost of any release for school representatives is met by the school budget and not by the Schools Forum.

Each trade union also has regional officials, funded by their association. Within Lancashire, experience shows that the regional officials deal with very serious casework matters, usually where a member's employment is at risk.

Current allocations The current allocations to the five unions (from the 12 FTE) were determined as a result of membership numbers when the initial agreement was written, and were not changed following the amalgamation of NUT and ATL. These allocations are as follows:

Union NAHT ASCL NEU NASUWT UNISON No. of FTE 1.6 FTE 1.2 FTE 6.0 FTE 3.2 FTE 1 FTE representatives (13%) (10%) (50%) (27%) Membership 608 204 6,480 5,868 5886 numbers* (5%) (2%) (49%) (45%) * Membership numbers have been taken from historical reports over the period 2013-18

Each union determines how its allocation is split between its nominated representatives.

Based on the most recent School Workforce data, the number of teaching staff in Lancashire Schools is 10,063. Of these, 14% (1,419) are based in Academy (former maintained) schools. When a school converts to become an Academy, they are no longer able to draw on the Facilities Agreement funding, unless they arrange a separate buy-in arrangement. Despite

36 this, there has been no equivalent reduction in the number of funded FTE trade union representatives.

Legal implications The report also provided information about the legislative position in respect of Trade Union duties and activities

Financial implications The total annual budget provision for funding under the Trade Union Facilities Agreement amounts to circa £472k including oncosts. If a decision is taken to reduce the current level of funding, it would result in a saving to the Schools Forum. However, there may be indirect costs incurred by schools, as they may need to release school-based representatives to undertake trade union activity within their school, and provide representation to fulfil the statutory obligations.

Approximately 16% of the total allocated funding was not used during the 2018-19 academic year. This equates to 365.5 days.

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

Members discussed the information provided and the pros and cons of the current arrangements and the possible options for changing the level of support provided for the facilities time agreement. As the views expressed by members were split, the Working Group recommended that the possible options for this de-delegation were presented to schools as part of the annual consultation.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information about the updated Trade Union Facilities Agreement; b) Supported Trade Union Facilities options being presented in the 2020/21 de- delegation consultations with schools.

3. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19 The Overall Schools Budget outturn position for 2018/19 shows an overspend of some £1.7m. The overspend was mainly attributable to the ongoing overspend in the High Needs Block, which was partially offset by underspends in other funding blocks.

Information was provided on all funding blocks, and a copy of the full Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19 is attached at Appendix A.

The final Schools Block position is set out below:

37 Schools Block 18/19 Budget Actual Variance £ £ £ Schools Block 624,392,538 610,760,983 -13,631,555 Total CSSB 5,984,722 5,950,362 -34,360 Growth fund 1,300,000 1,079,694 -220,306

Rate Refunds -523,177 -523,177 DSG grant -631,676,291 -619,612,512 12,063,779 Total 0 -2,344,649 -2,344,650

Further information on the individual budget lines and around central expenditure and on the position of Reserves and Provisions at 31 March 2019

The Working Group a) Noted the report and the 2018/19 Schools Budget final financial outturn position.

4. School Balances and Clawback 2018/19 The final outturn position against schools delegated budgets at 31 March 2019 is an overspend of £1.409m. This means that school balances have decreased by £1.409m in 2018/19, to a total of £42.741m.

Information was provided showing analysis of school balances by phase at the end of the financial year 2018/19, and a copy of the full Schools Balances and Clawback Report 2018/19, including details of individual school balances, is provided at Appendix B.

It was noted that the overall number of schools in a deficit budget position at 31 March 2019 had reduced to 39, from 47 a year earlier.

Application of Clawback at 31 March 2019 and 2019/20 policy It was noted that the calculation of clawback liability at 31 March 2019 indicated that only 6 schools were at risk of clawback, totalling circa £11k and 2 primary schools had submitted appeals.

Members considered whether to suspend the application of clawback at 31 March 2019, but the vast majority of members felt that that a principle was at stake and the no blanket exemption should be applied.

The Working Group therefore went on to consider appeals submitted by 2 primary schools, as follows:

Clawback Appeal 1 An aided primary school appealed against clawback on the grounds of needing to hold funding to ensure that they had sufficient funding to make the Governors 10% contribution to building projects on the school site.

The Working Group held an informal vote and supported this appeal by 14 votes to 8.

38

Clawback Appeal 2 A primary school appealed against the application of clawback on the grounds that a substantial allocation was made to the school late in the financial year. This allocation was not automatically discounted from the clawback calculation, as the school had been notified of the funding before the allocation was made

The Working Group held an informal vote and supported this appeal by 13 votes to 9.

Members supported a continuation of the current school balances and policy at 31 March 2020.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2019 and the individual school level information provided in the report; c) Recommended that there should be no general suspension of clawback at 31 March 2019; d) Recommended that the 2 primary school appeals should be supported and therefore no clawback should be applied to these 2 schools; e) Recommended that there should be no change to the Schools Forum's school balances and clawback arrangements to be applied at 31 March 2020.

5. Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19 Each year the Schools Forum publishes an annual report setting out items of business in which the Forum has been involved.

A draft Forum Annual Report for 2018/19 was provided for the Working Group and a copy is attached at Appendix C.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommend to the Schools Forum that the 2018/19 Annual Report be approved for publication.

6. High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group Andrew Good provided a verbal update on the work of the HNB Provision Task and Finish Group.

It was noted that the Group, involving a number of LCC Heads of Service and the Chair of the HNB Working Group had met on several occasions and devised a number of proposals, many based a detailed analysis of data, which had not been available previously. Examples of best practice both locally and nationally had also been assessed to inform the group's proposals.

The internal LCC approval process for the group's report and recommendations was set out and it was confirmed that the report would be shared with the Forum.

39 The Working Group: a) Noted the update; b) Welcomed the fact that the report would be shared with the Forum in due course.

7. Notional SEN Proposals 2020/21 As part of the ongoing review of High Needs Block expenditure, the LA has formulated a possible simplification to the notional SEN calculation.

The primary principles around the proposal were to ensure that all of the AWPU calculation were available as a basic entitlement for any pupil regardless of need, and to simplify the calculation.

The report provided more detail on the complexity of the calculation, including examples, the background to the current situation, and Lancashire's compassion to national position.

It was noted that the impact of the proposals would be limited and would marginally affect the allocation to schools, where the uplift funding where provided to assist schools meeting their £4,000 Core funding and £6,000 Additional Support funding (Elements 1 and 2) for pupils with High Needs (with E+ EHC Plans) that are being educated in mainstream schools.

It was confirmed that this proposal would not change the actual AWPU funding levels allocated to every pupil.

In order to implement a change to the funding formula from April 2020, a consultation with all schools and academies would be needed.

Many members commented that they would welcome the removal of 'notional SEN' entirely as it did not actually generate any income and caused confusion for schools and parents and it was noted that the DfE were considering this separately.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the issuing of a consultation to simplify the notional SEN calculation.

8. Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) from September 2019 Previous reports to the Forum have referred to the increase in the employer contribution rate of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) from 16.4% to 23.6% that will be introduced from September 2019.

On 10 April 2019, DfE published information and confirmed that they would be funding maintained schools and academies for TPS increase in 2019 to 2020.

Further details of the allocation methodology and funding rates were provided in the report, including information about a Supplementary Fund that schools will be able to apply to if their grant allocation falls short of their actual pension cost.

A notification has been posted on the Schools Portal to alert schools to the announcement.

40 The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

9. PE and sport premium funding for 2019/20 Following a number of enquiries from schools, the DfE have confirmed that the £320m PE and sport premium will continue in the 2019/20 academic year.

The DfE have indicated that they will publish allocations and guidance later in the year.

The Working Group a) Noted the report.

10. Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20 SFVS is a statutory requirement for all maintained schools and currently consists of 25 questions which governing bodies must formally discuss annually with the head teacher and senior staff.

Each year the Chief Finance Officer is required to report to the DfE the number of eligible schools which have failed to submit their return along with confirmation that there is a system of audit in place for schools which gives adequate assurance over their standards of financial management and the regularity and probity of their spending.

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

2018/19 Returns The above policy was again applied to the 2018/19. All returns have been received without the need for a pre-warning notice. The SFVS assurance certificate showing 100% returns compliance has been signed by Angie Ridgwell, Chief Executive of the County Council and returned to the DfE.

Analysis of Returns As per DfE guidance the local authority uses schools’ SFVS returns to inform their programme of financial assessment and audit.

SFVS 2019/20 For 2019/20, the DfE are updating the SFVS. The tool can be used to identify possible areas for change to ensure that resources are being used to support high-quality teaching and the best education outcomes for pupils and is in two parts:

 A checklist, which asks a number of questions of governing bodies in six areas of resource management to provide assurance that the school is managing its resources effectively (similar to the current SFVS);

41  A dashboard, which shows how a school's data compares to thresholds on a range of statistics that have been identified as indicators for good resource management and outcomes.

In order to support school leaders with the new requirements the Schools Financial Services team (SFS) are planning a series of briefings throughout the county late summer term and early autumn term. (It was noted that a number of these sessions are now fully booked and further sessions are planned for the autumn term). To provide consistent messages and guidance the sessions are intended for headteachers, governors and business managers to attend together and will focus on: o the requirements of the new Schools Financial Value Standard 2019/20; o the data used to complete the new checklist and dashboard; o how to use the results from the dashboard; o the respective roles and responsibilities of Governors and School Staff in completing the Schools Financial Value Standard; o where to access additional support and guidance.

As a traded service SFS will need to charge for these sessions. However, the Forum was asked to consider the approval the previous policy whereby governor attendance is paid for by the Forum for schools which purchase the annual governor services training programme

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the continuation of the current returns timescale and sanctions policy; c) Supported the proposed funding arrangements for governors attending the briefing sessions; d) Suggested that information about the new SFVS arrangements could be highlighted via the Chairs' conferences.

11. Invoices 'on approval' for on-line resources Internal Audit have again been alerted to invoices being sent to schools 'on approval' in respect of a yearly subscription providing access to on-line resources.

Members were reminded to ensure that they are aware that internal controls should apply which generally means that only the Headteacher should be entering into any sort of agreements with suppliers, or at least the Headteacher and SBM should be aware if school staff wish to accept something on approval. Schools should also be aware to check the small print on any contracts that are entered into.

Information had been posted on the Schools portal to alert al school to this issue.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

42 Appendix A

LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

Name of Group: High Needs / Early Years / Schools Block Working Group

Date of Meeting: 11, 13 and 20 June 2019

Item No: 6 Title of Item: 2018/19 Schools Budget Outturn Report

Appendix A and B refer

Executive Summary

This report provides the Working Groups with details of the 2018/19 Schools Budget final financial outturn position, in relation to the each funding block.

Recommendations

The Working Group is asked to: a) Note the report and the 2018/19 Schools Budget final financial outturn position; b) Express any views in relation to each funding block outturn position for 2018/19.

43 Background This report provides information on the Schools Budget outturn position for 2018/19.

The Overall Schools Budget outturn position for 2018/19 shows an overspend of some £1.7m. The overspend was mainly attributable to the ongoing overspend in the High Needs Block, which was partially offset by underspends in other funding blocks. The following tables provide further details of each funding block.

High Needs Block

High Needs Block 18/19 Budget Actual Variance £ £ £ Total High Needs Block 77,720,482 81,883,617 4,163,135 Total Commissioned Services 25,252,418 29,266,942 4,014,524 Exclusions -650,832 -650,832

DSG grant -100,586,833 -103,162,946 -2,576,113 Total 2,386,067 7,336,781 4,950,714

In total the High Needs Block (HNB) showed a circa £5.0m overspend in 2018/19. Further information is provided below:

Total High Needs Block This element of the HNB expenditure relates to funding delegated to schools and ended the year with a circa £4m overspend.

Total Commissioned Services The commissioned services expenditure is accounted for under central items, and further information on the circa £4m overspend is provided in the central items section below and in the HNB monitoring data provided at Appendix A.

Exclusions When a child is permanently excluded, the excluding school must pay a charge for the exclusion calculated using the average pupil led funding factors for the school. During 2018/19, circa £0.7m was recouped for exclusions from mainstream schools and academies. This funding is utilised as a contribution to the ongoing costs of education the excluded pupils in PRUs, alternative provision, or at other mainstream establishments. No budget line is included for exclusion income when the Schools Budget is being set.

Please note the £0.7m is half that of previous years (£1.3m in 17/18), due to the change in guidance from the ESFA, with the effect that more funding than previously is being retained in excluding mainstream schools and thereby increasing the overspend on excluded pupils within the high needs block.

DSG grant DSG grant for the HNB in 2018/19 was circa £2.6m above the budgeted figure due to the additional High Needs allocations provided by the DfE to assist with HNB budget pressures for 2018/19 and 2019/20.

44 Schools Block

Schools Block 18/19 Budget Actual Variance £ £ £ Schools Block 624,392,538 610,760,983 -13,631,555 Total CSSB 5,984,722 5,950,362 -34,360 Growth fund 1,300,000 1,079,694 -220,306

Rate Refunds -523,177 -523,177 DSG grant -631,676,291 -619,612,512 12,063,779 Total 0 -2,344,649 -2,344,650 The outturn position for the 2018/19 Schools Block revealed a circa £2.3m underspend. Further information is provided below:

Schools Block Delegated Schools Block expenditure was some £13.6m below the original budget due to schools transferring to academy status.

Total Central Schools Services Block (CSSB) The CSSB outturn position was a £34K surplus at 31 March 2019. Further details are provided in the CSSB section below.

Growth fund Actual growth fund expenditure was circa £220k below budget due to fewer pupils being supported in basic needs growth than was forecast.

Rate Refunds Just over £0.5m income was received into the Schools Block in 2018/19 from rateable value appeals undertaken by the LCC Estates team. In accordance with the Forum's policy this is the net figure after the annual payment to facilitate rateable value challenges on school premises has been paid. As per previous reports to the Forum, the 2018/19 charge for the Estates Service was £98,000. No budget line is included for rate refund income when the Schools Budget is being set.

DSG grant DSG Grant income for the Schools Block was circa £12m below budget, again caused by adjustments in relation to schools becoming academies.

45 Early Years Block

Early Years Block Budget Actual Variance £ £ £ Maintained Sector 20,061,610 19,808,887 -252,723 PVI Providers 52,708,056 56,118,419 3,410,363 Early Years Pupil Premium 769,670 645,018 -124,652 Disability Access Fund 257,685 151,905 -105,780 Total Commissioned Services 359,140 202,310 -156,830

DSG grant -74,156,161 -77,848,187 -3,692,026 Total 0 -921,648 -921,648 The Early Years Block outturn position for 2018/19 showed a circa £0.9m underspend.

Further information is provided below. In considering the information, it should be remembered that the Early Years element of the DSG is calculated on the basis of January counts across two years, as shown below in relation to the ESFA Operational Guide for 2018/19:

December 2017 Publication of initial early years block allocations Summer 2018 Early years block updated for January 2018 early years pupil numbers Summer 2019 Early years block updated for January 2019 early years pupil numbers (pro rata seven twelfths, as this relates only to the period September 2018 to March 2019)

This means that the final update for the 2018/19 Early Years Block has not yet been received. When the update is received, scheduled for July 2019, it will revise the DSG grant income based on the actual provision made. As the current budget position shows an overall underspend, where the LA has distributed less than the estimated income, it is forecast that DSG income in the final EYB update will reduce.

Members will recall that the 2017/18 EYB outturn item reported a circa £0.8m overspend at 31 March 2018, so Early Years funding is virtually net nil across the last 2 financial years, which is broadly in line with expectations due to the funding mechanism within this Block.

Maintained Sector Early Years Block expenditure, relating to maintained providers underspent by circa £250k to 31 March 2019, meaning that demand was marginally below budgeted provision.

PVI Providers The PVI outturn was circa £3.4m above budget due to a significant increase in provision over the estimated budget.

Early Years Pupil Premium This budget line was circa £120k below budget.

Disability Access Fund

46 This budget line was circa £105k below budget.

Total Commissioned Services Commissioned Services in the Early Years Block relates to the Inclusion Fund and expenditure was circa £150k below budget.

DSG grant DSG grant income for the Early Yeas Block was circa £3.7m above the estimated budget, largely due to increased income for higher provision in the PVI sector, before the final EYB DSG update is received in July 2019.

47 Central School Services Block (CSSB) and Central Expenditure The table above shows the outturn position in the relation to the 2018/19 Central School Services Block (CSSB) and also the Commissioned Services expenditure of Central Items.

2018/19 CSSB and Central Items Monitoring as at 31 March 2019

Budget Outturn Notes Variance Revised to Approved In Year Actual Approved Revised Budget

Narrative Central School Services Block £m £m £m £m £m

1 ESG Retained Duties (transferred to DSG) 2.591 2.591 2.591 - 2 Prudential Borrowing 0.240 0.240 0.250 (0.010) 3 Copyright Licence 0.895 0.895 0.896 (0.001) 4 Early Intervention 0.900 (0.450) 0.450 0.630 (0.180) 1 5 PFI - Sixth Form 0.684 0.684 0.459 0.225 2 6 Pupil Access (Admissions) 0.937 0.937 0.937 - 7 Schools Forum 0.188 0.188 0.188 -

Sub total CSSB 6.435 (0.450) 5.985 5.950 0.034

Commissioned Services

8 Growth Fund 1.462 (0.162) 1.300 1.080 0.220 3 Carbon Trading 0.047 (0.047) - - EU Energy Performance Directive 0.011 (0.011) - - 9 PFI - Special, Nursery 1.232 1.232 1.110 0.121 2 10 Commissioned Alternative Provision services 2.000 (1.000) 1.000 1.324 (0.324) 4 11 Hospital Provision 0.645 0.645 0.698 (0.053) 5 12 Independent Hospital Provision - - 0.450 (0.450) 6 13 Education in Residential Homes - - 0.090 (0.090) 7 14 Out County - Specialist provision places 15.097 (1.097) 14.000 17.123 (3.123) 8 15 Out County - Mainstream / academies places 1.374 0.036 1.410 1.629 (0.219) 8 16 SEND Specialised Equipment 0.447 0.447 0.465 (0.018) 9 17 SEND Inclusion Projects 1.047 (0.597) 0.450 0.302 0.148 10 18 SEND Teachers & Support 4.264 (0.800) 3.464 3.383 0.081 11 19 Multi Agency Development 0.075 0.075 0.075 - 20 Support for Vulnerable Pupils - SI 0.977 0.977 0.908 0.069 12 21 Overheads 1.912 1.912 1.912 -

Sub Total Commissioned Services 30.590 (3.678) 26.912 30.549 (3.637) Total Central Expenditure Limit 37.024 (4.128) 32.896 36.499 (3.603)

Commentary As can be seen, the total Central Expenditure year end position was an overspend of approximately £3.6m. A commentary on some of the key variances from the 2018/19 budget are set out below. Numbers corresponded to the reference in the 'Notes' column in the table above.

1 Early Intervention Underspends from previous years cover the 2018/19 overspend.

2 PFI Sixth Form/Special/Nursery

48 Due to historic amendments along with changes through benchmarking and DfE funding has meant that PFI costs have been budgeted for on a pessimistic basis resulting in underspends. Protocols have been improved that will reduce the budget accordingly removing the underspends in future years.

3 Growth Fund Actual growth fund expenditure in 2018/19 was marginally below the revised budget due to fewer pupils being supported in basic needs growth than was forecast.

4 Commissioned Alternative Provision Services Previously this budget was £2m with an in year spend last year of £3.1m. LCC had been tasked to reduce this expenditure down from £3.1 to £1m in 2018/19. Whilst some savings have been made the budget has overspent by £324k.

5 Hospital Provision This budget has closed with an overspend of £52k which is due to overspend on staffing.

6 Independent Hospital Provision Previously this expenditure was included hence hidden within the "Out of County" expenditure. This expenditure is now being shown independently for transparency. In addition the DfE are looking specifically at the funding of provision/expenditure on Hospital education expenditure. Currently the budget is still shown under "Out County".

7 Education in Residential Homes Previously this expenditure was included hence hidden within the "Commissioned Alternative Provision services" expenditure. This expenditure on the education element for children in residential homes is now being shown independently for transparency. Currently the budget is still shown under "Alternative Provision".

8 Out County - Specialist provision places This overspend of £3.1m is due in the main to the Inclusion Service being unable to obtain capacity within maintained provision to cope with an increasing number of pupils requiring high needs placement. As provision has not been able to be sourced within the authority's schools more Independent Non-Maintained placements have had to be commissioned causing additional expenditure.

9 SEND Specialised Equipment The overspend of £17K was due to both an increase in equipment requirements for individuals along with a change in the supplier whose prices are increasing compared to previous years. This area is likely to increase further over the next 12 months

10 SEND Inclusion Projects The service underspent on the projects by £51k to try to compensate towards other areas of overspends.

11 SEND Teachers & Support

49 The £81k underspend was generally due to staff vacancies throughout the year. The service are presently in the process of recruiting.

12 Support for Vulnerable Pupils - SI Having reviewed budgets it has been found that this has become a recurrent underspend due to LCC seeking to reduce staffing subsequent to the initial recharge being set.

Further details about the adjustments made to the budget in year and more information about the service provision under each budget heading have been previously shared with the Forum and are provided at Appendix B for ease of reference. The information on service provision relates to the 'narrative' numbers on the table.

Overall Schools Budget 2018/19 – Use of DSG Reserves Taking into account the outturn position across all funding blocks at 31 March 2019, the Schools Budget overspend by circa £1.7m, which was met from DSG Reserves. More information on the year end reserves is provided in the next section.

50 Reserves and Provisions A number of earmarked reserves and provisions are maintained by the Authority for specific purposes. As at 31 March 2019 these amounted to a total of £62.661m for Schools, as set out in the table below:

Opening Transfers Transfers Closing Schools Reserves and Provisions Balance In Out Balance £m £m £m £m DSG Reserve Opening Balance 14.400 14.400 Overspend Central Items 18/19 -1.683 -1.683 Other Adjustments 0.027 0.027 1 DSG Reserve 14.400 0.027 -1.683 12.744

Schools in Financial Difficulty Opening Balance 4.782 4.782 Schools Clawback for 17/18 0.203 0.203 Academy School deficit -0.095 -0.095 Underspend 18/19 0.636 0.636 2 Schools in Financial Difficulty 4.782 0.840 -0.095 5.526

De-delegated Reserve Opening Balance 0.479 0.479 3 De-delegated Reserve 0.479 0.000 0.000 0.479

Supply Teacher Reimbursement Opening Balance 1.252 1.252 Overspend 18/19 -0.081 -0.081 Supply Teacher 4 1.252 0.000 -0.081 1.171 Reimbursement

School Reserves Opening Balance 44.150 44.150 Schools operating in year surplus 9.614 9.614 Schools operating in year deficit -10.421 -10.421 Academy school deficit moved to 0.160 0.160 SIFD Academy School closed in year -0.762 -0.762 5 School Reserves 44.150 9.774 -11.183 42.741

Total Schools Reserves and 65.063 10.641 -13.043 62.661 Provisions

51 Commentary The Total Schools Reserves and Provisions at 31 March 2019 was £62.661m, down from £65.063m at 31 March 2018, a reduction of some £2.4m. Overall reserves have fallen significantly in recent years, having been some £89.890 at March 2015.

Further information is provided below in connection to the 2018/19 movement in Schools Reserves and Provisions:

1. Dedicated Schools Grant Reserve The DSG reserve fell by over -£1.6m in 2018/19 to £12.744m. This was largely due to the ongoing overspend in the High Needs Block, which was partially offset by transfers and underspends in other funding blocks.

2. Schools in Financial Difficulty Reserve At 31 March 2019 the Schools in Financial Difficulty Reserve (SIFD) stood at £5.526m, an increase of £744k from the previous year. This was accumulated as follows:  2017/18 funding clawback from schools;  a 2018/19 SIFD in year underspend;

which was partially reduced by:  the deficit balance at a school converting to an academy.

3. De-delegation Reserve The de-delegation reserve stands at £0.479m at 31 March 2019. There was no in year movement on this reserve.

4. Supply Reimbursement This reserve closed 2018/19 at £1.171m, some £0.081m lower than the previous year. In year monitoring showed that this reserve was on track to break even for much of the year, but significant year end claims from a small number of schools relating to the previous financial year were processed after consideration of business cases surrounding the particular circumstances involved.

5. School Reserves School reserves closed the year at £42.741. The School Balances and Clawback report elsewhere on the agenda provides further information this reserve and on individual school reserves.

52 Appendix B

LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

Name of Group: High Needs / Early Years / Schools Block Working Groups

Date of Meeting: 11, 13 and 20 June 2019

Item No: 7 Title of Item: School Balances and Clawback 2018/19

Annex A and B refer

Executive Summary

This report provides information on the 2018/19 outturn position on school balances and seeks views about the school balances and clawback arrangements.

Recommendations

The Working Group is asked to: a) Note the report; b) Note the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2019 and the individual school level information provided in the report; c) Consider the application of clawback at 31 March 2019; d) Express any views about the school balances and clawback arrangements to be applied at 31 March 2020.

53 Background

School Balances Outturn 2018/19 This report sets out the year end position of schools' delegated budgets at 31 March 2019.

The final outturn position against schools delegated budgets at 31 March 2019 is an overspend of £1.409m. This means that school balances have decreased by £1.409m in 2018/19, to a total of £42.741m. The tables below show analysis of school balances by phase at the end of the financial year 2018/19.

2018/19 School Balances - In-Year Movement of Balances by Phase

Balance Brought Balance Carried Less Net Phase Forward as at Forward as at Expenditure 18/19 1 April 2018 31 March 19 £m £m £m Nursery 0.466 -0.049 0.417 Primary 35.177 0.129 35.306 Secondary 3.766 -0.681 3.086 Special 3.989 -1.176 2.813 Short Stay 0.751 0.367 1.119 Total 44.150 -1.409 42.741

The outturn position shows a reduction in the aggregate level of school balances at 31 March 2019 to £42.741m. The continued reductions in the level of aggregate balances held by schools is indicative of the ongoing pressure on school funding. Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) income has, for a number of years, been cash flat, or has not kept pace with inflation. Further reductions in the overall level of balances in the nursery and secondary school sectors reflects the significant financial challenges confronting these phases and the substantial reduction in the overall level of balances in the special school sector is also symptomatic of the savings that are required in the High Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant.

2018/19 School Balances –In-Year Movement Count of Schools by Phase

Phase Count of deficit in year Count of surplus in year Nursery 14 10 Primary 217 256 Secondary 23 35 Special 15 14 Short Stay 2 7 Total 271 322

54 271 schools (46%) operated an in year deficit in 2018/19, spending funding from reserves. The significant numbers of schools, across all phases, using reserves in order to balance their budgets, is a further demonstration of the persistent financial pressures in the school sector. Within the nursery and special school sectors, more than half the schools within each phase spent more than their income in year.

The number of schools operating in year deficits in 2018/19 compares to 282 in 2017/18 and 368 in 2016/17.

2018/19 School Balances – No of Schools in Surplus/Deficit by Phase

Count of deficit close Count of surplus close Phase balance balance Nursery 5 19 Primary 16 457 Secondary 12 46 Special 5 24 Short Stay 1 8 Total 39 554

39 schools ended the 2018/19 financial year in deficit, including schools from all sectors. The number of schools in deficit at 31 March 2019 has reduced from 47 schools a year earlier. Throughout the year, the County Council has provided significant targeted support and enhanced monitoring and early warning around Schools in Financial Difficulty, and this, along with the commitment of individual school leaders, has contributed to this reduction in the number of schools in deficit. However, the financial environment for schools remains extremely difficult, with a number of key challenges continuing across all school sectors.

A comparison showing the number of schools in deficit in recent years is provided below:

Year End Number of schools in deficit 31 March 2019 39 31 March 2018 47 31 March 2017 40 31 March 2016 25 31 March 2015 18

55

Aggregate School Balances by Year

School Balances 2009/10 to 2018/19 60

50

40

30

20

10

Year end aggregate school (£m) school balances end Yearaggregate 0 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Finacial Year

The graph demonstrates the trend in aggregate school balances over recent years. Balances at 31 March 2019 are at their lowest level since 2009/10 and show a continued decline in aggregate school balances, from a peak in 2014/15, as schools utilise their reserves to set balanced budgets.

To provide context for the total school balances, the current authority guideline for schools is to have reserves equating to 12% of their total Combined Financial reporting (CFR) income or a minimum of £60,000. This is to ensure that individual schools can withstand potential financial risks and financial stresses. If all Lancashire schools held the guideline balance, the total balance would have been circa £102m, compared to the actual balances held of circa £43m.

School Closures/Academy Conversions During 2018/19, there were nine academy conversions in Lancashire:  5 primary schools converted with surplus balances, and took their balance with them, totalling circa £367k;  3 secondary schools converted with surplus balances, and took their balances with them, totalling circa £395k;  1 secondary school converted with a deficit of circa -£160k and as a sponsored academy.

Adjustments for these conversions are included in the school balance figures provided above.

56 Individual School Balances Attached at Annex A are details about the movement in balances at an individual school level in 2018/19. As previously requested by the Forum, in addition to the year- end balance by school, information is included in this annex setting out:

 Year-end balance adjusted for approved exemptions;  Adjusted balance as a % of CFR income;  Adjusted balance per pupil.

Clawback Arrangements 2018/19 Details of the 2018/19 School Balances and Clawback scheme, approved by the Forum in July 2018, are provided at Annex B.

The arrangements for 2018/19 remained largely unchanged from those that applied in 2017/18, subject to the removal of the clawback exemption for 'Existing capital bonds will be honoured until project completion', as all of the existing capital bonds had reached completion.

In addition, during discussions about the introduction of a new Government grant at the October 2018 meeting, the Schools Forum agreed that the 'Free school meals supplementary grant' would be treated as a 'late allocation' and be exempt from clawback at 31 March 2019.

In accordance with the School Balances and Clawback policy agreed by the Forum for 2018/19, and following previous consideration of a business case for an individual school, clawback exemptions have been applied at 2 schools. No global exemptions, for example for late allocations issued by the LA, were necessary at 31 March 2019.

Application of Clawback at 31 March 2019 Calculation of clawback liability at 31 March 2019 indicates that 6 schools are at risk of clawback, totalling circa £11k. Where necessary, the funding liable for clawback has been reduced to take account of any FSM supplementary grant allocations that would impact on the calculations, deemed by the Forum to be 'late allocations' for clawback purposes.

Schools at risk of clawback are from across all school phases, except the secondary school sector, as shown in the table below:

No of schools at Total funding at Phase risk of clawback risk of clawback (£) Nursery 1 335 Primary 2 5,395 Secondary 0 0 Special 2 4,150 Short Stay 1 743 Total 6 10,623

57

All the schools identified are liable at the 50% rate of clawback for schools above the balances threshold for the first time.

Correspondence has been issued to the schools to alert them of their clawback liability and representations have been received from 2 schools. Further information is provided below:

Clawback Appeal 1 Correspondence has been received from an aided primary school appealing against the application of clawback.

The school is currently undergoing a major refurbishment. A new KS2 block has been built on the school playing field, and a new school yard is scheduled to be built over the summer. The planning of the new school building is also likely to make the school a split site going forward.

Once the junior children have moved out of the main school building this will need to be totally refurbished. This refurbishment work will be phased, but includes:  a roof replaced;  the replacement of the heating distribution system;  the classrooms need to be re-modelled.

The total costs of all these works is in excess of £2m and, as an aided school, the governors will need to find the 10% contribution.

The governors of the school have made a conscious decision to hold back on spending to ensure that the building work can take place with their necessary contribution and are planning for the additional costs that will be incurred when running two separate buildings.

The school is also planning to implement in year savings of around £50k in 2019/20 to assist with budget sustainability going forward and are currently forecasting a budget deficit by 31 March 2022.

In such circumstances the school has asked that clawback is not applied.

Clawback Appeal 2 Contact has also been received from another primary school requesting that clawback should not be applied.

The Business Manager indicated that at the governors meeting in March 2019, governors decided not to proceed with some planned renovation work at the school due to a forecast in year deficit and this was compounded by a late recharge to the school of circa £25k in relation to the nursery attached to the school. This pushed the school's year end position into a clawback situation.

58 The school indicated that they did not receive any notification of the recharge amount before it appeared on their oracle print on 27 March 2019.

However, the LA did communicate with the school about the recharge amounts in February 2019.

Possible Suspension of Clawback at 31 March 2019 If the Forum supported the 2 clawback appeals, this would approximately halve the aggregate clawback level to just over £5k.

Even if the appeals were not supported, the level of funding at risk of clawback at 31 March 2019 is relatively small, with each of the schools identified only marginally above their balances threshold in each case. Any clawback income will not make a meaningful contribution to reserves or other possible projects.

As members will be aware, the major concern relating to school balances is now around supporting schools in or heading towards a deficit budget position, rather than schools holding excess balances. It is worth noting that at least one school at risk of clawback at 31 March 2019 is forecasting a swing into financial difficulty as early as March 2020.

Under such circumstances, the Forum may wish to suspend the application of clawback at 31 March 2019, which may be perceived as a good will gesture in recognition of the continued financial constraints across the school sector.

Clawback 2017/18 No specific projects for the use of the funding clawed back at 31 March 2018 were proposed during 2018/19 and, as previously agreed by the Forum, the unallocated funding of circa £203k, was transferred to the Schools in Financial Difficulty Reserve at 31 March 2019.

School Balances and Clawback Policy 2019/20 The DfE/ESFA have not announced any new legislative or guidance updates that will impact on the Forum's decisions around schools balances and clawback for 2019/20 and the LA has no specific proposals for changes to the current policy for the Forum's consideration.

Depending on the Forum's views around the suspension of clawback at 31 March 2019, members may be minded to suspend clawback at 31 March 2020, or may prefer to leave the current school balances and clawback policy in place for 2019/20 and to consider possible clawback suspension options when the 2019/20 outturn position is available.

Alternatively, if Forum agree to apply clawback at 31 March 2019 in full, then members may prefer to maintain this policy for 31 March 2020.

59 Annex A

*Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ PRIMARY SCHOOLS 01001 2017 Bowerham Community Primary and Nursery School 135,026 6,842 141,868 141,868 6.88% 312 01002 2019 Dallas Road Community Primary School 94,736 3,014 97,751 97,751 5.40% 236 01003 2024 Willow Lane Community Primary School 100,965 4,114 105,080 105,080 8.58% 562 01005 3530 Lancaster Christ Church Church of Primary School (11,154) 29,653 18,499 18,499 1.81% 89 01006 3531 Scotforth St Paul's Church of England Primary and Nursery School 55,095 12,173 67,268 67,268 6.71% 308 01008 3705 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Lancaster 86,814 (14,804) 72,011 72,011 6.07% 347 01009 3533 Skerton St Luke's CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School 44,942 (13,802) 31,140 31,140 2.79% 152 01010 3706 The Cathedral Catholic Primary School. Lancaster 42,536 49,860 92,396 92,396 9.22% 481 01011 2020 Ridge Community Primary School 129,956 (9,801) 120,154 120,154 10.20% 695 01012 2021 Ryelands Primary and Nursery School 222,214 40,784 262,999 262,999 11.65% 691 01013 3520 Arkholme Church of England Primary School (5,792) 18,120 12,328 12,328 2.83% 177 01014 3521 Caton St Paul's Church of England Primary School 64,657 (21,925) 42,732 42,732 4.92% 229 01015 2370 Moorside Primary School 103,622 (19,241) 84,381 84,381 3.58% 153 01016 3527 St Wilfrid's Church of England Primary School. Halton 97,298 16,624 113,922 113,922 11.05% 456 01017 3528 Hornby St Margaret's Church of England Primary School 57,944 (9,535) 48,409 48,409 12.66% 864 01018 2031 Nether Kellet Community Primary School 55,154 5,006 60,160 60,160 10.61% 537 01019 3670 Over Kellet Wilson's Endowed Church of England Primary School (33,478) 24,170 (9,308) (9,308) -1.45% (70) 01020 3534 Leck St Peter's Church of England Primary School 46,048 (37,105) 8,943 8,943 3.00% 227 01021 3535 Melling St Wilfrid Church of England Primary School 18,992 33,268 52,260 52,260 14.89% 1,686 01022 3082 Quernmore Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 42,929 (7,415) 35,513 35,513 6.07% 370 01023 3084 Tatham Fells CofE Voluntary Controlled Primary School 36,119 1,173 37,293 37,293 10.52% 885 01024 3607 St Bernadette's Catholic Primary School. Lancaster 86,939 13,829 100,768 100,768 11.11% 480 01025 2653 Caton Community Primary School (46,589) 23,791 (22,798) (22,798) -5.72% (691) 01027 3017 Wray with Botton (Endowed) Primary School 42,512 16,886 59,398 59,398 15.48% 1,100 01028 3519 Carnforth Christ Church. CofE. Voluntary Aided Primary School 43,116 2,042 45,158 45,158 8.39% 438 01029 3543 Slyne-with-Hest. St Luke's. Church of England Primary School 73,924 721 74,645 74,645 6.87% 318 01030 3518 Bolton-le-Sands Church of England Primary School 63,056 12,166 75,222 75,222 5.79% 247 01031 3703 Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Primary School. Carnforth 38,827 180 39,007 39,007 6.88% 411 01032 3168 Warton Archbishop Hutton's Primary School 4,580 17,547 22,127 22,127 3.49% 209 01034 3551 Yealand Church of England Primary School 11,422 5,913 17,335 17,335 6.19% 722 01035 3542 Silverdale St John's Church of England Primary School 48,587 1,668 50,255 50,255 11.07% 614 01036 3546 Thurnham Glasson Christ Church. Church of England Primary School 42,268 (6,103) 36,165 36,165 11.79% 1,339 01038 3522 Cockerham Parochial Church of England Primary School 7,513 4,492 12,005 12,005 2.35% 129 01039 3524 Dolphinholme Church of England Primary School 51,214 (2,980) 48,234 48,234 8.99% 580 01041 3525 Ellel St John The Evangelist Church of England Primary School 57,181 23,539 80,720 80,720 8.47% 392 01042 3539 Cawthorne's Endowed School. Abbystead 37,854 (8,123) 29,731 29,731 9.42% 843 01044 2014 Carnforth North Road Community Primary School (3,493) (12,049) (15,541) (15,541) -1.77% (95) 01046 3538 Overton St Helen's Church of England Primary School 58,060 10,881 68,941 68,941 8.72% 396 01049 2576 Great Wood Primary School 76,629 52,216 128,845 128,845 7.62% 312 01050 2425 Torrisholme Community Primary School 101,815 16,657 118,472 118,472 6.83% 285 01051 2025 Morecambe Bay Community Primary School 63,979 17,458 81,437 81,437 4.12% 251 01052 2029 West End Primary School 25,190 60,020 85,210 85,210 7.47% 444 01053 2028 Sandylands Community Primary School Morecambe 172,371 8,774 181,145 181,145 8.03% 405 01054 2027 Lancaster Road Primary School 238,796 (81,585) 157,211 157,211 6.12% 305 01055 3537 Poulton-le-Sands Church of England Primary School 99,490 7,003 106,493 106,493 10.12% 532 01056 3536 St Peter's Church of England Primary School. Heysham 70,528 27,685 98,214 98,214 9.33% 399 01057 3707 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Morecambe 96,412 693 97,105 97,105 10.74% 534 01058 2368 Trumacar Nursery and Community Primary School 43,293 126,497 169,790 169,790 8.86% 441 01059 3605 St Patrick's Catholic Primary School. Morecambe 119,510 (34,815) 84,695 84,695 8.32% 434 01060 2827 Westgate Primary School 242,619 (3,047) 239,573 239,573 8.54% 402 01061 2831 Morecambe and Heysham Grosvenor Park Primary School 46,682 3,426 50,108 50,108 3.45% 159 01062 2832 Mossgate Primary School 109,644 4,105 113,749 113,749 10.74% 552 02001 2396 Carr Head Primary School. Poulton-le-Fylde 102,938 23,514 126,452 126,452 11.87% 602 02002 2541 The Breck Primary School. Poulton-le-Fylde 154,990 (16,576) 138,414 138,414 8.74% 459 02003 2622 Carleton Green Community Primary School 152,260 274 152,534 152,534 10.29% 477 02005 3570 Poulton-le-Fylde St Chad's Church of England Primary School 86,755 (33,344) 53,411 53,411 4.86% 219 02006 3719 St John's Catholic Primary School. Poulton-le-Fylde 74,926 4,124 79,050 79,050 9.01% 384 02007 3571 Carleton St Hilda's Church of England Primary School 100,659 4,842 105,501 105,501 10.58% 530 02008 2822 Fleetwood Chaucer Community Primary School 148,675 (22,959) 125,717 125,717 8.39% 443 02009 3709 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Fleetwood 72,344 (21,799) 50,545 50,545 6.31% 344 02013 2527 Larkholme Primary School 105,425 (57,072) 48,353 48,353 3.33% 170 02014 2404 Fleetwood Charles Saer Community Primary School 108,304 1,254 109,558 109,558 5.78% 344 02016 2821 Shakespeare Primary School 28,225 81,517 109,741 109,741 5.78% 264 02017 3711 St Wulstan's & St Edmund's Catholic Primary School & Nursery 47,826 (20,988) 26,838 26,838 1.98% 92 02018 2836 Fleetwood Flakefleet Primary School 152,535 20,217 172,753 172,753 7.31% 384 02019 3126 Preesall Carter's Charity (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School 74,668 21,911 96,579 96,579 10.45% 549 02020 3572 Preesall Fleetwood's Charity Church of England Primary School 77,109 (6,236) 70,873 70,873 9.30% 541 02022 3568 Pilling St John's Church of England Primary School 53,252 8,614 61,866 61,866 10.37% 600 02023 3718 St William's Catholic Primary School. Pilling 14,049 (5,745) 8,304 8,304 3.09% 346 02024 3554 Great Eccleston Copp Church of England Primary School 47,583 (32,072) 15,511 15,511 2.39% 125 02025 3712 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Great Eccleston 13,663 3,411 17,074 17,074 5.76% 632 02027 2045 Stalmine Primary School 42,236 15,045 57,281 57,281 11.80% 730 02030 2517 Stanah Primary School 132,981 (24,074) 108,907 108,907 6.33% 273 02031 2492 Thornton Cleveleys Northfold Community Primary School 85,659 23,248 108,907 108,907 10.56% 521 02032 3720 Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. Thornton Cleveleys 65,649 6,527 72,176 72,176 7.20% 339 02033 3125 Thornton Cleveleys Baines Endowed VC Primary School 81,702 (7,767) 73,935 73,935 7.01% 357 02035 2047 Thornton Primary School 60 49,223 (22,788) 26,435 26,435 3.79% 247 *Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ 02036 2048 Thornton Cleveleys Royles Brook Primary School 127,831 10,300 138,131 138,131 10.27% 504 02037 3016 Kirkland & Catterall St Helen's Church of England Primary School 80,027 (5,282) 74,745 74,745 10.99% 515 02038 2030 Nateby Primary School (810) 1,864 1,054 1,054 0.22% 13 02039 2016 Forton Primary School 42,618 (5,214) 37,404 37,404 7.95% 457 02040 3548 St Michael's-on-Wyre Church of England Primary School 53,158 (5,656) 47,502 47,502 6.53% 371 02041 3517 Bleasdale Church of England Primary School 22,378 31,174 53,551 53,551 24.21% 26,776 02042 3704 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Claughton-on-Brock 46,470 (17,605) 28,865 28,865 9.91% 825 02043 3516 Bilsborrow John Cross Church of England Primary School 1,666 12,514 14,180 14,180 3.23% 205 02044 3515 Calder Vale St John's Church of England Primary School 47,752 10,933 58,685 58,685 17.78% 2,141 02045 3529 Inskip St Peter's Church of England School 38,263 3,093 41,356 41,356 11.06% 811 02046 3526 Garstang St Thomas' Church of England Primary School 30,056 (12,282) 17,774 17,774 1.76% 101 02047 3550 Winmarleigh Church of England Primary School 59,254 (1,644) 57,610 57,610 19.05% 2,619 02048 3668 Scorton Church of England Primary School 52,200 5,112 57,312 57,312 13.84% 955 02049 2530 Garstang Community Primary School 61,959 14,757 76,716 76,716 8.16% 386 02050 3702 SS Mary and Michael Catholic Primary School. Garstang 84,970 (19,572) 65,398 65,398 8.27% 406 02051 3075 Staining Church of England Primary School 109,027 5,605 114,632 114,632 10.98% 512 02052 2826 Thornton Cleveleys Manor Beach Primary School 111,894 31,329 143,223 143,223 10.82% 679 04029 3575 Weeton St Michael's Church of England Primary School 41,497 (10,500) 30,997 30,997 8.84% 633 04030 3573 Ribby with Wrea Endowed Church of England Primary School 60,841 (11,783) 49,058 49,058 5.95% 325 04031 3552 Bryning with Warton St Paul's Church of England Primary School 27,740 (21,947) 5,793 5,793 0.89% 69 04032 3553 Freckleton Church of England Primary School 38,368 17,169 55,537 55,537 5.71% 269 04033 3574 Singleton Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 42,813 (6,838) 35,975 35,975 6.48% 353 04034 5200 Newton Bluecoat Church of England Primary School 35,098 (9,797) 25,301 25,301 2.56% 119 04035 3616 Holy Family Catholic Primary School. Warton 32,301 30,744 63,045 63,045 9.46% 558 04036 2446 Freckleton Strike Lane Primary School 25,672 (38,026) (12,354) (12,354) -1.25% (63) 04037 3557 Kirkham St Michael's Church of England Primary School 47,235 (14,566) 32,669 32,669 4.02% 185 04038 3713 The Willows Catholic Primary School. Kirkham 42,127 29,090 71,217 71,217 7.50% 354 04039 2041 Kirkham and Wesham Primary School 6,292 2,045 8,337 8,337 0.83% 40 04040 3717 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Medlar-with-Wesham 21,121 12,452 33,573 33,573 5.68% 353 04041 3565 Medlar-with-Wesham Church of England Primary School 98,058 (355) 97,703 97,703 11.96% 578 04042 3976 Treales Church of England Primary School 37,932 (13) 37,919 37,919 9.99% 715 04043 2406 Weeton Primary School 194,041 (68,582) 125,459 125,459 11.33% 809 04044 2426 Lytham St Annes Mayfield Primary School 74,785 (15,073) 59,712 59,712 3.66% 177 04045 2497 Clifton Primary School 45,139 19,000 64,139 64,139 5.29% 257 04046 2042 Lytham St Anne's Ansdell Primary School 110,372 (37,138) 73,234 73,234 6.77% 313 04047 3814 Heyhouses Endowed Church of England Primary School 38,588 (60,252) (21,664) (21,664) -0.85% (35) 04048 3715 Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School.Lytham St Annes 104,880 (10,873) 94,007 94,007 9.37% 452 04049 3562 Lytham Church of England Primary School 27,460 10,883 38,343 38,343 3.54% 163 04050 3716 St Peter's Catholic Primary School. Lytham 54,820 (13,084) 41,736 41,736 3.95% 185 04051 3564 St Annes on Sea St Thomas' Church of England Primary School 73,967 (19,982) 53,986 53,986 5.59% 275 04052 2615 Lytham Hall Park Primary School 130,898 (29,023) 101,875 101,875 5.76% 247 06001 3638 The Blessed Sacrament Catholic Primary School. Preston 166,631 (21,151) 145,479 145,479 6.99% 336 06002 2185 Brookfield Community Primary School 25,527 40 25,568 25,568 2.56% 146 06005 2188 Eldon Primary School 111,760 (7,595) 104,165 104,165 8.58% 449 06007 3639 English Martyrs Catholic Primary School. Preston 83,845 12,782 96,626 96,626 8.83% 442 06008 2189 Brockholes Wood Community Primary School 126,953 (36,611) 90,341 90,341 7.46% 381 06009 2190 Frenchwood Community Primary School 156,116 (71,104) 85,013 85,013 5.41% 264 06010 2191 Preston Grange Primary School 66,787 35,423 102,210 102,210 9.60% 538 06011 2192 Preston Greenlands Community Primary School 75,391 5,508 80,899 80,899 7.05% 393 06012 2193 Holme Slack Community Primary School 7,710 32,898 40,608 40,608 3.45% 194 06013 3653 Holy Family Catholic Primary School. Ingol. Preston 21,904 3,742 25,646 25,646 2.99% 150 06014 2200 Ingol Community Primary School 63,304 (2,467) 60,838 60,838 7.25% 356 06016 2196 Moor Nook Community Primary School 130,139 18,663 148,803 148,803 11.29% 712 06019 2195 Ribbleton Avenue Infant School 108,089 (19,711) 88,379 88,379 6.94% 375 06020 3001 Ribbleton Avenue Methodist Junior School 132,272 3,097 135,368 135,368 10.09% 494 06021 2197 The Roebuck School 49,500 41,848 91,348 91,348 5.56% 331 06022 3642 Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. Preston 82,206 23,633 105,840 105,840 10.09% 566 06023 3634 Ashton-on-Ribble St Andrew's Church of England Primary School 158,710 31,357 190,066 190,066 11.03% 457 06024 3643 St Augustine's Catholic Primary School. Preston 107,451 (17,683) 89,768 89,768 6.94% 361 06025 3352 St Bernard's Catholic Primary School. Preston 102,312 4,405 106,717 106,717 9.87% 496 06026 3646 St Gregory's Catholic Primary School. Preston 96,804 (15,167) 81,637 81,637 7.90% 391 06027 3647 St Ignatius Catholic Primary School. Preston 89,344 8,327 97,671 97,671 9.86% 534 06028 3322 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Preston 83,557 58,697 142,255 142,255 9.05% 443 06029 3645 St Maria Goretti Catholic Primary School. Preston 72,964 37,283 110,247 110,247 10.15% 533 06030 3636 Preston St Matthew's Church of England Primary School 118,410 (1,187) 117,223 117,223 5.48% 270 06031 3009 Preston St Stephen's Church of England Primary School 156,463 (13,987) 142,476 142,476 10.15% 496 06033 2198 Ashton Primary School 158,376 (30,196) 128,180 128,180 10.71% 635 06035 2704 Preston Fishwick Primary School 106,224 9,856 116,081 116,081 10.52% 892 06036 3954 St Teresa's Catholic Primary School. Preston 22,027 56,007 78,034 78,034 6.94% 443 06037 2054 Lea Community Primary School 105,836 22,453 128,290 128,290 10.87% 626 06038 3582 Lea Endowed Church of England School 63,034 (33,369) 29,666 29,666 4.09% 220 06039 3726 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Lea Town 64,862 (24,427) 40,435 40,435 7.31% 381 06040 2062 Catforth Primary School 53,187 4,751 57,938 57,938 12.28% 824 06041 2818 Sherwood Primary School 146,264 (4,063) 142,201 142,201 7.71% 339 06042 2838 Cottam Primary School 25,560 (2,967) 22,593 22,593 2.34% 107 06043 3597 Woodplumpton St Anne's Church of England Primary School 42,896 (10,510) 32,386 32,386 5.54% 300 06044 3578 Broughton-in-Amounderness Church of England Primary School 56,543 (6,639) 49,904 49,904 4.01% 181 06046 3577 Barton St Lawrence Church of England Primary School 70,692 (9,528) 61,164 61,164 7.79% 360 61 *Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ 06047 3339 St Mary and St Andrew's Catholic Primary School. Barton Newsham 52,449 (1,143) 51,306 51,306 7.94% 404 06048 3579 Goosnargh Oliverson's Church of England Primary School 63,672 (4,655) 59,017 59,017 7.99% 328 06049 3725 St Francis' Catholic Primary School. Goosnargh 59,180 3,723 62,903 62,903 11.16% 703 06050 2053 Goosnargh Whitechapel Primary School 62,603 (1,984) 60,619 60,619 11.37% 705 06051 3580 Grimsargh St Michael's Church of England Primary School 88,280 10,501 98,782 98,782 9.73% 480 06052 3601 Our Lady and St Edward's Catholic Primary School. Preston 106,909 (17,199) 89,710 89,710 9.29% 423 06053 3949 St Anthony's Catholic Primary School. Fulwood. Preston 81,099 5,325 86,425 86,425 6.25% 272 06054 3611 St Clare's Catholic Primary School. Preston 79,701 (16,256) 63,445 63,445 5.91% 252 06055 2052 Kennington Primary School 92,195 (9,396) 82,799 82,799 7.27% 337 06056 3301 Fulwood St Peter's Church of England Primary School and Nursery 117,635 (17,526) 100,108 100,108 9.68% 426 06057 2050 Fulwood and Cadley Primary School 194,666 (141,582) 53,084 53,084 3.61% 173 06058 2051 Harris Primary School 51,326 2,596 53,922 53,922 5.55% 253 06060 2509 Queen's Drive Primary School 145,394 57,427 202,820 202,820 10.23% 456 06062 2703 Pool House Community Primary School 18,469 4,135 22,604 22,604 2.39% 148 06064 3129 Brabin's Endowed School 56,130 (2,340) 53,790 53,790 11.83% 780 06065 3743 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Chipping 53,587 1,576 55,163 55,163 16.44% 1,470 06066 3727 Alston Lane Catholic Primary School. Longridge 87,790 (28,919) 58,871 58,871 6.01% 289 06067 3583 Longridge Church of England Primary School 87,617 4,997 92,613 92,613 10.61% 515 06068 5203 Barnacre Road Primary School. Longridge 44,728 (37,616) 7,112 7,112 0.80% 38 06069 3728 St Wilfrid's Roman Catholic Primary School. Longridge 82,223 5,155 87,378 87,378 9.76% 499 06070 3589 Ribchester St Wilfrid's Church of England Primary School 42,848 (8,431) 34,418 34,418 6.86% 447 06071 2833 Longsands Community Primary School 2,473 75,822 78,294 78,294 7.94% 371 06604 2187 Deepdale Community Primary School 137,194 55,557 192,751 192,751 6.82% 299 07001 2842 Cuerden Church School 71,046 (21,210) 49,835 49,835 5.51% 275 07004 3736 Our Lady and St Gerard's RC Primary School. Lostock Hall 136,295 3,733 140,028 140,028 9.77% 415 07005 3127 Higher Walton Church of England Primary School 28,413 13,853 42,266 42,266 6.65% 367 07006 3738 St Patrick's Roman Catholic Primary School. Walton-le-Dale 73,540 27,563 101,103 101,103 10.72% 511 07007 3085 Bamber Bridge St Aidan's Church of England Primary School 60,867 35,657 96,524 96,524 11.43% 748 07008 3596 Walton-le-Dale. St Leonard's Church of England Primary School 97,044 2,602 99,645 99,645 7.84% 356 07009 2060 Lostock Hall Community Primary School 166,172 32,529 198,701 198,701 10.80% 471 07012 2437 Walton-le-Dale Primary School 90,076 (13,476) 76,600 76,600 4.05% 178 07013 2637 Coupe Green Primary School 65,562 1,736 67,298 67,298 9.42% 493 07014 3981 St Mary and St Benedict's RC Primary School. Bamber Bridge 134,024 (32,995) 101,029 101,029 7.74% 340 07015 3025 Leyland St Andrew's Church of England Infant School 65,916 5,146 71,061 71,061 6.81% 447 07016 3141 Leyland Methodist Junior School 106,350 17,709 124,059 124,059 10.11% 440 07017 3411 Leyland St James Church of England Primary School 127,246 (32,449) 94,797 94,797 7.90% 414 07018 3793 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Leyland 87,543 12,504 100,047 100,047 6.87% 372 07019 2150 Woodlea Junior School 44,931 33,486 78,416 78,416 7.15% 323 07020 2554 Lever House Primary School 111,578 (13,379) 98,199 98,199 7.73% 337 07021 3608 St Catherine's Catholic Primary School. Leyland 54,640 7,415 62,055 62,055 6.26% 280 07022 3600 St Anne's Catholic Primary School. Leyland 116,065 (13,845) 102,221 102,221 9.28% 528 07024 2837 Northbrook Primary School 23,456 32,828 56,283 56,283 5.76% 292 07025 2427 Seven Stars Primary School 64,029 (14,256) 49,773 49,773 4.08% 231 07026 2814 Moss Side Primary School 99,467 25,060 124,527 124,527 10.19% 492 07028 3666 Farington Moss St Paul's Church of England Primary School 86,967 (18,907) 68,060 68,060 7.57% 351 07029 2049 Farington Primary School 22,898 (60,057) (37,159) (37,159) -3.76% (182) 07030 2830 Longton Primary School 104,625 (6,407) 98,218 98,218 9.80% 470 07032 3729 St Oswald's Catholic Primary School. Longton 118,821 (16,021) 102,800 102,800 9.89% 421 07033 3585 New Longton All Saints' Church of England Primary School 87,685 (10,389) 77,296 77,296 8.24% 365 07036 3586 Hoole St Michael Church of England Primary School 47,151 (21,334) 25,817 25,817 4.47% 224 07037 2055 Little Hoole Primary School 34,261 39,091 73,352 73,352 7.53% 372 07039 3018 Cop Lane Church of England Primary School. Penwortham 72,324 4,975 77,299 77,299 8.47% 366 07040 3089 Penwortham Middleforth Church of England Primary School 67,924 41,810 109,734 109,734 10.17% 506 07041 3019 Howick Church of England Primary School 25,169 21,720 46,889 46,889 8.23% 460 07042 3730 St Mary Magdalen's Catholic Primary School 56,514 4,193 60,707 60,707 6.03% 290 07043 2058 Penwortham Primary School 98,393 (16,333) 82,060 82,060 8.88% 404 07044 2514 Whitefield Primary School 94,504 33,182 127,687 127,687 7.05% 324 07045 3953 St Teresa's Catholic Primary School. Penwortham 111,271 8,691 119,962 119,962 10.08% 433 07046 2405 Kingsfold Primary School 102,636 16,072 118,708 86,337 9.94% 744 07047 2815 Penwortham Broad Oak Primary School 117,948 (24,621) 93,327 93,327 9.01% 494 07051 3590 Samlesbury Church of England School 16,741 (4,757) 11,984 11,984 2.80% 176 07616 3143 Leyland Methodist Infant School 91,185 (22,017) 69,168 69,168 7.18% 333 08001 3078 Burscough Bridge St John's Church of England Primary School 46,817 11,999 58,816 58,816 7.19% 338 08002 3146 Burscough Bridge Methodist Voluntary Controlled Primary School 33,086 6,677 39,764 39,764 9.82% 674 08003 3800 St John's Catholic Primary School. Burscough 58,963 8,429 67,392 67,392 11.68% 802 08004 3029 Ormskirk Lathom Park Church of England Primary School 20,629 29,058 49,687 49,687 14.23% 1,941 08005 3426 Newburgh Church of England Primary School 45,730 19,436 65,166 65,166 9.59% 552 08006 3080 Westhead Lathom St James' Church of England Primary School 30,079 281 30,360 30,360 5.34% 293 08007 3424 Burscough Lordsgate Township Church of England Primary School 42,410 11,351 53,761 53,761 5.74% 283 08009 2597 Ormskirk Asmall Primary School 33,346 20,911 54,257 54,257 5.65% 346 08011 3031 Ormskirk Church of England Primary School 63,110 (38,574) 24,536 24,536 1.43% 64 08012 3801 Ormskirk St Anne's Catholic Primary School 84,867 14,369 99,236 99,236 5.45% 263 08014 2415 Ormskirk West End Primary School 25,060 (9,841) 15,219 15,219 2.27% 157 08016 2695 Burscough Village Primary School 69,093 (15,922) 53,171 53,171 5.04% 235 08018 3087 Bickerstaffe Voluntary Controlled Church of England School 53,566 (28,506) 25,060 25,060 5.33% 269 08019 2443 Aughton Town Green Primary School 92,797 (9,628) 83,168 83,168 6.02% 260 08020 3026 Aughton Christ Church CofE Voluntary Controlled Primary School 82,921 (27,072) 55,848 55,848 6.09% 266 08021 3108 Aughton St Michael's Church of England Primary School 37,090 (4,237) 32,853 32,853 3.48% 167 62 *Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ 08022 5206 Rufford Church of England Primary School 60,187 (3,497) 56,690 56,690 8.21% 429 08023 3147 Holmeswood Methodist School 37,485 (3,186) 34,299 34,299 9.19% 899 08024 3185 Richard Durnings Endowed Primary School Bispham 28,001 (6,732) 21,269 21,269 4.14% 243 08025 3419 Downholland - Haskayne Voluntary Aided CofE Primary School 43,375 (16,374) 27,000 27,000 7.26% 678 08026 3420 Halsall St Cuthbert's Church of England Primary School 66,778 (3,288) 63,490 63,490 8.96% 407 08027 3191 Scarisbrick St Mark's Church of England Primary School 46,470 3,810 50,280 50,280 11.86% 756 08028 3803 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Scarisbrick 13,860 1,900 15,761 15,761 2.47% 156 08029 2156 Pinfold Primary School. Scarisbrick 24,984 (1,156) 23,829 23,829 5.82% 518 08031 3804 St Richard's Catholic Primary School. 120,422 (57,884) 62,537 62,537 5.47% 275 08033 2656 Holland Moor Primary School 200,530 24,593 225,122 225,122 8.24% 425 08034 2696 Cobbs Brow School 143,721 21,056 164,777 164,777 10.04% 495 08036 3614 St James' Catholic Primary School. Skelmersdale 53,774 32,175 85,949 85,949 10.40% 586 08038 3179 Skelmersdale Trinity Church of England/Methodist Primary School 74,948 15,608 90,556 90,556 7.61% 429 08040 2705 Skelmersdale Crow Orchard Primary School 89,396 16,065 105,461 105,461 11.97% 710 08043 2525 Little Digmoor Primary School (8,532) 15,393 6,861 6,861 1.00% 67 08045 3677 Bishop Martin Church of England Primary School 132,174 3,449 135,622 135,622 10.89% 598 08046 2526 Hillside Community Primary School 60,687 21,993 82,681 82,681 6.55% 388 08050 3618 St Edmund's Catholic Primary School. Skelmersdale 25,207 1,875 27,082 27,082 4.18% 248 08051 3610 St John's Catholic Primary School. Skelmersdale 156,988 7,443 164,431 162,231 12.49% 770 08054 2552 Delph Side Community Primary School 55,601 43,726 99,327 99,327 8.59% 531 08060 3833 St Teresa's Catholic Primary School. Up Holland 95,541 (19,886) 75,654 75,654 7.17% 352 08061 3459 Up Holland Roby Mill CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School 15,509 27,811 43,320 43,320 15.60% 2,048 08062 3457 St Thomas the Martyr Church of England Primary School 65,133 6,976 72,109 72,109 7.20% 340 08063 2183 Crawford Village Primary School 41,058 3,925 44,982 44,982 10.28% 623 08064 2184 Wrightington Mossy Lea Primary School 24,986 (301) 24,685 24,685 7.55% 2,743 08066 3461 Appley Bridge All Saints Church of England Primary School 81,848 (29,377) 52,471 52,471 6.63% 298 08067 3834 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Wrightington 23,683 (3,974) 19,708 19,708 2.64% 139 08069 3831 Our Lady and All Saints Catholic Primary School 49,672 9,573 59,244 59,244 10.89% 611 08070 3448 Dalton St Michael's Church of England Primary School (8,829) (18,175) (27,004) (27,004) -5.81% (336) 08071 2059 Tarleton Community Primary School 50,428 11,314 61,742 61,742 4.55% 222 08072 3592 Tarleton Mere Brow Church of England Primary School 5,069 16,963 22,032 22,032 4.61% 290 08073 3591 Tarleton Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School 15,804 (4,883) 10,921 10,921 1.33% 60 08074 3581 Hesketh with Becconsall All Saints CofE Primary School 57,449 (25,961) 31,488 31,488 3.19% 154 08076 3169 Banks Methodist Primary School 56,359 (6,821) 49,538 49,538 11.65% 842 08077 3098 Banks St Stephen's Church of England Primary School 98,159 (5,038) 93,121 93,121 10.46% 530 08078 3995 Brookfield Park Primary School 31,199 14,574 45,773 45,773 4.53% 264 08079 3996 Woodland Community Primary School 126,560 (59,061) 67,499 67,499 3.15% 188 08080 3998 St Francis of Assisi School 91,448 (18,673) 72,775 72,775 5.06% 330 09001 3389 Chorley All Saints' CofE Primary School and Nursery Unit 88,660 24,499 113,160 113,160 8.52% 508 09002 2835 Duke Street Primary School 107,345 17,071 124,416 124,416 8.08% 371 09003 2145 Highfield Primary School 39,632 21,327 60,959 60,959 4.31% 243 09005 3390 Chorley. The Parish of St Laurence CofE Primary School 109,506 (16,222) 93,285 93,285 10.10% 448 09006 3783 Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. Chorley 59,952 60,645 120,596 120,596 11.84% 580 09007 3393 St George's Church of England Primary School. Chorley 51,061 (11,101) 39,960 39,960 3.03% 144 09008 3397 Chorley St James' Church of England Primary School 78,060 4,451 82,511 82,511 7.27% 369 09009 3785 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Chorley 34,536 13,649 48,185 48,185 4.63% 229 09010 2679 Gillibrand Primary School 102,557 15,383 117,939 117,939 11.86% 559 09011 3786 St Mary's Catholic Primary School. Chorley 127,116 (3,466) 123,651 123,651 11.74% 520 09012 5201 Chorley St Peter's Church of England Primary School 139,423 (19,860) 119,563 119,563 7.72% 363 09014 3789 St Gregory's Catholic Primary School. Chorley 120,139 (21,788) 98,351 98,351 9.44% 460 09015 2146 Buckshaw Primary School 132,956 27,312 160,269 160,269 10.21% 676 09019 3481 Rivington Foundation Primary School (1,618) (9,670) (11,288) (11,288) -1.73% (93) 09021 3384 Adlington St Paul's Church of England Primary School 29,213 (27,669) 1,543 0 0.00% 0 09022 2698 Adlington Primary School 8,880 5,277 14,156 14,156 2.15% 107 09023 3796 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Withnell 19,657 (1,376) 18,281 18,281 3.34% 187 09024 2684 Lancaster Lane Community Primary School 84,857 (10,583) 74,275 74,275 6.79% 359 09025 2636 Clayton-le-Woods Manor Road Primary School 94,675 10,736 105,411 105,411 9.87% 425 09026 2817 Clayton-le-Woods Westwood Primary School 101,988 (15,940) 86,048 86,048 9.51% 473 09027 3781 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Anderton 64,739 (11,283) 53,456 53,456 5.93% 271 09028 2140 Anderton Primary School 69,012 (17,233) 51,779 51,779 4.93% 267 09029 3386 Bretherton Endowed CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School 42,803 (10,518) 32,285 32,285 5.32% 296 09030 3387 Brindle St James' Church of England Primary School 23,715 2,219 25,935 25,935 5.97% 365 09031 2142 Brindle Gregson Lane Primary School 34,498 (36,820) (2,321) (2,321) -0.26% (12) 09032 3782 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Brindle 41,999 4,623 46,622 46,622 8.24% 471 09033 3388 Christ Church Charnock Richard Church of England Primary School 91,706 (12,170) 79,536 79,536 9.55% 419 09034 3790 St Bede's Roman Catholic Primary School. Clayton Green 56,257 10,050 66,307 66,307 7.21% 319 09035 3401 Clayton-le-Woods Church of England Primary School (36) 27,516 27,480 27,480 2.88% 151 09036 3402 Coppull St John's Church of England Primary School 59,081 19,157 78,238 78,238 11.32% 731 09037 3403 Coppull Parish Church of England Primary School 68,505 3,254 71,759 71,759 7.91% 362 09038 3791 St Oswald's Catholic Primary School. Coppull 53,770 25,956 79,726 79,726 11.81% 687 09039 2147 Coppull Primary School and Nursery 101,245 (14,937) 86,308 86,308 5.51% 308 09040 3343 Croston Trinity and St Michael's CofE / Methodist Primary School 78,822 1,904 80,726 80,726 8.42% 367 09042 3406 Eccleston St Mary's Church of England Primary School 48,061 10,747 58,808 58,808 6.57% 284 09043 3407 Euxton Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 7,711 25,129 32,840 32,840 3.23% 156 09044 3792 Euxton St Mary's Catholic Primary School 17,837 7,444 25,281 25,281 2.78% 122 09045 2572 Euxton Primrose Hill Primary School 63,733 41,198 104,931 104,931 6.20% 308 09046 3409 Heskin Pemberton's Church of England Primary School (15,019) 37,206 22,187 22,187 3.76% 200 09048 3412 Mawdesley St Peter's Church of England Primary School 35,038 8,073 43,111 43,111 7.69% 479 63 *Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ 09049 3794 SS Peter and Paul Catholic Primary School. Mawdesley 23,128 (9,609) 13,519 13,519 3.67% 314 09050 2577 Balshaw Lane Community Primary School 44,457 (16,040) 28,418 28,418 2.32% 95 09052 2574 Eccleston Primary School 99,380 (9,866) 89,514 89,514 9.02% 448 09053 2702 Clayton Brook Primary School 115,148 (63,507) 51,642 51,642 4.74% 293 09054 3795 St Chad's Catholic Primary School 47,567 (25,632) 21,936 21,936 3.29% 158 09055 3414 Whittle-le-Woods Church of England Primary School 117,633 (37,327) 80,306 80,306 7.26% 330 09060 3997 Brinscall St John's Church of England/Methodist Primary School 86,183 (4,354) 81,829 81,829 8.41% 386 09062 2565 Abbey Village Primary School 60,563 (34,987) 25,575 25,575 5.05% 360 09063 2564 Withnell Fold Primary School 52,157 989 53,146 53,146 9.88% 640 09064 5207 Trinity Church of England/Methodist Primary School 175,597 53,922 229,519 229,519 10.22% 417 11001 3334 Baxenden St John's Church of England Primary School 62,574 29,121 91,695 91,695 10.00% 447 11002 3336 Accrington Benjamin Hargreaves CofE Primary School 61,997 1,334 63,332 63,332 7.11% 389 11003 3337 Accrington Green Haworth Church of England Primary School 34,381 15,733 50,114 50,114 9.59% 604 11004 2096 Accrington Huncoat Primary School 98,115 16,148 114,263 114,263 10.49% 524 11005 2097 Accrington Hyndburn Park Primary School 243,382 12,581 255,963 255,963 10.73% 544 11006 2099 Accrington Peel Park Primary School 230,754 (42,245) 188,509 188,509 6.93% 301 11008 3762 Accrington St Anne's and St Joseph's RC Primary School 93,205 (10,751) 82,455 82,455 6.28% 330 11010 3340 Accrington St John with St Augustine CofE Primary School 85,652 (1,021) 84,631 84,631 7.82% 419 11011 3342 Accrington St Mary Magdalen's Church of England Primary School 66,941 (18,325) 48,617 48,617 4.40% 242 11012 3763 St Oswald's Roman Catholic Primary School. Accrington 120,354 (53,598) 66,756 66,756 7.45% 404 11013 3105 Accrington St Peter's Church of England Primary School 71,137 (15,486) 55,651 55,651 5.54% 306 11014 2101 Accrington Spring Hill Primary School 129,844 (24,322) 105,523 105,523 5.04% 266 11015 2820 Accrington Woodnook Primary School 108,793 (29,498) 79,295 79,295 7.28% 385 11018 3134 Oswaldtwistle Hippings Methodist Primary School 101,680 8,400 110,080 110,080 10.69% 519 11020 3195 Oswaldtwistle St Andrew's Church of England Primary School (27,326) 39,983 12,657 12,657 0.80% 42 11021 3353 Knuzden St Oswald's Church of England Primary School 41,880 (8,624) 33,256 33,256 3.48% 173 11023 3766 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Oswaldtwistle 93,314 14,021 107,335 107,335 9.12% 411 11024 2108 Oswaldtwistle West End Primary School (9,347) 29,541 20,194 20,194 2.16% 97 11025 2107 Oswaldtwistle Moor End Community Primary School 96,012 17,677 113,689 113,689 10.76% 576 11026 3355 Oswaldtwistle St Paul's Church of England Primary School 65,552 (376) 65,176 65,176 7.27% 432 11029 2105 Clayton-le-Moors Mount Pleasant Primary School 137,421 10,677 148,097 148,097 7.79% 346 11030 3765 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Clayton-le-Moors 37,983 (26,245) 11,737 11,737 1.68% 92 11031 3347 Church. St Nicholas Church of England Primary School (10,202) 50,066 39,864 39,864 3.83% 208 11033 3764 Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School. Church 72,226 20,097 92,323 92,323 7.92% 425 11036 3599 Altham St James Church of England Primary School 11,323 13,739 25,062 25,062 6.02% 425 11038 3307 Great Harwood St Bartholomew's Parish CofE VA Primary School 29,180 57,190 86,371 86,371 7.96% 395 11039 3308 Great Harwood St John's Church of England Primary School 60,719 29,755 90,474 90,474 10.72% 599 11040 3746 St Hubert's Roman Catholic Primary School. Great Harwood 45,664 (32,674) 12,990 12,990 1.69% 77 11041 3747 St Wulstan's Roman Catholic Primary School. Great Harwood 30,456 (1,208) 29,248 29,248 3.51% 169 11042 2067 Great Harwood Primary School 38,367 (74,143) (35,775) (35,775) -3.85% (188) 11045 3130 Rishton Methodist School 105,260 8,292 113,552 113,552 11.77% 733 11046 3316 Rishton St Peter's and St Paul's CofE Primary School 39,670 46,658 86,327 86,327 9.29% 496 11047 3752 St Charles' Roman Catholic Primary School. Rishton 106,845 (36,519) 70,326 70,326 7.28% 397 11048 3741 St Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School. Hurst Green 16,459 26,723 43,181 43,181 8.73% 525 11050 3302 Langho and Billington St Leonard's CofE Primary School 76,294 (17,944) 58,350 58,350 5.11% 204 11051 3742 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Langho 84,605 (28,566) 56,039 56,039 5.16% 211 11052 3809 Bolton by Bowland CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School 52,388 1,384 53,772 53,772 13.46% 1,333 11053 3810 Thorneyholme Roman Catholic Primary School. Dunsop Bridge 34,106 (4,233) 29,872 29,872 9.61% 1,258 11054 3303 Chatburn Church of England School 17,373 49 17,422 17,422 2.96% 156 11055 2651 Clitheroe Brookside Primary School (59,874) 50,362 (9,512) (9,512) -0.93% (51) 11056 2391 Clitheroe Edisford Primary School 57,287 (31,463) 25,824 25,824 2.22% 111 11057 2064 Clitheroe Pendle Primary School 128,343 (12,990) 115,353 115,353 8.12% 328 11058 3304 St James' Church of England Primary School. Clitheroe 122,700 28,690 151,389 151,389 11.08% 497 11059 3744 St Michael and St John's RC Primary School. Clitheroe 21,304 (32,314) (11,010) (11,010) -1.38% (62) 11060 3319 Simonstone St Peter's Church of England Primary School 57,468 (15,436) 42,031 42,031 7.00% 350 11061 2266 Gisburn Primary School 27,211 5,832 33,042 33,042 5.01% 241 11063 3807 Grindleton Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 33,248 11,755 45,003 45,003 10.99% 928 11064 3111 Read St John's Church of England Primary School 84,668 10,400 95,068 95,068 10.86% 511 11065 2073 Sabden Primary School 54,982 2,329 57,311 57,311 10.48% 653 11066 3753 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Sabden 43,746 (25,723) 18,022 18,022 3.98% 220 11067 3408 Brennand's Endowed Primary School. Slaidburn 27,845 10,901 38,746 38,746 10.68% 980 11068 3808 Waddington and West Bradford CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School 12,445 7,172 19,617 19,617 2.42% 113 11069 3321 Whalley Church of England Primary School 58,032 (24,469) 33,564 33,564 2.84% 120 11070 3131 Barrow Primary School 53,331 (14,998) 38,333 38,333 5.41% 270 11071 3300 Balderstone St Leonard's Church of England Primary School 51,483 (10,801) 40,682 40,682 6.80% 368 11072 3312 Mellor St Mary Church of England Primary School 14,117 26,681 40,799 40,799 6.08% 287 11073 3748 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Osbaldeston 52,923 (8,606) 44,317 44,317 8.51% 485 11074 5202 Salesbury Church of England Primary School 48,503 35,469 83,972 83,972 6.40% 274 12001 2076 Briercliffe Primary School 63,935 18,151 82,086 82,086 5.49% 263 12002 2095 Worsthorne Primary School 91,355 (24,442) 66,913 66,913 7.09% 316 12003 3324 St John's Church of England Primary School. Cliviger 106,333 (29,582) 76,751 76,751 8.24% 382 12005 3021 Padiham Green Church of England Primary School 122,718 8,859 131,577 131,577 11.96% 655 12006 2071 Padiham Primary School 149,552 4,143 153,694 153,694 9.96% 532 12007 3749 St John the Baptist Roman Catholic Primary School. Padiham 118,975 (35,810) 83,164 83,164 7.28% 353 12008 3313 Padiham St Leonard's Voluntary Aided CofE Primary School 166,185 (30,945) 135,240 135,240 8.98% 420 12011 3181 Hapton Church of England/Methodist Primary School 51,349 14,003 65,352 65,352 8.87% 511 12012 2228 Barden Primary School 244,208 27,438 271,645 271,645 11.55% 644 12013 2164 Burnley Brunshaw Primary School 157,312 (123,578) 33,734 33,734 1.53% 75 64 *Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ 12015 3434 Christ The King Roman Catholic Primary School. Burnley 25,324 (5,988) 19,336 19,336 1.69% 92 12020 2230 Burnley Heasandford Primary School 343,714 5,566 349,280 349,280 11.78% 559 12021 3431 Burnley Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School 118,977 7,798 126,774 126,774 10.76% 625 12022 2237 Burnley Ightenhill Primary School 163,001 (10,661) 152,339 152,339 8.60% 408 12023 2162 Burnley Lowerhouse Junior School (17,659) 89,177 71,518 71,518 6.48% 341 12025 2226 Rosegrove Infant School 92,765 (17,564) 75,201 75,201 8.52% 432 12028 3438 St Augustine of Canterbury RC Primary School. Burnley 118,037 5,438 123,475 123,475 11.40% 577 12029 3433 Burnley St James' Lanehead Church of England Primary School 121,160 (1,305) 119,855 119,855 9.17% 428 12031 3980 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Burnley 52,341 (27,644) 24,696 24,696 2.16% 112 12032 3435 St Mary Magdalene's Roman Catholic Primary School. Burnley (28,075) (43,151) (71,226) (71,226) -6.83% (344) 12033 3430 Burnley St Peter's Church of England Primary School 21,404 (13,455) 7,948 7,948 0.65% 38 12034 3432 Burnley St Stephen's Church of England Primary School 121,867 5,365 127,232 127,232 11.60% 606 12035 2224 Burnley Stoneyholme Community Primary School 296,610 (61,769) 234,840 234,840 9.42% 558 12037 2235 Burnley Whittlefield Primary School 75,888 (31,124) 44,764 44,764 3.58% 205 12039 2166 Burnley Casterton Primary School 135,700 15,645 151,346 0 0.00% 0 12040 3440 Wellfield Methodist and Anglican Church School 82,815 13,372 96,187 96,187 10.64% 467 12041 2839 Rosewood Primary School 129,875 59,760 189,635 189,635 9.40% 449 12042 2840 Cherry Fold Community Primary School 346,113 (121,609) 224,503 224,503 10.15% 583 12043 2841 Burnley Springfield Community Primary School 121,606 (36) 121,570 121,570 10.20% 590 12044 2015 St John the Baptist Roman Catholic Primary School. Burnley 114,786 6,514 121,300 121,300 9.37% 456 13001 2087 Bradley Primary School 120,479 10,832 131,311 131,311 6.57% 313 13004 3757 Holy Saviour Roman Catholic Primary School. Nelson 86,168 15,242 101,411 101,411 9.28% 485 13005 3330 Nelson St Philip's Church of England Primary School 51,311 15,774 67,085 67,085 8.71% 483 13006 3331 Nelson St Paul's Church of England Primary School 168,325 17,525 185,850 185,850 9.68% 448 13007 2090 Lomeshaye Junior School 188,614 22,145 210,759 210,759 11.71% 582 13009 3759 St John Southworth Roman Catholic Primary School. Nelson 118,422 (10,555) 107,867 107,867 9.89% 499 13010 2092 Nelson Walverden Primary School 218,561 (11,329) 207,232 207,232 10.07% 470 13011 2093 Nelson Whitefield Infant School and Nursery Unit 166,060 7,250 173,310 173,310 9.24% 553 13012 2089 Marsden Community Primary School 161,039 67,824 228,863 228,863 10.63% 541 13014 3323 Barrowford St Thomas Church of England Primary School 65,346 5,044 70,390 70,390 11.35% 577 13016 2074 Barrowford School (72,013) 41,706 (30,307) (30,307) -1.69% (81) 13017 3754 Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Primary School. Brierfield 61,418 2,132 63,550 63,550 11.60% 629 13019 2075 Blacko Primary School 60,833 15,352 76,185 0 0.00% 0 13022 3979 Wheatley Lane Methodist Voluntary Aided Primary School 98,001 5,783 103,784 103,784 10.99% 501 13023 3094 Roughlee Church of England Primary School 52,472 1,318 53,790 53,790 15.27% 1,281 13024 3107 Higham St John's Church of England Primary School 78,847 (10,921) 67,926 67,926 9.12% 475 13027 3325 Colne Christ Church Church of England Primary School 92,577 20,675 113,252 111,492 12.49% 596 13028 2079 Laneshaw Bridge Primary School 92,806 (6,169) 86,637 0 0.00% 0 13029 2080 Lord Street Primary School. Colne 83,669 (32,210) 51,459 0 0.00% 0 13030 2082 Colne Park Primary School 157,077 60,347 217,424 217,424 11.72% 578 13031 2083 Colne Primet Primary School 100,114 (20,424) 79,689 79,689 7.65% 440 13032 3755 Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School. Colne 39,828 49,503 89,331 89,331 8.13% 417 13033 2085 West Street Community Primary School 89,182 38,890 128,073 128,073 10.29% 630 13034 2094 Trawden Forest Primary School 36,774 5,776 42,549 42,549 4.42% 225 13035 3326 Foulridge Saint Michael and All Angels CofE VA Primary School 43,852 (12,956) 30,896 30,896 3.23% 149 13036 2646 Reedley Primary School 151,953 (6,049) 145,904 145,904 7.72% 355 13040 3011 Barnoldswick CofE Voluntary Controlled Primary School 129,364 32,563 161,928 161,928 9.93% 426 13041 2812 Barnoldswick Coates Lane Primary School 21,679 (28,986) (7,307) (7,307) -0.76% (35) 13042 2238 Barnoldswick Gisburn Road Community Primary School (27,492) (48,621) (76,113) (76,113) -6.65% (343) 13044 3805 St Joseph's Catholic Primary School. Barnoldswick 50,673 2,617 53,290 53,290 8.10% 416 13046 2214 Kelbrook Primary School 69,500 (23,093) 46,406 46,406 7.96% 438 13048 2240 Salterforth Primary School 20,776 (12,497) 8,279 8,279 1.34% 80 13049 2215 Earby Springfield Primary School 66,627 25,416 92,043 92,043 10.21% 575 14001 2109 Bacup Britannia Community Primary School 76,591 (2,557) 74,034 74,034 7.05% 340 14002 2114 Bacup Thorn Primary School 164,727 (9,767) 154,961 154,961 10.94% 572 14003 2111 Northern Primary School 92,807 (6,661) 86,146 86,146 9.76% 429 14005 2113 Sharneyford Primary School 63,607 (7,406) 56,202 56,202 12.38% 826 14006 3768 St Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School. Stacksteads. Bacup 52,042 (19,864) 32,179 32,179 3.86% 216 14007 3769 Bacup St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School 15,285 57,400 72,685 72,685 6.92% 429 14008 2112 Bacup St Saviour's Community Primary School 58,403 9,499 67,902 67,902 11.44% 679 14011 3196 Bacup Holy Trinity Stacksteads Church of England Primary School 123,258 5,814 129,072 129,072 9.61% 496 14015 3022 St Paul's Church of England Primary School. Rawtenstall 129,685 2,628 132,313 132,313 10.12% 483 14016 3776 St James-the-Less Roman Catholic Primary School. Rawtenstall 87,992 (3,384) 84,609 84,609 9.10% 411 14018 3023 St Mary's Rawtenstall Church of England Primary School 44,990 12,331 57,320 57,320 5.53% 284 14019 2595 Crawshawbooth Primary School 129,019 8,204 137,224 137,224 10.15% 436 14022 2129 Waterfoot Primary School 62,882 15,899 78,781 78,781 5.18% 257 14023 3775 St Peter's Roman Catholic Primary School. Newchurch 65,677 13,305 78,981 78,981 10.14% 530 14024 3113 Newchurch St Nicholas Church of England Primary School 74,002 (2,972) 71,030 71,030 8.80% 467 14025 3366 St Anne's Edgeside Church of England Primary School 82,384 (9,030) 73,354 73,354 8.87% 527 14026 2409 Balladen Community Primary School 107,720 (11,260) 96,459 96,459 8.59% 451 14027 2128 Water Primary School 30,252 (9,355) 20,897 20,897 2.95% 167 14028 3357 Haslingden St James Church of England Primary School 15,286 42,751 58,038 58,038 5.83% 332 14029 2117 Haslingden Primary School 54,484 62,949 117,433 117,433 5.75% 284 14030 2687 Broadway Primary School 72,355 672 73,027 73,027 7.75% 348 14031 2118 Helmshore Primary School 55,252 65,722 120,974 120,974 7.04% 293 14032 3771 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School. Haslingden 76,303 767 77,070 77,070 10.21% 554 14033 3359 St John's Stonefold Church of England Primary School 55,928 (33,846) 22,082 22,082 3.26% 162 14034 3615 St Veronica's Roman Catholic Primary School. Helmshore 65,387 (19,010) 46,378 46,378 5.12% 264 65 *Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ 14038 3099 Edenfield Church of England Primary School 16,620 59,932 76,552 76,552 9.08% 397 14039 2121 Stubbins Primary School 47,711 (6,127) 41,584 41,584 4.65% 203 14040 3058 St Bartholomew's Church of England Primary School 74,309 25,562 99,871 99,871 10.67% 675 14042 2272 Whitworth Tonacliffe Primary School 161,313 (30,608) 130,705 130,705 8.89% 399 14044 3889 Our Lady & St Anselm's Roman Catholic Primary School. Whitworth 76,375 1,759 78,135 78,135 8.69% 425 14045 3811 St John with St Michael CofE Primary School. Shawforth 25,895 (16,095) 9,800 9,800 1.42% 79

66 *Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ SECONDARY SCHOOLS 01108 4006 Heysham High School Sports College 46,618 (207,056) (160,438) 0 0.00% 0 01109 4302 Morecambe Community High School (53,266) 41,186 (12,080) (12,080) -0.15% (11) 01110 4167 161,742 54,974 216,716 0 0.00% 0 01112 4717 Our Lady's Catholic College. Lancaster 165,710 50,245 215,955 215,955 4.52% 304 01113 4405 Lancaster Central Lancaster High School 142,281 (110,899) 31,382 31,382 0.86% 57 02101 4011 Millfield Science and Performing Arts College 125,142 1,512 126,654 126,654 2.65% 148 02103 5404 Poulton-le-Fylde 143,445 179,034 322,480 322,480 6.86% 391 02104 4628 Saint Aidan's Church of England High School 437,625 (17,833) 419,791 419,791 9.55% 496 02105 4408 (15,769) 98,980 83,211 83,211 1.54% 96 02106 4718 Cardinal Allen Catholic High School. Fleetwood 578,361 (12,882) 565,479 565,479 11.65% 704 04114 4137 Lytham St Anne's Technology and Performing Arts College (239,233) 106,346 (132,887) (132,887) -1.78% (94) 04115 4155 & 6th Form Centre 144,296 (28,075) 116,222 116,222 1.85% 113 04116 4627 St Bede's Catholic High School. Lytham (84,044) 81,081 (2,962) (2,962) -0.07% (4) 06103 4232 Broughton High School 513,784 117,234 631,017 631,017 11.45% 697 06104 4000 Ashton Community Science College 301,389 (41,593) 259,797 259,797 5.89% 360 06105 4410 and Sixth Form 431,328 (7,455) 423,874 423,874 10.33% 782 06112 5405 . A Church of England Specialist College 179,238 104,074 283,312 283,312 6.78% 371 06115 4168 - A Maths and Computing College 116,445 188,374 304,819 304,819 7.08% 403 06116 4721 St Cecilia's RC High School. Longridge (643,891) (66,244) (710,135) (710,135) -34.28% (1,924) 06117 4610 Christ The King Catholic High School 175,279 55,526 230,805 230,805 10.37% 719 06118 4606 Our Lady's Catholic High School. Preston 591,352 (102,626) 488,726 488,726 9.87% 547 06121 4609 Corpus Christi Catholic High School 81,850 37,079 118,928 118,928 2.83% 199 06122 4001 Preston Muslim Girls' High School 280,095 346,183 626,277 355,296 11.78% 711 07101 4500 Balshaw's Church of England High School 659,846 (138,785) 521,061 521,061 11.32% 567 07102 5407 St Mary's Catholic High School. Leyland (183,840) 130,858 (52,982) (52,982) -1.54% (83) 07104 4036 (820,936) 47,300 (773,636) (773,636) -34.45% (2,337) 07105 4623 Brownedge St Mary's Catholic High School 195,169 87,303 282,471 282,471 7.21% 395 07106 4741 All Hallows Catholic High School. Penwortham 89,528 60,830 150,358 150,358 3.22% 167 07107 4150 Walton-le-Dale High School 368,263 69,765 438,029 438,029 10.01% 567 07109 4685 Hutton Church of England Grammar School 208,271 35,231 243,502 243,502 5.10% 333 07111 4332 Penwortham Girls' High School 268,554 55,274 323,827 323,827 7.67% 417 08103 4631 St Bede's Catholic High School. Ormskirk - A Specialist Arts College 110,507 85,305 195,812 195,812 4.98% 276 08104 4159 Burscough Priory Science College 154,912 (58,755) 96,157 0 0.00% 0 08105 4173 (7,336) 124,458 117,122 117,122 2.74% 155 08113 4411 Lathom High School - A Technology College (100,424) 274,429 174,005 174,005 4.24% 308 08114 4621 Our Lady Queen of Peace Catholic Engineering College 281,496 (86,832) 194,664 194,664 3.50% 216 08115 4412 36,414 30,055 66,470 66,470 0.83% 54 09103 4742 Holy Cross Catholic High School 99,462 109,107 208,569 208,569 4.75% 240 11102 4195 394,661 (101,778) 292,883 292,883 5.86% 361 11103 4797 Mount Carmel RC High School 285,968 (75,413) 210,555 210,555 4.51% 275 11105 4026 Rhyddings Business and Enterprise School 28,474 39,064 67,538 67,538 1.85% 117 11109 4725 St Augustine's Roman Catholic High School. Billington 240,019 35,914 275,932 275,932 4.94% 262 11113 4013 73,904 87,938 161,842 161,842 2.60% 130 12110 4801 Shuttleworth College (266,883) (236,684) (503,567) (503,567) -8.92% (586) 12111 4802 Hameldon Community College (2,460,116) (236,298) (2,696,414) (2,696,414) -83.02% (56,175) 12112 4806 Unity College 249,028 161,296 410,324 410,324 5.39% 357 12113 4803 Sir John Thursby Community College 780,746 30,171 810,917 810,917 10.05% 738 12114 4804 Blessed Trinity RC College 264,272 134,340 398,612 398,612 5.19% 310 12115 4805 Thomas Whitham 6th Form (2,384,386) (910,330) (3,294,717) (3,294,717) -276.83% (31,680) 13107 4018 Colne Park High School 296,002 (213,616) 82,386 0 0.00% 0 13108 4624 SS John Fisher and Thomas More Roman Catholic High School. Colne 33,974 35,505 69,480 69,480 1.63% 92 13110 4800 Marsden Heights Community College (75,415) (239,753) (315,167) (315,167) -4.64% (322) 13111 4799 777,846 (22,464) 755,382 755,382 10.42% 718 14101 4030 263,857 40,953 304,810 304,810 5.96% 429 14105 4709 All Saints' Catholic High School 145,234 (75,492) 69,742 69,742 2.35% 148 14107 4184 Whitworth Community High School 239,405 62,256 301,662 301,662 7.94% 470 14108 4158 Fearns Community Sports College (407,410) (581,021) (988,430) (988,430) -40.71% (3,408) 14109 4402 and Sixth Form 347,590 (73,138) 274,452 274,452 3.12% 203

67 *Adjusted Balance Closed Balance Balance Balance In year Brought schools or Carried Forward Carried as % of Balance Sch No DfE No School Name Surplus/ Forward as at 1 academy as at 31 March Forward as at CFR per pupil (Deficit) April 2018 conversions 2019 31 March Income 2019 * Adjusted Balance Carried Forward as at 31 March 2018-excludes clawback exemptions £ £ £ £ £ % £ SPECIAL SCHOOLS 00139 7109 Hillside Specialist School and College 23,251 (64,459) (41,208) (41,208) -1.80% (474) 00131 7028 Wennington Hall School (658,191) (792,696) (1,450,888) (1,450,888) -55.54% (21,655) 02131 7100 Brookfield School. Poulton-Le-Fylde 16,676 (534,907) (518,231) (518,231) -31.75% (9,092) 06131 7014 Moorbrook School (199,712) 75,268 (124,444) (124,444) -10.33% (3,660) 08135 7104 Hope High School 104,304 32,252 136,556 136,556 7.98% 2,438 08138 7120 Elm Tree Community Primary School 301,166 (47,229) 253,937 253,937 9.74% 2,791 12134 7111 The Rose School (166,146) (104,791) (270,937) (270,937) -12.52% (4,301) 14132 7044 Rawtenstall Cribden House Community Special School 97,815 13,786 111,601 111,601 6.60% 1,717 06134 7119 Acorns Primary School 184,020 (12,213) 171,808 171,808 11.19% 2,322 06135 7118 Sir Tom Finney Community High School 402,872 (80,923) 321,950 321,950 10.13% 2,077 08136 7117 Kingsbury Primary School 162,089 39,239 201,327 199,567 12.18% 2,464 08137 7116 West Lancashire Community High School 148,289 40,843 189,132 189,132 9.15% 1,854 11130 7099 Oswaldtwistle White Ash School 213,324 (715) 212,609 212,609 9.90% 2,148 11131 7060 Broadfield Specialist School For Sen (Cognition And Learning) 92,124 (77,292) 14,832 14,832 0.56% 107 12135 7114 Holly Grove School 392,738 (92,365) 300,374 300,374 11.80% 2,682 12136 7113 Ridgewood Community High School 92,205 192,126 284,331 284,331 9.14% 2,539 13133 7112 Pendle View Primary School 263,043 30,170 293,214 293,214 11.66% 2,793 13134 7115 Pendle Community High School And College 265,898 66,460 332,358 332,358 11.74% 2,747 00134 7110 Royal Cross Primary School 79,820 (10,915) 68,905 68,905 9.72% 3,132 01130 7034 Morecambe And Heysham Morecambe Road School 307,132 (1,252) 305,880 305,880 10.99% 2,139 02130 7040 Great Arley School 170,932 28,128 199,060 199,060 11.74% 2,118 07130 7049 Moor Hey School - A Specialist Mathematics And Computing College 224,773 25,035 249,808 245,848 12.27% 2,364 09130 7037 Chorley Astley Park School 232,448 (9,845) 222,603 222,603 8.31% 1,294 00133 7007 Bleasdale School 217,926 (3,033) 214,893 214,893 11.31% 7,675 01131 7097 The Loyne Specialist School 183,230 135,861 319,091 319,091 11.45% 2,849 02132 7102 Thornton Cleveleys Red Marsh School 208,255 4,613 212,868 212,868 11.21% 2,419 04133 7076 Kirkham Pear Tree School 253,902 14,897 268,799 268,799 9.75% 2,829 07131 7098 The Coppice School (15,165) 81,964 66,800 66,800 3.95% 997 09131 7089 Mayfield Specialist School 390,302 (124,293) 266,009 266,009 10.14% 2,293 Nursery Schools 01162 1049 Appletree Nursery School (30,886) (61,476) (92,362) (92,362) -27.72% (2,079) 06160 1021 Stoneygate Nursery School 60,376 (3,118) 57,258 57,258 11.75% 1,101 08160 1018 Ormskirk Moorgate Nursery School 5,363 29,531 34,893 34,893 8.59% 973 09160 1003 Chorley Highfield Nursery School 58,127 (2,595) 55,532 55,532 11.55% 1,240 09161 1002 Duke Street Nursery School 38,730 (22,306) 16,424 16,424 3.60% 270 11160 1000 Accrington Lee Royd Nursery School 66,897 (13,880) 53,016 53,016 10.86% 819 11161 1024 Fairfield Nursery School 79,031 (17,476) 61,555 61,555 10.24% 881 11162 1027 Ribblesdale Nursery School 32,306 (27,724) 4,583 4,583 1.23% 108 12175 1050 Reedley Hallows Nursery School 101,396 (10,885) 90,511 90,511 11.39% 951 12166 1008 Ightenhill Nursery School 53,386 (4,698) 48,688 48,688 12.54% 836 12168 1001 Burnley Rockwood Nursery School 15,103 10,730 25,833 25,833 4.98% 408 12169 1007 Burnley Rosegrove Nursery School 32,422 3,097 35,519 35,519 7.99% 613 12171 1011 Burnley Stoneyholme Nursery School 30,131 13,966 44,097 44,097 11.27% 902 12172 1035 Padiham Whitegate Nursery School (2,361) 7,298 4,937 4,937 0.73% 68 12173 1047 Burnley Basnett Street Nursery School 36,622 (14,219) 22,403 22,403 4.52% 440 12174 1048 Burnley Taywood Nursery School (196,961) 13,917 (183,044) (183,044) -22.97% (2,479) 13160 1015 Bradley Nursery School 77,534 36,677 114,212 114,212 11.39% 999 13161 1016 Walton Lane Nursery School (31,799) 95,261 63,462 63,462 5.04% 1,213 13162 1026 Brierfield Woodfield Nursery School 45,508 (27,520) 17,988 17,988 4.01% 286 13163 1034 Nelson McMillan Nursery School (67,439) (34,088) (101,528) (101,528) -26.89% (2,085) 13164 1028 Colne Newtown Nursery School (81,300) 19,621 (61,679) (61,679) -9.92% (1,189) 14161 1031 Haslingden Hillside Nursery School 4,439 (15,244) (10,805) (10,805) -2.58% (205) 14162 1037 Bacup Nursery School 44,062 16,608 60,670 60,670 13.08% 1,070 14163 1046 Staghills Nursery School 95,207 (40,415) 54,791 54,791 6.57% 592 PUPIL REFERRAL UNITS 01141 1100 Stepping Stones School 64,075 2,007 66,082 66,082 7.79% 2,065 07141 1103 Golden Hill Leyland Centre 133,929 (58,617) 75,312 75,312 7.82% 1,712 13143 1107 Hendon Brook School (3,772) (64,878) (68,650) (68,650) -10.03% (2,019) 01149 1121 Chadwick High School (51,978) 131,208 79,230 79,230 5.37% 932 02143 1117 Mckee College House 202,605 16,502 219,107 219,107 9.69% 1,685 06141 1109 Larches House School (1,808) 198,149 196,341 196,341 8.94% 1,454 08147 1118 The Acorns School 117,726 50,867 168,593 168,593 12.11% 2,248 09145 1116 Shaftesbury High School 156,959 58,186 215,145 215,145 10.22% 1,793 11142 1113 Oswaldtwistle School 133,611 34,016 167,627 167,627 10.14% 1,863

68 Annex B

School Balances and Clawback Guidance 2018/19

This guidance applies to balances at 31 March 2019

Guideline Balances

The Authority’s current maximum guideline balance is:

 12% of Consistent Financial reporting (CFR) income for all phases of maintained school (It is suggested that the 12% guideline figure is not seen as a target);

 A £60,000 minimum balance threshold will be applied.

Clawback of "excess balances"

The Authority's clawback arrangements are:

 A clawback rate of 50% is to be applied to any balance above guideline in the first year a school exceeds the guideline (after adjusting for exemptions). ;

 A clawback rate of 100% is to be applied to any balance in excess of guideline where the guideline has been breached for two or more consecutive years (after adjusting for exemptions).

Exemptions from clawback

The Authority shall make the following deductions from the school's actual balance before applying clawback:

 Funds accumulated by schools where there is a contractual agreement, as part of a grant allocation or dual use agreement, for facilities to be replaced on a fixed basis (i.e. an all weather pitch) will continue to be exempt from clawback. Conditions of this exclusion are: o The amount excluded cannot exceed the total cost of replacing the facility committed in the contract/agreement; o The exclusion will only be allowed for a period equivalent to the stated replacement timetable for the facility and will be subject to retrospective clawback if no replacement is funded or if the replacement is at a lower value than estimated; o Schools will be required to submit relevant supporting documentation relating to the terms of the contract or grant, including evidence of replacement conditions and also estimated costs.

 Any funding allocated on an academic year basis to schools by the DfE or other Government department will have 5/12 this exempt from clawback. Schools will be required to submit relevant supporting documentation relating to the government allocation, including appropriate evidence of distribution timescales;

69  Funding allocations that are notified to schools late in the financial year, where schools could not reasonably have considered the allocation in their financial planning for the year. Late allocations are defined as allocations notified to schools after 1 January each financial year. Allocations that are notified to schools before the 1st January of the financial year, but where the funding is received at a later date, would not qualify under this exemption;

 Devolved Formula Capital (DFC) allocations, delegated to non-aided schools for the first time from September 2017 (for accounting purposes), are specifically excluded from the clawback calculation. Schools are asked to ensure that the relevant capital accounting codes are used for DFC income and expenditure, to guarantee that this funding is identifiable and able to be excluded from year end revenue balances and the clawback calculation;

 No further clawback exemptions or new capital bonds will be allowed.

What is Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) Income?

CFR Income is defined by the Department for Education in the consistent financial reporting (CFR) framework https://www.gov.uk/guidance/consistent-financial-reporting-framework-cfr

You will have seen your CFR income on several documents but you may not have known it by this description.

You will have seen it on:

 Your financial outturn statement - it is the total line labelled "Revenue Income". For most schools this will be the sum of lines I01 to I13 on the outturn statement but under the CFR framework it will include lines not used by most schools and is the sum of lines categorised as I01 to I18. o This is the figure that will be used to calculate the guideline but as funding and income will change during the year this figure will not be known until the outturn statements have been produced following the end of the financial year. o It does not include "Capital Income" codes CI01-CI04

 On your submitted income and expenditure form – it is the total line labelled "Total In Year Resources Available" this is the sum of your "Total Funding" and your "Total Additional School Income", it does not include any balances brought forward. o This is not used to calculate the guideline but it is your estimate of your CFR income and may be used as your estimate of the guideline, you must note if you revise you estimates of income in the year then you would need to revise your estimate of the guideline figure.

70 Appendix C

Lancashire Schools Forum

Annual Report 2018/19 April 2018 - March 2019

The Lancashire Schools Forum met on four occasions in the financial year 2018/19 and has considered a variety of reports and presentations on school funding and finance related matters. This annual report sets out some of the significant issues dealt with by the Forum.

Schools Budget 2019/20 Advising on the Schools Budget is a crucial responsibility of the Forum. The 2019/20 budget setting process was again a challenging one due to the continued financial pressures across the whole of the school sector. The key headlines for 2019/20 included:

2019/20 High Needs Block:  A revised methodology for the number of Commissioned Place in 2019/20 was agreed as a basis for the budget;  Saving proposals for special schools, PRUs and FE colleges were agreed;  Proposals for the development of inclusion hubs will continue, to be initially funded from existing budgets and school contributions ahead of possible de-delegation proposals in 2020/21;  Original 2019/20 Schools Budget proposals included an option to devalue the Weighted Pupil Number (WPN) rate from the new academic year 2019/20. However, at the recommendation of the Forum, the further use of Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) reserves, to the value of circa £1.2m, was agreed to prevent the need to reduce WPN rates in 2019/20 and protect vulnerable pupils across all providers.

2019/20 Schools Block:  The National Funding Formula (NFF) Methodology continues to apply in 2019/20 and was implemented in full, including revised Minimum Pupil Funding (MPF) levels;  The 2019/20 gains cap was set at +1.5% against 2018/19 allocations, and the MFG at -1.5% against 2018/19 allocations;  Implementation of revised 2019/20 split site proposals and transitional arrangements were agreed;  A transfer of 0.5% (£3.7m) from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block was confirmed in order to mitigate the forecast overspend in High Needs Block.

2019/20 Early Years Block:  The Universal Base Rate for 3 and 4 year olds was set at £4.13 per hour (from £4.09 in 2018/19) and the hourly rate for eligible 2 years olds at £5.00 per hour in 2019/20 (the same rate as 2018/19);  Central Government continues to provide ring-fenced supplementary funding for maintained nursery schools in 2019/20;  Discretionary supplementary payments continue for the 2019/20 budget but a review will be undertaken over the coming year.

2019/20 Central School Services Block:  Savings totalling circa £0.4m were identified as a contribution to the High Needs Block overspend.

71

Fighting Lancashire's Corner Difficult budget decisions were taken to ensure that 2019/20 Schools Budget in Lancashire was allocated from the funding envelope provided by the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations. However it was recognised that schools are facing considerable cost pressures. The Schools Forum and the County Council have therefore made a number of representations to central government during the course of year, and participated in national research projects and contributed to Government evidence gathering. This has included:

 Corresponding with Government Ministers to make a case for additional Early Years Block funding for Lancashire, as we currently receive the lowest level of funding allocation nationally;  Participated in a Local Government Association (LGA) national research project about High Needs Block funding, to better understand the reasons for the pressure in this block and to lobby for additional resources. This project perhaps contributed to Government decisions to make additional funding available for high needs in both 2018/19 and 2019/20. Lancashire was allocated an extra £2.6m in both years;  Evidence about the impact of funding reductions on combined budget resources in Lancashire have been channelled to the DfE to feed into considerations about the Government's comprehensive spending review.

Service De-delegations 2019/20 Regulations require that the Forum is responsible for deciding which services should be de- delegated each year. In October 2018, the Forum considered a number of de-delegation proposals. Primary and secondary members agreed by phase that a number of services would be de-delegated for the 2019/20 financial year. This means that for primary and secondary schools (but not academies) services will be provided centrally. These services are:

 Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions. This de-delegation incorporates reimbursement to schools for staff costs associated with public duties and suspensions;  Museum Service - Primary Schools Only. Provides funding for the work the museum service undertakes for primary schools to help meet the national curriculum and to support wider cultural learning;  Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty. This funding allows support to be offered to schools in financial difficulty, which is managed by the School Improvement Challenge Board (SICB) against published eligibility criteria.

Consultation Responses A number of consultations and discussions were held with schools and academies and with representative groups to help shape the budget and savings proposals and de-delegation decisions for 2019/20. The Forum were very grateful for the responses and comments that helped to steer their decisions and recommendations.

72 Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty Pressure on school budgets across all phases remained a key issue throughout the year. Outturn data relating to 31 March 2018 was reported to Forum in July 2018 and revealed that 47 Lancashire schools (8%) were in a deficit budget situation, which is the highest ever number. Almost 50% of schools used their reserves to set a balanced budget, and aggregate balances held by schools have reduced by £9m over the last 2 years.

In response to the challenging financial environment, the Forum have supported the continued development of the procedures and policies for supporting Schools in Financial Difficulty (SIFD), including:

School Categorisation Approach The School Categorisation Approach is used to monitor the financial health of Lancashire schools, and to target resources, support and alerts. This approach continues to assess financial data on each school and catalogued them into one of four SIFD categories, which are set out below:

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

Various early warning processes, training support and toolkits have been developed to help support schools in avoiding a deficit budget position or to recover from deficit.

A policy has also been agreed to introduce Notices of Concern (NOC) in Respect of Financial Delegation, for high risk schools. The NOC introduces certain financial restrictions on Governing Bodies.

School Balances and Clawback The Forum reviews the Lancashire school balances and clawback arrangements each year.

In connection with School Balances and Clawback at 31 March 2018, clawback totalling circa £232k was applied to 13 schools.

The Forum agreed that continuation of the existing school balances and clawback arrangements for application at 31 March 2019.

Full details of all Schools Forum business are available from the Schools Forum website. For any queries please email [email protected]

73 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 4 July 2019

Item No 7

Title: Recommendations of the High Needs Block Working Group

Executive Summary

On 11 June 2019, the High Needs Block Working Group considered a number of reports, including:

 Inclusion Hub Proposals 2019/20  2020/21 De-Delegation Proposals  Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19  School Balances and Clawback 2018/19  Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19  High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group  Notional SEN Proposals 2020/21  Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) from September 2019  PE and sport premium funding for 2019/20  Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 11 June 2019; b) Ratify the Group's recommendations.

74 Background On 11 June 2019, the High Needs Block Working Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.

1. Inclusion Hub Proposals 2019/20 Paul Duckworth, Head of Service – Education, Quality and Performance (Acting) attended the Working Group for this item.

A supplementary paper had been circulated to members ahead of the meeting providing additional information and clarification in response to some initial questions that had been raised by members.

The financial context for this decision was set out explaining that due to the timings of the 2019/20 budget setting process, Forum agreed to continue the existing Commissioned Alternative Provision Services budget from April 2019, with the release of funding for Inclusion Hub developments to be considered during the year, when more detail was available.

It was confirmed that no 2019/20 funding had been released to date.

It was also confirmed that funding for Inclusion Hub proposals in 2019/20 is an interim arrangement, with a separate item on the agenda seeking the Forum's comments on de- delegation proposals for 2020/21, ahead of a formal consultation with schools in the autumn term 2019. The £80k per district allocations proposed for 2019/20 were seen as pump priming funding and it was noted that the de-delegation proposal would look to utilise pupil numbers to calculate 2020/21 allocations.

The de-delegation report included a Primary Inclusion Hub paper setting out further details of the inclusion hub model that has been developed following the detailed consultation with primary schools and PRUs, including: o Intended Outcomes; o Resource; o Process.

District Inclusion Hub Steering Groups had now been established in all districts with wide representation from different types of schools in the district. The development has been overseen by Paul Duckworth (currently Acting Head of Service) to ensure consistency of approach across the Local Authority. Model 'agreements' were provided for districts so that the intended outcomes are common to all districts (although tweaked slightly to reflect local need in some areas).

Proposals for the use of funding has been agreed by the District Inclusion Hub Steering Groups and shared with all headteachers in the district. Governance arrangements have been strengthened through the formation of the County Inclusion Hub Steering Group, which will provide peer-challenge and support between the lead-headteachers. This steering group will report to the Children's Partnership.

75 Further information in the supplementary paper provided example details of the process and operation of the Inclusion Hub model in Lancaster and also primary exclusion data for individual districts, which will be used as a baseline as part of the monitoring process.

Members discussed the detailed information provided and asked further questions about the different models being adopted and the sharing of best practice and challenge process for any developments.

Individual members expressed their reassurance about the strengthened governance arrangements and made positive comments about discussions in individual locations.

The Working Group a) Thanked Paul for his report and supplementary information; b) Noted the information provided; c) Expressed support for the strengthened governance arrangements for the project; d) Recommended that the £80k per district Inclusion Hub pump priming allocations for 2019/20 be released to relevant 'banker' schools; e) Welcomed the intention to develop pupil number based allocation as part of the 2020/21 proposals to reflect the differing sizes of district.

2. 2019/20 De-Delegation Proposals The school funding framework continues to allow service de-delegations in 2020/21. This report set out some initial information about possible de-delegation options for 2020/21 and sought views from the Forum to help steer decisions on the proposals to be developed.

Continuing De-delegations In 2019/20, the Forum formally approved 3 service de-delegations, relating to: o Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions; o Museum Service - Primary Schools Only; o Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty.

Nursery schools, special schools and PRUs also agreed to group buy-backs for Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions and Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty. The Museum Service de-delegation is for primary schools only.

For 2020/21, the LA is again proposing to consult on the continuation of these services as de-delegations, with arrangements and costs expected to be broadly in line with those in 2019/20.

Further information on the Trade Union Facilities Time Agreement, will be provided to the Schools Block Working Group.

Possible Additional De-delegations for 2020/21 For 2020/21, the LA has been looking at other de-delegation possibilities. The rationale for considering these proposals is linked to the ongoing financial pressure facing the High Needs Block of the DSG. Locally, modelling indicates that the Lancashire HNB deficit may be in the region of £13.2m by the end of 2020/21, without any further mitigating actions. Further details are provided below:

76

Intervention Provision Funding for the interim Primary Inclusion Hub arrangements in 2019/20 was supported earlier on the agenda.

Inclusion Hub developments formed around school views are now proposed for de-delegation proposals for 2020/21. It is hoped that schools will be supportive of a de-delegation option for an initiative that has been shaped by schools through the ongoing engagement process.

Further information about the current Primary Inclusion Hub arrangements was provided for the Working Group, much of which had been discussed earlier in the agenda.

Initial calculations by the LA suggest that in 2020/21, Primary Inclusion Hub de-delegation proposals might equate to the following costs:

Rate per pupil £11.00 Total De-delegation £1,000,000

It was noted that a review of secondary SEMH support and alternative provision took place in 2018/19 with the aim of developing a system-led approach, which is in alignment with the developments in the primary phase. The recommendations from the review are being implemented in partnership with secondary leaders.

Copyright Licencing Since April 2015, the DfE have negotiated a number of copyright licences for schools and academies at a national level.

The cost of these licences for Lancashire schools and academies are deducted from our Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocation each year. From April 2019, the total gross cost of the Lancashire licences was £1.12m. However, the County Council is able to reclaim the VAT element of the charge, which leaves a net cost to the DSG for 2019/20 of circa £937k. Licences and subscriptions are currently on the list of allowable de-delegations and initially, the LA was considering if the cost of the copyright licences could be de-delegated, with the aim of freeing up headroom in the CSSB, which could in turn be used to offset ongoing cost pressures in the High Needs Block.

However, further examination of the ESFA Operational Guidance for 2019/20 reveals that the national licences negotiated by DfE are specifically excluded from the de-delegation arrangements, so this option is no longer considered viable.

The Working Group considered the report, and supported the continuation of existing de- delegations in 2020/21, subject to the annual school consultation.

Members also supported the consultation on the de-delegation of primary inclusion hub funding for 2020/21. The proposal to move to a pupil based methodology for calculating the school contributions was welcomed and the Working Group requested that the LA consider the methodology to be used to distribute the funding to district be considered to asses if additional factors may make the allocations more targeted, for example deprivation or prior attainment.

77

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the continuation of existing de-delegations in 2020/21, subject to the annual school consultation; c) Supported the consultation on the de-delegation of primary inclusion hub funding for 2020/21; d) Requested consideration of the methodology to distribute de-delegated inclusion hub funding, if agreed, to districts.

3. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19 The Overall Schools Budget outturn position for 2018/19 showed an overspend of some £1.7m. The overspend was mainly attributable to the ongoing overspend in the High Needs Block, which was partially offset by underspends in other funding blocks.

Information was provided on all funding blocks, and a copy of the full Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19 is provided as an Appendix to the Schools Block Summary report.

The final High Needs Block position is set out below

High Needs Block 18/19 Budget Actual Variance £ £ £ Total High Needs Block 77,720,482 81,883,617 4,163,135 Total Commissioned Services 25,252,418 29,266,942 4,014,524 Exclusions -650,832 -650,832

DSG grant -100,586,833 -103,162,946 -2,576,113 Total 2,386,067 7,336,781 4,950,714

Clarification was provided the £0.7m Exclusions funding was half that of previous years (£1.3m in 17/18), due to the change in guidance from the ESFA, with the effect that more funding than previously is being retained in excluding mainstream schools and thereby increasing the overspend on excluded pupils within the high needs block. This did not relate to a significant change in the number of exclusions, rather the allowable adjustment that could be made to mainstream school budgets when pupils are permanently excluded.

It was also noted that DSG grant for the HNB in 2018/19 was circa £2.6m above the budgeted figure due to the additional High Needs allocations provided by the DfE to assist with HNB budget pressures for 2018/19. Subject to this adjustment the HNB overspend was broadly in line with the forecast, including the in year savings generated to reduce the funding gap, whilst minimising the impact on schools and pupils.

The £3.1m overspend on the Out-County budget was noted and some supplementary information had been provided for members in advance of the meeting around joint commissioning of out-county places with health and social care budgets. Observation was made that the commentary on this budget line could be interpreted as attributing much of the overspend on the activities of Short Stay Schools. Officers agreed to amend this wording.

78 The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the supplementary information; b) Requested that the commentary on the out-county budget be amended.

The commentary around the out-county overspend in the outturn report appended to the Schools Block Report has been amended in accordance with the Working Group's recommendation. The revised wording is provided below:

Out County - Specialist provision places This overspend of £3.1m is due in the main to the Inclusion Service being unable to obtain capacity within maintained provision to cope with an increasing number of pupils requiring high needs placement. As provision has not been able to be sourced within the authority's schools more Independent Non-Maintained placements have had to be commissioned causing additional expenditure.

4. School Balances and Clawback 2018/19 The final outturn position against schools delegated budgets at 31 March 2019 is an overspend of £1.409m. This means that school balances have decreased by £1.409m in 2018/19, to a total of £42.741m.

Information was provided showing analysis of school balances by phase at the end of the financial year 2018/19, and a copy of the full Schools Balances and Clawback Report 2018/19 is provided as an Appendix to the Schools Block Summary report.

The substantial reduction in the overall level of balances in the special school sector of some £1.176m was noted, as was the number of special schools and PRUs in a deficit budget position (5 and 1 respectively), which was symptomatic of the savings that are required in the High Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant.

Application of Clawback at 31 March 2019 and 2019/20 policy It was noted that the calculation of clawback liability at 31 March 2019 indicated that only 6 schools were at risk of clawback, totalling circa £11k and 2 primary schools had submitted appeals.

As the level of funding at risk of clawback at 31 March 2019 is relatively small, with each of the schools identified only marginally above their balances threshold in each case, any clawback income will not make a meaningful contribution to reserves. Under such circumstances, the Forum views were sought about suspending the application of clawback at 31 March 2019,

Forum views about the policy to be applied at 31 March 2020 were also requested.

Members debate the merits of suspending the application of clawback at March 2019 and the policy for March 2020.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report;

79 b) Noted the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2019 and the individual school level information provided in the report; c) Recommended that the application of clawback at 31 March 2019 be suspended, due to the relatively small amounts involved and in recognition of the overall financial pressures across the school sector; d) Recommended that the existing school balances and clawback arrangements continue to be applied at 31 March 2020.

5. Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19 Each year the Schools Forum publishes an annual report setting out items of business in which the Forum has been involved.

A draft Forum Annual Report for 2018/19 was provided and a copy is attached as an Appendix to the Schools Block Recommendations report.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended to the Schools Forum that the 2018/19 Annual Report be approved for publication.

6. High Needs Block Provision Task and Finish Group Andrew Good provided a verbal update on the work of the HNB Provision Task and Finish Group.

It was noted that the Group, involving a number of LCC Heads of Service and the Chair of the HNB Working Group had met on several occasions and devised a number of proposals, many based a detailed analysis of data, which had not been available previously. Examples of best practice both locally and nationally had also been assessed to inform the group's proposals.

The internal LCC approval process for the group's report and recommendations was set out and it was confirmed that the report would be shared with the Forum.

The Working Group: a) Noted the update; b) Welcomed the fact that the report would be shared with the Forum in due course.

7. Notional SEN Proposals 2020/21 As part of the ongoing review of High Needs Block expenditure, the LA has formulated a possible simplification to the notional SEN calculation.

The primary principles around the proposal were to ensure that all of the AWPU calculation were available as a basic entitlement for any pupil regardless of need, and to simplify the calculation.

The report provided more detail on the complexity of the calculation, including examples, the background to the current situation, and Lancashire's compassion to national position.

80

It was noted that the impact of the proposals would be limited and would marginally affect the allocation to schools, where the uplift funding where provided to assist schools meeting their £4,000 Core funding and £6,000 Additional Support funding (Elements 1 and 2) for pupils with High Needs (with E+ EHC Plans) that are being educated in mainstream schools.

It was confirmed that this proposal would not change the actual AWPU funding levels allocated to every pupil.

In order to implement a change to the funding formula from April 2020, a consultation with all schools and academies would be needed.

Many members commented that they would welcome the removal of 'notional SEN' entirely as it did not actually generate any income and caused confusion for schools and parents and it was noted that the DfE were considering this separately.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the issuing of a consultation to simplify the notional SEN calculation.

8. Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) from September 2019 Previous reports to the Forum have referred to the increase in the employer contribution rate of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) from 16.4% to 23.6% that will be introduced from September 2019.

On 10 April 2019, DfE published information and confirmed that they would be funding maintained schools and academies for TPS increase in 2019 to 2020.

Further details of the allocation methodology and funding rates were provided in the report, including information about a Supplementary Fund that schools will be able to apply to if their grant allocation falls short of their actual pension cost.

A notification has been posted on the Schools Portal to alert schools to the announcement.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

9. PE and sport premium funding for 2019/20 Following a number of enquiries from schools, the DfE have confirmed that the £320m PE and sport premium will continue in the 2019/20 academic year. The DfE have indicated that they will publish allocations and guidance later in the year.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

81 10. Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20 SFVS is a statutory requirement for all maintained schools and currently consists of 25 questions which governing bodies must formally discuss annually with the head teacher and senior staff.

Each year the Chief Finance Officer is required to report to the DfE the number of eligible schools which have failed to submit their return along with confirmation that there is a system of audit in place for schools which gives adequate assurance over their standards of financial management and the regularity and probity of their spending.

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

2018/19 Returns The above policy was again applied to the 2018/19. All returns have been received without the need for a pre-warning notice. The SFVS assurance certificate showing 100% returns compliance has been signed by Angie Ridgwell, Chief Executive of the County Council and returned to the DfE.

Analysis of Returns As per DfE guidance the local authority uses schools’ SFVS returns to inform their programme of financial assessment and audit.

SFVS 2019/20 For 2019/20, the DfE are updating the SFVS. The tool can be used to identify possible areas for change to ensure that resources are being used to support high-quality teaching and the best education outcomes for pupils and is in two parts:

 A checklist, which asks a number of questions of governing bodies in six areas of resource management to provide assurance that the school is managing its resources effectively (similar to the current SFVS);  A dashboard, which shows how a school's data compares to thresholds on a range of statistics that have been identified as indicators for good resource management and outcomes.

In order to support school leaders with the new requirements the Schools Financial Services team (SFS) are planning a series of briefings throughout the county late summer term and early autumn term. (It was noted that a number of these sessions are now fully booked and further sessions are planned for the autumn term). To provide consistent messages and guidance the sessions are intended for headteachers, governors and business managers to attend together and will focus on: o the requirements of the new Schools Financial Value Standard 2019/20; o the data used to complete the new checklist and dashboard; o how to use the results from the dashboard; o the respective roles and responsibilities of Governors and School Staff in completing the Schools Financial Value Standard;

82 o where to access additional support and guidance.

As a traded service SFS will need to charge for these sessions. However, the Forum was asked to consider the approval the previous policy whereby governor attendance is paid for by the Forum for schools which purchase the annual governor services training programme

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the continuation of the current returns timescale and sanctions policy; c) Supported the proposed funding arrangements for governors attending the briefing sessions.

83 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 4 July 2019

Item No 8

Title: Recommendations of the Early Years Block Working Group

Executive Summary

On 13 June 2019, the Early Years Block Working Group considered a number of reports, including:

 Early Years Block Budget Pressures;  Early Education Funding Agreement 2019/20;  Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19;  School Balances and Clawback 2018/19;  Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19;  Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20.

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the Early Years Block Working Group held on 13 June 2019; b) Ratify the Group's recommendations.

84 Background On 13 June 2019, the Early Years Block Working Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.

1. Early Years Block Budget Pressures Reports had been presented to previous working group meetings about the financial pressures facing the sector. This report provided an update on early years budget pressure issues.

Lobbying Central Government for Increased Funding Previous reports have referred representations made by the Forum and County Council seeking increased funding for the Early Years Block in Lancashire.

DfE responses have all referred to the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review being used to determine spending across all departments, including Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations, which incorporate EY Block funding. Ministers have stated that the information submitted by Lancashire as part of these representations will be collated as part of the evidence for the spending review process.

No new formal information has been received about future levels of early years funding, and no confirmation of any timescales has been produced, but there is some concern that announcements may not be in time for the 2020/21 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations.

Forum letter to District Councils lobbying for a reduction in business rates for nurseries A response to Forum correspondence about possible business rate relief for early years settings from Chorley Borough Council was reported the last Working Group meeting.

No further responses have been received from any of the other district councils.

Possible amendments to the Lancashire funding agreement for settings that receive an Ofsted 'Inadequate' inspection judgement Discussions about the 2019/20 funding agreement, including proposals for the Ofsted 'Inadequate' arrangements were held at the Early Years Consultative Group meeting 24th May 2019. A separate report on this agenda provided confirmation of the outcomes of the deliberations.

Possible cessation of discretionary payments in the local Early Years formula that do not generate equivalent DSG income for Lancashire The Working Group asked for further information about the impact of discretionary payments currently operating in the Lancashire early years formula.

These discretionary payments fall into two categories, which are:

 Discretionary payments in the 2 year old offer for additional vulnerable groups:

85 o Children known to children's social care; o Portage children; o GRT (Gypsy, Roma and Traveller) children; o Children of serving armed forces personnel.

 Supplementary payments for Early Education Funding after headcount date.

There are clearly benefits to Lancashire children and providers from these discretionary payments, but they do not generate equivalent Dedicated Schools Grant income. To date, the Forum have always supported the continuation of both these payments, but the ongoing financial strain on the sector has led Forum to ask for a further review.

The views of the Working Group were sought about the possible continuation or cessation of these discretionary payments.

It was estimated that if the discretionary payments ceased, funding released may generate circa £0.20 per hour on the 2 year old base rate and circa £0.06 per hour on the 3 and 4 year old base rate for future years.

Ongoing Support for the Sector Despite the local and national representations that have been made to Government, there is no immediate prospect of increased early years funding in Lancashire.

The local formula arrangements already ensure that over 99.5% of Early Years Block funding received in Lancashire is allocated directly to providers, and recent decisions taken by Forum have been aimed at maximising the funding allocated through base rates. Even if they are introduced, current options under consideration will only increase base rates marginally by reducing the number of children paid for.

In addition, the County Council offers support to the sector to assist settings in these difficult financial times, focused around the different legislative frameworks that exist. Further information was provided in the report about the support available across maintained and PVI sectors.

It was highlighted that, following meetings with the North Programme Adviser for Childcare Works, LCC intended to update website and signposting information to provide additional advice and guidance to the sector that was more easily accessible.

Impact on Sufficiency The latest childcare sufficiency assessment (CSA) shows that Lancashire currently has a sufficient number of childcare places. However, LCC recognises that sufficiency may become more of a challenge within the next 12 - 18 months if the impact of these changes does start to affect the long term viability of settings remaining open. Information was provided to the Group about the monitoring and actions taken when settings do close.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information provided; b) Recommended that the Forum letter to District Councils lobbying for a reduction in business rates for nurseries be resent, except for Chorley BC;

86 c) Recommended that a consultation be issued to providers about the possible cessation of the discretionary payments for additional vulnerable groups in the 2 year old formula, including data on the usage of the different groups, an impact assessment and any transitional arrangements; d) Recommended that the current policy for supplementary payments in the 3 and 4 year old formula should continue for the time being.

2. Early Education Funding Agreement 2019/20 The proposed changes to the Early Education Funding Agreement for the 2019/20 academic year were considered at the Early Education Consultative Group on 24 May.

The consultative group made a number of comments and suggestions.

The School Improvement Senior Management Team met on 7 June 2019, to consider the options outlined and feedback provided from the Early Years Consultative Group. Management Team agreed the following to take effect from 1 September 2019:

i. Adopt option 3 and allow funding to continue until next inspection providing the quality of education is 'good'. In the event that the next inspection remains 'inadequate' cease funding after 4 weeks. Under option 3 where the quality of education is less than 'good' funding would cease 8 weeks after the 'inadequate' judgement is published.

ii. All settings who receive an 'inadequate' judgement will be required to notify parents of the inspection outcome within 5 workings days of it being published. Funding will cease 4 weeks after the 'inadequate' judgement is published where a parent chooses to find alternative provision (status quo).

iii. All settings who receive an 'inadequate' judgement will be required to submit an action plan within 15 workings days of it being published.

iv. Funding will be reinstated from date of re-inspection, rather than date the judgement is published.

v. 'Not met' judgements will be treated in the same way as 'inadequate' judgements.

vi. Continue to fund new 2, 3, 4 year old funded children during the 'inadequate' funding period (status quo). vii. Continue to fund new 2 year old children when a setting is receives a 'requires improvement' judgement (status quo). viii. Adopt all other amendments outlined in section 5 of this report.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the final decisions taken in connection with the Early Education Funding Agreement 2019/20.

87 3. Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19 The Overall Schools Budget outturn position for 2018/19 showed an overspend of some £1.7m. The overspend was mainly attributable to the ongoing overspend in the High Needs Block, which was partially offset by underspends in other funding blocks.

Information was provided on all funding blocks, and a copy of the full Schools Budget Outturn Report 2018/19 is provided as an Appendix to the Schools Block Summary report.

The final Early Years Block position is set out below:

Early Years Block Budget Actual Variance £ £ £ Maintained Sector 20,061,610 19,808,887 -252,723 PVI Providers 52,708,056 56,118,419 3,410,363 Early Years Pupil Premium 769,670 645,018 -124,652 Disability Access Fund 257,685 151,905 -105,780 Total Commissioned Services 359,140 202,310 -156,830

DSG grant -74,156,161 -77,848,187 -3,692,026 Total 0 -921,648 -921,648 The Early Years Block outturn position for 2018/19 showed a circa £0.9m underspend.

In considering the early years information, it was noted that the Early Years element of the DSG is calculated on the basis of January counts across two years. This means that the final update for the 2018/19 Early Years Block has not yet been received. When the update is received, scheduled for July 2019, it will revise the DSG grant income based on the actual provision made. As the current budget position shows an overall underspend, where the LA has distributed less than the estimated income, it is forecast that DSG income in the final EYB update will reduce.

Members noted that the 2017/18 EYB outturn item reported a circa £0.8m overspend at 31 March 2018, so Early Years funding is virtually net nil across the last 2 financial years, which is broadly in line with expectations due to the funding mechanism within this Block.

The Group sought assurances that action was being taken in response to the ongoing overspend in the High Needs Block. Officers provided information on the work of a HNB Provision Task and Finish Group, which had been established to look at issues in this block. It was noted that the Group, involving a number of LCC Heads of Service and the Chair of the HNB Working Group had met on several occasions and devised a number of proposals, many based a detailed analysis of data, which had not been available previously. Examples of best practice both locally and nationally had also been assessed to inform the group's proposals.

The internal LCC approval process for the group's report and recommendations was set out and it was confirmed that the report would be shared with the Forum.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report.

88

4. School Balances and Clawback 2018/19 The final outturn position against schools delegated budgets at 31 March 2019 is an overspend of £1.409m. This means that school balances have decreased by £1.409m in 2018/19, to a total of £42.741m.

Information was provided showing analysis of school balances by phase at the end of the financial year 2018/19, and a copy of the full Schools Balances and Clawback Report 2018/19 is provided as an Appendix to the Schools Block Summary report.

It was noted that one fewer nursery school was in deficit at 31 March 2019 (5 schools) than was the case a year earlier, however, the high level of deficit balance as a small number of schools was highlighted. It was also noted that 2 nursery schools had multi-year deficits and the values involved were significant.

Officers also set out information on the support that was being provided to schools, including those with multi-year budget deficits but it was noted that the financial environment remain challenging across the whole sector, and there was considerable uncertainty for maintained nursery schools about whether the MNS supplementary funding would continue beyond the academic year 2019/20.

Application of Clawback at 31 March 2019 and 2019/20 policy It was noted that the calculation of clawback liability at 31 March 2019 indicated that only 6 schools were at risk of clawback, totalling circa £11k and 2 primary schools had submitted appeals.

As the level of funding at risk of clawback at 31 March 2019 is relatively small, with each of the schools identified only marginally above their balances threshold in each case, any clawback income will not make a meaningful contribution to reserves.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the overall position of school balances at 31 March 2019 and the individual school level information provided in the report; c) Noted the ongoing work to stabilise the financial position at maintained nursery schools; d) Recommended that the application of clawback at 31 March 2019 be suspended, due to the relatively small amounts involved and in recognition of the overall financial pressures across the school sector; e) Recommended that the existing school balances and clawback arrangements continue to be applied at 31 March 2020.

5. Schools Forum Annual report 2018/19 Each year the Schools Forum publishes an annual report setting out items of business in which the Forum has been involved.

A draft Forum Annual Report for 2018/19 was provided and a copy is attached as an Appendix to the Schools Block Recommendations report.

89

In discussions, the positive relationship between the County Council and all schools and early years providers in Lancashire was highlighted.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended to the Schools Forum that the 2018/19 Annual Report be approved for publication.

6. Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) 2018/19 and 2019/20 SFVS is a statutory requirement for all maintained schools and currently consists of 25 questions which governing bodies must formally discuss annually with the head teacher and senior staff.

Each year the Chief Finance Officer is required to report to the DfE the number of eligible schools which have failed to submit their return along with confirmation that there is a system of audit in place for schools which gives adequate assurance over their standards of financial management and the regularity and probity of their spending.

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

2018/19 Returns The above policy was again applied to the 2018/19. All returns have been received without the need for a pre-warning notice. The SFVS assurance certificate showing 100% returns compliance has been signed by Angie Ridgwell, Chief Executive of the County Council and returned to the DfE.

Analysis of Returns As per DfE guidance the local authority uses schools’ SFVS returns to inform their programme of financial assessment and audit.

SFVS 2019/20 For 2019/20, the DfE are updating the SFVS. The tool can be used to identify possible areas for change to ensure that resources are being used to support high-quality teaching and the best education outcomes for pupils and is in two parts:

 A checklist, which asks a number of questions of governing bodies in six areas of resource management to provide assurance that the school is managing its resources effectively (similar to the current SFVS);  A dashboard, which shows how a school's data compares to thresholds on a range of statistics that have been identified as indicators for good resource management and outcomes.

90 In order to support school leaders with the new requirements the Schools Financial Services team (SFS) are planning a series of briefings throughout the county late summer term and early autumn term. (It was noted that a number of these sessions are now fully booked and further sessions are planned for the autumn term). To provide consistent messages and guidance the sessions are intended for headteachers, governors and business managers to attend together and will focus on: o the requirements of the new Schools Financial Value Standard 2019/20; o the data used to complete the new checklist and dashboard; o how to use the results from the dashboard; o the respective roles and responsibilities of Governors and School Staff in completing the Schools Financial Value Standard; o where to access additional support and guidance.

As a traded service SFS will need to charge for these sessions. However, the Forum was asked to consider the approval the previous policy whereby governor attendance is paid for by the Forum for schools which purchase the annual governor services training programme

Members noted that the national benchmarking data available on the dashboard element of the new SFVS was not as well developed for nursery schools as it was for other schools. When DfE had attended the full Schools Forum to demonstrate the dashboard, representations had been made about this and about whether data for PVI benchmarking could be made available.

Officers agreed to raise this issue with the DfE at future national and regional events.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the continuation of the current SFVS returns timescale and sanctions policy; c) Supported the proposed funding arrangements for governors attending the briefing sessions; d) Noted that officers would raise the nursery benchmarking issue at future national and regional events with DfE.

91 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 4 July 2019

Item No 9

Title: Recommendations of the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group

Executive Summary

On 13 June 2019, the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group considered a number of reports around Apprenticeship Levy Finance, including:

 Transfer of Unspent Levy Funds Update;  Teacher Qualification Update;  Apprentice Ambassadors;  Finance Position;  Engagement with Schools;  Part time Learners.

Recommendations

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group held on 13 June 2019; b) Ratify the Group's recommendations.

92 Background On 13 June 2019, the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group considered a number of reports around Apprenticeship Levy Finance. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.

1. Transfer of Unspent Levy Funds Update Since the last Apprenticeship Levy meeting, ESFA have updated the rules about the transfer of unspent Levy funds, which means that the transfer can now be up to 25% from 10%, which equates to circa £368,000 in Lancashire.

However, the previous proposal to utilise the transfer to support aided and foundation schools in Lancashire has not been able to proceed as the vast majority of the aided schools in Lancashire use BTLS payroll services and therefore have the same payroll number as LCC on a pooled payroll system.

The Apprenticeship Levy Team has made a number of representations to the ESFA and LGA about this issue, which is common across many LAs, but thus far, there has been no change to the original ESFA decision which excludes organisations with the same payroll reference from being considered a separate organisation, even though this is clearly the case legally. Further representations are continuing and contact has been made with 15 aided/foundations schools in Lancashire that are not part of the BTLS payroll system to identify if support can be offered.

The views of the group were also sought about whether the transfer could be extended to help support academies and Early Years PVI providers. Members understood the arguments both for and against this proposal, but on balance felt that it was better to use the unspent funding for the benefit of Lancashire young people, rather than it being returned to central Government. The level of funding to be used for this purpose would be limited by the transfer rules and priority would always be given to Levy paying schools, if a time arose where funding began to be tighter.

The Group suggested that their recommendation should be considered at the full Schools Forum meeting on 4 July 2019, which would also allow time for the Apprenticeship Levy Team to check any legal or practical issues with the proposal.

2. Teacher Qualification Update The Team are continuing to investigate a Teacher L6 Apprenticeship, with the following features:  Level 6 Degree Including QTS  A Postgraduate route into teaching.  18 Months in Duration  Contains a placement in a contrasting environment  Cost £9000 a year – available via the LCC Apprenticeship Levy

12 schools have expressed an interest predominantly in the primary sector and it was hoped that the qualification may start in April 2020.

Investigations into procuring a provider are continuing.

93 3. Apprentice Ambassadors A small number of school staff had volunteered to become apprentice ambassadors, which involved disseminating information about the apprenticeship experience at careers conventions and the like.

4. Finance Position An update was provided on the finances related to the school levy, including the following key points

 Annual Schools Levy fund approx. £1.4 million  Spend Last Year across Levy schools 17/18 £20,098  Spend This Year across Levy schools 18/19 £319,075  Total spend to date £339,173  Committed spend by schools to date £454,139  Committed spend until March 2024 £3,276,864  New Requests for Funding form received and approved 120  Total value of apprenticeship requests for this window £910,000

It was noted that levy income was still well above expenditure and pressure had been put on the ESFA to look at introducing more school related apprenticeship courses.

The Lancashire financial control system had been held up as an example of good practice nationally, and team members were due to deliver an LGA webinar to share our arrangements.

The Group congratulated the team on their recognition.

5. Engagement with Schools The team have carried out 34 direct schools visits since the last meeting and are directly targeting the remaining levy paying schools that have not yet.

Previously, 84 levy paying schools had not engaged, and this is now down to 44 out of 315

A slot has also been accessed at LASBM.

6. Part time Learners Some issues had arisen with part-time learners accessing courses. In the schools sector these issues had been resolved.

The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the latest financial forecast; b) Congratulated the Apprenticeship team on their national recognition; c) Recommended that their suggestion that the 25% transfer of Levy funds to support relevant training at non-levy paying schools in Lancashire, should be extended to academies and early years PVI providers, in order to prevent unspent funding being returned to central government.(Subject to confirmation of the eligibility of these areas against the Regulations and the practical and resource implications for the Team).

94 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 4 July 2019

Item No 10

Title: DfE Call for Evidence: Funding for SEND and those who need AP

Appendix A refers

Executive Summary

The DfE have launched a call for evidence about funding for SEND and those who need AP. A draft Forum consultation response has been prepared for consideration by the Forum.

Forum Decision Required

The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report; b) Approve the Schools Forum consultation response for submission; c) Agree that the final Forum response is shared with Lancashire Schools.

Individual members are asked to consider submitting a consultation response from their own schools.

95 Background On 3 May 2019, the DfE launched a call for evidence in relation to 'Provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and for those who need alternative provision: how the financial arrangements work'.

The Government indicate that they have received many representations about the adequacy of funding for special needs and understand that the overall amount of funding available is the most pressing concern for many schools and LAs.

It is extremely important that the Call for Evidence provides the DfE with views on specific areas of concern about the funding and financial arrangements that may not be helping to get the most value from the resources available and is intended to help DfE understand how the current available funding is distributed, and what improvements to the financial arrangements could be made in future to get the best value from any funding that is made available.

Information will also feed through into the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, which will determine future funding settlements for education and schools.

Responses must be submitted by 31 July 2019, via an online form. The consultation is available from the link below: https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/funding-for-send-and-those-who-need- ap-call-for-ev/

On 4 June, the Forum Chair's Group met to consider the consultation questions and expressed views to shape a Schools Forum response. Input has also been included from the Forum's FE College representative to the 16-19 sector.

A copy of a draft response is now attached at Appendix A, and the Forum are asked to approve the response for submission to the DfE. Please note that questions 11 – 15 are specifically aimed at responses from schools, so are not answered in the draft Forum submission.

Once approved, the Forum's agreement to share the response with Lancashire schools is sought.

Individual members are also asked to consider submitting a consultation response from their own schools.

96 Appendix A

Provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and for those who need alternative provision: how the financial arrangements work - Call for Evidence

Funding for pupils with SEN in mainstream schools Please refer to pararaphs 3.1 - 3.4 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions. Mainstream schools educate the majority of children with SEN, using funds from their annual budget share (in the case of local authority maintained schools) or annual grant (in the case of academies). When developing the funding formula for mainstream schools, local authorities must ensure that funding is provided to enable schools to meet additional needs of their pupils, including those with SEN and who are disabled.

Funding for SEN through the schools funding formula Local authorities use additional needs factors in their local funding formulae. The new national funding formula also includes factors to reflect the additional needs of a school’s cohort, including deprivation factors such as children from families eligible for free school meals and the attainment of pupils in the prior phase of their education (known as low prior attainment).

We don’t use measures relating directly to schools’ or local authorities’ assessments of pupils with SEN, as these would provide a perverse incentive to over-identify pupils as having SEN.

The following questions seek views on whether the schools funding formula, at both national and local level, could be improved to make sure that schools are receiving the funds they need to provide SEN support.

1. What formula factors are most important in providing schools with enough money to ensure they meet the needs of their pupils with SEN? Please rank the following factors in order of importance with 1 as the most important.

 Age-weighted pupil unit of funding  Low prior attainment†  IDACI†† – a measure of area deprivation  Eligibility for free school meals – a measure of deprivation relating to individual children  Mobility – additional funding for schools that have a high proportion of pupils who start at a school mid-year  Standard lump sum – intended to reflect fixed costs of a school, however many pupils and teachers are required  Other (please add below any other factors you think are important for ensuring that schools get an annual budget that enables them to provide appropriate SEN support)

97

Further comments There is no perfect correlation between formula factors and the funding needed to support children with SEN at individual school level. We acknowledge the benefit of allocating funding using proxy indicators, rather than individual needs assessments, to limit perverse incentives, but we do believe that the current pressures on schools arising from notional SEN type issues are coming to a head because the overall quantum of resources is insufficient to meet all childrens' needs.

On balance we believe that low prior attainment is perhaps the best indicator, followed by deprivation factors. However, even with prior attainment, we would urge that further work is undertaken to improve the assessment process. In addition, we remain of the view that deprivation funding should not be 'double counted' in the overall school funding system and that PPG should be brought into the mainstream funding. This would enable a holistic view to be taken about the appropriate balance between factors.

Funding for SEN through the schools funding formula Please refer to paragraphs 3.5 - 3.12 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

Low prior attainment is an important proxy measure that gives an indication of the number of pupils in a school who have achieved a low level of attainment in their previous phase of education. This has been used in local funding formulae, alongside deprivation measures, for a number of years, particularly as a proxy for the number of pupils with SEN. However, we recognise that prior attainment as a funding factor for SEN has limitations, and will not capture all pupils with SEN.

Nevertheless, we are exploring whether tiering this factor (introducing more than one level of prior attainment to differentiate between those who narrowly missed the standard or were at the bottom of their cohort) might improve our targeting of funding to those with the highest level of need. We would welcome views on this. Any specific proposals for changing this factor in future would be subject to further consultation.

2. Would allocating more funding towards lower attainers within the low prior attainment factor help to better target funding towards the schools that have to make more SEN provision for their pupils? Yes No Unsure

3. What positive distributional impact would this change in approach (e.g. creating tiers of low prior attainment) create for mainstream primary and secondary schools? Comments We think that this is an area where more research may be needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn. Tiering may allow more funding to reach those children most in need of additional support, but it may also deprive some schools of much needed resources where large percentages of a cohort are only marginally below expected attainment levels. The system takes no account of pupils who may be achieving below expected levels for a year group, but that are fulfilling their cognitive ability.

98

If changes are to be made to the formula they would need to be based on strong evidence that they would have a positive impact on overall outcomes for young people and be introduced with appropriate and manageable transition. One of the biggest issues to school budget planning in recent years surrounded the updating of IDACI data for 2016/17, which caused considerable turbulence across school budgets without warning.

4. Would such a change in approach introduce any negative impact for mainstream primary and secondary schools? Comments As above

Targeted funding and support for SEN provision in schools Please refer to pararaphs 3.13 - 3.18 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

Many local authorities make available to mainstream schools additional funding from their high needs budget, to support schools who have more pupils with SEN than the local formula may suggest. Local authorities have budgeted to spend £57 million on this in 2018-19.

We would like to gather views on whether the targeting of extra SEN funding to specific mainstream schools, to take into account their particular cohort of pupils with SEN or disabilities, should be more standardised.

5. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the statements below, and in the comments box give the advantages and disadvantages of your preferred approach. Neither Agree Disagree agree nor disagree

Local authorities should retain the flexibility to develop, in consultation with their schools, their Agree own method of targeting extra SEN funding to schools that need it.

Central government should provide more guidance for local authorities on how they should target extra SEN funding to schools, but local authorities Agree should remain responsible for determining the amounts in consultation with their schools.

Central government should prescribe a consistent national approach to the targeting of additional Disagree funding to schools that have a higher proportion of

99 Neither Agree Disagree agree nor disagree pupils with SEN and/or those with more complex needs. Comments The Forum is aware that many mainstream schools in the County struggle to meet the needs of pupils with additional needs from their Schools Block allocation. This is particularly acute for small schools with little flexibility in their budgets and schools with larger cohorts of pupils with additional needs, some where the needs are below the threshold to trigger an EHC Plan and extra resources. In both these examples, the schools involved are often those with good reputations for supporting and nurturing pupils with AEN/SEN.

Lancashire has adopted the national funding formula as the local formula to distribute Schools Block funding but retains a mechanism for providing some additional resources to schools from the High Needs Block where they trigger certain thresholds.

We believe that it is right for local authorities to retain the flexibility to develop these methodologies locally to target additional SEN resources. Lancashire is a large diverse county and the development of methodologies in consultation with schools and the Schools Forum will allow local differences and priorities to be reflected in the arrangements.

National guidance and examples of good practice would always be welcomed but nationally prescribed solutions can impose practice on LAs that do not provide sufficient flexibility to respond to local circumstances and do not always work on the ground.

There is however considerable pressure on the Lancashire HNB and this is a limiting factor on the allocation of this funding stream and many others. The availability of adequate funding would greatly assist all LAs, schools and SEN pupils.

Notional SEN Budget Please refer to pararaphs 3.19 - 3.24 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

For the last 20 years or so, mainstream schools’ funding has included the identification of a notional SEN budget that is intended to indicate an approximate amount within the school’s overall funding for meeting the costs of the provision for supporting children with SEN (notionally up to £6,000 per pupil).

Some have questioned how meaningful this is for schools, particularly given the range of different approaches local authorities take in calculating the notional SEN budget, and because it is notional and not widely understood, and also taking into account the extent to which schools feel their overall budgets are stretched. Others argue that it is important to have an amount identified so that funding intended for pupils with SEN is

100 not spent on other provision. Currently information about schools’ notional SEN budgets is published.

6. Is it helpful for local authorities to continue to calculate a notional SEN budget for each school, and for this information to be published, as now? Very helpful Somewhat helpful Neither helpful nor unhelpful Somewhat unhelpful Very unhelpful

7. For those responding from a school, who in your school(s) is involved in decisions about spending from the school’s notional SEN budget? Governors Head teacher / principal Senior leadership team SENCO Teachers Other (please comment)

8. Should the national funding formula for schools include a notional SEN budget, or a way of calculating how much of each school’s funding is intended to meet the costs of special provision for pupils with SEN? Yes No Not Sure

Do you have any further comments on the notional SEN budget? The £6,000 threshold Please refer to pararaphs 3.25 - 3.34 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

From 2013-14 the school and high needs funding system was changed to bring in a more consistent approach. Local authorities were required to provide schools with sufficient resources through the formula to meet the costs of their pupils’ additional SEN support up to £6,000. Schools could access high needs top-up funding for the costs of support in excess of this common threshold. In this way schools would have the resources to meet the costs of supporting those with lower level needs, and – through the top-up funding – the excess costs of those with more complex needs.

The arrangements from 2013 were intended to reduce the perverse incentive for schools in some areas to argue for increased costs of support so that they would have the full costs met. The introduction of the £6,000 threshold was also intended to encourage schools to meet lower level SEN without the need to “label” pupils as having SEN either to receive additional funding from the local authority or to drive placement decisions.

We have heard from schools about their increasing difficulties in meeting the costs of SEN support up to £6,000. We recognise that costs have risen since 2013. We want to know whether the difficulties that schools have brought to our attention are simply a reflection of a shortage of funding to meet those costs, or whether the level or operation of the £6,000 threshold needs to be reviewed.

We are therefore keen to hear views on whether the threshold should be altered. Changing the threshold for top-up funding within the current system would mean

101 changes in the distribution of funding between schools funding and high needs funding through the national funding formula and consequent changes in the expectations we would have on the special provision made by schools and local authorities respectively. It is clear, therefore, that we would need to approach any change very carefully, with a clear understanding of the impact, and on how any adverse impact could be avoided.

 A lower threshold would imply schools making a lower level of provision for pupils with SEN before accessing top-up funding from the local authority, but would therefore require more funding from local authorities’ high needs budgets. It has been argued that this would encourage schools to make more provision available for children with SEN because they would be able to access additional resources more readily, and that this would ultimately reduce the demand for special school places.

 A higher threshold would imply schools making more provision for pupils with SEN from their budgets, requiring a higher level of funding allocated through the schools funding formula (and in particular the additional needs factors), before accessing top-up funding. Some think this would be beneficial because it would not only give schools greater control over the available resources, but also reduce the demand on local authorities’ high needs budgets, and possibly reduce the requests for education, health and care needs assessments where these might be sought primarily for financial reasons.

We are also keen to understand whether schools in particular circumstances are finding the £6,000 threshold more difficult to operate than others. If there are this could mean either changes to the operation of the threshold, or changes to the way that local authorities target funding from their high needs budgets. 9. Please indicate whether or not you agree with the following statements.

Agree Not Sure Disagree  The level of the threshold makes little or no difference to the system for making special provision: it is the level of funding available to schools and local authorities that is crucial.

 The £6,000 threshold should be lower, so that schools do not have to make as much provision for pupils with SEN from their annual budgets, before they access top-up funding from the local authority.†

 The £6,000 threshold should be higher, so that schools have to make more provision for pupils with SEN from their annual budgets, before they access top-up funding from the local authority.††

 The operation of the £6,000 threshold should take account of particular circumstances.

102 Agree Not Sure Disagree

More Information †This implies a change in the balance of funding between schools and local authorities, with more going to the latter to support higher levels of high needs top-up funding. ††This implies a change in the balance of funding between schools and local authorities, with more resources going to schools to support higher levels of special provision.

10. If you have agreed with the final statement in question 9, please indicate below which circumstances you think would be relevant for a modified threshold or different funding arrangement. Yes Not sure No  Schools that are relatively small.

 Schools that have a disproportionate number of pupils with high needs† or EHC plans.

 When pupils with EHC plans are admitted to a school during the year, which may create unintended consequences.††

 Other (please specify below)

Comments Provision for pupils with SEN in mainstream schools Please refer to pararaphs 3.35 - 3.40 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

The Children and Families Act requires schools, other providers, and local authorities to co-operate with each other in preparing and publishing the “local offer” of provision and services for children and young people with SEN and disabilities. This must be done working with parents and young people. The local offer should include a description of the SEN support ordinarily available in each school, including primary and secondary mainstream schools, as well as additional services and provision provided by the local authority and other agencies external to the school. In addition, all maintained schools and academies must publish information on their websites about their arrangements for supporting pupils with SEN.

We would like to know more about how well the local offer of special provision is understood and communicated.

11. If you are responding on behalf of a school, do you have a clear understanding about what provision is “ordinarily available” to meet pupils’ special educational needs in your school? Yes No Comments

103

12. How is this determined? On a school-by-school basis As part of a multi-academy trust Part of a whole-local authority approach Part of a cluster of schools

13. How is this offer communicated to parents? School’s published SEN information report Published local offer, Discussions between teacher(s) and parents Discussions between SENCO and parents Other (please specify) If the offer is publicly available, please provide a web link.

14. Does your local authority make it clear when a child or young person requires an education, health and care (EHC) plan? Yes No Not sure

15. How is this articulated? Published local offer, School’s published SEN information report Other publicly available document Unpublished local authority policy If this is publicly available, please provide a web link.

Funding for pupils who need alternative provision (AP) or are at risk of exclusion from school Please refer to pararaphs 4.1 - 4.9 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

Local authorities are responsible for arranging suitable education for children who – because of permanent exclusion, illness or other reasons – would not receive suitable education, without such arrangements being made. Schools arrange AP for pupils through off-site directions to improve their behaviour and for pupils who have been subject to a fixed-period exclusion of more than five school days.

Local authorities are responsible for funding AP they arrange for children who have been permanently excluded from school. Schools usually contribute to or pay the full costs of AP they arrange for pupils who are on their roll. Local authorities can recover funding from schools who permanently exclude a child, but this is rarely the same as the cost of the pupil’s subsequent education in AP.

We are interested to gather evidence about whether current high needs funding arrangements empower local authorities, schools and providers to intervene early for children at risk of exclusion from school, provide high quality AP and take collective responsibility for delivering best value from the funding available from the high needs and schools’ budgets.

104

16. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. Somewh Neither Strongly Somewh Strongly at agree or disagree at agree agree disagree disagree

The current funding arrangements help schools, local authorities and AP to work together and to Strongly

intervene early where such action disagree may avoid the need for permanent exclusion later

The current AP funding arrangements help schools and Strongly AP to reintegrate children from AP disagree back into mainstream schooling where this is appropriate 17. How could we encourage more collaboration between local authorities, schools and providers to plan and fund local AP and early intervention support? Comments Experience suggests that the current model is not effective and a vast majority of children in AP are not reintegrated into mainstream provision. Pressure on AP funding and places is also impacting on the quality of some provision.

Within Lancashire, primary schools and the Schools Forum have been involved in the development of local primary inclusion hubs, aimed at providing local solutions to reduce permanent exclusions. For 2020/21, funding of this model will be the subject of a de-delegation consultation.

Similar solutions are also being investigated in the secondary sector.

This model allows local schools to take more ownership of the issues and to devise local solutions that are right for their localities.

18. What changes could be made to improve the way that the AP budget is spent, to better enable local authorities, schools and providers to use the local AP budget to provide high quality AP, intervene early to support children at risk of exclusion from school, or reintegrate pupils in AP back into mainstream where appropriate?

Comments There is no distinct AP budget within the DSG and AP funding is simply a cost centre within the High Needs Block. When funding is tight, it is often intervention work that must suffer as statutory provision for permanently excluded pupils must take priority. Additional funding within the HNB is key to freeing resources that would allow more innovative, high quality intervention provision to be developed. Early intervention, outreach work and reintegration of pupils are key to the success of the AP system.

105

The funding implications arising from the Timpson review will also impact on the shape of provision for exclusions going forward.

19. Please use the box below to share any examples of existing good practice where local authorities, schools and AP settings have worked together effectively to use the AP budget to provide high quality AP, intervene early to support children at risk of exclusion from school, or reintegrate pupils in AP back into mainstream where appropriate. Comments As outlined above, the local primary inclusion hub model developed in Lancashire, where funding and decisions are devolved to a local level is in its infancy, but early signs are encouraging.

Anything else arising from the HN Task and Finish group??

Funding for students with SEN in Please refer to pararaphs 5.1 - 5.9 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

We would welcome views from colleges, schools and other providers of post-16 education, as well as from local authorities and organisations representing these providers, on any ways in which the operation of the funding system is acting as a barrier to young people’s preparation for adulthood. Evidence from young people and their parents would also be welcome.

Related Information  Comments to Q20-22 have been provided by the Lancashire Colleges High Needs / SEND FE College Group, via the Forum's College representative.

20. Are there aspects of the operation of the funding system that prevent young people from accessing the support they need to prepare them for adult life? Yes No Not sure

Comments

 Not being able to access High Needs Funding without an EHCP with some authorities – we have proven case studies where an EHCP is not in place and where we have worked collaboratively with External professional agencies and the with funding from the Local Authority which has allowed us to put short term support interventions in place – this has meant that longer term funding and statutory assessment are not required. – saving resources and money over the longer term.  In some cases local arrangements for gaining an EHCP or amending the funding (banding) can have a detrimental impact on the College – having to support student to a high level without guarantees that adequate funding will follow the admission of a student – with the financial risk belong to the Further Education provider - this may lead to students not being accepted on programme or subject to delayed starts.

106  Expectation Management – progression and communication with Parents/young people of FE experience – limit repetition of years and transition to supported work, living, social care etc.  Element 2 payments – those over allocation – disproportionate burden on College budgets – some discussion with Local Authorities – though this is becoming increasingly more limited as LA funding pressures increase.  Not having SENDO’s at reviews and consistency of approaches from different SENDO’s.  Banding to be considered nationally for accuracy of High needs figures and funding, with the ability to review at panel if significant change to need in colleges from secondary education.  Colleges requiring the same access to SEQ1 form that the schools have for resourcing equipment.

21. Notwithstanding your views about the sufficiency of funding, please describe any other aspects of the financial and funding arrangements that you think could be amended to improve the delivery of provision for young people with SEN.

Comments  Commissioning Local Authority traded services – advisor services etc. Bureaucratic systems which involve paying the Authority  Hold panels for Special Schools etc. - Colleges to be invited, to ensure appropriate use of public funding is standardised across Lancashire (where we can meet the provision and students are currently being sent to very expensive specialist provision)  To consider the flexibility of unfunded plans (where element 3 is not required) but allows the student the security of the length of time they need in college to be HE/employment ready without the high needs costs (as other LA’s do – acknowledges that progression to next level may need more support – and if a plan in place this is easier and less expensive long term – and better for student – allows much more flexibility.)  EHCP – many converted unnecessarily due to time constraints and not required – need reviews to cease the plan with SENDO attendance  Further utilisation of additional SENDO’s to avoid the outdated legal provision, amend plans more quickly from schools to colleges so the provision is realistic and appropriate -less expensive and ultimately more cost effective  Welcome review of centralised services - and how these are priced  Further investigation and collaborative working needed to avoid the unnecessary burden and volume of mediations and tribunals-getting it right from the start.  SENDO - hard discussions with students - multiple FE experiences (years of study at multiple providers – usually at the same level- no progress).  To Consider - review and plan for progress out of education, especially those over 21+ - priority for SENDOs to attend reviews and further explore transitions out to other agencies/social services/supported living/community etc. (where realistic outcomes have been met-e.g. students from specialist providers).  Colleges to provide training for LCC SENDO’s to fully understand the post 16 arena- and to help shape the writing of EHCP’s in terms of realistic provision and pathways- HE/employment/social inclusion and independent living. Robust

107 pathways worked towards and documented in the plan for realistic expectations for parents and young people to reach the outcomes more quickly  Colleges requiring the same access to SEQ1 form that the schools have for resourcing equipment

 Document Two - Education & Skills Funding Agency High needs funding 2019 to 2020 Operational guide P35 Paragraph 73:- When agreeing rates of top-up funding, a local authority and an institution may wish to reflect economies and diseconomies of scale based on under or over occupancy of places. For example, an institution may have 30 high needs places for which it receives a total budget of £300,000 (30 x £10,000): o in the event that the institution fills 25 places it may agree with the commissioning local authorities to charge a lower rate of top-up funding, to reflect the ‘surplus’ funding arising from its five unfilled places. The nature of pre-16 AP and SEND provision in some institutions means that there may be empty places at some points in the year, such as where diagnosis after the beginning of the academic year leads to later identification and placement o in the event that 35 pupils are placed at the institution, it could agree with the commissioning local authorities a higher top-up funding rate, to reflect the five unfunded places; on the other hand, the additional cost of the 5 extra pupils could be marginal and a significantly higher rate might not be appropriate

1. When considering costs for Element 3 top-up funding P33 Paragraph 81:- Local authorities bear the ultimate responsibility for decisions on top-up funding, as they are accountable for spending from their high needs budgets. In all instances, pupils or students with an EHC plan must have their placement commissioned by a local authority and an agreement should be in place between the local authority and the institution that confirms the amount of top-up funding to be paid. Even where provision is specified in an EHC plan, there is no statutory requirement that a local authority has to pay top-up funding at a particular rate requested by a school or institution.

 This statement in particular underlines the control that the Authorities have in this area.

22. If you are able to provide any examples where local authorities and colleges have worked together effectively to plan provision to meet the needs for SEN support and high needs, please describe these below.

Comments  A deaf student transitioning from New Zealand…..refers to use sign language as her preferred mode of communication as she is fluent in New Zealand (NZL) sign language and she combines it with the use of British Sign Language (BSL).  The student needed a Communication Support Worker to interpret tutor instructions and peer interaction when working in a classroom. She also needed to have consolidation and scaffolding with/of new English terminology. Additional support with BSL production and understanding. Guidance and support with grammatical structure of her assignments and underpinning of English. Application

108 for statutory assessment completed 11/5/18 with excellent response regarding timelines from SENDO prior to enrolment, however no guarantee of funding at this point. EHCP issues 14/9/18 and subsequent appeal to panel for higher level of funding successful with payment received retrospectively for the full year.  A high need looked after student (16-18 without an EHCP) where it was felt that there were unmet needs had element 2 &3 costs agreed to facilitate the required level of support. Throughout the academic year, the Educational Psychologist and Occupational Therapist carried out further interventions and recommended strategies. The student also received out of class support for personal development skills programme “Unlock Ur Potential”. By the end of the academic year the student required much less support and no application for statutory assessment was required;- Social worker – Sarah ***** – *I feel very proud of L******’s transformation since starting college it’s been immense , L***** is now very dedicated and motivated to learning . L***** has progressed so well she has now moved to semi-independent living and is managing budgeting , after using the “ Unlock your potential. “ This was achieved by agreeing funding for a High needs student without an EHCP which some Authorities will not agree to.

Improving early intervention at each age and stage to prepare young people for adulthood sooner Please refer to pararaphs 6.1 - 6.7 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions. We want to understand whether the current operation of the funding system is creating a financial perverse incentive to resist a commitment of resources or restrict the availability of services when problems first arise, when such spending could in fact lead to a longer-term reduction in the complexity of support needed, and so longer- term savings. In a system that is intended to secure outcomes that imply a reducing need for support for many young people, as they prepare for employment and living more independently, it would be perverse if the lack of resources at one stage was leading to increasing costs later.

We are therefore keen to gather evidence on the extent to which financial and funding arrangements are driving the escalation of costs, and preventing those making spending decisions from taking an “invest-to-save” approach that leads to reducing costs in the longer term. If they are, we would appreciate views on how the arrangements could be changed to address this.

23. Are the current funding or financial arrangements making early intervention and prevention more difficult to deliver, causing costs to escalate? Yes No Not Sure

Comments This is a recurring theme throughout this response. The Schools Forum firmly believes that early intervention is the key to reducing HNB costs and providing better outcomes for young people.

One of the fundamental drivers of mounting costs and HNB budget pressures in Lancashire is caused by the escalation of pupils from mainstream education to the AP and special sectors and on to Out-County provision.

109 As mention previously, the pressures on HNB cause a shift to statutory provision at the expense of early intervention initiatives. Places in maintained AP and special schools are full, requiring more expensive places at independent provision to be commissioned. These issues are compounded by budget decreases for the County Council, which reduces the availability of other early intervention support services.

At the same time, flexibility in the use of DSG has reduced meaning invest to save initiatives are difficulty to fund. The ESFA rules mean that no new 'combined budgets' projects are allowable and 'historic commitments' are expected to reduce and cease. Previous initiatives to 'invest to save' on capital expansions of special schools to generate additional places under prudential borrowing rules are no longer permissible. DSG funding must now be accounted for in the funding blocks allocated, whereas previously the Schools Budget could be considered as a whole and there was greater opportunity to tackle funding pressures.

These factors all combine to place an increasing burden on school budgets and reduce the opportunities to target resources at early intervention and prevention initiates.

24. If you can you provide examples of invest-to-save approaches with evidence that they can provide value for money by reducing the costs of SEN support, SEN provision or other support costs (e.g. health or social care) later, please describe these below.

Comments Within Lancashire, invest to save was used previously to increase capacity at a maintained special school, which prevented the need to commission additional places at independent specialist provision and resulted in savings to the out county budget and provided better value for the DSG. The reintroduction of such flexibilities would seem a useful mechanism to enable spiralling costs to be reduced.

The use of combined budgets to fund early intervention support in the county has reduced significantly in recent years but the impact is more difficult to quantify. However, instinctively this would seem a more productive use of limited resources, if it were allowable going forward.

25. If you think there are particular transition points at which it would be more effective to access resources, please indicate below those you believe would be most effective to focus on.

The transition from early years provision to reception class in primary school The transition from Year 6 in primary school to Year 7 in secondary school The transition from secondary school to further or other tertiary education

Please indicate below any other transition points that you think we should look at. All transition points in the education system can generate additional difficulties and pressures. In addition to those listed above, any transitions like in year school moves, placements into AP and reintegration back to mainstream provision can be a pressure

110 point for schools of all type. However, in keeping with the theme of early intervention, we believe a key focus must be around the early years sector and ensuring children are school ready. This would provide children with their best chance of having a good start to their education journey and maximising their chances of reaching their full potential through all the subsequent stages

Effective partnership working to support children and young people with complex needs Please refer to pararaphs 7.1 - 7.8 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

When different organisations are responsible for their own budgets they are of course rightly interested in how best to discharge their responsibilities within the resources available to them. Separate funding streams and budgetary control are an inevitable feature of a complex landscape of provision, based on different legislation. This, however, can create barriers which discourage the partnership working that is essential for meeting the needs of those children and young people with SEN and who are disabled, and others with complex needs. Furthermore, conflict between budget holders can increase when budgets are tight and flexibility to move funding is reduced.

We would like to explore potential developments in funding arrangements that would overcome these barriers, empower effective collaborative working that can meet the complex needs of children and young people, and encourage budget holders to:

 share their resources and use appropriate pooling arrangements to most effectively meet the complex needs – and improve the outcomes – of children and young people (without arguments over who should pay for what);

 avoid taking inappropriate action to pass costs on to others, where this simply moves the cost pressures elsewhere and does not help to address the problem;

 strengthen joint leadership and strategic commissioning of services.

26. Please describe as briefly as possible below changes that you think could be made to the funding system nationally and/or locally that would foster more effective collaborative approaches and partnership arrangements.

Comments The Schools Forum recognises the barriers and difficulties to effective partnership working set out in the consultation document, particularly when funding is tight.

We would encourage a solution that looked to link relevant budgets and organisational structures at a national level, to minimise many of the challenges that are encountered in the current system, with its separate budgets, priorities and organisational demands. Funding decisions could therefore be taken in the round, with the needs of the children at their heart.

Locally, increased flexibility around the use of DSG funding would be of assistance in allowing a more collaborative approach. The availability of real time funding would

111 also allow partners, particularly schools, to act with more confidence in entering into collaborative arrangements with other partners.

Other aspects of the funding and financial arrangements Please refer to pararaphs 8.1 - 8.4 of the call for evidence document before responding to these questions.

We are aware that the amount of funding that is allocated to the Department for Education, and the amount that the department allocates to local authorities and others, is very important for making good quality provision for our most vulnerable young people. Securing a sufficient amount of funding for education in future, will remain a priority for the department.

But we want to make sure that there is nothing in the funding and financial arrangements, irrespective of the level of funding, that is creating barriers to informed decision-making in the best interests of children and young people.

It would also be helpful to have views on those aspects of the current system that are actively helping the right decisions to be made, so that we can make sure that they are not changed.

27. Are there any aspects of the funding and financial arrangements, not covered in your previous responses, that are creating perverse incentives?

Comments The key theme of the Forum response is to shift additional funding to early intervention and prevent escalation to more expensive forms of provision which seems incentivised by the current funding system. Anything that assist in this process will be welcomed.

28. What aspects of the funding and financial arrangements are helping the right decisions to be made, both in securing good provision for children and young people with additional needs, and in providing good value for money? Combining previously separate funding streams at the DfE/ESFA should help with strategic decisions around education funding and with aligning and streamlining processes and key points in the funding cycle.

Sharing of good practice nationally from evidence based surveys and research reports have proved valuable in recent times.

112