’ SCHOOLS FORUM

Acorn House, 381 Midsummer Boulevard MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 12 JANUARY 2017 AT 3.00 PM

PRESENT: Primary School Representatives Lizzie Bancroft – Loughton Manor First School Christine Ryan – Cold Harbour C of E School

Primary School Governors Janet Haines – Oldbrook School (alternate for Kirk Hopkins) Paul Hussey – Bradwell Village Primary School (Chair) Antony Moore – Giles Brook School Jake Yeo – Bushfield School

Secondary School Representative Tracey Jones – Lord Grey School

Secondary School Governor Paul Herbert – St Pauls Catholic School

Academy Representatives Neil Barrett – Stephenson Michelle Currie – Walton High Jane Edwards – Heronsgate School Glen Martin – Shenley Brook End Andy Squires –

Academy Governors John Howe – Denbigh School Dave Moulson –

14-19 Partnership Amy Tremble – (alternate for Lindsey Styles)

Church of Diocese Kieran Salter – Diocesan Authority – St Mary and St Giles C of E School

Northampton Catholic Diocese Michael Manley – Diocesan Authority

Trade Union Representative Anita Richards – NUT Divisional Secretary

LA OFFICERS: Michael Bracey – Corporate Director - People Marie Denny - Head of Delivery, Education Sufficiency and Access Natasha Hutchin – Deputy Finance Manager Caroline Marriott – Head of Delivery, SEN and Disability Penni Powers – Finance Manager - Children and Families Nicky Rayner – Service Director – Children and Families

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 1

LEAD MEMBER: Councillor Zoe Nolan

OBSERVERS: Michelle Hibbert – Principal Accountant, Schools Bob Seaman – Northamptonshire County Council

CLERK: Sue Puddifoot – Governor Support - Children and Families

SF 619 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES Item 1

The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. Apologies for absence had been received by the clerk from:

Francis Grant – Great Linford School Finlay Douglas – White Spire School Natalie Fowler – Knowles Nursery School Lynne Johnson - Pre School Learning Alliance Ian Tett –

Ian Northover – Heronshaw School had resigned from Schools Forum.

SF 620 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Item 2

Michelle Currie declared that although she represented a secondary academy, she was also Chief Executive Officer of MKET (Milton Keynes Education Trust) and therefore had an interest in all areas due to the variety of schools in the trust.

SF 621 MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING Item 3

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2016 were agreed as an accurate record, subject to the following alterations:

Minute SF 611 - Page 4, fourth paragraph, first sentence to read ‘Schools Forum members discussed the options presented and understood why reducing the formula by 1.5% was necessary but some objections were raised’.

Minute SF 614 - Page 7, penultimate paragraph, alter ‘38/52’ to ‘38+’.

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

SF 622 BUDGET MONITORING 2016/17 (Natasha Hutchin) Item 4

The purpose of this item was to advise Schools Forum of the period 9 budget monitoring position for 2016/17.

Natasha Hutchin explained that there had only been one month of movement since the last report and therefore the position was similar to that presented in December 2016.

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 2

The original budget deficit of £100k was now forecast to be £1.027m, £0.928m greater, but this was a slightly improved position from December.

The table in 3.4 gave the key variations; there had been a small reduction in rates bills and in the High Needs Central Spend. All were aware of the pressures on the budget, particularly the High Needs Independent placements.

Schools Forum noted the latest outturn position as reported for period 9.

SF 623 SCHOOLS BUDGET 2017/18 (Penni Powers) Item 5

The purpose of this report was to agree the distribution of the Schools Budget for the financial year 2017/18.

Penni Powers explained, with the help of a presentation handout, that the 2017/18 financial position was looking more favourable as the National Funding Formula was looking positive for Milton Keynes. The December estimate for unit rates had been looking at a 1.5% reduction but this would now only be a 0.5% reduction on all unit rates. The pressures in High Needs funding, growth and no inflationary increase on the DSG were countered by a £1m increase to the High Needs Block for 2017/18, MFG reducing and the deficit being recovered over two years. £0.5m had been expected for High Needs but the additional £0.5m was welcomed, and was based on estimated population growth.

Given that the Conditions of Grant had now been published, it was possible to have a phased recovery of the deficit over two years. Previously it had been anticipated that this would have to be fully recovered in the first year. This would be subject to Schools Forum agreeing that the deficit would be the first call on the DSG for 2018/19. The announcement around the National Funding Formula had indicated that the financial position would improve in future years. The gain was expected to be 3.4% in 2019/20 but would be capped to 1.8% in the first year (2018/19). Based on data provided by the EFA, the average school gain was anticipated at 2% for the primary sector and 5.4% for the secondary sector.

For High Needs in 2018/19, no funding would be lost under the National Funding Formula although a further baseline exercise may address some of the imbalance. Therefore, Milton Keynes would gain under the Schools Block with no change to the High Needs Block. There would also be a Strategic Planning Fund of up to £129k for the local authority to review High Needs provision.

Penni apologised for the delay in circulating papers for this item but timescales in receiving information and preparing reports had been tight. Annex E gave an overview of the whole budget position and it was explained that Schools Forum would be voting on items 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8 in the report.

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 3

It was pointed out that the local balance of funding per pupil between the primary and secondary sectors was 1:1.27 and the National Funding Formula proposed to move to the national average of 1:1.29. It was also noted that the Early Years unit rates would be confirmed by the end of March 2017.

Annex E gave the Budget Summary and showed that for 2017/18, there would be an in year surplus of £713k with £314k recovered in the following financial year.

There had been discussion on removing the mobility factor at previous meetings, however this factor was now included in the National Funding Formula, therefore it was not proposed to make any changes to the Milton Keynes funding formula factors. Unit funding rates were proposed to be reduced by 0.5% and the primary lump sum reduced from £135k to £133k, with the funding released being added to the primary pupil AWPU.

Annex A outlined the DSG estimate for 2017/18. DSG blocks were not currently ring-fenced and funding could be moved between blocks. The conditions of grant were also included.

Annex B detailed central expenditure, other than High Needs. Section 1.2 explained that local authorities may include the following budgets, with the agreement of Schools Forum, for central services:

 Admissions  Schools Forum  Former ESG Retained Duties  Miscellaneous

Section 1.3 explained the CLA and MPA Licence Fees budgets must be included, in consultation with Schools Forum.

Items in sections 1.4 and 1.5 may be included, with the agreement of Schools Forum:

 Independent School Fees  Growth Fund  Growth Fund Early Years Providers  Early Years Inclusion Fund  Early Years Central Expenditure

It was noted that Independent School Fees had been reduced to zero in the December budget but had now been included at £50k.

Annex B3 detailed the Early Years Growth Fund Allocations and there was currently only one known scheme in this category.

Annex B4 gave the Growth Fund criteria for schools and the accompanying spreadsheet detailed the allocations school by school. There were a total of 1245 growth places across all schools. New school

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 4

places were guaranteed to be funded for two years and the spreadsheet included the number of vacant protected places. For September 2017, 30 places at primary and 30 places at secondary would be held as unallocated to take account of any changes in admissions.

A view was required on how to move forward regarding Annex B5, Growth Allocations for Walton High – Brooklands Campus. This was not included in the budget at present and therefore protecting these 51 places would increase costs by £230k and require the reduction of the funding unit rates by a further 0.25%.

Annex C outlined the High Needs Central Expenditure. There was additional funding in the High Needs Block used to support the increase in the number of places. The Independent Special School fees budget had increased, reflecting the current placements.

Annex D included details of the Individual Schools Budgets with D3 giving the proposed unit rates and Annex D4 detailing the number of high needs places that were being commissioned.

Annex F detailed the Government Grants for 2017/18. Full details were not yet available and were expected to follow from the DfE in January 2017. Pupil premium amounts would be based on information in the January 2017 census. Therefore the 2016/17 rates had been used at this stage.

Discussion

School Forum members then held a robust discussion on the information presented, raising the following points and questions:

Growth Funding  Referring to Annex B4 it was noted that Whitehouse Primary would be growth protected for nearly £0.5m for the second year with Fairfields due to open in September. It was explained that this was based on October 2016 numbers and the school had opened in September 2016. These vacant places would reduce as pupils came in throughout the year. Marie Denny explained that the school was admitting children into five single year groups from Years R-4 and the numbers of houses in occupation was increasing. A further 16 children had been admitted since the census day. Admissions were taking place on a daily basis. In this way the school was able to grow slowly in line with the local development with no pressure on neighbouring schools. Around 100 out of area pupils had been turned down to protect the effect on existing schools and their budgets, therefore the growth fund was doing the job for which it was intended. Marie clarified that the pupils at Whitehouse Primary were from the Whitehouse development but this certainly would not be the case if the growth fund protection was not in place.  How was the Growth Funding used? Mainly on staffing for up to

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 5

30 pupils in each year group. Occupation was increasing due to the significant pace of development. As a result of ongoing discussions, the number of Fairfield places had reduced and the IfTL Multi Academy Trust had agreed not to open a Year 4 class in its first year of opening, reducing the draw on the growth fund from 150 places to 120 places in the first year and second protected year.  It was pointed out that the second year growth protection totalled £850k at a time the total budget was running a £1m deficit. Michael Bracey indicated that this subject had generated a difference of opinion but growth was expensive. The local authority had always had this model of slow growth and the size of the development on the western flank equalled that of Newport Pagnell. The growth protection could not equal zero.  Primary members pointed out that admissions on a daily basis required staff in place to carry out induction. Adjacent schools would have suffered if admissions had not been handled in this way as it would have had a hugely disturbing impact on other schools in the area. There was no easy way to achieve growth. Vertical grouping would involve shifting throughout the year. The priority had to be the quality of education for individual children.  Was there double counting? New pupils were not on the census and others would be funded through the DSG.  It was noted that there had been 118 applications for school places in the last two weeks of August 2016 for new starters. This was a lot to manage.  The school community wanted ordered growth and if this was not the case there could be chaos.  The growth fund operated alongside an admissions policy that encouraged admissions to be in line with demand from the local development. For example, there was a PAN of 5 for Whitehouse Primary, which was exceeded under exceptional circumstances for children moving into the new development without a school place to allow for slow planned growth. Other applications were turned down as the PAN had been reached. Parents could appeal if they did not agree with the decline of a place.  Growth was funded by top-slicing the DSG. The National Funding Formula indicated that Milton Keynes would get growth funding, although it was not yet clear how much that would be, any increase would be a bonus.

Annex E  The Schools Block was not currently ring fenced and a Central Services expenditure section had been included.  The Schools Block was not going direct to schools as it was covering the High Needs Block overspend.  In future the Schools Block would be ring-fenced and if movement between Blocks was needed in 2018/19, this would only be with the agreement of Schools Forum.  The deficit was due to the overspend on the High Needs Block, particularly Independent Special School Fees.

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 6

 Central Services had come from the Schools Block. (Early Years and High Needs had their own central expenditure allocation)  Overspend was supported by the Schools Block and a grant of £128k would be received to look at High Needs use to see how it could become self-sustaining.  Were there more planned placements and were they needed?  Additional funding was only known just before Christmas. When the Blocks were ring-fenced under the National Funding Formula there would be no options to change but funding would be made available so that all local authorities could get their budgets under control.  Other Forum members agreed that the Schools Block had been funding central expenditure and High Needs and it should not be the first call on the Schools Block to write off debt but the whole DSG.  An effort had been made to reduce High Needs expenditure but further reduction would require extra support from the whole school community.  Following discussions at meetings of Milton Keynes Secondary Headteachers, one member stated they could not support the cut to funding for schools next year.  Could increases be phased in when the larger element came in?  Times had changed and schools had cut budgets and made redundancies. High Needs should be covered in other ways other than from the Schools Block.  While no Headteacher wanted a cut in budgets, the allocations referred to the needs of the children in Milton Keynes. Quality of education should be maintained for all, including High Needs. Care should be taken in jumping to ring fencing blocks as this would not address different patterns of need.  Was there a lack of financial discussion on whether the financial demands from Independent Special Schools were reasonable. Other providers charged £23 per day for secondary places and the PRU averaged at £60 per day.  Times were changing and the situation was tough but in carrying forward a deficit, there were two years to get through without making the situation worse.  Special School expenditure was three times that of mainstream and this would not be recovered in a year, especially with ring fencing.  Out of area special school places costs had increased. Growth funding was planned. There was no plan to ensure High Needs costs would not increase again. Why was there no Growth Fund in the High Needs Block? Caroline Marriot explained there was a review of inclusion and the approach to inclusion when pupils could not have their needs met in mainstream schools. A robust approach was taken in the allocation of Independent Special Schools. Assessment of the quality of placements and value for money was carried out. Pupils were expected to make progress. There was a specialist post on managing placements and there had been new, unexpected placements necessary. SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 7

 Levels of high need, including complex need, could not be predicted. Milton Keynes had seen a 13% rise in High Needs where nationally this was 4%.

Central Expenditure  In annex B1, section 1.4 referred to independent school fees, these were not SEN so what did they refer to? Nicky Rayner explained that this referred to cases such as looked after children who may be placed in a children’s home. There were no such placements at present and the allocation would only cover the education part as the rest would be covered from other budgets e.g. Health and Social Care.  Early Years inclusion, previously funded from the High Needs Block had been moved so that it now came from the Early Years Block.  Regulations currently stated that licences came out of the Schools Block and these were accessed by all mainstream schools. Under the National Funding Formula there would be a Central Services Block, which is where this type of expenditure would be charged, so in future this would not be an issue.  Admissions were included but schools had to maintain their own admissions list. Penni Powers explained that an admissions budget had been set in 2013 at £372k and no increase had been allowed since. Expenditure in 2016/17 would be £559k. Marie Denny explained that in year admissions were offered free of charge to all admissions authorities as it was in the best interests of children to offer a central point of co-ordination. In this way admissions of new children moving into Milton Keynes could be monitored to ensure education was received and appropriate safeguarding was in place. The point was made that schools doing more of their own admissions should make this cheaper but Marie explained that schools not joining in actually caused more difficulties and made the system less efficient and more confusing for parents.  Budgets had been set, knowing they were wrong, what are we changing? What are we doing to be more efficient?

Walton High – Brooklands Campus  Referring to recommendation 2.4 and Annex B5, growth criteria had already been set so did this section refer to a change or a different interpretation. Michelle Currie explained that there was a different interpretation by Walton High and she distributed further information and a response.  Schools Forum members were uncomfortable in dealing with such business without time to fully consider the information being presented.  Was it possible to vote on items if the Blocks were not accurate. Time was required to consider different models or combination of models further.

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 8

Michael Bracey reminded Schools Forum that they were an advisory body and that Councillor Nolan was in attendance to represent views to the Council on the budget. Fundamental changes to the High Needs Block could not be recommended. Special School headteachers and governors would have a view. School Forum decision making was set in regulations.

Penni Powers explained that the timescale was tight as a return had to be submitted to the EFA by Friday 20 January 2017.

Schools Forum members should give the view of their sector. It was asked if it were possible to not increase the High Needs Block as much. Work had already been done in placing children and top-ups would pick up costs of current children and new placements. This aspect could not be decreased without further review. Independent Special School places would decrease over time but children could not be moved. Central services had decreased significantly over the years. If Schools Forum did not agree with the Local Authority’s proposal on central services, the DfE would adjudicate.

Michael Bracey pointed out that in 18 months Schools Forum may not exist due to a range of issues. It was appropriate to say that expenditure on High Needs was too much but it could not be changed at this point and would need conversations with Special Schools and other High Need providers. A £128k grant was to be given by government to review how to reduce High Needs costs. Inclusion would be an option.

An opinion was expressed that the AWPU should not be reduced as it was needed for students already in the system. High Needs had not felt reductions and mainstream schools had. Penni Powers pointed out that top-up rates had been cut by 0.5%.

The Chair was now conscious of the length of time taken on discussion and called members to vote: (two members had left the meeting during the discussion)

2.1 Schools Forum noted the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) gross estimate of £231.4m for purposes of setting the Schools Budget for 2017/18 as set out in Annexes A1 and A2.

RESOLVED 2.2 Schools Forum agreed the Central Expenditure Budgets for 2017/18 as set out in Annexes B1 and B2 individually:

For admissions £557k:

In favour 7 Against 5 Abstentions 4

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 9

For Schools Forum £36k:

In favour 8 Against 0 Abstentions 8

For Former ESG Retained Duties £670k:

In favour 8 Against 5 Abstentions 3

For Miscellaneous £20k:

In favour 7 Against 4 Abstentions 5

For Independent School Fees £50k:

In favour 0 Against 12 Abstentions 4

For Growth Fund: This item was deferred due to the late submission of the papers from Walton High. It was noted that item 2.3 did require a vote. See also 2.4.

For Growth Fund Early Years Providers £100k:

In favour 9 Against 0 Abstentions 7

For Early Years Inclusion Fund £205k:

In favour 11 Against 0 Abstentions 5

For Early Years Central Expenditure £397k:

In favour 9 Against 0 Abstentions 7

RESOLVED 2.3 Schools Forum agreed the 2017/18 criteria and allocations from the Growth Fund as set out in Annex B4.

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 10

In favour 11 Against 1 Abstentions 4

2.4 As referred to above, the item on the payment of additional growth fund support to Walton High - Brooklands Campus was deferred to the next meeting to allow consideration of the late submission of the papers from Walton High.

2.5 Schools Forum noted the Central Expenditure budgets for High Needs pupils and students for 2017/18 as set out in Annexes C1 and C2.

2.6 Schools Forum noted the unit rates for the Primary and Secondary School Funding Formula as set out in Annex D3.

2.7 Schools Forum could not endorse the proposed utilisation of the 2017/18 DSG as set out in Annex E due to the range of views expressed during the lengthy discussion, which officers would take on board.

RESOLVED 2.8 Schools Forum agreed that the deficit on the DSG as at 1 March 2018 be the first call on the DSG of 2018/19. The reference to “Schools Block” was removed from this recommendation prior to the vote.

In favour 14 Against 1 Abstentions 1

SF 624 DFE FUNDING FORMULA CONSULTATIONS (Natasha Hutchin) Item 6

The purpose of this item was to receive the report on the recently issued DfE consultations on the National Funding Formula for Schools, High Needs and Other Reforms.

Natasha Hutchin referred to the slides in the pack and informed Schools Forum that the deadline on the second stage of the consultation was 22 March 2017. Officers would engage with the reference groups, members, and others. Schools were encouraged to respond on an individual basis.

In 2019/20 the National Funding Formula would apply to all schools as a ‘hard’ formula and it was anticipated that this would involve 32 schools losing funding but caps would be in place in the first year (2018/19) to dampen the losses. 70 schools would see no change or a gain. Types of schools that would lose were smaller schools (due to a reduction in the lump sum), primary schools (due to a change in balance of funding) and growing secondary schools that did not yet have any KS4 pupils.

The mobility factor could be retained and in 2018/19 local authorities would be encouraged to make changes in their local funding formula to align rates to the National Funding Formula.

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 11

No local authority would see a reduction in High Needs as a result of the formula and there would be a new Central School Services Block.

For the future, there would be further consultation on precise arrangements for the hard formula. There would also be consultation on the role of Schools Forum under the National Funding Formula. A further baseline exercise on 2017/18 planned spend was expected this year. Recoupment for free school places would start in September 2017.

Schools Forum noted the report.

SF 625 UPDATE FROM SUB-GROUPS OF THE SCHOOLS FORUM Item 7

The minutes of the meetings of the sub-groups were noted:

Schools Reference Group – 15 December 2016 Early Years Reference Group - 24 November 2016

The High Needs Reference Group had not met since the last Schools Forum meeting.

SF 626 MEMBERSHIP AND CONSTITUTION (Michael Bracey) Item 8

The Primary PRU had been approached to replace their representative and a replacement primary schools member would be sought to replace Ian Northover. Action - SP

SF 627 FORWARD PLANNING Item 9

Issues to be considered by Schools Forum and dates of meetings for the coming year are detailed below:

23 March 2017

- Budget Monitoring - Detailed arrangements for High Needs pupils - Scheme changes

29 June 2017

- Provisional Outturn DSG - LA Maintained School Balances at 31/3/2017 - Section 251 Budget Statement - Schools Budget Setting - Schools in Financial Difficulty Contingency - Monitor use of Pupil Growth Fund

12 October 2017

7 December 2017

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 12

All meetings 3pm – 5pm

SP 628 INFORMATION Item 10

Schools Forum members expressed concern that information needed to be distributed earlier, however, on this occasion dates were compressed and the DfE data had only been received on 22 December 2016. School Forum members had been made aware of the tight timescales at the December meeting. Officers had prepared papers as soon as possible.

The meeting closed at 5.25pm

SCHOOLS FORUM 12 JANUARY 2017 PAGE 13