Herefordshire Schools Forum

Date: Monday, 13th October, 2008

Time: 9.00 a.m.

Place: Council Chamber, Brockington, 35 Hafod Road, Hereford HR1 1SH

Notes: Please note the time, date and venue of the meeting.

For any further information please contact:

Paul Rogers, Democratic Services Officer, Tel. 01432 383408 E-mail. progers@herefordshire.gov.uk

Herefordshire Council

HEREFORDSHIRE COUNCIL 13TH OCTOBER, 2008

AGENDA for the Meeting of the Herefordshire Schools Forum

To: All Members of the Herefordshire Schools Forum

Pages

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive apologies for absence.

2. NAMED SUBSTITUTES (IF ANY)

To receive any details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Forum.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

4. MINUTES 1 - 6

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 3rd July 2008.

5. LATE ITEMS/ANY OTHER BUSINESS

To consider any issues raised as either a late item or any other business.

6. MEMBERSHIP OF THE FORUM

(a) The Constitution of the Forum states that ‘Any Member missing three consecutive meetings of the Schools Forum without a reason acceptable to the Forum, will cease to be a Member’.

In this respect, Mr S Thompson, PRU representative, has not attended the last three Forum meetings and accordingly has been approached regarding his continued Membership.

The reason for Mr Thompson’s non-attendance is that he has been on a two year secondment with Herefordshire Council’s School Improvement Service as a Behaviour and Attendance Consultant with the Children and Young People’s Directorate which has caused difficulty for him attending Forum meetings. The secondment has now ended and he has returned to his post as Headteacher. Mr Thompson would, therefore, wish to continue his Membership and attendance at Forum meetings.

The Forum is, therefore, requested to revue the continuance of Mr Thompson’s Membership taking into account the reasons for non- attendance.

(b) Similarly, Mrs C Woolley, Secondary School Governor, has not attended the last three meetings and has been approached regarding continued Membership.

Mrs Woolley has indicated that due to personal circumstances she has not been able to attend but would like to continue her membership.

The Forum is, therefore, requested to revue the continuance of Mrs Woolley’s Membership taking into account the reasons for non-attendance.

7. SCHOOLS FUNDING 2009/10 7 - 22

To consider a report on the discussions of the Budget Working Group on the 12th September regarding the initial budget proposals for the Schools Budget 2009/10 and to update the LMS scheme in line with government statutory guidance.

8. SCHOOL BALANCES 2007/08 23 - 28

To consider a report on changes in school balances and the impact of falling rolls.

9. SCHOOL BANK ACCOUNTS 29 - 42

To consider a report on how bank accounts for schools could be developed further following the request from Schools Forum in June 2008.

10. DELEGATION OF BANDED FUNDING AND SUPPORT SERVICES 43 - 70

To report on the consultation process for the proposal to delegate funding for high incidence Special Educational Needs and associated advisory learning and behaviour services.

11. SCHOOL BASED BUSINESS MANAGERS 71 - 74

To consider a report which advises the Schools Forum of the bids submitted to support the development of school based business managers in school clusters.

12. EARLY YEARS FUNDING REFORM FOR THE FREE ENTITLEMENT TO 75 - 90 EARLY EDUCATION

To consider a report on draft proposals for the introduction of a funding formula as required by the statutory early years funding reform for the free entitlement to early education and to set out proposals for consultation with schools with maintained nurseries and early years settings in the private, voluntary and independent sectors. This together with a social deprivation funding factor is in line with Department of Children’s Schools and Families policy requirements.

13. SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS 91 - 116

To consider a report with a view to establish the key steps to delivering renewed Service Level Agreements with schools, to take effect for the financial year 2009/10.

Your Rights to Information and Attendance at Meetings

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO: -

• Attend all Council, Cabinet, Committee and Sub-Committee meetings unless the business to be transacted would disclose ‘confidential’ or ‘exempt information’.

• Inspect agenda and public reports at least three clear days before the date of the meeting.

• Inspect minutes of the Council and all Committees and Sub-Committees and written statements of decisions taken by the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members for up to six years following a meeting.

• Inspect background papers used in the preparation of public reports for a period of up to four years from the date of the meeting. A list of the background papers to a report is given at the end of each report. A background paper is a document on which the officer has relied in writing the report and which otherwise is not available to the public.

• Access to a public register stating the names, addresses and wards of all Councillors with details of the membership of Cabinet and all Committees and Sub-Committees.

• Have a reasonable number of copies of agenda and reports (relating to items to be considered in public) made available to the public attending meetings of the Council, Cabinet, Committees and Sub-Committees.

• Have access to a list specifying those powers on which the Council have delegated decision making to their officers identifying the officers concerned by title.

• Copy any of the documents mentioned above to which you have a right of access, subject to a reasonable charge.

• Access to this summary of your rights as members of the public to attend meetings of the Council, Cabinet, its Committees and Sub-Committees and to inspect and copy documents.

• Access to this summary of your rights as members of the public to attend meetings of the Council, Cabinet, Committees and Sub-Committees and to inspect and copy documents.

Please Note: Agenda and individual reports can be made available in large print. Please contact the officer named on the front cover of this agenda in advance of the meeting who will be pleased to deal with your request. The meeting venue is accessible for visitors in wheelchairs.

A public telephone is available in the reception area.

Public Transport Links

• Public transport access can be gained to Brockington via the service runs approximately every half hour from the ‘Hopper’ bus station at the Tesco store in Bewell Street (next to the roundabout junction of Blueschool Street / Victoria Street / Edgar Street).

• The nearest bus stop to Brockington is located in Old Eign Hill near to its junction with Hafod Road. The return journey can be made from the same bus stop.

If you have any questions about this Agenda, how the Council works or would like more information or wish to exercise your rights to access the information described above, you may do so either by telephoning Mrs Christine Dyer on 01432 260222 or by visiting in person during office hours (8.45 a.m. - 5.00 p.m. Monday - Thursday and 8.45 a.m. - 4.45 p.m. Friday) at the Council Offices, Brockington, 35 Hafod Road, Hereford.

COUNTY OF HEREFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

BROCKINGTON, 35 HAFOD ROAD, HEREFORD.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

In the event of a fire or emergency the alarm bell will ring continuously. You should vacate the building in an orderly manner through the nearest available fire exit. You should then proceed to Assembly Point J which is located at the southern entrance to the car park. A check will be undertaken to ensure that those recorded as present have vacated the building following which further instructions will be given. Please do not allow any items of clothing, etc. to obstruct any of the exits. Do not delay your vacation of the building by stopping or returning to collect coats or other personal belongings.

AGENDA ITEM 4

HEREFORDSHIRE COUNCIL MINUTES of the meeting of Herefordshire Schools Forum held at Committee Room 1, Shirehall, Hereford on Thursday, 3rd July, 2008 at 9.00 a.m.

Present: Julie Powell (Chairman)

Church Members (none)

Primary School T Edwards, R Thomas and Mrs G Thompson Representatives

Secondary Sara Catlow-Hawkins and J Docherty Representatives

Special School (none) Representatives

14 to 19 Representatives (none)

Teacher Representatives C Lewandowski and Mrs A Prichard

Parent Governor (none) Members

Early Years Mrs A Jackson and Mrs R Lloyd Representatives

In attendance: Councillor PD Price

39. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs S Bailey, J Barry, J Godfrey, N Griffiths, Ms T Kneale, Rev. I Terry, Councillor S J Robertson, D Williams, G Williams and Ms S Woodrow.

40. NAMED SUBSTITUTES (IF ANY)

There were no substitutes.

41. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

42. LATE ITEMS/ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chairman referred to the following late item which would be considered at the end of the Agenda:

(i) Review of Children and Young Peoples Services Finance Function.

43. MINUTES

RESOLVED: That subject to the following amendments, the Minutes of the meeting held on the 2nd June 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman:

(i) the names Ms S Woodrow, S Thompson and Mrs S Bailey be deleted from the attendance record; and

(ii) the words ‘Mr Lewandowski informed the Forum that interest on balances for non-cheque book holding schools were paid into the Council’s General Fund’ be inserted after the second paragraph in Minute No. 35.

The Chairman informed Members that this would be the last meeting that Mr Lewandowski and Rev. I Terry would be attending. She thanked them both for all the hard work they had given to the Forum.

44. CAPITAL PROGRAMME

Consideration was given to a report which presented the draft Asset Management Plan for comment and approval for wider consultation.

Mr R Reid, School Planning and Access Manager, informed the Forum that the established capital spend budget for the next three years was £80 million and is set out in the following table:

Project £ Million

Minster Building Schools for the Future 20 Hereford Academy 20 Devolved Formula Capital for Schools 11 Primary Strategy 8 ICT Harnessing Technology 4 Voluntary Aided Schools Programme 3 14-19 Agenda 8

Total 74

The remaining £6 million balance would be split equally over 3 years at £2 million per annum with £1.2 million spent on the Capital Maintenance Programme and £0.8 million committed to Riverside school. He referred to the issue of the allocation of money in the past and that this had not been fully transparent. He emphasised the need to remedy this with an asset plan and that this needed to be shared with all the schools. The Asset Management Plan (AMP) was the starting point in the process.

At the request of a Member, Mr Reid agreed that he would circulate in writing, details of the capital budget for the next three years for Members information.

Mr D Powell, Head of Financial Services, informed the Forum that he would endeavour to ensure that the AMP is linked to the Council’s plan for schools for the future. He made reference to ensuring that future capital bids to the Department of Children, Schools and Families are well presented with a view to achieving a full

allocation for all the bids. He emphasised the link to Cabinet and the submission of updates on some of the content of the AMP.

A Member referred to the difficulty schools have in complying with the guidance on Asset Management Plans which is over complicated.

Mr Reid stated that the AMP does not need to be complex. It was not mandatory for schools to have an AMP but that it was advisable from the Council’s point of view to have one in place.

RESOLVED: That

(a) the draft Children and Young People’s Directorate Asset Management Plan Principles Document be agreed and circulated for wider consultation; and

(b) details of the capital budget for the next three years be circulated in writing for Members information.

45. VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT(VLE)

Consideration was given to a report which advised the Forum of progress on establishing a virtual learning platform for learners in Herefordshire to deliver the Government’s E-Learning strategy. It requested approval for allocation of grant to schools, approval of the virtual learning environment (VLE) platform arrangements and the arrangements for ICT support for schools.

A number of points were discussed including a Member’s concern at the percentage of families that do not have internet access at home and was this problem being considered.

Mr Peters informed the forum that internet access at home was being considered nationally by the Department of Children, Schools and Families providing access through extended schools and libraries. This was an institutionalised response but did not fully address the problem of individuals without network access at home.

A Member asked if a school did not use the first year grant, could it be utilised in the second year. Mr Green, Finance Manager, informed the Forum that the first year grant would have to be spent by August 2009.

A Member asked whether the ICT support for schools would be co-ordinated between Children’s Services and the Council’s ICT department.

Sharon Menghini, Director of Children’s Services, stated that the Council would be endeavouring to achieve transition support by working through the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with schools so that Services are fully coordinated. Full SLAs for the VLE project would be prepared and issued to schools.

A Member referred to the funding formula set out in paragraph 3 and asked if Herefordshire Association of Secondary Headteachers (HASH) had discussed the issue.

Sara Catlow-Hawkins informed the Forum that HASH had not discussed the formula.

The Member was concerned that about the ICT capacity and the need for schools to have the sufficient finance to implement the VLE.

The Forum accepted the security benefit for storing the VLE pupil data on school servers. However, this would require greater initial ICT costs particularly for the High schools which the grant allocation was designed to meet.

RESOLVED: (a) That Council be recommended to approve

(i) almost 98 per cent of the harnessing Technology Grant (HTG) be devolved to schools and the grant allocations for schools be as follows (as set out in paragraph 11 of the report):

• Secondary Schools - £26,250 flat rate plus £27 per pupil • Primary Schools - £3,550 flat rate plus £27 per pupil • £25,000 of the HTG be retained for maintaining central servers

and the grant strategy for future years as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the report be approved so that the higher base allocation for High schools (as set out in (i) above) is gradually reduced to the same level as the base allocation for Primary schools.

(ii) the signing of the contract with Netmedia to provide the on-line learning platform with a 12 months review of the contract;

(iii) the publication of Service Level Agreements to schools for traded ICT services from Children and Young People’s Directorate and Corporate Services to support the development of on-line learning and on line management information; and

(b) That the Forum notes the development of Service Level Agreements for base budget Children’s and Young Peoples Directorate ICT services and agree consulting with schools with schools in the autumn on further delegation of these services from April 2009.

46. DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT

Consideration was given to a report which informed the Forum of the final Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) settlement for 2008/09.

Mr M Green, Finance Manager, reminded Members that at the last meeting the Forum had deferred consideration of the balance of the DSG under spend, being £499,000, until the final grant settlement was known. In view of the favourable settlement, this being an additional DSG increase of £112,000, it was proposed that the balance for distribution to schools be £449,000 at £20.50 per pupil. In accordance with the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) pilot scheme bids, he recommended that the remaining £50,000 from the carry forward figure be retained for funding the pilot scheme. The Forum asked for a more detailed report of the NCSL project for the October meeting.

Mr Green further informed members that he was in possession of a provisional list of other local authorities under spends on DSG which indicated that the majority were between £700,000 and £800,000 under spent.

The Chairman thanked Mr Green for his work on this matter.

A Member referred to the NCSL business manager pilot programme, and asked was there any information which indicated who has ownership of the copyright of any potentially publishable materials. Also was there any possibility of schools receiving income from the project because many other authorities were now selling such materials to generate an income.

RESOLVED: That Council be recommended to approve

(a) an additional allocation to schools of £20.50 per pupil from the carry forward from 2007/08 (total allocation £449,000);

(b) agreement in principle be given to £50,000 being retained for funding the National College for School Leadership school business manager pilot programme subject to consideration of a report at the next meeting of the Forum; and

47. REVIEW OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S SERVICES FINANCE FUNCTION

Consideration was given to a report on the review of the financial management arrangements with Children’s Services.

Mr D Powell, Head of Financial Services, presented the report and as background he made reference to the Crookall report on ICT services. He emphasised that the review of Children and Young People’s finance had been extensive and involved

interviews with officers as well as Headteachers. The Children and Young People’s Services budget was a high risk area involving a large sum of money including Dedicated Schools Grant and that there was a need to make improvements. He referred to the strengths of the service and the significant improvements which had already been made by Malcolm Green. There were however, further areas which needed review and these were highlighted in paragraph 8(b) of the report. He referred to the role of the Schools Forum and the benefit of additional meetings together with reports from relevant service heads for greater strategic leadership. There was wider engagement with senior managers in the Children and Young People’s Directorate to take these initiatives forward. He was also looking to change the model of service by increasing finance officer support to each school which was referred to in paragraph 12 of the report. This may have financial implications for schools if the model of the service delivery changes. He was also of the view that schools should have the opportunity of having their own bank account with their own cheque books. He stated that there will be a consultation document about the new structure by the end of August and this would be shared with schools.

The Chairman emphasised the need that schools are given details of the review as soon as possible and commented that more support for schools would require extra money.

Members discussed the need for additional Forum meetings and recognising the decision at the June Forum meeting to increase the frequency of meetings to six per annum. It was accepted that a further meeting of the Forum in late February 2009 was advisable.

RESOLVED: that the contents of the report be noted and that a further Forum meeting be scheduled for late February 2009.

The meeting ended at 11.03 a.m. CHAIRMAN

6 AGENDA ITEM 7

SCHOOL FUNDING 2009/10

REPORT BY MALCOLM GREEN, FINANCE MANAGER

SCHOOLS FORUM 13TH OCTOBER 2008

Schools Affected

All schools Purpose

To report on the discussions of the Budget Working Group on the 12 th September regarding the initial budget proposals for the Schools Budget 2009/10.

To update the LMS scheme in line with government statutory guidance. Financial Implications The final proposals, when approved, will determine the allocation of the circa £85m Dedicated Schools Grant.

Report

1. The proposals considered by the Budget Working Party on the 12 th September are attached as Appendix 1. They should be self explanatory and are designed to meet the budget reductions necessary due to loss of DSG due to falling rolls. The proposals were also discussed a briefing meeting on 16 th September for those members of the working party who were unable to attend on the original 12 th September meeting.

2. Schools Forum is invited to consider the each of the recommendations of the working party in detail and to give further guidance to allow the preparation of detailed budget proposals by the Budget working party at their next meeting on 7 th November prior to presentation a budget paper to Schools Forum in December.

3. Additionally there are two additional technical items that Schools Forum needs to consider as follows;

a. The Herefordshire Scheme for Financing Schools needs to be updated in accordance with legislation to include three additional paragraphs on the Financial Management Standard and the Financial Notice of Concern. The standard paragraphs set out by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) are set out in Appendix 2. It is usual to incorporate the DCSF suggested wording in it’s entirety unless there are differences in local practice that are superior.

b. An historic payment to Leominster Infants School for their special needs assessment unit should be formally brought into the school funding formula. The payment represents additional costs to Leominster Infant school on the transfer of the assessment unit from Westfield Special School in 2004. An

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Malcolm Green, Finance Manager 01432 260818. 7 additional lump sum payment will need to be added to the school’s base allocation if the payments are to continue.

Recommendations

a. That each recommendation of the Budget Working Party be considered in detail and further guidance be given to the working party as necessary so that a detailed budget proposal can be prepared for consideration by Schools Forum at the next meeting;

b. That schools be consulted on the adoption of the of the additional paragraphs required by DCSF into the Herefordshire funding scheme from April 2009;

c. That Leominster Infants School be consulted on the continuation and incorporation of the additional payment for the special needs assessment unit into the funding formula from April 2009.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Malcolm Green, Finance Manager 01432 260818. 8 FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008

Dedicated Schools Grant - Budget Proposals 2009/10 Appendix 1

Schools Forum Budget Working Party

16 th September 2008

Introduction

1. Dedicated Schools Grant is calculated multiplying by a fixed rate per pupil by the number of pupils in schools and nurseries on the January PLASC census day. Based on the Government’s pupil figures there is a loss of 684 pupils between January 2008 and 2010. This is an average loss of 342 pupils per year equivalent to a -1.5% reduction per year. This is consistent with the actual loss of pupils from Jan 07 to Jan 08.

2. One less pupil means £3,687 less in the DSG (based 08/09 funding rates). However, on average only £2,500 is “saved” from Individual School Budgets leaving £1,187 to be found from elsewhere. If the reductions in pupil numbers disproportionately affect primary schools then budget reductions will be greater because the “savings” in primary school

9 budgets are only £2,000 per pupil leaving a shortfall of £1,687 per pupil. An annual reduction of 342 pupils will mean budget cuts of £406,000 (i.e. 342 x £1,187) are required each year in addition to direct cuts in school budgets from falling rolls. Overall pupil numbers are projected to continue to fall until 2018 at the same rate (-1.5% per year) and therefore it is likely that on-going savings will be required for the foreseeable future.

3. The Budget Working Group was tasked to develop a strategy for containing this level of budget reductions on an on-going year by year basis. This will include a revi ew of the curriculum protection factor for small schools including a redefinition of a small school to be used in the formula.

4. Set out below is a list of possible budget reduction proposals for DSG for 2009/10 for the working party’s consideration and comment. Each option sets out the principle underlying the budget proposal so that Forum can accept or reject the principle and only then consider the budget implications.

5 Shown separately are options for small schools protection which the working party has explored previously but has sought to redistribute any savings to other schools.

6. Discussion and agreement of options to go forward to Schools Forum on the 13 th October is requested.

FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008

1. Principle: Central DSG Budgets are reduced in line with falling rolls for 2009/10 i.e. 1.46% (from Jan 07 to Jan 08)

Budget 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £’000 Savings Savings Savings £’000 £’000 £’000 1.46% savings on Central DSG budget 6,347 93 91 90

1.46% savings on Early Years 3 and 4 year olds 2,898 42 41 40 – savings on falling pupil numbers in PVIs. 1.46% savings on Schools SLAs 1,921 28 28 27 (includes broadband and insurances)

Note: The cost of SLAs will fall as pupil numbers reduce in schools –is this intended to be an additional reduction?

Working Party Recommendation 1:

10 a Agreed that the broad principle of reductions in central service budgets should be in line with falling rolls. Requested that detailed proposals be developed for further consideration at the next working group on November 7 th and these draft budget proposals would be debated at Schools Forum in December. Accepted that some central service budgets would be difficult to reduce, for example, Joint Agency Management of out county special school places, PRUs, SEN (which is subject to separate consultation proposals).

b That revenue savings arising from the £1.1m investment in the schools broadband network should be retained in schools and not contribute to the central DSG savings target. (note: it is estimated that SLA savings are possible of approx £100k on the schools network).

2. Principle: Central DSG Budgets are reduced by a “catch-up” percentage for 2008/09 to reflect past reductions in pupil numbers i.e. a further 1.46% (from Jan 07 to Jan 08)

Budget 20 09/10 2010/11 2011/12 £’000 Savings Savings Savings £’000 £’000 £’000 1.46% savings on Central DSG budget 6,347 93 0 0

1.46% savings on Early Years 3 and 4 year olds 2,898 42 0 0 FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008

1.46% savings on Schools SLAs 1,921 28 0 0 (includes broadband and insurances)

Note: detailed proposals for achieving savings in central services will need to be developed for discussion at a future meeting if the principle is accepted as it may not be possible to achieve savings in all budgets e.g. Out-county special school placements.

Working Party Recommendation 2:

Considered that this principle was very much an extension of item 1 above and that central savings would very much depend on the detailed proposals to be considered at the next working group. Ideally savings of between 1.46% and 3 % could be found. The challenge is to find new ways of working with reduced budgets.

3. Principle: prepare LA nurseries for per pupil funding in line with PVI nurseries from place led funding to per pupil funding for LA nurseries from September 2009 to governors maximum opportunity and notice of changes for the new academic year

11 Budget 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £’000 Savings Savings Savings £’000 £’000 £’000 Continue to fund LA nurseries at £2,587 per pupil 649 67 48 0 led funding from September 2009 ( Note: Full year effect £115k from April 10)

Working Party Recommendation 3:

Reluctantly agreed the basic principle of making savings from vacant nursery places on the introduction of the new early years funding formula. (Note: an initial consultation meeting with Headteachers of schools with nursery classes on 17 th September requested changes to the early years funding formula so that all nursery classes would maintain their current funding levels).

4. Principle: Target schools with excessive revenue balances above the Ofsted guidelines to provide a contribution to the DSG budget.

FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008

Budget 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £’000 Savings Savings Savings £’000 £’000 £’000 Limit carry forward of excess balances to 90% of 133 120 100 amount above Ofsted guidelines. Breakdown by sector is Primary £64k, Secondary £61k, Special £9k. .

Examples of individual schools are

Primary school balance £142k clawback £3k High school balance £410k clawback £21k Primary school balance £134K clawback £3k High school balance £324k clawback £10k Primary school balance £94k clawback £0k High school balance £105k clawback £0k Primary school balance £58k clawback £2k Special school balance £81k Clawback £4k Working Party The amount of clawback depends on size of Recommendation 4: school and the total balance carried forward

12 Agreed that this wasn’t a budget issue but in view of the increase in school balances in 07/08 the working party requested that options be developed to further tighten the balance claw-back scheme and restrict revenue transfers to capital.

Please note : DCSF approval is required for the LMS Scheme change to implement this proposal. Can it be applied to balances at March 31 st 2009 without greater notice to schools?

5. Principle: achieve DSG savings in specific services wherever possible

Budget 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £’000 Savings Savings Savings £’000 £’000 £’000 West Midland Traveller Service from 154 18 12 0 September 2009 (note: Full year effect estimated to be £30k)

Note: additional work will be needed to identify further services if extra savings are required.

FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 Working Party Recommendation 5:

Pleased to see this proposal to reduce costs for the traveler service and wanted to see more details in due course of the proposed new service and cost reductions. It was accepted that the first step is to give notice for effect in September 2009.

6. Principle: freeze on PVI nursery funding which in effect is 2.5% saving

Budget 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £’000 Savings Savings Savings £’000 £’000 £’000 Freeze on PVI nursery funding 2,856 71 71 71

Working Party Recommendation 6:

Given Herefordshire’s low funding position (147 th /149 authorities) and that our payments to PVIs are amongst the highest 13 nationally, the working party considered that funding to PVIs should be at least frozen at 2007/08 levels or possibly even cut further. More information on PVI payment rates by neighbouring shire counties were requested for consideration at the next working group.

7. Schedule of total possible savings FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Comments Savings Savings Savings £’000 £’000 £’000 1 .Reduce Central budgets for 09/10 163 160 157 2. Apply “catch-up” reduction to central budgets 163 0 0 May not be achievable in 1 st year? 3. Take savings from under occupancy in LA 67 48 0 nurseries – depends on Early Years formula 4. Claw-back of “excess” balances above Ofsted 0 0 0 Schools may reduce %’s. – not long term proposal. balances 5. Savings in specific services e.g. West 18 12 0 More work needed Midlands Traveller service on other services 6. Continue freeze on PVI funding rate 71 71 71 482 291 228 TOTAL POSIBLE SAVINGS

14 Less redistribution to schools -82 0 0

Share of unidentified savings to be found from 0 115 178 individual school budgets

Net Savings –details to be identified 406 406 406 Working Party Recommendation 7:

a That the budget claw-back option be deleted from the savings table to show a true reflection of the impact of the savings on school budgets. The revised table ( set out above) shows that whilst budget savings for 2009/10 may be achievable depending on the detailed proposals for central service reductions and decisions on PVI funding, it looks likely that there will be an increasing “funding gap” in later years. Although there is a national review of DSG funding it is unwise to rely on Herefordshire receiving a large increase in DSG.

b Schools Forum be asked to consider further the possibility of budget savings in local authority funded services such as discretionary school transport and school improvement being used to provide extra funding to schools

c It was accepted that further budget increases would probably be required for banded funding if the proposals to delegate bands 1 & 2 did not proceed and that this would worsen the overall budget position.

FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 Note: Banded Funding

The savings identified above exclude any consideration of Banded funding. Assuming the delegation proposals for Bands 1 &2 proceed then no further savings are required. If the delegation of banded funding does not proceed then further budget increases will possibly be required. This can either be met by reducing banded funding rates or additional savings as set out above.

8. Principle: Small Schools Protection

Better targeting small schools protection funding by reducing the differential per pupil between large and small schools particularly those smaller schools with a higher than average out of catchment pupil percentage drawn from nearby urban areas. Savings can only be phased in dependent on the Minimum Funding Guarantee set by DCSF.

Options: Budget 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £’000 Savings Savings Savings £’000 £’000 £’000 (a) 10% reduction in small schools protection Primary 672 67 60 55 15 Secondary 286 29 26 23

(b) better target on in-catchment pupils only – note payment rate could be increased so that savings are limited to £96k each year for example.

Primary 672 315 0 0 Secondary 286 174 0 0

(c) reduce size of small schools: Year 1 Primary 200→ 175→ 150→ 125 672 150 152 135 Secondary 655 → 575→ 500→ 450 286 97 81 52

(d) redistribute savings on pupil numbers to . all schools e.g. savings from option (a) at £5per primary -96 -86 -78 pupil and £3 per secondary pupil e.g. savings from option (c) at £6 per primary -247 -223 -187 FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 pupil and £10 per secondary pupil

Note the Minimum Funding Guarantee will protect schools’ budgets and ensure savings are only fully realized over a number of years.

Working Party Recommendation 8:

a The working party asked for proposals to be developed that revised the definition of a small school as set out in option (c) and that any savings would be redistributed to all schools. In Herefordshire it was accepted that a small school should be smaller than the national context and would be fewer pupils than the school size currently set out in the existing small schools protection formula. It was accepted that there is scope to change the existing formula. It may be better to design a revised formula that simply allocates small schools protection allowance to only those really small schools that must be maintained given the sparsity of Herefordshire’s rural geography;

16 b During further discussions on modeling options for protection for small schools, it was suggested that a detailed formula review be undertaken by an external party. The intention would be to draw on best practice in other local authorities and to ensure a fair allocation of funding between primary and secondary schools. Schools Forum is asked to consider allocating additional funding (say £25k) from next year’s budget to engage such a review.

(Note: it is doubtful that such a formula review in itself would identify additional funding for schools since DSG is allocated by government and the Minimum Funding Guarantee would make implementation difficult in anything but the longer term. However there would be overall benefits as there has been no fundamental review of the Herefordshire schools funding formula since it was taken over from Hereford and Worcester in 1998 and it was dated even then as it originated in the early ‘90s).

9. Central DSG Budgets/Services – for information

Section 52 Budget Table 1 2008/09 Gross Income Net 1 SCHOOLS BUDGET (e) (f) (g)

1.0.9 Expenditure for Education of Children under 5s in Private, voluntary/ independent settings 2,955,160 0 2,955,160 1.2.1 Provision for pupils with SEN (including assigned resources) 1,314,554 0 1,314,554 1.2.2 Provision for pupils with SEN, provision not included in line 1.2.1 1,357,740 0 1,357,740 1.2.3 Support for inclusion 245,825 0 245,825 FIRST DRAFT FOR SCHOOLS FORUM BUDGET WORKING GROUP 16 TH SEPTEMBER 2008

1.2.4 Fees for pupils at independent special schools & abroad 2,448,343 292,571 2,155,772 1.2.7 Inter-authority recoupment (25,070) 0 (25,070) 1.2.8 Contribution to combined budgets 0 0 0 1.3.1 Pupil Referral Units 895,483 0 895,483 1.3.2 Behaviour Support Services 67,322 0 67,322 1.3.3 Education out of school 283,053 0 283,053 1.3.4 14 - 16 More practical learning options 48,303 0 48,303 1.3.5 Central expenditure on Education of Children under 5s 459,470 0 459,470 1.4.2 Free School Meals - eligibility 15,850 0 15,850 1.5.2 Museum and Library Services 3,370 0 3,370 1.5.3 School admissions 175,788 0 175,788 1.5.5 Miscellaneous (not more than 0.1% total net SB) LEA Pool 87,666 87,666 1.5.6 Servicing of schools forums 8,160 0 8,160 1.5.7 Staff costs - supply cover (not sickness) 37,613 0 37,613

17 18 Extract of DCSF Scheme for Financing Schools Appendix 2

2.3.1 Submission of Financial Forecasts

The authority may require schools to submit a financial forecast covering each year of a multi-year period for which schools have been notified of budget shares beyond the current year.

LAs should consider the extent to which such forecasts may be used for more than just confirming schools are undertaking effective financial planning or not. For instance: they could be used as evidence to support the LA’s responsibility for declaring their schools’ adherence to the Financial Management Standard in Schools and/or used in support of the LA’s balance control mechanism. However, the requirement to submit a financial forecast should not place undue burdens on schools and should be proportionate to need. In requesting such forecasts LAs should state the purposes for which they intend to use this forecast: such a forecast may be used in conjunction with a LA’s balance control mechanism.

2.15 Financial Management Standard

The scheme must include a provision that imposes a requirement on specific phases/groups of schools, as defined from time to time by the authority, to demonstrate achievement of and maintain the Financial Management Standard in Schools (FMSiS) as published by the DfES. Such demonstration may be by compulsory external assessment or by a local authority defined process.

The text for this provision is set out below. The Department will be willing to consider variants on this.

All maintained schools must demonstrate compliance with the DfES’ Financial Management Standard in Schools in line with the timetable determined by the authority, and at any time thereafter.

The authority may require schools to demonstrate compliance through the submission of evidence showing that the school has undergone an external assessment. External assessment must be carried out by the authority or by a third party that has been approved to carry out such assessment by either the DfES or the local authority.

This model scheme allows a local authority to set out clearly the expectations on schools and to require external assessment where necessary. The scheme may also describe how the costs of such external assessment must be met including stating that such costs must be met from school budget shares.

The Financial Management Standard & Toolkit (FMS&T) was developed and released to schools as a self-management package in June 2004. The standard and toolkit is available at:

1 19 http://www.ipfbenchmarking.net/consultancy_dfes_update/

As local authorities will be responsible for declaring their schools’ adherence to the Standard, it will be up to them to decide how that compliance is delivered. The evidence to support the declaration is a matter for the CFO's judgement - it need not rely on formal FMSiS assessment of every individual school.

This provision is designed to assist local authorities in getting compliance with FMSiS, by allowing them to impose a requirement on schools to demonstrate achievement of and maintain the FMSiS, and to declare external assessment of the standard compulsory for their schools.

If schools do not have an external assessment, a review of their self-assessment may provide the LA with the appropriate information to make a judgement. CFOs will of course also take account of relevant comments in the reports of auditors, advisers and inspectors, of budgetary and accounting performance, and of any other relevant information available. Where schools are subject to a local authority-led assessment of the standard the local authority should set out clearly what such an assessment will entail. Where a school chooses to gain external assessment of the standard, despite it not being a requirement of the local scheme, such external assessment should, unless there are exceptional circumstances, be accepted in place of the local authority led assessment.

2.16 Notice of concern

The scheme must include a provision that allows the authority to issue a notice of concern to any of its maintained schools. Model text is provided below but the Department will be willing to consider alternative wording, including any additional conditions, prohibitions or limitations a local authority considers to be relevant in support of a notice of concern.

The authority may issue a notice of concern to the governing body of any school it maintains where, in the opinion of the Chief Finance Officer and the Chief Education Officer/Director of Children’s Services, the school has failed to comply with any provisions of the scheme, or where actions need to be taken to safeguard the financial position of the local authority or the school.

Such a notice will set out the reasons and evidence for it being made and may place on the governing body restrictions, limitations or prohibitions in relation to the management of funds delegated to it. These may include:

• insisting that relevant staff undertake appropriate training to address any identified weaknesses in the financial management of the school;

• insisting that an appropriately trained/qualified person chairs the finance committee of the governing body;

• placing more stringent restrictions or conditions on the day to day financial management of a school than the scheme requires for all schools – such

2 20 as the provision of monthly accounts to the local authority;

• insisting on regular financial monitoring meetings at the school attended by local authority officers;

• requiring a governing body to buy into a local authority’s financial management systems; and

• imposing restrictions or limitations on the manner in which a school manages extended school activity funded from within its delegated budget share – for example by requiring a school to submit income projections and/or financial monitoring reports on such activities.

The notice will clearly state what these requirements are and the way in which and the time by which such requirements must be complied with in order for the notice to be withdrawn. It will also state the actions that the authority may take where the governing body does not comply with the notice.

The purpose of this provision is to enable a local authority to set out formally any concerns it has regarding the financial management of a school it maintains and require a governing body to comply with any requirements it deems necessary. The principal criterion for issuing a notice, and determining the requirements included within it, must be to safeguard the financial position of the local authority or school.

It should not be used in place of withdrawal of financial delegation where that is the appropriate action to take; however, it may provide a way of making a governing body aware of the authority’s concerns short of withdrawing delegation and identifying the actions a governing body should take in order to improve their financial management to avoid withdrawal.

Where a local authority issues a notice of concern the scheme must provide for the notice to be withdrawn once the governing body has complied with the requirements it imposes.

In placing this provision in their scheme, a local authority may wish to consider the way in which a dispute between it and the school it is issuing a notice to regarding any aspect of the notice may be resolved.

3 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 8

SCHOOL BALANCES 2007/08

REPORT BY MALCOLM GREEN, FINANCE MANAGER

SCHOOLS FORUM 13TH OCTOBER 2008

Schools Affected

All schools

Purpose

To report on changes in school balances and the impact of falling rolls.

Financial Implications There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

Report

1. Schools Forum at the June meeting asked for more information showing balances by school and details of revenue transferred to capital. Additionally members asked whether the increase in school budgets had been affected by falling rolls.

2. This detailed information is set out in Appendix 1. The following trends are shown clearly in the data;

a. School revenue balances have reduced from 17% of school budgets in 2004/05 to 8% of school budgets on 2007/08. The reduction has been more marked in primary schools with a fall from 17% in March 2005 to 8% in March 2008. High schools have fallen from 7% in March 2005 to 5% in March 2008.

b. Primary school balances have reduced from £4.9m in 2004/05 to £3.2m in 2007/08, a reduction of £1.7m. High school balances have largely remained static at £2m.

c. It is interesting to note the significant percentage increase in school budgets from 2004/05 to 2007/08 of 22.5% for primary schools and 26.6% for high schools. This is despite falling rolls and is much greater than overall inflation for the period of 10% (say 2.5% pa over a four year period).

d. The evidence suggests there may be a correlation between the reduction in pupil numbers and the reduction in balances. Many schools have both fewer pupil numbers and smaller balances.

e. Pupil numbers have reduced by 1,494 over the 4 years from Jan 2004 to Jan 2008, equivalent to a loss of 373 pupils per year. The reduction in primary schools (7%) is slightly greater than in high schools (5%). This annual reduction is consistent with the budget planning assumptions for 2009/10.

f. It is difficult to identify any definite patterns in the increase in school budgets on a per pupil basis however the average increase per pupil for the 15

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Malcolm Green, Finance Manager 01432 260818. 23 primary schools on the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) is 2.51% whilst the overall primary average is 4.45%. This supports the operation of the MFG regulations. Schools on the MFG will have received higher budgets in the past and therefore do not receive the full benefit of budget increases whilst this protection is in place.

g. Transfers from revenue to capital were as follows

i. Primary total £356,000 from 29 schools at an average of £12,263

ii. Secondary total £319,000 from 5 schools at an average of £63,844

iii. Special total £17,500 from 2 schools at an average of £8,750

Full details are listed as Appendix 2. The Budget Working Group will be considering in more detail the transfer from revenue to capital

Recommendations

That the trends in school balances be noted.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Malcolm Green, Finance Manager 01432 260818. 24 Appendix 1

REVENUE TO CAPITAL TRANSFERS 2007/08

Bredenbury (E0105) £14,255 Bridstow (E0106) £13,330 Burley Gate (E0111) £3,785 Clehonger (E0113) £22,500 Eardisley (E0119) £20,000 Eastnor (E0120) £1,000 St.Mary's Fownhope (E0122) £2,567 Garway (E0123) £7,000 Holmer Primary (E0128) £2,000 Our Lady's Primary (E0133) £2,000 St. Francis Xavier (E0134) £2,000 Trinity Primary (E0138) £20,000 St. James, Kimbolton (E0142) £3,618 Kingsland (E0144) £11,568 Kingstone & Thruxton (E0145) £17,000 Kington Primary (E0146) £20,000 Ledbury Primary (E0148) £52,392 Leintwardine (E0149) £3,018 Ivington Primary (E0152) £9,336 Llangrove Primary (E0154) £13,519 Longtown (E0155) £10,000 Peterchurch Primary (E0167) £10,500 St. Joseph's, Ross (E0169) £18,000 Shobdon (E0171) £14,000 Staunton-On-Wye (E0172) £19,500 Stoke Prior (E0173) £500 Walford Primary (E0176) £27,000 Wellington (E0177) £5,000 Whitchurch (E0181) £10,251 TOTAL PRIMARY £355,639 AVERAGE PER PRIMARY £12,263

Aylestone High (E0301) £60,000 Wyebridge (E0303) £66,035 St. Mary's High (E0304) £15,000 John Masefield (E0308) £38,024 John Kyrle (E0311) £140,159 TOTAL HIGH £319,218 AVERAGE PER HIGH £63,844

Barrs Court (E0500) £10,000 Blackmarston (E0501) £7,500 TOTAL SPECIAL £17,500 AVERAGE PER SPECIAL £8,750

25 26 Appendix 2

Summary Summary Summary Summary Balances at Summary Balances at Balances at Balances at end of Balances at end of end of CC School Name end of 2004/05 2004/05 end of 2007/08 2004/06 2007/08 Pupil Numbers Pupil Numbers Four Year Percentage % age of % age of Change in Change in % Budget 07- On Comparison of change in Jan 08 inc Vith School Budget Jan 04 inc Vith School Budget Fall in pupil fall in pupil Revenue School Revenue School revenue Change in of school 08 %age inc guarantee pupil no's change in form & nursery 08-09 form & nursery 04-05 Numbers numbers Balance Budget Balance Budget balances balances budget per pupil or not balances excl bands 2008/09 % £ % £ % £ % % pupil no's % balances % E0100 Almeley Primary 80 277,675 60 169,086 20 33 22,401 13% 31,566 11% 9,166 41 -2% 1.98% formula 33 41 E0101 Ashperton Primary 161 462,786 165 339,647 -4 -2 33,481 10% 22,473 5% -11,008 -33 -5% 9.39% formula -2 -33 E0102 St. Michaels Primary 106 322,217 84 204,422 22 26 46,205 23% -26,017 -8% -72,221 -156 -31% 3.19% formula 26 -156 E0103 Bosbury CE Primary 128 377,249 132 292,178 -4 -3 76,544 26% 46,484 12% -30,060 -39 -14% 1.50% formula -3 -39 E0104 Brampton Abbotts CE Primary 118 401,675 120 276,974 -2 -2 75,584 27% 37,576 9% -38,008 -50 -18% 6.71% formula -2 -50 E0105 Bredenbury Primary 62 256,001 56 152,811 6 11 32,220 21% 39,665 15% 7,446 23 -6% -0.65% guarantee 11 23 E0106 Bridstow Primary 96 316,953 100 243,770 -4 -4 38,307 16% 37,184 12% -1,123 -3 -4% 3.46% formula -4 -3 E0107 Brilley Parochial Primary 35 112,530 -35 -100 41,303 37% 26,929 #DIV/0! -14,373 -35 #DIV/0! -100 -35 E0108 Brockhampton Primary 153 440,249 175 362,109 -22 -13 55,274 15% 58,110 13% 2,836 5 -2% 6.76% formula -13 5 E0109 St. Peter's Primary 200 565,566 230 518,990 -31 -13 45,943 9% -15,032 -3% -60,974 -133 -12% 3.07% guarantee -13 -133 E0110 Burghill Primary 89 295,479 92 215,695 -3 -3 37,343 17% 39,772 13% 2,428 7 -4% 6.00% formula -3 7 E0111 Burley Gate Primary 94 353,044 115 285,215 -21 -18 68,217 24% 42,467 12% -25,751 -38 -12% 2.97% formula -18 -38 E0112 Canon Pyon CE Primary 83 286,651 98 225,766 -15 -15 61,811 27% 33,334 12% -28,477 -46 -16% 11.02% formula -15 -46 E0113 Clehonger Primary 160 479,993 134 308,774 26 19 68,807 22% 58,494 12% -10,313 -15 -10% 1.35% formula 19 -15 E0114 Clifford Primary 67 256,883 66 172,354 1 2 59,810 35% 24,892 10% -34,918 -58 -25% 7.65% formula 2 -58 E0115 Colwall CE Primary 179 530,431 195 384,933 -16 -8 30,421 8% 13,875 3% -16,546 -54 -5% 8.16% formula -8 -54 E0116 Cradley Primary 107 329,897 117 271,482 -10 -9 56,807 21% 45,623 14% -11,184 -20 -7% -1.56% guarantee -9 -20 E0117 Credenhill Primary 157 458,967 165 351,810 -8 -5 35,253 10% 24,612 5% -10,640 -30 -5% 3.38% formula -5 -30 E0118 Dilwyn CE Primary 36 165,461 37 114,345 -1 -3 15,673 14% 21,440 13% 5,768 37 -1% 8.31% formula -3 37 E0119 Eardisley CE Primary 72 243,944 94 224,416 -22 -23 38,296 17% 42,968 18% 4,671 12 1% 7.01% formula -23 12 E0120 Eastnor Parochial Primary 83 289,411 84 204,364 -1 -1 37,928 19% 43,109 15% 5,181 14 -4% 8.29% formula -1 14 E0121 Ewyas Harold Primary 113 345,487 95 218,492 18 19 27,964 13% 28,525 8% 561 2 -5% 4.08% formula 19 2 E0122 Fownhope, St. Mary's CE Primary 92 294,086 77 190,617 15 19 20,449 11% 9,312 3% -11,137 -54 -8% 4.01% guarantee 19 -54 E0123 Garway Primary 77 281,766 101 236,931 -24 -24 80,315 34% 42,597 15% -37,718 -47 -19% 4.04% formula -24 -47 E0124 Goodrich CE Primary 117 342,945 112 266,966 5 4 37,806 14% 27,805 8% -10,001 -26 -6% 5.03% formula 4 -26 E0125 Gorsley Goffs Endowed Primary 152 420,391 164 345,875 -12 -7 38,011 11% 47,402 11% 9,390 25 0% 3.64% formula -7 25 E0126 Broadlands Primary 296 905,070 420 842,039 -124 -30 75,592 9% -61,832 -7% -137,424 -182 -16% 7.48% formula -30 -182 E0127 Hampton Dene Primary 232 856,553 236 654,047 -4 -2 36,877 6% 90,634 11% 53,757 146 5% -4.66% formula -2 146 E0128 Holmer CE Primary 272 727,829 289 558,802 -17 -6 101,395 18% 88,877 12% -12,518 -12 -6% 3.81% formula -6 -12 E0131 Lord Scudamore CE Primary 570 1,484,979 611 1,138,722 -41 -7 143,071 13% 67,108 5% -75,963 -53 -8% 4.10% formula -7 -53 E0132 Marlbrook Primary 410 1,240,409 363 788,710 47 13 199,928 25% 134,329 11% -65,599 -33 -15% 2.55% formula 13 -33 E013327 Our Lady's RC Primary 203 547,258 212 405,789 -9 -4 36,301 9% 67,391 12% 31,089 86 3% 6.70% formula -4 86 E0134 St. Francis Xaviers RC Primary 210 530,759 196 380,023 14 7 51,765 14% 35,413 7% -16,351 -32 -7% 3.43% formula 7 -32 E0135 St. James' CE Primary 201 524,242 205 399,160 -4 -2 43,192 11% 4,996 1% -38,197 -88 -10% 3.10% formula -2 -88 E0136 St. Martin's Primary 366 1,073,680 481 967,073 -116 -24 101,341 10% 113,153 11% 11,812 12 0% 6.74% formula -24 12 E0137 St. Paul's Primary 432 1,083,945 424 786,926 8 2 111,064 14% 49,157 5% -61,907 -56 -10% 4.11% formula 2 -56 E0138 Trinity Primary 545 1,469,633 525 1,100,881 20 4 163,612 15% 45,975 3% -117,638 -72 -12% 2.23% formula 4 -72 E0139 St. Thomas Cantilupe CE Primary 216 588,617 218 454,229 -2 -1 43,496 10% 53,731 9% 10,235 24 0% 4.33% formula -1 24 E0140 Holme Lacy Primary 58 229,027 65 173,575 -7 -11 32,534 19% 27,215 12% -5,319 -16 -7% 5.54% formula -11 -16 E0142 Kimbolton St. James' CE Primary 91 289,125 84 198,041 7 8 35,047 18% 27,539 10% -7,508 -21 -8% 4.12% guarantee 8 -21 E0143 Kings Caple Primary 43 173,958 32 109,048 11 34 25,148 23% 31,042 18% 5,894 23 -5% 2.24% guarantee 34 23 E0144 Kingsland CE Primary 131 427,543 132 272,235 -1 -1 30,184 11% 49,506 12% 19,322 64 0% 7.14% formula -1 64 E0145 Kingstone & Thruxton Primary 179 575,419 228 497,606 -50 -22 106,898 21% 74,363 13% -32,535 -30 -9% 3.68% formula -22 -30 E0146 Kington Primary 204 599,312 213 436,805 -10 -4 86,612 20% 72,379 12% -14,233 -16 -8% 4.94% guarantee -4 -16 E0147 Lea CE Primary 83 341,857 72 190,067 11 15 36,955 19% 41,788 12% 4,833 13 -7% 8.52% formula 15 13 E0148 Ledbury Primary 469 1,272,209 481 923,476 -12 -2 150,115 16% 94,738 7% -55,377 -37 -9% 6.36% formula -2 -37 E0149 Leintwardine Endowed Primary 101 320,273 93 217,683 8 8 89,535 41% 43,634 14% -45,901 -51 -28% 1.67% guarantee 8 -51 E0150 Leominster Infants 237 732,497 292 627,443 -55 -19 33,614 5% 42,124 6% 8,510 25 0% 6.91% formula -19 25 E0151 Leominster Junior 338 976,154 376 750,055 -38 -10 82,256 11% 80,399 8% -1,857 -2 -3% 4.49% formula -10 -2 E0152 Ivington CE Primary 86 306,937 94 220,724 -8 -9 28,301 13% 17,656 6% -10,645 -38 -7% 7.11% formula -9 -38 E0153 Little Dewchurch Primary 56 214,906 62 157,397 -6 -10 3,609 2% -7,866 -4% -11,474 -318 -6% 1.56% formula -10 -318 E0154 Llangrove CE Primary 58 212,720 90 235,310 -32 -36 49,377 21% 41,403 19% -7,974 -16 -2% 9.05% formula -36 -16 E0155 Longtown Primary 41 183,342 42 135,947 -2 -4 28,147 21% 39,342 21% 11,195 40 1% 15.73% formula -4 40 E0156 Lugwardine Primary 153 423,205 174 356,115 -21 -12 69,616 20% 45,435 11% -24,181 -35 -9% 5.16% formula -12 -35 E0157 Luston Primary 109 337,757 123 270,401 -14 -11 68,646 25% 44,180 13% -24,466 -36 -12% 4.78% formula -11 -36 E0158 Madley Primary 172 498,568 156 333,152 16 10 32,906 10% 1,117 0% -31,789 -97 -10% 1.28% formula 10 -97 E0159 Marden Primary 92 306,531 86 235,490 6 7 37,191 16% 25,530 8% -11,661 -31 -7% 6.84% formula 7 -31 E0160 Michaelchurch Escley Primary 62 232,654 64 160,812 -2 -3 41,824 26% 28,131 12% -13,693 -33 -14% 6.26% formula -3 -33 E0161 Mordiford CE Primary 113 332,498 96 220,479 17 18 59,711 27% 37,213 11% -22,499 -38 -16% 2.38% guarantee 18 -38 E0162 Much Birch CE Primary 183 505,382 188 379,997 -5 -3 72,158 19% 7,409 1% -64,749 -90 -18% 3.94% formula -3 -90 E0163 Much Marcle CE Primary 90 292,181 118 247,386 -28 -24 55,337 22% 9,471 3% -45,866 -83 -19% 0.77% formula -24 -83 E0164 Orleton CE Primary 178 483,619 189 382,629 -11 -6 66,652 17% 55,148 11% -11,504 -17 -6% 3.03% formula -6 -17 E0165 Pembridge CE Primary 99 300,038 92 217,776 7 8 57,496 26% 31,089 10% -26,407 -46 -16% -0.40% formula 8 -46 E0166 Pencombe CE Primary 53 194,302 54 140,740 -1 -2 34,502 25% 15,210 8% -19,293 -56 -17% -0.59% guarantee -2 -56 E0167 Peterchurch Primary 63 259,759 75 205,438 -12 -16 73,344 36% 43,363 17% -29,981 -41 -19% 4.93% guarantee -16 -41 E0168 Ashfield Park Primary 337 975,807 424 887,049 -88 -21 57,215 6% 41,859 4% -15,356 -27 -2% 9.13% formula -21 -27 E0169 St. Joseph's RC Primary 109 316,379 115 240,382 -6 -5 25,068 10% 44,784 14% 19,715 79 4% 4.43% formula -5 79 E0170 St. Weonard's Primary 52 202,500 83 200,268 -31 -37 20,150 10% -15,251 -8% -35,402 -176 -18% 1.71% guarantee -37 -176 E0171 Shobdon Primary 59 253,025 59 154,634 0 0 51,759 33% 38,435 15% -13,323 -26 -18% 4.38% guarantee 0 -26 E0172 Staunton-on-Wye Endowed Primary 59 232,775 64 174,771 -5 -8 7,118 4% 40,316 17% 33,199 466 13% 6.53% formula -8 466 E0173 Stoke Prior (Leo) Primary 75 264,929 69 177,544 6 9 73,174 41% 41,326 16% -31,848 -44 -26% 1.56% formula 9 -44 E0174 Stretton Sugwas CE Primary 99 320,441 101 245,634 -2 -2 16,451 7% 41,364 13% 24,912 151 6% 0.08% guarantee -2 151 E0175 Sutton Primary 51 210,577 64 167,472 -14 -21 37,306 22% 30,127 14% -7,178 -19 -8% 5.12% formula -21 -19 E0176 Walford Primary 184 479,667 174 354,019 10 6 61,860 17% 55,440 12% -6,420 -10 -6% 5.00% formula 6 -10 E0177 Wellington Primary 122 398,199 167 349,068 -46 -27 152,261 44% 53,724 13% -98,537 -65 -30% 3.78% formula -27 -65 E0178 Weobley Primary 161 509,234 191 427,609 -31 -16 88,316 21% -3,216 -1% -91,531 -104 -21% 7.11% formula -16 -104 E0179 Weston-under-Penyard CE Primary 82 278,934 80 195,411 2 3 13,969 7% 14,778 5% 808 6 -2% 2.27% formula 3 6 E0180 Whitbourne Primary 67 243,579 69 177,466 -2 -3 81,516 46% 33,892 14% -47,624 -58 -32% 6.90% guarantee -3 -58 Appendix 2

Primary Sub-Total 12,418 37,716,661 13,393 29,200,167 -976 -7% 4,909,092 17% 3,184,108 8% -1,724,984 -35% -8% 4.45% -7% -35%

E0300 Queen Elizabeth High 303 1,239,791 389 1,158,513 -86 -22 100,336 9% 125,011 10% 24,675 25 1% 5.19% formula -22 25 E0301 Aylestone High 1,012 3,652,688 1,255 3,292,276 -243 -19 270,906 8% 410,467 11% 139,560 52 3% 7.44% formula -19 52 E0302 Bishop of Hereford's Bluecoat 1,192 4,422,351 1,187 3,337,366 5 0 69,724 2% 235,073 5% 165,349 237 3% 2.85% formula 0 237 E0303 Wyebridge 701 2,766,589 943 2,605,260 -242 -26 351,701 13% 216,568 8% -135,133 -38 -6% 3.12% formula -26 -38 E0304 St. Mary's RC High 699 2,389,094 685 1,775,377 14 2 2,377 0% 214,281 9% 211,904 8917 9% 3.82% formula 2 8917 E0305 Whitecross High 896 3,399,620 897 2,402,693 -1 -0 177,045 7% 69,554 2% -107,491 -61 -5% 4.54% formula -0 -61 E0306 Kingstone High 670 2,463,758 670 1833360 0 0 288,192 16% 105,473 4% -182,719 -63 -11% 6.52% formula 0 -63 E0307 Lady Hawkins High 482 1,952,753 421 1,114,317 61 14 109,728 10% 164,098 8% 54,370 50 -1% 2.16% formula 14 50 E0308 John Masefield High 922 3,555,799 961 2,290,426 -39 -4 73,375 3% 193,786 5% 120,411 164 2% 3.15% formula -4 164 E0309 The Minster, Leominster 668 2,766,976 712 1,804,479 -44 -6 37,650 2% -19,727 -1% -57,377 -152 -3% 5.83% formula -6 -152 E0310 Fairfield High 366 1,432,825 324 983144 42 13 10,726 1% 36,631 3% 25,905 242 1% 3.43% formula 13 242 E0311 John Kyrle High 1,160 4,424,643 1,068 2,487,101 92 9 261,236 11% 324,596 7% 63,360 24 -3% 2.74% formula 9 24 E0312 Weobley High 458 1,792,357 482 1350217 -24 -5 142,563 11% -64,062 -4% -206,625 -145 -14% 5.61% formula -5 -145 E0313 Wigmore High 447 1,724,275 500 1,421,910 -53 -11 97,345 7% -64,740 -4% -162,085 -167 -11% 2.61% formula -11 -167

Secondary Sub-Total 9,976 37,983,518 10,494 27,856,439 -518 -5% 1,992,903 7% 1,947,009 5% -45,894 -2% -2% 4.22% -5% -2%

Grand Total 22,394 75,700,179 23,887 57,056,606 -1,494 -6% 6,901,994 12% 5,131,117 7% -1,770,878 -26% -5% -6% -26%

Average per year -373 -1.56% 28 AGENDA ITEM 9

SCHOOL BANK ACCOUNTS

REPORT BY MALCOLM GREEN, FINANCE MANAGER

SCHOOLS FORUM 13TH OCTOBER 2008

Schools Affected

All high schools Purpose

To report on how bank accounts for schools could be developed further following the request from Schools Forum in June 2008. Financial Implications The adoption of a more modern local banking scheme for schools should be cost neutral to both the authority and to schools.

Report

1. The advantages and disadvantages of schools having their own independent bank account are well known and have been summarised at Appendix 1 in an article from School Management 2007 (reproduced with their permission). Additional information on local school bank accounts received from other local authorities suggests local bank accounts is in line with the Local Management of Schools philosophy. Furthermore the combination of local purchase cards and bank accounts for schools allows purchasing efficiencies (e.g. internet purchasing). Efficiencies also occur as the charges are debited by the card provider to the school without involving additional central administration. It is possible that local suppliers will also have cash flow benefits through the quicker receipt of payments.

2. All high schools now have bursars in place, many having appointed bursars within the last 2 years. This further supports the roll-out of school bank accounts to all high schools with a greater degree of confidence.

3. The existing reporting and accounting arrangements required of schools can be complicated, time consuming can give rise to accounting issues cost code. Currently some additional work is requested of the LMS team passing charges onto schools. This would reduce if more schools have bank accounts. Additionally LMS also arrange for the direct debit of the school payroll costs and this is often recovered much later than when the cost is met by the Council. Under new proposals for the bank account scheme all Directorates would have to invoice bank account schools and payroll should recover all payroll costs direct from schools.

4. The existing reporting mechanism is believed to date back to 2001. It arose after a school got into serious financial difficulties due to over- estimating external income and setting an unachievable budget. At that time additional reporting was introduced for bank account schools to avoid reoccurrence. From the creation of Herefordshire

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Malcolm Green, Finance Manager 01432 260818. 29 Council payments were made to cheque book schools by central finance and school budgets were set by the Education Directorate. As a result the potential for misunderstandings existed between the two Directorates leading to reconciliation problems between budgets and payments

5. Payments to schools are now automated so that monthly payments are made by bank standing order and these reconcile to the formal school budget issued in March each year. All changes to school budgets (e.g. banded funding or grants) are paid in full as a single payment without altering the original payment. Additionally the combination of both the payments team and the schools’ finance team in the Resources Directorate is beneficial as it helps to ensure that budget and payments are consistent.

6. It is important to note schools are not allowed an overdraft on their bank account. The payment of a regular monthly payment represents a school’s monthly budget share. Payment of the monthly amount to the school ensures that the school cannot overspend. The school can only spend the balance in their bank account. Schools that are overspent find that they have to approach the authority for an advance on next year’s budget to meet cash flow problems. This generally alerts the authority to budget difficulties sooner than a school that reports a year-end overspend. The financial control that comes from a cash limited budget is an effective control and cannot be circumvented by the school. The bank account concept means any financial problem is immediately apparent to the headteacher, to governors and the local authority.

7. It has already been indicated that the current scheme is outdated and the basis of an updated scheme could be around the following;

a. the working model is that all high schools have bank accounts b. all Directorates in the council and partner organisations such as Amey/West Mercia invoice bank account schools direct c. introduction of local purchasing cards for high schools (with suitable controls) d. the prime accounting record is kept at the school but open to the Council e. no monthly expenditure is entered into Cedar for bank account schools f. year-end returns as follows are submitted by the school;

i. year-end income and expenditure statement is submitted by the school within 3 weeks of year end. ii. copy bank statement at year end. iii. reconciliation of the schools cash balance to the income and expenditure statement.

g. Revised audit arrangements are considered so that the Council can effectively monitor the position h. The introduction of a revised service level agreement for LMS & Finance for high schools with a greater emphasis on financial advice i. Development of an enhanced service level agreement for primary schools based around the introduction of common financial systems and approaches for all primary schools j. Monthly VAT repayments will be charged directly to the Council’s VAT accounts.

8. There is much to be gained by having all high schools operating to a common system so that standard invoicing and payroll cost recovery can be adopted. High school bursars would be able to share best practice and audit and reporting arrangements would be common. It is proposed to Schools Forum that as a first step that HASH be

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Malcolm Green, Finance Manager 01432 260818. 30 consulted on offering bank accounts to all high schools and that the operation of bank account scheme be updated to reflect best practice nationally.

9. The current guidance to schools regarding the use of bank accounts is attached at an Appendix 2. This guidance has not been updated nor has the operation of the scheme been reviewed since 2001.

Recommendations

a. It is recommended that HASH be consulted on extending the local bank account scheme to all high schools most probably from 1 st September 2009.

b. The operation of the bank account scheme be updated to reflect best practice nationally whilst meeting the requirement to comply with the Council’s financial standards.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Malcolm Green, Finance Manager 01432 260818. 31 32 Appendix 1

This article first appeared in the March 2007 issue of School Financial Management, and is reproduced by kind permission of the editor

Becoming a bank account school

We begin a series of best practice advice features with a look at the implications of a school having its own bank account

MORE AND MORE schools are now seeing the benefits of financial autonomy through bank account status. But what would becoming a bank account school mean for your institution?

• You would operate and manage your own bank account. • You would receive funding in staged payments from the local authority. • You would pay most, if not all, of your supplier/purchase invoices and collect your own income independently of the local authority; and as a result you would be able to check supplier enquiries immediately. • You would hold the prime accounting records on your own local system, together with backup documentation, which also would allow immediate resolution of queries. • You would provide reports to the local authority, including VAT returns. • You would generate interest on your bank balance. • You would be responsible for your own finances and cash flow. • You would produce your own reports for governors, which would be based upon up-to-date information.

Principal considerations

Any local authority maintained school may, with the approval of the local authority, operate its own bank account through an approved bank. In doing so you should ensure that the decision is authorised by a full governors’ meeting and that the required period of notice of intention to withdraw from central payments is provided to your authority. Appropriate notice must also be provided where a school intends to withdraw from other support services such as payroll. All transactions must be through an approved bank. Some local authorities specify that their name must appear on the bank account together with that of the school.

The headteacher and governors must decide who is responsible for the safeguarding of monies in the account and ensuring its proper operation as follows:

• bank account monies and cheque books are safe from theft or misuse • income and expenditure through the bank account is lawful • the bank account is operated in accordance with the Scheme of Financial Management • best value is achieved within the banking arrangements authorised by the local authority • separation of roles and responsibilities is clear • fully documented records are kept.

A local authority can suspend a school’s bank account if it considers that the school is failing to carry out the above processes.

Decisions to be made

33 Appendix 1

Once the decision has been taken to run your own bank account there are several other decisions required as a result.

Which bank?

Most local authorities provide a facility whereby the school can operate its bank account as a subdivision of the local authority banking scheme. This enables the school to benefit from higher interest rates which have been negotiated by the local authority by ‘grouping’ its schools; it is advisable to investigate alternative arrangements also. If you choose to run your account through the local authority system then you should approach the authority to confirm the arrangements.

Schools choosing a bank other than that used by the local authority can open both a current and an investment account with any of a list of banks approved by the authority. The school should provide the authority with a copy of the bank mandate and signatories for its records. Some local authorities permit schools to take advantage of overdraft facilities, particularly when they stay within the local authority banking arrangements. It is advisable to avoid such a facility, however, as overdrafts result in additional costs to the school.

Which payroll?

When reviewing banking arrangements it is often an opportune time to also review the choice of payroll providers. Benefits to be gained by using a payroll provider outside of the local authority include:

• Cut-off times are negotiable. • The timing of reports can be dictated by the school. • The problem whereby other schools’ staff appear on your payroll is removed.

Which accounting software package?

The school will hold the ‘prime accounting records’ and any software package must ensure compliance with accounting instructions and requirements issued by the local authority.

Which staff?

The school must be able to:

• maintain accurate and up-to-date accounts • retain support documentation, eg invoices, bank statements, etc • undertake regular bank reconciliations • ensure regular backup of computerised records • restrict access to computerised records to authorised members of staff • submit timely reports to the local authority in the required format • be prepared to have accounts audited by internal and district audits; they may also be checked by Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise • provide year-end reports for the local authority to incorporate within its accounts.

To complete these requirements the school needs to consider the following:

• Adequate support to fulfil the accounting function, especially during holiday periods so as to ensure that procedures continue without interruption.

34 Appendix 1

• Staff involved in maintaining a bank account must have a basic knowledge of book keeping processes, particularly bank reconciliations. • Any accounting software must be able to produce reports to the local authority requirements • Separation of duties within financial administration must be clearly defined in order to comply with audit requirements. • Suitable secure storage facilities for the retention of historical records for the appropriate periods.

Reporting implications

The local authority will require monthly/quarterly reports on budgetary position and VAT. It may also require information on bank reconciliation and cash flow. Governors too will require regular reports, but these will now be as up to date as the accounting system and budget holder reports can be more up to date.

Security implications

The following should be considered:

• Monies and cheque books must be kept securely locked away, with access restricted. • Cheques should be signed by two people. The school should, therefore, ensure a minimum of three signatories so as to cover sickness. None of these signatories should be involved in the day-to-day bank processing. • Blank cheques must never be pre-signed. • The accounting system must be secure, ie protection must include each user having a different ID and password. Hardware should be located in a secure environment and regular backups must be made and kept either off-site or in a fireproof container.

Payment implications

Most payments can be processed directly through a school’s bank account. However, the following are exceptions:

• Payments to employees, including payments for casual work, staff travel claims, eye test fees, removal expenses, relocation expenses, redundancy payments. All of the above may have income tax/NI implications and must be processed via the payroll. • Construction industry scheme/sub-contractor payments.

Jane Onn runs Onn Target Ltd, a company specialising in providing bursarial services to schools.

35 36 Appendix 2 ANNEX G (Applicable to all Schools)

LOCAL SCHOOL BANK ACCOUNTS AND ENHANCED IMPREST ACCOUNTS

(Note: Bank has been used to mean Banks or Building Societies)

G01. INTRODUCTION – The range of options available to schools

All schools with delegated budgets may opt to run their finances through an external bank account of their choice. Alternatively, schools can continue to use the Council’s own banking and transaction arrangements paying bills either all through the creditors system or partly through the creditors system and partly through their own cheque book “imprest” account.

G02. NEW APPROVALS FOR EXTRNAL BANK ACCOUNTS

New approvals for schools to open external bank accounts will be given only if –

• the school can demonstrate a good record of financial management and budget control, the school provides a 3 year forward plan indicating that the school is not likely to be in a deficit position during that period, and that the Head and bursar/administration are aware of and sign up to specified monthly information and budget reconciliation requirements;

• the Head and bursar/finance administrator undertake a course of training approved by the County Treasurer;

• a charge is levied to reflect the additional administrative costs for the Council of external bank accounts.

G03. WITHDRAWL OF EXTERNAL BANK ACCOUNTS

Approval for a school to operate an external bank account would be withdrawn, after appropriate discussions and warnings, if –

• the school fails to provide the County Treasurer with specified information for the central accounts by stipulated times;

• the school fails to reconcile each month the information in the school system (including the approved budget plan) with the transactions in the bank account and those, including pay, in the Cedar system;

• the school has gone into deficit or is approaching that position without being able to demonstrate effective plans to control it or fails to produce a satisfactory budget plan by 1st June of the financial year.

G04. TYPES OF SCHOOL BANKING ARRANGEMENTS

If a school decides to have an external bank account , there are 2 options available.

• A full account holds all of the delegated funds (paid over in instalments) and the cheque book meets all expenditure including salaries (paid back in instalments). Under this option interest on unspent funds is within the private banking

ANNEX G G 1 APRIL 2004 37

Appendix 2 arrangement and it is for the school to negotiate the level. The school does not receive any interest from the Council.

• A non-staff account holds only the funding for non-staff payments. Under this option, staff costs are charged directly to each school’s monthly account from the payroll and interest on any unspent staffing element would be allocated from the Council’s account. Interest on the non-staff element would be within the private banking arrangement.

G05. Under either option, the school will need to operate its own financial management system (such as Capita-FMS, LRM) and employ appropriate financial staff who are responsible for monitoring income and spending. Regular monitoring, reporting and reconciliation procedures are required for the operation of external accounts. Where a school is in a deficit situation, the move to an external bank account can only take place when the school has returned to a surplus position. Schools with external accounts falling into deficit may be required to close the external account and return to the Council’s bank as part of its deficit recovery plan.

G06. If a school decides to continue with the Council’s banking arrangements there are also 2 options.

• Schools can choose to have a petty cash arrangement where the Treasurer’s Department sends the school a cheque periodically to cash at their local bank so that money is available for small purchases.

• Schools can choose to have an enhanced imprest account with a branch of the Council’s bank, the National Westminster. The Treasurer’s Department arranges for an agreed level of funds to be maintained each month and the school signs cheques for selected purchases. Under this option, the account is still part of the Council’s account and interest is calculated on the end-year budget balance rather than the funds left in the bank.

Under either option it is not essential for the school to run its own financial management system although, in larger schools, such a system for monitoring is desirable. The Council’s central accounting system supplies monthly statements of all transactions.

G07. FACTORS GOVERNING THE CHOICE OF ACCOUNT

The choice of banking arrangements depends on the preferences of the Governors and their local circumstances. There is no financial advantage in having an external bank account as interest rates are generally lower than the Council’s mechanism for allocating interest on school balances. There is no difference in the ability of schools to take advantage of discounts for cash purchase, since they can do this with their cheque books under either arrangement.

G08. With either system there are advantages and disadvantages. Information obtained over the years from comments made by schools, indicate that the main disadvantages of banking through the Council are some delays affecting some transactions reaching the accounts, and the direct charges for services to the accounts. The main disadvantages with separate banking are the complexity of operating 2 systems that have to be reconciled and the need for a higher level of effective control and management in the school. In the Council’s system the accounts are “live” each month, which means that the Cedar expenditure statement is the school’s official accounts. In the external banking system the Council’s account is not, necessarily, “live” as it depend on reports of transactions at the bank from the schools’ internal computer system: If those reports are not up-to-date or are inaccurate, the actual figures are not likely to be discovered until the end-year reconciliation of external bank statements to the school’s system.

ANNEX G G 2 APRIL 2004 38

Appendix 2 G09. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF BANK ACCOUNTS (this section applies to private accounts and imprest accounts)

Arrangements will continue for certain payments to be made via the Council. Where central payment schemes are in operation, e.g. electricity, telephones, West Mercia Supplies, payments will continue to be made by the County Treasurer directly to the schools’ monthly statements unless external bank account holders have elected to pay their own services and the provider bills them separately .

G10. The school bank accounts must not be used to meet the following –

• any payments or part-payments to employees other than through the Council’s payroll service or a school’s private payroll service. In other words, all payments to staff must be made through a payroll arrangement, including travel and subsistence. This restriction is in order to meet Inland Revenue requirements.

• any items to be met through centrally held budgets unless the central budget holder has agreed in writing to reimburse the school.

• any items relating to activities that are not for the education and care of pupils at the school. It is against the law to pay for items (e.g. for local activities) not for the benefit of the pupils in the school.

• any activities which may not legally be undertaken by the LEA or schools

G11. Money can be paid into the private bank account only from –

• advances from Herefordshire Council, including reimbursement for VAT and tax reimbursements;

• any income generated by the school and which is credited to its delegated budget;

• any contributions towards school expenditure through authorised donations from school funds, etc.

G12. ADVANCES TO EXTERNAL BANK ACCOUNTS

Advances will be made monthly by the County Treasurer to the private account in 13 instalments - at the beginning of April, at the end of April and at the end of each subsequent month before payroll out-goings are debited. The proportions paid in each of the months may be varied if a school can demonstrate a need for such variation to meet its individual pattern of spending for the year in question.

G13. School Standards Grant will be paid in one amount during May before a date determined by the DfES rather than allocated monthly. Specific Standards Fund Grants will be paid in full where the terms of the grant require this.

G14. All advances and reimbursements to school bank accounts will be made by BACS transfer (the Bankers’ Automated Clearing Services system).

G15. In the case of schools with bank accounts, although there is a loss of interest to Herefordshire Council, and the national regulations permit charging schools for loss of interest, it has been agreed not to make any such deduction. If, however, the rate of inflation increases significantly from its present low level and interest rates, generally, begin to rise, the Council would review the position on charging for loss of interest.

G16. ADDITIONAL AUDITING REQUIREMENTS

ANNEX G G 3 APRIL 2004 39

Appendix 2 Schools with private bank accounts will need an audit visit each year because of the significantly higher risk of problems arising. Schools continuing to bank through the Council will be audited according to the normal risk assessment procedure. At present, all audit activity in schools is paid for centrally. In future, however, the funds for audit are likely to be delegated with schools being charged the costs.

G17. BANKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXTERNAL ACCOUNTS

Schools with private bank accounts can use any banks of the main high street or building societies. Arrangements with foreign or off shore institutions are not permitted. If there are any doubts about the nature of the organisation being considered please contact the County Treasurer.

G18. All accounts must include Herefordshire Council or HC in the title of the account, e.g. HC...... School.

G19. Schools must notify the County Treasurer of the bank selected and the names and numbers of all accounts before any transactions are made.

G20. Schools will retain interest earned on their accounts and bear any charges made by their bank.

G21. Investment of temporarily surplus cash must be made directly in current or deposit accounts of an approved bank, or in local authority deposit schemes where there is no risk to the capital sum. Loans must not be made to any other organisation or individual. Herefordshire Council has a deposit scheme and advances can be abated by any sums the school wishes to remain invested with interest in the Council.

G22. Investments must not be arranged through any intermediaries.

G23. Schools must not themselves offer any security to the bank. Any requests for references or guarantees should be referred to the County Treasurer.

G24. School bank accounts must not go overdrawn at any time.

G25. Schools must not make arrangements for overdrafts, loans or any other forms of credit or deferred purchases.

G26. OPERATION OF EXTERNAL BANK ACCOUNTS

All payments out of the account will normally be made by cheque. Direct Debits will be permitted to facilitate alternative arrangements for the purchase of goods and services where necessary.

G27. Schools will order their own cheques from their own bank.

G28. The design of cheques can be determined between the School and the bank, e.g. to include school crest or logo, but it must include the name of Herefordshire Council or HC in the title of the account.

G29. Schools can prepare their cheques manually from a cheque book. If that is the case, all details of payments must be entered into the approved computer module before the cheques are drawn.

G30. Alternatively schools can opt to use the facility within the approved computer module to prepare their cheques on continuous cheque stationery.

ANNEX G G 4 APRIL 2004 40

Appendix 2 G31. Cheques must be signed in manuscript by two members of staff, not governors of the school unless they are also members of staff. The school must notify the County Treasurer of the signatories to the account.

G32. Cash dispensers must not be used in any circumstances.

G33. ACCOUNTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SCHOOLS WITH EXTERNAL ACCOUNTS

Schools will be required to send to the County Treasurer each month full details of all bank account transactions and the balance remaining in the school’s account, in order that the school’s expenditure and income are reflected properly in the Council’s accounts, and to allow VAT to be correctly accounted for and refunded to the school bank account. The print outs will run off the schools FRM 6 system which all external bank account schools must operate.

G34. The Bank Accounts must be properly reconciled monthly by staff who are not authorised to sign cheques.

G35. FINANCIAL REGULATIONS, STANDING ORDERS AND OTHER CONDITIONS

All schools using external bank accounts remain subject to the Council’s financial regulations and standing orders, and should refer to the appropriate accounting instruction - ‘ School Bank Accounts ’.

G36. If the Council incurs a loss or penalty due to the failure by a school to comply with procedures laid down in this scheme or in financial regulations, the Council reserves the right to recover such loss or penalty from the bank account of the school concerned.

G37. Where a school has substantially or persistently failed to comply with the requirements of this scheme, or is not managing its expenditure in a satisfactory fashion, the Council may suspend the school’s right to an external bank account.

ANNEX G G 5 APRIL 2004 41

42 AGENDA ITEM 10

DELEGATION OF BANDED FUNDING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

REPORT BY MANAGER OF SEN & DISABILITY

SCHOOLS FORUM 13TH OCTOBER 2008

Schools Affected

All schools Purpose

To report on the consultation process for the proposal to delegate funding for high incidence SEN and associated advisory learning and behaviour services. Financial Implications The proposals if approved will delegate approximately £2.5m to schools. This is currently held centrally.

Report

1. The full consultation papers are attached as Appendices.

2. The Funding for Inclusion reference group met on the 9 th September 2008 to consider the draft consultation papers and recommended some amendments to the presentation of the information. The group approved the content. The changes suggested by the group have been incorporated into the consultation papers.

3. The consultation period runs from the 22 nd September until the 14 th November 2008 and includes two consultation question and answer events at Whitecross School on the 6 th and 8 th October. It is anticipated that these events will highlight any concerns that school may have with the proposals.

4. In addition to the consultation meetings schools also have the opportunity to consider a full range of background information relevant to the proposals and to complete and return an individual school consultation reply form.

5. Following the closure of the consultation period the Funding for Inclusion reference group will meet on 25th November to consider the feed back from the consultation. The broad conclusions from the consultation period will then be presented to Schools Forum in December with final consideration of the detail of a scheme if relevant in February 2009.

6. An indication of the questions raised by schools in the course of the consultation events will be presented to Schools Forum on the 13th October in order to give members a flavour of the likely responses from schools.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Linda Nash, Manager of SEN & Disability [email protected] 01432 260817. 43 Recommendations

a. That the consultation process and papers be noted .

b. That Schools Forum agrees that the Funding for Inclusion group should consider the initial analysis from the consultation responses at their meeting in November 2008 following the close of the consultation period.

c. That Schools Forum agrees to receive a report in December 2008 setting out the broad conclusions from the analysis of all consultation responses returned over the course of the eight week consultation period.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Linda Nash, Manager of SEN & Disability [email protected] 01432 260817. 44 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 APPENDIX 1

Consultation on the Delegation of Funding for High Incidence Special Educational Needs Provision in Mainstream Schools Background Information

Consultation from 22 nd September to 14 th November 2008

PROPOSAL A

To delegate Dedicated Schools Grant budgets of approximately £2,100,000 identifi ed for Bands 1 and 2 SEN funding (with and without statements of SEN) under the Herefordshire Banded Funding Scheme to mainstream schools from April 2009

PROPOSAL B To delegate Dedicated Schools Grant budgets of approximately £400,000 identified for th e provision of general learning and behaviour teams together with associated team costs to mainstream schools from April 2009

Consultation question & answer events Monday 6 th October 2008 at 2pm and Wednesday 8 th October 2008 at 10am at Whitecross High School and Specialist Sports College, Hereford

If you are unable to attend one of the question and answer events and have any queries about the consultation please contact Malcolm Green (01432) 260818 [email protected] or Linda Nash (01432) 260817 [email protected]

45 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

1. Purpose of this paper The proposals for consultation set out in this paper represent a significant change in policy. This paper provides the rationale and background to the proposals:

I. To delegate budgets of approximately £2,100.000* for Bands 1 and 2 SEN funding (with and without statements of SEN) under the Herefordshire Banded Funding Scheme to mainstream schools from April 2009

II. To delegate Dedicated Schools Grant budgets of approximately £400,000* Identified for the provision of general learning and behaviour teams together with associated team costs to mainstream schools from April 2009 *These sums subject to reappraisal as part of the 2009/10 budget process. If these monies are delegated they will no longer be available to provide such provision for high incidence needs to schools centrally.

2. Background to Proposal A

To delegate Dedicated Schools Grant budgets of approximately £2,100,000 identified for Bands 1 and 2 SEN funding (with and wit hout statements of SEN) under the Herefordshire Banded Funding Scheme to mainstream schools from April 2009

National Picture The Herefordshire Banded Funding Scheme was developed in 2003 as a response to a range of issues. The driver for the scheme was the Government set agenda for Local Authorities to reduce reliance on Statements of SEN with a focus on:

I. Promoting schools ability to obtain funding to intervene earlier and preventatively with minimum bureaucracy.

II. Freeing support services from statutory assessment tasks to enable schools to benefit from preventative advice and support

III. Increasing opportunities for children with SEN to be included and to make progress in their schools through increasing access and sharing good practice

IV. Promoting parental confidence in schools ability to make provision for a child without the necessity of delays associated with statutory assessment. Local Picture

i. The change is endorsed by the schools’ SEN reference group, the Funding for Inclusion Group, which has considered the issues at the request of Schools Forum.

ii. If Proposal A is endorsed by schools through this consultation the current Banded Funding scheme application process would be confined to high level, low incidence needs at Bands Levels 3 & 4 only.

46 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 iii. If schools endorse Proposal B through this consultation funding identified for the provision of restructured Learning and Behaviour teams will pass to school budgets to further increase schools flexibility in meeting high incidence special needs.

iv. School representatives on the Funding for Inclusion Group have agreed the following recommendation to Schools Forum.

v. That the same delegation funding model should be considered for both Banded Funding 1 & 2 and the Learning/Behaviour Support services funding in schools as they are closely linked.

vi. It is statistically reasonable to use a funding model solely based on pupil numbers as the basis for a wider consultation with schools in the autumn term 2008. However in view of Government policy a social deprivation supplement has been included.

vii. Protection is essential for primary schools during the first year of delegated funding but more alternatives should be developed in greater detail for the consultation with schools.

3. Banded Funding Scheme Trends The Banded Funding scheme has been extensively monitored internally since its introduction and has also been subject to ongoing involvement of and monitoring by the Funding for Inclusion Group. This group includes Head Teachers and SEN Co-ordinators from schools of different sizes and locations across both secondary and primary phases. The group has been essential to the scheme’s development, implementation and ongoing monitoring.

I. The scheme has prompted continuing questioning from some schools since its introduction, despite Bands 1 & 2 being used extensively and the scheme delivering increasing amounts of money to individual schools. This consultation gives schools an opportunity to consider the future of the scheme.

II. The scheme has resulted in a decrease in statutory assessments of SEN and a consequent reduction in statements of SEN for high incidence/low level needs since 2004/05.

III. However over the course of the financial years 2007/08 there was a noticeable trend toward parents of children with existing, often relatively long term Band 2 funding requesting statutory assessment. This rising trend has been even more noticeable since April 2008. Parental requests for statutory assessment April 2006-March April 2007-March 2008 April 2008- August 2008 2007 27 in full year 47 in full year 34 in first 5 months

IV. Expenditure on primary schools banded funding shows a real terms increase of 28% on expenditure compared with a 10% fall in pupil numbers over the same 6- year period.

V. Expenditure on secondary school banded funding shows a real terms increase of 22% compared to a 4% rise in pupil numbers.

VI. The percentage SEN spend of the overall Education budget for high schools remains broadly constant however the % for primary schools reduced initially but is now rising. In total, the percentage spend has risen from 2.99% in 2003/04 to a budgeted 3.58% in 07/08 and a budgeted spend of 4.2% in 08/09

47 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 VII. Expenditure seems to have increased markedly from the introduction of banded funding in primary schools in 2003/04 and into secondary schools from 2004/05.

VIII. There has been a changing pattern of funding demand and allocations at Levels 1 & 2 demonstrated by the percentages of allocations over the past three financial years set out in the chart below. The increased demand for Band 2 is a major factor in increased costs.

Comparison of Band 1 and 2 Allocations between April 2005 and

March 2008

300 57% 250

200 52%

51% 32% 150 49% 38%

100

Number Number of Allocations Level One 50 Level Two 0 2005-06 2006-07Year 2007-08

IX. One of the other key trends has been in the increase in allocations of lower levels of funding under the criteria of specific literacy difficulties (SPLD) and that of social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (BESD).

X. The apparent reduction in the incidence of General Learning Difficulties (GLDD) suggests that the scheme may be encouraging schools to apply under the category of SPLD by simply using poor reading scores as a measure of need.

XI. The trend suggests that the scheme is encouraging misidentification by some schools keen to obtain funding.

XII. There is no detailed standardised test available to schools in the area of BESD and the Panels find it very difficult to determine the actual level of relatively low level behavioural difficulties from the results of the available screening tool. The significance of lower level BESD is also highly subjective and its effect on learning is often dependant on management of behaviour within a school.

XIII. The table below and the charts overleaf, show the substantial increase in specific learning difficulties (SPLD) and the shift from Level 1 to Level 2 over the last 3 full financial years. April 05-March 06 April 06-March 07 April 07-March 08 GLDD Level 1 48 30 4 Level 2 51 62 28 SPLD Level 1 29 46 76 Level 2 26 46 114 BESD Level 1 25 29 22 Level 2 32 37 56

48 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

April 2005-March 2006

60 50 40 30 20 10

Allocations of Number 0

Level 1

Level 2 SEN Category

April 2006-March 2007

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Number of Allocations of Number

Level 1

SEN Category Level 2

April 2007-March 2008

120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NumberAllocations of

Level 1 SEN Category Level 2 B

49 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 XIV. The data demonstrates the reduction in allocations in the category of general learning difficulties (GLDD) in 2007/08 mirrored by the increase in specific learning difficulties (SPLD) also in 2007/08.

XV. The increase in funding at Level 2 for behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) over the past three financial years is also apparent from the data and charts.

XVI. Band Level 1 & 2 applications have consistently formed the majority of all applications as was expected. However the number of lower level applications has steadily increased from 2005/06 and the percentage of unsuccessful applications has remained relatively constant.

XVII. Level 2 applications as a percentage of the whole have increased from 49% in 2005/06 to 57% in 2007/08.

4. Implications of trends for schools

i. One of the features of the banded funding scheme has been the frequency of Panels; every three weeks during term time. This was designed to prevent delays for schools and to enable the expected volume of applications to be manageable for each Panel by spreading the cases expected across the year.

ii. Another feature is the importance of key evidence in an application and the key role of school SENCos in the decision making process.

iii. Although applications should draw upon existing information kept by a school about a child identified with SEN, schools complain that gathering and transferring the information into an application is very time consuming.

iv. There were 497 Band 1 & 2 applications received between April 2007 and March 2008 and of these 115 were unsuccessful. Many were returned because information, required to make a decision, was missing.

v. School panel members have generally found the process interesting but complain about the time required to read the high volume of Level 1 & 2 applications prior to the meetings. Of the 551 applications received April 2007 to March 2008, 497 were for Band Levels 1 & 2.

vi. Assuming 15 minutes reading time for each Band 1 & 2 application prior to panel meetings by 4 SENCos this equates to 497 hours of SENCo time spent preparing for panels in 2007-08 vii. Some schools have suggested that preparing an application can take 2 hours of SENCo time. Given that there were 497 Level 1 and 2 applications in the financial year 2007/08 that would suggest that SENCos spent around 1000 hours preparing their cases. Given that 115 applications were unsuccessful this would make around 230 hours of this SENCo time unproductive. viii. Despite the large amount of funding being allocated every three weeks schools have complained that the scheme makes very considerable demands on SENCo time for relatively small amounts of time limited funding at Band Levels 1 & 2.

ix. The increasing number of applications has resulted in Panel meetings that can last over 5 hours, due to the very high level of applications at Bands 1 & 2. On occasions it has been necessary to split Panels into two meetings in order to get through all the applications. Assuming each Level 1 & 2 application takes the panel 10 minutes to reach a decision and that there are 4 SENCO’s and 3 Officers in attendance the combined panel time in 2007-08 on lower level funding decisions equates to approximately 580 hours in meetings over the course of the financial year 2007/08.

50 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 x. The average application takes the SEN Team 45minutes to input into their ICT system, prepare for panel and provide follow up feedback and financial processes. In 2007-08 therefore the SEN Team spent a total of approximately 350 hours on the administration of Bands 1 & 2 in the financial year 2007/08 This is time better spent on high level (Band 3 & 4) applications together with casework and monitoring associated with the current 660 statements of SEN.

xi. The volume of lower level applications has also resulted in a significant shift in the type of work undertaken by the Learning, Behaviour and Psychology Teams, with an emphasis on activities for schools to satisfy the scheme’s criteria rather than on preventative and development work with schools. xii. It is clear from application and allocation monitoring that some schools make considerable more use of the scheme for lower level needs than others. Some schools are also considerably more successful in obtaining Band 2 funding for certain categories of need than others with apparently similar populations. xiii. Monitoring at individual school level has also identified that volume users are not necessarily schools expected to have high levels of children with SEN. xiv. A change in SENCo at a school can lead to a significant rise or fall in applications at the lower levels. xv. Some infrequent users have populations known to be indicative of high levels of children with SEN. This suggests that some schools are absorbing the initial costs of SEN support whilst others may not be doing so to the same degree.

5. Conclusions from Banded Funding Monitoring

i. Schools have had continuing reservations about the operation of the scheme particularly in relation to high incidence needs likely to attract Band Levels 1 & 2.

ii. Fair distribution at Bands 1 & 2 may be affected by schools application of the criteria and funding levels across schools may not be reflective of actual comparative levels of need in schools.

iii. There is a very significant cost to both schools and the authority in preparing applications and in panels throughout the year primarily focussed on the heavy demand for low level, and generally short term funding allocations.

iv. The scheme’s lower funding levels may be diverting SENCos from their proper focus of SEN co-ordination and school improvement in the area of SEN.

v. The scheme may be encouraging bidding practice at the lower funding levels that discourages proper identification of children’s special educational needs.

vi. Parental confidence in schools’ SEN arrangements is fundamental whatever the funding mechanism. There is a currently increasing trend for parents to seek statutory assessment despite having Level 1 or 2 allocations in place. There is evidence of some parents being encouraged to do so by schools. vii. The benefits to schools of delegating Bands 1 & 2 will be undermined if parents continue to turn to requests for statutory assessment where there are relatively low level needs. viii. All funding for Statements of SEN comes from the Dedicated Schools Grant. A return to unreasonably high levels of statements of SEN will inevitably result in reductions in school budgets.

51 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 ix. A continuation of the trend of parents of children with relatively low level needs seeking a statement of SEN following a delegation of monies for such needs will result in the likelihood of school involvement alongside the Authority in time- consuming appeals SEN & Disability Tribunals.

x. Where parent appeals for low level statements of SEN are successful, the school will lose any flexibility in use of their funding as an individual funding level will need to be specified by the Authority and delivered by the school.

xi. SEN expenditure from 2000/01 to 2006/07 on a comparable basis after adjusting for teachers pay inflation annually has continued to increase despite a significant decrease in statements of SEN.

xii. £3m was spent on all levels of banded funding with and without statements of SEN in 2007/08 and £3.7m budgeted in 2008/09. This was despite a budgeted reduction of 5% in the value of funding levels for Bands 1 & 2 in 2008/09.

xiii. The increase is against a background of reductions in pupil numbers of around -1.5% annually. Falling pupil numbers results in a proportionate reduction in Dedicated Schools Grant.

xiv. Schools Forum considered a report on this trend in October 2007 and judged that at “all other things being equal” the need for SEN expenditure should reduce in line with falling pupil numbers. However Schools Forum members noted that the trend evidence from 2001 indicates the opposite effect, namely of rising costs.

xv. The growth in the number of applications for banded funding generally and in particular the increasing numbers applying for Level 2 funding in the area of limited literacy attainments and low level behavioural difficulties contributes significantly to this increase in costs.

xvi. The types and levels of need generating the majority of Band 1 & 2 applications should be capable of responding to good early intervention and successful academic and pastoral arrangements made by schools for its more vulnerable learners.

xvii. Funding allocations to schools over the past financial year varied from £0 to over £300 per pupil. Some schools, drawing a population from known areas of social deprivation received less than average banded funding whilst others received two or three times the average amount per pupil. xviii. The money to fund continued increases in SEN can only be found from other areas of the Schools Budget. This can either be achieved by reducing the core funding allocated to schools through the Age Weighted Pupil Unit funding or other budget savings.

xix. The continued growth of SEN funding will reduce the core school budgets and the flexibility of local decision making by Head Teachers and Governors

Consultation Question 1 relates to sections 1 to 5 above

Do you agree with the principle of delegating funding from Band Levels 1 & 2?

Please provide your reply on the Consultation Reply Sheet

52 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

6. Background to Proposal B

To delegate Dedicated Schools Grant budgets of approximately £400,000 identified for the provision of general learning and behaviour teams, together with associated team costs, to mainstream scho ols from April 2009

I. In September 2007 Schools Forum tasked the Funding for Inclusion Group to investigate the scope for delegating all or some of the central Advisory Teams funding to schools.

II. The Group examined the issues including details of the teams’ activities and restructuring proposals.

III. The advisory teacher teams have now been restructured to prepare the services for work within Locality Teams and to comply with the need to identify a Teaching and Learning Responsibility structure by December 31st 2008.

IV. The Authority has taken the opportunity to improve strategic development and performance management across the teams to create a structure that offers greater consistency and accountability.

V. The restructure has resulted in a more streamlined management structure and has moved all such posts to the Soulbury Scales, thereby creating more opportunities for the most senior managers to plan together outside school term times.

VI. The restructure includes a new specialist advisory post for Social & Communication Difficulties including Autistic Spectrum Disorder by designating a post previously within the team establishment.

VII. A new Access & Improvement Co-ordinator team of three under the leadership of the SEN & Accessibility Advisor will further promote SEN strategic planning and provide support to school partnerships, Senior Management in schools and SENCo development activities. The posts replace some posts in the former Learning Team.

VIII. These new arrangements will provide schools with a network of support suitable to help schools meet the expectations of the new Inclusion Development Programme and are designed to provide more extensive support to schools in the area of SEN development than is currently possible.

IX. The new arrangements will also help schools to identify productive and cost effective use of available resources and will assist in the further development of the SEN partnership and Quality Mark arrangements with schools.

X. These new services will be provided outside any delegation arrangement at present.

XI. The Funding for Inclusion Group has explored ways in which delegation of monies for learning and behaviour could give schools more choice and control in the area of high incidence needs and use resources in more efficient ways than is currently possible through centrally funded teams using open referral systems.

XII. Exemplars of benefits are: Opportunities to pool delegated resources within a group of schools in order to arrange advice and training of particular relevance to the group.

53 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

Delegation could encourage greater sharing of training and development of in- house expertise in high incidence special needs. Schools would have more control over the extent and quality of services by applying market forces and commissioning what they require. This could include service level agreements offered by current teams. Some schools make very little use of certain teams because they have established expertise within their own resources. Delegation could be a fairer way of arranging advice and training for high incidence needs. Secondary Schools already have a successful Service Level Agreement with the Behaviour Support Team and this could be extended.

7. Advisory Teams

Before Restructure After Restructure

Advice Areas Staffing Advice Areas Staffing Hearing 2.7 FTE Advisory Hearing Impairment 2.7 FTE Advisory Impairment Teachers Teachers 0.8 Educational 0.8 Educational Audiologist Audiologist 0.6 Communication 0.6 Communication Skills Advisor Skills Advisor 5 hours Early Years 5 hours Early Years Support Worker Support Worker 2 Visual Impairment 2 FTE Advisory Visual Impairment 2 FTE Advisory Teachers Teachers Mobility Officer Mobility Officer 5 hours Early Years 5 hours Early Years Support Worker Support Worker Hospital & Home 1.6 FTE Teachers Hospital & Home 1.6 FTE Teachers Teaching Teaching 20 hours TA 20 hours TA Sessional staff Sessional staff Child 1 FTE Advisory Child Development 1 FTE Advisory Development Teachers Centre Teachers Centre Physical Disability 1 FTE Advisory Physical Disability & 1 FTE Advisory & Alternative/ Teacher Alternative/ Teacher Augmentative Augmentative Communication Communication English as an 2.7 FTE Advisory English as an 2.7 FTE Advisory Additional Teachers Additional Language Teachers Language 50 hours TA 50 hours TA

54 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

General Learning 5.97 FTE Advisory General Learning 3FTE Advisory Teachers Teachers Behaviour 2.8 FTE Advisory Behaviour 2.8 FTE Advisory Teachers Teachers 1FTE Advisory 1FTE Advisory Teacher (High Teacher (High School SLA Post) School SLA Post) 0.8 sessional staff 0.8 sessional staff 25 hours TA 25 hours TA Social 1FTE Advisory Communication teacher Difficulties (including ASD) Access & 1 FTE Soulbury SEN Access & 1 FTE Soulbury SEN Improvement & Accessibility Improvement & Accessibility Advisor Advisor 2 FTE Specialist 1 FTE Soulbury Service Co- Senior Officer ordinators Access & Improvement 1FTE Monitoring Officer 3 FTE Soulbury Access &

Improvement Co- ordinators

8. Conclusions

i. The new structure provides an emphasis on services that support school improvement and SENCo development in line with the National priorities for schools in the area of SEN. ii. The structure also retains low incidence and mandatory services for children & young people and has made provision for team level responsibility for performance management in addition to an appropriate professional leadership. iii. The senior management post for low incidence services has been moved from Teachers Pay & Conditions to Soulbury scales. This provides for a 37 hour working week with 24-30 days leave entitlement plus bank holidays, giving more opportunity for strategic planning across all senior managers in the area of SEN. iv. The restructure has been achieved within the previous budget envelope. v. The results of reductions in high cost management post are included in the monies identified for delegation. vi. The Funding for Inclusion Group’s recommendation to Schools Forum regarding delegation of funding from Advisory Teacher Teams was as follows: That there was no benefit in delegating monies providing mandatory and/or low incidence services such as the Hearing Impaired and Visual Impaired Services, Home & Hospital Teaching Services and English as an Additional Language Services as the disadvantages appeared to outweigh any benefits to schools. 11

55 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

That a proposal to delegate funding for the Learning and Behaviour teams should be prepared for consultation.

Consultation Question 2 relates to sections 6 to 8 above

Do you agree with the delegation of Learning & Behaviour team funding ?

Please provide your reply on the Consultation Reply Sheet

9. Funding Available for Delegation i. The table below sets out the total funding in 2008/09 for Banded Funding with and without statements of SEN and the potential for delegation to schools is set out in the table following the advice of the Funding for Inclusion reference group.

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Actual Budget Potential for Delegation

Band 1 £322,000 £203,0000 £203,000 (see Note 1) (see Note 2) Band 2 £1,367,000 £1,100,000 £1,100,000 (see Note 1) (see Note 2) Band 3 £583,000 £564,000 £0 Band 4 £687,000 £640,000 £0 New Banding £1,200,000 £840,000 Applications (see Note 2) Included above Anticipated Bands Anticipated Bands 1 & 2 1 & 2 TOTAL £2,899,000 £3,647,000 £2,143,000

Note 1: Allocations in school budgets continuing from previous year Note 2: It is estimated that 71% by monetary value of new bands issued in any year are successful applications for Bands 1 & 2 and therefore 71% of £1.2m is potentially available for delegation in 2009/10

56 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

I. The table below sets out the cost of the previous and restructured Learning & Behaviour arrangements.

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Actual Budget Potential for Delegation

Learning Team £381,565 £395,000 £188,000 (see Note 1) Behaviour £197,377 £212,000 £212,000 Team

Total £578,942 £607,000 £400,000

Note 1: Budget for 2009/10 following restructuring

10. Delegation Models

i. Statistical modelling of the actual banded funding allocations to primary schools in financial year 2007/08 indicated a high degree of correlation between pupil numbers and the amount of banded funding for Bands 1 & 2. Pupil numbers explained 83.8% (equivalent to a statistical of correlation of 91.5% - note that a perfect match is 100%) of the banded funding allocations to schools. Adding additional factors such as low prior attainment, pupils on Schools Action and School Action Plus, did not statistically explain any more of the variation between schools but complicated the funding model substantially (the percentage only increased to 84.76% - which is not statistically significant).

ii. If the number of pupils on School Action and School Action Plus were to be included in the funding model then it would be necessary to introduce a moderation process to ensure consistency between schools. Given the significant extra costs applicable with such a moderation process, there is no statistical benefit in adopting this funding model. The funding models explored were as follows £98 per pupil (83.8% variation explained) £90 per pupil + £62 per pupil with Low Prior Attainment ( 84.1%) £75 per pupil + £275 per pupil on School Action Plus (84.6%) £68 per pupil + £100 per pupil on School Action + £200 per pupil on School Action Plus (84.75%)

11. Social Deprivation Factor

i. DCSF has set social deprivation funding targets for the Council which we are required to meet by 2010 .Data analysis indicates that 22% of pupils with banded funding also are in receipt of free school meals. Given the government priority to social deprivation, a further funding model has been developed which separates out 22% of the available funding i.e. £460,000 into a separate pot and allocates this money as a supplement based on free school meals.

57 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

ii. Use of free school meals as an indicator of social deprivation may not be the best indicator. An alternative used within the school funding formula is the IDACI (IDACI – Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index). The current intention is to use the IDACI in the formula being developed for consistent early years funding from September 2009.

iii. The use of the protection model in the banded funding delegation formula will smooth the funding allocated in 2009/10. Further review work will be undertaken during the summer 2009 to evaluate whether the IDACI could appropriately replace the use of free school meals in the banded funding model from April 2010. The use of IDACI also has drawbacks however and these will need to be carefully evaluated.

12. Preferred Model for Delegation

i. The preferred model for delegation is therefore as follows:

Bands 1 & 2 £76.75 per pupil + £293 per Free School Meal pupil Funding

Learning and £14.60 per pupil + £55.70 per Free School Meal pupil Behaviour Support Total Funding £91.35 per pupil + £348.70 per Free School Meal pupil Model

ii. This model provides a correlation of 81.75% with actual banded funding received in 2007/08 and after the application of the protection factor the correlation further increases to 96.1% representing a very good fit between the proposed funding model and actual banded funding received by schools.

Consultation Questions 3a and 3b relate to Sec tions 9 to 12

a. Do you agree with the proposed Funding Model of £76.75per pupil +

£293 per Free School Meal pupil?

b. Do you agree with the proposal for a further £14.60 per pupil + £55.70 per Free School Meal pupil for learning and behaviour support arrangements?

Please provide your reply on the Consultation Reply Sheet

13. Implementation and Protection arrangements

i. Schools have taken varied approaches to banded funding, and this appears to be reflected in the differences in the percentage per pupil levels. Some schools in areas of known social deprivation have achieved unusually low levels of funding through the Banded Funding Scheme in comparison with others

58 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

ii. Consequently actual funding received by schools is not considered to be a true representation of funding need. This means that in the short term i.e. the first year of delegating funding on the basis of an agreed formula there will be “winners and losers” when compared to past funding received.

iii. This is normal in delegating new funding to schools and as such it is generally accepted practice that attempts are made to try to smooth the transition from what may be a historically higher base of actual funding to a possible lower formulaic allocation in the future.. For example, schools can be in receipt of very different historical and formula funding allocations as follows School A Successful applications £0 Proposed delegated funding £6,000 School B Successful applications £34,000 Proposed delegated funding £15,000

iv. As banded funding is generally used by schools to employ support staff, it is considered important that a scheme of protection is included in the proposed delegation scheme in order to allow time for schools to adjust their expenditure to the new funding levels and in particular to permit sufficient notice to adjust staff contracts. Because of the close links between staff and funding it is proposed to offer funding protection for the first 12 months of the new scheme in 2009/10 so that schools can adjust their spending accordingly.

v. The initial protection proposal offered to the Funding for Inclusion group for discussion was to use the banded funding allocated to schools for the financial year 2007/08 as a baseline to provide protection for the first year of delegation by averaging the baseline 2007/08 actual expenditure with the formula allocation from the funding model. A simple example is set out below

vi. School A will receive half £0 for actual applications and half the formula allocation of £6,000 to give a total of £3,000

vii. School B will receive half £34,000 for actual applications and half the formula allocation of £15,000 to give a total of £24,500.

viii. The example above illustrates how protection works to smooth out the introduction of the new delegation formula so that losers are protected and winners give up some of their immediate gains in order to give schools time to adjust their spending to new lower levels. A key point is that a baseline has to be used from a past year so that protected funding levels cannot be influenced by schools continuing to make applications.

14. More complex methods of protection The Funding for Inclusion group requested that alternative methods of protecting “loser” schools be modelled for inclusion in the consultation paper. Other suggested methods of protection are set out below with the advantages and disadvantages of each;

i. Providing protection over a three-year period rather than a two year period in this way schools that are receiving reduced budgets have longer to plan and reduce their expenditure appropriately. Clearly schools that gain under the delegation formula will have to wait longer to receive their full allocation. Given that 12 months should be more than sufficient to adjust staff contracts and that successful banded funding applications are generally allocate for 12 months, it is considered that a protection period in excess of the first 12 months is unnecessary.

59 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

ii. Provide protection based on the average of actual 07/08 spends and estimated 2008/09 spend say up until end of December 2008. This has the significant advantage of reflecting schools current banded funding costs but could be unduly influenced by continued applications during the autumn term 2008 and it would be impossible to give schools any firm figures for protected budgets during the consultation period.

iii. Schools protection could also be solely based on the 2009/10 commitments arising from successful banding applications in 2008/09. This would be up to date but problematic to implement because the majority of commitments arise from banding applications in the second half of 2008/09 from banding applications yet to be submitted. Any such scheme could encourage a rise in applications for bands during the remainder of 2008/09 from schools seeking to maximise their future funding over the protection period.

iv. Protection could be based on the most recent academic year from September 2007 to August 2008 and be adjusted for pupils transferring schools so that both the benefit and the associated liability of the protection transfers to the new school rather than remaining at the old school. However many bands do not transfer automatically to the new high school in September. This method seems the fairest however it is significantly different from using the financial year funding form 2007/08 as proposed above and would not as easy for schools to check the calculations.

v. In practical terms, arrangements have been made to effect a change over of funding systems should delegation take place in April 2009 and to continue with the present system if not. 15. Protection Proposal

i. Taking account of the issues and options explored above it is proposed that the protection scheme offered to schools should be limited to the initial 12 months be based on the actual banded funding received during the financial year 2007/08 averaged with funding allocated by the delegation model as set out in Section 12 above.

ii. It is not possible to provide a satisfactory protection method for high schools because the banded funding scheme has been introduced on a gradual basis. It will be available in Year 10 in September 2008. Consequently there is no accurate actual cost of high school banded funding allocations reflecting the full cost of bands across all years in the high schools. Hence the proposal to move directly to the new formula allocation from April 2009. In general high schools have much larger budgets than primary schools and are more able to absorb minor fluctuations in funding 16. Balance of Funding

i. The initial model proposed for delegation has been tested and expenditure for primary schools is £1,175,000. Applying the same funding model to high schools allocates £955,000.

ii. It is considered that this balance is about right and that the same funding model of £76.75 per pupil plus £293 per free school meal pupils would be used for high schools. Allocation of slightly greater funding to primary schools is in keeping with the accepted principles of early intervention.

iii. Further delegation of £400,000 from budgets providing advice and training to schools in the area of learning and behaviour are proposed at a rate of £14.60 per pupil plus a further £55.70 per free school meal pupil. 16

60 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008

iv. There is no accurate actual cost of high school banded funding allocations reflecting the full cost of bands across all years in the high schools because the banded funding scheme is not yet in place across all year groups at the secondary phase. It is proposed to move directly to the new formula allocation in high schools from April 2009.

Consultation Questions 4a and 4b relate to Sections 13 to 16

a. Do you agree with the recommended method of protection for the initial first year of the delegated funding?

b. Do you agree with the proposal to move directly to the new formula allocation with no protection arrangements in high schools?

Please provide your reply on the Consultation Reply Sheet

Background papers • Detailed financial formula modelling- attached. • School Forum Report 10 th October 2007 ‘SEN Expenditure Trends’ Agenda Item 8 http://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/Published/C00000444/M00002424/AI00012234/$1010 07SENExpendituretrends.docA.ps.pdf • School Forum Report 29 th February 2008’ Delegation of Support Services Progress Report’ Agenda item 11 http://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/Published/C00000444/M00002539/AI00013386/$2902 Agenda7DelegationofSupportServices.docA.ps.pdf

61 62 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 APPENDIX 2

Consultation on the Delegation of Funding for High Incidence Special Educational Needs Provision in Mainstream Schools Consultation Reply Consultation from 22 nd September to 14 th November 2008

School Signature Designation

Please return to : Malcolm Green, Finance Manager Plough Lane Hereford HR4 0XH [email protected]

PROPOSAL A To delegate Dedicated Schools Grant budgets of approximately £2,100,000 identified for Bands 1 and 2 SEN funding (with and without statements of SEN) under the Herefordshire Banded Funding Scheme to mainstream schools from April 2009

PROPOSAL B

To delegate Dedicated Schools Grant budgets of approximately £400,000 identified for the provision of general le arning and behaviour teams together with associated team costs to mainstream schools from April 2009

Consultation question & answer events Monday 8 th October 2008 at 2pm and Wednesday 10 th October 2008 at 10am at Whitecross High School and Specialist Sports College, Hereford

63 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 APPENDIX 2

Question 1 - Principle of Delegating Funding for Bands 1 & 2

For full information please see Background Information document Sections 1 to 5

Summary of relevant background information below.

• Many schools have had continuing reservations about the operation of the scheme particularly in relation to high incidence needs likely to attract Band Levels 1 & 2. • There is a very significant cost in both schools and the authority in preparing applications and in panels throughout the year primarily focussed on the heavy demand for low level, and generally short term funding allocations. • Delegation of lower levels of funding will offer schools greater flexibility for making provision where deemed necessary. • Expenditure on primary schools shows a real terms increase of 28% on expenditure compared with a 10% fall in pupil numbers over the same 6-year period. • Expenditure on secondary shows a real terms increase of 22% compared to a 4% rise in pupil numbers. • The percentage SEN spend of the overall Education budget for high schools remains broadly constant, however the % for primary schools reduced initially but is now rising. In total, the percentage spend has risen from 2.99% in 2003/04 to a budgeted 3.58% in 07/08 and a budgeted spend of 4.2% in 08/09 • The money to fund continued increases in SEN can only be found from other areas of the Schools Budget. This can either be achieved by reducing the core funding allocated to schools through the Age Weighted Pupil Unit funding or other budget savings. • The continued growth of SEN funding will reduce the core school budgets and the flexibility of local decision making by Head Teachers and Governors Strongly Agree No View Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. Do you agree with the principle of delegating funding from Band Levels 1 & 2? Comments (Please give reasons if you disagree)

Continue on another sheet if necessary.

64 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 APPENDIX 2

Question 2 - Delegation of some Support Service Funding

For full information please see Background Information document Sections 6 to 8

Summary of relevant background information below.

• Delegation of funding retained currently to provide advice and training in learning and behaviour advice and training could give schools more choice and control in the area of high incidence needs and allow the use resources in more efficient ways than is currently possible. • For example, an individual or group of schools could pool delegated resources and/or combine them with monies from delegated funding from Levels 1 & 2 and use them to purchase advice and training relevant to their particular circumstances. • Training and use of expertise across a group of schools could be both more effective and cost efficient and would reflect the expectation that schools will need to work together. • Schools would also have more control over the extent and quality of purchased services by applying market forces and commissioning what was wanted. • Some schools make very little use of certain teams because they have established expertise within their own resources. Delegation could be a fairer way of arranging advice and training for high incidence needs. • A formal delegation of budgets from two restructured teams could add another £400,000 to school budgets

Strongly Agree No View Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 2. Do you agree with the delegation of funding from Learning & Behaviour teams? Comments (Please give reasons if you disagree)

65 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 APPENDIX 2 Continue on another sheet if necessary.

Questions 3a & 3b - Delegation Models

For full information please see Background Information document Sections 9 to 12

Summary of relevant background information below.

• Statistical modelling of the actual banded funding allocations to primary schools in financial year 2007/08 indicated a high degree of correlation between pupil numbers and the amount of banded funding for Bands 1 & 2. Pupil numbers explained 83.8% (equivalent to a statistical of correlation of 91.5% - note that a perfect match is 100%) of the banded funding allocations to schools. Adding additional factors such as low prior attainment, pupils on Schools Action and School Action Plus, did not statistically explain any more of the variation between schools but complicated the funding model substantially (the percentage only increased to 84.76% - which is not statistically significant). • The same delegation funding model should be considered for both Banded Funding 1 & 2 and the Learning/Behaviour services funding in schools as they are closely linked. • DCSF has set social deprivation funding targets for the Council that we are required to meet by 2010. Data analysis indicates that 22% of pupils with banded funding are also in receipt of free school meals. There is an established correlation between high incidence SEN and social deprivation. • Given the Government priority to social deprivation, a further funding model has been developed which separates 22% of the available funding i.e. £460,000 into a separate pot and allocates this money as a supplement based on free school meals. Please reply to both 3a and 3b Strongly Agree No View Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 3a. Do you agree with the proposed Funding Model of £76.75 per pupil + £293 per Free School Meal pupil

3b. Do you agree with a further £14.60 per pupil + £55.70 per Free School Meal pupil for learning and behaviour support arrangements?

Comments (Please give reasons if you disagree)

66 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 APPENDIX 2 Continue on another sheet if necessary.

67 CONSULATAION ON THE DELEGATION OF FUNDING FOR HIGH INCIDENCE SEN PROVISION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS - 22 ND SEPTEMBER TO 14 TH NOVEMBER 2008 APPENDIX 2

Questions 4a and 4b – Protection Arrangements

For full i nformation please see Background Information document Sections 13 to 16 Summary of relevant background information below.

• The recommended protection arrangement is to use the banded funding allocated to schools for the financial year 2007/08 as a baseline to provide protection for the first year of delegation by averaging the baseline 2007/08 actual expenditure with the formula allocation from the funding model. A simple example is set out below School A will receive half £0 for actual applications and half the formula allocation of £6,000 to give a total of £3,000 School B will receive half £34,000 for actual applications and half the formula allocation of £15,000 to give a total of £24,500. • The example above illustrates how protection works to smooth out the introduction of the new delegation formula so that losers are protected and winners give up some of their immediate gains in order to give schools time to adjust their spending to new lower levels. A key point is that a baseline has to be used from a past year so that protected funding levels cannot be influenced by schools continuing applications

• It is not possible to provide a satisfactory protection method for high schools because the banded funding scheme has been introduced on a gradual basis. It will be available in Year 10 in September 2008. Consequently there is no accurate actual cost of high school banded funding allocations reflecting the full cost of bands across all years in the high schools. Hence the proposal to move directly to the new formula allocation from April 2009. In general high schools have much larger budgets than primary schools and more able to absorb minor fluctuations in funding. Please reply to both 4a and 4b Strongly Agree No View Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 4a. Do you agree with the recommended method of protection for the initial first year of the delegated funding? 4b. Do you agree with the proposal to move directly to the new formula allocation with no protection arrangements in high schools? Comments (Please give reasons if you disagree and indicate any other protection preference)

Continue on another sheet if necessary.

68 APPENDIX 3

Banded funding panel allocations 2007-08 Social Deprivation Supplement Model Model 1: £76.75 per pupil plus £293 per FSM col G + I - F col U x by PROPOSED FUNDING MODEL INCL 0.18580 PROTECTION COMPARED WITH BANDING Produced 12 Sept 08 JAN PLASC DATA FUNDING ALLOCATIONS BANDED FUNDING PER PUPIL BANDED FUNDING FORMULA DETAILS & SUPPORT PROTECTION

PUPIL Numbers Data Banded Funding Model incl Protection & Learning excludes Sixth/Nursery Support 2007/08 Data Only Proposed Banded Funding Delegation Model 0.18580 Jan 07 PLASC data Band 1 & 2 Behaviour Band 1 & 2 Behaviour Behaviour Col F + Col U Free Free Only Banded Funding Learning Overall Only Delegation Learning £77 £293 Total Difference % Learning Average Cost Number Meals Meals Actual 07.08 Protection Model Support All funding Actual Protection Model Support per pupil per FSM Delegated from actual Difference Support Protection Centre Name of School on Roll Numbers % 2007/08 Model loss/gain Delegation loss/gain Name of School per pupil per pupil per pupil per pupil Name of School Amount Amount Funding funding Delegation Model £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ % £ £ E0100 Almeley 62 1 1.6% 7,013 6,032 -981 939 -42 Almeley 113 97 81 15 Almeley 4,759 293 5,052 -1,962 -28% 939 6,032 E0101 Ashperton 164 3 1.8% 8,367 10,917 2,550 2,502 5,051 Ashperton 51 67 82 15 Ashperton 12,587 879 13,466 5,099 61% 2,502 10,917 E0102 Bodenham St.Michaels 104 5 4.8% 7,912 8,680 768 1,755 2,523 Bodenham St.Michaels 76 83 91 17 Bodenham St.Michaels 7,982 1,465 9,447 1,535 19% 1,755 8,680 E0103 Bosbury 117 7 6.0% 11,139 11,085 -54 2,050 1,995 Bosbury 95 95 94 18 Bosbury 8,980 2,051 11,031 -108 -1% 2,050 11,085

E0104 Brampton Abbotts 116 18 15.5% 17,844 16,011 -1,834 2,634 801 Brampton Abbotts 154 138 122 23 Brampton Abbotts 8,903 5,274 14,177 -3,667 -21% 2,634 16,011 E0105 Bredenbury 54 12 22.2% 11,467 9,564 -1,903 1,423 -480 Bredenbury 212 177 142 26 Bredenbury 4,145 3,516 7,661 -3,807 -33% 1,423 9,564 E0106 Bridstow 96 2 2.1% 4,421 6,188 1,767 1,478 3,244 Bridstow 46 64 83 15 Bridstow 7,368 586 7,954 3,533 80% 1,478 6,188 E0108 Brockhampton 168 12 7.1% 19,586 17,998 -1,588 3,049 1,461 Brockhampton 117 107 98 18 Brockhampton 12,894 3,516 16,410 -3,176 -16% 3,049 17,998

E0109 Bromyard St.Peters 197 9 4.6% 15,524 16,640 1,116 3,299 4,416 Bromyard St.Peters 79 84 90 17 Bromyard St.Peters 15,120 2,637 17,757 2,233 14% 3,299 16,640 E0110 Burghill 88 0.0% 3,586 5,170 1,584 1,255 2,839 Burghill 41 59 77 14 Burghill 6,754 0 6,754 3,168 88% 1,255 5,170 E0111 Burley Gate 96 7 7.3% 16,755 13,087 -3,668 1,750 -1,918 Burley Gate 175 136 98 18 Burley Gate 7,368 2,051 9,419 -7,336 -44% 1,750 13,087 E0112 Canon Pyon 89 2 2.2% 4,372 5,894 1,522 1,378 2,900 Canon Pyon 49 66 83 15 Canon Pyon 6,831 586 7,417 3,045 70% 1,378 5,894

E0113 Clehonger 151.5 4 2.6% 34,422 23,611 -10,811 2,378 -8,433 Clehonger 227 156 84 16 Clehonger 11,628 1,172 12,800 -21,622 -63% 2,378 23,611 E0114 Clifford 70 2 2.9% 8,742 7,350 -1,392 1,107 -285 Clifford 125 105 85 16 Clifford 5,373 586 5,959 -2,784 -32% 1,107 7,350 E0115 Colwall 190 6 3.2% 9,713 13,027 3,314 3,036 6,350 Colwall 51 69 86 16 Colwall 14,583 1,758 16,341 6,628 68% 3,036 13,027 E0116 Cradley 104 0.0% 7,064 7,523 459 1,483 1,942 Cradley 68 72 77 14 Cradley 7,982 0 7,982 918 13% 1,483 7,523

E0117 Credenhill 155.5 18 11.6% 14,953 16,081 1,128 3,197 4,325 Credenhill 96 103 111 21 Credenhill 11,935 5,274 17,209 2,256 15% 3,197 16,081 E0118 Dilwyn 43 2 4.7% 1,138 2,512 1,374 722 2,096 Dilwyn 26 58 90 17 Dilwyn 3,300 586 3,886 2,748 241% 722 2,512 E0119 Eardisley 88 7 8.0% 3,237 6,021 2,784 1,636 4,420 Eardisley 37 68 100 19 Eardisley 6,754 2,051 8,805 5,568 172% 1,636 6,021 E0120 Eastnor 86 2 2.3% 8,919 8,053 -866 1,335 469 Eastnor 104 94 84 16 Eastnor 6,601 586 7,187 -1,733 -19% 1,335 8,053

69 E0121 Ewyas Harold 106 2 1.9% 5,663 7,192 1,529 1,620 3,150 Ewyas Harold 53 68 82 15 Ewyas Harold 8,136 586 8,722 3,059 54% 1,620 7,192 E0122 Fownhope 88 2 2.3% 2,294 4,817 2,523 1,364 3,887 Fownhope 26 55 83 15 Fownhope 6,754 586 7,340 5,046 220% 1,364 4,817 E0123 Garway 74 2 2.7% 8,805 7,535 -1,270 1,164 -106 Garway 119 102 85 16 Garway 5,680 586 6,266 -2,540 -29% 1,164 7,535 E0124 Goodrich 115 5 4.3% 12,666 11,479 -1,187 1,912 725 Goodrich 110 100 89 17 Goodrich 8,826 1,465 10,291 -2,375 -19% 1,912 11,479

E0125 Gorsley Goffs 153 6 3.9% 352 6,926 6,574 2,508 9,083 Gorsley Goffs 2 45 88 16 Gorsley Goffs 11,743 1,758 13,501 13,149 3735% 2,508 6,926 E0126 Broadlands 328 35 10.7% 37,727 36,578 -1,149 6,583 5,434 Broadlands 115 112 108 20 Broadlands 25,174 10,255 35,429 -2,298 -6% 6,583 36,578 E0127 Hampton Dene 236 12 5.1% 14,169 17,899 3,730 4,019 7,749 Hampton Dene 60 76 92 17 Hampton Dene 18,113 3,516 21,629 7,460 53% 4,019 17,899 E0128 Holmer 262 15 5.7% 28,358 26,431 -1,927 4,553 2,626 Holmer 108 101 94 17 Holmer 20,109 4,395 24,504 -3,855 -14% 4,553 26,431

E0131 Lord Scudamore 536 19 3.5% 77,085 61,895 -15,190 8,678 -6,512 Lord Scudamore 144 115 87 16 Lord Scudamore 41,138 5,567 46,705 -30,380 -39% 8,678 61,895 E0132 Marlbrook 386 103 26.7% 37,549 48,677 11,128 11,112 22,239 Marlbrook 97 126 155 29 Marlbrook 29,626 30,179 59,805 22,256 59% 11,112 48,677 E0133 Our Lady's 209 13 6.2% 8,616 14,233 5,617 3,688 9,305 Our Lady's 41 68 95 18 Our Lady's 16,041 3,809 19,850 11,234 130% 3,688 14,233 E0134 St Francis Xavier 200 11 5.5% 5,443 12,008 6,565 3,451 10,016 St Francis Xavier 27 60 93 17 St Francis Xavier 15,350 3,223 18,573 13,130 241% 3,451 12,008

E0135 St James 201 10 5.0% 13,958 16,157 2,199 3,411 5,610 St James 69 80 91 17 St James 15,427 2,930 18,357 4,399 32% 3,411 16,157 E0136 St Martins 357 64 17.9% 29,096 37,624 8,528 8,575 17,103 St Martins 82 105 129 24 St Martins 27,400 18,752 46,152 17,056 59% 8,575 37,624 E0137 St Pauls 405 5 1.2% 12,936 22,742 9,806 6,048 15,854 St Pauls 32 56 80 15 St Pauls 31,084 1,465 32,549 19,613 152% 6,048 22,742 E0138 Trinity 520.5 36 6.9% 50,323 50,410 87 9,382 9,469 Trinity 97 97 97 18 Trinity 39,948 10,548 50,496 173 0% 9,382 50,410

E0139 St Thomas Cantilupe 215.5 22 10.2% 21,875 22,430 555 4,271 4,826 St Thomas Cantilupe 102 104 107 20 St Thomas Cantilupe 16,540 6,446 22,986 1,111 5% 4,271 22,430 E0140 Holme Lacy 60 3 5.0% 4,233 4,859 626 1,019 1,644 Holme Lacy 71 81 91 17 Holme Lacy 4,605 879 5,484 1,251 30% 1,019 4,859 E0142 Kimbolton St James 88 0 0.0% 1,582 4,168 2,586 1,255 3,841 Kimbolton St James 18 47 77 14 Kimbolton St James 6,754 0 6,754 5,172 327% 1,255 4,168 E0143 Kings Caple 43 3 7.0% 3,548 3,864 316 777 1,092 Kings Caple 83 90 97 18 Kings Caple 3,300 879 4,179 631 18% 777 3,864

E0144 Kingsland 132 1 0.8% 10,982 10,703 -279 1,937 1,658 Kingsland 83 81 79 15 Kingsland 10,131 293 10,424 -558 -5% 1,937 10,703 E0145 Kingstone & Thruxton 179 25 14.0% 22,199 21,631 -568 3,914 3,346 Kingstone & Thruxton 124 121 118 22 Kingstone & Thruxton 13,738 7,325 21,063 -1,136 -5% 3,914 21,631 E0146 Kington 198 30 15.2% 27,150 25,568 -1,582 4,457 2,875 Kington 137 129 121 23 Kington 15,197 8,790 23,987 -3,164 -12% 4,457 25,568 E0147 Lea 83 17 20.5% 25,862 18,607 -7,255 2,109 -5,146 Lea 312 224 137 25 Lea 6,370 4,981 11,351 -14,511 -56% 2,109 18,607

E0148 Ledbury 446 14 3.1% 60,968 49,650 -11,318 7,122 -4,196 Ledbury 137 111 86 16 Ledbury 34,231 4,102 38,333 -22,636 -37% 7,122 49,650 E0149 Leintwardine 88 3 3.4% 1,220 4,427 3,207 1,418 4,625 Leintwardine 14 50 87 16 Leintwardine 6,754 879 7,633 6,413 526% 1,418 4,427 E0150 Leominster Infants 236 53 22.5% 22,578 28,110 5,532 6,251 11,783 Leominster Infants 96 119 143 26 Leominster Infants 18,113 15,529 33,642 11,064 49% 6,251 28,110 E0151 Leominster Juniors 344 70 20.3% 46,085 46,499 414 8,716 9,130 Leominster Juniors 134 135 136 25 Leominster Juniors 26,402 20,510 46,912 827 2% 8,716 46,499

E0152 Ivington 90 13 14.4% 17,429 14,073 -3,356 1,991 -1,365 Ivington 194 156 119 22 Ivington 6,908 3,809 10,717 -6,713 -39% 1,991 14,073 E0153 Little Dewchurch 52 1 1.9% 7,971 6,128 -1,844 796 -1,048 Little Dewchurch 153 118 82 15 Little Dewchurch 3,991 293 4,284 -3,687 -46% 796 6,128 E0154 Llangrove 74 0 0.0% 3,328 4,504 1,176 1,055 2,231 Llangrove 45 61 77 14 Llangrove 5,680 0 5,680 2,352 71% 1,055 4,504 E0155 Longtown 52 0 0.0% 8,818 6,405 -2,414 742 -1,672 Longtown 170 123 77 14 Longtown 3,991 0 3,991 -4,827 -55% 742 6,405

E0156 Lugwardine 164 1 0.6% 9,370 11,125 1,755 2,393 4,148 Lugwardine 57 68 79 15 Lugwardine 12,587 293 12,880 3,510 37% 2,393 11,125 E0157 Luston 113 14 12.4% 5,820 9,297 3,477 2,374 5,851 Luston 52 82 113 21 Luston 8,673 4,102 12,775 6,955 119% 2,374 9,297 E0158 Madley 162 11 6.8% 32,788 24,222 -8,566 2,909 -5,657 Madley 202 150 97 18 Madley 12,434 3,223 15,657 -17,132 -52% 2,909 24,222 E0159 Marden 95 7 7.4% 4,592 6,967 2,375 1,736 4,111 Marden 48 73 98 18 Marden 7,291 2,051 9,342 4,750 103% 1,736 6,967 APPENDIX 3

E0160 Michaelchurch Escley 59 6 10.2% 7,924 7,105 -819 1,168 349 Michaelchurch Escley 134 120 107 20 Michaelchurch Escley 4,528 1,758 6,286 -1,638 -21% 1,168 7,105 E0161 Mordiford 114 4 3.5% 9,670 9,796 126 1,843 1,969 Mordiford 85 86 87 16 Mordiford 8,750 1,172 9,922 252 3% 1,843 9,796 E0162 Much Birch 176 5 2.8% 11,306 13,140 1,834 2,782 4,615 Much Birch 64 75 85 16 Much Birch 13,508 1,465 14,973 3,667 32% 2,782 13,140 E0163 Much Marcle 84 5 6.0% 0 3,956 3,956 1,470 5,426 Much Marcle 0 47 94 18 Much Marcle 6,447 1,465 7,912 7,912 n/a 1,470 3,956

E0164 Orleton 178 7 3.9% 10,070 12,891 2,821 2,919 5,741 Orleton 57 72 88 16 Orleton 13,662 2,051 15,713 5,643 56% 2,919 12,891 E0165 Pembridge 93 7 7.5% 5,215 7,202 1,987 1,707 3,694 Pembridge 56 77 99 18 Pembridge 7,138 2,051 9,189 3,974 76% 1,707 7,202 E0166 Pencombe 46 2 4.3% 4,054 4,085 31 765 796 Pencombe 88 89 89 17 Pencombe 3,531 586 4,117 63 2% 765 4,085 E0167 Peterchurch 71 5 7.0% 5,753 6,334 581 1,285 1,865 Peterchurch 81 89 97 18 Peterchurch 5,449 1,465 6,914 1,161 20% 1,285 6,334

E0168 Ross Ashfield Park 327 6 1.8% 42,731 34,793 -7,938 4,990 -2,948 Ross Ashfield Park 131 106 82 15 Ross Ashfield Park 25,097 1,758 26,855 -15,876 -37% 4,990 34,793 E0169 Ross St Josephs 120 4 3.3% 10,314 10,348 34 1,929 1,963 Ross St Josephs 86 86 87 16 Ross St Josephs 9,210 1,172 10,382 68 1% 1,929 10,348 E0170 St Weonards 51 3 5.9% 0 2,397 2,397 891 3,287 St Weonards 0 47 94 17 St Weonards 3,914 879 4,793 4,793 n/a 891 2,397 E0171 Shobdon 48 5 10.4% 6,026 5,588 -439 957 518 Shobdon 126 116 107 20 Shobdon 3,684 1,465 5,149 -877 -15% 957 5,588

E0172 Staunton on Wye 63 4 6.3% 0 3,004 3,004 1,116 4,120 Staunton on Wye 0 48 95 18 Staunton on Wye 4,835 1,172 6,007 6,007 n/a 1,116 3,004 E0173 Stoke Prior 69.5 2 2.9% 1,450 3,685 2,235 1,100 3,335 Stoke Prior 21 53 85 16 Stoke Prior 5,334 586 5,920 4,470 308% 1,100 3,685 E0174 Stretton Sugwas 103 0 0.0% 5,226 6,566 1,340 1,469 2,808 Stretton Sugwas 51 64 77 14 Stretton Sugwas 7,905 0 7,905 2,679 51% 1,469 6,566 E0175 Sutton 57 1 1.8% 5,894 5,281 -613 867 254 Sutton 103 93 82 15 Sutton 4,375 293 4,668 -1,226 -21% 867 5,281

E0176 Walford 189 2 1.1% 4,793 9,942 5,149 2,804 7,953 Walford 25 53 80 15 Walford 14,506 586 15,092 10,299 215% 2,804 9,942 E0177 Wellington 139 16 11.5% 10,853 13,105 2,252 2,853 5,105 Wellington 78 94 110 21 Wellington 10,668 4,688 15,356 4,503 41% 2,853 13,105 E0178 Weobley 159 12 7.5% 17,373 16,546 -827 2,921 2,094 Weobley 109 104 99 18 Weobley 12,203 3,516 15,719 -1,654 -10% 2,921 16,546

E0179 Weston under Penyard 83 7 8.4% 12,704 10,563 -2,141 1,565 -577 Weston under Penyard 153 127 101 19 Weston under Penyard 6,370 2,051 8,421 -4,283 -34% 1,565 10,563 E0180 Whitbourne 62 0 0.0% 622 2,690 2,068 884 2,952 Whitbourne 10 43 77 14 Whitbourne 4,759 0 4,759 4,137 665% 884 2,690 E0181 Whitchurch 99 3 3.0% 10,631 9,554 -1,077 1,575 498 Whitchurch 107 97 86 16 Whitchurch 7,598 879 8,477 -2,154 -20% 1,575 9,554

E0182 Wigmore 142 12 8.5% 11,446 12,930 1,484 2,678 4,162 Wigmore 81 91 102 19 Wigmore 10,899 3,516 14,415 2,969 26% 2,678 12,930 E0183 Withington 82 5 6.1% 8,680 8,219 -461 1,442 981 Withington 106 100 95 18 Withington 6,294 1,465 7,759 -922 -11% 1,442 8,219 New Riverside 408 59 14.5% 48,601 48,601 0 9,030 9,030 Riverside 119 119 119 22 Riverside 31,314 17,287 48,601 0 n/a 9,030 48,601

Total Primary 11944.5 872 7.3% 1,150,948 1,185,600 34,652 226,723 261,374 Total Primary 96 99 102 19 Total Primary 948,054 272,197 1,220,251 69,303 6% 226,723 1,185,600

High Schools Jan 07 PLASC data Band 1 & 2 Behaviour Band 1 & 2 Behaviour Behaviour Free Free Only Total Funding Learning Overall Only Delegation Learning £77 £293 Total Difference % Learning No Protection Cost Number Meals Meals Actual 07.08 Delegated Model Support All funding Actual Protection Model Support per pupil per FSM Delegated from actual Difference Support is proposed for Centre Name of School on Roll Numbers % 2007/08 Funding loss/gain Delegation loss/gain Name of School per pupil per pupil per pupil per pupil Name of School Amount Amount Funding funding Delegation High Schools

E0300 Queen Elizabeth 333.5 21 6.3% 16,527 31,749 n/a 5,899 n/a Queen Elizabeth 50 n/a 95 18 Queen Elizabeth 25,596 6,153 31,749 15,222 92% 5,899 n/a 70 E0301 Aylestone 1138.5 78 6.9% 42,402 110,234 n/a 20,481 n/a Aylestone 37 n/a 97 18 Aylestone 87,380 22,854 110,234 67,832 160% 20,481 n/a E0302 Bishop of Hereford Bluecoat 1186 32 2.7% 65,104 100,402 n/a 18,655 n/a Bishop of Hereford Bluecoat 55 n/a 85 16 Bishop of Hereford Bluecoat 91,026 9,376 100,402 35,298 54% 18,655 n/a E0303 Wyebridge Sports College 741.5 107 14.4% 48,047 88,261 n/a 16,399 n/a Wyebridge Sports College 65 n/a 119 22 Wyebridge Sports College 56,910 31,351 88,261 40,214 84% 16,399 n/a

E0304 St Mary's 697.5 22 3.2% 15,948 59,979 n/a 11,144 n/a St Mary's 23 n/a 86 16 St Mary's 53,533 6,446 59,979 44,031 276% 11,144 n/a E0305 Whitecross 898.5 56 6.2% 45,651 85,368 n/a 15,861 n/a Whitecross 51 n/a 95 18 Whitecross 68,960 16,408 85,368 39,717 87% 15,861 n/a E0306 Kingstone 679.5 42 6.2% 23,415 64,458 n/a 11,976 n/a Kingstone 34 n/a 95 18 Kingstone 52,152 12,306 64,458 41,043 175% 11,976 n/a E0307 Lady Hawkins 409 26 6.4% 16,681 39,009 n/a 7,248 n/a Lady Hawkins 41 n/a 95 18 Lady Hawkins 31,391 7,618 39,009 22,328 134% 7,248 n/a

E0308 John Masefield 812 39 4.8% 47,169 73,748 n/a 13,702 n/a John Masefield 58 n/a 91 17 John Masefield 62,321 11,427 73,748 26,579 56% 13,702 n/a E0309 The Minster 621 88 14.2% 55,747 73,446 n/a 13,646 n/a The Minster 90 n/a 118 22 The Minster 47,662 25,784 73,446 17,699 32% 13,646 n/a E0310 Fairfield 359.5 25 7.0% 31,459 34,917 n/a 6,488 n/a Fairfield 88 n/a 97 18 Fairfield 27,592 7,325 34,917 3,458 11% 6,488 n/a

E0311 John Kyrle 953.5 48 5.0% 60,370 87,245 n/a 16,210 n/a John Kyrle 63 n/a 91 17 John Kyrle 73,181 14,064 87,245 26,875 45% 16,210 n/a E0312 Weobley High 426.5 41 9.6% 22,146 44,747 n/a 8,314 n/a Weobley High 52 n/a 105 19 Weobley High 32,734 12,013 44,747 22,601 102% 8,314 n/a E0313 Wigmore High 445 17 3.8% 25,315 39,135 n/a 7,271 n/a Wigmore High 57 n/a 88 16 Wigmore High 34,154 4,981 39,135 13,820 55% 7,271 n/a

Total Secondary 9701.5 642 6.6% 515,981 932,696 0 173,295 Total Secondary 53 n/a 96 18 Total Secondary 744,590 188,106 932,696 416,715 81% 173,295 0

All Schools 21646 1514 7.0% 1,666,929 2,118,296 34,652 400,018 All Schools 77 98 99 18 All Schools 1,692,645 460,303 2,152,948 486,019 81% 400,018 1,185,600

Notes

1. Funding allocated to schools in financial year 2009/10 will be based on PLASC 2009 2. Riverside Primary school data is estimated since full data is not available in 2007/08 due to the school merger proposals. 3. No direct comparison of Banded funding in 2007/08 for high schools is possible due to Resource Provision allocations for Years 9-11 and Banded funding ofr Years 7-8 AGENDA ITEM 11

SCHOOL BASED BUSINESS MANAGERS

REPORT BY INTERIM HEAD OF IMPROVEMENT AND INCLUSION

HEREFORDSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 13 OCTOBER 2008

Schools Affected

All schools Purpose

1. To advise Schools Forum of the bids submitted to support the development of school based business managers in school clusters. Financial Implications 2. Two proposals were submitted from the county, both have been successful, subject to Ministerial approval. Together the schemes will be supported by £50,000 from the DCSF, matched by a further £50,000 from the 2007/08 Dedicated Schools Grant underspend. This funding was approved in principle by Schools Forum at the July 2008 meeting subject to a further report. Report

3. In the summer term schools were invited to submit joint proposals for school based business managers as part of a national initiative. Submissions were received from two clusters, Bromyard and Wigmore. These were fully supported by all the schools in each cluster and have been developed into full submissions supported by the Local Authority.

4. The Wigmore proposals had a number of outcomes to be achieved:

• All schools will have qualified School Business Managers (SBMs) with the confidence and experience to fulfil this role • All schools will have Headteachers with the knowledge and confidence to delegate responsibility for administration and business management • An infrastructure for continuing SBM collaboration and support will have been created • All Headteachers will have more time to focus on teaching and learning, quality assurance, staff development and school core business. • All schools will have enhanced their strategic ability and capacity for improvement • All schools will have enhanced ability to generate income, access funds and make more effective use of resources • The North Herefordshire Schools Partnership will have grown even stronger • The North Herefordshire Schools Partnership will have created and tested a model of good practice in collaborative School Business Management that can be adapted and transferred locally and nationally.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Kathy Roberts on 01432 260804, Bridget Knight on 01432 383044 or Paul Murray on 01432 260823

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\6\2\AI00015267\SchoolBasedBusinessManagers0.doc 71

5. The Bromyard proposals had a number of outcomes to be achieved:

• To adopt a different way of ‘doing business’ through the employment of a School Business Director to provide strategic business planning and consultation for all seven schools in the cluster • Have a key resource to advise head teachers on strategic decision making and work with the cluster schools’ leadership and therefore strengthen cluster working • Complete an audit of School Business Management (SBM) resources within the cluster to better understand the existing (SBM) skills and capabilities within the cluster • Establish a common way of working across the cluster and in particular define the way forward to achieve the required Financial Management Standard in Schools (FMSiS) elements, followed by management of financial resources and systems such as FMSiS • Review existing purchasing arrangements to identify cost savings and efficiencies and exploit economies of scale across the cluster • generate income and attract grants through increased bidding and marketing • Enable head teachers’ time to be used to best effect educationally and managerially.

6 In responding to the submissions the DCSF whilst delivering the quality of the work we also need to ensure that the proposals were not just seen as one year projects but were about using the resource as a catalyst for a different way of working among rural schools. The funding from the DCSF is available as £50,000 over 3 years. The Department wants to see the clusters build sustainability into the projects. The 3 year financial support should ensure that the projects last into the long-term, and that the schools find the resources to continue when the period of financial support ends. It is an expectation that each cluster shows the level of financial commitment from the outset. Schools Forum should note the funding is therefore time limited and not recurring

7. There is some capital funding available from the DCSF to support schools working in a federation, and the guidance for that makes a priority of both:

(i) Innovative shared service models for small schools and/or those with falling pupil numbers, which have the potential to realise economies of scale. For example, this could include shared administrative and/or financial functions. (ii) Primary only statutory federations or shared trusts, especially groups of 3+ small schools collaborating to pool resources

8. The fall in pupil numbers in the clusters would be a priority for this and are encouraged to submit capital development plans as part of the project.

9. The project is commissioned by the DCSF but managed on their behalf by the National College of School Leadership (NCSL) who are working in partnership with The Innovation Unit. They will provide support and challenge in terms of practice sharing and deepening levels of engagement.

Recommendations

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Kathy Roberts on 01432 260804, Bridget Knight on 01432 383044 or Paul Murray on 01432 260823

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\6\2\AI00015267\SchoolBasedBusinessManagers0.doc 72

THAT the Forum:

• Supports the DCSF School Based Business manager projects from the Bromyard and Wigmore Clusters to take place over the next three years

• Confirms that a one-off budget of £50,000 from the 2007/08 Dedicated Schools Grant underspend be used to support this work

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Kathy Roberts on 01432 260804, Bridget Knight on 01432 383044 or Paul Murray on 01432 260823

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\6\2\AI00015267\SchoolBasedBusinessManagers0.doc 73 74 AGENDA ITEM 12

EARLY YEARS FUNDING REFORM FOR THE FREE ENTITLEMENT TO EARLY EDUCATION

REPORT BY THE MANAGER OF EARLY YEARS & EXTENDED SERVICES

SCHOOLS FORUM 13 TH OCTOBER 2008

Schools Affected

All Schools with maintained nurseries.

Purpose

To report on draft proposals for the introduction of a funding formula as required by the statutory early years funding reform for the free entitlement to early education and to set out proposals for consultation with schools with maintained nurseries and early years settings in the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sectors. This together with a social deprivation funding factor is in line with DCSF policy requirements.

Financial Implications

The proposed early years funding formula will be within the existing budgets for PVI settings and school nursery classes. The impact on individual settings at schools will vary but it is intended that funding will be redirected from large PVIs to help support smaller rural settings and that funding of under occupied school nursery classes will be reduced.

Report

1. The Government announced in June 2007 that Local Authorities (LAs) will be required to use a single local formula for funding early years provision in the maintained and PVI sectors from 2010-11, delivering on a fair and equitable level. The Government is encouraging LAs to introduce the formula from April 2009 wherever possible. This is intended to support the extension of the free entitlement for 3 & 4 year olds and to address inconsistencies in how the offer is currently funded across the maintained and Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sectors.

2. A consultation paper was submitted to the Early Years Funding Group (a sub group of the EYES Forum set up specifically to look at the funding formula) on 24 th September 2008 and is attached as Appendix 1.

3. The proposals for consultation set out in this paper represent a significant change in the process for paying Nursery Education Funding (NEF).

4. A basic formula excluding social deprivation is proposed as:

£97 lump sum per week plus £6.90 per child per session (currently single cost £8.72 per child per session)

Further information on the subject of this report is available from Clare Williams, Finance and Local Business Development Officer Tel: 01432 383492 Email [email protected] and Malcolm Green - Finance Manager Tel: 01432 260818 Email [email protected]

75 5. Childminders and small nurseries who deliver 40 or less NEF sessions a week would receive a percentage of the lump sum, i.e. 5 weekly sessions would receive 12.5% of the flat rate i.e. 5/40 th and also per child per session rate (£8.72).

6. In order to bring maintained nurseries into line with the PVI sector, it is proposed that they be funded on the basis of actual attendance, not places (as previously funded) and that this be implemented from September 2009, i.e. the beginning of the new academic year. This is a key implementation phase as it provides Local Authority (LA) nurseries with the opportunity to revise the nursery offer from September 2009 and hence reduce the possibility of an uneconomic setting in the Summer Term 2010 when the full single early years formula is introduced.

7. An additional supplement representing social deprivation using the IDACI ranking be paid; the amount per child/child accessing NEF per session in Herefordshire is estimated at £3.97. Discussions are still ongoing with settings and the Early Years Funding Group in order to agree how best, settings can use this extra money to support children’s needs and take into account Every Child Matters.

8. A new payment process would need to be put in place to average out NEF payments over a rolling 12 month period and update termly.

Recommendations

That Schools Forum endorse the Funding Reform for the Free Entitlement to Early Education recommendation based on the principles of:

a. a detailed consultation with, schools with maintained nurseries and PVI providers be undertaken in the autumn term based on the attached consultation paper which was considered by the Early Years Funding Group.

b. a basic funding formula of £97 per week plus £6.90 per session (per child) be approved.

c. and a social deprivation supplement of £3.97 per socially deprived child (IDACI 5 children) as required by DCSF policy guidance.

d. note the proposed funding formula be trialled in 2 settings during the second half of the Autumn 2008 term.

e. the new payment process based on monthly payments be implemented from September 2009.

f. once further work has been done that Herefordshire Local Authority’s guidance for settings spending the social deprivation element be approved at a later meeting of Schools Forum.

g. that Schools Forum consider the results of the consultation at a future meeting for final approval.

Background Papers

www.dcsf.gov.uk

76 APPENDIX 1

Draft Consultation Paper September 2008

Early Years Funding Reform For The Free Entitlement to Early Education

1. Introduction

The Government announced in June 2007 that Local Authorities (LAs) will be required to use a single local formula for funding early years provision in the maintained and PVI sectors from 2010-11. The Government is encouraging LAs to introduce the formula from April 2009 wherever possible. This is intended to support the extension of the free entitlement for 3 & 4 year olds and to address inconsistencies in how the offer is currently funded across the maintained and Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sectors.

1.1 Decisions about funding for maintained and PVI providers needs to be transparent and based on the same factors. Funding levels and funding methodologies do not have to be exactly the same for all providers, but any differences must be justifiable and demonstrable.

1.2 Nationally six LAs were identified to work as part of the Formula Development Project. These LAs are accelerating progress to implement a single formula in April 2009 to provide good practice guidance for other LAs. Herefordshire was not identified as one of the six but this project is intended to prepare the LA for full implementation in the financial year 2010/11. In order to achieve this it is proposed that changes will commence from September 2009 within the school sector, in order to phase it in.

1.3 The single formula is likely to be different in each LA, to reflect the very different local circumstances of each. LAs have the same flexibility here as they do on school funding. However it is clear that every formula should be developed according to a common set of primciples. The principles below have been agreed with the Formula Development Project LAs as a basis for their work.

The single formula should: 1.3.1 Support effective and efficient distribution of resources at a local level, while aiming to be as simple as possible 1.3.2 Promote diversity and choice so that parents are able to access the free entitlement more flexibly 1.3.3 Promote a high quality of provision in all settings 1 77 1.3.4 Be based on common information from both the PVI and maintained sectors, taking into account all costs and sources of income 1.3.5 Take into account the same factors when deciding the level of funding for each sector, ensuring that decisions are transparent and differences between sectors are justifiable and demonstrable 1.3.6 Take into account the sustainability of the market and the statutory duty on the LA to provide sufficient childcare and consider the need for stability in both sectors 1.3.7 Avoid perverse incentives 1.3.8 Fund settings on the basis of participation, not places. Any exceptional use of place-led funding should be based on clearly defined local imperatives 1.3.9 Enable transition from the current to the future funding mechanism to be planned and managed carefully, and based on a clear impact assessment.

1.4 From 2009-10 all LAs will be required to introduce consistent pupil counting between the maintained and PVI sectors. Changing the count from place-led to mainly participation-led funding in both sectors will need to be carefully managed, subject to an impact assessment and appropriate transition and protection mechanisms.

1.5 In the short term LAs will need to carry out an analysis of PVI costs in their area and present this to their schools forum and relevant sub-group.

1.6 There are also a number of changes aimed at improving the representation of PVI providers on Schools Forum so that the views of all sectors are taken into account. 1.6.1 Schools Forums’ membership will be broadened to include non- school members from the early years sector so that they can play a full part in discussions on the development of the funding arrangements 1.6.2 LAs are also expected to establish an early years provider reference group, which will act as a sub-group to the Schools Forum feeding in views on the implementation of the new early years funding arrangements

2. Schools Forums’ Membership Broadened

Nominations were requested from PVI providers to sit on the Schools Forum and two people from Herefordshire Early Years settings – Rose Lloyd (Bridges childcare) and Alison Jackson (St Michael’s Nursery) now sit as members.

3. Early Years Provider Reference Group

In order for these two members representing Early Years to be fully informed and represent the views of this sector; a working sub group was put together called the Early Years Funding Group. This group have met twice since January 2008 and will be considering this paper at its next meeting in July 2008 prior to submitting proposals to Schools Forum in the Autumn 2008.

4. Cost Analysis

For the first part of the exercise it was expected that LAs carry out an anlysis of the costs of delivering the free entitlement to nursery education in the PVI sector. In Herefordshire this was initially carried out as a ‘face to face’ exercise in order to ensure that settings understand what was being asked of them and to collect as accurate data as possible. Prior to this exercise the annual childcare sufficiency audit had been 2 78 carried out and one of the questions had asked whether the current amount of NEF met the costs of delivering the free entitlement. The responses divided almost equally between Yes and No. It was decided to collect data from 10 providers; five who had answered yes and five who had answered no.

4.1 A questionnaire (see appendix A) identified a list of costings as suggested in a report in August 2007 by the DCSF, Pre School Learning Alliance and the NDNA. Although the accuracy of the data was more reliable this method was very time consuming. We surveyed 8 settings plus information from 13 LA Nurseries but it was felt that this was insufficient to draw any informed conclusions.

4.2 At the first meeting of the Early Years Funding Group in January 2008, it was decided that a letter and questionnaire (see appendix B) be sent to all PVI settings. Some private providers refused to take part in the survey on the grounds that they did not want to release sensitive and private financial information. From this activity we manage to secure another 33 responses making a total of 41 which is 40% of the PVI settings (see appendix C). This sample is properly reflective of of the mix of settings. However, the results varied hugely and we could not identify any particular pattern or draw any reliable conclusions. Settings currently receive £8.72 and 22 settings acknowledged that the actual cost to them was up to 20% lower or 20% higher than this figure. We are not sure how they interpreted the questions, whether they were truthful answers or if they had included all the relevant costs. It should also be remembered that this was a snapshot in January. Occupancy rates and therefore staffing costs do fluctuate throughout the year and if this exercise had been conducted in September we would have seen a different picture.

4.3 The DfES commissoned HEDRA Consulting to examine and report on the costs of delivering the free early education entitlement. The report noted several anonymalies: 4.3.1 The reports main findings relate to average costs because it is not possible to isolate the costs of delivery for 3 and 4 year olds from other age groups. 4.3.2 The supplier market for childcare is highly fragmented and highly differentiated. There are relatively few large providers. As a general observation, this is a market dominated by small providers. 4.3.3 Many of these providers appear to be relatively unsophisticated in financial terms and are not motivated to be highly profitable. They tend to price on the basis of what the local market will bear and with a view to either breaking even or making a small overall return. 4.3.4 The costs of the different settings (full day care and sessional) are likely to be significantly different and so too the perception of the provider of the level of funding provided through the Free Early Years Entitlement. These points were made as it is easy to talk about the PVI sector in particular as if it was homogenous and therefore draw conclusions which apply to every provider of every type. This is decidedly not the case and all of the findings and conclusions should be seen in this light. In Herefordshire looking at our findings, this statement certainly rings true.

5. Early Years Funding Group – 30 January 2008

At this meeting Ros Hatherill, Manager Early Years & Extended Services, set the scene and explained that the group had been formed in order to discuss and comment on the proposed new funding formula for Nursery Education Funding, with a view to the two new Early Years representatives taking the findings and proposals to Schools Forum.

3 79 5.1 The meeting discussed that the results from the 8 settings so far was not enough to draw any accurate conclusions and that the consultation should be extended. Based on statistical analysis of the 8 PVI settings and 13 LA nurseries, Malcolm Green, Finance Manager, proposed a possible formula - £105 per week plus £7.50 per session (per child) and asked that the group consider how it is taken forward and the implications of implementing it as it is obvious that with any new formula there would be some providers who would gain and some who would lose. It was agreed that the new formula would be run against a selction of nurseries to guage its impact.

5.2 The differences between maintained and PVI nurseries were discussed and how again there would be winners and losers. It is clear that LA nursery classes that are not fully occupied would be financially worse off under any new pupil led formula.

5.3 Many of the providers were concerned about the impact the new formula would have on their longer term sustainability.

5.4 Social and rural deprivation were also raised as factors which should be taken into consideration. It was also agreed that we would look at what formula’s other LA’s were intending to use.

6. Early Years Funding Group – 29 May 2008

At this meeting clarification was sought on the savings that Schools Forum has to make and whether NEF would be reduced. It was confirmed that there is no intention to transfer any money from Early Years to Schools within this financial year or the next. Social deprivation was discussed and noted that this will take into account the 30% deprived areas of Leominster and South Wye. DCSF have stipulated that all local authorities must allocate money towards socially deprived children – Herefordshire being set at 7.69% allocation, based on the free school meals percentage. Rural deprivation will not be a factor. Special needs funding will continue to be funded separately.

7. Proposed formula

Malcolm Green proposed the following formula which was accepted by the working party as the basis for further consultation with schools and PVI providers.

7.1.1 £105 per week plus £7.50 per session. Three example settings – large nursery, a small pre school and a childminder were run against this formula. Malcolm had calculated that the break-even point is 86 sessions a week. Those who delivered more would be worse off whilst small settings would benefit.

8. Social Deprivation

The deprivation will be assessed on the child not the setting using home postcodes and will be based on IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index).

8.1 Malcolm Green distributed at the meeting, information on Nursery Funding for 2008/09 incorporating a proposed deprivation allocation (see appendix D).

The main points for this proposal are: 8.1.1 7.69% would be deducted from total nursery funding to create a distinct social deprivation fund 8.1.2 Using the IDACI ranking, the amount per pupil/child accessing NEF per session in Herefordshire was estimated at £3.97 8.1.3 A setting which has a child from a social deprivation area would receive standard NEF session amount plus an additional £3.97 4 80 8.1.4 Standard allocation of funding per NEF session using proposed funding formula - £105 per week plus £7.50 per session would be reduced for all settings to £97 per week and £6.90 per session. 8.1.5 The introduction of a social deprivation fund could be phased in over 3 to 5 years in order to minimise the affect on settings.

8.2 Herefordshire has liaised with North Somerset Council who have already introduced a new scheme and have stipulated that the additional funding that settings receive from a social deprivation fund, is used to reduce staffing ratios. This is broadly equivalent to an extra 50% funding for nurseries in highly socially deprived areas. The meeting as a whole queried this as extra staff does not necessarily mean better quality. We need to consider how this money could be equitably spent.

8.3 A question remains as to what we do about those families who are deprived but don’t live in a socially deprived area. Malcolm Green suggested that we could consider extending the use of the ACORN data which has a more graded scale of deprivation e.g. grade 5 and grade 4. For example, children who fall within the ACORN Grade 4 category could be funded at half the £3.97 supplement suggested for children within IDACI category (this will further reduce the amount quoted above in the formula). There was also a concern expressed that there will be children in a socially deprived area who don’t actually need additional funding.

9. Childminders and Small Nurseries

Under the proposed new formula, childminders providing NEF would receive £105 (£97) per week plus the sessional amount. It was considered how fair this is bearing in mind the low numbers that they have. After some discussion it was agreed that childminders and nuseries who deliver 40 or less NEF sessions a week would receive a percentage of the lump sum, i.e. 5 weekly sessions wold receive 12.5% of the flat rate i.e. 5/40 th .

10. Maintained Nurseries

In order to bring maintained nurseries into line with the PVI sector it is proposed that they be funded on the basis of participation, not places and that this be implemented from September 2009, i.e. the beginning of the new academic year. This is a key implementation phase as it provides LA nurseries with the opportunity to revise their nursery offer from September 2009 and hence avoid the possibility of an uneconomic setting in the Summer Term 2010 when the full single early years formula is introduced.

11. Implementation Plan

Basic Principles

The principles of the formula are to take the Nursery Education Funding and divide it between each child, taking account of social disadvantage. These principles translate into the specific figures below. The implementation plan has the following elements

Firstly, 7.69% would be deducted from total nursery funding to create a distinct social deprivation fund

5 81 A setting which has a child from a social deprivation postcoded area would receive standard NEF session amount plus an additional amount for social deprivation.

All elements of Herefordshire Council’s formula have to comply with DCSF funding regulations which we have not yet been consulted upon. Expect some requirements on linking base allowance to sustainability.

Funding Formula

New single formula of £97 per week plus £6.90 per session (per child) plus £3.97 per socially deprived child (IDACI 5 children).

Using the IDACI ranking, the amount per pupil/child accessing NEF per session in Herefordshire was estimated at £3.97

Childminders and small settings to receive 1/40 th of fixed sum (up to 40 sessions) plus an amount each child.

For LA nursery classes, phase in funding from September 2009 on the basis of participation rather than places.

Options

Protection - Phase in new formula by either: a) all new formula from April 2009 b) phase in over 2 or 3 years: 1st year – 2/3 of NEF paid on current method and 1/3 on new formula 2nd year – 1/3 current NEF method and 2/3 new formula. Phasing - 11.10 The introduction of a social deprivation fund could be phased in over 3 years in order to minimise the affect on settings, i.e. phase in 2.5% deduction a year over 3 years. Choice of: a) all fund introduced by April 2009 b) phase in over 3 years

Widening Deprivation Payments - 11.11 To use the ACORN indicators (provided by banks on credit scoring data) which could widen the social deprivation payments. This would require further modelling work.

Rules and Conditions - 11.12 Consider how social deprivation fund is spent and agree terms and conditions; i.e. ensure money is spent on children rather than making profits for the setting.

Payment Process

11.13 Average out NEF payments over a rolling 12 month period and update termly. Payment made in the summer term is based on the last 12 months, Autumn – last 12 months including summer’s actuals etc. Make payments monthly as 12 equal instalments.

11.14 Minimise paperwork as current amount is excessive.

6 82 Trial

11.15 Identify and arrange for a large setting (over 40 sessions), a small setting (under 40 sessions) and a childminder (accredited) to pilot the new formula from September. If they are better off they could keep the difference and if they are worse off then the difference would be made up.

12. Recommendation

That the Early Years Working Group considers the above implementation plan and approves the proposals so that detailed modelling can be undertaken prior to draft proposals being put to Schools Forum to permit a wider consultation with schools and PVI settings prior to April 2009. The agreed proposals will be trialled in a handful of settings during Summer 2009 and Autumn 2010 prior to Schools Forum considering final proposlas in Autumn 2009 for implementation from April 2010.

Further more detailed consideration needs to be given to the issue of a social deprivation fund and in particular to agree how best, settings can use this extra money to support children’s needs and take into account Every Child Matters.

Work will also be carried out to simplify the NEF payment process in order to reduce the administrative burden.

Clare Williams Finance and Local Business Development Officer 12 th September 2008

7 83

Appendix A

Analysing the costs of delivering the free entitlement to nursery education

Date of Analysis:

Name of Setting:

Costs per Item week

Staffing Costs Administration and Management Costs Premises costs (rent and rates) Heat/Lighting Equipment and materials Insurance/Legal costs Contingency/reserves Registration Fees (eg Ofsted) Training (incl staff cover) Outreach/Marketing Telephone/Internet Refreshments/Food Consumables (eg cleaning, stationery) Maintenance Travel/transport (eg visits) Total 0

No of Sessions - NEF children in each session M T W Th F Am Pm

Non NEF Children M T W Th F Am Pm

Opening Hours: Fees:

How many weeks open per year:

Office Use Only Social Deprivation Factor

8 84

Appendix B

Analysing the costs of delivering the free entitlement to nursery education

Date of Analysis:

Name of Setting: Postcode: If you wish to remain anonymous, please do not enter the name of the setting but please put in your postcode as we may need to factor in an amount for social deprivation

Total Expenditure for a week in January £

This figure should include: salaries, admin costs, premises costs (rent, rates, electricity etc), materials, equipment, marketing, telephone, refreshments, cleaning, stationery, transport, registration fees, insurance)

Calculation of Sessions Number of NEF funded sessions in a week in January (1 session = 1 child for 2 and a half hours)

Total number of Non NEF funded hours during a week in January. (This is the total number of hours in a week which children attend but are not NEF funded)

Opening Hours: Fees:

How many weeks open per year:

Office Use Only Social Deprivation Factor

If you have any questions about how to complete the form, please contact Clare Williams on 01432 383492 or 07792881139

9 85

Appendix C

NEF ANALYSIS - PVI SETTINGS

No of No of non Average NEF NEF Total Total NEF Funding per sessions sessions Weekly Expenditure Rec'd per session per week per week Sessions per week session in total 1 92 35 127 1152 8.72 9.07 2 190 23 213 2222 8.72 10.43 3 170 155 325 3564 8.72 10.97 4 108 69 177 2264 8.72 12.79 5 53 2 55 834 8.72 15.16 6 23 2 25 561 8.72 22.44 7 67 230 297 2994 8.72 10.08 8 149 473 622 4405 8.72 7.08

Total 1st Survey 852 989 1841 17996 8.72 9.78

9 76 60 136 1015 8.72 7.46 10 128 12 140 750 8.72 5.36 11 68 55 123 818 8.72 6.65 12 123 13 136 885 8.72 6.51 13 93 15 108 946 8.72 8.76 14 77 17 94 819 8.72 8.71 15 101 67 168 1167 8.72 6.95 16 39 1 40 331 8.72 8.28 18 29 20 49 1284 8.72 26.2 19 120 347 467 4133 8.72 8.85 20 30 8 38 379 8.72 9.97 21 54 3 57 700 8.72 12.28 22 75 3 78 596 8.72 7.64 23 78 50 128 1505 8.72 11.76 24 85 13 98 865 8.72 8.83 25 163 32 195 505 8.72 2.59 26 110 49 159 930 8.72 5.85 27 86 14 100 1002 8.72 10.02 28 80 78 158 1483 8.72 9.39 29 64 60 124 900 8.72 7.26 30 16 117 133 1300 8.72 9.77 31 13 57 70 1000 8.72 14.29 32 99 80 179 1490 8.72 8.32 33 29 20 49 418 8.72 8.53 34 132 64 196 1702 8.72 8.68 35 121 155 276 4462 8.72 16.17 36 46 33 79 600 8.72 7.59 37 54 21 75 413 8.72 5.51 38 62 6 68 364 8.72 5.35 39 301 82 383 3500 8.72 9.14 40 49 83 132 700 8.72 5.3 41 30 99 129 1676 8.72 12.99

Total 2nd Survey 2631 1734 4365 38638 279.04 8.85

Grand Total 3483 2723 6206 56634 287.76 9.13

10 86 Appendix D

Nursery Funding 08/09

PVI Nurseries £2,898,000 School Nursery Classes £683,000 £3,581,000

Deprivation share of DSG in 7.69% based on free meals %

So: deprivation funding 275,379 Nursery formula 3,305,621 3,581,000

Nursery of IDACI (grade 5) pupils in primary school is 1536 over 7 years groups so 219 per year

219 per year is equivalent to 219 x 5 for nurseries 3 = 365

So amount per deprived pupil = £275,379 ÷ 365 ÷ 38 weeks ÷ 5 sessions = £3.97 per session

Nursery Funding 4 year olds £761,080 35% 3 year olds £2,136,920 100%

(more accurate to do 275379 ÷ 219 ÷ 1.35 ÷ 38 ÷ 5 = £4.90 per session)

11 87 Appendix E Summer 2007 - Spring 2008 (37 weeks)

Comparator funding Proposed funding

Full Annual IDACI occupancy Actual annual Actual annual Annual amount sessions Annual Annual amount Average annual sessions claimed funding excluding proportion (IDACI deprivation including deprivation monthly Setting sessions / attended received deprivation sessions) amount (£96+£6.80 : +£3.92) Actual gain Actual loss funding Abacus 2000 Nursery School - 5560 £53,087.36 £52,947.00 754.07 £3,241.40 £51,302.20 0 £0.00 -£1,785.16 £4,275.18 Abc Childcare Centre - 3414 £33,013.92 £34,947.00 420.24 £1,825.93 £33,561.13 1 £547.21 £0.00 £2,796.76 Abc Nursery - 3322 £31,653.60 £33,997.50 433.99 £1,866.69 £32,742.69 1 £1,089.09 £0.00 £2,728.56 Bargates Childrens Centre - 9072 £88,944.00 £83,823.75 2308.94 £10,187.31 £86,243.31 0 £0.00 -£2,700.69 £7,186.94 Bizzie Lizzie`s - 2138 £21,015.20 £23,409.00 246.36 £1,081.06 £22,345.86 1 £1,330.66 £0.00 £1,862.15 Bridges Childcare Limited - 5306 £51,500.32 £51,508.50 584.53 £2,523.08 £49,279.08 0 £0.00 -£2,221.24 £4,106.59 Broadlands Bright Sparks Playgroup - 1606 £14,911.20 £16,615.50 269.46 £1,117.04 £16,210.64 1 £1,299.44 £0.00 £1,350.89 Bubbles Nursery - 4873 £48,491.92 £48,553.50 461.37 £2,078.04 £46,152.04 0 £0.00 -£2,339.88 £3,846.00 Burley Gate Pre-School - 3150 £30,537.44 £31,995.38 390.17 £1,696.85 £30,749.65 1 £212.21 £0.00 £2,562.47 Busy Bees Pre-School (Clifford) - 2537 £24,738.64 £26,976.38 202.92 £888.95 £25,390.95 1 £652.31 £0.00 £2,115.91 BusyBees@LPS - 2242 £21,956.96 £23,814.75 277.98 £1,210.10 £22,839.70 1 £882.74 £0.00 £1,903.31 C.A.T.S. Childrens Adventure Training School - 851 £8,432.24 £9,790.88 69.72 £316.01 £9,212.41 1 £780.17 £0.00 £767.70 Clehonger Pre-School - 3342 £32,316.32 £33,391.50 479.50 £2,085.21 £32,402.81 1 £86.49 £0.00 £2,700.23 Colwall (Bright Sparks) Pre-School - 2861 £27,563.92 £30,296.25 234.03 £1,012.71 £28,531.51 1 £967.59 £0.00 £2,377.63 Credenhill Village Playgroup - 3430 £33,572.00 £34,904.63 486.94 £2,151.96 £33,844.76 1 £272.76 £0.00 £2,820.40 Daisy Chain Pre-School - 2455 £23,500.40 £26,460.00 661.43 £2,856.73 £26,894.73 1 £3,394.33 £0.00 £2,241.23 Denise Stevens Childminder - 270 £2,633.44 £3,057.75 24.07 £103.19 £2,881.59 1 £248.15 £0.00 £240.13 Dilwyn Playgroup - 1310 £13,306.72 £15,450.75 168.15 £775.65 £14,814.85 1 £1,508.13 £0.00 £1,234.57 Dolly Mixtures Pre-School (Supplier 2039) - 2895 £27,860.40 £30,367.50 473.24 £2,043.03 £29,625.03 1 £1,764.63 £0.00 £2,468.75 Down on the Farm - 196 £2,197.44 £2,551.50 22.19 £114.07 £2,432.47 1 £235.03 £0.00 £202.71 Elinor Fielder Childminder - 494 £5,179.68 £6,014.25 32.29 £166.31 £5,631.11 1 £451.43 £0.00 £469.26 Ewyas Harold Pre-School - 1309 £13,123.60 £15,238.13 127.24 £566.57 £14,412.57 1 £1,288.97 £0.00 £1,201.05 Fieldhouse Kindergarten - 5387 £52,625.20 £52,402.50 721.54 £3,182.68 £50,748.68 0 £0.00 -£1,876.52 £4,229.06 Four Ways Childrens Centre - 3357 £31,470.48 £33,758.63 569.27 £2,392.33 £33,051.13 1 £1,580.65 £0.00 £2,754.26 Fownhope Pre-School Playgroup - 1683 £16,070.96 £18,660.38 114.72 £495.75 £17,451.35 1 £1,380.39 £0.00 £1,454.28 Fun-2-Sea Nursery - 2812 £26,648.32 £29,012.63 506.45 £2,160.58 £28,511.78 1 £1,863.46 £0.00 £2,375.98 Garway Playgroup - 481 £4,194.32 £4,870.13 39.84 £156.16 £4,581.36 1 £387.04 £0.00 £381.78 Gateway Nurseries Ltd - 8879 £85,970.48 £81,266.25 1017.05 £4,406.15 £78,143.35 0 £0.00 -£7,827.13 £6,511.95 Golden Valley Pre-School - 3149 £30,354.32 £32,373.38 389.53 £1,674.45 £31,074.05 1 £719.73 £0.00 £2,589.50 Gorsley Pre-School Nursery - 1143 £11,013.36 £12,787.88 127.01 £556.86 £12,176.46 1 £1,163.10 £0.00 £1,014.71 H.O.P.E. Family Centre - 3566 £35,560.16 £35,966.25 714.30 £3,194.77 £35,845.17 1 £285.01 £0.00 £2,987.10 Happy Hands - 2093 £18,250.96 £18,427.50 280.64 £1,100.11 £17,828.51 0 £0.00 -£422.45 £1,485.71 Helen Rees Childminder - 0 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Hereford Cathedral Junior - 9962 £96,948.96 £91,995.00 1192.84 £5,220.53 £88,694.93 0 £0.00 -£8,254.03 £7,391.24 Hereford College of Technology Nursery - 2885 £27,877.84 £29,868.00 464.88 £2,028.81 £29,154.01 1 £1,276.17 £0.00 £2,429.50 Hereford Waldorf Nursery & Kindergarten - 3820 £36,658.88 £38,334.00 451.51 £1,956.87 £36,764.87 1 £105.99 £0.00 £3,063.74 Highmore Hedgehogs Pre-School - 3996 £38,821.44 £39,753.00 561.80 £2,451.33 £38,542.53 0 £0.00 -£278.91 £3,211.88 Hollybush Family Centre - 1479 £14,292.08 £16,594.88 424.80 £1,839.12 £16,917.92 1 £2,625.84 £0.00 £1,409.83 Holmer Pre-School - 3596 £37,356.48 £36,466.50 565.59 £2,648.70 £35,744.70 0 £0.00 -£1,611.78 £2,978.72 Honey Bees Nursery - 3359 £33,266.80 £34,839.00 783.04 £3,440.84 £35,075.64 1 £1,808.84 £0.00 £2,922.97 Hopscotch Playgroup - 833 £8,031.12 £9,325.13 78.94 £341.07 £8,814.27 1 £783.15 £0.00 £734.52 Hunderton Neighbourhood Nursery - 4253 £41,481.04 £41,825.25 1089.02 £4,740.35 £42,708.75 1 £1,227.71 £0.00 £3,559.06 Ivington Nursery - 2155 £20,779.76 £22,839.00 484.73 £2,114.52 £22,859.72 1 £2,079.96 £0.00 £1,904.98 Jack in the Box Nursery School - 3517 £34,121.36 £35,936.25 432.26 £1,880.34 £34,512.74 1 £391.38 £0.00 £2,876.06 K.E.S Nursery - 3078 £30,572.32 £31,836.38 487.78 £2,170.60 £31,077.80 1 £505.48 £0.00 £2,589.82 Kids Club @ Luston Ltd - 2429 £23,273.68 £26,118.00 543.33 £2,353.31 £26,080.11 1 £2,806.43 £0.00 £2,173.34 Kimbolton Nursery Group - 2440 £23,474.24 £26,146.13 433.02 £1,895.95 £25,647.15 1 £2,172.91 £0.00 £2,137.26 Kingsland Pre-School - 2162 £21,329.12 £24,075.38 408.24 £1,826.06 £23,698.06 1 £2,368.94 £0.00 £1,974.84 Kington, Childrens Centre Nursery - 1473 £14,309.52 £16,132.13 233.29 £995.64 £15,651.24 1 £1,341.72 £0.00 £1,304.27 Lea Pre-School - 1491 £14,082.80 £16,351.88 259.69 £1,116.22 £15,974.22 1 £1,891.42 £0.00 £1,331.19 Little Acorns Day Nursery Ltd - 4536 £44,088.32 £44,692.50 578.29 £2,522.26 £43,095.06 0 £0.00 -£993.26 £3,591.25 Little Leintwardine - 2319 £22,837.68 £25,194.38 311.10 £1,366.80 £24,252.00 1 £1,414.32 £0.00 £2,021.00 Llangrove Leapfrogs - 1966 £19,201.44 £21,980.25 185.08 £807.85 £20,778.25 1 £1,576.81 £0.00 £1,731.52 Lollipops Nursery School & Creche - 6459 £62,845.04 £61,192.50 1159.71 £5,129.06 £60,664.66 0 £0.00 -£2,180.38 £5,055.39 Longtown Pre-School - 1916 £18,416.64 £21,163.50 175.33 £767.24 £19,996.04 1 £1,579.40 £0.00 £1,666.34 Lucton School - 5775 £56,182.96 £56,932.50 807.65 £3,550.80 £55,235.20 0 £0.00 -£947.76 £4,602.93 Lynne Marsden Childminding Service - 481 £4,612.88 £5,356.13 78.89 £337.84 £5,204.64 1 £591.76 £0.00 £433.72 Madley Pre-School - 2549 £25,017.68 £27,628.50 363.24 £1,600.37 £26,696.77 1 £1,679.09 £0.00 £2,224.73 Marden Playgroup - 2506 £24,189.28 £27,296.63 366.49 £1,573.68 £26,372.08 1 £2,182.80 £0.00 £2,197.67 Merry Go Round at Green Croft Centre - 4322 £41,106.08 £40,833.38 1098.56 £4,686.67 £41,750.67 1 £644.59 £0.00 £3,479.22 Merry-Go-Round Pre-School - 5068 £48,832.00 £49,140.00 1242.74 £5,423.90 £50,031.90 1 £1,199.90 £0.00 £4,169.33 Mordiford Dragons Playgroup - 2256 £21,904.64 £24,846.00 180.96 £790.59 £23,363.39 1 £1,458.75 £0.00 £1,946.95 Moreton Moles Pre-School - 1107 £9,653.04 £11,208.38 147.86 £579.62 £10,764.02 1 £1,110.98 £0.00 £897.00 Much Marcle School Nursery - 1669 £16,786.00 £18,718.88 201.60 £909.22 £17,913.62 1 £1,127.62 £0.00 £1,492.80 Noah`s Ark Pre-School - 2186 £20,701.28 £23,695.50 364.13 £1,532.65 £23,061.45 1 £2,360.17 £0.00 £1,921.79 Norton House School - 2556 £25,078.72 £26,785.88 314.65 £1,367.99 £25,693.59 1 £614.87 £0.00 £2,141.13 Oak House Nursery School - 7069 £68,547.92 £66,097.50 802.68 £3,496.55 £63,479.35 0 £0.00 -£5,068.57 £5,289.95 Orleton Pre-School Group - 2091 £20,117.04 £22,975.13 130.29 £564.09 £21,438.09 1 £1,321.05 £0.00 £1,786.51 Paintpots Playgroup - 1753 £16,925.52 £19,652.63 162.10 £705.08 £18,562.28 1 £1,636.76 £0.00 £1,546.86 Pembridge Pre-School - 1035 £10,036.72 £11,653.88 158.35 £696.54 £11,285.74 1 £1,249.02 £0.00 £940.48 Pencombe Under Fives - 1340 £12,382.40 £14,377.50 184.04 £763.43 £13,827.43 1 £1,445.03 £0.00 £1,152.29 Petchfield Nursery - 2713 £26,343.12 £28,311.75 310.95 £1,325.97 £27,038.37 1 £695.25 £0.00 £2,253.20 Platos - 0 £0.00 £0.00 0.00 £0.00 £0.00 0 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Play and Learn Nurseries Ltd - 4352 £41,786.24 £42,896.25 1012.59 £4,304.99 £43,250.59 1 £1,464.35 £0.00 £3,604.22 Playstation Day Nursery Ltd - 3101 £29,935.76 £31,947.75 386.18 £1,648.70 £30,661.90 1 £726.14 £0.00 £2,555.16 Rainbow Nursery Group - 1495 £14,919.92 £16,809.38 183.17 £817.35 £16,088.15 1 £1,168.23 £0.00 £1,340.68 Ross-On-Wye Pre-School Playgroup - 4983 £48,160.56 £48,305.25 903.39 £3,935.67 £47,784.87 0 £0.00 -£375.69 £3,982.07 Saltmarshe Under Fives Group - 1141 £11,240.08 £13,051.13 135.94 £607.41 £12,466.21 1 £1,226.13 £0.00 £1,038.85 Sandra Bufton - 143 £1,246.96 £1,447.88 23.63 £92.65 £1,408.25 1 £161.29 £0.00 £117.35 Shobdon Playgroup - 1381 £13,332.88 £15,481.13 246.12 £1,072.73 £15,139.53 1 £1,806.65 £0.00 £1,261.63 Sparklers Nursery - 364 £3,906.56 £4,536.00 44.70 £209.83 £4,331.43 1 £424.87 £0.00 £360.95 St Michaels Nursery Bodenham - 2603 £25,314.16 £28,182.75 351.27 £1,533.11 £27,134.31 1 £1,820.15 £0.00 £2,261.19 St Pauls Nursery Group - 9594 £94,332.96 £88,275.00 1034.09 £4,560.92 £84,651.32 0 £0.00 -£9,681.64 £7,054.28 St Richards School - 2928 £28,462.08 £32,339.25 430.38 £1,869.49 £31,250.29 1 £2,788.21 £0.00 £2,604.19 St Thomas Cantilupe Playgroup - 4067 £38,952.24 £40,017.75 828.79 £3,584.71 £39,917.11 1 £964.87 £0.00 £3,326.43 St Weonards Playgroup - 1440 £14,126.40 £16,402.50 130.30 £567.66 £15,471.66 1 £1,345.26 £0.00 £1,289.31 Staunton-On-Wye Pre-School - 2878 £27,991.20 £29,810.63 343.10 £1,496.20 £28,568.20 1 £577.00 £0.00 £2,380.68 Sticky Fingers Nursery School/Creche - 3142 £30,397.92 £32,182.50 495.54 £2,150.96 £31,375.76 1 £977.84 £0.00 £2,614.65 Sutton Pre-School - 1107 £11,083.12 £12,868.88 120.63 £543.21 £12,236.41 1 £1,153.29 £0.00 £1,019.70

12 88

Summer 2007 - Spring 2008 (37 weeks)

Comparator funding Proposed funding

Grand Totals 100300 389886 £3,714,129.00 £3,799,066.88 62478.15 £264,743.98 £3,713,887.98 91 £143,480.51 -£143,721.54 £309,490.66 LA nursery 5 £40,608.57 -£85,763.72 £53,412.82 Notes: Sparklers Nursery; Holmer Pre-School & Down on the Farm = New settings claiming funding for first time in Autumn 2007 Platos & Helen Rees Childminder = New settings claiming funding for first time in Summer 2008 Sandra Bufton = Setting still claiming funding - 0 sessions equals nil return Garway Playgroup = Setting temporarily closed Spring 2008, re-opened at half-term Summer 2008 (any funding due to be paid in Autumn 2008) Weobley Share Nursery = Setting stopped claiming funding and considered closed from Autumn 2007 Moreton Moles Pre-School = Setting closed end of Autumn term 2007 Happy Hands & The Farm Childcare (Step by Step) = Settings closed at end of Summer term 2007 Trinity Teds Playgroup = Setting closed at end of Summer term 2007, replaced by Holmer Pre-School Bromyard, St Peters Primary reduced capacity from Sept 07 Hereford, Broadlands Primary reducing capacity from Sept 08

13 89 90 AGENDA ITEM 13

SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS

REPORT BY CHRIS BAIRD, HEAD OF PLANNING, PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT

SCHOOLS FORUM 13 TH OCTOBER 2008

Schools Affected

All schools

Purpose

1. To establish the key steps to delivering renewed Service Level Agreements with schools, to take effect for the financial year 2009/10.

Financial Implications 2. Approximately £2m is allocated in the Schools Budget for Service Level Agreement (SLA) spend with additional spend on ICT SLAs. The method of calculation and documentation has been in existence since 2000 and may warrant change. Schools and the Local Authority are interested in achieving highly effective and valued services. This is within the overall context of fewer pupils and therefore less money being available over the coming years.

Report

3. The Local Authority needs to ensure that it is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities and that its strategic roles are carried out in the best interests of all children and young people. There are also DCSF requirements as part of the Financial Management Standard in Schools (FMSIS) on the use of resources / budgets which schools, including governors as well as the Local Authority must have regard to. Therefore not all services should exist through a buy back mechanism. Indeed some areas of service will benefit from a SLA to define service standard, which do not necessarily have to have an attached financial transaction.

4. Service Level Agreements provide a transparent method of agreeing, providing, receiving and monitoring services between the Local Authority and schools. SLAs were put in place between schools and the following Local Authority services in 2000:

a. Property Maintenance b. Facilities Management c. Behaviour Support d. LMS & Finance support e. Human Resources f. Staffing & Appointments g. Occupational Health h. Payroll

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 1

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 91 i. Legal Services j. Schools Library Service k. Insurance (including Liability and Buildings) l. Primary School Free school meals m. Creditors and Bank account support ( including VAT recovery) n. Schools Broadband network (SLA added April 2008)

The charging for these services has been coordinated by financial services. Additionally there are ICT SLAs regarding SIMS and ICT support which are managed independently by ICT. It is also proposed that additional SLAs (Hands on Support and VLE Support) will be introduced from April 2009 to support the schools VLE project. There may also be SLAs required for some aspects of the learning support services for 2009/10.

5. The original SLAs were documented in 2000 and have not been renewed since that time. The funding methodology has been rolled forward each year and schools have been informed explicitly of the amount within their budgets to pay for each individual SLA. The amount in the schools’ budget has been deliberately set each year to be the same as the price of the service. This has ensured a measure of consistency and understanding, as well as budget certainty, which may have been subsequently diluted by the passage of time. From a Local Authority perspective it is inappropriate to have SLAs in place without a programme of annual renewal and development. Some schools have recently queried aspects of services provided under the existing SLAs, perhaps as a result of budget pressures felt in some schools. As some budgets tighten it is appropriate that a more transparent system is in place.

6. Schools and the Local Authority should therefore have a regular cycle of Service Level Agreements, which has clear, understood timescales to enable schools and services to plan and deliver services effectively and to make conscious budget decisions. These should be taken with regard to the three year funding strategy for school budgets. It will also assist discussions about the level of service required.

7. In order to put this in place for Herefordshire the following steps have been taken:

• A SLA template has been produced and services are currently finalising the content. A draft SLA is attached for comment. Each SLA will clearly set out the statutory responsibilities, the outcomes that will be achieved, the core offer and additional service offer, charging rates for each which may also need to be varied by phase. • A draft process has been set out, contained in the attached overview sheet and checklist • Work has started on the financial charging for each service. This is potentially complex because some service areas are not used to thinking in direct cost terms. Changes to charging may affect schools budgets in different ways and this would need to be modelled to understand the implications for all schools. It may require a phased approach to the implementation of new SLAs

8. In order to take this forward the following is requested:

a. Schools Forum to comment on the work so far, the possible guiding principles, process and timescale issues b. Schools forum budget working party to consider the different charging methods, including the potential impact on small schools.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 2

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 92

Recommendations

That the Budget Working Group work with officers on the SLA process and charges further at their next meeting on 7 th November and a final report be received by Schools Forum in December. This could then lead to schools being issued with SLAs to be returned at the end of January 2009. However, this would not allow for a 3 month period of notice if schools did not wish to take up a SLA, or wanted to take up an additional service, which will need to be considered in terms of service impact and sustainability and may affect how SLAs are finally rolled out to schools.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 3

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 93

April 2009 – March 2010

Service Level Agreement Human Resources

Contact Details

Terry Smith for HR Operations and Occupational Health : 01432 260560

Alison Wright for Staffing & Appointments: 01432 260901

Service Overview

The HR team provides a range of services to Headteachers, Chairs of Governors and CYPD management. This includes policy and casework advice, recruitment, employee legislation, and staffing & appointments administration.

We also support schools in ensuring that they meet their statutory employment obligations and those regulated by Council Policy.

Access to the Occupational Health Service via HR forms part of this service together with advice regarding the management of attendance. The Employee Assistance programme is available to all school staff providing a 24 hour, 365 days a year confidential telephone advice service on personal matters. Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 4

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 94

Core Service Offer

Include what services are provided directly under this SLA. Be clear about detail, including frequency of service, by whom, where and to what standard (e.g. outcomes/targets as applicable)

Name of Service : HUMAN RESOURCES (HR)

Scope of Service

Generally the service provides human resources cover when the need arises. There will be no predetermined level on the number of hours support the HR function will give to the school for addressing individual or collective needs falling within the specification. This will include support on cases where there may be legal implications (e.g. disciplinary, grievance, redundancy, capability and managing attendance) up to and including Employment Tribunals.

The service applies to those staff directly employed on behalf of or by the governing body, and not to any other activities operating on the school premises e.g. outside contractors and providers or services controlled by a managing committee. If required, any service provided in such circumstances would be subject to a separate agreement and charging arrangement

The following are the services to be provided to all Member Schools agreeing to a SLA with Human Resources, CYPD.

This is a professional advisory service including site visits as appropriate, encompassing :

• Employee Relations • Organisational Change • Recruitment and Selection • Job Evaluation for support staff • Legal advice on HR issues • Managing Attendance ( see also Occupational Health SLA ). • Training & Development

Employee Relations

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 5

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 95 -Advice and support on disciplinary, capability and grievance matters , including attendance to support the Headteacher and governors at meetings and hearings.

-Advice and guidance on employment legislation

-Advice on and management of processes for dealing with the management of absence, including ill health cases and support in the management of phased returns.

-Negotiation and consultation with trade unions and professional associations in support of or on behalf of schools.

-Preparation for and presentation of cases at Employment Tribunals.

-Liaison with the Council’s Legal Department on behalf of schools in employment related issues

-Advice and preparation of compromise agreements and mutual termination agreements. Liaison with ACAS as appropriate on conciliation/settlement cases.

Organisational Change

-Provision of advice on staffing reductions including potential for retirement and/or redundancy

-Management of process for early retirement

-Provision of management and financial information to assist forecasting and workforce planning.

-Support in the consultation arrangements with trade unions and professional associations

-Advice and support at appeal hearings in response to decisions taken by the school regarding redundancy

-Arrangement of payments at the end of the redundancy process, where applicable.

-Providing support to employees ‘at risk’ including the Alternative Work Register.

Recruitment and Selection

-Advice and administrative support for Headteacher or deputy Headteacher recruitment.

-Advertisement placed in TES, job opportunities and council website.

-Recruitment packs made up including application form, job description/profile, school prospectus, equal opportunities forms, letters of welcome from school and governors.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 6

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 96 -Packs sent to prospective applicants, list of names maintained.

-Complete sets supplied to all panel members and appropriate SIS and HR representatives.

-References requested from current employer.

-Candidates called for interview, letters, programme and maps sent out.

-Letters sent to all those not shortlisted for interview

-General advice to schools in advertisement preparation, choice of media and selection techniques

-Support in provision of job descriptions and person specifications

-Advice on special circumstances e.g. work permits

-Arranging for personality profiling/psychometric testing to be carried out where relevant.

Job evaluation for support staff

-Guidance on suitability of grade and evaluations in line with current structures for both HAY and NJC JE schemes

-Manage the collation of role information and undertake the evaluation of new posts as appropriate, including interviews with school personnel

Training and Development

-Briefing and workshops arranged to enable compliance with statutory obligations and/or to explain new policies or procedures

-Advice and training on managing attendance, performance management, recruitment and selection

-Training and support for governors on their role as employer

-Production and distribution of HR briefings covering relevant issues

Employee Assistance Programme (EAP)

A no charge EAP is currently in place for the use of CYPD staff and schools employees only.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 7

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 97 This provides a confidential 24/7 phone help line to experienced professionals who can assist with a range of personal and domestic issues including financial advice.

This service is currently under review and may be withdrawn at the end of March 2009. The service may be replaced by a wider Council scheme to be confirmed at a later date.

Confidentiality

The HR function will respect the confidentiality of information entrusted to it regarding prospective, current or past employees, subject to legal rights of an individual to such information.

Service Delivery

The HR team will work with schools on specific issues such as employee relations, organisational change and recruitment advertising. They will also liaise with other colleagues in the Council on the school’s behalf , as appropriate.

Wherever possible, advice will be given promptly by telephone, email or letter. Personal visits will take place when necessary to advise on for example, capability, discipline and redundancy issues.

Written guidance will be provided through a portfolio of HR policies and procedures which will be reviewed regularly and updated as necessary.

Arrangements will normally apply to office hours between 7.30 and 17.30 hours Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays but the function will make every effort to be flexible outside of the stated hours e.g. attendance at evening meetings with governors.

Any project work undertaken for a school will be properly defined and formalised in order that both parties have a clear understanding of requirements. Dependant upon the scope of the project, this may incur additional cost.

Where the function supports initiatives on an authority wide basis, then there will be individual liaison and support of all schools involved.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 8

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 98

The HR team will work proactively with schools to assist them to meet their school improvement agenda. Such areas could include managing sickness absence or managing performance.

Performance Criteria

Telephone calls will be answered promptly and any query responded to in an efficient and supportive manner. Where voicemail is used, calls will be returned as soon as practicable.

Correspondence will be acknowledged or answered within 10 working days of receipt. Where a response cannot be given within this timescale, the likely timescale for a full answer to be provided will be indicated.

Accurate and timely information regarding new legislation or case law will be sent to schools so that human resource implications can be anticipated and planned for accordingly.

Any complaint about the services provided will investigated promptly the HR Manager, CYPD or by a nominated person at peer level outside of the HR, CYPD.

Review Procedures

Monitoring reports will be produced covering both performance against service standards and service volumes and variations. These reports will form the basis for an annual review including a review of charges for the following year and will take account of :

• Overall changes in staff numbers • Trends in numbers of transactions • Volumes of casework • Implications of new employment and education legislation • Other national or local initiatives • Opportunities for efficiency savings through ICT developments and other means.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 9

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 99 Schools Responsibilities

The school will undertake to provide all information necessary in order that the HR function can deliver the service as described in the SLA specification. Feedback will be provided to individual Headteachers where inadequate information has prevented service standards being met.

The school should assist with consultations and report on usage of policies and procedures. Also, the school should raise issues at an early stage so that remedial action can be taken.

Should a school ignore the specific advice given by the HR function with the consequence that potential breaches of statutory duties or legal responsibilities are likely to arise, it may be necessary to limit the extent of any further support. Additional expenditure incurred by the Authority arising from action by the governing body contrary to advice given, may be charged to the school.

Should a school choose not to participate in the SLA, the chair of the governing body should contact the HR Manager in order that discussions can take place to agree the basis upon which the Council’s statutory responsibilities (as they relate to personnel) can be met.

Contact List

Mel Ganderton HR Manager (01432) 260934

Julie Davies HR Officer 260933

Terry Smith HR Officer 260560

Emma Lawer HR Officer 260932

Charlie Green Asst HR Officer 383527

Becky Powell HR Assistant 260935

Fax : (01432) 260895

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 10

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 100 Address : Council Offices, Plough Lane, Hereford, HR4 0ZF

Name of service: STAFFING AND APPOINTMENTS

The following are the services to be provided to all Member Schools agreeing to a SLA with Staffing and Appointments.

Scope of Service Provision

• Cost effective service that ensures all education employees are paid correctly and all employment legal requirements are met • Provision of accurate, timely advice and support to Headteachers and governors on staff conditions of service • Advice, guidance and estimates on matters relating to pensions and redundancy. • Advice on teaching and non teaching National and Local conditions of service and locally determined policies and procedures for all employee groups • Ensure that employees are appropriately employed in order to meet the Council’s objectives.

The Staffing and Appointments service as specified will be provided via an annual fixed charge or centrally funded. Any additional request from an individual school, for work not specified will be discussed with the HR Manager who will agree Terms of Reference and any additional charge that may be made.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 11

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 101

Schools’ obligations when not participating in the SLA

• To provide through a suitably qualified and competent source all school level work specified in Schedule 1 below. • The Local Authority has a duty to intervene and can charge accordingly, in the case of a school’s failure to meet its legal obligation. • It is the Council’s statutory duty to provide information to Teachers’ Pensions and the DCSF. By the end of May each year, schools must provide details of salary paid to teachers on contracts including any supply days worked any unpaid leave. For relief teachers the actual days worked and the amount paid to supply/relief teachers and whether they have a part time election (pensionable) that the school has used in the period April to March (excluding Agency Teachers). • To provide copies of the following documents for all staff employed under the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document : - Application Form - Contract of Employment - Letters of variation - Termination - Equal Opportunities Form

• To provide sickness absence figures on a monthly basis in the format required to meet the statutory requirements of Performance Indicators • To ensure compliance with National and Local Conditions of Service • To comply with education and employment legislation as appropriate. • To ensure all relevant information is made available to Staffing and Appointments on a timely basis to allow completion of statutory returns.

SCHEDULE 1 – Services newly delegated to schools and funded/charged at the same levels.

Service Level provided by the Council Timescale School Responsibility Timescale

Design individual Contracts of Within 8 Provide background On request Employment to reflect the precise needs weeks of information where of school / employer including commenceme appropriate overcoming current problems that have nt date arisen locally and nationally.

Issue letters of employment and Within 8 To provide all relevant Within 5 days statement of particulars. weeks of completed following the

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 12

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 102 Service Level provided by the Council Timescale School Responsibility Timescale

statement of particulars. commenceme documentation to initiate appointment nt date payment.

Variations to contracts of employment. Within 4 To provide written Within 5 days notification of the change following the - Change of hours/proportion weeks of variation - Re-grading decision - Allowances etc. commenceme

nt date

Processing termination of employment in Within 4 Copy of the resignation Within 5 days all respects – ( except notification to the weeks of the letter if applicable. following the Teachers’ Pension Scheme of teachers effective notification from leaving the Authority) termination Cessation notification the employee or date. record and details of any the decision Includes holiday pay calculations and outstanding holiday made by the payments, payment in lieu of notice, entitlement (if head teacher. internal payment vouchers etc. applicable).

Record long-term sickness absence and As required Supply up to date Weekly basis provide written notification to employees and within 4 information detailing their entitlements to sickness weeks of benefits, statutory and full/half or no change to occupational sick pay. entitlement.

Provide written notification to employees As required Employee to submit 15 weeks detailing their entitlements to maternity, MatB1 and/or the before the EWC paternity, adoption and parental benefits. appropriate completed Statutory and occupational. notification form

Set up new employees, amendments or For the Provide correct and To be received leavers on the personnel system, making applicable complete documentation. by the 3 rd of the sure that the information regarding pay, month month continuous service and entitlements are correct

Assessment of pay and entitlements.

Answer employees’ queries, Respond Clarify where appropriate N/A investigating and resolving pay queries – within 72 Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 13

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 103 Service Level provided by the Council Timescale School Responsibility Timescale

liaising with previous employers hours of the Pensions, Schools ,where necessary query

Calculate and enter various claim forms Within the Ensure all claims are To be received e.g. Teachers XL, NTA, Laundry, deadline set completed correctly and by the 3rd of Lettings, Caretakers, Lunchtime by payroll authorised by the each month Superintendents, Senior supervisors, car nominated signatory and mileage etc. sent in no later than one month after the month in This includes contacting the relevant which the work was school(s) with every query. completed.

Administration of contracts of Within 8 Provide staffing details Within 5 days employment to staff covering banded weeks of and child’s name. following the and statemented children (SEN) commenceme appointment nt date.

Code and pass for payment recruitment Within 5 N/A N/A advertising invoices, including resolving working days all queries. - DELETE of receipt

Provide status enquires to outside Within 24 Forward all requests to By return bodies – Banks, Building Soc., Tenancy hours on Staffing and references, receipt Appointments Section for completion with proof of Benefits Agency etc. Within 48 authorisation from hours working employee for the form to days of be completed receipt

Completion of Loss of earning forms for Within 5 Forms to Staffing and Within 5 public duties in accordance with Annex working days Appointments for working days of Q, LMS scheme of receipt completion receipt

Criminal Disclosure checks – Maintain Within 5 Provide employee with a At interview or database and liaise with Headteachers working days disclosure application prior to with regard to criminal records and of receipt form for completion – appointment subsequent action, where necessary. check and verify documentation and pass to Staffing and Appointments for countersignature.

Liaise with the Criminal Records Bureau

Respond to LEA advice

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 14

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 104 Service Level provided by the Council Timescale School Responsibility Timescale

As required on suitability of Within 5 employment. working days of receipt of advice Ensure renewals of CRB every 3 years in line with CRB guidance and Provide employee with a Herefordshire Council Policy. Within ½ a disclosure application term of form for completion – Within one renewal date check and verify week of receipt documentation and pass of list/forms. to Staffing and Appointments for countersignature.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 15

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 105 SCHEDULE 2 – SERVICES PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS FOR WHICH FUNDING IS RETAINED CENTRALLY

Service Level provided Timescale School Responsibility Timescale by the Council

Monitor Medical On-going Ensure employee Prior to appointment or within Questionnaire returns. returns directly to 4 weeks of appointment. Occupational Health

Within 5 working days of notification

Within 5 working Implement occupational days of receipt of health decision regarding decision Respond to decision conditions of fitness for work

Advise on the correct use Same day Provide full details On the day of request of the different types of contracts of employment Within 48 hours and contractual conditions ensuring that all legislative requirements are met.

Ongoing development of On-going N/A N/A Contracts of Employment to reflect changes in Employment Law and related legislation and changes to National and Local Conditions of Service

Investigate, advise on By agreement Provide background On request contractual disputes – for information where all Education employees appropriate

Collate and complete By the specified Supply requested By the deadline given statutory returns. date information

- Teachers’ Annual

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 16

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 106 Service Level provided Timescale School Responsibility Timescale by the Council

Return

- 618g - Employment statistics - Sickness statistics Record supply teachers’ By the specified Supply requested By the deadline given days worked and amount date information paid to comply with the LA’s statutory duty to complete the annual return, submitted to Teachers’ Pension

Assist in preparing any By agreement Provide background On request submissions required for information where Employment Tribunals in necessary relation to claims from school based staff

Provide advice and On-going Complete weekly Weekly guidance and administer absence returns/submit processes in relation to Doctors certificates absenteeism, ill health and occupational health, and provide statistics as required

Compile the teachers’ Weekly To supply written Monday 5 p.m. to be /support staff vacancy list. requirements of included in the Job Opportunities – vet vacancy by deadline following week’s IVL adverts for contentious wording, then pass to HR.

Administrators/Bursars Annually Provide topics for By specified date Workshop - updating discussion relevant staff on changes to legislation Employment Law, new initiatives, grant funding, terms & conditions of service.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 17

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 107 Service Level provided Timescale School Responsibility Timescale by the Council

Interpretation and As appropriate to Provide full details On request implementation of national complexity of query agreements and changes but generally within in terms and conditions of 7 days employment, remuneration policy and Teachers’ Pension regulations

Maintain teaching and N/A Provide full employment Within 5 working non-teaching staff details/changes days of change records, manual and computerised to satisfy monitoring and reporting requirements e.g. annual returns, pension records and ill-health

Teachers Pension By the specified N/A N/A administration in all date respects

Liaise with Teachers’ Pensions

Initiate ill health Within 3 working Employee to complete A.S.A.P. applications and follow up days on receipt of relevant forms procedures the application

Provide estimates on ill Within 10 days of N/A N/A health retirement benefits. receiving data from the Pension Scheme

Provide costings and Within 10 days of N/A N/A estimates on redundancy request and early retirement

Provide age/premature Within 10 days of N/A N/A retirement estimates. receiving data from Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 18

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 108 Service Level provided Timescale School Responsibility Timescale by the Council

retirement estimates. the Pension Scheme

Provide TUPE information Within working 3 Provide staff list On request on request days

SCHEDULE 3 – Services charged separately for which no newly delegated funding is provided

Service Level provided by the Council Timescale School Responsibility Timescale

Training and development for School On request N/A N/A Bursars, Administrators and Secretaries in staffing procedures – an induction programme is available to new employees taking up any of the above posts.

Contact List

Alison Wright Staffing and Appointments Officer (Acting) (01432) 260901

Candida Kuegler Appointments Officer (Teaching) 260904

Sue Harris Appointments Officer (Non-teaching) 260903

Shoshana Marsden Asst Appointments Officer (Teaching) 260906

Fiona Edwards Asst Appointments Officer (Teaching) 383308

Sarah Harris Asst Appointments Officer (Teaching) 383545

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 19

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 109 Nicky Green Asst Appointments Officer (Non-teaching) 260905

Gill Green Asst Appointments Officer (Non-teaching) 260879

Louise Powell Asst Appointments Officer (Non-teaching) 260829

Helen Manning Appointments Clerk (Non-teaching) 383301

Debby Chalk Appointments Clerk (Non-teaching) 383049

Alison Robey Appointments Clerk (CRB) 260902

Fax: (01432) 260895

Address : Council Offices, Plough Lane, Hereford, HR4 0ZF

Office Hours : Monday to Thursday 0845 – 17.15 Friday 08.45 – 16.45

Name of Service : OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Scope of Service Provision

The service will be operated via the CYPD Human Resources Team who will advise schools on what approach to take in relation to attendance and ill-health cases needing support including referrals to the Occupational Health Department in Plough Lane, Hereford.

Pre-employment Screening

It is a condition of entry of both the Local Government and the Teachers’ Pension schemes that employees must be medically fit at the commencement of pensionable employment and this has now been included in the Service Level Agreement.

In the case of aided schools, it is assumed that they will want to be part of that arrangement.

If a school requires more than the basic health screening prior to employment, the school will have to pay for any extra charge incurred.

The following services are covered within the SLA :

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 20

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 110 • Pre-employment screening • Medical reviews from the Occupational Health Advisor • Management referral to the Council’s retained Medical Doctor • Ill health retirement certificate • Counselling (up to a maximum of 6 sessions)

Occupational Health also offers other services detailed in the schedule below, which schools may use based on additional charges specified.

Name of Service Core Service Offer All schools Insert cost for the Primary and school Human Resources Secondary including £121 per school CYPD participating plus £1.56 per Academies pupil (08/09)

All schools £334 per school Primary and plus £3.19 per Staffing and Secondary pupil (08/09) Appointments including participating Academies

Additional Service Where Insert School work is undertaken Staffing and outside of that covered by All schools Member hourly Appointments the annual fixed charge. Primary and charge : £30.00 Extra charges will be Secondary based on time recording including detailing the school for participating whom the work is Academies Non-member undertaken and actual hourly charge : activities completed. £50.00 Travelling time and mileage expenses will be charged in addition, if applicable

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 21

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 111 Core Service All schools £111 per school Primary and plus 0.75p per Occupational Secondary pupil (08/09) Health including any participating Academies

Additional Service

Drivers Medical

LGV and PSV Medicals TBC

Food Handlers medical

Display Screen Assessment

Vision Screening

Fast Track Physiotherapy(ACUTE)

Fast Track Physiotherapy(CHRONIC)

Immunisation

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 22

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 112 This would be the cover information to the SLA pack

Herefordshire Council Service Level Agreements with Schools 2009/10

This pack of information sets out the services on offer, the individual Service Level Agreements for the services, including prices, and a response sheet.

The length of commitment for each SLA is for one year from 1 April to 31 March.

Services will make every effort to respond to schools. If you have concerns regarding the level of service then please contact the person specified in each SLA.

Please submit your form by hard copy to X or electronically to address. If an electronic signature is not possible then receipt of the email will be taken as authorisation and an email acknowledging receipt will be sent.

Issues to be aware of for 2009/01

− A price increase of X% has been applied to all charges

− Headteachers are advised to consult with their Chair of Governors regarding levels of financial delegation, if appropriate, before signing the reply slip or sending their reply electronically.

Then a section highlighting any particular issues by SLA service area e.g.:

ICT

HR etc

Herefordshire Council Service Level Agreements

Herefordshire Council agrees to provide the services set out in the attached Specifications.

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 23

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 113

These Service Level Agreements will be effective for one year from 1 April 2009 until 31 March 2010.

Where charges are related to pupil numbers, these will be calculated using the January 2009 PLASC School Census return (full time pupil equivalent figure) as the number on roll.

These Specifications are intended to provide a broad indication of the services to be provided and it is not intended to be an exhaustive statement.

Council Services will give clear written notice of significant or material changes to the agreement by 1 November of each year, which will then be effective from 1 April.

Schools are required to give clear written notice of termination of any SLA or part of a SLA by the 31st January each year, which will then be effective from 1 April in the following year. Is this timescale appropriate?

Payment will be required by 30 April?

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 24

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 114 Herefordshire Council Service Level Agreement 2009/10 Reply Form

School Name DCSF Number

Email address

Service Level Phase Price Please tick as required

Property Core Service All phases Maintenance Offer

Additional All phases Service Offer

Facilities Maintenance

Human Resources

Occupational Health

Staffing and Appointments

Payroll Services

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 25

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 115

Legal Services

Schools Library Services

Bank Account and VAT service

Signature of Headteacher/Principal Print name

Signature of Chair of Governors Print name

Further information on the subject of this report is available from

Chris Baird, Head of Planning, Performance and Development, Children and Young People Directorate, 01432 260 264 26

E:\MODERNGOV\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\6\2\AI00015268\ServiceLevelAgreements0.doc 116