THE CUMBRIAN SCHOOLS’ FORUM Draft MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4 December 2012 Committee Room 1, County Offices, Kendal

PRESENT Louise Anderton (Small Schools) Anne Attwood (14-19) Duncan Fairbairn (CCC Conservative Group – Observer) Nick Fish (Copeland Primary) Bernard Gummett (Special Schools) Vivienne Halliday (PVI) Philip Hyman (Secondary Academy, representing Vanessa Ray) Steven Holmes (Secondary Academy) Angela Johnston (Primary Academy, representing Sue Woodburn) Jo Laker (Allerdale Primary) John McAuley (RC Diocese) Alan Mottershead (Secondary Academy) David Nattrass (Eden Primary) Nigel Pattinson (Eden Secondary) Mark Redding (Copeland Secondary, representing Lynette Norris) Ty Power (Secondary Academy) Alan Rutter (Teachers’ Professional Associations) Sue Smith (Nursery Schools) Joan Stocker (Community Secondary) Geoff Walker (Allerdale Secondary)

Officers in Attendance: Caroline Sutton (Assistant Director Schools and Learning – Children’s Services) Helen Hamilton (Children’s Services Finance Manager) Amanda Shaw (Children’s Services Finance) Nicola Shiels (Children’s Services)

Apologies for Absence Lisa Balderstone Chris Brooksbank Linda Dean Jackie Franklin Dianne Irving Michael Mill Lynette Norris – represented by Mark Redding Vanessa Ray – represented by Philip Hyman Elise Robinson Sue Woodburn – represented by Angela Johnston

D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 1 Consideration of the following items would be deferred to the next meeting of the Forum in January: -

Item 4 – SEN, Social Deprivation, Access and Inclusion Working Group, draft notes of the meeting held on 14 November 2012

Item 10 – Cumbria County Council – Consultation on Draft Budget Proposals 2013/14

The date of the next meeting of the Forum had previously been agreed as 8 February 2013. It was noted that this date would need to be brought forward and the meeting held in January to fit in with arrangements for further consultations relating to high needs provision and the early years block. The revised date would be agreed at the end of the meeting.

1. Declarations of Interest

Alan Rutter – Item 9 Teachers Pensions Contributions. During consideration of item 9, David Nattrass would Chair the meeting.

There were no other declarations of interest at this stage.

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting and Matters Arising Subject to a change of date on page two, the minutes of the meeting of the Schools Forum held on 24 October 2012 were agreed as an accurate record.

Matters Arising i) Academy Representation – The names of anyone who had indicated an interest in taking up the remaining Academy vacancy had been forwarded to Allan Mottershead to co-ordinate the appointment. It was reported that Steven Holmes from Queen Elizabeth School, Kirkby Lonsdale had been appointed to the final Academy vacancy.

There were no other matters arising from the minutes.

3. Working Group Minutes The SEN, Social Deprivation, Access and Inclusion Working Group had met on 4 November 2012. As noted earlier, consideration of this item would be deferred until the meeting of the Forum in January 2013.

4. School Funding Reform At the meeting of the Schools Forum held on 24 October 2012, feedback from the consultation on Schools Funding Reform: Arrangements for 2013-14 had been considered and recommendations from the Forum on each of the proposals had been agreed. The Forum was reminded that it was a statutory consultee and not the decision maker, in this process, Cumbria County Council Cabinet was the decision maker.

D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 2 A letter from the Corporate Director – Children’s Services to all schools had been circulated to all members of the Schools Forum and had also been circulated with the agenda and papers for this meeting. This letter had explained that all the recommendations from the Schools Forum had been accepted by Cabinet, with the exception of the lump sum and Cabinet had decided to increase that. The Forum had recommended a lump sum of £50,000 but Cabinet had agreed that the lump sum should be £70,000. In reaching this decision, Cabinet had taken into account that 28% of respondents to the consultation had recommended £50,000 whilst 72% had preferred a lump sum of £70,000. The figure of £70,000 would mean that there would be significantly fewer adversely affected schools with 31 school budgets seeing a reduction of more than 6% rather than 59 schools under the £50,000 lump sum option.

A letter from David Laws MP had also been circulated with the agenda. This letter had thanked delegates from Cumbria for attending the meeting on 22 October to discuss school funding and the specific effects on schools in Cumbria. The letter had also set out the government intention to extend the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) and also to review the 2013-14 arrangement to consider whether, in the light of the representations received and the likely impact on some schools, improvements were needed for 2014-15. The Department of Education were keen to work closely with Cumbria County Council in conducting this review. This was seen as the result of successful and positive lobbying by MPs and county councillors, as had been reported at previous meetings.

It was acknowledged that some difficult decisions had been taken but they had been taken with the intention of making the best choices within the context of what was available.

There was general concern from the Forum regarding some of the assertions made in the letter from David Laws MP. There was a particular view that Cumbria had managed the formula to allow all schools to receive sufficient funding and, than rather than moving towards a more consistent basis for funding schools, the current proposals would have a significant effect on a number of schools in the county. It was suggested that the Forum should make some further representation to the DfE setting out this view.

Alternatively, it was suggested that the place to challenge could be through the working group that would be established to review the arrangements. The proposals were not just impacting in Cumbria, many other areas were affected in similar ways.

The Forum, however agreed that the Chair should respond to David Laws letter of 29 October 2012. Whilst the letter would set out the concerns detailed above, it would also welcome the extension of MFG and the invitation to Cumbria County Council to be involved in the review of the 2013-14 arrangements.

There was much concern from the Forum regarding the Cabinet decision to agree a lump sum of £70,000 rather that £50,000 as recommended by the Schools Forum. There were also further concerns about communications to schools and the Forum about the decisions that had been taken. The call-in process was explained and the Lead Member for Schools and Learning reiterated that the decision to have a lump sum of £70,000 would mean that there would be significantly fewer adversely affected D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 3 schools. He also confirmed that the report to Cabinet had stated clearly the recommendation from the Schools Forum. The Forum was also reminded that it was a statutory consultee and that Cabinet was the decision maker.

The Forum also felt that Cabinet should be made aware of their concerns and it was agreed that the Chair should also write to Cabinet.

5. Maintained Secondary School De-Delegation Options 2013-14 At the meeting of the Schools Forum held on 24 October 2012, recommendations regarding the delegation or de-delegation of several of the currently centrally retained budgets were agreed. These recommendations were based on voting by phase. Maintained secondary school representatives voted for the de-delegation of insurance, licences and subscriptions and library services.

Following this decision, the Cabinet expressed some concern about the additional financial and risk burden that the necessary procurement of the above services could mean for maintained secondary schools. Cabinet requested that some further analysis of the impact of the decision be undertaken and that the maintained secondary school representatives on the Schools Forum be asked to reconsider their decision taking account of the analysis.

Details of the analysis that had been undertaken were set out in the report: -

Insurance The centrally retained Insurance budget provided schools with insurance cover for the main classes of insurance - property, business interruption, liability and money. In addition to this, there were other types of insurance that schools may need to purchase (motor insurance, school journey insurance, supply teacher insurance) which remain the school’s responsibility.

A Cumbrian maintained secondary school with no particular risk premium was selected. An insurance quotation for 2012/13 based on current information, and with the same level of cover (covering the main classes of property, business interruption, liability and money) as is currently obtained for the school through Cumbria County Council, was obtained from Zurich Ltd. This was then compared to the budget the school would receive should the Council’s centrally retained Insurance budget be delegated to secondary schools. The result was that this particular school would need to find the additional £40,322 from within its budget in order to purchase insurance cover from the open market.

Library Services Under the current school funding formula, library services were already delegated to secondary schools. The majority of these secondary schools then bought library services in from the Council from a menu of options. Maintained secondary school representatives on the Schools Forum voted for Library Services to remain delegated for secondary schools.

Licenses and Subscriptions The centrally retained licenses/ subscriptions budget covered four different types of licence: D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 4  Educational Recording Agency (required in order to use recordings of broadcasts as teaching resources)  Phonographic Performance Limited (required for the non-curricular use of copyrighted music in schools)  PRS for Music (also required for the non-curricular use of copyrighted music in schools)  Copyright Licensing Agency (required to be able to copy, share and use published information)

These were purchased by the Council annually in one block purchase for all schools. All four licences were charged based on a tariff multiplied by pupil numbers.

A Cumbrian maintained secondary school was selected and the cost of the school directly purchasing the four licenses listed above for the 2012/13 financial year was calculated. This was then compared to the budget the school would receive should the Council’s centrally retained licenses/subscriptions budget be delegated to secondary schools. Should maintained secondary schools opt for the licenses/subscriptions budget to be delegated, all maintained secondary schools would be responsible for directly purchasing the four required licenses. This particular school would need to find the additional £771 from within its budget in order to purchase the licenses directly.

Schools would need to ensure they have purchased all required licenses and had not left themselves at risk of infringing regulations. The Local Authority received discounts from both the Educational Recording Agency and Copyright Licensing Agency. Such discounts were not available when schools directly purchase licenses. Therefore, delegating the licensing/subscriptions budget to individual schools would result in increased costs and reduced value for money for individual schools.

It was reported that DfE had indicated that charges relating to the Copyright Licensing Agency may be top-sliced from the Dedicated Schools Grant. This would both reduce the licenses/subscriptions budget available for delegation and reduce the cost of direct purchase by the school.

Taking account of the further analysis detailed above, maintained secondary school representatives on the Schools Forum reconsidered the recommendations agreed at the previous meeting: -

Insurances

Confirm recommendation from 24/10/12 0 De-delegate 4 Abstention 1

The Schools Forum recommended that for the secondary sector insurance should be de-delegated to be managed through the local authority.

D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 5 Licenses and Subscriptions

Confirm recommendation from 24/10/12 0 De-delegate 4 Abstention 1

The Schools Forum recommended that for the secondary sector licenses and subscriptions should be de-delegated to be managed through the local authority.

Library Services

Confirm recommendation from 24/10/12 3 De-delegate 0 Abstention 2

The Schools Forum recommended that for the secondary sector library services should be delegated as part of school budgets, confirming the recommendation agreed on 24 October 2012.

It was noted that these decisions had not been taken lightly and maintained secondary school representatives on the Schools Forum stressed that the presentation of additional information about the potential effect of the previous decisions had resulted in the decision to change two of the recommendations previously agreed.

6. Excess Surplus Balances A report setting out the action that had been taken to address school surplus balances as at 31 March 2012 in accordance with the policy agreed in March 2012 was presented. The Forum was asked to agree how the balance of £68,398 that had been clawed back from schools as a result of the Control of Surplus Balances Policy should be used.

Following the closure of the local authority accounts the excess surplus balances for schools had been determined. In accordance with the policy, 44 schools had been identified as having excess surplus balances over the allowable 8% for nursery primary and special schools and 5% for secondary schools as at 31 March 2012. These schools had been informed that they had an excess surplus balance and had been asked to justify the balance and provide supporting evidence by the agreed deadline of 31 May 2012. The returns and supporting evidence were then scrutinised to determine whether, in line with the agreed policy, the reasons give were justifiable. A number of checks were also carried out to ensure that the reasons given were reflected in the budget. On completion of the exercise a reports was prepared for the AD Schools and Learning. Following a small number of appeals, the outcome of the review was as follows: -

 4 schools approved  37 schools approved but with an automatic clawback of any excess surplus balance over the threshold in 2013-14 if they close 2012-13 with an excess  3 schools partial clawback approved totalling £68,398 D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 6 The Schools Forum was asked to recommend how the balance of £68,398 should be used. Suggestions were: -

 Roll back into DSG for 2013-14 and allocated to schools via S251  Support for schools in financial difficulty  Schools Contingency Fund

In the previous year, the sum clawed back had been rolled forward but it was noted that the sum of £68,398 was larger than previously. The Forum was also advised that the decision agreed would be taken forward and acted upon.

Each of the suggestions set out above were discussed before a vote was taken. Votes were cast as follows: -

Roll back into DSG for 2013-14 13 Schools in financial difficulty 2 Schools Contingency Fund 1

Based on the above, the Schools Forum recommended that the local authority roll the excess surplus balance clawback from individual schools totalling £68,398 back into the DSG for 2013-14.

7. Additional Funding Requirements The Schools Forum considered a report that set out two additional funding requirements for schools for 2012/13. The Forum was asked to approve the additional funding requirements and that these should be funded from the Dedicated Schools Grant reserve.

The current school funding formula included a factor for Newly Qualified Teachers (NQT). In the 2012/13 School Budget, schools received £1574 per term in respect of each NQT they employed (pro-rated accordingly if the NQT works part time hours). This funding was calculated retrospectively and related to NQTs employed for the period September 2011 to August 2012. The new school funding arrangements, which will come into effect from 1 April 2013, do not permit the use of a factor for NQTs in the school funding formula. As a result schools will not receive any specific funding for their NQTs for the period September 2012 to August 2013. As many schools have employed NQTs from September 2012, without the knowledge that specific NQT funding would no longer be available, it was proposed to fund schools in respect of any NQTs they have employed for the period September 2012 to March 2013 (to the start of the new financial year from 1 April 2013, when the new school funding arrangements come into place). The total value of this was estimated at £427,735.

Walney School was currently undergoing a significant capital development programme. The £7.2m budget for the programme was fully committed. The programme and associated budget allowed for the levelling and re-seeding of the playing fields where the site compound has been situated. The wet weather during the summer (2012) has meant that the ground was too wet to undertake the levelling D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 7 and re-seeding work. It was anticipated that the earliest the contractors could get onto the field to undertake the re-seeding work would be spring 2013. Following this work, the field will need to be left for one year to allow the new grass to grow meaning that the school playing field would not be available for sports activities and teaching. If the field could be turfed in spring 2013, then it was likely that school playing field could be available for use in summer/autumn 2013 giving the school back almost an academic year of their sports curriculum. The cost of turfing the field would be £16,473.30.

The Schools Forum approved the additional funding requirements: -  Approximately £427,735 to fund schools in respect of Newly Qualified Teachers for the period September 2012 to March 2013  £16,473 to fund Walney School for the turfing of the school playing field These would be funded from the Dedicated Schools Grant reserve.

8. Teachers Pensions Contributions David Nattrass took over chairing of the meeting during consideration of this item.

A report setting out the findings of Internal Audit following a review of pension contributions by schools to the Teachers’ Pensions Agency (TPA) in 2011/12 was presented. The review had identified potential savings that could arise for schools by strict application of the TPA criteria for applying pensionable pay for teachers carrying out extra duties. The Schools Forum was asked to consider the issues raised in the report and recommend whether schools be informed of the savings that can be made through adopting the following definition: -  Extra hours worked on an ad-hoc basis is non-pensionable (overtime)  Extra hours worked on a regular basis is pensionable (additional hours)

Schools pay employer pension contributions in respect of teachers within their school who are members of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme. Within a school, teachers can work extra hours. These can be classified as either ‘overtime’ (the pay for which is non-pensionable) or ‘additional hours’ (the pay for which is pensionable).

In accordance with the Council’s Internal Audit Plan (2012/13), an audit of pension contributions to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) was carried out for the 31 schools that used external payroll providers. As part of the review, an analysis of extra hours worked by teachers in 2011/12 was undertaken to identify whether they had been classified as additional hours (pensionable) or overtime (non-pensionable). The analysis only included non-chequebook schools as insufficient data is held by the Council for schools with their own bank account and accounting system. The analysis showed that in nearly all cases, extra hours were treated as additional hours (pensionable) rather than as overtime (non-pensionable).

The Teachers’ Pension Agency was asked to clarify whether there were any regulations concerning extra hours worked by teachers. The response was as follows: -  For full time teachers, the only circumstances in which these staff would be eligible for additional hours to count would be if they were classed as out of school learning activities. It was the responsibility of each employer to determine whether a payment made in respect of out of school learning activities fell under

D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 8 the Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document. If it did, any payment for out of school learning activities should be treated as a pensionable allowance.  Part time and supply teachers can receive pensionable payment (additional hours) but it must not exceed their pensionable pay if they worked full time.

This guidance and further clarification from the Teachers’ Pension Agency indicated that it was very much at the discretion of the school as to whether extra hours worked by teachers were classified as ‘additional hours’ (pensionable) or ‘overtime’ (non- pensionable).

Some other local authorities provided guidance that could be summarised as follows: -  Extra hours worked on an ad-hoc basis is non-pensionable (overtime)  Extra hours worked on a regular basis is pensionable (additional Hours)

The review of all payments of additional hours by month indicated that they varied significantly by amount and frequency, suggesting that ad hoc payments were a significant proportion of the total. If the definitions of overtime and additional hours were applied to schools in Cumbria a significant proportion of the costs could be allocated as overtime (non-pensionable). Schools would not need to pay employer contributions where extra hours were classed as overtime and this could represent a significant saving for schools. Based on the 2011/12 total, Internal Audit had calculated that the total maximum potential savings for schools in Cumbria would be £891k.

Any savings would be dependent on the individual contracts that schools had agreed with their teachers. It was anticipated that such contracts would define the hours a teacher was required to work per week with any ad-hoc hours, additional to this, being paid as overtime (non-pensionable). There may be a requirement for contracts of employment to be amended to ensure there was no action taken by affected teachers and this may require a period of notice to be given to amend these contracts. Consideration of the impact on staff would also need to be taken into account. The change in treatment of some additional hours worked may mean savings for schools in term of employer pension contributions, but this would impact on the pension benefits of staff. Furthermore, re-classification of hours worked could also impact on staff costs but this would depend on the individual pay policies held by schools, for example whether overtime is paid at a different rate to ‘additional hours’.

In discussing the issues raised in the report there was a view that teachers were generally paid additional hours – planned PPA, covering for illness etc. The chair (Alan Rutter) confirmed that he had contacted the NUT regional office with regard to the issues set out. The School Teachers Pay and Conditions document did not include anything in relation to overtime and only referred to additional hours. As such, looking to introduce overtime was seen to be a change in national pay and conditions and would need to be subject to consultation. There could also be issues with discrimination. This was not a decision for the Schools Forum.

The Forum were reminded the view from Internal Audit was that there was a potential for savings to schools if they adopted a different approach and Schools Forum were being asked to advise whether this information should be shared with schools.

The Schools Forum recommended that no further action should be taken.

D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 9 9. Cumbria County Council – Consultation on Draft Budget Proposals 2013-14 As noted earlier, consideration of this item would be deferred until the meeting of the Forum in January 2013.

10. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Schools Forum was scheduled for Friday, 8 February 2013. It was however now necessary for the Forum to meet during the week commencing 14 January 2013 ahead of consultations on early years and high needs. It was reported that advice had been received to suggest that consultation regarding the high needs block was not now necessary. There would need to be consultation relating to early years funding because of potential impact on the PVI sector. It was therefore agreed that the next meeting of the Schools Forum would be held on Wednesday 16 January 2013. The meeting would begin at 9.30am, venue to be advised.

11. Any Other Business i) CCC Consultation on Draft Budget Proposals 2013-14 – It was confirmed that the timing of this consultation would allow the Schools Forum to discuss this at the next meeting in January. ii) Schools Forum – For future decisions the Forum asked that it be made very clear what the Forum was being asked to decide, who would be affected by decisions taken etc.

There were no other items of business.

SL/SAA/NJS January 2012

D:\Docs\2017-12-15\03ded4e92a80821890446bb21cc61d82.doc 10