The Holy Family Catholic Primary School

The Holy Family Catholic Primary School Minutes of the Meeting of the Academy Local Governing Body (LGB) Wednesday 18th May 2016 at 6.30 pm Present: Foundation governors: Lyn Coyle (CoG), Rob Sharpley (vCoG), Mary Holt Goldsmith, Michael Reidy Headteacher: Rosemary Wajs Co-opted governor: Sue Hill Staff governor: John Atkinson In attendance: Michele Stenning (Asst HT) and Clare Nursey (KCC Clerk) Visitors: Mark Harris (KCSP Finance Director) and Caz Walsh (KCSP) for item 5 only

The agenda was slightly altered on the night to accommodate MH and CW but discussions are recorded in agenda order below

Agenda item Action Item 1 Opening Prayer, welcome and introduction 1.1 CoG welcomed everyone to the meeting and reminded governors that the main purpose of this meeting was to discuss the new budget and Mark Harris (KCSP Finance Director) and Caz Walsh (KCSP) would be joining the meeting for item 5. 1.2 HT led an opening prayer. Item 2 Apologies for absence 2.1 Apologies received and accepted from Abi Folorunso and Daniel Wills (Foundation governors) and Chris Overy (parent governor). Father Roy advised he had sent apologies but these had not been received by the clerk. 2.2 The meeting was quorate with 7 of 11 governors in post present. Item 3 Disclosure of conflicts of interest & Trust Undertaking 3.1 MHG declared an interest through her daughter’s employment at the school. RS confirmed he was employed by the school’s banking firm but not in any position connected with school finance. 3.2 Foundation governors signed the Trust Undertaking - absent foundation governors to sign next time. Clerk Item 4 Minutes of the last meeting (20th January 2016) and matters arising 4.1 Minutes were approved as an accurate record and signed by the CoG. 4.2 Governors were reminded to complete PREVENT online training and to send Govs certificates to the clerk and to the school. http://course.ncalt.com/Channel_General_Awareness/01/index.html

Item 5 Budget matters (MH and CW joined the meeting) 5.1 Governors had received the budget plan and accompanying overview reports before the meeting. MH explained that all Trust schools had been asked to submit updates on in year spending twice a year (Dec and Apr) and 3 year budget plans (by 26 May). The Trust wanted to see a break even budget over the period – not all schools were able to do this. 5.2 MH explained:  HF showed a sound financial position for a school this size  Reserves were approaching an excessive amount though some was identified for investment (phase 2 boiler work underway)  Surplus of £36k originally planned, now down to £26k – will use around

1 £30k of reserves this year (boiler work c £75k)  Concerns around some source data (in overview report – see para 5.3 below) – will explore further but fairly confident of bottom line of budget  Expect income to be close to budget (vast majority of income is a set amount)  Variation in staffing expected but overall predictions of spend across the Trust are proving reliable  Data shows wide variation in catering among 20 schools in partnership (some in house, some contractors). Trust considering central tender - most likely to go with contractor but will be complex (TUPE etc). Will however deliver savings and some capital investment. 5.3 Are there any serious concerns with the school’s financial data? (Overview report from month end meeting refers). MH advised that core data was acceptable but there were some areas of doubt - the Trust would work with the school to resolve these. He reminded the meeting that the recent audit health check had raised no concerns at HF. How had these come about? Was it affected by the disruption in financial services? CoG reminded the meeting that the Trust had not allowed the HT to replace the bursar on a like for like basis when CW had left to join the Trust. MH advised that all schools would be expected to make 8-10% savings in the next few years as income would be static. There was a need to look for efficiencies not just money savings and the Trust Board had decided that there should not be an automatic replacement of finance staff. Now services are provided centrally under a SLA though the position would be reviewed as necessary and the errors that had arisen at HF were not as a result of the new arrangements but related to the accuracy of maintenance of core data in school. Some discussion in annex for governors. 5.4 Was it of concern that the budget showed a deficit in year 3? MH said this was a difficulty but the position would almost certainly change by year 3. He stressed though that current projections were that income would be static and the roll would be static so the position was likely to worsen year on year. Figures suggested that HF was prudent but remember that reserves can only be spent once, and are unlikely to be replaced, and really should be spent on children at the school now. An advantage of the partnership was that certain monies could be pooled to be available for emergencies, and initiatives (eg energy and catering contracts) might bring savings to enable help in the future. 5.5 Will the Trust accept the forecast deficit in year 1 of the plan? With the caveat that some data needed to be checked, MH said yes as money was being spent on appropriate investment (boilers) and the deficit was covered by reserves. 5.6 What level of reserves would the Trust recommend? MH reminded the meeting that the LA previously allowed maximum reserves of 8% - around £70- 80k for HF. However, with the Trust’s pooling of some money for emergencies, and bearing in mind that not every school would have an emergency at the same time, a lower amount was appropriate so the Trust recommended a reserve no lower than 5% (£35k). For HF a reserve of around £50k was probably best in view All govs of the fact that the monthly salary bill was around £55k (maternity leaves might affect this figure and would require further discussion). 5.7 Could the GB recommend the budget tonight despite the queries raised? The budget could be recommended in principle tonight. CW advised that there were some significant differences between Trust figures and the school’s data

2 but these would be resolved by Friday and, unless a significant deficit was thrown up be amendments, a revised budget would be circulated for final approval by governors by email. CoG reminded the meeting that DW (finance governor) had advised he had no concerns and though the position looked very positive. 5.8 With regard to capital expenditure, MH reminded the meeting that the Trust had commissioned a detailed Conditions survey which had highlighted 20 schools in need of urgent work (category D1) totalling £20m. The Trust received only £2m capital funding each year so had submitted a bid to the EFA for more funding. Some work would be carried out in schools over summer (windows, roofing, other weatherproofing projects, H&S and emergency systems) but there was no chance of “nice” projects going ahead. There had generally been an underinvestment in Trust schools over the last few years but MH acknowledged that HF had maintained a good level of spending on buildings and upkeep. The Trust would liaise with schools tender and manage any future projects, achieving savings through economies of scale etc. More standardisation was likely in the future, for example, the Trust was currently tendering the contract for insurance across the schools and this should bring a saving of around £320k. HT 5.9 In the context of insurance, SH asked whether the security/H&S concern regarding one door was a problem. HT advised the door was not a key fire exit and was in any case kept locked so there was no issue with it. She reported she had met Clive Burrows to discuss plans for a new entrance to provide an “airlock” and add a pedestrian gate and a barrier to prevent unauthorised access to the car park. The basic cost of the porch would be around £17k but other work, including alterations to office space, would add to this. MH advised the Trust may be able to offer advice – HT would mail plans to MH once available. MH and CW left the meeting 7.45 pm. Item 6 School Improvement Strategy team minutes (20 April 2016) 6.1 CoG reminded the meeting that Strategy team meetings were combined with a progress review and she drew attention to the challenging questions which Strategy team governors had asked on behalf of the whole GB. Updates since that meeting and matters discussed now were:  Nick Cross was leaving KCSP in June; the new School Improvement Adviser had a primary background  CoG had received a reply from Roger Gough (LA), rejecting all the points she had made regarding Catholic places provision. The good news though was that the LA was now working with the diocese on the matter. Anne Bamford (Education Commission) had urged GBs and parish priests to do all possible to ensure RC schools were full with RC children to support the argument for more RC school places  HT acknowledged that the website needed updating; office staffing issues had made this difficult recently but someone had now been identified to be trained in this task  Breakfast club – JA advised that sports funding next year allowed funding MHG/HT/CoG of before and after school clubs so this may be a way of funding a breakfast club. The Sports Premium provider would be willing to run a club (45 minutes each morning, 1 adult per 20 children). Governors agreed this deserved further investigation. MHG to arrange for HT and CoG to visit Hunton School (a very small village school) which ran a

3 breakfast club incorporating wake and shake. School self evaluation (SEF) 6.2 The full SEF had been circulated to all governors and CoG reminded the meeting this was an important document for Ofsted. HT confirmed that Strategy team had worked through sections 1 and 2 so far using the helpful software. Leadership and Management was judged 3 (good) while Teaching and Learning was judged 2 (requires improvement) in the light of the KCSP review. Other sections would be updated at the next Strategy meetings.

Questions from Ofsted for governors 6.3 HT and CoG had attended a meeting at the Education Commission where All govs delegates had been given an extract from The Key (“Questions from Ofsted for governor”). This was a useful aide memoire for an Ofsted visit and CoG issued this to governors and asked them to review the questions and consider responses – for discussion at a future meeting. [MHG left meeting 8 pm]

Evaluated RAP T3 & 4 and RAP T5 & 6 6.4 Governors had received the evaluated RAP for T3 & 4 which showed clearly which actions had been rolled over into the RAP for T5 & 6. Strategy team had reviewed these in detail (see minutes) and governors had no questions to raise at RS/HT this meeting. 6.5 RS would arrange to meet the HT to carry out further data analysis. Item 7 Headteacher’s report Governors had received the HT’s written report and she updated them and governors discussed the following: Staffing 7.1 There would be 1 maternity leave next year. Pupil numbers 7.2 HT advised the final list was not yet available but probably 30 in YR in September; appeals ongoing; good that the school was oversubscribed for the first time (not so vulnerable to new Langley school after all). Overall, HT advised there would only be 3-4 spaces in the school in September so effectively full, and increased pupil numbers would of course bring more funding. 7.3 CoG advised that the admissions appeals process was not clear and different views had been expressed by the Trust and the Education Commission. The problem was that the Trust was now an admissions authority but had not yet established an appeals process. How many of the new intake would be RC? HT advised that though the list was not yet confirmed, RC children would be a minority in YR in September - while HF was now seen as the good school in the local area, RC families were not convinced. Governors agreed that a drive to attract RC parents/children in the parish and more widely (eg from Bearsted parish which no longer had links with St Francis) was necessary - this might fall under the Trust’s remit. Progress and achievement 7.4 Joint RE moderation with St Francis and Moor Park schools had been interesting and useful. 7.5 Danny Coleman (Education Commission) had led INSET on assessment strategies in RE and would return in July to migrate data to the new system. 7.6 LAB moderation continues – almost all Writing has been moderated plus 1 maths session. JA reported that KS2 Writing moderation held this week had confirmed all 5 judgements which was reassuring for staff and gave markers for other Teacher Assessments.

4 Attendance 7.7 KCSP had noted issues with FSM pupils and boys’ attendance at the recent progress meeting but HT did not agree. The school was very proactive on attendance matters and the overall rate for T4 was 95.3% with 3.3% authorised absence and 1.4% unauthorised. The FLO closely monitored attendance and compiled a monthly spreadsheet with reasons for absence. Data showed 18 children with lower than 90% attendance and the HT had studied these – 14 girls, 4 boys, 50% PP. Of these, 10 children’s attendance caused concern – see annex for governors. CoG reminded the meeting that FLO costs were met from Pupil Premium funding so it was important to see that the role had an impact on PP children’s attendance. 7.8 HT was pleased to advise that 21 children so far this term had achieved 100% attendance. 7.9 Governors had noted the recent court case regarding fines for non attendance. HT advised the FLO had attended a meeting and it appeared the LA would not process fines where overall attendance was above 90%. Item 8 H&S and Safeguarding 8.1 Covered in HT’s report and governor visit report. 8.2 HT reported that boiler replacement work had started but some asbestos (the less harmful white type) had been uncovered. Fortunately the budget included a contingency for this and the material would be cleared this weekend. CoG noted that thanks were due to KCSP for getting this project underway. HT acknowledged that KCSP were proving more helpful now but reported that HTs in the Trust still felt that communication could be better (eg tonight had been the first time she had heard of the Trust’s plans to tender for catering contracts), and there now seemed an expectation that HTs would run things past the Trust before making any decisions. Item 9 Governor matters Governor monitoring 9.1 CoG reported there had been few monitoring visits in T3 and T4 though Strategy Group had continued to meet termly to carry out monitoring on behalf of the GB. She had drawn together the points raised in recent reports and would circulate it after this meeting for governors to note on future visits:  Writing - engagement of children at each end of the range  Maths - basic numeracy HT advised that from T4 every class had a daily dedicated 30 minute arithmetic lesson in addition to the daily maths lesson; impact and benefit should show in T5 data. Governors stressed that evidence of impact must be available for Ofsted – perhaps the children should take then retake a test to prove progress?  SEN – detailed report of Pupil Premium spending and impact needed HT advised that she and the SENCO had worked together to produce a more specific statement for the website. CoG had not seen this on the website and governors stressed that website information must be up to date as Ofsted would look at this before they visited. [New format report form sent 19/5 and 9.2 The monitoring schedule for T5 & 6 had already been circulated and CoG T 3&4 summary of reminded governor that visits had been pared down to essentials and must be monitoring points carried out. with HT’s response 9.3 HT commented there was no space on the report form for the school to on 20/5] respond to any points raised. Governors agreed this would be a valuable addition to the form – CoG to revise and recirculate. 5 RE monitoring 9.4 CoG advised that children would now be assessed each year against the 2 Attainment Targets (knowledge & reflection and understanding) and governors agreed it was a sign of real progress that tracking and progress information was now available for RE.

Governor Training 9.5 SH reminded governors that the school paid for the training package so should make good use of the training offering, including attendance at the Governor Conference on 24 June. 9.6 CoG reminded governors that the KCSP skills audit of governors (results sent to all governors) had shown weaker areas to be SEN, young carers, Pupil Premium, and some relating to KCSP and Roman Catholicism/RC schools. She was particularly concerned about the latter and suggested arranging a short in FGB agenda house training session before the next formal GB meeting. Governors agreed this would be useful especially for newer governors. Item 10 Chair of Governors’ report CoG’s written report had been circulated and she had nothing further to add at this meeting except to advise governors that 3 children from the school were going to sing at Father Paul Mason’s ordination as Bishop. Item 11 AOB, Confidentiality and publication of minutes 11.1 HT advised she had received the Trust’s Finance policy which needed to be tailored for the school. The meeting agreed that the HT and staff would produce HT the first draft as they were most familiar with local procedures and governors would input after that. Ideally the school’s new policy should be ready for the start of the new academic year. 11.2 HT advised she would like the planned Governor Day to focus on developing a 3 year SDP, with input from all stakeholders. Timings would be advised later (possibly treat as a twilight session for staff) and HT would produce a questionnaire to get people thinking about their vision for the school. All governors present agreed they could attend on 1st July for at least part of the day. 11.3 CoG advised the school might receive correspondence relating to appeals for admission - these letters would be addressed to the Clerk. 11.4 Some discussion at items 5 and 7 in confidential annex for governors. Item 12 Next meetings Governor Day& LGB if needed – Friday 1st July to focus on the new SDP – timings to be confirmed Strategy team – Tuesday 12th July at 6.30 pm (time to be confirmed)

Leavers’ Mass 13th July

Signed...... Date......