Hampshire Schools Forum

Date 20 October 2015 Time 09:30 – 12:20 Location Ashburton Hall, Elizabeth II Court, The Castle Winchester SO23 8UG

Present Nursery Peter Higgs Primary Chris Robinson, Sarah Crowdy, Andy King (substitute), Ian Waine, Paul Street, Jilly Myers, Rebecca Kingsland, Martina Humber, Roy Lee, Simon Walker (Chair), Esther Jones, Charlotte Bailey Secondary Andrew Turk, Grahame Sammons (vice-chair), Ria Allan, Robin Gray, Sylvia Vine Special Sharon Salmon (substitute), Rob Thompson, David Drew Education Dominic Coburn Centres Academy Carole Gibbs (substitute), Jim Duckham, Sandy Bailey (substitute), Bayhan Ercan-Razvi, Stuart Parker-Tyreman EY Tiffany Morris (substitute), Donna Beynon TLP Liz Muir

Also Cllr Keith Mans, Cllr Peter Edgar, Anwen Foy, Felicity Roe, Brian Pope, Present Andrew Minall, Gordon Shinn, Kathryn Stevens, Pete Colenutt, Phil Butler, Jennifer Gray, Julia Linclau, Helen Hardy (clerk) Observers Karen Williams

Apologies Nursery Primary Craig Williams, Ella Palmer Secondary Academy Chris Willsher, Julie Turvey, Justine Roberts Special Anna Dawson, Philip Coverdale Other Jane Dyke, Sheila Spooner, members Officers John Coughlan, John Clarke, Steve Crocker Elected Members

Action 1 Welcome and Apologies The clerk welcomed new members to Schools Forum. Apologies were noted and recorded as above. 2 Election of Chair and Vice Chair of Schools Forum for 2015/16 Simon Walker was elected unanimously as Chair of Schools Forum and Grahame Sammons was elected unanimously as vice-chair. These appointments are for two years. 3 Declaration of Interests

1 There were no declarations of interest. 4 Minutes of 8 July 2015 The minutes of the meeting of 8 July 2015 were accepted as a true and accurate record. Officers added that 62 schools have been put forward to take part in the copyright exercise and a further 7 in relation to music only. 5 FM Category Procurement Plan Julia Linclau (Head of Infrastructure Procurement Team) introduced a presentation on the fundamental review about how the authority procures. Facilities Management (including catering, cleaning and waste collection) affects all schools. There is a stakeholder group for all categories of schools and feedback is being sought from others such as Resources Group. The work will seek to make a long-term arrangement with a commitment for funding on the corporate estate level but allow flexibility for schools. The current frameworks expire during 2017 but could be replaced earlier if appropriate with due consultation. Feedback from the Resources Group is that HTs didn’t want to manage the administration of tenders and would prefer easier ways to access suppliers. The team are looking at working with County Supplies because they already have the infrastructure to work with schools. The team is very keen to work with schools to make sure that what is put in place actually meets the needs of schools. There will be further workshops with the steering group in the next month separate session with more school representatives only. They will set up a draft proposition before consulting with schools and have worked with Felicity Roe to get a good representative group of all schools. They will then think of the best way of engaging with schools and ask them to share it with their colleagues for feedback. They will encourage them to speak to their governors and get their feedback as well. Did the survey go to all schools and if so, who did it go to? The survey was sent to all schools, there was quite a low return (60 responses) but it has given an understanding of what schools need. The key message was that schools didn’t know what the team does or what it can deliver which reinforces the principle of using County Supplies as the consistent interface with schools. When is the Schools Comms coming out? It hasn’t been drafted yet but it will be done in conjunction with school colleagues, it will share draft propositions asking for feedback. The Schools Comm will include Governors in the target audience. What is the area where the most savings can be made? There is a need for expertise in the authority across the whole area. There are opportunities for savings and efficiencies across the FM Category

2 and how it can be best managed across all areas. They are keen to set up systems so that expert advice from the supply and procurement side can be sought and applied. How can this new system allow innovation and entrepreneurial endeavour within the school’s local community? This will need to be considered in the category solutions. For example at present, transport engages local suppliers. Coherent procurement solutions involve local suppliers and if local SMEs give the best value, the team will look at how to engage them but not make them compete for every single contract. Officers stated that they want to enable schools to have the option of buying into the service but schools can always go somewhere else if they choose, as long as they are sure that they have mapped out H&S issues and fulfilled any contract obligations. Cllr Mans stated that they want to offer a model which drives down costs and gives the customers a better product which on occasion will include buying locally. Are the suppliers set up to work with the IBC and with the school side of this? These may not be new suppliers, it will just be a case of setting up a new contract. The IBC will be the interface and the super procurement team will ensure that this is designed in from the outset and will reflect the different buy-in options currently used by schools. How does this work for academies? Academies can buy in to this service the same as they can for other HCC contracts and will be named on the OJEU (the public procurement notice that advertises the contract to suppliers and which has legal standing in terms of the scope defined at the outset). 6 Pupil Premium arrangements for Looked After Children

Schools Forum noted the content of the report.

7 Future Secondary School Strategy `````````````

Pete Colenutt presented details of the largest capital programme ever delivered with funding hypothecated to capital investment and school places. The basic need funding is for all schools but capital funding is for maintained schools only. The Authority is funding the replacement of the Education Centres; the FEC has moved into the new centre, work has happened in Gosport and Havant and work is due to start on the Linden Centre.

Primary numbers continue to rise so the authority will be running dual projects to deliver the secondary pressures. There is a need to deliver around 9,000 additional secondary places. Changes to the Development Contributions system mean there is less money coming to local authorities from developers which is a significant funding stream at present. There is also the issue of inflation in the

3 construction industry which was at 7.6% in 2014 and is forecast to continue to rise.

There are a number of district authorities without a Local Plan for development (Basingstoke, Eastleigh, Hart, Test Valley and Gosport). It is important that HTs and the LA team work together to ensure that plans are in place for housing developments even if they may not get approved to ensure opportunity for developer contributions.

There is a challenge for secondary HTs at present where they have low pupil numbers but a predicted rise; a group is looking at supporting this and ensuring the delivery of an affordable curriculum. There may be a need for modular solutions when numbers level off in areas.

Table 3 shows the additional school places required by area and will be subject to change because it is based on current housing development predictions. The team is working on a push-back analysis to provide “local schools for local children”. They are already in negotiation with developers for land and contribution. The DfE has recognised the need to work with local authorities to deliver promise of 500 free schools across the country and the authority sees this as an opportunity to address shortfalls in the ongoing capital budget.

Cllr Edgar stated that the authority is trying to get ahead of the game in delivering primary and secondary places and needs to continue to have understanding and support from schools that decisions on where to spend funds are very carefully considered.

Members asked for details on special school provision going forward, the money available and strategy on how it will be spent given the pressures on SEN and the need for approximately 200 new special school places. The DfE is not allocating enough money and not recognising the SEN challenges across the country. A working group will be looking at what is needed, how to deliver it, and to understand the needs going forward. Cllr Edgar and Cllr Mans stated that they will take into account special schools when making decisions and would be happy for it to be brought back to a future forum. Officers stated that there is no fixed amount of money to be divided between all settings, they work out what is needed and where and then will look at the special needs requirement. It will be important to get the SEN strategy right across the county and then look at how to provide that.

Is there any consultation with academy converters / sponsor status / free schools? Officers are engaged with the New Schools Network. The LA has been actively encouraged to support the development of free schools and they are keen to work with any schools who can

4 help deliver schools where they are needed.

How serious is the reduction in developer contributions with regard to building schools? The LA is working very closely with the DfE on this specific issue and Lord Nash recognises the significant pressure on the schools capital budget this brings.

8 School Funding Formula 2016/17 With regards to the change on the sparsity factor (paragraph 3.5) what is the difference between average year group size and NOR? If a school is stable in terms of pupil numbers it is not a problem, but for those with a steeper variation between one year and another this could help. Members state that for small schools on the margins, it could make a difference to the numbers they take in if it tips them over a threshold and they may not be aware of this. Officers clarified that this change was applied in 15/16 by the DfE and there is no local discretion. Schools (including Academies) and Early Years representatives considered the formula factors for the Schools Block for 2016/17 which are listed in appendix 1. Schools Forum agreed for the Local authority to submit a request to the EFA to dis-apply MFG for one school as per paragraph 3.10. 9 Schools Budget Update 2015/16 Clarification was sought on the commitment of the equal pay fund, SF had agreed previously to a one-off sum as an in-principle decision. GS stated that the figure had been kept out of the public domain until the end of September. In the budget setting process Dec 2014/Jan 2015, they set out a two year strategy for 2015/16 and 2016/17. Schools Forum agreed it would be used for the growing schools fund (£3m each year for that). Officers stated that now the figure is known, they can look at other options. There will be around £7m after these commitments and it can be revisited when setting the budget in Dec/Jan. Schools Forum can re-consider decisions taken at previous meetings and the full details will be brought to the December meeting for further discussion. Officers stated that there are a lot of issues with school funding, in particular with High Needs, and that these pressures need to be recognised. Whilst, there are no radical changes anticipated to the DSG next year, it is likely that there will be in 2017/18. However, it would be preferable to tackle the underlying issue now rather than wait until 2017/18. The DfE expectation was that capping would no longer be permitted and this issue may well come up again in 2017/18. A member raised the issue of 2 year old funding which is inadequate now and having more two year olds entitled to it is only going to exacerbate this problem. Because of the adult:child ratio

5 regulations, it costs twice as much to staff a pre-school with two year olds than 3 – 4 year olds. 30 hours of free childcare / education for 3 – 4 year olds will diminish the opportunity for cross-subsidy by parent funded places. Combined with the commitment to the living wage, this is likely to have the effect of many providers (which are private or voluntary) facing financial difficulties. There was discussion around options for removing the cap on schools. Some members felt it would be detrimental to all schools to reduce AWPU because the majority are not in the capped group and would prefer option one and perhaps use the equal pay fund to maintain this status quo. Others preferred option two with the cap being removed over two years because this allows schools to plan. Members from the secondary sector including academies stated that a great deal of work was done on this last year and has removed the cap from a number of schools and they would prefer option one. Other members felt there was a need to get away from option 1, have known for some time that cap will go from DfE indications and think have to go for either 2 or 3. They asked for more detail on the comparative effect between 2 and 3. The Resources Committee have discussed this issue at length and would prefer not to have option 3. Officers stated that this is not about more or less funding in the system but how the amount is distributed and making up the losses that capped schools have had since the formula was introduced. Whichever route is chosen, there will be extensive modelling at individual school level to check there is not huge turbulence created. Members asked finance officers to model options 1 and 2 along with a range of other values and factors. Schools Forum noted the current position on the 2015/16 budget. Primary schools agreed unanimously to continue with de- delegated services in 2016/17 as set out in paragraph 5.15. Secondary schools agreed unanimously to continue with de- delegated services in 2016/17 as set out in paragraph 5.15. Schools Forum agreed to continue to make provision for centrally retained services in 2016/17, as set out in paragraph 5.21. Schools Forum considered the options of the MFG and Cap as set out in paragraphs 5.24 and 5.34, and detailed within appendix 2, and agreed a preferred approach (modelling broadly on options 1 and 2) for further consideration at the December meeting of Schools Forum. Schools Forum asked officers to pursue options for more fundamental changes to values applied within the school funding formula for 2016/17, in order to address underlying

6 budget pressures. 10 SEN 10.1 Overview of Current Issues 10.2 Education and Health Care Plans (EHCP) The EHCP process is under significant pressure due to volume of requests. The number of statutory assessment request has increased enormously, largely due to the funding regulations not the introduction of new legislation. Until April 2013, there were relatively few requests for High Incidence low need statements. Now they are receiving a massive number of requests (40 – 50% increase,) which has combined with significant cuts to staffing. About 40% of the requests result in EHCPs which bring only a small top-up resource of £70 or less per week while the assessment costs around £5000. Officers recognise that they need a better way to allocate resources for children with needs at a low level and allow the team to focus on those with high needs. Legally, the team has to consider requests in the order in which they are submitted. They have a working group led by a HT, including colleagues from finance, early years, further education to look at detail of what an alternative system might look like. A member asked if Education Centres could be included in this group and Phil Butler agreed this would be useful and apologised for omitting them. What happens in the meantime for schools who have submitted requests, surely the request has been put in because that child has needs and the school needs help? The team are overwhelmed with the number of requests. They cannot manage the requests even in 30 weeks. Is funding for schools backdated to the date of the request? The working group would look at this. Is there more schools can do to support parents’ understanding of the system? Officers agreed that there is but they would not expect this to lead to a 40% reduction in cases. When schools explain about Inclusion Partnership Arrangements, parents understand the weight of the HT’s signature on the IPA rather than an unknown person in the county. They would hope that this could bring about a 20 – 30% reduction. Parents are often looking for “more hours”, and schools need to look at how they communicate that an IPA may deliver this. How can the team deal with the backlog? Some of the writing of plans can be outsourced but the assessment itself is what takes the time and the pressure on other agencies, e.g. NHS, is enormous and the team are unable to drive this forward. They are looking at what more can be done and if any additional in-year resource can be deployed, this will be looked at. Multi-agency work is slow. Officers added that these are highly skilled staff and not easy to find. This presumably is not just a local problem, what is being done

7 nationally with the DfE? The DfE has looked at this, and has commissioned research and around 30% of LAs are looking to address it in similar ways to those proposed. Officers have sought advice from Nottingham and are making approaches to Kent. Schools Forum agreed to establish a task group to consider a suitable mechanism through which option B might be delivered and which should report back to School’s Forum with recommendations. It is suggested that the task group should comprise representation from pre-school, primary and secondary school sectors (possibly including SENCOs), FE colleges, Education Centres, Finance, the Hampshire Parent Carer Network and the SEN Service and that the group is chaired by a HT or College Principal. This task group will provide an initial report in the second half of the Spring Term 2016. 10.3 ISOS Report Schools Forum noted the report 11 Transformation to 2017 – Felicity Roe Savings proposals to be fully implemented by April 2017. Cllr Mans re-emphasised the authority’s commitment to the school improvement programme which is part and parcel of commitment to children in Hampshire regardless of how they are taught. A member expressed concern about the changes to the services currently provided by Children’s Centres. Officers clarified that the consultation document which comes out in November will clarify where the proposed 8 – 15 centres will be. Officers feel that there are better and more effective ways to target those in greatest need through Family Support Services. Outreach workers rather than buildings may be a more effective way of targeting those children most in need to ensure they are ready to start school. Why is the £11.8m on Hampshire Transport Service excluded? Officers clarified that this is now delivering the basic statutory service and there are no further options for reducing this budget. How confidential is this paper? Officers confirmed that this information is all in the public domain and some pre-work has already been done with Children’s Centres at this point. A detailed paper went to Cllr Mans decision day in September which provides more information. 12 Any other business There were no other matters submitted to the clerk. Date of Next Meeting Monday 14 December 2015, 2pm at Gilbert White Suite, Westley Court, Building 7, Sparsholt College Winchester SO21 2NF

8