The Helena Romanes School and Sixth Form Centre

Schools Forum Meeting of Thursday 1 February 2007 Agenda Item 11

School Forum Minutes of Monday 4 December 2006

Forum members: Terry Creissen (TC) Katrina Bates (KB) Joan Binder (JB) Lesley Brennen (LB) Reg Crouch (RC) David Ebdon (DE) Jeff Fair (JF) Richard Foster (RF) Canon Peter Hartley (PH) Roger Hunton (RH) Rod Lane (RL) Elizabeth Marshall (EM) Peter Malcolm (PM) Linda Oliffe (LO) Nigel Powis (NP) Sue Shenton (SS) Debbie Rogan (DR) Gary Smith (GS) Jackie Sullivan (JS)

Forum Observer: Claire Cross (CC)

LA Officers: Fay Hammond (FH) Jim MacDonald (JM) Carmel Littleton (CL) items 4 & 5 Ken Noyce (KN) items 4 & 5 Peter Featherstone (PF) item 6 Steven Woodhurst (SW) item 6

The Forum Chairman (TC) was unexpectedly delayed and the Vice-Chair was not present, therefore it was agreed by Forum members that PH should chair the meeting.

The agenda items were taken out of order.

1.0 Integrated Support Services (ISS) (was agenda item 4.0)

1.1 KN explained the background to the paper:  Schools Forum members received a paper at the 17 October 2006 meeting which informed members that the ISS budget would be overspent in 2006-7 by £600,000 to £700,000.  The ISS budget supported pupils who could not access mainstream education for a number of reasons including: permanently excluded; medical reasons; anxious school refusers; or pregnancy.  This type of education is more expensive than the education provided in mainstream schools.  A recent Ofsted Inspection rated the service as ‘good’.  The budget is supplemented by Pupil Retention Grant (PRG) – i.e. when a school excludes a pupil the school is fined – these funds are used to support the ISS budget.  When a pupil is reintegrated into mainstream education, the school receives a share of the unexpired AWPU and a “bounty” of £2,000.

- 1 – White Schools Forum Meeting of Thursday 1 February 2007 Agenda Item 11

Primary schools also receive the “bounty” despite not meeting any penalty for exclusions.  The budget was originally set of a basis of a Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) of 1:6; this PTR was insufficient for the needs of the pupils. Each pupil has an Individual Education Plan. The ethos of the service is to reintegrate pupils except for Years 10 and 11.  Ofsted say that reintegration should take place within one term, however, on average, reintegration currently takes two to three terms.  Year 10 and 11 excluded pupils are generally not reintegrated to mainstream schooling. The Service provides an education to GCSE or vocational learning options which result in good life chances for these young people.  Local Government Association (LGA) undertook a survey of Pupil Retention Units (PRUs) in 2004 – the average cost per place was £10,000 to £13,000 – Essex cost per place is £12,022.  The reasons for the overspend reported to the Forum in October related to a much lower PTR as a result of the individual needs of the child; the increasing breadth of education provision; and a delay in reintegration of pupils to mainstream schooling (c£400,000) plus a reduction in income of £239,000.  Expenditure has been minimised to service critical expenditure and the in-year overspend is currently reported a £550,000 to £600,000.  The Forum is being asked to consider supporting a budget realignment in 2007-08.  If this is not agreed the outcomes could be: to consider a PTR of 1:6; to reduce the breadth of the curriculum; to cease the primary strategy reintegration; to place greater pressure on headteachers to accept reintegration within the one term target expected; and an unsatisfactory Ofsted.  KN also alerted the Forum that the Service may need to present a paper on improving ICT support to these pupils in the future if Ofsted recommendations are to be met.

1.2 PH asked Forum members for comments:  In response to a question from NP, KN stated that of 550 pupils, half would be excluded pupils, 50 of which would be primary school aged pupils.  GS stated that he supported the paper; his school admits ISS pupils.  PM expressed concern that this was a reactive approach; he was interested in the medium term strategy for improving efficiency. He also stated that his view was that you need to keep within a budget.

1.3 KN stated that he remained concerned over the budget position. Over the last few years there has been an underlying overspend on ISS budget. It is a demand-led budget but this is not the only influencing factor. Assumptions made in the baseline budget are now wrong.

1.4 RF stated that it was not an exact science and asked for historical data. KN responded that the underlying overspend is £400,000, a 10% increase. In response to a question from SS, KN stated that the budget is 80% staffing. SS asked when schools provide education in classes of 30+ - could not the ISS also make some efficiency savings? There are significant increases in expenditure between 2003-4 and 2006-7 (£5.009m to £6.399m).

1.5 KN explained some pupils have a PTR of 1:6 whereas others such as ‘anxious school refusers’ are 1:1. Forum members comments were:  PM suggested Health needed to play a role.  TC stated that the fundamental issue was that if a school overspent, ‘heads would be rolling’. In his school they have some classes of 30- 33. TC suggested that perhaps some pupils could be educated 1:1 PTR whereas other pupils could be 1:14 PTR. He asked what strategies were in place to cut staffing to remain within budget – an ISS budget increase would reduce school budgets. Also, TC suggested that ISS should stick to one term’s reintegration; the school should pay if the schools wished for a longer reintegration period because this is an ineffective use of resources.  TC queried page 2iii – this table showed % of pupils; TC suggested information on the number of pupils would have been helpful. TC asked who agreed the reduction in the PTR. TC also referred to page 2, 2.4 v), stating that there should be no primary reintegration funds and that the ISS was at the top of the range of LGA per place benchmarking data.  TC argued that the Service could not afford the ICT equipment.  JF disagreed with TC, a PTR of 1:6 only works if the right combination of pupils are excluded. It was identified before that the budget was out of control and therefore it should have been looked at earlier. Excluding pupils is the last resort for schools. JF expressed concern if this proposal was not supported. Headteachers do not always support the reintegration process.  RL asked for clarity on the budget overspend – it was originally reported as £650,000 on an overall budget of £5.7m.  PH restated that the budget was wrong last year.  DR asked how this fits into the number of children in the top of the triangle; the teenage pregnancy strategy etc. The ISS is provided after the event.  PM said that there was not enough information available – what about 2007-8?

1.6 KN stated that by its very nature the service was reactive. The budget is not out of control. These are the most challenging youngsters in the system. Experience has shown that the PTR needs to be lower. The pupils’ education is driven by the pupils’ individual need. TC stated that if he met every child’s need in the school he too would be overspent.

1.7 KN confirmed this budget included premises costs. The alternative forms of education include for the pupil to remain in the school or to purchase from a limited range of alternative education providers.

1.8 TC reminded Forum members that this budget is being taken away from schools. TC agreed that the ISS needed some additional funds. SS felt that more information was needed. KN explained that the £12,000 per pupil was based on the average number of hours provision. The LA has a statutory duty to education these children. Schools will continue to exclude pupils – where will these children be educated?

1.9 TC proposed that the service provide a budget recovery plan (as schools in deficit are required to do) making difficult decisions such as increasing PTR and ensuring re-integration within a term. The Forum would not make a decision on the funding until this was presented at the next Forum meeting in February 2007.

ISS service to present a further financial report at the next Forum meeting setting out how they intend to reduce the budget overspend.

2.0 Out County Placements (Agenda Item 5.0)

2.1 TC stated that he was interested to learn why the Out County Placements overspend had doubled in between Forum meetings to £1.4m. CL set out the background to the paper:  CL apologised that due to an administrative error Forum members may not have received a full copy of the paper;  Young people are placed in out of county schools when pupils’ needs cannot be met in an Essex school, the Forum were reminded that they had previously discussed the Protocol;  The Service continued to exert pressure on the Health Service to sign up to the Protocol;  These pupils are the most needy pupils in the County for which there is no alternative education in Essex;  The costs of placements for these pupils is very high e.g. £200,000 pa. In 2005-6 there were an exceptionally low number of pupils placed in out county placements;

 There has been increased provision in county making in roads into this budget;  In 2006-7 there has been an additional 12 pupils placed in schools out of county;  Nationally the rate of inflation on placements was 15%, however, locally through effective procurement and collaboration processes the rise has been kept to 7%;  The budget increase was a combination of above inflationary increases and increasing number of pupils.

2.2 CL referred members to section 2.3 of the paper which sets out some of the reasons:  An increase in pupils with behaviour, emotional and social needs including those needing psychiatric help. There is a new build at Ramsden Hall to take some of these pupils, also across the regions a consortium arrangement is being considered.  The increase in the number of pupils with complex needs such as Autistic Spectrum Disorder. GS is working with the LA on looking at Specialist Units in schools. CL continued:  £450k of the Out County budget is jointly funded with Social Care.  Under the Every Child Matters (ECM) restructuring – the service is looking at bringing the Education and Social Care budgets together to stop the inverse incentives – i.e. if the child becomes Looked After – Social Care pay, if the child is statemented – Education pays.  There are an increasing number of children in Post 16 provision, a transition strategy is being reviewed to bring these pupils in county.  CL reviewed the benchmarking statistics – Essex costs of £57k a placement in comparison with the statistical neighbours ranging from £16k to £93k. KPMG were asked to look into the procurement of out county placements. However, KPMG review felt that these processes were already being addressed. In the future, consideration was being given to a central procurement unit for Social Care and Education. New Model Special Schools (NMSS) will increasingly be able to admit pupils.  CL also stated that provision for therapeutic support was being reviewed as a short term cost for long-term gain.

2.3 TC stated that the Forum appreciated the needs of these youngsters and understood the logic of budget pressures from inflationary rises and tribunal outcomes. However, the figure of £600k did not make sense. Also TC stated that the LSC had responsibility for post 16 education. Finally TC stated that the impact of the NMSS was vague in terms of timeframe. CL stated that she wished that she too had a solution, reiterating that it takes time. TC asked how many pupils had returned from/had been prevented from being placed in Out County schools. GS stated that his school had admitted five pupils (of which two had been via the tribunal process). GS stated that the NMSS were supposed to be funded from the closure of the Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) schools; however there was no ‘political will’ to deliver these closures. GS predicted a decline in placements in two years. NP asked what had happened to the funds from the closure of the Leas school. PM suggested that Out County placements are reactive and that an overall strategy for supporting special needs was needed. The change in percentage of pupils between Key Stage 1 and 4 is significant which begs the question of the effectiveness of intervention. RL stated that it takes too long for a pupil to obtain a Statement.

2.4 CL confirmed that there was an increase in 12 pupils in September – 12 pupils x £57 = £684k. TC suggested a strategic view of SEN funding was required. GS said that David Staples (the Formula Review consultant) had attended the Association of Essex Special School headteachers. PM stated that this issue was bigger than schools, it included special schools etc. PM asked why it appeared that the needs of pupils with SEN seemed to increase. CL stated that some of these pupils have very limited capabilities. JM confirmed that the request was for £1.4m to go into the baseline budget for 2007-08 in addition to the overspend for 2006-7. If the number of pupils reduces the budget requirement would reduce. It was suggested that the budget increase would include a proviso for a reduced budget should the number of pupils reduce. JF suggested that funding available for Special Schools should be reviewed.

The Forum agreed the budget increases for Out County Placements subject to the proviso that a reduction in placements resulted in a reduced budget.

2.5 JM took the opportunity to thank TC (this was TC’s last meeting) for his contribution to the Forum over the last four years.

3.0 Standards Funds for ICT Infrastructure and E-Learning Credits (was agenda item 6.0)

3.1 TC stated that this was an early draft of the proposals for the Standards Funds 2007-8. The proposal does not alter from the current years arrangements. TC suggested that the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) buy-back should be discussed by the Forum.

3.2 PF explained the VLE (paid from E-Learning Credits Standards Fund) proposal was to support out of hours support for users. The agreement for the use of the Standards Fund 121 underpins this provision. The proposal is 50p or £1.00 per pupil.

3.3 TC suggested that the VLE funds could be devolved and schools could be given the option to buy-back into the ‘out of hours’ helpline service. JF agreed with the buy-back option in principle, however, in order to get a service up and running pump priming was needed, at the moment the scale of need was not known. A key objective of the VLE use ‘out of school hours’, therefore, this is when a help desk needed to be available.

3.4 SW stated that the guidance from BECTA was imminent (only 9 months late) and would set out a short list of approved VLE providers. The first year of setting up a VLE was crucial in ‘selling’ the facility to students and parents.

3.5 SS raised the issue of the lack of ICT in primary school pupil homes – she estimated this was only about 50% of pupils. PF agreed this was an issue, the DfES state that schools should provide out of hours access for students. Access was a national issue.

3.6 TC summarised the decisions for the Forum: Should the VLE and the Laptop for Teachers Scheme be centrally held or devolved on a buy back basis? PF stated it maybe difficult to run a helpline service for parents under the buy-back approach as the helpline will first need to ascertain whether the school has bought into the service.

3.7 PH reminded Forum members that they voted against holding the Lap top funds centrally in 2006-7, unfortunately as the commitment had already been made this did not happen. However, this decision stands for 2007-8. TC agreed that schools need to be told of their statutory responsibilities regarding lap tops and that the funds should be devolved and schools can choose to buy-back in. PF explained that there were savings in procurement and service delivery by the centrally retained approach. Many schools do not understand that there is an ICT budget within their devolved formula capital. NP reminded the Forum that VA schools have

to find the 10% for capital. It was agreed by Forum members that the Lap top funds should be devolved to schools.

3.8 TC restated the VLE options - £0, £1.00 or £0.50p hold-back. PF explained that they would tailor the service to keep within budget. The Forum agreed to a centrally held amount of £0.50p but that schools could opt out.

The Forum agreed: The ICT Infrastructure Standards Fund – the Lap Top funds would be devolved to schools; other funding remained as in 2006-7. The E-Learning Credits Standards Fund – the LA to hold back £0.50p for an out of hours VLE Helpdesk, with an option for schools to opt out of this arrangement; other funding remains as in 2006-07.

(TC left the meeting.)

4.0 Minutes of 17 October 2006 and matters arising (agenda item 1.0)

4.1 PH asked for Forum members for points of accuracy on the minutes:  JM stated that 6.2 should read £600k-£700k (not £670k);  JF asked for 8.1 second sentence to be re-worded to reflect ‘may’.

4.2 PH asked for matters arising from the minutes:  In response to a question from RF, it was confirmed that the results of the consultation would be presented at the next Schools Forum meeting.

5.0 Apologies for Absence (and substitute notices) (agenda item 2.0)

5.1 Apologies were received from David Crowe, Carey Bennet, Roger Hunton and Joyce Woodham. Reg Crouch substituted for Joyce Woodham.

6.0 Membership of the Forum (agenda item 3.0)

6.1 PH updated Forum members:  Rod Lane has been selected to continue as the Infant School Governor Representative.  Simon Knight from Helena Romanes has been selected to as the Foundation Headteacher representative.  There are two Foundation Governor Vacancies, for which there are seven Self-nominations.

6.2 PH thanked Katrina Bates (whose term of office ended in January) for her contributions to the Forum.

7.0 TSG Panel Report (agenda item 7.0)

7.1 JB reported the TSG Panel findings. The TSG Panel consisted of JB, RL, KB and Simon Knight. The Panel’s focus was gaining assurance that schools in receipt of TSG were working towards maintaining an sustainable financial position.

Barstable – the school did not attend the Panel meeting. JM updated the Forum – the DfES agreed that it was possible to net off Chalvedon’s surplus and Barstable’s deficit when the schools became academies, allowing the schools to retain the net balance.

DelaSalle – the Panel felt that the financial issues (of which there were many) were being addressed.

Woodlands – the school had been in deficit for six years and were only balancing by +£18k in 2006-7 due to sources of income that did not appear to be sustainable. The Panel was confident the school would balance in 2006-7 but were not reassured that the school would remain in balance. The options available to the LA were discussed such as Removal of Delegation and Notice of Concern.

Brays Grove – the school forecasted a deficit of £800k for 2006-7, increasing further in future years – the school closes in August 2008. The Panel felt that was no evidence of a plan/strategy in place to close the school. One example of this is that the Panel were told there will be 167 pupils and 24 teaching staff in September 2007. The Panel wanted to understand Human Resources involvement in the decisions taken particularly retention payments. The Panel were not satisfied and believed the LA should consider taking control of the budget and felt that there were lesson that could be learned.

8.0 Procurement of School Operating Leases (agenda item 8.0)

8.1 PH reminded Forum members that ICT leases could not be paid from Devolved Formula Capital. In response to a question from KB, JM assured the Forum that this was simply an option available to schools.

Schools Forum noted the report.

9.0 Looked After Children Green Paper (agenda Item 9.0)

9.1 JM confirmed that 5.3 of the paper should state £10k+.

10.0 Capital Update (agenda Item 10.0)

11.0 Schools Forum Budget 2006-7 (Agenda Item 11.0)

11.1 Forum members were reminded that the Forum budget included a training budget.

12.0 Schools Forum Formula Review Group update (Agenda Item 12.0)

12.1 JF stated that he felt the review was far reaching, David Staples, the consultant has met with over 300 schools so far. He was looking at key areas such as social deprivation funding and simplifying the formula.

13.0 Feedback from schools through the Associations and AOB (agenda item 13.0)

13.1 JF stated that the Unions were concerned regarding the workload for Financial Management Standard in Schools (FMSiS). FH said that she understood that EPHA members were being asked to comment on the Scheme Consultation about the workload around FMSiS.

13.2 JF also alerted Forum members that they should keep a watching eye on the impact for schools of the cross cutting review of the Schools and Children’s services.

13.3 PM stated that the Forum should be better informed on the strategies to back-up the ISS and Out County Placement papers. The background strategy would be useful several weeks in advance of the detailed papers. JF suggested that these areas maybe suitable for a small Forum working group to focus on.

13.4 SS asked for a report on the Catering Area in January.

13.5 RL asked that next meeting several meeting dates are booked to enable the venue to be booked in good time.

Date of Next Meeting: Thursday 1 February 2007.

- 10 – White