MEETING of the MILTON KEYNES SCHOOLS FORUM
THURSDAY 3 DECEMBER 2015 3.00 – 5.00 PM
MARGARET POWELL HOUSE 401 – 447 MIDSUMMER BOULEVARD CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES MK9 3BN
A G E N D A
For more information about the meeting please contact Sue Puddifoot on (01908) 253536 or e-mail:[email protected]
(1) Milton Keynes Council Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252456 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 1
1) Apologies
2) Disclosures of Interest
Members of the Schools Forum to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests they may have in the business to be transacted and officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract to be considered.
3) Minutes and Matters Arising
To receive as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2015.
4)1) Membership and Constitution (Michael Bracey)
To receive an update on the membership of Schools Forum.
5)2) Budget Monitoring 2015/16 (Natasha Hutchin) 3) 4) To receive a report on the latest forecast outturn position of the schools budget.
6) Early Years Provision (Marie Denny)
To update the Schools Forum on Early Years provision in Milton Keynes.
7) Special Educational Needs Provision (Caroline Marriott)
To update the Schools Forum on the delivery of SEND support and provision in Milton Keynes including the number of places commissioned.
8) Alternative Provision (Marie Denny)
To update the Schools Forum on alternative provision for pupils in both the primary and secondary sectors.
9) Schools Budget Planning 2016/17 (Penni Powers)
To provide an update on the local and national funding position for 2016/17.
10) Update from sub-groups of the Schools Forum
There have been no meetings since the last Schools Forum.
(2)
11) Forward Planning
To consider the issues that need to be considered by the Schools Forum for the coming year.
14 January 2016
Budget Monitoring Final DSG Settlement for 2016/17 Schools Budget 2016/17 Agree final primary and secondary unit rates 2016/17 Special School Funding Formula
17 March 2016
Budget Monitoring Detailed arrangements for High Need Pupils Scheme changes
30 June 2016
Election of Chair and Vice Chair Provisional Outturn DSG LA Maintained School Balances at 31/3/2016 Section 251 Budget Statement Schools Budget Setting Schools in Financial Difficulty Contingency Monitor use of Pupil Growth Fund Draft Consultation on the Local Funding Formula
13 October 2016
De-delegation Budget setting Budget Monitoring
12) Any Other Business
If you wish to add any other business, please let the clerk know at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
13) Dates of future meetings –
3pm – 5pm Thursday 14 January 2016 3pm – 5pm Thursday 17 March 2016 3pm – 5pm Thursday 30 June 2016 3pm – 5pm Thursday 13 October 2016 3pm – 5pm Thursday 1 December 2016 3pm – 5pm Thursday 12 January 2017
(3)
The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the Minutes of the meeting.
If you have any enquires about this agenda please contact Sue Puddifoot on 01908 253536.
(4)
MILTON KEYNES’ SCHOOLS FORUM
Margaret Powell House, 401 Midsummer Boulevard MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 OCTOBER 2015 AT 3.00 PM
PRESENT: Primary School Representatives Lizzie Bancroft – Loughton Manor First School Christine Ryan – Lavendon School
Primary School Governors Francis Grant – Great Linford School Paul Hussey – Bradwell Village Primary School (Chair) Antony Moore – Giles Brook School Ian Northover – Heronshaw School
Secondary School Representatives Tracey Jones – Lord Grey School Michael Manley – St Paul’s Catholic School
Academy Representatives Neil Barrett – Stephenson Academy Michelle Currie – Walton High
Academy Governors John Howe – Denbigh School Dave Moulson – Ousedale School
Special School Representative Finlay Douglas – White Spire School
PRU Representative Jonathan Budd – Primary PRU
Nursery School Representatives Natalie Fowler – Knowles Nursery School Shared Vote Debbie Wells – Moorlands Nursery School
Early Years Providers Representative Lynne Johnson - Pre School Learning Alliance
Post 16 Sector Nick Isles – Milton Keynes College
Church of England Diocese Kieran Salter – Diocesan Authority – St Mary and St Giles C of E Junior School
Northampton Catholic Diocese Frances Image – NORES
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 1 (5) LA OFFICERS: Michael Bracey – (Corporate Director - People) Natasha Hutchin – (Deputy Finance Manager) Penni Powers – (Finance Manager - Children and Families) Nicky Rayner – (Service Director – Children and Families) Andrew Whitaker – (Divisional Accountant)
OBSERVER: Councillor Andy Dransfield
CLERK: Sue Puddifoot – (Governor Support - Children and Families)
SF 534 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES Item 1
The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and introductions of new members was made.
Apologies in advance had been received from:
Kirk Hopkins – Oldbrook School (alternate Janet Haines) Glen Martin – Shenley Brook End Cllr Norman Miles – Lead Member Anita Richards – NUT Divisional Secretary Jake Yeo – Bushfield School
Debbie Wells and Natalie Fowler would be arriving late.
Glenn Booth – Rickley Park and Warren Harrison – The Premier Academy were absent.
SF 535 MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING Item 2
The minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2015 were agreed as an accurate record.
There were no matters arising.
SF 536 MEMBERSHIP AND CONSTITUTION (Michael Bracey) Item 3
Michael Bracey explained that an election process had been run in September 2015 for the Schools Forum vacancies and as fewer colleagues had applied than places available, there was no need for a formal election. The new members were confirmed and welcomed.
There had been an application from a representative of a MKET school which was not taken forward. The constitution, as it stood, only permitted one representative from multi academy trusts as they were considered to be one legal entity. Michelle Currie pointed out the potential disadvantage which may occur where schools within a multi academy trust were run separately and if they had been set up as separate academies, they would be entitled to representation. Additionally, if there had been only one academy trust within Milton Keynes with any number of schools, they would
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 2 (6) still only be entitled to one representative. Schools Forum noted this but agreed to continue with one member from each school or group of schools but would keep this under review as the number of schools in academy chains changed.
Therefore, a further request for a secondary representative and an academy representative would take place to fill the two remaining vacancies. Action MB/SP
SF 537 BUDGET MONITORING 2015/16 (Natasha Hutchin) Item 4
The purpose of this report was to advise Schools Forum of the final DSG settlement for 2015/16 and the budget monitoring position in relation to Period 6 2015/16.
Natasha Hutchin explained that the forecast of a £133k carry forward at the end of the 2015/16 financial year remained, as set out in Table 1. This represented an in year deficit of £961k offset by a £1,094k bought forward from 2014/15.
Significant forecast variations (Table 2) included income being some £2M less than budgeted for, as when the budget was set, some data was unknown. Early Years head count had been lower than anticipated and the take up of Early Years Pupil Premium was also less than allocated and this had affected expenditure forecasting.
Central spending of the Growth Fund had increased by £419k relating to additional places after the budget was set and growth protection. ISB overspends in revaluated rates bills had been offset by underspends in Early Years.
High Needs top up funding had already utilised the contingency set aside for top up payments. A £0.5M underspend on independent special school fees was forecast, based on current numbers.
Schools Forum noted the final level of the DSG in 2015/16 and the forecast outturn position as at Period 6.
SF 538 SCHOOL BUDGET PLANNING 2016/17 (Penni Powers/Andrew Whitaker) Item 5
The purpose of this item was to give Schools Forum members an initial opportunity to review how the estimated 2016/17 DSG, including the use of balances, was allocated across schools and academies by way of the funding formula and central early years and high needs budgets.
An overview of budget planning was tabled and Penni Powers drew attention to the government announcements made so far, which included; flat cash allocations for the period of the government and the MFG remaining at -1.5% for 2016/17; schools block funding confirmed at the
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 3 (7) same level as 2015/16; High Needs block funding at the same level as 2015/16 with no additional places funded; 30 hours free funding for all three and four year olds from September 2017; pupil premium protected at current rates. Therefore, there would be another year of no further money in the DSG and no increase in schools budgets. Most primary and secondary schools in Milton Keynes would attract MFG next year, only one school would not.
Challenges in Milton Keynes included the growth in pupil numbers, post 16 expenditure exceeding the funding received and high needs growing with no additional funds.
In redistributing funding, short term decisions may have long term impacts with a £1.1M deficit forecast to be carried forward in March 2017. Actions to minimise the deficit were being taken, together with proactive commissioning of high needs services and provision and reviewing expenditure from the Growth Fund.
In the medium term, there would be a deficit budget of £1.1M at the end of the next financial year but the position should move to a rebalanced budget in 2017/18 due to lagged funding and MFG protection reductions.
Potential budget reductions for 2016/17 were:
Reductions to unit rates of 1.5% in the primary and secondary funding formula Full year effect of removing funding for the Early Intervention Centre and cessation of nurture group funding Removal of contingency budget for two year olds Reduction of Independent Special School budget No change currently proposed for alternative providers, special schools/High Needs places in mainstream or Early Years Providers.
Average cost pressures on schools resulted in a 5.8% net unfunded pressure for 2016/17. Looking onwards, the cumulative reduction could be 13.6% by 2020/21.
Andrew Whitaker explained that by the end of October 2015, the Local Authority had to submit to the EFA a Pro Forma setting out the local funding formula for 2016/17, including provisional unit rates. It was stressed that the budget was not being set today, this was an early sight of the potential budget position and the actual budget would be presented in January 2016. Sections 3 and 4 of the report set out the financial impact and background. Section 5 detailed the cost pressures and other issues affecting budget planning. The growth fund included new school planning and additional places. This year 1036 new places had been funded up front through the funding formula and in September 2016 there would be 1600 places funded up front (£1.5M). As each school received set-up and start-up funding from the Growth Fund, this would equal £2.5M in both 2016/17 and 2017/18. Numbers of pupils receiving lagged funding were increasing by about 1000 in areas of new housing and up front provision was required.
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 4 (8) The High Needs allocation was fixed at the 2012/13 base budget but growth had been some 10%. There had been 70 placements in excess of funded places. Numbers were increasing at the same rate as pupil growth. At post 16, the £0.5M budget had been exceeded as costs were £1.7M with a growing gap.
To address the in year deficit and lack of balances, it was proposed to reduce funding to mainstream schools by reducing the unit rates. This would assist in rebalancing the budget.
Attention was drawn to the letters in annexes 1 and 2, detailing the pressures on budgets in the South East Region, sent to the DfE. It could be seen that a number of local authorities were experiencing similar pressures on High Needs budgets and in growth. The response from the DfE expected local authorities to manage their overall budgets and to get contributions from developers for growth.
Further developments from the DfE may include moving to a formula basis for the High Needs budget and this may result in an advantage or disadvantage as proxy indicators used may not advantage Milton Keynes.
Other pressures on budgets included revaluations for rates purposes. These may be backdated for expanding schools. There were also diseconomies of scale where new schools opened with fewer pupils.
New school places needed to be funded at the right level and the speed of house building may impact on this. High Needs capacity and the unknown level of removals into Milton Keynes was also a concern. There had been 30 such places required this year with no extra funding. The impact of a new independent High Needs provision was also unknown.
Annex 3 tabled the proposed 2016/17 unit rates and funded units and costs through the funding formula. The current model was based on data from the October 2014 census and this would be updated once the October 2015 census data were available.
Annex 4 gave summary budgets for the next five years comparing figures set for 2015/16 and current forecasts. The £1.1M deficit at the end of 2016/17 would move to a small surplus in 2017/18 due to lagged pupil funding, a reduction in payments through the Growth Fund and by reducing unit rates. Whilst the MFG protection level would remain at -1.5%, the amount that would be paid out to individual schools would reduce over time. The situation in January 2016 may require amendment of the unit rates to maintain the lowest amount of deficit.
Schools Forum then discussed pupil growth and the challenge of getting the numbers of places right. A paper was tabled by Michelle Currie setting out MKET’s response to the consultation on the proposed siting of a secondary and special school in the Kents Hill Park area which was used to question the need for additional secondary places as planned.
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 5 (9) Schools Forum discussed the proposals raising the following points:
How lagged funding impacted on budgets. AW explained that the 2016/17 DSG was based on the October 2015 pupil count. Therefore places were not funded for seven months. Clarification on the changes in forecast balances carried forward for 2016/17 and 2017/18 was requested. It was explained that these were due to the previous year’s deficit and the drop in MFG releasing money back in. There was no mention of an increase of special school places. AW explained that there was no assumption of any change in High Needs provision but this would be addressed in January after the autumn statement was given by government and the impact this may have. Impact of a National Funding Formula. AW explained this was not known at this stage. It may average budgets out around the country or bring them down to a minimum. Although the High Needs Block was under pressure, it was relatively high in comparison to other local authorities. Reductions in unit rates would put additional pressure on schools, particularly those providing for pupils with EAL and complex emotional needs that did not meet the criteria for placement in special schools. Secondary schools were under pressure for outcomes when unit rates were going down.
The Chair thanked members for the points made during the discussion.
Schools Forum noted the issues arising from budget planning for the Schools Budget for 2016/17 and future years.
RESOLVED: Schools Forum endorsed the initial proposals for managing the DSG back into surplus through agreeing to meet any deficit carried forward from 2016/17 into 2017/18 from the 2017/18 DSG allocation.
In favour 1 3 Against 0 Abstentions 1
RESOLVED: School Forum endorsed the provisional unit rates for 2016/17 to be submitted to the EFA through the Local Authority Pro-forma tool (APT) by 30 October 2015.
In favour 1 5 Against 0 Abstentions 1
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 6 (10)
SF 539 GROWTH FUND ALLOCATIONS 2015/16 (Andrew Whitaker) Item 6
The purpose of this report was to receive an update on the expenditure from the growth fund in 2015/16 and note the provisional position for 2016/17.
It was explained that this tied in with the budget monitoring report and detailed an additional payment to Great Linford School and changes at Oxley Park. Eight schools had received a total of £401k in protection payments.
Annex 1 showed the proposed criteria for 2016/17, which included one change to limit protection to the first full year of any school expansion. Annex 2 detailed the proposed additional places to be funded.
Schools Forum questioned why some of the additional places were not filled. Penni Powers explained that school planning looked at the numbers of children and projected forward. Due to parental choice, pupils ended up in different schools in Milton Keynes. Therefore, whilst the numbers were increasing it was difficult to predict which schools took the pupils.
It was noted that there were no predictions for special schools as these pupils were core funded on arrival and not funded from the formula.
The points made in the MKET document circulated earlier were also reiterated by Michelle Currie.
RESOLVED: Schools Forum approved the payments from the 2015/16 growth Fund to the identified qualifying schools.
In favour 14 Against 0 Abstentions 2
RESOLVED: Schools Forum agreed the change to the Growth Fund criteria for 2016/17.
In favour 16 Against 0 Abstentions 1
SF 540 DE-DELEGATION 2016/17 (Michael Bracey) Item 7
The purpose of this item was to give the maintained school members of the Schools Forum the opportunity to agree to de-delegate funding during the 2016/17 financial year for the specific purposes outlined in the report.
Schools Forum questioned the take up of support outlined in Annex 3 for minority ethnic pupils. Numbers were increasing year on year with the
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 7 (11) ongoing need for staff training and development. Take up of training was high and further details are annexed to these minutes.
Neil Barrett questioned whether the investment in the social, emotional and mental health difficulties specialist teaching team was a good use of the budget or if there were better ways for SEMH to be managed.
RESOLVED: That maintained primary schools members agreed to de-delegate £572k funding from the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU), Free School Meal allocation (FSM) or the deprivation allocation (IDACI) for the items detailed in section 2.1 of the report.
In favour 5 Against 0 Abstentions 0
For secondary schools, it was noted that the same three items appeared but it had not been agreed to de-delegate facilities time in the past. Andrew Whitaker explained that the three items were the only ones able to be de- delegated and it then gave the option to do so.
RESOLVED: That maintained secondary schools members agree to de-delegate funding from the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU), Free School Meal allocation (FSM) or the deprivation allocation (IDACI) for the following items:
Administration of free school meals eligibility - £15k
In favour 2 Against 0 Abstentions 0
Licences or subscriptions - £2k
In favour 2 Against 0 Abstentions 0
Facilities time - £8k
In favour 0 Against 2 Abstentions 0
SF 541 CHANGES TO THE LMS SCHEME 2015/16 (Natasha Hutchin) Item 8
The purpose of this item was to inform Schools Forum of the changes to the LMS scheme required as a result of a directed revision from the Department of Education.
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 8 (12) Schools Forum noted that the Scheme for Financing Schools had been amended as outlined in Annex 1 and noted the changes on publishing information and clarification on borrowing would take effect from 1 November 2015.
SF 542 UPDATE FROM SUB-GROUPS OF THE SCHOOLS FORUM Item 9
The following meetings had taken place and the minutes had been noted:
High Needs Reference Group – 22 September 2015 Schools Reference Group – 29 September 2015 Early Years Reference Group – 1 October 2015
Lizzy Bancroft explained that the Early Years Reference Group had noted that Milton Keynes would not be part of the 30 hours pilot scheme, therefore the earliest this could be implemented would be September 2017.
The next meetings of the groups would be held as follows:
High Needs Reference Group – Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 1.00pm Schools Reference Group – Tuesday 17 November 2015 at 1.00pm Early Years Reference Group – Thursday 19 November 2015 at 1.30pm
SF 543 FORWARD PLANNING Item 10
Issues to be considered by the Schools Forum for the coming year are detailed below:
3 December 2015
− Special School Funding − Annual report on arrangements for SEN − Annual report on arrangements for Early Years − Alternative Provision (including a report from Stephenson Trust) − Budget Planning 2016/17 − Budget Monitoring
14 January 2016
− Budget Monitoring − Final DSG Settlement for 2016/17 − Schools Budget 2016/17 − Agree final primary and secondary unit rates 2016/17
17 March 2016
− Budget Monitoring − Detailed arrangements for High Needs Pupils − Scheme changes
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 9 (13) 30 June 2016
− Election of Chair and Vice Chair − Provisional Outturn DSG − LA Maintained School Balances as at 31/3/2016 − Section 251 Budget Statement − Schools Budget Setting − Schools in Financial Difficulty Contingency − Monitor use of Pupil Growth Fund − Draft Consultation on the Local Funding Formula
SF544 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
The Chair drew attention to the fact that this would be Andrew Whitaker’s last meeting before his retirement and he was warmly thanked for the exacting and detailed work he had done in producing and explaining the figures. Schools Forum wished him well for the future.
SF 545 DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
All meetings 3pm – 5pm
Thursday 3 December 2015 Thursday 14 January 2016 Thursday 17 March 2016 Thursday 30 June 2016 Thursday 13 October 2016 Thursday 1 December 2016 Thursday 12 January 2017
The meeting closed at 4.20pm.
SCHOOLS FORUM 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 10 (14)
Milton Keynes Schools Forum
Constitution
1. Purpose
1.1 The Milton Keynes School Forum is an advisory and decision making body on matters relating to the schools budget, established in accordance with Section 47A and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Schools Forums (England) Regulations 2012 and the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2014.
1.2 All members and persons associated with the Milton Keynes Schools Forum shall act in accordance with the seven principles of public life - selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
2. Specific functions
2.1 The Forum shall be consulted by Milton Keynes Council on:
(a) Any proposed changes in relation to the factors and criteria that were taken into account, or the methods, principles and rules that have been adopted, in the local funding formulae
(b) The financial effect of any such changes.
2.2 The Forum shall be consulted at least one month prior to the issue of invitations to tender in respect of terms of any proposed contract for supplies or services paid or to be paid out of the schools budget where the estimated value of the proposed contract is not less than the threshold which applies to the authority for that proposed contract pursuant to regulation 8 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006(b).
2.3 The Forum shall be consulted annually in respect of the Council’s functions relating to the schools budget in connection with:
(a) The arrangements to be made for the education of pupils with special needs
(b) Arrangements for the use of pupil referral units and education of children otherwise than at school
(c) Arrangements for early years provision
(d) Administrative arrangements for the allocation of central government grants paid to schools via the Council
(e) Any other relevant matters identified by Milton Keynes Council
Page: 1 of 7 Date issued: October 2012, Updated Oct 2013, Jan 2015, Oct 2015 (15)
3. Membership
3.1 There shall be twenty seven members of the Schools Forum comprising the following:
Schools and academies members
(a) Twenty two schools and academies members broadly proportionate to the total number of registered pupils and must include both Headteachers/Principals or their representatives and Governors: (b)
School and academy members by total number of registered pupils (AY 2014/15) Including at least one special school representative Including at least one primary school representative Schools members 13 Including at least one secondary school representative (Total pupils 27,009) Including at least one nursery school representative Including at least one pupil referral unit representative Academies members Including at least one AP Academy representative 9 (Total pupils 16,389) Including at least one Special Academy representative
Non-schools members
(b) Two Diocesan Authority representatives (c) One early years providers representative (d) One 16 to 19 provider (e) One recognised teachers’ trade union representative
4. Election and appointment
4.1 Schools and academies members (including Pupil Referral Units)
From 1 October 2015 all new schools and academies members will be elected for a period of three years. Elections will be held twice yearly in October and March. Headteachers/Principals, senior members of staff and Governors can stand for election. A letter advertising vacancies with details of how to stand for election will be widely circulated. A ballot will be held in the event of more candidates than vacancies with a short statement prepared by each candidate circulated with the ballot paper. Schools will be limited to vote for schools members and academies for academy members. Each school will be entitled to one vote which should be submitted by or on behalf of the Chair of the Governing Body. Academies members must be elected by their proprietor bodies and are not necessarily restricted to principals, senior staff or governors.
Members shall be eligible to stand for re-election at the end of their period of membership. Only one Forum member from each school or formalised groups of schools, such as federations or multi academy trusts, will be permitted but this will be kept under review.
Page: 2 of 7 Date issued: October 2012, Updated Oct 2013, Jan 2015, Oct 2015 (16)
4.2 Non-school members
Non-school members will be appointed by the Milton Keynes Council for the period of three years. Members shall be eligible for re-appointment at the end of their period of membership. Within one month of the appointment of any non-schools member, the authority will inform the governing bodies of maintained schools and Academies of the name of the member and the body represented.
4.3 Any member of the Forum will not be eligible to continue to serve on the Forum should they cease hold the office by virtue of which he or she became eligible for election or appointment. Membership of the Forum ceases should any member fail to attend three consecutive meetings without good reason.
4.4 There is an entitlement for members of the Forum to claim expenses. The Council shall reimburse all reasonable expenses of members in connection with attendance at meetings of the Forum and charge any expenses to the schools budget.
5. Meetings and proceedings
5.1 There shall be at least four meetings of the full Schools Forum held each year. Additional meetings will be held if the Forum deems it necessary.
5.2 A Chair and Vice Chair will be elected at the first meeting of the Forum in each new financial year and will hold office until the next meeting which falls after the date which is a year after the meeting at which the Chair and Vice Chair were originally elected. On ceasing to hold office, the Chair and Vice Chair shall be eligible for re-election.
5.3 In the event of a casual vacancy in the office of Chair or Vice Chair, the Forum shall, at their next meeting, elect one of their membership to fill that vacancy and the member so elected shall hold office until the date of the meeting to which the Chair or Vice Chair would have held office had the casual vacancy not occurred.
5.4 Meetings of the Forum will be convened by the Clerk to the Schools Forum, but he or she will comply with any direction in the matter given by the Forum in a previous meeting or given by the Chair (or in his or her absence the Vice Chair). A Business Management Group (BMG) will meet regularly and oversee the agenda planning and report drafting. This group will be comprised of the Chair, Vice Chair, Clerk, senior LA representative, finance advisors and the Chair of each of the standing sub groups (see 5.13). The Business Management Group will be chaired by the Chair of the Schools Forum, or in that person’s absence, the Vice Chair of the Schools Forum.
5.5 Written notice of a meeting, along with a copy of the agenda and papers for the meeting will be given at least five working days before the date of the meeting itself. Agendas, reports and minutes of meetings will be published promptly and made available through the Milton Keynes Council website.
5.6 All meetings of the Forum will be open to members of the public unless there is a good reason for the business to be conducted in private.
Page: 3 of 7 Date issued: October 2012, Updated Oct 2013, Jan 2015, Oct 2015 (17)
5.7 The following persons may speak at the Forum even though they are not members:
(a) The director of children’s services or their representative (b) The chief finance officer or their representative (c) The elected member who has primary responsibility for children’s services (d) The elected member who has primary responsibility for resources (e) Any person invited to provide financial or technical advice (f) An observer appointed by the Secretary of State (g) Any person presenting a report (but are limited to matters related to that item)
5.8 Any member of the Forum may nominate an alternate member to attend meetings of the Forum in his or her absence. Where a member has nominated an alternate member, the alternative member may attend and vote in place of the member. A member may only nominate an alternate member who would himself or herself be eligible to be appointed or elected to the Forum under the same category as the member.
5.9 The name of the intended alternate must be notified to the Clerk of the Forum at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting in question where possible.
5.10 Where a decision is required to be made this should be determined through a majority vote. In some circumstances those entitled to vote may be limited to those representing a specific sector. In the case of an equality of votes the Chair will have a second or casting vote. Non-school members, other than those who represent early years providers, should not vote on matters relating to the funding formulae to determine the amounts to be allocated to schools and early years providers.
5.11 When voting on proposals, members are not delegates or representatives of their particular school. Members should duly consider the proposals and vote in accordance with what they consider to be in the best interests of children and young people in Milton Keynes.
5.12 It is recognised that all Schools Forum members may have an interest in more than one school. It is important that members should declare if the item under discussion could make a material difference to that school, or where they may have a personal or prejudicial interest. Notwithstanding this, a member may continue contributing to the discussion, but should not take any part in any decision made concerning that particular proposal which uniquely changes funding for their particular school/schools.
5.13 The Forum has three standing sub groups. These are the Early Years Reference Group, the Schools Reference Group and the High Needs Reference Group. The Forum may set up other ad-hoc sub groups to carry out tasks as specified by the Forum. Membership of a all sub-groups may include those who are not members of the Forum. All sub-groups will report back to the Forum. The Early Years Reference Group and the High Needs Group will be chaired by an appropriate local authority lead officer with the Schools Reference Group chaired by the Vice Chair of the Schools Forum, or in that person’s absence, the Chair of the Schools Forum.
5.14 Any formal recommendations made to the Council shall be determined by a majority of the votes of members present at a meeting of the Forum and not by any sub groups.
Page: 4 of 7 Date issued: October 2012, Updated Oct 2013, Jan 2015, Oct 2015 (18)
5.15 The Forum shall be quorate if at least two fifths of the total membership is present at a meeting. This equates to eleven members.
6. Review of the Constitution
6.1 The Forum will regularly review its constitution to ensure that it continues to comply with regulation.
Page: 5 of 7 Date issued: October 2012, Updated Oct 2013, Jan 2015, Oct 2015 (19)
Annex 1 Schools Forum Membership List
Schools members Start End Next election period Natalie Fowler/Debbie Wells (N) 09/12/13 09/12/16 March 2017 Kirk Hopkins (P) 08/07/13 08/07/16 October 2016 Paul Hussey (P) Chair 08/07/13 08/07/16 October 2016 Christine Ryan (P) 27/03/14 27/03/17 March 2017 Lizzie Bancroft (P) 08/07/13 08/07/16 October 2016 Jake Yeo (P) 08/07/13 08/07/16 October 2016 Francis Grant (P) 08/07/13 08/07/16 October 2016 Michael Manley (S) (Vice Chair) 13/05/13 13/05/16 October 2016 Finlay Douglas (SP) 30/09/15 30/09/18 October 2018 Tracey Jones (S) 20/11/15 20/11/18 October 2015 Jonathan Budd (PR) 30/09/15 30/09/18 October 2018 Antony Moore (P) 20/01/15 20/01/18 March 2018 Ian Northover (P) 20/01/15 20/01/18 March 2018 Total: 13
Academies members Start End Next election period Neil Barrett (SP) (AP) 17/10/13 17/10/16 October 2016
Glenn Booth (P) 17/10/13 17/10/16 October 2016 Glen Martin (S) 06/12/13 06/12/16 March 2017 Warren Harrison (P) 15/05/14 15/05/17 March 2017 John Howe (S) 20/01/15 20/01/18 March 2018 Michelle Currie (S) 20/01/15 20/01/18 March 2018 Dave Moulson (S) 20/01/15 20/01/18 March 2018 Total: 9
Non-schools members How chosen Start End Kieran Salter - Diocesan Authority (Oxford Selected by Oxford May 2013 May 2016 C of E Diocese) Diocese Frances Image - Diocesan Authority Selected by Catholic October October (Northampton Catholic Diocese) Diocese of Northampton 2015 2018 Lynne Johnson - Early years providers Selected by Pre School May 2013 May 2016 representative Learning Alliance Nick Isles - 16 to 19 education provider Selected by Milton October October Keynes College 2013 2016 Vacant - Recognised teachers’ trade union Selected by teachers’ representative Trade unions Total: 5
(N) Nursery (maintained) (P) Primary (S) Secondary (SP) Special (PR) Pupil referral unit
Page: 6 of 7 Date issued: October 2012, Updated Oct 2013, Jan 2015, Oct 2015 (20)
Annex 2 Schools Forum Structure
Schools Forum
Business Management Group
Early Years Schools High Needs Reference Group Reference Group Reference Group
Page: 7 of 7 Date issued: October 2012, Updated Oct 2013, Jan 2015, Oct 2015 (21) ITEM 5
SCHOOLS FORUM
3 December 2015
DSG 2015/16 BUDGET MONITORING
Contact Officer: Natasha Hutchin, Deputy Finance Manager, Children and Families
1. Purpose
To advise the Schools Forum of the period 7 monitoring position on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).
2. Recommendations
That the Schools Forum notes the forecast outturn position as at period 7.
3. Period 7 Budget Monitoring
3.1 This report details the income and expenditure on the DSG for 2014/15. The DSG is a ring-fenced grant that must be used in support of the Schools Budget as defined in the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2013. It cannot be used for any other purpose and is not available to support general council services.
3.2 The 2015/16 budget was originally set with an estimated breakeven position by 31 March 2016, however it is now forecast that there will be a surplus of (£248k). The surplus will be carried forward and added to the DSG allocation for 2016/17
Table 1: 2015/16 DSG Summary
Budget Forecast Variance 2015/16 DSG Summary £m £m £m Income (216.993) (214.826) 2.167
Expenditure ISB 188.851 188.853 0.002 Central Spend LA 0.530 0.680 0.150 Central Spend Schools 0.982 1.465 0.483 Central Spend Early Years 2.301 0.248 (2.053) Central Spend High Needs 24.954 24.427 (0.527) Total Expenditure 217.618 215.672 (1.946) In-Year Deficit 0.625 0.846 0.221
Balance B/fwd 1/4/2015 (0.625) (1.094) (0.469) Estimated Balance C/fwd at 31/3/2016 0.000 (0.248) (0.248)
ITEM 5 3 December 2015 PAGE 1 (22) 3.3 There are a number of forecast variations against the budget. A more detailed analysis of the budget and forecast appears at Annex 1.
Table 2: Forecast Variations to the DSG Budget
Change Variance since Budget against October Comment Area Budget Forum £m £m DSG 0.000 2.167 2 year old funding has now been confirmed Income and due to lower levels of take up then originally budgeted for; the income allocation has been reduced by £2.050m. This is offset by a reduction in costs in the Early Years budget.
Take up on the Early Years Pupil Premium is also expected to be less than allocated by £0.060m. This is offset by a reduction in the ISB forecast.
The remaining reduction in income is due to a lower than anticipated Early Years January headcount (including the 2014/15 Early Years Block adjustment) £0.127m, as well as a deduction for Non-Maintained Special School (NMSS) places (£0.070m). ISB 0.000 0.002 Backdated revaluations have resulted in higher than budgeted non-domestic rates bills for schools resulting in an overspend of £0.156m. However, it is likely that there will be further revaluations in-year for new schools and schools that have been physically extended that could increase the overspend by a further estimated £0.300m.
The payments for 2 year old and 3 and 4 year old provision are forecast to be (£0.094m) less than budgeted based on current levels of take up.
Early years pupil premium is currently forecast to underspend by (£0.060m) due to lower than anticipated numbers. This is offset by a reduction in income. Central 0.000 0.150 Secretary of State approval was sought to Spend LA - increase the admissions budget, but this was Admissions denied. Due to the increased number of admission applications and appeals this budget is forecast to overspend by £0.150m. Central 0.000 0.419 Increasing housing activity in the catchment Spend areas of some primary and secondary schools Schools - has meant additional classes have had to be Growth funded in these areas.
ITEM 5 3 December 2015 PAGE 2 (23) Fund The Growth Fund is currently forecast to overspend by £0.419m.
£0.404m relates to second year protection payments in expanding schools. This is due to not all new places being filled and therefore, in accordance with the growth fund criteria, additional payments were required to fund the shortfall of pupils in the second year.
Great Linford in-year increase in pupils exceeded the number funded by 41 thus giving rise to a payment of £0.061m in accordance with the growth fund criteria.
The expansion of Oxley Park (Shenley Wood) has been deferred for a year with a new opening date of September 2017. This has led to an in-year saving of (£0.046m). Central 0.002 0.064 In April 2015, the Department for Education Spend (DfE) added to the existing list of licences it Schools – managed. The overspend of £0.064m is as a CLA & MPA result of these additional licences. The Licence additional licences are, the Performing Rights Fees Society for Music, Phonographic Performance Ltd, the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society and Christian Copyright Licensing International. 2 Central (0.097) (2.053) The funding for 2 year olds has been adjusted Spend based on the actual January numbers by Early Years (£1.956m) due to lower take up than was – projected. There may be further adjustment 2 Year Old once October’s headcount data has been Central collected. Spend There has been no call to date on the 2 year old trajectory fund giving rise to an underspend of (£0.097m). Central (0.012) (0.036) The contingency budget of (£0.389m) was set Spend High aside at the start of the financial year for top up Needs – funding. This has already been fully utilised, Top Up therefore any addition to the current numbers Funding of high needs pupils will increase the overspend.
There is an estimated forecast overspend of £0.307m against special schools top up budgets, which is in part offset by an underspend of (£0.160m) on special school additional places.
Originally there were 695 funded places in the 6 special schools in Milton Keynes but the actual number of places required has increased to 740.
ITEM 5 3 December 2015 PAGE 3 (24) All special schools, apart from Romans Field will be over numbers with the largest increases being at The Walnuts, Stephenson and The Redway Schools. The Walnuts is funded for 146 places against actuals of 161, Stephensons is funded for 60 places against actuals of 80 and The Redway is currently funded for 120 places but actuals are 142.
In addition to the increase in numbers is the complexity of need and hence the level of top up required to fund the needs of individual children has increased significantly.
There are further overspends anticipated in the 16-25 provision of £0.150m, and £0.236m for top ups in mainstream schools and academies.
There is a forecast underspend of (£0.180m) in Independent Colleges. Central 0.000 (0.500) Independent special school fees are currently Spend High forecast to underspend by (£0.500m). There Needs - are currently 48 placements compared to 56 Independen placements in the previous financial year. The t Special forecast includes a contingency element for School potential new places later in the year as on an Fees individual basis, these costs can be significant. Therefore this forecast underspend may increase if additional placements do not arise Central 0.008 0.008 There are small variations reported in the Spend – central areas of the high needs budget High Needs including packages and outreach. Central Spend Other 0.000 (0.469) At the year end the balance on the DSG was (£0.469m) higher than anticipated. This was predominantly due to lower than anticipated top-up payments made in respect of high needs pupils (£0.183m) and (£0.228m) due to a number of independent school placements leaving. Net (0.115) (0.248) Position
ITEM 5 3 December 2015 PAGE 4 (25) Item 5 Annex 1
DSG SUMMARY Budget Forecast Variance 2015/16 £m £m £m Income DSG ( before Academy Recoupment) Schools Block (172.183) (172.183) 0.000 Early Years Block (11.439) (11.360) 0.079 High Needs Block (28.522) (28.592) (0.070) Funding for two year olds (4.450) (2.400) 2.050 3 Year Old Pupil Premium (0.210) (0.150) 0.060 Other Adjustments (0.189) (0.141) 0.048 Total Income (216.993) (214.826) 2.167
Expenditure Central Services 0.530 0.680 0.150
Schools Block Budget Shares (before Academy recoupment) 163.341 163.497 0.156 MFG 5.033 5.033 0.000 Growth Fund 0.703 1.122 0.419 Other Central Services 0.280 0.344 0.064 Total Schools Block 169.357 169.996 0.639
Early Years Block Providers 3 and 4 Year Olds 11.295 11.288 (0.007) Contingency 0.424 0.245 (0.179) Providers 2 Year Olds 4.230 2.366 (1.864) Pupil Premium 3 Year Olds 0.210 0.150 (0.060) Central Services 0.100 0.003 (0.097) Total Early Years Block 16.259 14.052 (2.207)
High Needs Block Specialist Place Funding 6.518 6.518 0.00 Top-up Funding 17.951 17.915 (0.036) Independent Special School Fees 4.700 4.200 (0.500) Central Services 2.303 2.311 0.008 Total High Needs Block 31.472 30.944 (0.528)
Total Expenditure 217.618 215.672 (1.946)
In-Year Deficit /(Surplus) 0.625 0.846 0.221 Balance Brought Forward (0.625) (1.094) (0.469) Balance Carried Forward 0.000 (0.248) (0.248)
(26) ITEM 6
SCHOOLS FORUM
3 DECEMBER 2015
EARLY YEARS GROWTH FUND Contact Officer: Marie Denny, Head of Delivery, Sufficiency and Access
1. Purpose To consider the impact of the financial support package in delivering additional places and outline the future demands for such funding.
2. Recommendations That the Schools Forum:
i) Notes the impact of the financial support package offered to the early years sector to date.
ii) Notes the changes required to the financial support package with effect from 2016/17 in order to comply with most recent regulations.
iii) Agrees to apply a revised financial support package for those schemes which qualify in the financial years 2016/17.
3. Background 3.1 In 2013/14 the LA implemented a ‘financial support package’ (FSP) for early years settings to support the creation of significant numbers of new early education places in areas of need. The funding to enable this was secured through short-term ‘trajectory funding’ which had been provided as part of the implementation of the duty to offer early education to 40% of the most deprived two year olds.
3.2 The FSP implemented was based on a model similar to that available for the growth of places in schools. It was established to cover initial set up and, resource costs and guaranteed minimum funding (known as ‘growth funding’) ahead of places funded through the headcount data.
3.3 The last ‘trajectory funding’ was for the financial year 2014/15 however in December 2014 the Schools Forum endorsed a proposal to continue to provide the FSP through the Early Years Block in order to continue to stimulate and incentivise the market.
3.4 Since the FSP was implemented 16 schemes have been successfully supported, delivering an additional 762 early years places at a total value of £270,000.
ITEM 6 3 DECEMBER 2015 PAGE 1 (27)
4. Key Issues 4.1 The LA has a duty to secure sufficient early years provision and fund such provision for 15 hours per week for:
. All children from the beginning of the term following their third birthday . The 40% most disadvantaged 2 year old children in the borough. The duty is delivered through private, voluntary, independent and maintained providers and is funded through the DSG.
4.2 A further change to legislation is planned which will result in an increase from 15 hours per week of free early education to 30 hours per week. This will be with effect from September 2017. It is not yet known how many additional places will need to be created to address this change. 4.3 Since the original FSP was agreed there have been new regulations proposed which will no longer allow an element of the package to be delivered. This element known as ‘growth funding’ has previously been able to provide a guaranteed level of funding for 8 places to help grow the early education offer and allow providers a guaranteed income even if providers were unable to fill such places for the first term. The Schools Forum is therefore no longer able to deliver this part of the agreed package. 4.4 To date there have been nine schemes within schools proposed for 2016/17. These are outlined at Annex A. There is a potential for further schemes to come forward which will qualify for the funding, particularly within the private, voluntary and independent market where this can happen more quickly. If this is the case then it is proposed that these will also be funded using the same formula.
4.5 Given the pressure on the budget it is proposed that our ability to continue to offer schools and settings the FSP in 2017/18 and beyond be separately considered.
ITEM 6 3 DECEMBER 2015 PAGE 2 (28) Annex A
PROVISION PROJECTED SPEND £’000 Projected Number of Resource Place Growth Details Pre-Opening Places Created Funding * Funding 2016 - 2017 Schemes Newton Leys Primary School 78 2 9.75 – Nursery Class The Willows School Nursery Class 8 – 1 – Oakgrove School Nursery Class 78 2 9.75 – Holmwood School 60 2 7.5 – Oxley Park Academy School 52 2 6.5 – Nursery Class Whitehouse Primary School Nursery 78 2 9.75 – Class Fairfields Primary School Nursery 78 2 9.75 – Class
Jubilee Wood School Nursery Class 100 2 12.5 –
Oldbrook School Nursery Class 78 2 9.75 – Sub-Total 16 76.25 0 Total of planned schemes 92.25
*Funding is based on per place created not per session (29) ITEM 6 3 DECEMBER 2015 PAGE 3
ITEM 7
SCHOOLS FORUM
3 DECEMBER 2015
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS PROVISION Contact Officer: Caroline Marriott, Head of Delivery – Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND)
1 Purpose
To update the Schools Forum on the delivery of SEND support and provision in Milton Keynes considering the overall, strengths challenges and priorities.
2 Recommendation That the Schools Forum notes this report and makes any recommendations as appropriate.
3 Financial Impact The costs associated with SEND are charged to the High Needs Block of the DSG.
4 Issues Demand for Specialist Provision: 4.1 Milton Keynes’ school population is predicted to increase by 10,015 by 2019/20 Currently, 2.41% of children and young people are educated in specialist provision (including departments, units and out of area provision) on this basis 241 more specialist places will therefore be required by 2019/20 if no changes are made to current practice and thresholds.
4.2 Work continues on the Implementation of the SEND Reforms, 15 months into the implementation of the reforms work is progressing at pace with clear plans to to fully embed the reforms.
Strengths:
4.3 The SEND reform changes have been used as a platform for further change in Milton Keynes and a number of these changes are now embedded:
The Inclusion and Education Health Care (EHC) Panel is now fully established with a growing number of schools and other stakeholders participating on a rota basis.
Good progress in the Conversion of Statements and Learning Difficulty Assessments to Education Health and Care Plans. At the start of September 304 statements and Learning Disability Assessments (LDAs) ITEM 7 3 December 2015 PAGE 1 (30)
that are converted and finalised as EHC plans and a further 237 in process.
The criteria for assessment have been further developed to ensure robust decision making and transparency.
4.4 In order to meet the continued demand for specialist provision in Milton Keynes a number of key projects are moving forward:
Romans Field School age range has been changed to provide Key Stage 1 and 2 provisions, but no longer provides residential provision.
Plans to expand The Redway School through enabling sixth form provision to relocate are progressing, this will provide additional capacity which will enable the most complex children and young people and those with high medical needs to continue to access suitable provision in Milton Keynes.
The specification for a third complex needs school at Kents Hill Park is being progressed.
Challenges:
4.5 The two significant changes for SEND in Milton Keynes remain as previously reported to the School Forum for SEND provision in Milton Keynes:
Ensuring the SEND reforms continue to embed a changed approach and enable Inclusion in Milton Keynes.
The increasing demand for specialist provision for children and young people with SEN putting pressure on the provisions who are significantly over funded numbers and many at full capacity.
4.6 The table below demonstrates the growing number in MK Special School provision, this is predicted to grow further for September 2016 and is likely to pressure for places the 2016/17 academic year.
Total number of Numbers in MK Funded Place statements/ EHC Special Schools as Numbers plans of 1st Sept 2015 1632 743 693 2014 1371 722 693 2013 1312 661 650 2012 1303 613 2011 1347 599 2010 1368 617
4.7 The factors that add to pressure on our specialist provisions include:
The significant number of children and young people with SEN moving into the area each year from other local authorities, this has remained high through
ITEM 7 3 December 2015 PAGE 2 (31)
2014/15 with 27 of the 55 children and young people moving into Milton Keynes with confirmed SEN needs requiring a specialist placement. This is not proportionate with the number moving out and perhaps most significantly is more than half of those moving in with SEN. Over the last year, a number of these have been particularly complex and difficult to place within our own specialist provisions.
As noted above the limitation of funded numbers is only one pressure on the Special School provision and the majority of Special Schools in MK are at or reaching their maximum building capacity with the particular pressure points for places being at Walnuts, Slated Row and Stephenson Academy for the 2016/17 academic year and discussions are progressing to look at how this is managed.
Planning for Places:
4.8 Pre 16 Places
The government have indicated that no additional high needs places will be funded in 2016/17. However, the LA may redistribute the pre 16 places amongst providers.
Annex 1 shows the number of places required in 2016/17 compared with the number that have been commissioned in previous years as well as the actual numbers on roll. This includes pre 16 places and all post 16 places, including those funded by other LAs.
It is proposed to redistribute places between Romans Field and Stephenson Academy from September 2016.
4.9 Post 16 Places
The funded post 16 places are detailed in Annex 1. These are based on historic data and the LA is not allowed to change these places in schools. This is an issue in Milton Keynes as the profile of our provision changes we are unable to recommission post 16 places where they are actually needed.
It is proposed to increase the number of places at MK College to more accurately reflect the current number of children in the provision.
Priorities:
4.10 In order to meet the challenges there are a number of priorities which are currently being progressed:
Embed the development of SEND locality teams to further develop integrated working.
Continue to embed the SEND reforms by continuing with the conversion strategy, development work on the Local Offer and focused work on the development of personal budgets.
ITEM 7 3 December 2015 PAGE 3 (32)
Minimise the numbers of children and young people leaving Milton Keynes and maximise opportunities for their return at appropriate transition points.
Complete the work on special school bandings for top up funding to ensure clarity and equity in our funding system.
Review the thresholds for entry to special school provision.
Review Speech and Language and Social Communication departments to ensure the right mix of provision is offered.
Review early years SEN support, including the allocation of inclusion grants.
Consider where new or existing schools are being developed as to whether a specialist department or unit are required as part of the development.
Review both the costs and outcomes of our post 16 and post 19 provision.
ITEM 7 3 December 2015 PAGE 4 (33) Item 7 Annex 1
Funded Places Sept 15 Funded Places Sept 16 Total Numbers Numbers Funded on Roll Pre 16 Post 16 Total Pre 16 Post 16 Total on Roll Jan Places October 2015 Sept 14 2015 Special Schools
The Redway 120 104 16 120 104 16 120 127 145 Romans Field 45 40 0 40 40 0 40 36 29 Slated Row 182 130 52 182 130 52 182 184 189 The Walnuts 146 122 24 146 122 24 146 159 175 White Spire 142 110 32 142 110 32 142 148 132
Stephenson Academy 60 59 6 65 59 6 65 62 67
Special Units
Caroline Haslett Primary - Language 10 10 10 10 0 10 8 9 Chestnuts Primary - HI 12 12 12 12 0 12 8 10 Falconhurst - MLD 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Giffard Park Primary - MLD 12 11 11 11 0 11 11 8 *1 New Bradwell - Communication 12 12 12 12 0 12 11 9
Charles Warren Academy - Language 3 3 3 3 0 3 6 8 *2 Orchard Academy - Communication 10 10 10 10 0 10 10 11 Shepherdswell Academy - 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 Communication
Radcliffe - Social Communication 11 11 11 11 0 11 12 13 Stantonbury Campus - Social Comm 13 10 3 13 10 3 13 14 12 Stantonbury Campus - Language 12 9 3 12 9 3 12 8 6 *2 St Paul’s Catholic School - Social 27 17 10 27 17 10 27 27 23 Comm St Paul’s Catholic School - HI 10 7 3 10 7 3 10 7 9 St Paul’s Catholic School - VI 11 10 1 11 10 1 11 11 13
Secondary Schools
Denbigh 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 Hazeley 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 Lord Grey 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 MK Academy 3 3 3 3 3 0 2 Oakgrove 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 Ousedale 3 3 3 3 3 0 5 Radcliffe 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 Shenley Brook End 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 Sir Herbert Leon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St.Paul's RC 7 7 7 7 7 6 0 Stantonbury Campus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walton High 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 MK College 82 87 87 125 125 89 0
Total Places Funded 957 0 116 116 0 154 154 102 22
*1 Department closing in planned way as children move through * 2 Change in demand and place numbers under review
Places Alternative Provision Funded MK Primary PRU 18
The Bridge AP Academy 195
Total 213
Places Designated Nursery Provision Funded Cedars Primary 7 Rickley Park 7
Total 14 (34) ITEM 8
SCHOOLS FORUM
3 DECEMBER 2015
ALTERNATIVE PROVISION Contact Officer: Marie Denny, Head of Delivery, Sufficiency and Access
1. Purpose To update the Schools Forum on the commissioning of alternative provision in both the primary and secondary sectors.
2. Recommendations That the Schools Forum:
i) Notes the continued commissioning of 18 places at the Primary PRU.
ii) Notes the continued commissioning of 195 places at Bridge Academy.
iii) Endorses the use of the two draft Service Levels Agreements attached at Annex C.
3. Background
Primary arrangements 3.1 The council fulfils its duties towards children of primary school age at risk of permanent exclusion or excluded from mainstream provision at the Milton Keynes Primary Pupil Referral Unit (Primary PRU). From September 2015 18 places have been commissioned as follows:
Places 18 at £10k per place £180,000 Top-up £300/place/week £205,200*
Total £385,200
*assumes all places are taken up
3.2 This means that each place currently costs the DSG £21,400 pa.
3.3 Access to the provision is determined by a panel comprising of relevant officers from the LA and staff from the Primary PRU. Reintegration takes place either via the child returning to the original school (for dual roll proactive placements) or via Fair Access admission (for permanently excluded children).
3.4 The Primary PRU was judged to be ‘Good’ by Ofsted in 2013 and there is no current evidence to suggest that it would be evaluated differently today. During
ITEM 8 3 DECEMBER 2015 PAGE 1 (35) the previous two academic years all pupils made at least expected progress in the core subjects over their total time in the setting. An LA review in January 2015 identified that there needed to be some improvement in support for the social and emotional development of pupils and in procedures to reintegrate pupils into` mainstream schools. A Targeted Improvement Board (TIB) was put in place in April and as a result there has been rapid improvement in support for social and emotional development. There is strong leadership from the Management Committee and a new teacher-in-charge has been recruited. The school is in a good position to continue in its role.
Secondary arrangements
3.5 The council fulfils the same responsibility towards children who require alternative education within the secondary sector via the commissioning of 195 places across four sites of Bridge Academy.
3.6 The 195 places are funded from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) although payment is made directly by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) as per all academies. This is then supplemented by a payment made directly from the High Needs Block to Bridge Academy to cover top up requirements for the 195 pupils and an amount which represents the cost of the leadership and management of the processes and procedures for accessing the service as follows:
Places 195 at £10K per place £1,950,000 Top-up and management Monthly £69,542 x 12 £834,492
Total £2,784,492
3.7 This means that each place currently costs the DSG £14,279 pa.
3.8 There is then a further income to Bridge Academy received via recovery of Y10 and Y11 AWPU payments from mainstream secondary schools, for those students who are in Year 10 and 11 and those who are permanently excluded from secondary school. These costs are recovered directly from the schools by the Trust and used to support the Y10 and Y11 curriculum offer.
3.9 Access to and reintegration from the 195 placements is undertaken by the Trust. This has been in the form of a monthly alternative education panel comprising of senior leaders from all 12 mainstream secondary schools, senior LA officers and the provider. This panel also oversees the administration of the local Fair Access Protocol which ensures that hard to place pupils are proportionately admitted to the 12 mainstream schools. The adopted Protocol also enables any young person moving into Milton Keynes for whom the last school was an alternative provider to immediately access a Bridge Academy placement. The three year trend in numbers accessing the provision is attached at Annex A.
3.10 Milton Keynes secondary heads (MKSH) delegates responsibility for holding the provider to account to three secondary heads who sit on the Behaviour Partnership Steering Group which meets half termly. Three senior LA representatives also sit on this group which receives performance data and reports on the operational running of the Behaviour Partnership (BP) from the
ITEM 8 3 DECEMBER 2015 PAGE 2 (36) Executive Principal of Bridge Academy and discusses strategic matters in relation to the running of the BP.
3.11 A quality assurance report from Bridge Academy is attached at Annex B.
4. Key issues
Primary issues
4.1 When last reporting to the Schools Forum in December 2014 it was stated that of the 28 pupils referred to the Primary PRU that year 21 were permanent exclusions. It was further stated that if the Primary PRU is full of permanently excluded children it becomes impossible to dual roll children at risk of exclusion for proactive individual support. This could make the 18 commissioned places inadequate to meet our need.
4.2 Since that time significant progress has been made with regard to ensuring that permanently excluded children are quickly reintegrated to mainstream via the identification of a mainstream place though Fair Access admission. This means that quickly after exclusion a new school can be fairly identified and work can start to take place between the Primary PRU and the new school to ensure a safe and successful transition. This means that places are then more quickly freed up allowing scope for schools to dual roll children at risk of exclusion.
4.3 There were 12 children on roll at the PRU in November 2015. 8 of these had been placed as a result of a permanent exclusion. Places have been identified at mainstream schools for 6 of these children already, one is awaiting the hearing of an Independent Review Panel regarding the original exclusion and one more recent exclusion is awaiting the parent/carer making a new application for a mainstream place. Of the other four children in placements, two are dual rolled and expected to return to their substantive school, one now has an EHCP and will be transferring to special school before the end of this term and another has an EHCP recently drafted and is likely to return to the mainstream system shortly.
4.4 Based on this latest demand it is not recommended that the number of commissioned places should change at the Primary PRU but this should be subject to annual review.
4.5 If Schools Forum agrees that the number of places commissioned at this provision should continue to be 18 it will be necessary to develop a Service Level Agreement that reflects this number and the roles and responsibilities of each party involved. A draft agreement is attached at Annex C.
Secondary issues
4.6 As can be seen from Annex A, the number of placements at Bridge Academy rises over the course of the academic year, to close to or even sometime over the 195 places commissioned. There are noticeably more children already in the provision at the start of this academic year compared to last year, but this is not of concern given previous years’ demand.
ITEM 8 3 DECEMBER 2015 PAGE 3 (37) 4.7 There has, however, also been increasing demand for alternative provision which is not behaviour related but instead relates to young people arriving in Milton Keynes in Year 10 and Year 11 who are unable to access a GCSE curriculum, either because they speak no or limited English or because they have not studied GCSEs. These students are currently being home educated and then accessing placements at Milton Keynes College, as is possible within national legislation. The college has recently found it difficult to meet this demand, and is finding the admission of young people at different points during the teaching of the courses challenging to handle. The places at the college are lagged funded. No payment is made from the DSG; instead it comes from the Skills Funding Agency.
4.8 A Peer Review of the way in which alternative secondary education is commissioned is talking place this term. This is being carried out by senior officers from other local authorities in the region.
4.9 Given all of the above it is not recommended that the number of commissioned places should change at the current time but again this should be subject to review.
4.10 If Schools Forum agrees that the number of places commissioned at this provision should continue to be 195 it will be necessary to develop a Service Level Agreement that reflects this number and the roles and responsibilities of each party involved. A draft agreement is attached at Annex D.
ITEM 8 3 DECEMBER 2015 PAGE 4 (38) Item 8 Annex A
BRIDGE ACADEMY STUDENT NUMBERS BY CENTRE
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Total Nos in BA Total Nos in BA Total Nos in BA Central South North West by Month Central South North West by Month Central South North West by Month
60 50 60 25 195 60 50 60 25 195 60 50 60 25 195 September 40 38 34 20 132 41 26 37 20 124 28 24 34 16 102 October 43 39 36 20 138 42 28 43 24 137 29 25 33 17 104 November 45 42 40 27 154 46 31 48 28 153 34 27 38 22 121 December 44 41 40 25 150 46 29 49 27 151 38 27 38 26 129 January 48 48 45 27 168 49 28 46 26 149 38 35 39 29 141 February 52 50 45 28 175 48 32 48 27 155 42 35 39 30 146 March 56 52 46 27 181 52 34 50 27 163 41 36 39 30 146 April 61 58 39 26 184 51 38 52 26 167 40 47 40 33 160 May 64 59 42 30 195 57 34 53 28 172 39 50 43 33 165 June 59 57 54 31 201 61 28 57 29 175 44 58 49 33 184 July 72 32 66 32 202 62 25 59 31 177 64 42 51 36 193
2015-2016 Central South North West Total Places 65 50 40 40 195 Start of Sept 46 42 24 23 135 September 48 43 29 23 143 October 51 46 34 25 156 November 54 53 35 26 168 December January February March April May June July (39) Item 8 Annex B
Bridge Academy – Quality Assurance 2015
External Review Bridge Academy underwent the transition to Academy status, as an Alternative Provision Academy in October 2013. Prior to that it had operated as four separate entities each with its own OfSTED judgement, these varied from inadequate to outstanding. An external review of the quality of provision was commissioned by the Stephenson (MK) Trust in the spring of 2014 and was found to be inadequate in all areas. Significant action planning and change took place over the following year to move Bridge Academy from that position. Bridge Academy underwent a Section 5 Inspection from OfSTED in early July 2015. The results, which are very positive, are set out below.
OfSTED Category Bridge Academy, July 2015 Overall Effectiveness Good Leadership and Good Management Behaviour and Safety Good Quality of Teaching Good Achievement of Pupils Good
The next challenge is to move Bridge Academy to outstanding by the time of its next review by OfSTED in the summer of 2018. Planning is in the process of being agreed with Governors with implementation beginning in the new year. Only two key issues were highlighted in the July report as to why the Academy was not outstanding. These were:
1. Teachers do not always give students sufficient time to reflect on and correct their written work in order to learn from their mistakes 2. Students do not always have clear short term targets. This can make them unsure of how to improve their work
Academic Outcomes Looking at end of Key Stage 4 outcomes for students in Bridge Academy, there was a very significant improvement in GCSE results with a more than five-fold increase in the numbers of students achieving 5 or more GCSEs at A*-G. The APS per student almost doubled when we compare the 2014 results with those achieved in 2015. The percentage achieving any qualification also improved by around 15%. .
If we compare the results achieved by students in alternative provision in Milton Keynes in 2015 with those achieved nationally in the summer of 2014; the national dataset has not yet been published so we are unable to compare 2015 across the board, then a picture of significant improvement is once again evident.
1 (40) Item 8 Annex B
Looking across the 18 Local Authorities in the south east, Milton Keynes would move from 10th in 2014 to second in 2015 across all benchmarks, 5+ GCSEs at A*-G, APS per student and any qualification. Compared with national benchmarks, looking across 136 Local Authorities, again the picture is of very significant improvement with Milton Keynes rising from very much ‘mid table’ positions in 2014 to 7th or 8th of 136 LAs across the three benchmarks in 2015. The aim for 2016 is to improve yet further on what were outstanding results in 2015.
There has been no additional cost to the DSG in achieving these improvements. Indeed, if we look in terms of value for money, the table below shows clearly that the cost to the public purse for secondary alternative provision is lower in Milton Keynes than the average across the three closest geographical neighbours though results in 2015 are significantly better.
Academic Data 2015
5 or more APS per Any Cost per Place in GCSE or Student Qualification Alternative
equivalent Education, 2015 at A*-G % £ %
Bridge 2015 31 87 80 Milton Keynes 15,848*
Bridge 2014 6 47 69 Northants 16,179
PRU South 17 54 62 Bedford East 2014 15,996
PRU National 13 51 58 Central Beds 2104 15,638
Position in 10th in 2014 10th in 10th in 2014 Average SE compared 2014 15,915 2nd in 2015 2nd in 2015 ‘Local’ Cost with 2014, 18 2nd in 2015 LAs
Position 63rd in 2014 62nd in 29th in 2014 Nationally 2014 7th in 2015 8th in 2015 compared to 8th in 2015 2014, 136 LAs
*Figure includes AWPU reclaim for Y10 and Y11 students, the cost to DSG is £14,279
2 (41) Item 8 Annex C
Date: November 2015 To be reviewed: November 2016
SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT
In relation to the Provision of Alternative Education for primary school children in Milton Keynes.
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (42) Item 8 Annex C
Parties
This Agreement is between Milton Keynes Council (MKC) of Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ and Milton Keynes Primary Pupil Referral Unit (the PRU) of Shenley Road, Bletchley Milton Keynes, MK2 7AW
MKC enters into this Agreement in its capacity as the local education authority for Milton Keynes area. The PRU is where the alternative education takes place.
Background
This Agreement relates to the provision of alternative education at the PRU for primary aged children in Milton Keynes who are permanently excluded from mainstream school or are at risk of such exclusion.
Places for primate alternative education in Milton Keynes are currently provided at the PRU for which MKC is the admissions authority.
The PRU has a management committee who is a party to this Agreement.
Purpose of the Agreement
MKC and the PRU have key roles in the provision of alternative education for primary aged children in Milton Keynes. The purpose of this Agreement is to outline the role of MKC and the role of the PRU in relation to the current arrangements in Milton Keynes for primary alternative education.
Goals of the Agreement
1. To provide timely short term intervention for pupils with behavioural difficulties who are struggling to manage in mainstream schools
2. To support and sustain pupils within mainstream provision
3. To provide opportunities for primary aged pupils to make social and emotional and academic progress within an appropriate environment in preparation for returning to mainstream school
4. To provide opportunities for primary pupils to have time to develop their capacity to thrive in a mainstream classroom
5. To support schools to manage the needs of pupils from the PRU as part of their transition back into their own school
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (43) Item 8 Annex C
6. To support the reduction of the number of permanently excluded children of primary school age
Service Levels
Milton Keynes Council will:
1. Pay place funding of £10,000 (or other sum as directed by the Secretary of State) and monthly top up funding of a sum determined through Schools Forum to the PRU for 18 alternative education places at the PRU or for such other number of places as agreed annually by the parties, again through the Schools Forum
2. Adhere to requirements as defined in the document “Alternative Provision – Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities January 2013”
3. Develop an agreed protocol for entry into the PRU and integration back to school, to include defining, prior to entry, defining three clear targets and success criteria for each pupil accessing the provision
4. Arrange a panel consisting of representatives from the PRU and the local authority to discuss entry requests
5. Provide support with travel (within the LA guidelines) for pupils to be able to access the PRU (at Day 6 for PEx) through the agreed process. It is expected that where parents are able to transport their child to the PRU, they will.
6. Monitor the progress of pupils whilst at the PRU and following exit; termly for the first two terms, and then annually for two years
7. Support reintegration of dual placement pupils back into their own schools
8. Support integration of permanently excluded pupils into new schools
9. Implement a protocol to ensure that schools who dual roll children at the PRU understand and deliver what is required from them in order for their children to access a place
The PRU will:
1. Provide appropriate levels of staffing for the PRU including a Teacher- in-Charge who will act as the Headteacher of the PRU.
2. Work in close collaboration with the assigned Specialist Teacher for each pupil, ensure they are invited to any meetings to discuss a pupil’s progress, including the induction meeting at the start of the placement
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (44) Item 8 Annex C
3. Assess pupils’ social and emotional needs within three weeks of entry and assess at least half termly for evidence of impact of interventions
4. Ensure an accurate FACT assessment has been completed for each pupil within six weeks of start date. Where appropriate a FACT PLUS assessment will be completed.
5. Develop a thematic curriculum based on the National Curriculum, with a focus on both social and emotional development and academic achievement; differentiated to meet the individual needs of each pupil
6. Provide a formal report, incorporating the views of the pupil and their family, for the pupil’s mainstream school and parents/carer after week three of the placement, at a mid placement review, and at the end of the placement
7. Prepare pupils for timely return to mainstream school, or an alternative placement; having a clear exit plan on entry to the PRU and ensuring that assessment evidence positively supports transfer to the next setting
8. Provide MKC with termly information on reading, writing and mathematics progress of each pupil and the social and emotional development of each pupil
9. Proactively provide opportunities for parents/carers to work in partnership with the PRU, so that they are involved and engaged in their children’s development of social and emotional skills and core curriculum learning
10. Submit a request for an EHC needs assessment where it is agreed by all professionals involved that this is in the best interests of the pupil. This should not directly influence the length of stay within the PRU and submit additional information where requested by a school to support a request for an EHC needs assessment
11. Participate in project development and networking across schools and LA services; working in collaboration with other agencies, where appropriate, to ensure the best outcomes for the pupil.
Term and review of Agreement
This Agreement will remain valid until superseded by a revised agreement entered into by the parties or their successors or until determined by the parties.
The parties will review the Agreement annually or at such other frequency as agreed by the parties.
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (45) Item 8 Annex C
Signed on Behalf of Milton Keynes Council
Authorised Signature:
Name:
Position:
Date:
Signed on Behalf of Milton Keynes Primary PRU
Authorised Signature:
Name:
Position:
Date:
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (46) Item 8 Annex D
Date: November 2015 To be reviewed: November 2016
SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT
In relation to the Provision of Alternative Education for secondary school students in Milton Keynes.
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (47) Item 8 Annex D
Parties
This Agreement is between Milton Keynes Council (MKC) of Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ and Stephenson (MK) Trust of Stephenson Academy, Crosslands, Stantonbury, Milton Keynes, MK 14 6AX (a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under company registration number 07919427).
MKC enters into this Agreement in its capacity as the local education authority for Milton Keynes area. Stephenson (MK) Trust is the admission authority for the Bridge Academy where the alternative education takes place.
Background
This Agreement relates to the provision of alternative education at the Bridge Academy for secondary school students in Milton Keynes who are permanently excluded from mainstream school, are at risk of such exclusion or are unable to attend mainstream education for medical reasons.
Milton Keynes Behaviour Partnership (MKBP) through an agreement known as ‘the Compact’ is responsible for managing alternative education in Milton Keynes.. MKC and Stephenson (MK) Trust form part of the MKBP. The Partnership further comprises of the 12 Milton Keynes mainstream secondary schools, and the Bridge Academy. The Compact outlines how the Partnership works to support alternative education provision for secondary aged pupils in Milton Keynes.
Places for alternative education in Milton Keynes are currently provided at the Bridge Academy for which Stephenson (MK) Trust is the admission authority.
Purpose of the Agreement
MKC and the Stephenson (MK) Trust have key roles in the provision of alternative education for secondary aged students in Milton Keynes. The purpose of this Agreement is to outline the role of MKC and the role of Stephenson (MK) Trust in relation to the current arrangements in Milton Keynes for alternative education.
Goals of the Agreement
The goals of this Agreement include:
1. To provide opportunities for secondary aged students to make satisfactory progress within an appropriate, alternative to their mainstream school environment, either in preparation for returning to mainstream school or as an alternative to mainstream.
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (48) Item 8 Annex D
2. To reduce the number of students who are permanently excluded.
3. To support inclusion in mainstream secondary schools.
4. To ensure value for money for MKC.
5. To ensure that arrangements are in place for Milton Keynes Council to fulfil its statutory duties in respect of alternative education in relation to secondary aged students..
Service Levels
Milton Keynes Council will pay, monthly top up funding of a sum determined through Schools Forum, to Stephenson (MK) Trust for alternative education for 195 places at the Bridge Academy or for such other number of places as agreed annually by both parties, again through the Schools Forum,
Stephenson (MK) Trust is and will be responsible for:
1. Delivering the goals of this agreement
2. Co-ordinating the functioning of Milton Keynes Behaviour Partnership
3. Administering the activities carried out by Milton Keynes Behaviour Partnership.
4. Providing half termly reports to Milton Keynes Behaviour Partnership Steering Group to include performance data on managed moves, permanent and fixed term exclusions, part-time timetables, re- integration success rates, cost recovery from mainstream secondary schools, attendance and academic outcomes,
5. Providing an annual report to the council regarding progress on delivery of the goals.
Term and review of Agreement
This Agreement will remain valid until superseded by a revised agreement entered into by the parties or their successors or until determined by the parties.
The parties will review the Agreement annually in November or at such other frequency as agreed by the parties.
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (49) Item 8 Annex D
Signed on Behalf of Milton Keynes Council
Authorised Signature:
Name:
Position:
Date:
Signed on Behalf of Stephenson (MK) Trust
Authorised Signature:
Name:
Position:
Date:
SLA – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVISION (50) ITEM 9 SCHOOLS FORUM
3 DECEMBER 2015
MILTON KEYNES SCHOOLS BUDGET PLANNING 2016/17 Contact Officer: Penni Powers, Finance Manager, Children and Families
1. Purpose To provide an update on the local funding position for 2016/17 and to provide an opportunity to discuss any national funding developments following the comprehensive spending review (CSR) announcement.
2. Recommendation
The Schools Forum notes the issues arising from budget planning for the Schools Budget for 2016/17 and future years.
3. Background 3.1. At its last meeting the Schools Forum were presented with the opportunity to consider initial budget proposals for the use of the DSG and Schools Budget for 2016/17. Item 5 of that agenda demonstrated that if no actions were taken to reduce expenditure there would be an in year deficit on the 2016/17 DSG of £1,272k which would result in a year end deficit of £1,139k. 3.2. The paper set out the two main causes of the deficit position, which are growth and high needs expenditure. 3.3. From 2017/18 onwards, the position in the Schools Budget was forecast to improve as the protection received by schools through the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) works itself out of the system, the level of growth funding required stabilises and the overall budget benefits from the significant increase in primary school numbers.
4. Financial impact
4.1 Whilst the amount of funding in the DSG is not being reduced, schools will continue to face significant challenges with their budgets due to unfunded pressures such as pay awards and changes to NI and pension contributions. In order to provide schools with an early sight of their budget, a budget calculator is being uploaded onto the LMS website.
4.2 This budget calculator, using the unconfirmed October 2015 census data, will allow schools to see how much funding they are likely to receive in 2016/17. It will also allow schools to model the potential impact of changes in pupil numbers. Included is a section setting out the estimated pressures on schools, although this will vary from school to school.
(51) ITEM 9 3 December 2015 PAGE 1 5. Issues
Government announcements and consultation
5.1. It is anticipated that an announcement will be made on changes to schools funding after the CSR on 25 November. These changes are likely to include a timeline for delivering on a national funding formula. 5.2. There was a consultation on the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2015 that are due to come into force on 1 January 2016. The consultation closed on 13 November 2015. The regulations are largely unchanged from last year, with the main change being the removal of the ability of local authorities to fund 2 year old places (other than for high needs or looked after children).
Budget proposals 2016/17 onwards
5.3. The DSG is a ring-fenced grant, so the budget needs to be set within the available resources. Unspent DSG has to be carried forward to the next financial year. There is no additional funding available from the Council’s General Fund to offset overspending on the DSG. 5.4. It is possible to allow the DSG to go into a deficit position for a short period of time with the approval of the Section 151 Officer and the Schools Forum. This would require council funding and an action plan would be required showing how the budget will be brought back into balance. Ideally the Council wishes to avoid the DSG going into deficit and would seek to create a surplus balance of around £1m to be able to mitigate any risks such as increasing demand for SEN placements and the need to fund growth in expanding areas. 5.5. A final budget will be presented to the Schools Forum on 14 January 2016. This will be a more accurate estimate of the funding available next year as by then the actual DSG settlement figures will be known as well as the confirmed October census data. There will be further adjustments to the DSG during the year for the 2, 3 and 4 year old headcount, any schools converting to academy status and there may also be further government adjustments. 5.6. The in-year deficit in 2015/16 is now estimated at £0.846m and a carried forward surplus balance of £0.248m as at 31/3/2016. More detail on the 2015/16 position is shown in Item 5 of this agenda. Growth Fund
5.7. The following new provisions are currently proposed to be funded from the growth fund:
. Anticipated new primary provision opening at Oakgrove, Newton Leys, Fairfields, Whitehouse in September 2016, and Kents Hill and Shenley Wood (Oxley Park) in September 2017.
. Anticipated new primary provision opening at Eagle Farm South (which has been postponed to April or September 2018 due to development delays).
ITEM 9 3 December 2015 PAGE 2 (52)
. New secondary provision at Brooklands Farm due to open in September 2016, Kents Hill Park in September 2017 and Whitehouse in 2019.
5.8 An estimated front funded 167 places in growing new schools between April and August and 1,627 places in total between September and March for all expanded provision (compared with 1,036 in 2015/16). A further 60 places in each sector will be held in contingency for potential local issues and a contingency of £0.172m for further pupil protection payments where full expansion numbers are not achieved.
5.9 The estimated start up and set up funding from the growth fund is £1.117m in 2016/17 and £0.871m in 2017/18.
5.10 The Council is currently proposing to meet the needs of the pressures coming through from pupils already in the primary school system in south central Milton Keynes by opening additional secondary provision at Kents Hill Park and to slowly grow the number of places at Walton High at Brooklands in line with the growth of the development. This approach has been challenged by Milton Keynes Education Trust (MKET). Officer advice is that the development of additional secondary capacity at Kents Hill is appropriate given the circumstances.
High Needs Spend
5.11 Due to the significant increase in post 16 students in FE provision the number of places commissioned at MK College will be increased from September 2016 to 125 from 87 in September 2015. No other changes are proposed in respect of post 16 place numbers.
5.12 At present it is unclear whether or not any additional funding will be available for new places when the proposed special school provision at Kents Hill Park opens. It is likely that there will be an announcement around the funding of high needs places and the high needs block after the spending review.
ITEM 9 3 December 2015 PAGE 3 (53)