Agenda Item: 4(i)

THE CUMBRIAN SCHOOLS’ FORUM

Draft MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 June 2013 Committee Room 2, The Courts, Carlisle

PRESENT Louise Anderton (Small Schools) Helen Brew (Copeland Secondary, representing Lynette Norris) Chris Brooksbank (South Lakeland Primary) Anne Burns (Lead Member for Children’s Services) Linda Dean (Barrow Primary) Nick Fish (Copeland Primary) Jackie Franklin (Non-teaching Associations) Bernard Gummett (Special Schools) Vivienne Halliday (PVI) Steven Holmes (Secondary ) John McAuley (RC Diocese) Michael Mill (CE Diocese) Alan Mottershead (Secondary Academy) David Nattrass (Eden Primary) Nigel Pattinson (Eden Secondary) Ty Power (Secondary Academy) Vanessa Ray (Secondary Academy) Alan Rutter (Teachers’ Professional Associations) Joan Stocker (Community Secondary) Geoff Walker (Allerdale Secondary)

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

Apologies for Absence Anne Attwood Lisa Balderstone David Batten Bev Forster Jo laker Jonathan Johnson Lynette Norris – represented by Helen Brew Joan Stocker – represented by David Selby

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)1 draft minutes 210613.doc

1. Appointment of Chair Alan Rutter was appointed as chair of the Schools Forum.

2. Appointment of Vice-Chair David Nattrass was appointed as vice-chair of the Schools Forum.

3. Membership The Forum noted that Geoff Walker, headteacher of Cockermouth School and representing Allerdale secondary schools had resigned from the Forum. Jonathan Johnson, headteacher of Netherhall School would join the Forum as the representative of Allerdale secondary schools.

4. Declarations of Interest David Selby – Item 14, Adoption Leave

5. Working Group Minutes i) School Budgets Working Group The School Budgets Working Group had met on 17 May 2013. The Chair gave a verbal update from the meeting. A number of items that had been discussed would be considered further at this meeting.

ii) SEN, Social Deprivation, Access and Inclusions Working Group The SEN, Social Deprivation, Access and Inclusion Working Group had net on 27 May 2013. The Chair gave a verbal update from the meeting. The Chair reported that there had been a significant improvement in the information that was now provided to the group and he wanted to record his thanks to officers.

In terms of expenditure, a small underspend had been reported and the group had expressed some concern that this had occurred. Work was ongoing around resourced provision and there had been some discussions regarding updating of the SEN handbook and whether it would actually be needed in the future.

6. Inspection of Local Authority Arrangements for Supporting School Improvement From May 2013, Ofsted inspectors would conduct inspections of local authority functions in relation to supporting school improvement. Following the inspection, a local authority would either be deemed ‘effective’ or ‘ineffective’. A report was presented that informed the Schools Forum of the inspection process.

The handbook that detailed the inspection arrangements stated that the inspectors were likely to conduct meetings with the chair/vice chair of the Schools Forum as part of the inspection process. A copy of the handbook had been circulated with the agenda and the key points relating to Schools Forum had been highlighted.

It was reported that a risk assessment of each of the key triggers for inspection had been undertaken and it was hoped that when the inspection had taken place the overall judgement would be effective.

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)2 draft minutes 210613.doc There was some discussion about how Schools Forum members were able to communicate with their constituents and it was also suggested that new Forum members should have some form of induction – a pack/programme and outline of responsibilities.

The Schools Forum noted the paper and the arrangements for Ofsted inspection of local authority arrangements for supporting school improvement.

7. Pupil Premium – Analysis of Impact A report setting out a [proposal for a project to look at the impact of the Pupil Premium grant on schools in was considered. The Chair of the Forum sought agreement from Forum members to commission the project and to encourage co- operation from the constituencies that they represented.

In 2012/13, schools were free to decide how to spend their Pupil Premium grant allocation but they had to publish details of the allocation and how they planned to spend it. Schools also had to provide a statement confirming the previous year’s allocation, how the funding had been used and the impact this had on the educational attainment of disadvantaged pupils. The proposed project would: • Identify how each maintained school in Cumbria had used the Pupil Premium grant and provide an overall analysis of this • Triangulate the above information with a sample of visits/ phone calls by Local Authority General Advisers to analyse the impact of the Pupil Premium funding on individual school standards • Provide a report to the Local Authority and Schools Forum summarising the findings and identifying any action points for the future.

There followed a lengthy discussion during which a number of Forum members expressed an interest in the outcome of this work felt that it would be good to identify areas of good practice and disseminate that information. However there were a number of members who felt that this information was already provided by schools, in various ways and as such that this was not the business of the Schools Forum. As a result, the decision as to whether or not to commission the project was put to the vote:

For – 8 Against – 9

The Schools Forum would, therefore, to commission a project to look at the impact of the Pupil Premium Grant in Cumbria.

8. Pupil Premium for Children Looked After – Arrangements for 2013-14 A report setting the proposed arrangements for the allocation of the Pupil Premium for Children Looked after in 2013-14 was presented.

Each year, the LA received an allocation of Pupil Premium Grant, which must be passported to schools and providers. In accordance with DfE guidance, for 2013-14, the Pupil Premium would be allocated at a rate of £900 per Free School Meal Ever 6 pupil and per Child Looked After, and £300 per Service Child. For the Free School Meal Ever 6 pupils and Service Children, the DfE stipulated the amount of funding to

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)3 draft minutes 210613.doc be allocated for each school. For the Children Looked After element, the Local Authority had a degree of discretion over how this funding is allocated.

The children eligible for Pupil Premium Children Looked After grant are those who on 1 April 2012, had been looked after continuously for at least 6 months and who are in Year Groups reception to Yr11 during the 2013-14 financial year. The Pupil Premium Guidance stated that ‘it is for local authorities to determine how to distribute the Pupil Premium for each of their eligible looked after children so they can reflect the particular circumstances of a looked after child’.

It was proposed that a total payment of £900 would be made to a mainstream school or Academy for each of their eligible children who are on the roll of that setting. Cumbria Local Authority would make allocations to schools and Academies on a termly basis, £300 per term. If the child was educated in but attended a school or Academy located in a local authority other than Cumbria, the funding would pass directly to the school to spend for 2013-2014. The allocation would be made on a termly basis to allow for pupil mobility.

The Schools Forum noted the proposed arrangements for the allocation of the Pupil Premium for Children Looked After in 2013-14.

9. Use of the Dedicated Schools Grant De-Delegated Contingencies Budget 2013- 14 At the meeting of the Schools Forum on 6 March 2013 a report that set out possible options for the use of the de-delegated contingencies budget for 2013-14 was requested.

The total de-delegated contingencies budget for 2013-14 was £1,583,544. This was made up of the original contingences budget of £775,544 plus the £808,000 which was reclassified from schools in financial difficulty funding to contingencies by the Schools Forum at its meeting on 16 January 2013. On 17 May 2013, the School Budgets Working Group had considered a report that set out various options for the use of the de-delegated contingencies budget in 2013-14 was considered. The paper was intended to inform discussions that would contribute to options to be presented to the full Forum.

Two of the budgets that the Schools Forum could de-delegate back to the Local Authority were the contingencies budget and the schools in financial difficulties budget. At the meeting of the Schools Forum held on 24 October 2012 maintained school representatives voted for these budgets to be de-delegated back to the Local Authority for both primary and secondary schools. The total budgets for 2013-14 were £775,544 in respect of contingencies and £808,000 in respect of schools in financial difficulty funding.

At the meeting of the Schools Forum held 16 January 2013, the Schools Forum requested that the £808,000 schools in financial difficulty budget be moved into the contingencies budget. On 6 March 2013, the Schools Forum asked that a paper be brought firstly to the Schools Forum Budget Working Group and then to the full Schools Forum to present the options as to how this budget should be used in 2013- 14. The total contingencies budget for 2013-14 was £1,583,544. C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)4 draft minutes 210613.doc This budget only relates to maintained schools. As Academies were independent of the Local Authority and did not have the option to de-delegate budgets, they received funding in respect of contingencies in their delegated budget and were responsible for providing any services in relation to these themselves.

Contingencies could be retained centrally for maintained schools for a limited range of circumstances. Options are explored below: a. Exceptional unforeseen costs which it would be unreasonable to expect governing bodies to meet There were a range of unforeseen costs that could arise during a financial year, owing to a range of circumstances, and for which in some cases it would be unreasonable for a maintained school’s governing body to meet. Such costs could include, legal costs arising from tribunals for maintained schools where the Local Authority is liable.

In terms of accountability, a report could be presented to each Schools Forum meeting outlining the expenditure to date on the contingency budget. b. Schools in financial difficulties Should the Schools Forum decide to allocate some of the contingencies budget for schools in financial difficulty funding, there would need to be a standardised method of allocating this funding to schools. The Forum would also need to determine the total element of the contingencies budget that would be allocated for schools in financial difficulty funding

In 2012-13, only schools with a deficit greater than 5% (Secondary/ Special) and 8% (Primary/ Nursery) of total revenue with a governor approved budget plan submitted by the deadline of 31 May were eligible for consideration for schools in financial difficulty funding. Eligible schools were then assessed against a list of agreed criteria.

At the meeting of the Schools Forum Budget Working Group on 17 May 2013, there was a lot of discussion about whether schools in financial difficulty funding should be made available for 2013-14. One viewpoint expressed was that there should be no budget for schools in financial difficulty funding and rather the budget of £808,000 should be allocated out to all schools. The LA contacted the DfE to identify whether it would be possible to allocate this budget out to all maintained schools on the basis of pupil numbers. The response received was that in year redeterminations of budgets are no longer allowed under the new funding arrangements, and any allocation of funding to a school from the contingency would need to meet the criteria set out in the definition of the contingency as set out in the regulations.

The Schools Forum Budget Working Group had also suggested that if schools in financial difficulty funding was made available, the criteria for allocating the funding should be amended/ expanded upon. Schools Forum members were asked for suggestions of possible criteria. Taking account of the responses, revised criteria were set out in the report to the Schools Forum.

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)5 draft minutes 210613.doc The DfE acknowledged in its Findings from the Review of 2013-14; Arrangements and Changes for 2014-15 that there were ‘unintended consequences’ which arose as a result of the 2013-14 reforms. Given this, an alternative approach to allocating schools in financial difficulty funding for 2013- 14, should the Schools Forum decide that this funding should be made available to schools, could be to base this on the impact of the new funding formula. An alternative criteria was also set out in the report.

A further suggestion from the School Budgets Working Group had been that should the funding be made available, then a sub-group of the Schools Forum could oversee the process of deciding the allocations for school sin financial difficulty. c. Additional costs relating to new, reorganised or closing schools The decision to either close, reorganise, amalgamate or open a new school was taken by Members (the Cabinet).

When a school closed, there were associated costs, for example, if the school has a deficit balance at the date of closure, the Local Authority would need to write off this balance. In terms of new or amalgamating schools, there were likely to be associated costs such as new infrastructure that may be required. Under the regulations, the de-delegated contingencies budget could be used to fund these costs.

It was proposed that where schools are undergoing reorganisation, such as an amalgamation, transitional support funding could be available from the contingencies budget.

This support funding would not be available for the following: • Normal education costs for children transferring from one school to an another – this would be dealt with by a transfer of Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) and other variable funding allocations between the schools in question; • Additional transport costs for pupils – the Local Authority, in line with the previously agreed policy, would meet these for pupils affected by the transitional arrangements.

It was proposed that the school concerned should submit a proposal to the Local Authority Schools and Learning Finance Team. The proposal would be detailed and must explain how the items required were a direct result of the changes being experienced by the school. The proposal should be supported by original documentation such as supplier quotations. The proposal would be appraised by the Schools and Learning Finance Team and approved by the Assistant Director – Schools and Learning. The approved amount would then be presented to the full Cumbria Schools Forum for information to ensure accountability.

There followed a lengthy discussion during which various concern that had been discussed on a number of previous occasions were raised. There was also some discussion relating to additional costs relating to new, reorganised or closing schools including issues relating to school organisation.

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)6 draft minutes 210613.doc Having considered the options as outlined in the report, maintained school representatives of the Schools Forum approved:

- The use of the de-delegated contingencies budget to fund ‘exceptional unforeseen costs which it would be unreasonable to expect governing bodies to meet’. - The use of the de-delegated contingencies budget to fund additional costs relating to new, reorganised or closing schools.

Regarding whether funding should be made available for schools in financial difficulty, maintained school representatives of the Schools Forum took a vote:

For – 9 Against – 0 Abstentions – 1

As a result of the vote, above, the following was agreed:

- Funding would be made available for schools in financial difficulty and that the budget should be £808,000 - That the following criteria be used for the allocation of funding for schools in financial difficulty in 2013/14:

Eligibility for consideration for schools in financial difficulty funding is that the projected deficit balance for 2013-14 is at least 5% of the school’s 2013-14 Annual Revenue Budget (Secondary/ Special) and 8% (Primary/ Nursery). The school must be in receipt of the minimum funding guarantee.

The following criteria must then be met:

• The school had demonstrated an appropriate level of financial competency:

- A minimum of ‘satisfactory’ in its most recent audit judgement - Completion of the Schools Financial Value Standard for 2012-13 - The school has completed an application for a licensed deficit and is complying with the responsibilities set out in the application form.

• The school’s 3 year budget plan submitted by 31 May 2013 had been rigorously reviewed by the Schools and Learning Finance Team and projected expenditure, income and pupil numbers were appropriate.

10. School Funding Reform – Changes for 2014-15 A report that set out proposed changes to school funding for 2014-15, together with a proposed timetable for implementation of the changes was presented.

In 2013-14 changes to the school funding system, aimed at making it fairer, more consistent and more transparent, were introduced. Following the initial changes, DfE undertook to review the arrangements through consultation with a number of local authorities. Following the review the DfE published ‘School Funding Reform: Findings from the Review of 2013-14; Arrangements and Changes for 2014-15’.

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)7 draft minutes 210613.doc The key changes for 2014-15 were:

• The introduction of an optional sparsity factor • The ability to have a separate lump sum value each for primary and secondary schools. The maximum lump sum value was now capped at £175,000 (in 2013- 14, the cap was £200,000). • For 2014-15, the DfE had made it a mandatory requirement for schools to fund the first £6,000 per high needs pupil. In 2013-14, this was a recommendation from the DfE which Cumbria County Council members decided not to implement and rather to allocate SEN funding to schools on the basis of SEN statements, to ensure that SEN funding followed the pupil.

A briefing note summarised all of the proposed changes and the potential impact on Cumbria County Council. The most significant changes were highlighted.

There were some changes required to the Schools Forum in order to ensure that the Cumbria Schools Forum was compliant with DfE guidance.

As set out in ‘Schools Forums: Power and Responsibilities 2013-14’, the Local Authority (ie, the Cumbria County Council Cabinet) proposes and decides on the Cumbria School Funding Formula. The Schools Forum must be consulted.

As per DfE guidance, the LA must also consult all maintained schools and academies on formula changes. The guidance stated that any consultation must include a demonstration of the effect of modelling such changes (including and excluding the minimum funding guarantee) on individual maintained schools and academies. It was proposed that as in 2012, the Schools Forum lead the consultation on behalf of the LA.

In terms of the de-delegation decisions for maintained schools, the maintained schools representatives of the Schools Forum would vote separately by phase (primary and secondary) and would decide on whether these budgets should be delegated or de-delegated. The LA could only make a proposal to the Schools Forum.

The relevant budgets were:

• Contingencies • Insurance • Licences/ Subscriptions • Staff Costs • Library and Museum Services

Taking into account the above powers and responsibilities, LA Cabinet Members have been asked whether a small working group from the Schools Forum could be established to work with the Local Authority on the development of the revised funding formula for 2014-15. The County Council Cabinet will decide at its meeting on 18 July 2013 whether it agrees to this proposal. If the proposal is agreed, the LA will be asking for volunteers from the Schools Forum to form this group. It was suggested that the sub-group comprised of no more than 4 members and included at least 1

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)8 draft minutes 210613.doc representative from the Schools Forum SEN sub-group (due to the changes to SEN funding requirements).

The intention was to consult from September so if the proposal outlined above was agreed it was likely the sub-group would need to meet during the summer. Subject to approval, as outlined above, volunteers would be sought to join the sub-group.

The Forum welcomed the opportunity to be involved and requested that as much modelling of different options as possible was undertaken so that the proposals were properly informed. There were some concerns about the complexity of the sparsity factor calculations and the proposed changes regarding the high needs block.

The Schools Forum noted the changes to schools funding for 2014-15, the timetable for implementation and the retrospective roles of the Forum and the County Council in the implementation process.

11. Dedicated Schools Grant – Earmarked Rerserves 2012-13 A report informing the Schools Forum of the movement on reserves from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 was presented. The report was also presented to the School Budgets Working Group on 17 May 2013.

As at 31 March 2013 the total Dedicated Schools Grant earmarked reserves stood at £13.757m. This balance comprised of two elements – individual school balances £8.743m and the centrally retained dedicated schools grant £5.014m.

Total schools’ balances at 1 April 2012 were £5.516m. This had increased by £3.227m to £8.743m at 31 March 2013.

There were two main reasons for the increase in the level of school balances from 2011-12 to 2012-13. Firstly, total deficit balances had reduced by £1.753m from £4.873m in 2011-12 to £3.120m in 2012-13. The number of schools in deficit had decreased from 66 in 2011-12 to 60 in 2012-13 and the number of schools with deficit balances in excess of the 2% allowable threshold had fallen from 51 in 2011-12 to 41 in 2012-13. Also, the number of schools considered to have excessive deficits (8% for primary, nursery and special schools, and 5% for secondary schools) had fallen from 26 in 2011-12 to 22 in 2012-13.

The fall in deficit balances, and the number of schools in deficit could to an extent, be attributed to the continued impact of the Local Authority’s Challenge and Support Policy for Schools with Deficit Budgets, and first introduced in March 2011.

Secondly, the total surplus balances had increased by £1.474m from £10.389m in 2011-12 to £11.863m in 2012-13. The number of schools in surplus had increased from 227 in 2011-12 to 233 in 2012-13 (excluding Academy converters in 2012-13). The number of schools with excess surplus balances (8% for primary, nursery and special schools, and 5% for secondary schools) had also increased from 52 to 64.

The increase in surplus balances could be linked to the impact of School Funding Reform from April 2013, where despite a minimum funding guarantee being in place, some schools would see a reduction in their annual revenue funding. There was a question about how the funding changes had impacted on the different sectors. The split between primary and secondary could be provided for the group. It was also C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)9 draft minutes 210613.doc noted that, following the DfE review of schools funding changes introduced in 2013/14, a second consultation was anticipated. The outcomes from the review were expected at the end of June.

Four schools had converted to Academy status in 2012-13. All of these schools had surplus balances at 31 March 2012, which totalled £0.104m. Therefore, removing these balances at 31 March 2012, meant an increase in total surplus balances of £1.578m from £10.285m in 2011-12 to £11.863m in 2012-13.

The total surplus balances in excess of the allowable threshold were £1.689m. 64 schools had been identified with excess surplus balances. 18 of these would receive an automatic claw back of their 2012-13 excess surplus balance. The potential claw back for these 18 schools was £0.485m. However, schools did reserve the right to appeal to the Director of Children’s Services. These schools had been informed of the claw back, the deadline for any appeals was 31 May 2013. The remaining 46 schools would have until 31 May 2013 to provide justification and supporting evidence for their excess surplus balances. This information would be rigorously reviewed and schools would be informed of the result by the end of the summer term.

Centrally Retained Dedicated Schools Grant Reserve In line with the conditions of the Dedicated Schools Grant, any under or overspend relating to the centrally retained element of the Dedicated Schools Grant must be transferred to the earmarked Dedicated Schools Grant reserve to be carried forward for future years.

As at 1 April 2012, the balance on the centrally retained Dedicated Schools Grant reserve was £7.537m. The reason for this high balance was mainly due to £4.546m of Dedicated Schools Grant that was not allocated to schools in 2011-12. When setting its schools budget, the Local Authority was required to estimate the amount of funding that would be recouped in respect of Academies. In 2011-12, there had been an over-estimation in respect of Academy recoupment of approximately £2.024m. The remaining element of the £4.546m related to an underspend in the targeted services for schools budget in 2011-12 due to schools converting to Academy status and these services no longer needing to be provided to these schools by the Local Authority.

The Dedicated Schools Grant reserve at 31 March 2013 was £5.014m. This represented a movement of -£2.523m from the 1 April 2012 balance of £7.537m. The changes related to:

• Nursery grants • Returfing of playing field and funding of NQTs for autumn and spring terms 2012-13 • SEN Statements • SEN residential placements • Virtual schools and equalities team – children looked after • Additional costs funded through school contingency fund (eg. transitional funding for schools where there was an increased pupil intake in September 2012 as a result of a statutory change to the school, legal fees to tribunals) • Claw back of excess surplus balances from schools • Final year academy deficit repayment

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)10 draft minutes 210613.doc • Payment of schools in financial difficulty funding to Kirkby Stephen Grammar School

As required by DfE, the £5.014m of the centrally retained Dedicated Schools Grant had been allocated to schools in their 2013-14 school budget shares.

The Schools Forum noted the report and the value of the Dedicated Schools Grant reserves as at 31 March 2013.

12. Adoption Leave David Selby had declared an interest in this item.

A request had been submitted to the Chair of the Forum asking that the Forum decision approving that the Local Authority from 1 April 2013 reimburse schools in respect of the Occupational Adoption Leave Pay and associated on-costs for teachers and that this was funded from the Staff Costs budget be reviewed.

The request related to a specific request that a retrospective payment be made in relation to a period of adoption leave that had begun prior to 1 April 2013. The Forum had been advised previously that it would not be possible to make a retrospective payment. When the original decision was taken it was in order to bring schools into line with county council employees and an implementation date had been identified and agreed, from which this would be paid.

Whilst there was some sympathy toward the request and recognition that it may appear unfair there was a view that it would be inappropriate for a retrospective payment to be made. Also, it was not a matter for Schools Forum to determine. HR advice had been sought. Payment in respect of adoption leave was discretionary but it was pointed out that any changes to maternity schemes had an agreed implementation date and retrospective payments were not made.

David Selby thanked the Forum for allowing the request to be discussed.

13. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Schools Forum was scheduled for Tuesday 3 September 2013. This date would be reviewed and a final date would be circulated as soon as possible.

14. Any Other Business There were no other items of business.

SL/SAA/NJS August 2013

C:\Documents and Settings\blenkinsoppd\My Documents\Schools Forum pages\new pages\9 october updates\sf 101013 item 4(i)11 draft minutes 210613.doc