MEETING OF THE LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY 16 JANUARY 2018
10.00 a.m. in the Savoy Suite, The Exchange Conference Centre, County Hall, Preston
A G E N D A
1. Attendance and Apologies for Absence To be recorded in accordance with the agreed membership of the Forum.
2. Substitute Members To welcome any substitute Members.
3. Forum Membership (Enclosure) To note the Forum membership report.
4. Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 24 October 2017 (Enclosure) To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 24 October 2017.
5. Matters Arising To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2017 that are not covered elsewhere on the agenda.
6. Consideration of the Schools Budget 2018/19
a) Schools Budget 2018/19 (Enclosure) To consider the report about the Schools Budget for 2018/19, including information on each of the 4 funding blocks: Schools Block; High Needs Block; Early Years Block; Central School Services Block
b) Recommendations from the Forum Chairman's Group Budget Meeting (To follow/be tabled) To consider the recommendations from the Forum Chairman's Group on 11 January 2018, in relation to the Schools Budget for 2018/19.
c) Prevention and Early Help Update Presentation Helen Green, Quality and Review Officer from the Children and Family Wellbeing Service and Dave Carr, Head of Service, Policy, Information and Commissioning (Start Well) will attend the Forum for this item. To consider the presentation providing further information about 2018/19 Prevention and Early Help proposals and outcome data from 2017/18, as requested by the High Needs Block Working Group.
1
d) Schools Block Funding 2018/19 – Proposed Transfer to High Needs Block (Enclosure) To consider the school responses to the consultation on the proposed transfer of circa £0.7m from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block.
e) Formal Forum Decisions relating to the Schools Budget 2018/19 To consider and vote on the formal Forum decisions relating to the Schools Budget 2018/19.
7. Recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group held on 7 December 2017.
8. Recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 30 November 2017.
9. Recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group held on 5 December 2017.
10. Recommendations from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group (Enclosure) To consider the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 5 December 2017.
11. Forum Correspondence (Enclosure) To consider the Forum related correspondence since the last meeting.
12. Urgent Business To note the decision taken using the urgent business procedure.
13. Any Other Business
14. Date of Future Meetings (Enclosure) To note that the next scheduled Forum meeting will be held at 10.00am Tuesday 20 March 2018 at County Hall, Preston.
A draft Schedule of Forum meetings for the 2018/19 academic year is provided for consideration.
2 Lancashire Schools Forum meeting of 16 January 2018 at County Hall, Preston
Executive Summary
1. Attendance and Apologies for Absence and 2. Substitute Members To note attendance and apologies for absence and welcome any substitute members.
3. Forum Membership To note the Forum membership changes since the last meeting.
4. Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 5 July 2016 and 5. Matters Arising To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 24 October 2017 and any matters arising.
6. Consideration of the Schools Budget 2018/19
a) Schools Budget 2018/19 To consider the report about the Schools Budget for 2018/19, including information on each of the 4 funding blocks: Schools Block; High Needs Block; Early Years Block; Central School Services Block
b) Prevention and Early Help Update Presentation To consider the presentation providing further information about 2018/19 Prevention and Early Help proposals and outcome data from 2017/18, as requested by the High Needs Block Working Group.
c) Recommendations from the Forum Chairman's Group Budget Meeting To consider the recommendations from the Forum Chairman's Group on 11 January 2018, in relation to the Schools Budget for 2018/19.
d) Schools Block Funding 2018/19 – Proposed Transfer to High Needs Block To consider the school responses to the consultation on the proposed transfer of circa £0.7m from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block.
e) Formal Forum Decisions relating to the Schools Budget 2018/19 To consider and vote on the formal Forum decisions relating to the Schools Budget 2018/19.
7. Recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group To consider the recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group held on 7 December 2017.
i. Schools Block Funding 2018/19 This report provided information on the options available for the Schools Block in 2018/19 and on responses to the consultation with schools.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the consultation responses and analysis;
3 c) Recommended that the Schools Block Budget modelling for 2018/19 should: Omit Looked After Children (LAC) factor from the formula; Follow the Option 1 methodology to passport National Funding Formula allocations to Lancashire schools and academies.
ii. Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit The DfE are consulting on 'Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit'. Information was provided on the proposals.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended that a Schools Forum consultation response should be submitted; c) Agreed that a draft response should be prepared and circulated for comment and approval via the urgent business procedure. iii. Pupil Premium Grant + Pupil Premium Grant + is allocated to each LA to support children in care of statutory school age. In line with the national transfer out of the National Funding Formula for 2018-19, PPG+ will rise to an allocated of £2,300 per CLA/CIC to the authority. The report presented options around how this increased funding would be treated.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Asked that the further information requested by the High Needs Block Working Group is also be shared with Schools Block members, to help inform PPG+ recommendations. iv. School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme This report set out the proposals for the 2018/19 Scheme changes for consideration, with particular reference to Schools Block establishments.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the following arrangements and charges for the 2018/19 School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme, including: The increased premiums for the support staff scheme, including the per pupil/per place and lump sum elements; The premiums for the 2018/19 pupil funded teacher scheme calculation being based at 75% on a per pupil basis, plus 25% of the historic charge (from 2015/16), as the scheme transitions to a fully pupil based methodology; The minimum charge amounts for the teacher scheme remaining unchanged for 2018/19; The place based charges for the 2018/19 teaching scheme remaining at the 2017/18 level; Reimbursement rates for 2018/19 being subject to a 2% increase on the teaching scheme and 1% increase for the support staff scheme; c) Recommended that the possible scheme policy change submitted for consideration for 2018/19 should not be adopted.
4 v. Charging for Admissions Appeals An update about the arrangements for charging for Admission Appeals was presented.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the correspondence; b) Noted the proposed School Appeals charging methodology; c) Reiterated the previous recommendations to: Find a pragmatic solution to this issue; Use savings in the Schools Block of the Schools Budget in 2017/18 to fund a transition period ahead of the revised traded offer to be introduced from April 2018; d) Noted that the Schools Block Working Group report would be shared with Diocesan/Church Authorities for comment; e) Supported a Forum response to the latest correspondence being sent; f) Recommended that other 2018/19 Appeals Buy-back charging options be developed with the service, for consideration by the Forum.
vi. Recovering pupil funding from excluding academies The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) Guidance indicates that most academies have provisions in their funding agreement that require the same adjustments be made when a pupil is excluded from an academy as if the academy were a maintained school, under regulations made under section 47 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Guidance indicates that academies should be invited to the LAs exclusion funding arrangements.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the LA inviting Lancashire academies to participate in the Lancashire exclusions funding system with immediate effect. vii. Healthy Pupils Capital Fund The Government have made previous announcements about the Healthy Pupils Capital Fund for 2018/19. Requests for further information had been received from Forum members and enquiries have been revealed that no firm details about allocations have yet been received by the LA.
The Working Group: a) Noted the information.
viii. Advertising on LCC Vacancy Site From 1st April 2018 A communication has been sent to schools to advise that access to advertise on the Lancashire County Council Teaching / Non-Teaching vacancy site will only be available as part of the full service offering provided by BTLS Payroll and Recruitment Services.
Forum members have expressed concern about this decision.
The Working Group: a) Noted the information; b) Supported further enquiries into this decision being made.
The Forum are asked to ratify the Working groups recommendations.
5 8. Recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group To consider the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 30 November 2017.
i. High Needs Block Budget (HNB) Pressures A verbal update was presented to the Group about HNB budget pressures, which could be rising towards £10m in 2018/19 if current trends continued. Further reports would be presented to the Forum in due course with proposals around HNB expenditure.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that further information will be presented about proposed actions in response to the HNB budget pressures; c) Used the forecast budget overspend as context when considering further items on the agenda.
ii. Prevention and Early Help Update ESFA School Funding Operational Guidance indicates that it is still allowable to retain funding centrally for 'historic commitments' in 2018/19. A report was presented about the DSG contribution to Prevention and Early Help funding, which is classified as a historic commitment.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended that the Forum did not support the continued central retention of £150k for 2018/19 to provide Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance for Children Looked After; c) Requested further information about the outcomes from the £1m DSG contribution to Children and Family Wellbeing service commissioning arrangements, particularly in connection with domestic abuse provision before any final recommendations were met; d) Requested further information about proposals to use previous years underspends in this budget to develop a range of evidence based programmes and workforce skills that will improve the offer available to children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
iii. High Needs Block Commissioned Places 2018/19 The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations require that the Forum is consulted annually on the places to be commissioned by the local authority in different schools and other institutions, and on the arrangements for paying top-up funding. A report was presented providing some minor updates to initial information provided to the last meeting connected to tying up commissioned places with ESFA post 16 numbers and providing 2018/19 data as part of the ESFA place change notification process.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report, b) Noted the place numbers included in the High Needs Place Change Notification Process 2018/19; c) Noted the updated local commissioned place numbers for 2018/19; d) Requested a future report on the review of the special school school specific top-up funding arrangements.
6 iv. PRU Top-Up Funding Previous reports to the Working Group have kept members informed of concerns raised by the secondary PRU headteachers about the level of top up funding they receive. Officers have been holding separate meetings with PRU representatives from all sectors and various modelling has been undertaken. A copy of the proposed funding model for 2018/19 was provided.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that PRU headteachers supported to the proposals; c) Recommended that the proposed 2018/19 PRU funding model be implemented.
v. School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme This report set out the proposals for the 2018/19 Scheme changes for consideration, with particular reference to High Needs Block establishments.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the 2018/19 increased premiums for the support staff scheme, including the per pupil/per place and lump sum elements; c) Supported the place based charges for the 2018/19 teaching scheme remaining at the 2017/18 level; d) Supported the reimbursement rates for 2018/19 being subject to a 2% increase on the teaching scheme and 1% increase for the support staff scheme; e) Supported the scheme policy change relating to Teachers on long term sickness absence.
vi. Pupil Premium Plus 2018/19 Pupil Premium Grant + is allocated to each LA to support children in care of statutory school age. In line with the national transfer out of the National Funding Formula for 2018-19, PPG+ will rise to an allocated of £2,300 per CLA/CIC to the authority. The report presented options around how this increased funding would be treated.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Requested information on the allocations and outcomes relating to the use of PPG + High Needs funding for the previous 12 months, in order to allow the group to consider the value of the High Needs funding methodology. vii. Any Other Business
a) Reducing Primary Exclusions Model Lancashire CC in partnership with School Forum has trialled a new model of support and intervention to help meet needs of pupils on the edge of exclusion in West Lancashire. Information was provided about 2 possible proposals to trial a similar model that have now been received, both relating to the Chorley area.
The Forum: a) Noted the report; b) Felt unable to make a final recommendation on the information available; c) Requested additional information about the financial context and the affordability and sustainability of extending any model across the County.
7
b) Life Skills/Healthy Relationships Training The Forum had previously agreed a central items allocation towards Life Skills/Healthy Relationships. A further progress report was presented setting out the courses delivered in the financial year to date and proposals for the remainder of the year and to restructure the budget profile to allow continued course provision in 2018/19
The Working Group: a) Noted the reported; b) Noted the provision made to date in 2017/18 and planned for the remainder of the year; c) Supported the restructuring of the remaining budget to allocate circa £100k in both 2017/18 and 2018/19, to maximise the course provision that can be made for schools for healthy relationships training.
The Forum are asked to ratify the Working groups recommendations.
9. Recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group To consider the recommendations from the Early Years Block Working Group held on 5 December 2017.
i. Early Years Funding Benchmarking Tool 2017/18 In November 2017, the ESFA published an Early Years Funding Benchmarking Tool, based on the budget information from the Section 251 data provided by the local authorities. Members considered the tables and commented on Lancashire's position. The general comment to emerge was that the EY sector was underfunded by central government. It was also noted that Special Educational Needs Inclusion Fund (Additional Inclusion Support (AIS) in Lancashire) funding was at the lower end of the range in Lancashire.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report.
ii. Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) 2018/19 In November 2017, the ESFA published 'Early years entitlements: local authority funding of providers Operational guide 2018 to 2019'. This guidance document set out how local authorities’ initial allocations for the early years block 2018/19 will be calculated.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report.
iii. Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit The DfE issued a consultation entitled 'Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit'. The consultation sets out the Government's proposals on the eligibility criteria for FSM and EYPP following the introduction of Universal Credit.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that a draft Forum response would be circulated for approval.
8 iv. Pupil Eligibility for Early Years 2 Year Old Funding The interpretation of the Statutory Guidance for eligibility rules for 2 year old funding had been the subject of previous debate. Recently, the County Council had reconsidered its position locally and in recognition that LCC Key Priorities are to raise the attainment and achievement of our most vulnerable groups throughout the service it has been proposed to continue the more responsive interpretation to guidance and allow admissions for eligible 2 year old children throughout the year, rather than needing to await the following term. This decision still required confirmation from DfE that it was allowable and a formal response was promised by 8 December 2017.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Welcomed the LCC interpretation of the statutory guidance to allow admissions for eligible 2 year old children throughout the year, rather than needing to await the following term.
No written communication was received from the DfE within the timescale, so a decision was taken to proceed with the agreed Lancashire policy.
v. New Head of Early Years It was confirmed that Helen Belbin had recently been appointed as the new Head of Early Years. Helen's formal post was Senior Adviser (Early Years), which now provided an equivalent post with early years responsibility, dealing with children aged birth to five, to those that already existed in other phases.
The Working Group: a) Noted the information; b) Congratulated Helen on her appointment.
vi. Nursery Schools with Neighbourhood Centres Nursery school headteachers reported that further meetings had been held on the outstanding issues at schools with Neighbourhood Centres and that progress had been made. However, there were still some issues subject to ongoing discussions that required resolution.
The Working Group: a) Noted the information; b) Suggested that it might be helpful to invite a representative from the Children and Family Wellbeing Service to future meetings of the Working Group.
The Forum are asked to ratify the Working groups recommendations.
10. Recommendations from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group To consider the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 5 December 2017.
i. Current Fund Position Information was provided on the latest schools Apprenticeship Levy fund position.
The Working Group: a) Noted the latest school levy fund position; b) Recommended that the proposed communication steams be used to promote Levy take-up in the school sector.
9
ii. Financial Monitoring Sheet The Working Group were provided with information about how the Learning and Development Team were operating the financial monitoring of the schools levy fund, including committing expenditure from school enquiries.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Confirmed agreement to receive funding updates on the expenditure against the school fund; c) Supported the approach taken to committing school levy funding.
iii. Schools Portal Draft pages for uploading in the Schools Portal A-Z were shared with the Group.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Welcomed the addition of dedicated Apprenticeship Levy A-Z pages on the Schools Portal.
iv. New qualifications and the strategy going forward Information was provided on various higher level professional qualifications aimed at the schools, for example for business managers.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information about new qualifications ; b) Suggested that contact could be made with teaching schools in Lancashire to discuss possible development of teacher qualifications
v. Criteria to be considered when approving expressions of interest – the difficulties encountered Example expressions of interest from schools were shared with the group. It was noted that at the current time this was not an issue, as all requests could be approved from the resources available. It was agreed that the criteria could be re-visited if funding began to become tighter.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report.
vi. Regularity of the Chairs Group meetings/windows of opportunity It was agreed that the group should meet around the windows of opportunity and a meeting in mid- June was suggested, after the closure of the window of opportunity ahead of September 2017.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report. vii. AOB – MP correspondence Correspondence from the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys was shared with the Group. Officers would prepare a response, which would include confirmation about the statutory procurement requirements on the County Council, and that the chosen provider would provide training in each locality of Lancashire.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report.
10 The Forum are asked to ratify the Working groups recommendations.
11. Forum Correspondence To consider the Forum related correspondence since the last meeting.
12. Urgent Business To note the decision taken using the urgent business procedure.
13. Any Other Business
14. Date of Future Meetings To note that the next scheduled Forum meeting will be held at 10.00am Tuesday 20 March 2018 at County Hall, Preston.
A draft Schedule of Forum meetings for the 2018/19 academic year is provided for consideration.
11 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 3
Title: Forum Membership Appendices (if applicable) N/A
Executive Summary
This report summarises the changes to the membership of the Forum since the last meeting.
Forum Decision Required
The Forum is asked to:
a) Note the report; b) Welcome Sarah Bedwell, and Sharon Taylor to the Forum; c) Thank Cheryl Brindle, Grant Carruthers, Kathleen Cooper, Sam Ud din and Alan Whittaker for their contribution to the Forum.
12 Background This report provides information on Forum membership issues that have arisen since the last Forum meeting. Details are provided below.
Special School Governor Sharon Taylor, a governor at Hillside School, is the new special school governor representative on the Forum.
Primary School Governors A primary school governor vacancy already exists on the Forum, following the sad death of Ruth Pollock.
A further 2 vacancies has now arisen: Alan Whittaker has taken the decision to resign his school governships and resign from the Forum; Kathleen Cooper is no longer a primary school governor and cannot continue as a formal primary governor representative on the Forum.
The LA is in the process of appointing replacement primary school governors.
Kathleen has indicated that she will continue to attend the Forum and Working Groups as an observer.
Primary School Headteachers Primary School Headteacher Cheryl Brindle has resigned from the Forum, due to the pressure of other commitments.
The LA is in the process of seeking a replacement headteacher.
Academy Governor Grant Carruthers has resigned from the Forum due to other work pressures.
The Academy governors Group is arranging for a replacement to be nominated.
NUT Representative The NUT have confirmed that their formal Forum representative will be Sarah Bedwell, although Sam Ud din may still attend meetings if Sarah is unavailable.
13 Item 4 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT 9:30 A.M. ON TUESDAY 24 OCTOBER 2017 AT THE EXCHANGE, COUNTY HALL, PRESTON
Present: Schools Members: Primary School Governors Academy Governor Stephen Booth Louise Shaw Gerard Collins Simon Gillespie Academy Principal/Headteacher Eleanor Hick Alan Porteous Louise Martin Laurence Upton Alternative Provision Academy
Primary School Headteachers Special School Academy Tim Cross (Chair) Angela Johnstone Special School Governor Susanne Kime Steve Robinson Special School Headteacher Shaun Jukes Secondary School Governors Janice Astley Short Stay Governor David Swaffield Sandra Thornberry
Secondary School Headteachers Short Stay Headteacher Steve Campbell Mark Jackson Nursery School Headteacher Julie Langham Jan Marshall Nursery School Governor Mike Wright
Members: Early Years - PVI Peter Hindle
Other Voting Members CC Anne Cheetham CC David Foxcroft
Observers Observers - Members of the Public Elaine Brooks (UNISON) CC Sobia Malik Michael Clark (GMB) David Fann (NAHT) Julie Gordon (ATL sub for Rod Marsden) Eric Harrison (NASUWT) Liz Laverty (ASCL) Sam Ud-din (NUT)
14
In attendance: Paul Bonser For Item Andrew Good 6. Jill Cornwell; Service Delivery Manager Health, Safety and Quality; Health, Safety and Resilience Service accompanied Christine Hurford by Keelan McNally and Andrea Hamriding representatives of Optima Health and OH Assist. Kevin Smith 7. Lynn MacDonald, School Planning Manager. Heather Stevens 15. Pam Goulding, Vanessa Carthy, Bina Limbachia and Bee Kershaw from the Learning & Development Service. Sam Parker (observing) Robert Rimmer (observing) Neil Rogerson (observing) Neil Smith (observing) Megan Elliott (work experience)
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from: Felicity Ackroyd, Sharon Alexander, Kay Burke, Lesley Burrows, Ivan Catlow, CC Susie Charles, Kathleen Cooper, Thelma Cullen, John Davey, Patricia Eastham, Janet Hamid, Rod Marsden, Chris McConnachie, Robin Newton-Syms, Janice Reynolds, John Tarbox, Andy Squire, Lucy Sutton, CC Christian Wakeford, Ken Wales, Tim Warren, Alan Whittaker and Stephen Whittaker.
2. SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS Julie Gordon, Joint Lancashire Secretary, NEU – ATL Branch attended as substitute for Rod Marsden (ATL).
3. FORUM MEMBERSHIP A report was presented about the Forum membership changes since the last meeting.
Ruth Pollock, primary school governor Ruth Pollock, a governor representative from Roby Mill CE Primary School, Up Holland sadly passed away during the summer break. The Forum held a moment of silence in Ruth's memory. Her significant contribution to the Schools Forum and her local community was acknowledged.
New or returning members Members joining or returning to the Forum were:
Chris Shields, headteacher at Walton-le-Dale Primary School; Lucy Sutton, deputy headteacher at Brockholes Wood Primary School; Kathleen Cooper from SS Peter and Paul Catholic Primary School, Mawdesley; Louise Martin from St Anne's Catholic Primary School, Leyland; Langham, Business Manager at Ormskirk School.; Michael Clark is the regional officer for the GMB union for schools in Lancashire; County Councillor Susie Charles, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools; County Councillor Anne Cheetham; County Councillor David Foxcroft;
15 County Councillor Christian Wakeford; County Councillor Sobia Malik, Observer member.
Special School Governor The LA is seeking a new special school governor representative to fill the current vacancy.
Primary School Headteacher Representative Mike Holden, Primary School Headteacher Representative, sent an email tendering his resignation from the Forum. Mike was an original member of the Forum and his email thanks colleagues for the opportunity to work alongside them, expresses a view that Forum should be proud of its achievements and wishes everyone well for the future.
The LA will make arrangements to seek a replacement primary school headteacher.
Academy Voting Places The Schools Forum regulations specify that the proportion of primary, secondary and academy members must be proportionate to the pupil numbers in these schools and the places must be kept under review. Following recent academy conversions the academy representatives are entitled to a 6th voting place.
The Forum: a) Expressed condolences to Ruth Pollock's family and friends; b) Welcome (or welcome back) Chris Shields, Lucy Sutton, Kathleen Cooper Louise Martin, Julie Langham, Michael Clark CC Anne Cheetham, CC David Foxcroft, CC Christian Wakeford, CC Susie Charles and CC Sobia Malik to the Forum; c) Thanked Mike Holden for his contribution to the Forum.
4. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING The minutes of the last meeting held on 4 July 2017 were agreed as a correct record.
5. MATTERS ARISING There were no matters arising from the minutes of 4 July 2017 not covered elsewhere on the agenda.
6. SCHOOL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE Jill Cornwell; Service Delivery Manager Health, Safety and Quality; Health, Safety and Resilience Service; Keelan McNally, Service Delivery Manager, Optima Health and Andrea Hamriding, OH Assist attended for this item.
At the request of the Forum Chair, information on recent issues connected with the OH Assist service were provided.
Service representatives apologised for the breakdown in this service and set out actions that were being taken to rectify the situation. Whilst these proposed solutions were shared with Members, it was noted that final arrangements were still subject to confirmation. Detailed communications would be shared with schools once the new service arrangements were agreed.
16 Members commented on the service offer and the improvement proposals.
The Forum: a) Noted the report and the actions that were proposed to improve Occupational Health service for schools.
7. SCHOOL PLACE PROVISION STRATEGY 2017/18- 2019/20 Lynn MacDonald, School Planning Manager, attended for this item.
The Forum received a presentation providing an update on the School Place Provision Strategy for 2017/18 to 2019/20. This information set out the challenges being faced by the County Council in ensuring sufficiency of places so that the authority meets its statutory obligation to provide a school place for every child in Lancashire who wants one. The report set out proposed revisions to policy and delivery, which reflect the more challenging circumstances connected with the planning of school places.
A key message to emerge was that the County Council will always seek to arrive at a negotiated solution with governing bodies and the importance of schools keeping the LA informed about changes to their circumstances was highlighted, so that the strategy can be developed on the most up to date data.
The report also included information on: The involvement of the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC); Capital allocations, including Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) or Section 106 agreement developer contributions.
The Forum: a) Noted the report.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SCHOOLS BLOCK WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the Schools Block Working Group held on 10 October 2017. i. Procurement for the Supply of Water and Wastewater Services The County Council is to run a completion to procure supplier for water and wastewater retail services. The report set out the proposals for school and academy involvement in the process.
Members discussed the merits of the contract and some of the arrangements and timescales for schools and governing bodies to consider the options available.
On a related matter, it was noted that the Water Plus billing system seemed unable to process the Surface Water and Highway Drainage (SWHD) concessions for schools that were announced in previous correspondence from United Utilities.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Acknowledged the County Council's proposal for securing a water contract from April 2018 for 2 years with the option to extend for up to a further 2 years;
17 c) Acknowledged the process and timescales for schools and Academies to access or opt out of the corporate water contract; d) Expressed a view that schools would be likely to benefit by joining the Council contact; e) Requested that the deadline for schools to respond to the Authority be extended to 10 November 2017 (from 3 November) and that the schools need only email one contact rather than two (email to [email protected] ) f) Agreed that communications to schools be sent out straight after the Cabinet decision, without the need for recommendations to be ratified by full Forum, in order to maximise the time available for schools to consider their decisions.
Subsequent to the meeting the water arrangements have been agreed by the LCC cabinet and a portal posting has been issued to schools, incorporating the Forum's suggested amendments to the process.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations.
ii. Schools Rating Service – Update The Forum has previously agreed arrangements to support the Estates Team to undertake rating work for schools. A report was presented providing an update on the work carried out in the previous 12 months and setting out proposals for the coming years in response to changes in the 'appeal' procedure for the 2017 Rating List.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the proposals to continue the Schools Rating Service for 2017/18 onwards, including the increase annual contribution of £98,000, to be funded from the reimbursements achieved by the service in the first instance; c) Noted that the funding methodology and arrangements for this service will need to be kept under review in light of the hard Schools National Funding Formula rules that will apply from 2020/21.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations.
iii. Schools Block Funding 2018/19: Summer Term Announcements iv. Schools Block Funding 2018/19 Autumn Term Announcements Reports on Government school funding announcements from summer term and autumn term were considered as a single item.
Information was provided on the outcomes of the Governments national funding formula consultations and announcements relating to additional funding for the core schools budget. Initial analysis of the implications for Lancashire and the options going forward was also provided.
The announcement also confirmed that the Government intend to proceed with the introduction of the Schools National Funding Formula (SNFF) and had made an additional £1.3b available for schools core funding over the next two financial years
In the Schools Block, this additional core funding combined with the SNFF methodology should: Increase the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018/19 and 2019/20;
18 Allow for gains of up to 3% per pupil for 'underfunded' schools for the next two years; Provide at least a 0.5% a year per pupil cash increase for every school in 2018/19 and 2019/20.
Disapplications The 2018/19 budget setting process again requires the LA to submit a proforma to the ESFA requesting any disapplications of the School Funding regulations. The Group considered possible disapplication requests to the ESFA:
The LA will need to submit a disapplication proforma for 2018/19 requesting to disapply 'one-off' funding that was included in the 2017/18 Schools Budget: To disapply differences between the local formula and MFG rules and rate set by the Forum and those used to calculate the illustrative NFF allocations.
Initial Formula Consultation with Schools In order to provide an initial view from schools to help shape Forum recommendations, an initial principles consultation has been issued about formula options to apply in 2018/19. This consultation sought views around whether, in principle, the 2018/19 funding formula should:
Passport SNFF allocations calculated by the ESFA using the national formula factors and rates; Continue to use the current Lancashire formula, uplifting funding rates if headroom is available; Use the Lancashire formula, but with factors/rates revised to move part way to the proposed national formula.
Members gave careful consideration to the Government announcements and the implications for Lancashire. Some members felt that there were considerable benefits from passporting NFF allocations to Lancashire establishments in 2018/19 and were concerned that ESFA operational guidance to LAs and the Authority Proforma Tool (APT) that LAs are required to submit with their school funding proposals make the passporting of NFF calculations problematic or difficult to achieve.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the proposed disapplication submissions to the ESFA; c) Noted that a supplementary consultation would be held with schools later in the autumn term, when more detailed modelling and impact analysis had been undertaken at an individual school level; d) Expressed any initial view that passporting NFF allocations in 2018/19 may be the preferred option and requested that the Forum write to the Secretary of State to urge that passporting NFF allocations was an achievable option locally.
It was confirmed that the Forum Chair had written to the ESFA as requested by the Working Group.
At the meeting, the responses from the budget principles consultation were shared with the Forum, as follows
19 Question 1: Do you have a view about the preferred principle to apply to the Lancashire formula arrangements from April 2018? Option 1 Option 2 Total Option 3 Passport Lancashire Not sure Responses Hybrid SNFF formula All Schools 83 22 23 28 10 26% 28% 34% 12%
Updated modelling and impact assessment of possible options for 2018/19 was also provided.
It was noted that as there was no clear steer from the initial consultation, individual modelling of all three options would be provided to schools, together with the 2017/18 budgets issued to schools in February 2017, to act as a baseline.
Modelling for options 1 and 2 showed that all schools gained due to the additional funding in the system. However, a comparison of these two options showed that if option 2 were chosen there was the potential for significant turbulence in future years when a hard NFF was introduced.
Members again gave careful consideration to the further modelling and information on the options available.
The Forum a) Noted the report, the Working Group recommendations and the further modelling; b) Supported the proposed disapplication submissions to the ESFA; c) Noted that a supplementary consultation would be held with schools providing modelling and impact analysis at an individual school level on the 3 possible options; d) Expressed a view that passporting NFF allocations in 2018/19 may be the preferred option as this would increase stability and predictability and minimise the risk of school level turbulence in future years.
v. Service De-delegations 2018/19 The 2018/19 arrangements continue to allow service de-delegations, subject to consultation with schools and with Schools Forum approval. A consultation document was therefore issued to schools, on 12 September 2017, setting out the LA's service de- delegation proposals for 2018/19. A copy of the consultation documentation was provided
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that final consultation outcomes will be reported to the Forum on 24 October; c) Noted that the Forum would be asked to make a decisions about the Service De- delegations from April 2018.
A presentation of the final school de-delegation consultation responses was provided at the Forum. The responses are shown below:
20 Question 2: Do you support the de-delegation of Public Duties/Suspensions in 2018/19?
Total Responses Yes No Not sure
Primary 60 38 10 12 63% 17% 20% Secondary 21 18 2 1 86% 9% 5%
Question 3: Do you support the de-delegation of the Museums Service in 2018/19? (Primary schools only)
Total Responses Yes No Not sure
Primary 60 40 14 6 67% 23% 10%
Question 4: Do you support the de-delegation of Support for Schools in Financial Difficulty in 2018/19?
Total Responses Yes No Not sure
Primary 60 42 10 8 70% 17% 13% Secondary 21 15 2 4 71% 10% 19%
Responses to the initial views about whether the LA should explore options that look to maintain the current de-delegation type services from April 2020:
Question 5: Should the LA should explore options that look to maintain the current de-delegation type services from April 2020? Total Yes No Not sure Responses Primary 60 51 4 5 85% 7% 8% Secondary (all responses) 25 13 3 9 52% 12% 36%
The Forum noted the report and the responses received from schools on possible de-delegation options.
Primary school members voted on each of the possible de-delegations affecting primary schools and secondary school members voted on each of the possible de- delegations affecting secondary schools, as set out below. (The number of votes cast for de-delegation purposes in the primary phase is one fewer than the number
21 of primary school representatives recorded as present on the attendance list, as one members had to leave the meeting before this agenda item):
a. Primary school members voted to de-delegate Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions for primary schools in 2018/19:
9 Votes for de-delegation 0 Votes against de-delegation 0 Abstentions b. Secondary school members voted to de-delegate Staff costs – Public Duties/Suspensions for secondary schools in 2018/19:
7 Votes for de-delegation 0 Votes against de-delegation 0 Abstentions c. Primary school members voted to de-delegate the Museum Service for primary schools in 2018/19:
9 Votes for de-delegation 0 Votes against de-delegation 0Abstentions d. Primary school members voted to de-delegate Schools In Financial Difficulty for primary schools in 2018/19:
9 Votes for de-delegation 0 Votes against de-delegation 0 Abstentions e. Secondary school members voted to de-delegate Schools In Financial Difficulty for secondary schools in 2018/19:
7 Votes for de-delegation 0 Votes against de-delegation 0 Abstentions vi. Schools Heading Towards Financial Difficulty and 3 Year Budget Forecasts This report provided an update on the seminar arranged for secondary schools heading towards financial difficulty. Proposals to require some schools to provide 3 Year Budget Forecasts were also discussed.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the arrangements for schools heading towards a financial deficit, including proposals requiring schools heading towards a financial deficit to submit 3 year budget forecasts.
Subsequent to the Working Group, evaluation forms from the 10 October seminar have been received and analysed. Feedback was very positive, with a number of responses praising the case studies provided by headteachers and the finance and HR inputs.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations.
22 vii. Schools Management Information System Software A report was presented about the implications for schools and the authority when schools have purchased, or are considering, new financial software to replace Finance6.
The report noted that the Scheme for Financing Schools specifies that whatever system schools choose, they must be able to provide the County Council with their accounts in the required format, or meet the costs of modification.
The views of the Group were sought about whether the Forum would be willing to meet the higher costs of establishing the relevant transfer systems for a 'new' supplier.
Members considered the report and discussed the issues involved and concluded that to support schools costs arising from individual decisions they had taken would set a dangerous precedent. The Working Group felt that schools needed to consider the cost implications alongside any advantages or savings they believed would accrue from changing their system.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended that no costs should be met centrally arising from the implications of individual schools changing Management Information System Software supplier.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations. viii. Lancashire SEND Graduated Response ix. SEND Sufficiency and Suitability Survey
These reports were covered under the High Needs Block report
x. Charging for Admissions Appeals It was noted that the original report due for presentation was not now available, as the County Council had not come to a final decision about future options and funding for this service. In addition, correspondence had just been received providing some comments and observations connected to the previous report to the Working Group.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that future reports would update the Forum on proposals for this service.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations
9. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HIGH NEEDS BLOCK WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 28 September 2018.
i. High Needs Funding 2018/19 – Summer 2017 Announcements ii. High Needs Funding 2018/19 – Autumn Term 2017 Announcements
23 Reports on Government school funding announcements from summer term and autumn term were considered as a single item.
Information was provided on the outcomes of the Governments high needs funding formula consultations and announcements relating to additional funding for the core schools budget. Initial analysis of the implications for Lancashire and the options going forward was also provided.
The provisional DfE figure for the 2018/19 allocation is subject to the High Needs Block funding cap and equates to £110,125,166. This figure is a 2.9% increase over the 2017/18 baseline. The illustrative allocation for 2019/20 is £113,105,299, which is a 5.7% increase over the 2017/18 baseline.
As indicated previously, the 2017/18 Schools Budget faced a core budget shortfall of approximately £3.5m, much of which was attributable to the High Needs Block in Lancashire's Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).
2017/18 budget monitoring suggests that the High Needs overspend is approx. £5m and rising (see Period 6 monitoring report)
The Working Group a) Noted the report; b) Welcomed the likely increase in High Needs Block funding from April 2018, but also noted the cost pressures being faced; c) Noted that further reports would be presented in due course about part of the budget setting process.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations. iii. High Needs Block Commissioned Places 2018/19 The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations require that the Forum is consulted annually on the places to be commissioned by the local authority in different schools and other institutions. A report was presented providing some initial information on the 2018/19 places to be commissioned by Lancashire, including
Maintained Special Schools Provision; Maintained Post 16 School Provision; Maintained Mainstream Provision – SERF Units Pupil Referral Units/Alternative Provision.
It was noted that there was considerable pressure on the number of places in Lancashire and that the commissioned place numbers had been discussed with schools.
Where places at primary PRUs were described as 'other' it was confirmed that these were the additional places previously agreed in earlier reports to the Forum. These places were identified to ensure the LA meets its statutory duties, particularly in the east of the County. Further reports providing details of the additional places as they are commissioned, including impact evaluation information would be presented in due course.
Further consideration may be needed around the SERF unit commissioned places in the light of the revised ESFA guidance on the funding of special units and resourced provision.
24 The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Thanked schools for responding to the pressures on commissioned place requirements; c) Noted that further updates will be provided about commissioned places before the 2018/19 Schools Budget is finalised, particularly in connection with SERF units and the finalisation of 'Other' primary PRU provision.
Subsequent to the meeting, the ESFA has published the High Needs place change notification process for 2018 to 2019. The LA has begun to coordinate the return. Further information will be presented to the Forum in due course.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations and emphasised the need to review the commissioned place numbers in SERF units,
iv. Lancashire SEND Graduated Response This report provided information on the SEND graduated response.
Where a child or young person is identified as having SEN, educational providers should take action to remove barriers to learning and put effective special educational provision in place. This SEN support should take the form of a four-part cycle through which earlier decisions and actions are revisited, refined and revised with a growing understanding of the pupil’s needs and of what supports the pupil in making good progress and securing good outcomes. This is known as the graduated approach.
Working in collaboration with young people with SEND, parents and carers and professionals from Health, Social Care and Education, the SEND Service have started to develop the details of this graduated approach in Lancashire and what a child or young person with SEND can expect at each of the different levels.
Information about the Lancashire Graduated SEND response was shared with the group in the form of a chart. It was confirmed that the approach hoped to provide earlier intervention and maximise the use of available resources.
This work will continue through the Collaborative Workshop process and through the termly briefings that the SEND Service will be delivering to early year's providers, schools and colleges.
The Working Group noted the report.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations.
v. SEND Sufficiency and Suitability Survey Lancashire County Council has been given a fund by the DfE to carry out a S.31 strategic review of our SEND high needs provision. This report provided information.
Following the allocation of the S.31 Grant DfE announced further funding via a SEND Special Provision Capital Fund.
25 LCC SEND Service must develop plans in consultation with parents, carers and providers on how Lancashire could best spend the money. The DfE then require LCC to complete a return. The SEND Service are proposing to recruit a temporary small project focussed team to enable the 'SEND Sufficiency and Suitability Plan' product to be designed and produced by March 2018 in line with DfE requirements. This will be achieved through the surveying of Lancashire's special schools and SERF units, the analysis of school improvement data, and analysis of SEND local, regional and national trends, Lancashire Insights, and local data management systems.
Members considered the report and discussed related questions around the strategy for the Education Psychology Service and the respective costs of maintained provision set against 'out-county' placements.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that future reports would update the Forum on the progress of the review.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations. vi. SEND Early Intervention/Early Assessment An Any Other Business item was raised in connection with pressures on nursery schools and primary schools related to the support needed for pupils with SEND.
A number of issues were raised, including: financial and time pressures in providing support and education to children with complex needs, particularly in the nursery sector; number of children arriving in primary without transition plans; Increase in the number of children in primary schools needing support with things like toileting.
The Head of Service for SEND agreed to write to all nursery and primary headteachers in Lancashire to seek County wide information on the current Early Intervention/Early Assessment needs and issues, which could help inform further considerations.
The Working Group: a) Noted the issues raised; b) Welcomed the intention to obtain information from all nursery and primary schools.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations and requested that any communication to gather information about should be circulated to Early Years PVI settings.
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE EARLY YEARS BLOCK WORKING GROUP The Early Years Working Group did not hold a meeting during the early autumn term cycle of meetings, so there is no report under this item.
11. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN'S WORKING GROUP A report was presented setting out the recommendations from the Chairman's Working Group held on 24 October 2017.
26 The Working Group had considered a bid for support from a Lancashire secondary school from the Schools in Financial Difficulty (SIFD) Fund to assist its return to a surplus budget position in the statutory 3 year period.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported a bid for £100k for a Lancashire secondary school.
The Forum ratified the Working Group's recommendations.
12. SCHOOLS BUDGET 2017/18 PERIOD 6 MONITORING REPORT A report was presented setting out the half year monitoring position for the Schools Budget in 2017/18.
The monitoring is forecasting a year end underspend of circa £5m against the 2017/18 central items budget and some of the key variances were highlighted.
It was noted that forecast spending on the delegated Schools Budget shows a likely overspend, which is particularly attributable to the High Needs Block. Considerable pressures, due to increased numbers of eligible pupils and their higher levels of need, means that High Needs block termly redeterminations to schools, together with likely reductions in DSG income, mean that a forecast overspend of over £5m is anticipated by year-end. Finance and SEND colleagues are due to meet to consider this overspend position.
The Forum: a) Noted the report and the forecast monitoring position; b) Noted the one of the identified underspends in the central items budget related to SEND Teachers & Support (underspend of £0.864); c) Requested that officers consider the reasons for this underspend and any options to fully utilise the budget in order to support schools.
13. NURSERY SCHOOLS WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES A verbal update was provided about a recent meeting held to consider unresolved issues at Nursery Schools with Neighbourhood Centres.
A number of actions had been agreed to help resolve the situation and a deadline for the end of November 2017 had been agreed.
It was noted that agreements had been reached to hold regular face-to-face meetings going forward to continue with the positive dialogue.
The Forum noted the report and asked to be kept informed of developments.
14. FORUM CORRESPONDENCE The Forum related correspondence received since the last meeting.
a) Forum letter to MPs about the Funding Crisis Facing Lancashire Schools The Forum Chair sent a letter to all Lancashire MPs, highlighting the Forum's concerns about the funding crisis facing schools in the County.
27
Responses have been received from 3 Lancashire MPs, Cat Smith, MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood; Nigel Evans, MP for the Ribble Valley and Lindsay Hoyle, MP for Chorley.
Responses were awaited from other Lancashire MPs.
The Forum: a) Welcomed the responses from the three MPs; b) County Council members of the Forum suggested that the correspondence be shared with them so that they could investigate if any political influence could be used to elicit responses from other Lancashire MPs. b) Living wage for school employees Email correspondence had been received from the Governors of a Lancashire nursery school, dated 19 September 2017, in connection with the Living Wage. The governors originally chose to adopt the Living Wage but have had to reverse this decision due to "recent budget cuts", indicating they have had no choice to be able to afford to employ our current staff". The correspondence asks that this situation is report to the Forum.
Members were sympathetic to the cost pressures facing all schools in Lancashire and noted that representations requesting further funding for schools had been through national consultation responses and the Forum continued to raise the concerns of schools, for example in making representations to Lancashire MPs.
The Forum: a) Noted the correspondence; b) Were sympathetic to the issues raised by the school and acknowledged that the Forum should continue to raise the concerns of Lancashire schools about the costs pressures being faced. c) School Place Planning A Forum letter was sent to Government to highlight the disconnect at national level between the pressure put on local councils to approve additional house building and other government departments responsible for funding related costs.
A response, dated 25 September 2017, has been received from Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the School System. The correspondence recognised the need to maximise developer contributions to assist in the provision of school places generated by housing development and sets out what the Government have been doing in response to the issues.
The County Council remains concerned that there are issues with the Government's proposals particularly for 2 tier authorities. LCC will respond to the Government consultation referred to in the response, to highlight these concerns.
The Forum: a) Noted the correspondence; b) Noted that LCC would respond to Government consultations on the Community Infrastructure Levy.
28 d) Unavoidable Closure and Loss of Income Correspondence has been received from a nursery school dated 30 August 2017. During the Summer Term 2017 a number of children who attended the school contracted EColi. The source of the infection was not linked to the nursery but the school had to close for 2 days and exclude some children for upto 4 weeks. This had a financial impact on the school due to cost of deep cleaning that was required and loss off income from before and after school provision.
The letter asked that the Forum consider: Making a contingency allocation to the school in recognition of the impact the unavoidable events have had on our fragile budget. Providing insurance for schools to reduce the impact of similar situations in the future.
It was noted that the early years national funding formula (EYNFF) sets out a framework for the allocation of EY Block DSG. Part of this framework specifies the percentage of EY DSG that must be passported to providers and also sets out the factors that can be used in the formula. Lancashire has taken the decision to maximise the DSG funding delegated to providers, which is over 99%. There is no provision in the EYNFF for contingency funding to be held centrally.
In addition, the LA has made enquiries about the possible extension of the LCC insurance cover to protect against such loses. Advice from the insurance brokers was that the cost of provision was unlikely to be cost effective across the insurance portfolio.
However, the nursery school sector have agreed a joint buy-back arrangement in 2017/18 for schools in financial difficulty. If the nursery school fell into financial difficulty due to this occurrence, the SIFD support arrangements could be applied.
The Forum: a) Noted the correspondence; b) Were sympathetic to the issues raised by the school; c) Requested that officers investigate if SIFD support was available to assist the school's budget situation.
e) Letter to United Utilities (UU) Announcements from UU indicating that they have agreed to make some concessions to the Surface Water and Highway Drainage (SWHD) for schools were reported in the last cycle of meetings. Members were concerned that the eligibility criteria for the concessions appeared to exclude nursery schools, so the Forum Chair wrote to UU requesting the inclusion of nursery schools in any concessions scheme.
To date, no response has been received.
On a related matter, discussions at the Schools Block Working Group noted that the Water Plus billing system seemed unable to process the SWHD concessions for schools.
The Forum: a) Noted that no response to the earlier letter had been received; b) Noted the issues raised by the operation of the billing system to process concessions;
29 c) Recommended that a reminder letter be sent to UU, which could also raise the billing system issue.
15. APPRENTICESHIP LEVY – PRINCIPLES CONSULTATION Pam Goulding, Vanessa Carthy, Bina Limbachia and Bee Kershaw from the Learning & Development Service attended for this item
Previous report to the Forum have provided information on the introduction of the Government's Apprenticeship Levy from April 2017, and the different responsibilities and implications for separate categories of school.
Following discussions with the Forum Chair, a Principles document, to outline how LCC Learning and Development could support levy and non-levy paying schools was circulated to schools for consultation. A copy of the consultation document was provided with the report.
A statistical analysis of the consultation responses received and an extract of the written consultation comments were provided for the Forum.
After the consultation closing date, the Learning and Development Service and officers from the schools finance service have again met with the Forum Chair to consider the responses and a commentary on the consultation outcomes was provided. This included issues where amendments to the original principles were proposed, in light of the replies received.
Members considered the revised proposals and the how the support for schools would operate and be communicated.
It was noted that further work was being undertaken to assist in communication and information with schools, including: Developing the A-Z area of the schools portal to contain an Apprentice area where schools, at any time can be guided through FAQ's, recruitment, what the levy can be used for, what it funds, training provider information etc. Hold Breakfast and Twilight meetings to update on the Levy – meet schools who have a particular interest or concern, meet the training provider.
The Forum: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the consultation responses and comments; c) Agreed the revised principles to underpin the operation of the Apprenticeship Levy support for schools in Lancashire, as set out below: Supported allocating the Levy funds holistically across all LCC Levy paying schools (i.e. those who are part of the LCC payroll bill), regardless of contribution at any one time; Supported the revised windows of opportunity, which outline the timescales for expressions of interest from schools to recruit or progress an apprentice, as below:
30 Windows of Opportunity timeline Term Window of Applicati Governance Schools Apprentice opportunity ons Meeting informed ship (submit EOI) review date (recruitm training date (L&D + ent starts (L&D) Chairs commenc Panel es) representati ves) 1 April-May End of Early June June/July September May 2 June/ early August Late Septemb January July August/early er September 3 September/ Novemb November Decembe April October er r
Supported the use of the Schools Forum Chair's Group to consider expressions of interest made within the windows of opportunity; Supported the use of the published criteria to assess expressions of interest and levy funding allocations, subject to detailed consideration of the criteria at a meeting of the Schools Forum Chair's Group; Supported the LCC Learning & Development Service undertaking the responsibilities of the Levy to ensure compliance requirements. Supported non-levy paying schools being able to access LCC support, which will include an administrative charge.
16. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
a) Student Support Funding – Post 16 Maintained Special Schools The ESFA have changed the allocation methodology for Student Support Funding in Maintained Special Schools with Post 16 provision (previously known as Post 16 Bursary Funds). The allocation is now at LA level, whereas the ESFA had previously provided allocations on a school by school basis.
It was proposed that a local distribution methodology be agreed between officers and the special schools involved.
The Forum: a) Noted the report; b) Agreed that a local distribution methodology for Student Support Funding in Maintained Special Schools with Post 16 provision be agreed between officers and the special schools involved.
b) School Insurance Members were alerted that the traded service on school insurance would be increasing charges for 2018/19 by 3.9% in line with forecast RPI inflation estimates.
The Forum: a) Noted the report.
31
17. DATE OF FUTURE MEETINGS The next Forum meeting will be held at 9.30 am Tuesday 16 January 2018 at County Hall in Preston.
Members consider whether to continue to meet at County Hall for future cycles of meetings. It was noted that the Forum are not currently being charged room hire costs for the use of the venue. A proposal was considered to use the room hire savings towards the costs associated with running any further schools in financial difficulty seminars.
The Forum: a) Noted the information provided; b) Agreed to continue to use County Hall for future meetings; c) Proposed to start morning meetings at 10 am for the next cycle of meetings, with future consideration of alternatives such as afternoons if necessary; d) Supported the use of savings from the room hire costs being used towards future schools in financial difficulty seminars.
32 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 6 a
Title: Schools Budget 2018/19
Appendices (if applicable) Appendices A and B refer
Executive Summary
This report has been prepared following receipt of pupil data and Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocation information from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). The report sets out the budget proposals for 2018/19 across the four funding blocks.
A meeting of the Forum Chairman's Group, will take place on 11 January 2018. Recommendations arising from this meeting around finalising the Schools Budget 2018/19 will be presented to the Forum on 16 January 2018.
Following consideration of the final Schools Budget proposals by the Forum and the Lancashire County Council, the Authority is required to submit a final Schools Block budget proforma for 2018/19 to the ESFA by 19 January 2018.
This report also provides information on the High Needs, Early Years and Central School Services Blocks for 2018/19, and seeks the formal approval for the budget lines requiring Forum agreement.
Recommendations
The Forum is asked to:
a) Note the report, including the 2018/19 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations and the budget proposals for each of the 4 funding block; b) Note the recommendations from the Forum Chairman's Group meeting on 11 January 2018; c) Support the Schools Budget proposals for 2018/19 for the Schools Block, High Needs Block, Early Years and Central School Services Blocks; d) Support the Dedicated Schools Grant Reserve underwriting the uncertainties around the Schools Budget 2018/19; e) Support the comprehensive review of HNB expenditure to be undertaken; f) Consider the school responses to the consultation on proposals to transfer circa £0.7m from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block; g) Formally approve the budget lines requiring Forum agreement (as set out at Appendix B). h) Express any views to be brought to the attention of the Cabinet when setting the 2018/19 Schools Budget.
33 Background Recent reports to the Forum and Working Groups have set out the Government's announcements about school funding for 2018/19.
As members will be aware, the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations for 2018/19 comprise four blocks, each determined by a separate national funding formula: o Schools Block; o High Needs Block; o Early Years Block, (funding for early years has been allocated through a national funding formula since April 2017); o New Central School Services Block.
Further details on each of the funding blocks are provided below, together with the preparatory consultations and modelling work undertaken in Lancashire.
Schools Block The Schools Block funds mainstream primary and secondary schools and academies.
Lancashire's Schools Block funding for 2018/19 will be derived on the basis of illustrative individual Schools National Funding Formula (SNFF) allocations calculated by the Government. However, under the 'soft' formula arrangements, the actual allocations to each Lancashire school and academy from April 2018 will be allocated via a locally agreed funding formula.
In order to shape the local formula proposals for 2018/19, a consultation was issued to Lancashire schools and academies in November 2017. This consultation sought views on three possible formula options for 2018/19 and provided individual modelling data for each school and academy, to illustrate the local impact of each option. An initial consultation, earlier in the autumn term 2017 had sought views on the principles to be used in the Lancashire funding formula, before modelling data was released by the Government. Responses from this first consultation were evenly split across the available options and so individual school modelling was progressed for all 3 options.
The options modelled were:
1. Passport Schools National Funding Formula (SNFF) allocations calculated by the ESFA using the national formula factors and rates; 2. Continue to use the current Lancashire formula, uplifting funding rates if headroom is available; 3. Use the Lancashire formula, but with factors/rates revised to move part way to the proposed national formula (a hybrid model).
Model Comparison All schools and academies gain funding in 2018/19 whichever option is agreed, due to the targeting of the additional £1.3billion nationally into core school budgets. This is in contrast to the original NFF proposals, without the additional funding, when circa 67% of Lancashire schools lost funding in 2018/19.
34 The table below provides a comparison of the 3 options modelled across Lancashire for 2018/19:
Model Comparison Option No of schools gaining most Option 1 Passporting 237 Option 2 LCC Formula 126 Option 3 Hybrid 175 Equal 28 Equal refers to schools and academies where the best outcome is equal in Option 2 and Option 3.
School Consultation Responses The closing date for the consultation was 5 December 2017. An analysis of the school/academy responses to the consultation and accompanying comments, was presented to the Schools Block Working Group on 5 December 2017. The Schools Block summary report provides further details, but in summary:
Question 1 sought views on matching a Government decision to transfer funding for Looked After Children (LAC) from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) to Pupil Premium Grant (PPG) funding. This proposal received support from 74% of respondents.
Question 2 asked about the funding formula to be operated in 2018/19. Option 1 to passport Schools National Funding Formula (SNFF) allocations received the greatest support and was favoured by 47% of respondents, compared to 27% and 26% for options 2 and 3 respectively.
The Working Group therefore recommended that the Schools Block proposals to be presented to the Forum should omit Looked After Children (LAC) funding and should be modelled on passporting Schools National Funding Formula (SNFF) allocations to Lancashire schools and academies.
Details of the financial implications on the 2018/19 DSG are provided in Appendix A
High Needs Block The High Needs Block funds: Special Schools budgets; Alternative Provision budgets (mainly Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)); Special Education Resource Provision(SERF) Units in mainstream schools; Individually Assigned Resources for High Needs pupils across all educational establishments; Certain Special Education Needs Central Schools Services.
For the first time from April 2018, the High Needs Block funding will be allocated from the Government to local authorities on the basis of a national funding formula.
35 The key elements of the national funding formula for high needs are: To recognise historic spending patterns through a lump sum equal to 50% of each local authority’s current spending on high needs To provide a flat rate of £4,000 per annum for each pupil in special schools or student in special post-16 institutions, ensuring local authorities receive a broadly equivalent basic level of funding for pupils with high needs in both mainstream schools and outside the mainstream sector. To channel the remainder of the funding through a number of proxy factors according to the following weightings o 2-18 population 50%; o deprivation 20%; o low attainment 15%, o health and disability 15%.
The Local Authority's funding formulae still apply to distribute High Needs funding to Lancashire providers, although some national changes to the funding of SERF units are being prescribed from April 2018.
From April 2018, there will no longer be a deduction to schools block pupil numbers for SERF units as happened previously. Instead, the school’s budget share (or the equivalent academy funding) will be determined on the basis of the total number of pupils on the roll of the school, including those in the SERF unit. The balance of funding for this kind of special provision will come from the place funding decided in accordance with the local authority’s commissioning decisions, and the top-up funding for individual pupils. The place funding will be £6,000 per place where the place is occupied by pupils in years reception to 11 on the roll of the school at the time of the October school census return. Places not filled by such pupils will still be funded at £10,000.
One local formula review in the High Needs Block related to allocations for Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). Following concerns raised by the PRU sector that top up rates did not provide sufficient funding to meet the costs of provision, a review of the Lancashire formula for funding PRUs has been undertaken, in conjunction with the PRU headteachers and the High Needs Block Working Group. Further details are provided in the HNB summary report.
The Working Group noted that nationally prescribed changes for SERF units are being implemented and recommended that the revised PRU funding model be implemented in 2018/19.
A commitment has also been provided to special school headteachers that a review of certain elements of the special school funding formula will be conducted going forward.
Details of the financial implications on the 2018/19 DSG are provided in Appendix A. It should be noted that this reveals that there are considerable demand led cost pressures facing this funding block.
36 Early Years Block Early Years Block funding is utilised for:
funding for the universal 15 hours entitlement for three and four year olds; funding for the additional 15 hours entitlement for three and four year old children of eligible working parents; funding for the 15 hours entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds; funding for the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP); funding for the Disability Access Fund (DAF); supplementary funding for Maintained Nursery Schools (MNS).
The government brought in new Early Years funding from April 2017, with an Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF). This arrangement introduced a formulaic mechanism for distributing early years funding from National Government to each local authority and set a framework that must be used to distribute funding to all types of early education provider, including nursery schools; nursery classes in maintained primary schools; Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) providers and Childminders. The EYNFF introduced a requirement to have a Universal Base Rate for all providers and set out the type and level of supplements that are available. Full implementation of the new EYNFF arrangements must be achieved by 2019/20.
Following discussions with the Schools Forum, a consultation was issued with all Early Years providers to seek views on proposals for 2018/19, in the transition to full EYNFF implementation from April 2019.
After the consultation closing date in June 2017, an analysis of the provider responses to the consultation and accompanying comments was undertaken. These responses were reported to Schools Forum in July 2017, and the following recommendations emerged to steer the 2018/19 Early Years funding arrangements:
Transitional funding will be available in 2018/19 for childminders and nursery classes at primary schools and academies as we move towards a Universal Base Rate from 2019/20. Illustrative rates, subject to final DSG allocations for 2018/19 are shown below:
Provider Type Funding Rate Transitional Base Rate Protection PVI Providers £4.08 per hour - £4.08 per hour Nursery classes £4.08 per hour £0.18 £4.26 per hour Child minders £4.08 per hour £0.41 £4.49 per hour Maintained £4.08 per hour supplementary ring- £4.08 per hour Nursery Schools fenced maintained nursery schools grant
The existing funding level and methodology for the mandatory deprivation supplement will continue in 2018/19; The existing Rurality Supplement will be discontinued, hence transitional funding will only be given to existing settings already in receipt of this funding. Settings currently receiving the Rurality Supplement will receive transitional
37 funding for one year at half the existing rates, which will be included in the formula for 2018/19; None of the other allowable supplements will be included in the Lancashire EYNFF in 2018/19, to maximise the funding that is available to support Base Rates; SEN Inclusion Funding (known as Additional Inclusion Support in Lancashire) will remain at current levels in 2018/19; Two year old funding statements will combine the two existing elements (base rate and targeted support) into a single rate from 2018/19. This will not reduce the level of overall funding.
Additional funding for Maintained Nursery Schools In addition, Lancashire will continue to receive supplementary funding in 2018/19 for maintained nursery schools (MNS). This funding is provided in order to enable local authorities to protect their 2016/17 funding rates for MNS. Separate discussions with nursery schools headteachers have taken place to determine the local methodology for distributing this funding in 2018/19. The outcome of these discussions was to allocate the additional maintained nursery school funding via a MNS supplementary hourly rate for the universal 15 hours entitlement for three and four year olds.
Details of the financial implications on the 2018/19 DSG are provided in Appendix A.
New Central School Services Block (CSSB) This Block is being introduced for the first time in 2018/19 and is to fund central functions that LA's carry out on behalf of pupils in state-funded maintained schools and academies in England.
The CSSB is split into funding for historic commitments and funding for ongoing responsibilities.
The historic commitments element of the Block funds certain ongoing obligations funded from the DSG. The level of historic commitments funding for 2018/19 will be allocated on 2017/18 baseline information based on the actual cost of the commitment. The ESFA have indicated that they expect that historic commitments will reduce overtime and it is unlikely that this element of funding will be available when a 'hard' national funding formula is introduced.
The ongoing responsibilities element of funding is calculated by the ESFA on a formulaic methodology based on pupil numbers and deprivation, plus an area cost adjustment. This funding effectively replaces the previous Education Services Grant (ESG) allocations, but the levels of funding have reduced considerably over recent years.
Details of the financial implications on the 2018/19 DSG are provided in Appendix A.
Following initial discussions at the High Needs Block Working Group further information has been requested in connection with historic commitment funding for 2018/19 around the Early Support budget and a separate presentation will be offered to the Forum on 16 January 2018, to provide further information and help steer final decisions.
38 Appendix A
This Appendix to the Schools Budget 2018/19 report has been prepared following receipt of pupil data and Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocation information from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) and presents the estimated budget for 2018/19.
Summary On 15 December 2017, the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) provided the final Schools Block data based on the October 2017 School Census to be used in the calculation of the Schools Budget for 2018/19.
On 19 December 2017, the ESFA issued the 2018/19 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations for Lancashire.
DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) ALLOCATIONS 2018/19
The ESFA sub-divide the DSG into 4 funding blocks: the Schools Block, High Needs Block, Early Years Block and the new Central Schools Services Block (CSSB). These Blocks are all calculated on a formulaic basis for the first time for 2018/19.
Information on the 2018/19 DSG allocations is provided below:
Schools Block allocation (£727.855m) The Schools Block allocations for 2018/19 are derived on the basis of illustrative individual Schools National Funding Formula (SNFF) allocations calculated by the Government. These calculations translate into primary and secondary units of funding for 2018/19. These units of funding are multiplied by the number of primary and secondary pupils from the October 2017 census and have a LA level allocation for growth, premises and mobility factors added to provide a final Schools Block allocation.
The 2018/19 Schools Block calculations for Lancashire are provided below:
2018-19 2018-19 2018-19 2018-19 schools 2018-19 funding schools schools schools block through the growth, block block block secondary premises and mobility primary unit primary secondary unit of factors of funding pupils pupils funding (£millions) (£s) (headcount) (headcount) (£s) 4,027.27 5,049.49 97,634 62,922 16.933
This provides a total Lancashire Schools Block allocation for 2018/19 of £727.855m.
39 High Needs Block allocation (£100.953m) The 2018/19 High Needs Block allocation is the first time calculated under the Government's new national High Needs funding formula. Key features of the formula include:
To recognise historic spending patterns through a lump sum equal to 50% of each local authority’s current spending on high needs; To provide a flat rate of £4,000 per annum for each pupil in special schools or student in special post-16 institutions, ensuring local authorities receive a broadly equivalent basic level of funding for pupils with high needs in both mainstream schools and outside the mainstream sector; To channel the remainder of the funding through a number of proxy factors according to the following weightings: o 2-18 population 50%; o deprivation 20%; o low attainment 15%; o health and disability 15%.
The formula also includes an import/export adjustment for high needs.
The 2018/19 High Needs Block calculations for Lancashire are provided below:
Provisional 2018-19 Actual 2018-19 import / export 2018-19 high needs NFF adjustments (based on ACA- allocations, Actual 2018-19 January 2017 school weighted excluding basic number of pupils in census and February basic entitlement special R06 2016/17 ILR. This entitlement factor and schools/academies adjustment will be factor unit import/export (headcount) updated with January rate adjustments 2018 school census and (£s) (£millions) February R06 ILR data) (£millions) 99.849 4,000.00 2,998 -1.056
This provides a total Lancashire High Needs Block allocation for 2018/19 of £110.783m.
It should be noted that the High Needs Block allocation is a provisional allocation and the gross total reflects the number of pupils attending non-maintained special schools (NMSSs) and special post-16 institutions (SPIs) for which funding is exported to the ESFA. Total deductions are calculated by the ESFA at £9.830m, which would provide a net High Needs Block allocation of £100.953m.
Early Years Block allocation (£74.156m) Allocations for the Early Years Block include:
funding for the universal 15 hours entitlement for three and four year olds;
40 funding for the additional 15 hours entitlement for three and four year old children of eligible working parents; funding for the 15 hours entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds; funding for the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP); funding for the Disability Access Fund (DAF); supplementary funding for Maintained Nursery Schools (MNS).
The allocations are calculated on a formulaic basis and details of the 2018/19 Early Years Block calculations for Lancashire are provided below:
Funding for the universal 15 hours entitlement for three and four year olds; 2018-19 Part time 2018-19 Early Years 2018-19 initial funding equivalent (PTE) 3 and 4 National Funding Formula allocation for universal year old child numbers for (EYNFF) LA hourly rate for entitlement for 3 and 4 year universal entitlement 3 and 4 year olds olds funding for 2018/19 (£ / hr) (£millions) (PTE) 4.30 18,139.97 44.461
Funding for the additional 15 hours entitlement for three and four year old children of eligible working parents; 2018-19 Estimated PTE 3 and 4 year old 2018-19 Initial funding allocation for child numbers for additional 15 hours additional 15 hours entitlement for eligible entitlement for eligible working parents for working parents of 3 and 4 year olds 2018-19 (£millions) (PTE) 5,723.20 14.028
Funding for the 15 hours entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds; PTE child numbers for 2 2018-19 initial funding 2018-19 LA hourly rate for year old entitlement allocation for 2 year old 2 year old entitlement funding for 2018-19 entitlement (£ / hr) (PTE) (£millions) 5.20 3,613.82 10.711
Allocations are shown below for: funding for the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP); funding for the Disability Access Fund (DAF); supplementary funding for Maintained Nursery Schools (MNS). 2018-19 Initial allocation 2018-19 Initial funding 2018-19 Initial funding for maintained nursery allocation for Early Years allocation for Disability school supplementary Pupil Premium Access Fund funding (£millions) (£millions) (£millions) 0.770 0.258 3.929
41 These allocations provide an aggregate Lancashire Early Years Block allocation for 2018/19 of £74.156m
It should be noted that the Early Years Block allocation is an initial allocation based on January 2017 census information and estimates of eligible pupils. These allocations will be updated based on January 2018 and January 2019 census data.
Central Schools Services Block (CSSB) (£6.435m) The CSSB has been introduced for the first time from April 2018 and is to fund central functions that LA's carry out on behalf of pupils in state-funded maintained schools and academies in England.
The CSSB is split into funding for historic commitments and funding for ongoing responsibilities and details of the 2018/19 calculations for Lancashire are provided below: 2018-19 CSSB 2018-19 CSSB unit of 2018-19 CSSB pupils funding for historic funding (£s) (headcount) commitments (£millions) 29.52 160,556 1.695
The total Lancashire's CSSB allocation for 2018/19 is £6.435m.
In Year Adjustments The DSG allocation notified is prior to in year adjustments for: Academies recoupment from the schools block; Deductions for high needs places in academies and non-maintained special schools; Post 16 places; Deduction for national copyright licences; Updates to the funding for three and four year olds; Updates to the funding two year olds; Updates to the early years supplementary funding for maintained nursery school; Updates to the early years pupil premium; Updates to early years Disability Access Fund.
Forecast total DSG income for 2018/19 The provisional Lancashire DSG allocations for 2018/19 across the 4 funding blocks are shown below:
Forecast DSG Income £m's Schools Block 727.855 High Needs Block 100.953 Early Years Block 74.156 Central Schools Services Block 6.435 Total forecast DSG Income 909.399
42 The equivalent DSG income figure for 2017/18 was £881.82m. The 2018/19 figure is some £27.5m higher than the previous year, due to increased pupil numbers, the Government's additional core funding allocation for schools and high needs budgets and the full year funding allocation for the 15 hours extended entitlement for 3 and 4 year olds.
SCHOOLS BUDGET 2018/19
The latest Individual School Budgets (ISB) across all phases has been constructed using the final datasets made available from the ESFA and our latest local Early Years and High Needs data.
This Schools Budget estimate has been calculated following the outcome of consultations with schools and early years providers and discussions with the Schools Forum.
Budget Summary – Before headroom / shortfall in funding The table below summarises the budgets to be allocated from each of the DSG funding blocks
£m's Schools Block 727.121 Early Years Block 74.156 High Needs Block (HNB) 109.488 Central Schools Services Block (CSSB) 6.435 Total of Allocations 917.200
Further details about each block are provided below.
Schools Block The preferred funding methodology from responses to the consultation with primary and secondary schools and academies held in the autumn term 2017 was for the 2018/19 Schools Block to be calculated on the basis of passporting the Schools National Funding Formula allocations. This has been modelled using the dataset issued by the ESFA on 15 December 2017, based on October 2017 census data.
The calculation reveals a 2018/19 Schools Block expenditure requirement of £725.659m.
In addition, the Schools Block DSG includes an amount for 'Growth funding', based on 2017/18 baseline data, which provides £1.462m for this purpose. This funding is used to support schools commissioned by the LA to expand their admission number to meet basic need school place requirements in an area.
This Schools Block expenditure reveals a surplus of circa £0.7m. It is proposed to ask the Schools Forum to agree to transfer this amount from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block to offset the deficit in that Block. ESFA Operational Guidance allows the Forum to agree such a transfer, as it is below 0.5% of the Schools Block Budget.
43 However guidance also advices that proposals should be subject to consultation with schools.
A separate report on the agenda will provide information about the responses from schools.
Early Years Block Consultation responses from early years providers favoured proposals for transitional 3 and 4 years old Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) arrangements in 2018/19, as we move towards full implementation of a Universal Base Rate from 2019/20. This decision was used as a starting point to model Early Years Bock expenditure.
Separate discussions also took place with nursery school headteachers to help determine the methodology to be used to allocate the ring-fenced supplementary funding for Maintained Nursery Schools (MNS).
As referred to earlier, the Early Years Block DSG allocation is illustrative and the final allocation will be adjusted based on January 2018 and January 2019 census data. In setting the Early Years budget for 2018/19 the LA has forecast the 2018/19 provision as set out below:
2 year olds 3&4 year olds £ £ Early Years Block 3/4 year olds 44,461,065 Early Years 30hrs growth 14,027,563 Early Years Block 2 year olds 10,711,350 Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP) 769,670 Early Years Disability Access Fund (DAF) 257,685 Early Years Maintained Nursery School (MNS) 3,928,828 Total 10,711,350 63,444,811
The calculation of the forecast means that the funding rate of £4.09 per hour for 3 and 4 year olds is affordable for 2018/19. This is £0.01 per hour higher than had originally been estimated in the consultation with Early Years providers, and therefore reduces the transitional; protection for nursery classes and childminders by a similar amount. Updated 3 and 4 year old rates from April 2018 are shown below:
Transitional Provider Type Funding Rate Base Rate Protection PVI Providers £4.09 per hour - £4.09 per hour Nursery classes £4.09 per hour £0.17 £4.26 per hour Child minders £4.09 per hour £0.40 £4.49 per hour supplementary Maintained ring-fenced £4.09 per hour £4.09 per hour Nursery Schools maintained nursery schools grant
44 The funding envelope available for Early Years also allows an additional £0.150m to be included in the 2018/19 SEN Inclusion Fund (Additional Inclusion Support) Budget. This is funding that is initially held centrally, but that is then allocated to specific providers based on the identified needs of an individual child with additional and complex SEND needs. In 2017/18, £0.150m was allocated to this budget, but comments have been received that it is insufficient to meet demand. Lancashire's funding level also appeared to be at the lower end of the range when compared to benchmarking data with statistical neighbours. It is therefore proposed to set the 2018/19 SEN Inclusion Fund budget at £0.3m.
Whilst there is some variance between the DSG allocations and the forecast Early Years expenditure for 2 year olds and 3 & 4 years olds, the overall Early Years Block in aggregate is estimated to be on budget at £74,156,161.
High Needs Block The modelling for this block incorporates some nationally prescribed changes for SERF unit funding and local proposals for a revised formula to fund Pupil Referral Units. However, the most significant issue for the block in 2018/19 is the substantial forecast budget shortfall.
The High Needs Block expenditure for 2018/19 is estimated in the table below:
Place funding Top-up funding £ £ Special Schools 24,154,167 27,867,243 PRU/Alternative Provision 7,658,333 3,571,202 PRU/Alternative Provision WPN 118,900 mainstream HNB top up 7,482,332 FE HNB 6,500,748 DfE High Needs place adjustment 366,333 3,000,000 HNB costs on a commissioned basis 28,768,418 Total 60,947,251 48,540,425
The total forecast HNB expenditure in 2018/19 is some £109,487,676, compared to a budget of £100,953,166.
Central Schools Services Block (CSSB) Expenditure against this new Block has been calculated on the basis of LA funding required for ongoing responsibilities and for historic commitments. Some minor adjustments have been made to 2018/19 forecast expenditure to ensure that funding is contained within the £6.435m budget envelope.
Funding Shortfall The table below has taken the aggregate figures discussed above for the forecast DSG income, and the estimated Schools Budget expenditure against each funding block to calculate the core budget shortfall for 2018/19: Calculation of funding shortfall
45
£m's Total forecast DSG income funding available 2018/19 909.399 Total Forecast DSG Allocations 2018/19 917.200 Surplus/(Shortfall) in funding (7.801) Release from reserves to bridge funding gap 7.801
Despite Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding for 2018/19 increasing by circa £27.5m, the higher demand on the budget, particularly in the High Needs Block, means that there is circa £8.0m shortfall in the Schools Budget. It is proposed that this shortfall is bridged by the use of DSG reserves, but clearly this position is not sustainable in the longer term.
The Schools Budget funding gap will be contained within the available ring-fenced DSG resources. In order to avoid utilising School Forum reserves in 2018/19, a comprehensive review of HNB will be undertaken by the LA with the support of School Forum to ensure that expenditure is contained within the gross HNB allocation of circa. £110m. This will minimise the call upon DSG reserves.
Proposals to minimise the HNB deficit by transferring the circa £0.7m from the Schools Block are part of the strategy for reducing the High Needs Block expenditure, subject to the consultation with schools and the Forum decision on this matter.
Pupil Premium Grant
In addition to the DSG allocation, Lancashire also receives an allocation for the Pupil Premium Grant (PPG). PPG is to support disadvantaged pupils, who continue to underachieve compared with their peers.
The DfE have indicated that the funding rates for 2018/19 will as follows:
Disadvantaged pupils Pupil premium per pupil Pupils in year groups reception to year 6 recorded as Ever 6 free school meals except where the pupil is £1,320 allocated the LAC or post-LAC Premium Pupils in year groups 7 to 11 recorded as Ever 6 free school meals except where the pupil is allocated the £935 LAC or post-LAC Premium Looked-after children (LAC) defined in the Children Act 1989 as one who is in the care of, or provided with £2,300 accommodation by, an English local authority Children who have ceased to be looked after by a local authority in England and Wales because of adoption, £2,300 a special guardianship order, a child arrangements order or a residence order
46 Service children Pupil premium per pupil Pupils in year groups reception to year 11 recorded as Ever 6 service child or in receipt of a child pension from £300 the Ministry of Defence
The 2018/19 rates are the same as those allocated in 2017/18, except for the LAC and post LAC rates. These rates have increased from £1,900 to £2,300 per eligible pupil for 2018/19. This increase in the LAC rates is related to the decision nationally to remove LAC funding from the DSG Schools Block and transfer it to the Pupil Premium Grant.
Actual PPG allocations are based on January census data so no formal allocation has yet been received for 2018/19. The latest 2017/18 PPG allocation for Lancashire amounted to £49,042,895.
47
Appendix B
SCHOOLS BUDGET 2018/19 SPECIFIC APPROVALS NEEDED FROM THE SCHOOLS FORUM
The Schools Finance and Early Years (England) Regulations require certain proposals by the Local Authority relating to the Schools Budget to be approved by the Schools Forum. Whilst the final Regulations relating to 2018/19 are still awaited, EFA Operational Guidance has been used to produce the relevant decisions, set out below.
An indication of the specific proposals that have previously been considered and approved by the Forum is included together with proposals now put forward that require approval.
Function LA proposals 2018/19 Proposed Expenditure: 2018/19 £m Consultation on Formula Changes EYNFF Proposals for 2018/19, including Considered by Summer term Early Years Block transitional arrangements to the Universal Working Group and approved by the Schools Forum Base Rate on 4 July 2017. Schools Budget formula for 2018/19 Proposals contained in Schools Budget 2018/19 based on passporting NFF calculations report Allocation of additional maintained Proposals contained in Schools Budget 2018/19 nursery school (MNS) funding for report 2018/19 via a MNS supplementary hourly rate for the universal 15 hours entitlement for three and four year olds
48 Revised Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) Proposals contained in Schools Budget 2018/19 funding formula for 2018/19 with report additional top-up funding being distributed through the funding model
De-delegation for mainstream schools LA proposals for: Schools in financial difficulty; Museum service (primary only);
Staff Costs Public duties/Suspensions. Approved by the Schools Forum on 24 October 2017
Movement of up to 0.5% from the schools Proposed to transfer the Schools Block surplus to the block to other blocks High Needs Block to mitigate the forecast HNB 0.7 overspend and diminish the requirement for other cost reducing proposals Contracts (where the LA is entering a No Proposals at this time contract to be funded from the schools budget) Financial issues relating to: arrangements for pupils with special Proposals contained in High Needs Block Working educational needs, in particular the Group recommendations for Forum report for 16 places to be commissioned by the LA and January 2018 schools and the arrangements for paying top-up funding arrangements for use of pupil referral Proposals contained in High Needs Block Working units and the education of children Group recommendations for Forum report for 16 otherwise than at school, in particular the January 2018
places to be commissioned by the LA and schools and the arrangements for paying top-up funding
49 arrangements for early years provision Considered by Summer term Early Years Block Working Group and approved by the Schools Forum on 4 July 2017. April 2018 central funding level 0.359 presented as part of the 2018/19 Schools Budget setting proposals administration arrangements for the No Proposals at this time allocation of central government grants
Minimum funding guarantee (MFG) Proposed disapplication submissions: Removing one-off funding distributed in 2017/18 from the 2018/19 baseline for MFG purposes Disapplication of regulations that do not match
the national NFF calculation methodology, including setting a local MFG of positive 0.5%
Approved by the Schools Forum on 24 October 2017
General Duties for maintained schools No Proposals at this time Contribution to responsibilities that local authorities hold for maintained schools
Central spend on and the criteria for allocating funding from: funding for significant pre-16 pupil Policy agreed the Schools Forum on 12 January growth, including new schools set up to 2017. April 2018 funding level presented as part of 1.462 meet basic need, whether maintained or the 2018/19 Schools Budget setting proposals academy funding for good or outstanding schools No Proposals at this time with falling rolls where growth in pupil - numbers is expected within three years
50
Central spend on: early years block provision funding to No Proposals at this time enable all schools to meet the infant class size requirement back-pay for equal pay claims No Proposals at this time remission of boarding fees at maintained No Proposals at this time
schools and academies places in independent schools for non- No Proposals at this time
SEN pupils April 2018 funding level presented as part of the admissions 0.937 2018/19 Schools Budget setting proposals April 2018 funding level presented as part of the servicing of schools forum 0.188 2018/19 Schools Budget setting proposals Contribution to responsibilities that local No Proposals at this time authorities hold for all schools
Central spend on: capital expenditure funded from revenue: No Proposals at this time projects must have been planned and
decided on prior to April 2013 so no new projects can be charged contribution to combined budgets: this is 2018/19 proposals for ongoing contribution to be where the schools forum agreed prior to presented to Schools Forum on 16 January April 2013 a contribution from the schools 0.9 budget to services which would otherwise be funded from other sources existing termination of employment costs No Proposals at this time
(costs for specific individuals must have
51 been approved prior to April 2013 so no new redundancy costs can be charged) prudential borrowing costs – the April 2018 funding level presented as part of the commitment must have been approved 2018/19 Schools Budget setting proposals following prior to April 2013 initial agreement prior to April 2013. This is an annual 0.240 commitment until 2020/21.
Central spend on: high needs block provision April 2018 funding level presented as part of the 28.768 2018/19 Schools Budget setting proposals central licences negotiated by the April 2018 funding level presented as part of the Secretary of State 2018/19 Schools Budget setting proposals 0.895
Carry forward a deficit on central No Proposals at this time expenditure to the next year to be funded from the schools budget
Any brought forward deficit on de-delegated No Proposals at this time services which is to be met by the overall schools budget.
52 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 6 d
Title: Schools Block Funding 2018/19 – Proposed Transfer to High Needs Block
Appendices (if applicable) Appendix A refers
Executive Summary
Modelling of the 2018/19 Schools Budget has revealed headroom of circa £0.7m in the Schools Block. Proposals to transfer this headroom to the High Needs Block are the subject of consultation with schools. Responses will be reported to the Forum on 16 January 2018.
Forum Decision Required
The Forum is asked to:
a) Note the report; b) Note the consultation responses from Schools that will be presented at the Forum meeting.
53 Background When modelling of the Schools Block budget for 2018/19 was undertaken it emerged that the SNFF funding methodology for 2018/19, using October 2017 census data, can be implemented whilst leaving headroom of circa £0.7m. However, due to increased demand in the High Needs Block, modelling forecasts an £8.5m overspend on this budget.
One option available to help mitigate the HNB overspend is to transfer the headroom from the Schools Block.
Funding regulations for 2018/19 allow up to 0.5% of the Schools Block to be transferred, subject to the agreement of the Schools Forum and consultation with schools. The proposed £0.7m transfer is well below the 0.5% level, as the 2018/19 Schools Block budget envelope is £727.121m.
An urgent consultation was issued to schools on 9 January 2018, at the start of the Spring Term, and responses are requested by 4pm 15 January 2018. This maximised the time available for schools to consider the proposal and respond ahead of the Forum on the 16th.
A copy of the consultation letter is attached at Appendix A.
Consultation analysis will be reported to the Forum.
54 Headteachers and Chairs of Governors of Phone: 01772 531815 Lancashire schools and academies Email: [email protected] Your ref: Our ref: FM/PB Date: 8 January 2018
Dear Colleague
Urgent Consultation Schools Block Funding 2018/19 – Proposed Transfer to High Needs Block During the autumn term 2017, we consulted on various aspects of the school funding arrangements for 2018/19 to help steer budget decisions that will be taken by the Schools Forum and the Lancashire County Council Cabinet during January 2018.
In terms of the responses to the consultation with primary and secondary schools and academies about the Schools Block funding formula to be operated in 2018/19, the option to passport Schools National Funding Formula (SNFF) allocations received the greatest support, being favoured by 47% of respondents, compared to 27% and 26% for the LCC formula and the Hybrid options respectively.
On 19 December 2017, the DfE published Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations for 2018/19, which allowed Schools Budget modelling to commence, with proposals being shaped by consultation responses and subject to Forum and Cabinet approval.
This modelling has revealed that the SNFF funding methodology for 2018/19, using October 2017 census data, can be implemented whilst leaving headroom of circa £0.7m. However, due to increased demand in the High Needs Block, modelling forecasts an £8.5m overspend on this budget.
It is proposed that this shortfall is bridged by the use of DSG reserves, and to undertake a review during the 2018/19 financial year to remove the level of overspend in the High Needs Block and minimise the risk exposure of future High Needs deficits.
A number of strategies and options for reducing the High Needs expenditure will need to be considered and may include reducing WPN rates.
One proposal that would contribute to reducing the High Needs overspend in 2018/19 would be to transfer the Schools Block surplus into HNB. The Governments revenue funding guidance for 2018/19 allows up to 0.5% of the Schools Block to be transferred, subject to the agreement of the Schools Forum and consultation with schools. The
55 proposed £0.7m transfer is well below the 0.5% level, as the 2018/19 Schools Block budget envelope is £727.121m.
If agreed, the proposed transfer would be for 2018/19 only, with any arrangements for 2019/20 subject to a new set of revenue funding guidance and budget setting process.
This letter is seeking views about the proposed transfer circa £0.7m from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block in 2018/19, to mitigate the forecast HNB overspend and diminish the requirement for other cost reducing proposals. Please remember that the Schools Budget must be managed from within the overall DSG resources available, whether this proposal is supported or not.
Responses can be submitted using the link below: https://lccsecure.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/questionnaires/runQuestionnaire.asp?q id=734162
Please let us know your views by 4.00 pm on 15 January 2018, so that responses can be reported to the Schools Forum on 16 January 2018 and the Cabinet on 18 January 2018.
Yours sincerely
Paul Bonser Schools Forum Support Manager
56 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 7
Title: Recommendations of the Schools Block Working Group
Appendix A refers
Executive Summary
On 7 December 2017, the Schools Block Working Group considered a number of reports, including:
Schools Block Funding 2018/19; Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit; Pupil Premium Grant +; School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme; Charging for Admissions Appeals.
A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.
Recommendations
The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the Schools Block Working Group held on 7 December 2017; b) Ratify the Working Group's recommendations.
57 Background On 7 December 2017, the Schools Block Working Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.
1. Schools Block Funding 2018/19 Reports to the working group and Forum earlier in the autumn term set out information on the national announcements about school funding in 2018/19 and beyond.
Responses to the local consultation on the funding principles to apply in Lancashire from April 2018 were also shared with members. It was noted that there was no clear outcome from the principles consultation and, following receipt of additional National Funding Formula (NFF) data from the ESFA. A second phase of consultation was issued on 7 November 2017. The consultation provided more detailed modelling and impact assessment for the 3 available options and also included individual school and academy level modelling across all the options and a 2017/18 baseline. A copy of the consultation document was provided with the report.
The options modelled were: Option 1: Passport SNFF allocations calculated by the ESFA using the national formula factors and rates; Option 2: Continue to use the current Lancashire formula, uplifting funding rates if headroom is available; Option 3: Use the Lancashire formula, but with factors/rates revised to move part way to the proposed national formula (a hybrid model).
Model Comparison As set out in consultation document, all schools and academies gain funding in 2018/19 due to the targeting of the additional £1.3b nationally into core school budgets. This is in contrast to the original NFF proposals, without the additional funding, when 2/3 of Lancashire schools lost funding in 2018/19. Gains are between 0.5% per pupil and 3.0% per pupil, assuming equivalent pupil numbers and characteristic.
The table below provides a comparison of the 3 options modelled across Lancashire for 2018/19:
Model Comparison Option No of schools gaining most Option 1 Passporting 237 Option 2 LCC Formula 126 Option 3 Hybrid 175 Equal 28 Equal refers to schools and academies where the best outcome is equal in Option 2 and Option 3.
Phase 2 Consultation Responses The closing date for the consultation was 5 December 2017 and 146 responses were received, as follows
58 115 Primary schools and academies (24%); 31 Secondary schools and academies (38%).
An analysis of the responses to the consultation and all accompanying comments were shared with the Group. A copy of this information is provided at Appendix A.
It was noted that: 74% of responses favoured the omission of the Looked After Children (LAC) factor from the formula, as funding was being transferred to the pupil premium plus at a national level; In connection with the preferred option for distributing the Lancashire Schools Block funding in 2018/19, the following responses were received: o Option 1 Passporting – 47%; o Option 2 LCC Formula – 27%; o Option 3 Hybrid – 26%.
Members gave careful consideration to consultation responses and comments. In response to some comments about schools receiving reduced funding in 2018/19, it was noted that the baselines used to calculated illustrative budgets from April 2018, excluded the 'one-off' releases from reserves that were included in the actual 2017/18 allocations. Information was also shared to confirm that the ESFA had issued updated guidance that allowed the local funding formula to mirror the government's NFF calculations.
Disapplication requests had also been submitted to the ESFA, but the one dealing with requests relating to replicating the NFF funding methodology may no longer be needed in view of the updated ESFA guidance.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted the consultation responses and analysis; c) Recommended that the Schools Block Budget modelling for 2018/19 should: Omit Looked After Children (LAC) factor from the formula; Follow the Option 1 methodology to passport National Funding Formula allocations to Lancashire schools and academies.
2. Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit On 16 November 2017, the DfE issued a consultation entitled 'Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit'. The consultation sets out the Government's proposals on the eligibility criteria for FSM and EYPP following the introduction of Universal Credit.
A copy of the consultation document was provided for the Group and it was noted that the DfE indicate that under the proposals around 50,000 more children would receive free school meals in future than at present and that those who currently receive meals should not lose out.
Four questions are posed in the document, relating to: Net Earnings Threshold;
59 Protection Arrangements; Equality Act requirements; Measuring the performance of disadvantaged pupils.
The Working Group discussed the consultation and the possible impact on Lancashire schools. Some members expressed a view that the net earnings threshold was too low and should be higher.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended that a Schools Forum consultation response should be submitted; c) Agreed that a draft response should be prepared and circulated for comment and approval via the urgent business procedure.
3. Pupil Premium Grant + Pupil Premium Grant + is allocated to each LA to support children in care of statutory school age. The funding is managed and allocated by the LA Virtual Head Teacher for CLA/CIC. in response to the needs identified in the child's Personal Education Plan (PEP) which is reviewed each term.
For some time this has been allocated to the LA on the basis of £1,900 per CLA/CIC. Lancashire Virtual School has allocated £500 per term for the support of each CLA on receipt of a PEP. The remaining £400 of each allocation has formed a PPG+ High Needs Fund. Additional PPG+ is allocated from this fund for pupils who experience significant issues and require more intensive interventions or resources.
In line with the national transfer out of the National Funding Formula for 2018-19, PPG+ will rise to an allocated of £2,300 per CLA/CIC to the authority.
Two options were presented: To retain the current termly allocation of £500 to all schools and create a larger High Needs Fund; To increase the termly allocated to all schools, to, for example, £550 or £600 per term.
It was noted that this report had also been presented to the High Needs Block Working Group. The High Needs Group had requested further information on the allocations and outcomes relating to the use of PPG + High Needs funding for the previous 12 months, in order to allow the group to consider the value of the High Needs funding methodology.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Asked that the further information requested by the High Needs Block Working Group is also be shared with Schools Block members, to help inform PPG+ recommendations.
60 4. School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme Each year, reports are presented to the Forum about the arrangements for the School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme. This report sets out proposals for the 2018/19 Scheme changes for consideration, with particular reference to Schools Block establishments.
The 2016/17 outturn report showed that the Scheme reserve at 31 March 2017 was at £0.956m, just below the desired £1m reserve level deemed appropriate to mitigate against the risk of an exceptionally high claims year. The Reserve had ended 2016/17 some £0.267m higher than the previous year due to an overall in year surplus of £0.294m on the teaching scheme, partially offset by a £0.026m deficit on the support staff element of the scheme. 13 fewer schools signed up for the scheme in 2017/18 than were involved in 2016/17.
2018/19 Scheme Proposals
Support Staff Scheme When commenting on the 2016/17 outturn position, the Forum were keen to ensure that the Support Staff Element of the scheme became self-financing, as the March 2017 position had revealed a £0.026m in year deficit. Therefore, it was proposed to increase Support Staff premiums for 2018/19, as follows:
Pupil Funded Schools (Primary, Secondary, Academy, and Nursery Schools): Lump sum of £1,630, plus (from £1,600) £12.25 per pupil (from £12.00)
Teaching Staff Scheme The outturn on the 2016/17 teaching staff scheme showed an in year surplus of £0.294m. It was not proposed to increase premiums for this element of the scheme. For 2018/19, 75% of premiums will be based on pupil numbers, whilst 25% will be based on historic premiums, from 2015/16. Details of the proposed funding rates and minimum funding levels for 2018/19 were provided for the group:
Reimbursement Rates In response to possible pay increases it was proposed to introduce: a 2% increase in reimbursement rates on the teaching scheme; a 1% increase on the support staff scheme.
Supply Scheme Policy Updates A possible amendment to the scheme policy was proposed, relating to increased costs for replacement teacher staff when the they were appoint on a contract to cover a known long term absence.
The Working Group were not convinced that this policy change was necessary and recommended that it was not adopted.
It was also noted that recent announcements suggested that pay awards for school support staff could also be 2%, with higher uplifts at lower grades. However, as the support scheme had been in deficit, it was felt prudent to hold the reimbursement increases to those originally proposed in the report.
61
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the following arrangements and charges for the 2018/19 School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme, including: The increased premiums for the support staff scheme, including the per pupil/per place and lump sum elements; The premiums for the 2018/19 pupil funded teacher scheme calculation being based at 75% on a per pupil basis, plus 25% of the historic charge (from 2015/16), as the scheme transitions to a fully pupil based methodology; The minimum charge amounts for the teacher scheme remaining unchanged for 2018/19; The place based charges for the 2018/19 teaching scheme remaining at the 2017/18 level; Reimbursement rates for 2018/19 being subject to a 2% increase on the teaching scheme and 1% increase for the support staff scheme; c) Recommended that the possible scheme policy change submitted for consideration for 2018/19 should not be adopted.
5. Charging for Admissions Appeals At the Schools Block Working Group on 20 June 2017, an initial report was presented about the proposals to introduce a revised traded service for the admissions appeals service from 2018/19. This revised services would charge all schools, rather than simply aided and foundation schools and academies, following changes in the DfE statutory guidance.
Following consideration of the report, a number of recommendations were made to the Forum, as follows
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Expressed a view that professional support to assist the appeals process was a vital service and therefore recommended that a pragmatic solution to this issue be found; c) Requested further information at the autumn term cycle of meetings .about possible charging options before making any final recommendations; d) Supported the use of savings in the Schools Budget in 2017/18 being used to fund a transition period in 2017/18 to enable development of the revised traded offer to be introduced from April 2018.
These recommendations were endorsed by the Forum on 4 July 2017.
An extract from the ESFA operational guidance for school funding in 2018/19, which was subsequently issued, was also provided:
Where local authorities hold duties in relation to all schools (as set out in Schedule 2, Parts 1 to 5 of the School and Early Years Finance Regulations 2017), all schools must be treated on an equivalent basis. Local authorities should not be treating voluntary aided schools, foundation schools or academies differently from other
62 maintained schools in the services they provide to them. This is set out in the DSG conditions of grant. Schools such as voluntary aided schools, foundation schools and academies cannot, therefore, be charged for services that are provided free of charge to community and voluntary controlled schools and paid for out of the centrally held DSG. This does not include funding that has been retained centrally from maintained school budgets only (as set out in Schedule 2, Parts 6 and 7).
Admissions/appeals are referred to in Schedule 2 part 2 of the School and Early Years Finance Regulations 2017.
The County Council has been considering options and looking to develop proposals that could be shared with the working group, and it had initially been intended to present a report to the last meeting. However, proposals were not sufficiently developed to be shared. In addition, correspondence was received in response to the County Council's initial report suggesting a differing interpretation of the position and offering an alternative course of action. Copies of the initial correspondence, the County Council's reply and a subsequent email were shared with the Working Group.
It was noted that the were complexities around the interpretation of the ESFA guidance on this issue, however, the County Council was still proposing to continue with the earlier course of action. This involves a traded services offer being made to all schools from April 2018 and a proposed School Admission Appeals Buy Back Service offer and charging structure were shared with the Group. The proposed charging structure is provided below:
Appeals Traded Service 2018 for Primary and Secondary Schools (Inc Academy Prim & Sec) Proposed cost per school
Primary Schools Banding inc Academy Number of Pupils on Roll Cost (£) Under 100 200 100 to 200 550 200 to 400 600
Secondary Schools Banding inc Academy Number of Pupils on Roll Cost (£) Under 500 700 500 to 1000 1,500 Over 1000 2,000
Members considered the report and the proposed charging options and indicated that they would welcome the development of other charging methodologies to consider, for example: Pay as you go; Lagged actual appeals; Other possible banding options.
63 It was noted that the Working Group report was to be shared with Diocesan/Church Authorities and suggested that the Forum may wish to respond to the correspondence.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the correspondence; b) Noted the proposed School Appeals charging methodology; c) Reiterated the previous recommendations to: Find a pragmatic solution to this issue; Use savings in the Schools Block of the Schools Budget in 2017/18 to fund a transition period ahead of the revised traded offer to be introduced from April 2018; d) Noted that the Schools Block Working Group report would be shared with Diocesan/Church Authorities for comment; e) Supported a Forum response to the latest correspondence being sent; f) Recommended that other 2018/19 Appeals Buy-back charging options be developed with the service, for consideration by the Forum.
6. Recovering pupil funding from excluding academies The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) Guidance indicates that most academies have provisions in their funding agreement that require the same adjustments be made when a pupil is excluded from an academy as if the academy were a maintained school, under regulations made under section 47 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
This means that for Academies, following a permanent exclusion, the relevant proportion of the Schools Budget and Pupil Premium funding will follow the child, as it does in the maintained sector. Many academies in Lancashire already adhere to these arrangements but one has recently refused to pay.
The model funding agreements for academies contain a standard clause which requires the Academy Trust, if invited to do so by a local authority, to enter into an agreement whereby payment will flow between the Academy Trust and the authority in the same direction and for the same amount that it would, were the Academy a maintained school in accordance with section 47 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
The LA intends to invite all Lancashire academies to be participate in the Lancashire exclusions funding system with immediate effect.
All members, both maintained and academy, agreed that the pupil funding should follow the child, when a pupil is excluded, whatever the category of the excluding school.
Academy representatives agreed to alert colleagues to the impending communication at an upcoming academy principles group meeting.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the LA inviting Lancashire academies to participate in the Lancashire exclusions funding system with immediate effect.
64 7. Healthy Pupils Capital Fund The Government have made previous announcements about the Healthy Pupils Capital Fund for 2018/19. The information indicated that funding for maintained schools will be via the LA. Academies funding will be issued via their MATS for larger chains or via a direct bid to the ESFA for smaller trusts.
Requests for further information had been received from Forum members and enquiries have been made from the capital team.
Whilst initial information suggested that allocations may be calculated in a similar way to the DFC, taking account of pupil numbers, no firm details about allocations have yet been received by the LA.
Further information will be provided once allocations information is received.
The Working Group: a) Noted the information.
8. Advertising on LCC Vacancy Site From 1st April 2018 A communication has been sent to schools to advise that access to advertise on the Lancashire County Council Teaching / Non-Teaching vacancy site will only be available as part of the full service offering provided by BTLS Payroll and Recruitment Services. This service will no longer be able to be purchased separately as a non-buyer. Adverts with closing dates prior to 1st April 2018 will be accepted and charged accordingly.
Forum member Steve Robinson has written to Louise Taylor expressing concern about this decision.
A copy of the correspondence will be formally reported to the Forum in January 2018, but was raised at the Working Group to confirm that officers would liaise with HR colleagues to discuss the reasons behind this decision.
The Working Group: a) Noted the information; b) Supported further enquiries into this decision being made.
65 Appendix A
Schools Block Budget 2018/19: Phase 2 Consultation Responses
Question 1: As there is no longer a Looked After Children (LAC) allocation in Lancashire's Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) from April 2018 (as funding has been transferred to the pupil premium plus) it is proposed to omit the local LAC factor from all 2018/19 funding options. Do you agree? Total Yes No Not sure Responses Primary School / Academy 115 82 10 23 71% 9% 20% Secondary School / Academy 31 26 2 3 84% 6% 10%
All 146 108 12 26 74% 8% 18%
Question 1 Comments
May be other issues in the future that may need that factor but not sure. I genuinely don't understand this. Post LAC was always part of the PP funding by LAC has for some time been separately managed. It isn't clear to me what this change will mean. This school will lose out financially with this method. Pupil Premium Plus funding is not all passported direct to schools, some is top-sliced at Virtual School level. As long as allocation levels remain the same
As long as we get the allocations were are entitled and funding is transparent
Will we still submit the PEP form through the Virtual School
66 Question 2: Please let us know your preferred option for distributing the Lancashire Schools Block in 2018/19. Option 2 Total Option 1 Option 3 LCC Responses Passporting Hybrid Formula Primary School / Academy 115 50 31 34 43% 27% 30% Secondary School / Academy 31 19 8 4 61% 26% 13%
All 146 69 39 38 47% 27% 26%
Question 2 Comments (Favouring Option 1)
I feel it is most important that the formula is applied as per the illustrative NFF allocations. The decision on which model is used should not be based on the financial outcomes of individual schools, it should be moving to what is an equitable formula nationally. The addition of the £1.3billion to budgets over the 2 years will cushion some of the impact of turbulence. As long as the processes are permitted by the ESFA, I believe that Lancashire should move as far as is reasonable towards implementation of the NFF to enable future decisions (2020 onward) to be better facilitated with reduced turbulence. It seems sensible to make the changes now while there is a degree of stability for school budgets. I favour this option on the assumption that Lancashire's requests to the DfE to 'disapply' certain regulations will be approved and that the modelling provided with this consultation remains reflective of actual funding Thank you for the comprehensive information. This option positively affects the most schools Passporting seems inevitable and moving sooner rather than later should cushion the impact as much as possible It makes little difference to my school and if the new formula is inevitable it seems sensible to move on and focus attention on to the other many pressures. If the funding is going to change anyway it would seem better to do it now so people know exactly what they have in the future. Better to get on with it. This is our preferred option as it is as close as possible to the funding the school will receive under the NFF and therefore provides more stability in funding going forward. This will provide clarity for forward financial planning The quicker the County moves to the new NFF the better. This will be the fairest option for schools that have suffered under the existing LCC funding model.The Pupil Premium funding recognises schools in areas of deprivation. It does not justify further deprivation weighting applied by LCC. Children in Lytham St Annes should be funded at the same level as other English schools taking into account the NFF factors. As we will all move to the NFF in two years time this option will help to prevent cliff edges for schools at that stage. Who would not vote for the largest amount...... ? This is the clearest way for us to move forward, it also recognises that we have been low funded and gets us maximum return from year 1. follow national to ensure consistency with schools Financially this is by far the best option in the first year for our school.
67
Question 2 Comments (Favouring Option 2)
Better for my school and will allow for spending in the lead up to SNFF that may not otherwise be possible. When discussed at Forum we were told that under the NFF passporting all schools would gain by at least 0.5%. The modelling shows this not to be true and there is a differential of £40000 between the formula amounts. My concern is that the formula where most people gain will be the one that is voted for most rather than the one that makes the most sense. Forum supported the NFF passporting under the belief that everyone would gain slightly and I feel that we have been misled. I was given to understand from indirect feedback from the Schools Forum that all schools would benefit by 0.5% for the suggested 'Passporting' option. In my case, this is over £4k worse so the initial advice would seem to have been flawed? I think that we may as well embrace the future and make plans for it. best current financial option for school 3 is also PL...but not 1
Question 2 Comments (Favouring Option 3)
I am dismayed by the fact the xxx school is forecast receive significantly less funding if Option 1 is adopted. xxx school is funded lower than our local schools due to the variations in additional grants such as Pupil Premium. In benchmarking exercises the school achieves good outcomes for some of the lowest funding rates in the area. Whilst I can accept that more schools will “gain” by Option 1 it is evident from the consultation modelling that xxxx Primary School will receive circa £11k less than if Option 3 is adopted. This is based on adjusting the baseline funding to reflect the additional £23.90/pupil.
I have made some difficult decisions this year; staffing hours and staff CPD have been cut and more importantly services for children have been withdrawn. The option that would see the school funded an additional £11k, which would provide the school with far greater stability and improve outcomes for the children, is the only choice I can make. If forced to I could support Option 2 as a half way compromise but from the evidence provided it is unlikely that this will be the preferred option. we will be worse off passporting I understand the principle that moving towards the Passporting option at the earliest opportunity means that the factors in the NFF can be applied to schools - which means more stability in future years. However, i think to aid the transition to the NFF the principle is that local councils can continue to implement local decisions to minimise impact on schools. I therefore belive that a hyrid option is the best option for schools to bridge the gap between now and a hard NFF in 2020-2021.
68 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 8
Title: Recommendations of the High Needs Block Working Group
Appendices A refers
Executive Summary
On 30 November 2017, the High Needs Block Working Group considered a number of reports, including:
High Needs Block Budget (HNB) Pressures; Prevention and Early Help Update; High Needs Block Commissioned Places 2018/19; PRU Top-Up Funding; School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme; Pupil Premium Plus 2018/19; Reducing Primary Exclusions Model; Life Skills/Healthy Relationships Training.
A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.
Recommendations
The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the High Needs Block Working Group held on 30 November 2017; b) Ratify the Working Group's recommendations.
69 Background On 30 November 2017, the High Needs Block Working Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.
1. High Needs Block Budget (HNB) Pressures A verbal update was presented to the Group about HNB budget pressures.
The 2017/18 HNB budget was set using a contribution of over £3.5m of reserves.
Despite this contribution from reserves, budget monitoring for 2017/18 suggests that there is likely to be a considerable overspend on the HNB budget, of at least a further £5m. This indicated a cumulative overspend of over £8.5m in 2017/18, which could rise towards £10m in 2018/19 if current trends continued. This would significantly outstrip the additional £3m Lancashire expects to receive for the HNB from April 2018/19 under the Governments national High Needs funding formula
Finance and SEND officers have met to consider the budget monitoring, identify the key pressure points and begin to develop possible actions to mitigate against the budget pressures.
It was noted that reserves could be used in 2017/18 to offset the overspends, but this was not a sustainable position in the longer term. Further reports would be presented to the Forum in due course with proposals around HNB expenditure.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that further information will be presented about proposed actions in response to the HNB budget pressures; c) Used the forecast budget overspend as context when considering further items on the agenda.
2. Prevention and Early Help Update Helen Green, Quality and Review Officer from the Children and Family Wellbeing Service and Dave Carr, Head of Service, Policy, Information and Commissioning (Start Well) attended the Working Group for this item.
ESFA School Funding Operational Guidance indicates that it is still allowable to retain funding centrally for 'historic commitments' in 2018/19. The DSG contribution to Prevention and Early Help funding is classified as a historic commitment.
The guidance indicates that they expect historic commitment funding to reduce over time and the current understanding is that DSG contributions for historic funding will not be available when the 'hard' national funding formula is introduced. As continued historic commitments remain available for 2018/19, proposals are now submitted for consideration.
70 LCC context Information was provided about recent decisions taken by the County Council, in the context of revised CCG commissioning arrangements for Pan Lancashire Mental Health, which confirmed that an additional £1.1m funding will be made available from the Council's budget.
2017/18 Outcomes Review The Schools Forum has supported the development of early help across the county for several years, including £1 million for Early Help commissioning in 2017/18 £150k to support an enhanced Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance (CEIAG) offer to Children Looked After in 2017/18. Funds were also agreed for 201718 and 2018/19 to pay for the ongoing appointment of two schools facing officers in the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH).
Update on the Provision of Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance for Children Looked After. Details were provided in the report on the supported provided to the 119 CLA year 11 pupils on the service data base in 2017/18.
Update on Children and Family Wellbeing Commissioned Services (Previously the Wellbeing, Prevention and Early Help Service) A comprehensive needs assessment was carried out and had identified two county wide priority areas: emotional health and wellbeing provision (contract awarded to Child Action North West Partnership); children and young people who have been affected by domestic abuse (contract awarded to Victim Support).
The report and appendices provide detail of the contract, monitoring, performance and feedback
Lead Professional Budgets This funding was used for small purchases up to a value of £250 per family where this meets a need identified by the CAF assessment.
2018/19 Proposals
Provision of Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance for Children Looked After It was proposed, if funding is agreed at current levels, that CFW service will continue to provide intensive support to CLA aged between 13 -18 years using a key worker model, to ensure a smooth transition from statutory education into education, employment or training and secure better long term outcomes.
Early Help Commissioned Services The services provided by the Schools Forum funding are key to achieving the priorities set out in the Lancashire Children and Young People's Plan and ensuring the needs of children and young people across Lancashire's schools are met. If DSG funding is approved it was
71 proposed to continue the current commissioning and lead professional budget arrangements in 2018/19, with any remaining funds being targeted at Emotional Health and Wellbeing. In response to the feedback from the recent SEND Inspection it was proposed that any accumulated underspend of Schools Forum funding in previous years is used to develop a range of evidence based programmes and workforce skills that will improve the offer available to children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
The Working Group considered the report, outcomes from the DSG contribution in 2017/18 and the proposals for 2018/19, along with the wider HNB funding context. A number of comments and concerns emerged in the discussions, including: Comment was made that the Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance for Children Looked After support could be double funding as schools also had responsibility for this provision; Concern about the level of outcomes data to support some elements of the Children and Family Wellbeing service commissioning, particularly in connection with the children and young people who have been affected by domestic abuse provision; Uncertainty about the use of previous years underspends to support outcomes from the recent SEND Inspection and how this work was to be commissioned; The competing priorities for funding in the context of the predicted HNB budget overspends.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Recommended that the Forum did not support the continued central retention of £150k for 2018/19 to provide Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance for Children Looked After; c) Requested further information about the outcomes from the £1m DSG contribution to Children and Family Wellbeing service commissioning arrangements, particularly in connection with domestic abuse provision before any final recommendations were met; d) Requested further information about proposals to use previous years underspends in this budget to develop a range of evidence based programmes and workforce skills that will improve the offer available to children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
3. High Needs Block Commissioned Places 2018/19 The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations require that the Forum is consulted annually on the places to be commissioned by the local authority in different schools and other institutions, and on the arrangements for paying top-up funding.
A report was presented providing some minor updates to initial information provided to the last meeting connected to tying up commissioned places with ESFA post 16 numbers and providing 2018/19 data as part of the ESFA place change notification process.
High Needs Place Change Notification Process 2018/19 The LA has submitted the annual High Needs Place Change Notification proforma for 2018/19 for the relevant establishment types. Information about the proposed 2018/19 place changes is provided below:
72
Mainstream Academies
2017/18 2018/19 Allocated revised % Institution Name Difference place place Change numbers numbers Accrington St Christopher's Church of 6 16 10 167% England High School Clitheroe Royal Grammar School 2 2 0 0% Ripley St Thomas Church of England 1 1 0 0% Academy Lancaster Royal Grammar School 1 2 1 100% Total 10 21 11 110%
AP Academy Places
2017/18 2018/19 Allocated revised % Institution Name Difference place place Change numbers numbers Coal Clough Academy 108 140 32 30%
Special Academy Places
% Change
Pre-16 Post-16 Institution
Name 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18 2018/19 Allocated revised Allocated revised Difference Difference place place place place numbers numbers numbers numbers Tor View 126 129 3 36 36 0 2% Academy
73 FE College Places
Movement 2017/18 2018/19 in FE Current Revised College Place Place Place % Institution Name Numbers Numbers Numbers Change Accrington and Rossendale College 48 56 8 17% Burnley College 76 78 2 3% Cardinal Newman College 49 55 6 12% Lancaster and Morecambe College 86 86 0 0% Myerscough College 182 192 10 5% Nelson and Colne College 50 57 7 14% Preston College 78 78 0 0% Runshaw College 69 67 -2 -3% Total 638 669 31 5%
The 2018/19 submission requests 77 additional High Needs places for 2018/19, which will have a full year budget impact of £0.770m. It was noted that this was a further costs pressures on the 2018/19 High Needs Block Budget.
Hospital Education Places It was judged the additional budget pressures in Lancashire relating to hospital education provision did not meet the criteria set out in the guidance notes for this area, so no submission was included. Any additional 2018/19 budgetary provision needed in response to pressures relating to hospital education will also need to be met from the 2018/19 High Needs Budget envelope.
Although not part of the ESFA submission, the following information was provided
Non-maintained special schools 370 places were commissioned in 2017/18 and it is estimated that 335 places will be commissioned in 2018/19, although it should be noted that places at these schools are commissioned as required, based on the needs of children and young people throughout the year.
Special post-16 institutions (previously known as independent specialist providers) The current estimate of places to be commissioned for 2018/19 is 66, down from 68 in 2017/18. Again, the costs associated with the placements will be dependent on the individual needs of the students, but the expenditure for 2018/19 forecasts an increase of over £600k.
Realignment Maintained Post 16 School Provision At the last meeting of the Working Group a report was presented setting out the provisional places being commissioned at Lancashire special schools and units and AP establishments.
74 The report included commissioned place numbers for 2018/19 at Maintained Post 16 Special Schools. In recent years, the ESFA applied restrictions on changes to the number of Post 16 places commissions at special schools. However, there was some local flexibility allowed to reflect circumstances in the County by applying Post 16 Additional top up. The ESFA now provide a Post 16 place funding for Lancashire special schools as a global total, rather than on a school by school basis as was previously the case. Over time it appears that some discrepancies in place numbers have arisen. 4 have now been identified from the provisional place numbers reported to the Forum in September 2017.
A commentary on the discrepancies was provided for the Working Group.
It was noted that overpayments had been made to two of these schools and it was confirmed that the LA would look to recoup the 2017/18 overpayment (contrary to the original report in the working group papers).
An updated special school Post 16 School Provision table was provided with the report. Commissioned place numbers were also provided for other sectors, incorporating minor updates from the provisional place numbers presented to the previous working group: Special Pre-16 Schools Provision; SERF Units; Pupil Referral Units/Alternative Provision.
A final list of 2018/19 commissioned places is provided at Appendix A.
Arrangements for paying top-up funding to schools and other institutions. Lancashire pupil related top up funding (pre and post 16) is calculated using Weighted Pupil Numbers (WPNs), which are used to fund the assessed need of each High Needs Pupil. Top- up funding is re-determined up or down termly in line with the SEN counts in January, May and October. The funded WPNs are net of 2.5 WPN, which is the amount relating to the value of up to £10,000.
School specific top-up funding will also be allocated to special schools for the total number of all pre and post 16 Lancashire pupils on the SEN count, to reflect different school related costs.
At the request of special school headteachers, the LA is reviewing the school specific top-up funding arrangements.
Funded terms 2018/19 funded terms are as follows:
April - August September - January - December March 5/12 4/12 3/12
The Working Group: a) Noted the report, b) Noted the place numbers included in the High Needs Place Change Notification Process 2018/19; c) Noted the updated local commissioned place numbers for 2018/19;
75 d) Requested a future report on the review of the special school school specific top-up funding arrangements.
4. PRU Top-Up Funding Previous reports to the Working Group have kept members informed of concerns raised by the secondary PRU headteachers about the level of top up funding they receive. Officers have been holding separate meetings with PRU representatives from all sectors and various modelling has been undertaken. The last meeting was held on 20 November 2017, when a possible revised funding model for 2018/19 was presented for consideration.
A copy of the proposed funding model is provided below.
It was noted that the 2018/19 funding model incorporated High Support Pupils Top Up, which is allocated in response to bids, and Careers Education Information Advice and Guidance (CEIAG) funding, which are currently outside the funding model. This responds to comments from the schools to provide more of the funding up front, without the need for bidding etc, so that headteachers are able to plan more strategically for the year, although this funding would be redetermined on a termly basis.
The PRU specific funding would be partly made up from the CEIAG funding, plus additional monies, to reflect the PRU costs and achieve an allocation figure equivalent to the costs identified.
76 Primary PRU Primary Advice and Support Service (PASS) funding and secondary intervention funding paid directly to the PRU from schools would continue and be in addition to the funding provided through the model.
Members noted that the arrangements for the treatment of additional WPN funding for pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans is still being finalised.
Following considerations at the meeting on 20 November 2017, PRU headteachers have responded to the LA to indicate that all schools agreed to the new proposed funding model for 2018/19. The LA agreed that the new arrangements could be reviewed during course of the financial year by the PRUs and the County Council.
The PRU headteachers also agreed to submit suggested criteria for high support pupils to Audrey Swann for consideration.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that PRU headteachers supported to the proposals; c) Recommended that the proposed 2018/19 PRU funding model be implemented.
5. School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme Each year, reports are presented to the Forum about the arrangements for the School Teaching and Support Staff Supply Reimbursement Scheme.
This report provided background information about the 2016/17 outturn position, the service take-up for 2017/18 and proposals for 2018/19.
2018/19 Scheme Proposals for HNB establishments
Support Staff Scheme When commenting on the 2016/17 outturn position, the Forum were keen to ensure that the Support Staff Element of the scheme became self-financing, as the March 2017 position had revealed a £0.026m in year deficit. In response to this, it is proposed to increase Support Staff premiums for 2018/19, as follows:
Place Funded Schools (Special Schools and Pupil Referral Units): Lump sum of £2,000 plus (from £1,600) £50.00 per place (from £40.00)
The proposals increase the place funded premiums more significantly than those for pupil funded schools to reflect the contribution of each sector to the overall support staff deficit in 2016/17.
Teaching Staff Scheme The outturn on the 2016/17 teaching staff scheme showed an in year surplus of £0.294m. Place based premiums will be held at the current levels
77 Place Funded Schools (Special Schools and PRUs)
10 Day Premium 5 Day Premium 3 Day Premium £116.04 per place £136.00 per place £148.88 per place
Reimbursement Rates In recent years, the Forum have agreed to hold the reimbursement rates contained in the scheme, in order to minimise the need for increased premiums.
The scheme now appears to be moving back to a more secure financial footing. In addition, there are considerable cost pressures facing schools, with a recommended 2% pay increase in the Main Pay Range for teaching staff and a 1% increase on other teaching ranges and for support staff.
Supply Scheme Policy Updates A possible amendment to the scheme policy have been suggested for 2018/19 following a query from schools. Further information is provided below:
Teachers on long term sickness absence Where a teacher is absent from work with an illness that is known to be long term (1 term or more), HR advise that the replacement teacher should be appointed on a contract. Contractual staff are paid for full months inclusive of school holidays, whereas non-contract supply staff are normally only engaged to cover working days.
The scheme policy could be amended to allow an additional allocation to be provided to schools facing increased costs when long term cover is engaged on a contractual basis. This could perhaps be achieved by paying the supply claims inclusive of holidays when a school has taken HR advice to cover a known long term absence with cover on a contractual basis. This would only apply to a limited number of cases each year, so overall cost implications are not thought to be significant.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Supported the 2018/19 increased premiums for the support staff scheme, including the per pupil/per place and lump sum elements; c) Supported the place based charges for the 2018/19 teaching scheme remaining at the 2017/18 level; d) Supported the reimbursement rates for 2018/19 being subject to a 2% increase on the teaching scheme and 1% increase for the support staff scheme; e) Supported the scheme policy change relating to Teachers on long term sickness absence.
6. Pupil Premium Plus 2018/19 Pupil Premium Grant + is allocated to each LA to support children in care of statutory school age. The funding is managed and allocated by the LA Virtual Head Teacher for CLA/CIC. The funding has to be allocated in response to the needs identified in the child's Personal Education Plan (PEP) which is reviewed each term.
78 For some time this has been allocated to the LA on the basis of £1,900 per CLA/CIC. Any unspent PPG+ funding is required to be returned to the DFE at the end of the financial year.
Lancashire Virtual School has allocated £500 per term for the support of each CLA on receipt of a PEP that is at least RI (Requires Improvement).
The remaining £400 of each allocation has formed a PPG+ High Needs Fund. Additional PPG+ is allocated from this fund for pupils who experience significant issues and require more intensive interventions or resources. All schools are able to apply for high needs funding and this is approved by the Virtual School Head Teacher.
In 2016/17, all PPG+ allocated to Lancashire was allocated and no funding was returned to the DFE.
For 2018-19 PPG+ will rise to an allocated of £2,300 per CLA/CIC to the authority. The principles for the allocation of the funding remains the same and a report was presented setting out 2 possible options for allocating the funding:
1. To retain the current termly allocation of £500 to all schools and create a larger High Needs Fund.
Rationale: o Assurance that all individual needs can be met when required. o Ability to fund more group/global interventions such an Educational Psychologist. o If funding remains in spring term that it is estimated would not be required, additional PPG+ could be allocated to each school in their spring payment.
2. To increase the termly allocated to all schools.
If the termly allocation was increased to £550 or £600 per term. o £1,650 or £1,800 per year to all schools o £650 or £500 from each allocation to High Needs- a rise of £250 or £100 per allocation
Rationale: o Growth for High Needs Fund. o Additional funding for each CLA.
Members gave careful consideration to the information and the options provided and to other possibilities like allocating all the funding to schools.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Requested information on the allocations and outcomes relating to the use of PPG + High Needs funding for the previous 12 months, in order to allow the group to consider the value of the High Needs funding methodology.
7. Any Other Business
79 a) Reducing Primary Exclusions Model Andrew Proctor, Headteacher, Chorley Highfield Primary School attended the Working Group for this item. Dianne Hodgson declared an interest in this item as a member of the Elm Tree school Governing Body.
Lancashire CC in partnership with School Forum has trialled a new model of support and intervention to help meet needs of pupils on the edge of exclusion. The PASS system has now been established across the county and there was a reduction in primary exclusions of approx. one third in the 2016/17 academic year. The most significant reduction was in the central/south districts.
The West Lancashire pilot was also a new model piloted. This was a local model, based on the PASS model of staged support starting with advice and guidance followed by outreach support as required, with access to a number of in house intervention programmes as part of Stage 4. The difference to the wider PASS model was the local nature of the system, with schools working together with a local provider and local referral process. To date there have been no permanent exclusions in the district.
The possibility of replicating this model in other areas has been raised by Forum and others.
2 proposals to trial a similar model have now been received, both relating to the Chorley area.
Details relating to the proposals was provided to the Working Group:
Proposal 1: Title: CHOSEN Proposer: Highfield Primary School Schools: members of NOSH group- Total number: 22 (all opting in) Provision: Outreach Team and 8 in house AP places. In house provision to be based next to Highfield School in Children's Centre facility and managed by Highfield School. Menu of support provided- included work with individual pupils, staff, whole school training, assessment, support for managed moves, family support. A Steering Group of HTs will manage/monitor the pilot with regular data returned to the LA. Start date: Outreach from January, In house places from spring half term or possibly earlier.
Proposed Costs: Full costs for 1 year; £ 95,000 + AP place funding of 80k Initial cost for spring term: £23,000 + £ 26,666 for AP place funding: Total £49,666 Evaluation of success: based on reduction in permanent exclusions. Future Plan- if pilot successful to offer to all Chorley schools.
Proposal 2: Extension of Elm Tree Outreach- 2 options.
A. Extension of Elm Tree support to all Chorley Schools. B. Extension of Elm Tree support to schools other than NOSH schools.
80
Outreach for both options to be provided by extended Elm Tree Outreach Team In house places provided by additional AP places based at Little Digmoor School, Skelmersdale.
Start date- January 2018
Proposed costs:
Option A; 54 schools (if all opt in))
Full costs for 1 year: £301,750 £181,750 + AP place funding of £120,000 Initial cost for Spring term: £100,000
Option B; 32 schools (if all opt in)
Full Cost for 1 year: £168,500 £108+ AP place funding of £60,000
Initial Cost for Spring Term: £56,000.
The Working group gave considerable consideration to the proposals and to issues of locality and to the affordability sustainability of any projects on a county wide basis. The CHOSEN bid appeared to have the advantage of being in the Chorley locality, which would enable provision to be accessed in the district.
The Forum: a) Noted the report; b) Felt unable to make a final recommendation on the information available; c) Requested additional information about the financial context and the affordability and sustainability of extending any model across the County.
b) Life Skills/Healthy Relationships Training Kate Piercy and Barbara Booth Teacher Advisers, Education Health and Wellbeing Team attended the Working Group for this item.
The Forum had previously agreed a central items allocation towards Life Skills/Healthy Relationships.
Following a progress report, the Forum agreed that underspends from previous years could be could carried forward into 2017/18 to enable to service to deliver to the schools that had not yet engaged in the training.
A further progress report was presented to members setting out the courses delivered in the financial year to date and proposals for the remainder of the year. It was noted that the
81 course programme had been designed following discussions via school networks and the Nursery Heads’ Forum
Information was also provided about key priorities going forward, which included: Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) statutory from September 2019; Emotional and Mental Health; Consultation on making PSHE statutory; Increased engagement with primary schools through the PE & Sports Premium – preparing primary schools for the Healthy Schools Rating Scheme(DfE);
The changes in the statutory position meant that the courses provided by the service continued to be in high demand, and support to restructure the funding was therefore sought. At 31 March 2017, circa £200k remained on the budget code, of which, it was agreed that £150k could be utilised in 2017/18 to fund continued course provision.
It was now proposed to reduce the 2017/18 draw down to £100k, and use the remaining circa £100k to continue provision into 2018/19. A final report would then be provided to Forum.
The Working Group: a) Noted the reported; b) Noted the provision made to date in 2017/18 and planned for the remainder of the year; c) Supported the restructuring of the remaining budget to allocate circa £100k in both 2017/18 and 2018/19, to maximise the course provision that can be made for schools for healthy relationships training.
82 Appendix A
FE Colleges - Post 16
2018/19 Revised Place Institution Name Numbers Accrington and Rossendale College 56 Burnley College 78 Cardinal Newman College 55 Lancaster and Morecambe College 86 Myerscough College 192 Nelson and Colne College 57 Preston College 78 Runshaw College 67 Total 669
83 Maintained Special Schools - Pre 16
2018/19 Academic Pre 16 Place Sch No School Name Numbers 00131 Wennington Hall School 80 00133 Bleasdale School 40 00134 Royal Cross Primary School 35 00139 Hillside Specialist School and College 75 01130 Morecambe And Heysham Morecambe Road School 150 01131 The Loyne Specialist School 76 02130 Great Arley School 99 02131 Brookfield School. Poulton-Le-Fylde 52 02132 Thornton Cleveleys Red Marsh School 62 04133 Kirkham Pear Tree School 76 06131 Moorbrook School 45 06134 Acorns Primary School 74 06135 Sir Tom Finney Community High School 105 07130 Moor Hey School - A Specialist Mathematics And Computing College 120 07131 The Coppice School 57 08135 Hope High School 64 08136 Kingsbury Primary School 80 08137 West Lancashire Community High School 96 08138 Elm Tree Community Primary School 84 09130 Chorley Astley Park School 176 09131 Mayfield Specialist School 91 11130 Oswaldtwistle White Ash School 97 11131 Broadfield Specialist School For Sen (Cognition And Learning) 110 12134 The Rose School 63 12135 Holly Grove School 113 12136 Ridgewood Community High School 95 13133 Pendle View Primary School 105 13134 Pendle Community High School And College 105 14130 Tor View Community Special School 129 14132 Rawtenstall Cribden House Community Special School 55 Total Maintained Special Schools Pre 16 Place Numbers 2,609
84 Maintained Special Schools - Post 16
2018/19 Agreed EFA Post 16 (no Additional change Post 16 Sch No School Name allowable) Place 00131 Wennington Hall School - 00133 Bleasdale School 4 1 00134 Royal Cross Primary School - 00139 Hillside Specialist School and College 18 5 01130 Morecambe And Heysham Morecambe Road School - 01131 The Loyne Specialist School 38 5 02130 Great Arley School - 02131 Brookfield School. Poulton-Le-Fylde - 02132 Thornton Cleveleys Red Marsh School 22 0 04133 Kirkham Pear Tree School 14 0 06131 Moorbrook School - 06134 Acorns Primary School - 06135 Sir Tom Finney Community High School 45 10 07130 Moor Hey School - A Specialist Mathematics And Computing College 0 0 07131 The Coppice School 18 0 08135 Hope High School - 08136 Kingsbury Primary School - 08137 West Lancashire Community High School 29 7 08138 Elm Tree Community Primary School - 09130 Chorley Astley Park School - 09131 Mayfield Specialist School 19 6 11130 Oswaldtwistle White Ash School - 11131 Broadfield Specialist School For Sen (Cognition And Learning) 35 0 12134 The Rose School - 12135 Holly Grove School - 12136 Ridgewood Community High School 40 13133 Pendle View Primary School - 13134 Pendle Community High School And College 36 7 14130 Tor View Community Special School 36 0 14132 Rawtenstall Cribden House Community Special School - Total Maintained Special Schools Post 16 Place Numbers 354 41
85 Alternative Provision
2018/19 Academic Place AP No AP Name Numbers Primary 01141 Stepping Stones 32 07141 Golden Hill Leyland Centre 44 13143 Hendon Brook School 34 08138 Elm Tree Community Primary 10 The Alternative School 10 Other 20
Secondary 01149 Chadwick Centre 90 02143 Mckee College House 125 08147 The Acorns School 90 09145 Shaftesbury High School 130 06141 Larches House School 140 11142 Oswaldtwitlse School 90 12504 Coal Clough Academy 140 The Alternative School 15 Other : College 100 Total AP Place Numbers 1070
86 Maintained Mainstream Provision - SERF Units
2018/19 Academic School No School Name SERF Places 01011 Lancaster Ridge Community Primary School 6 01015 Moorside Primary School 6 06012 Holme Slack Community Primary School 6 06033 Ashton Primary School 6 08033 Holland Moor Primary School 7 Oswaldtwistle Moor End Community Primary 11025 6 School 12022 Burnley Ightenhill Primary School 6 12043 Burnley Springfield Community Primary School 6 06104 Ashton Community Science College 20 12111 Hameldon Community College 18 Total SERF Places 87
Note: The Schools Budget has been constructed on 87 SERF places but agreement is sought to reduce this to 'filled' places due to a number of reasons including budget pressures.
87 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 9
Title: Recommendations of the Early Years Block Working Group
Appendix A refers
Executive Summary
On 5 December 2017, the Early Years Block Working Group considered a number of reports, including:
Early Years Funding Benchmarking Tool 2017/18; Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) 2018/19; Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit; Pupil Eligibility for Early Years 2 Year Old Funding; New Head of Early Years; Nursery Schools with Neighbourhood Centres.
Recommendations
The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the Early Years Block Working Group held on 5 December 2017; b) Ratify the Working Group's recommendations.
88 Background On 5 December 2017, the Early Years Block Working Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.
1. Early Years Funding Benchmarking Tool 2017/18 In November 2017, the ESFA published an Early Years Funding Benchmarking Tool, based on the budget information from the Section 251 data provided by the local authorities.
The funding benchmarking tool includes the projected spend on early years providers to deliver early years places for two, three and four-year-olds. The information is broken down into provider types and includes budget per hour information. The tool allows data to be viewed for a chosen local authority, with the added option to view data for up to ten of its statistical neighbours.
Tables were provided showing the Lancashire data for 2017/18 from the benchmarking tool and comparable data from statistical neighbours and on national averages, for consideration by the Working Group, including:
3-4 Year Olds Average Funding Rate To Providers Per Hour; 2 Year Old Average Funding Rate To Providers Per Hour; Non-EYSFF Spend; Early Years Pupil Premium; Disability Access Fund.
It was noted that: many of the variations between LA's funding levels for providers will be based on the level of income received through the calculation of the early years national funding formula; In addition to this Lancashire funds a number of discretionary payments that may not be replicated in other authorities, (e.g. supplementary hours etc) As discretionary payments are not funded by the ESFA they impact on the funding level for providers.
Members considered the tables and commented on Lancashire's position. The general comment to emerge was that the EY sector was underfunded by central government. It was also noted that Special Educational Needs Inclusion Fund (Additional Inclusion Support (AIS) in Lancashire) funding was at the lower end of the range in Lancashire.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report.
2. Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) 2018/19 In November 2017, the ESFA published 'Early years entitlements: local authority funding of providers Operational guide 2018 to 2019'. This guidance document set out how local authorities’ initial allocations for the early years block 2018/19 will be calculated, including:
o funding for the universal 15 hours entitlement for three and four year olds;
89 o funding for the additional 15 hours entitlement for three and four year old children of eligible working parents; o funding for the 15 hours entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds; o funding for the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP); o funding for the Disability Access Fund (DAF); o supplementary funding for Maintained Nursery Schools (MNS).
The actual initial allocations for 2018/19 for the early years block will be announced as part of the DSG allocations table in December 2017.
The Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) The ESFA have now published the 2018/19 EYNFF rates for each LA, which for Lancashire remains £4.30 per hour.
The main changes for 2018/19 are: the pass-through rate increases from 93% in 2017 to 2018 to 95% in 2018 to 2019 clarification that local authorities’ formulas should not distinguish between the two entitlements for three and four year olds clarification that funding supplements are intended to be in addition to the base rate and not used to reduce it; that is, they should not be ‘negative'.
Local authority formula setting The Operational Guidance confirms that LAs are required to consult providers on annual changes to the local formula. Schools Forums must also be consulted on changes to local early years funding formulas, including agreeing central spend by 28 February, although the final decision rests with the local authority.
Following discussions with the Working Group and a consultation with providers, arrangements for 2018/19 and provisional proposed funding rates were accepted, subject to the final budget setting process:
Additional funding for Maintained Nursery Schools (MNS) Local authorities with MNS continue to receive supplementary funding in 2018 to 2019. This funding is provided in order to enable local authorities to protect their 2016 to 2017 funding rates for MNS (that is, the rates that existed before the EYNFF) and the Government expects it to be used in this way.
It was noted that separate discussions with nursery schools are taking place to determine the local methodology for distributing this funding in 2018/19.
Disability Access Fund (DAF) The 2018/19 early years arrangements will continue to comply with the DAF requirements.
Three and four year olds will be eligible for the DAF if they meet the following criteria: the child is in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) the child receives the universal 15 hours entitlement
90 Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP) The EYPP gives providers additional funding to support disadvantaged three and four year old pupils. The LA must fund all eligible early years providers in their area at the national rate of 53p per hour per eligible pupil up to a maximum of 570 hours (£302.10 per year).
Local authority funding of the entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds There are a number of differences between how local authorities should fund the entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds, compared to the entitlements for three and four year olds. There is no ‘pass-through requirement’ for two year olds and there are no compulsory funding supplements for two year olds, and local authorities are encouraged to fund providers on the basis of a flat hourly rate for all providers.
Special Educational Needs Inclusion Fund Local authorities are required to have SEN Inclusion Funds for all three and four year olds with special educational needs (SEN) who are taking up the free entitlements, regardless of the number of hours taken. These funds are intended to support local authorities to work with providers to address the needs of individual children with SEN. This fund will also support local authorities to undertake their responsibilities to strategically commission SEN services as required under the Children and Families Act 2014.
Members reported on informal feedback from the DfE which indicated that although MNS funding was only guaranteed until 2019/20, DfE would ensure that there were no 'cliff edges' in the funding system.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report.
3. Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit On 16 November 2017, the DfE issued a consultation entitled 'Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit'. The consultation sets out the Government's proposals on the eligibility criteria for FSM and EYPP following the introduction of Universal Credit.
DfE indicate that under the proposals around 50,000 more children would receive free school meals in future than at present and that those who currently receive meals should not lose out. The same criteria will be used to determine eligibility for the early years pupil premium, in order to maintain consistency with the school-aged pupil premium. A copy of the consultation document was provided for the working group.
The closing date for submissions was 11 January 2018.
Four questions were posed in the document, relating to:
Question 1: Do you agree with our proposed net earnings threshold to determine eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit?
91 Question 2: Do you agree with our intention to protect those pupils who would otherwise lose their entitlement to free school meals, and those children who would otherwise lose their entitlement to the early years pupil premium, under the new eligibility criteria? Question 3: Do you feel that the proposals in this consultation may adversely affect any children who share one or more of the relevant protected characteristics outlined in the Equality Act 2010? Question 4: Do you have any views on the proposed management of the changes to the disadvantage measures or on the metrics we publish for the measurement of disadvantaged pupils’ performance?
The Working Group considered the consultation and expressed some initial views on a response. It was agreed that a draft response would be prepared and circulated for agreement.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Noted that a draft Forum response would be circulated for approval.
4. Pupil Eligibility for Early Years 2 Year Old Funding The interpretation of the Statutory Guidance for eligibility rules for 2 year old funding had been the subject of previous debate.
For the autumn term 2017, it had been agreed that relevant eligibility criteria, will be able to claim 15 hours free childcare 'in-term' from the date that the child was determined eligible, rather than having to wait until 1 January 2018. This was intended to allow time for clarification to be obtained from the DfE about the guidance interpretation.
During this transitional period, children who turned 2 years old prior to 1 September 2017 and who meet the relevant eligibility criteria, will be able to claim 15 hours free childcare 'in-term' from the date that the child was determined eligible, rather than having to wait until 1 January 2018.
Despite submitting a formal written request for clarification and chasing a response through phone calls and at meeting, no formal written response from DfE has been received.
Recently, the County Council had reconsidered its position locally and in recognition that LCC Key Priorities are to raise the attainment and achievement of our most vulnerable groups throughout the service it has been proposed to continue the more responsive interpretation to guidance and allow admissions for eligible 2 year old children throughout the year, rather than needing to await the following term.
This decision still required confirmation from DfE that it was allowable and a formal response was promised by 8 December 2017.
It was hoped that a confirmation communication could be sent to all providers in the week commencing 11 December 2017.
92 The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Welcomed the LCC interpretation of the statutory guidance to allow admissions for eligible 2 year old children throughout the year, rather than needing to await the following term.
No written communication was received from the DfE within the timescale, so a decision was taken to proceed with the agreed Lancashire policy. A copy of the communication issued to providers in the week commending 11 December is attached at Appendix A.
5. New Head of Early Years It was confirmed that Helen Belbin had recently been appointed as the new Head of Early Years. Helen's formal post was Senior Adviser (Early Years), which now provided an equivalent post with early years responsibility, dealing with children aged birth to five, to those that already existed in other phases.
Helen indicated that her remit would cut across the whole sector and would provide influence for key early issues.
The Working Group: a) Noted the information; b) Congratulated Helen on her appointment.
6. Nursery Schools with Neighbourhood Centres Nursery school headteachers reported that further meetings had been held on the outstanding issues at schools with Neighbourhood Centres and that progress had been made. However, there were still some issues subject to ongoing discussions that required resolution.
The Working Group: a) Noted the information; b) Suggested that it might be helpful to invite a representative from the Children and Family Wellbeing Service to future meetings of the Working Group.
93 Appendix A
Eligible 2 year olds can now access a place from the date they become eligible
As you will be aware a change to the statutory guidance earlier this year stated that families of two year children must be found eligible prior to the start of the term in which they wanted to access a place. Any families who applied after the start of the term would have to wait until the next term to access their free place and would therefore miss out on some of their entitlement.
We are now pleased to announce that a policy decision has been agreed and Lancashire will continue to provide the best opportunities for our most vulnerable 2 year old children by supporting eligible 2 year olds to access a place from the date they become eligible.
For a 2 year old to access a place, the following conditions must be met: The child must be age eligible (i.e. the term after the child has turned 2 years old) The family/child must meet the eligibility criteria set out on our website www.lancashire.gov.uk/childcare
We will promote the updated policy decision to families via social media and we will update our key partners to ensure that two year olds are able take up their free places as soon as they can. Please continue to encourage parents to apply for an eligibility check early to allow time to find a childcare provider and to support children to settle into the setting.
Important Note: This policy decision will only apply to eligible 2 year old children and will not be applicable for parents wanting to access the extended entitlement (30 hours) for 3&4 year old children. In the case of the extended entitlement parents must be found eligible in the term before they want to access a place. I.e. found eligible on or before 31 December 2017 to access a place in the Spring term 2018.
Delivery Support Fund (DSF) Application
The DfE have made some funding available for Local Authorities to support providers to deliver sufficient 30 hours places in the Summer term 2018. As part of the application process we undertook some consultation with the sector to gather evidence of need. Thank you to those providers who were able to complete the questionnaire that was circulated. We are using this information to support our application. The DfE will notify local authorities in February 2018 with the outcome of their application.
94 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 10
Title: Recommendations of the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group
Executive Summary
On 5 December 2017, the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group considered a number of reports, including:
Current Fund Position Financial Monitoring Sheet - how the spend is recorded Schools Portal New qualifications and the strategy going forward Criteria to be considered when approving expressions of interest – the difficulties encountered Regularity of the Chairs Group meetings/windows of opportunity AOB – MP correspondence
A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.
Recommendations
The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report from the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group held on 5 December 2017; b) Ratify the Working Group's recommendations.
95 Background On 5 December 2017, the Apprenticeship Levy Steering Group considered a number of reports. A summary of the key issues and recommendations arising from the Working Group's considerations of the items are provided in this report.
1. Current Fund Position Information was provided on the latest schools Apprenticeship Levy fund position. It was noted that with the level of funding committed to date there was likely to be a substantial underspend on the school account at year end of over £1m. Funding uncommitted after two years would be clawed back by the government.
The Group understood that the largest demand on the account from schools would normally fall in the window ahead of the September intake. The Group considered a number of mechanisms to promote the use of the Levy by schools.
Suggests included More engaging portal postings to encourage school participation; An item on the Spring term Governing Body Core agenda; Attendance at school sessions (eg HR breakfast briefings); Portal A-Z pages; Inclusion of information in the Forum newsletter.
A number of these communication streams were already in development and others would be investigated.
The Working Group: a) Noted the latest school levy fund position; b) Recommended that the proposed communication steams be used to promote Levy take-up in the school sector.
2. Financial Monitoring Sheet The Working Group were provided with information about how the Learning and Development Team were operating the financial monitoring of the schools levy fund, including committing expenditure from school enquiries.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Confirmed agreement to receive funding updates on the expenditure against the school fund; c) Supported the approach taken to committing school levy funding.
3. Schools Portal Draft pages for uploading in the Schools Portal A-Z were shared with the Group. These pages will be uploaded in the near future.
The Group welcomed this development as it was noted that many schools would use such pages to develop understanding of the Levy.
96 The Working Group: a) Noted the report; b) Welcomed the addition of dedicated Apprenticeship Levy A-Z pages on the Schools Portal.
4. New qualifications and the strategy going forward Information was provided on various higher level professional qualifications aimed at the schools, for example for business managers. It was noted that some of these qualifications would be more expensive than the majority of courses currently being requested by schools.
The Group thought that availability of these qualifications may be of interest for schools and could increase demand on the apprenticeship levy funds. It was also suggested that enquiries could be made around training for teaching staff, for example National Professional Qualification for Middle Leadership (NPQML).
The Working Group: a) Noted the report and the information about new qualifications ; b) Suggested that contact could be made with teaching schools in Lancashire to discuss possible development of teacher qualifications
5. Criteria to be considered when approving expressions of interest (EoI) – the difficulties encountered Example expressions of interest from schools were shared with the group. The difficulties in developing criteria to rank competing bids was discussed. Possible suggestions were aired and the possibility of including example EoI documentation for school was proposed, as this may assist in creating greater consistency in school submissions.
It was noted that at the current time this was not an issue, as all requests could be approved from the resources available.
It was agreed that the criteria could be re-visited if funding began to become tighter.
The Working Group: a) Noted the report.
6. Regularity of the Chairs Group meetings/windows of opportunity It was agreed that the group should meet around the windows of opportunity and a meeting in mid-June was suggested, after the closure of the window of opportunity ahead of September 2017.
7. AOB – MP correspondence Correspondence from the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys was shared with the Group, as it included reference to comments from schools about the Apprentice Levy arrangements in Lancashire. Officers would prepare a response, which would include confirmation about the statutory procurement requirements on the County Council, and that the chosen provider would provide training in each locality of Lancashire.
97 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting: 16 January 2018
Item No 11
Title: Forum Correspondence
Appendices A and B refer
Executive Summary This report provides an update on Forum related correspondence since the last meeting.
Recommendations
The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report; b) Express any views on the correspondence received.
98 Background This report provides an update on Forum related correspondence since the last meeting. a) Forum letter to MPs about the Funding Crisis Facing Lancashire Schools After the Forum meeting in July 2017, the Forum Chair re-sent a letter to all Lancashire MPs, highlighting the Forum's concerns about the funding crisis facing schools in the County.
Responses were received from 3 Lancashire MPs, which were reported to the Forum in October 2017.
County Council members of the Forum suggested that the correspondence be shared with them so that they could investigate if any political influence could be used to elicit responses from other Lancashire MPs. Following this process, a further response was received from Jake Berry, MP for Rossendale and Darwen. The letter indicates that the original correspondence was not received, and highlights the additional core school funding being made available by the Government to accompany the introduction of the national school funding formula.
A copy of this letter is provided at Appendix A.
b) School Place Planning Another Forum letter sent by the Chair after the July meeting was to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education to highlight the disconnect at national level between the pressure put on local councils to approve additional house building and other government departments responsible for funding related costs.
A response, dated 25 September 2017, was received from Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for the School System, which indicated that a separate reply would be sent from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
On 19 November 2017, a letter was received from Alok Sharma MP, Minister for Housing and Planning, and refers to DCLG consultations and announcements in the Government's autumn term statement. A copy of this letter is provided at Appendix B.
The LCC School Planning Team have been monitoring the consultations and outcomes. They have commented that the Autumn statement response from the earlier period of consultation. was disappointing but we are awaiting full details of measures to be implemented from the latest consultation and will keep Forum informed if any more information is forthcoming.
c) Advertising on LCC Vacancy Site From 1st April 2018, A communication had been sent to schools to advise that access to advertise on the Lancashire County Council Teaching / Non-Teaching vacancy site will only be available as part of the full service offering provided by BTLS Payroll and Recruitment Services. This service will no longer be able to be purchased separately as a non-buyer. Adverts with closing dates prior to 1st April 2018 will be accepted and charged accordingly.
99 Forum member Steve Robinson has written to Louise Taylor expressing concern about this decision. Steve's correspondence, which he copied to the Forum, is provided below:
"Good morning Louise
I apologise for taking up some of your time Louise but what is the LA trying to do - drive us all to Academy status? Now because we don't buy into the LA payroll service not only do we not have access to the Bichard list but from 1st April 2018 we will be unable to advertise on the LA intranet . Very unhelpful not only to non payroll schools and their children but also those looking for jobs in Lancashire schools who from 1st April 2018 do not have one point of reference for job advertisements. Here's the message received which was the stimulus for my email to you:
Advertising on LCC Vacancy Site From 1st April 2018, Access to advertise on the Lancashire County Council Teaching / Non-Teaching vacancy site will only be available as part of the full service offering provided by BTLS Payroll and Recruitment Services. This service will no longer be able to be purchased separately as a non-buyer. Adverts with closing dates prior to 1st April 2018 will be accepted and charged accordingly. The Lancashire County Council school vacancy site publishes over 2,000 recruitment adverts a year and access to this site enables you to promote your vacancy to over 40,000 job seekers visiting the site each month. As part of the service buy in, you can place an unlimited number of adverts, all of which are quality checked by Recruitment Services, and are published within 48 hours. The service provides a cost effective advertising option. Many schools choose to advertise solely on the site, avoiding the expense of external media which starts at £250 for local newspaper advertising and £789 for the TES per advert
No reasoning at all its just a decision out of the blue - no consultation ... who makes such decisions? Lancashire primary schools are working well with the LA and see no need to drift towards academy status. However should the LA departments continue to discriminate in this way the strength we currently have together will certainly be diluted. The Schools Improvement Service in Lancashire is second to none but some other LA services do not appear to realise we are all on the same team and they are causing unrest and a rising dissatisfaction in schools like ours."
Officers have been liaising with HR colleagues to discuss the reasons behind this decision.
d) Letter to United Utilities Announcements from the Chief Executive United Utilities (UU) indicating that they have agreed to make some concessions to the Surface Water and Highway Drainage (SWHD) for schools. Members welcomed the potential savings for Lancashire schools and academies as a result of this proposal, but were concerned that the eligibility criteria for the concessions appeared to exclude nursery schools.
The Chair therefore wrote to UU requesting the inclusion of nursery schools in any concessions scheme. A further letter was then sent to Waterplus.
To date, no responses has been received, but a reply has been chased through the County Council's waterplus account manager. Any response will be report to the Forum.
100 101 102 103 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 12
Title: Schools Forum Urgent Business Decisions
Appendices (if applicable) Appendix A refers
Executive Summary
The Schools Forum's Urgent Business Procedure has been used to agree a response to the DfE consultation on Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit. This report provides details.
Forum Decision Required
The Forum is asked to note the report.
104 Background
Reports to the Early Years Block and the Schools Block working groups in December 2017 alerted members to the Government consultation on 'Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit'.
The closing date for consultation responses was 11 January 2018, and so it was agreed that a draft response should be circulated for approval using the Forum's Urgent Business Procedure.
The draft response was prepared in conjunction with the LCC Pupil Access and Welfare Rights services and was circulated on 5 January 2018, requesting comments by 10 January 2018. A copy of the draft is provided at Appendix A.
Information about the responses will be provided at the Forum meeting on 16 January 2018.
105 Appendix A
Consultation: Eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit
Do you agree with our proposed net earnings threshold to determine eligibility for free school meals and the early years pupil premium under Universal Credit? Although the consultation document suggests that under the proposals around 50,000 more children would receive free school meals in the future it also states that around 90 % of the 1.9 million pupils who are currently eligible will continue to be so. This implies that approximately 190,000 pupils will lose their eligibility.
In Lancashire, there were 38,235 pupils who were eligible to receive free school meals at the time of the January census. If only 90% retain eligibility then 3824 pupils are likely to lose out.
There is a concern that the examples used mask the actual impact of Universal Credit.
If Priya, the lone parent with one child, used in Example A worked for 16 hours, earning £504 pcm, and received £331 Working Tax Credit and £277 Child Tax Credit, her weekly disposable income from her earnings, Tax Credits and Child Benefit would be £277. On Universal Credit, with exactly the same income, she would receive Universal Credit of £527.49 pcm (instead of the £608 pcm from Tax Credits), so Priya would be £18.27 per week worse off. The offer of a free school meal rather than the extra £18.27 weekly income undermines the principles behind the intention to improve the lives of the most disadvantaged families on the lowest income, as overall the income to her family will reduce.
If the same example is extrapolated with an annual income of £7400, and Priya working between 16 and 29 hours a week, she would on Tax Credits receive £574 pcm, but on Universal Credit would only receive £456 pcm, effectively £27 per week worse off.
Families who rely on in-work benefits to top up their earnings are already struggling to manage financially, so replacing a drop in income with free school meals does little if anything to alleviate the disadvantages faced by their children.
Do you agree with our intention to protect those pupils who would otherwise lose their entitlement to free school meals, and those children who would otherwise lose their entitlement to the early years pupil premium, under the new eligibility criteria? In the short term the protection will offer some administrative benefits in respect of a reduction in the need to conduct regular bulk entitlement checks. There will however be the need to develop a new recording systems to distinguish between the 'protected' pupils and those who newly qualify after Universal Credit is fully rolled out.
The biggest concern about the changes relate to the reliability of the Inland Revenue ECS checker to correctly identify eligible claimants. It is understood that the payment of Universal Credit is determined by undertaking monthly income checks based on live
106 data from employers. Claimants that have an income that is close to the £7400 threshold could be unsure on a month-to-month basis of whether Free School Meals will be provided and the number of checks being undertaken could rise exponentially. The County Council already experiences significant difficulties in verifying entitlement in areas where no documentation is issued to an entitled claimant and the ECS checker is not up to date with the parent's eligibility.
Do you feel that the proposals in this consultation may adversely affect any children who share one or more of the relevant protected characteristics outlined in the Equality Act 2010? The response to Question 1 notes that up to 4000 Lancashire children may lose their eligibility to free school meals.
The Equality Analysis recognises that the children most likely to lose out are those with special educational needs or a disability, those attending a school with no religious character and those from certain ethnic groups.
Do you have any views on the proposed management of the changes to the disadvantage measures or on the metrics we publish for the measurement of disadvantaged pupils’ performance? There has been significant change to the examination system underlying the accountability framework for secondary schools over a number of years; this has been managed by the use of a dashed line between different years in a time series to dissuade analysts from making direct comparisons between the years concerned. There does not appear to be any reason why this approach would not work where time series for disadvantaged pupils are concerned. Alternatively, national frameworks could stop producing time series until the period of change has completed, instead publishing data for one year only for disadvantaged pupils.
Whatever approach is used, it is right to make clear that a like-for-like comparison cannot
107 LANCASHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Date of meeting 16 January 2018
Item No 14
Title: Schools Forum Meeting Arrangements
Appendix A refers
Executive Summary
This report asks the Forum to consider future meeting arrangements.
Recommendations
The Forum is asked to: a) Note the report; b) Express any views about the future meeting schedule;
Members are asked to add the dates to their diaries/calendars.
108 Background A draft Forum schedule for the 2018/19 academic year is attached at Appendix A. The Schedule has been produced following a similar pattern to that used in 2017/18.
The arrangements for two meetings are highlighted:
Lancashire Schools Forum Wednesday 17-Oct-18 10:00 – 13.00 This meeting is scheduled for a Wednesday, as there is no suitable Tuesday or Thursday room availability before autumn half term.
Early Years Block Working Group Thursday 29-Nov-18 13.30 – 16.00 The start time for this meeting has been set at 13.30, as the earliest time the room becomes available on that afternoon.
The Forum is asked to comment on the schedule and members are asked to add the dates to their diaries/calendars.
109 Lancashire Schools Forum Meeting Schedule 2018/19
Autumn Term 2018
Meeting Day Date Time
Schools Forum Induction Monday 24-Sep-18 10:00 – 13.00
High Needs Block Working Group Tuesday 25-Sep-18 10:00 – 13.00
Early Years Block Working Group Tuesday 02-Oct-18 13.00 – 16.00
Schools Block Working Group Thursday 04-Oct-18 10:00 – 13.00
Lancashire Schools Forum Wednesday 17-Oct-18 10:00 – 13.00
High Needs Block Working Group Tuesday 27-Nov-18 10:00 – 13.00
Early Years Block Working Group Thursday 29-Nov-18 13.30 – 16.00
Schools Block Working Group Thursday 06-Dec-18 10:00 – 13.00
Spring Term 2019
Meeting Day Date Time Chairman's Working Group Thursday 10-Jan-19 10:00 – 13.00
Lancashire Schools Forum Tuesday 15-Jan-19 10:00 – 13.00
Early Years Block Working Group Tuesday 26-Feb-19 13.00 – 16.00
High Needs Block Working Group Thursday 28-Feb-19 10:00 – 13.00
Schools Block Working Group Thursday 07-Mar-19 10:00 – 13.00
Lancashire Schools Forum Thursday 21-Mar-19 10:00 – 13.00
Summer Term 2019
Meeting Day Date Time High Needs Block Working Group Tuesday 11-Jun-19 10:00 – 13.00
Early Years Block Working Group Thursday 13-Jun-19 13.00 – 16.00
Schools Block Working Group Thursday 20-Jun-19 10:00 – 13.00
Lancashire Schools Forum Thursday 04-Jul-19 10:00 – 13.00
All meetings are held at The Exchange, County Hall, Preston
110