Ealing Borough Council Democratic Services Officer: Town Hall Cornelia Harding New Broadway Direct Line: 020 8825 7380 London W5 2BY Email:HardingCo@ealing.gov.uk

Ealing Schools Forum

Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, New Broadway, Ealing, W5 2BY Date and Time: Thursday, 05 July 2018 at 18:15

AGENDA

Open to Public and Press

Please note pre-meeting for Members at 5.15pm.

Schools Forum Membership 3 - 4

1 Appointment of Chair

2 Apologies for Absence

3 Urgent Matters

Page 1 of 68 4 Matters to be Considered in Private

5 Declarations of Interest

6 Minutes

Ealing Schools' Forum Minutes 17 April 2018 5 - 10

7 Matters Arising from the Minutes

8 MEMBERSHIP:

9 Audit and Fraud Update 11 - 16

10 Schools Funding Report 2018-19 to 2019-20 17 - 68

11 Date of Next Meeting

Paul Najsarek, Chief Executive, 27 June 2018

NOTE: In the event of an emergency your attention is drawn to the evacuation instructions displayed on the wall by the entrance to the Committee Room. First Aid advice can also be found here.

Page 2 of 68 EALING SCHOOLS FORUM MEMBERSHIP

Term of office is three years except for councillors who are appointed annually.

Start of Expiry of Category of Name School Term of Term of Office member Office (3 years)

Special Schools x Paul Adair Castlebar 1 October 30 September 2 2015 2018

Ian Buchanan Springhallow 1 November 31 October 2016 2019

Nursery Schools Beverley Head of South 17 October 16 October 2020 x 1 Kellett Acton Children’s 2017 Centre Primary Schools Bill Griffiths Clifton Primary 1 November 31 October x 10 School 2016 2019

Belinda Ewart Mayfield Primary 1 October 30 September School 2015 2018

Colin Groves Ravenor Primary 1 October 30 September School 2015 2018

Benedict St. Joseph’s 12 January 11 January 2018 Cassidy Catholic Primary 2015 (office expired) School Surinder Havelock Primary 1 October 30 September Varma School 2015 2018

Margaret St. John’s 1 October 30 September Majumdar Primary School 2015 2018

VACANCY

Elizabeth Horsenden 1 October 30 September Walton Primary School 2015 2018

Dave Woods Beaconsfield 1 October 30 September Primary School 2015 2018

Evelyn Ward St. Raphael’s 1 October 30 September Catholic Primary 2015 2018 School High Schools x 4 Eliot Wong Elthorne Park 6 November 5 November High School 2017 2020

Arwel Jones Brentside High 1 October 30 September School 2015 2018

Page 3 of 68 Vinita Sighat Villiers High 1 October 30 September School 2015 2018

Rachel Ellen Wilkinson 6 November 5 November Kruger School for Girls 2017 2020

Pupil Referral Tracie McNeil Ealing Alternative 1 October 30 September Unit x 1 Provision 2015 2018

Academy x 3 Harinder Woodland 29 30 November Rana Academy November 2020 2017

Gerry Wadwa Featherstone 1 October 30 September High School 2015 2018

John Twyford C of E 1 October 30 September Goddard High School 2015 2018

Representative of Kevin Oakhill Ambitious About October 30 September non-maintained Autism 2015 2018 SEN providers x 1 Representative of Stefan Simms 30 October 29 October 2020 Teaching staff x 1 2017 VA and Faith Ethos Academy/Free Vacant School Providers x 1 PVI Nursery Provider x 1 Clare Porter Hungry Caterpillars 1 July 2016 30 June 2019 Day Nurseries

16 – 19 Garry Phillips Ealing, 1 November 31 October partnership x 1 Hammersmith 2016 2019 and West London College Non-Executive Councillor 22 May 7 May 2019 Members of Driscoll 2018 Council x 3 Councillor 22 May 7 May 2019 Lusuardi 2018

Councillor 22 May 7 May 2019 Millican 2018

Page 4 of 68 Ealing Schools Forum

Tuesday 17th April 2018 at 6:15 pm

Council Chamber, Ealing Town Hall

PRESENT:

Members:

Special Schools: Paul Adair, Ian Buchanan Nursery Schools: Absent Primary Schools: Margaret Majumdar (Chair), Belinda Ewart, Benedict Cassidy, Surinder Varma, Dave Woods, and Evelyn Ward. High Schools: Eliot Wong and Arwel Jones Academies: Gerry Wadwa Representative of Non-Maintained SEN Providers: Absent Representative of Teaching Staff: Stefan Simms VA and Faith Ethos Academy/Free School Providers: Vacant 16-19 Partnership Representative: Absent

*Please note attendance is based on those that have signed the attendance sheet.

Also Present: Judith Finlay (Executive Director, Children, Adults and Public Health), Gary Redhead (Assistant Director, Schools Planning & Resources), Carolyn Fair (Director of Children and Families), Tamara Quinn (Strategic Lead, Planning and Resources), Geraldine Chadwick (Interim Senior Finance Business Advisor, Children and Schools), Andrew Reeve (Finance Business Partner) and Cornelia Harding (Democratic Services Officer).

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence had been received in advance of the meeting from the following: Non-Executive Members of Council: Ahmed and Millican Primary Schools: Elizabeth Walton High Schools: Vinita Sighat and Rachel Kruger Pupil Referral Unit: Tracie McNeil PVI Nursery Provider: Clare Porter

Absent: Nursery Schools: Beverley Kellett Primary Schools: Bill Griffiths, Colin Groves, Helen O’Neill. Academy: Harinder Rana, John Goddard. Representative of Non-Maintained SEN Providers: Kevin Oakhill

Page 5 of 68 Absent continued: 16-19 Partnership Representative: Gary Phillips

Vacant positions: I. VA and Faith Ethos Academy/Free School Providers II. Non-Executive Members of Council - (1 out of 3)

2. Urgent Matters There were none.

3. Declarations of Interest There were none.

4. Matters to be Considered in Private There were none.

5. Update on Membership The Assistant Director, Schools Planning & Resources, Gary Redhead, drew attention to the fact that the membership of a number of Ealing Schools’ Forum (ESF) representatives lapses in September 2018. He said a nomination process, and if necessary elections, would be run this term. He also said there would be a recalculation of the balance between academy, maintained and voluntary aided schools as part of that process.

The Chair, Margaret Majumdar, suggested that at the July 2018 meeting, if the election of representatives had not been completed by then, the ESF consider appointing a chair for that meeting only and subsequently elect a chair for the rest of the municipal year at the October 2018 meeting.

6. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Dave Woods, a Primary School representative, raised a point of correction in the minutes. With respect to De-delegation Amounts and Rates – Additional School Improvement, instead of the abstention that had been recorded, he had wanted his vote against the de-delegation to be recorded in the minutes.

The Forum consented to this and the minutes were amended in manuscript at the meeting.

RESOLVED: That, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting of the Ealing Schools Forum held on Tuesday 9th January 2018 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chair.

7. Matters Arising from the Minutes (not appearing on the agenda) There were none

Page 6 of 68

8. School Funding 2018-19

Scheme for Financing Schools 2018-2019

Gary Redhead (Assistant Director, Schools Planning and Resources) introduced this report. There are only minor changes to the Scheme for this year as compared to previous years with the following notable exceptions: - The arrangements for Schools when applying for Loans and Licenced Deficits (attached to the report as Appendix 2) and; - The proposed arrangements for Schools who convert to academies (attached to the report as Appendix 3).

The proposed arrangements for Schools who convert to academies are new proposals designed to contribute towards the Local Authority’s costs of undertaking the work of a school converting to an academy. The amounts proposed in Appendix 3 were to allow the Local Authority (LA) to be able to charge to do the work at cost.

Gary Redhead explained that the costs incurred by the LA in school academisation were variable. For example, in respect of Voluntary Aided and Foundation Schools where the authority does not own the land, the costs incurred by the Authority were less. However, in respect of schools built through a Private Finance Initiative, the costs were considerably more. The Local Authority proposals to have its costs met in this regard mirrored what was being done in other local authorities. The biggest cost outlay was in respect of the LA’s legal fees involved in academisation.

It was discussed that if a situation arose wherein all LA schools were to be subjected to enforced academisation, it would be expected that this LA, along with others, would lobby the Department for Education (DfE) for a budget to cover those costs.

The view was also expressed that the costs to a school itself of enforced academisation were substantial as compared to a local authority’s costs therefore for the LA to attempt to recover its costs from LA schools would be an attempt to take money from the wrong source.

The counter argument to this was that the legal costs and costs incurred for the Capita Licences were not insignificant and it was common practice among local authorities to charge to cover those costs. It was felt that was particularly appropriate where a school chooses to academise. If a school was in deficit, the deficit stays with the local authority. Some schools however have large surpluses which they take with them when they academise. Therefore, it makes sense to charge if a school is in surplus. This is what other local authorities are doing. There was a consensus at the meeting that these costs were likely to be variable,

Page 7 of 68 therefore the Forum agreed the proposal on the basis that the LA would remove the sentence specifying the example of the range of costs.

It was noted that the following schools were currently in the process of academisation: Dormers Wells Infant and Acton High.

Appendix 1, Annex 1: Schools covered by Ealing’s Scheme for Financing Schools

Point of correction: Hathaway Primary should be deleted from the list as it has now become Woodlands Academy.

Update on Progress of High Needs Review

The Forum was advised that at the January meeting of the ESF, officers had agreed to conduct a review of the use of the High Needs Block (HNB) – Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). A consultant, Kevin Oakhill, has been engaged who has conducted an initial desk-top exercise. The whole range of spend in the High Needs Block is to be reviewed, together with Special Educational Needs (SEN) strategies going forward. The Forum was informed that it was anticipated that the resulting report will be brought to the ESF at the July 2018 meeting.

A Special Schools Representative expressed the view that they (the Special Schools Block) would have liked to have seen the terms of reference (TORs) for this review and to have been informed of the framework and outcomes to be achieved. He expressed surprise at the proposed speed of delivery of the report and went on to say that any high needs review should be a value-driven exercise which needed to unpack a number of issues given that there may not be enough money to sustain high needs funding. The Special Schools Representative voiced some apprehension about the current process so far, as his recollection of the previous review was that it had not been the collaborative experience the special schools would have liked it to have been.

Judith Finlay informed the Forum that the LA would be happy to share the TORs and that it was planned to provide an update on the review at a forthcoming workshop for head teachers of SEN schools. She said the review had a possible impact on both mainstream and SEN provision and the department had been mindful of people’s time.

Allocation of Resources for Children and Young People with Education Health and Care Plans (EHCP)

Tamara Quinn (Strategic Lead, Planning and Resources) spoke about the LA’s proposed implementation of a Resource Allocation System (RAS). The objective of this will be to refine the existing system and offer more transparency. An example of the type of questionnaire that could be used was attached to the report as Appendix 4. This type of questionnaire gives an indication of the allocation of a

Page 8 of 68 points system which would lead to how a decision would be made on the appropriate resource band.

Dave Woods (Primary Schools Representative) asked whether if the proposed RAS was implemented there would be a mechanism to appeal decisions. He stated this might be necessary in the case of circumstances outside the norm not covered by the questions on the RAS questionnaire.

It was noted in response that in some local authorities, the RAS had given more than what the assessment panel had initially thought was applicable and in other cases the converse was true. Gary Redhead said that the current system did not allocate banding and was not transparent and that the proposed RAS will address that. It was accepted that the RAS would be an indicative allocation system and that there would always be exceptions which would be addressed as they arose. It was mentioned that the type of evidence the school can provide was included within the RAS framework and factors such as whether the descriptors were appropriate or should be changed would be considered as part of the current review. The proposed RAS would be flexible to cover circumstances where transitional funding was required, for example where a child had been out of education for some time.

The question was raised whether the RAS would be for new cases only, for existing cases only or for both, and if it applied to existing cases, at which point would it be introduced. For pupils already with an EHCP, the annual review was mentioned as a possible appropriate stage for introducing the RAS. Gary Redhead stated it was open for discussion whether the RAS was to be introduced at Reception, Year 7 or at annual review stage.

It was noted that the proposed RAS had funding implications, even for mainstream schools, particularly where a child had high funding attached to them under the existing system. Judith Finlay stressed that consistency and transparency were important and that the RAS did not take away the human element but was intended to be indicative. The LA had consulted with 200 young people on the RAS and the feedback had been generally positive.

Paul Adair mentioned that while the RAS had come a long way, his experience of the RAS was different to that of the 200 young people surveyed. He stressed that if the LA was moving towards the RAS as a threshold document, staff needed to be aware of what was in the paperwork. He said there was often strong variability in what the education psychologist stated and what was represented. Inexperienced SEN co-ordinators were often trying to interpret what a clinical psychologist had stated as they completed the form. The shortage of educational psychologists also compounded the problem.

Ian Buchanan (Special Schools Representative), said that regular feedback would be needed and that the feedback flows should be charted.

Page 9 of 68 RESOLVED:

That the Ealing Schools Forum:

1. Adopt the revised Scheme for Financing Maintained Schools, attached as Appendix 1 to the report considered at this meeting;

2. Note arrangements for Schools when applying for Loans and Licenced Deficits attached as Appendix 2 to the report considered at this meeting;

3. Note proposed arrangements for Schools who convert to academies attached as Appendix 3 to the report considered at this meeting, with the deletion of paragraph two;

4. Note the update on progress of Local Authority’s High Needs Review, The Terms of Reference of this review are appended to these minutes); and

5. Note proposals to review the method for allocating resources to Education Health and Care Plans (EHCP), attached as Appendix 4 to the report considered at this meeting.

The meeting concluded with the Chair expressing the Forum’s gratitude to the officers for their support during the municipal year, and Judith Finlay expressing gratitude, on behalf of the ESF, to the outgoing Chair, Margaret Majumdar, for her chairing of ESF meetings to such a high standard for the past six years.

9. Date of the Next Meeting

The next meeting was (provisionally) scheduled for Wednesday 4th July 2018. It was noted that the meeting date may need to be rescheduled due to the non-availability of key members and officers.

Signed ………………………………………………... Margaret Majumdar (Chair)

The meeting ended at 6:55pm.

Page 10 of 68

117.5 Report for: INFORMATION

Item Number:

Contains Confidential No 9 or Exempt Information Title Audit & Fraud Update Responsible Officer Mike Pinder, Head of Audit & Investigation Author Mike Pinder, Head of Audit & Investigation, [email protected] Portfolio Cllr Bassam Mahfouz- Finance and Leisure For Consideration By Ealing Schools Forum Date to be considered Implementation Date if N/A Not Called In Affected Wards All Keywords/Index Internal Audit, Counter Fraud, Intelligence and Investigation

Purpose of Report:

The attached report provides an update to the Schools Forum on the outcomes of the Internal Audit activities during 2017/18. It provides details of the types of fraud risks faced by schools and suggested areas of work that can be undertaken by the Counter Fraud team in the prevention and detection of fraud within schools.

1. Recommendation

1.1 That the Schools Forum note the summary results of the 2018/19 audit programme.

2. Reason for Decision and Options Considered

2.1 This report is for information.

3. Key Implications

3.1 Summary of 2017/18 Internal Audit Activity

3.1.1 This year the audit programme returned to a traditional auditing approach with visits to a number of schools. The visits are designed to cover the key financial systems and governance arrangements at the School. Treated as a pilot year, 5 schools were covered at Ealing in order to test the programme. From now on, all schools will be audited at least once over a three year plan. The audit and investigation service is a shared service with Hounslow. Audit’s are also undertaken of those

Page 11 of 68

schools. The summary of issues is compiled based on all of our audit work in order to try and help schools learn from the issues identified.

3.1.2 At the time of drafting two audit reports have been finalised one with reasonable, one with nil assurance. Three reports are currently out in draft. Follow-up work will be undertaken on a risk basis to confirm that issues identified are addressed.

3.1.3 Individual reports are issued to each school.

Common Themes

3.1.4 During the year, a number of common themes have been identified at Schools during 2018/19 are:

 Purchase orders - should be raised in advance. This helps budgeting, by identifying and recording committed spend, whilst also confirming terms and conditions. The findings are profiled to values and this has confirmed it is not just for the low value orders.

 Bank reconciliations - should be undertaken monthly and signed off by the preparer (e.g. Schools Business Manager, Finance Officer, or Bursar) and reviewer (e.g. Headteacher). This helps ensure that all income and spend has been recorded and reconciled, to e.g. financial returns, for accuracy.

 Final payroll reports – should always be checked and signed off by the Headteacher to evidence the check to confirm bonafides and completeness.

 Governors Skills matrix – should be completed and retained at the School. This helps demonstrate the robustness of the Governing Body to fulfil the support needed by the school.

 Governors Schools Financial Training – ensuring all governors have some financial training to enable understanding and challenge at all levels. There is, therefore, a risk that other governors will not understand the financial reports enough to identify mistakes, challenge and properly scrutinise information presented to them.

 School Development/Improvement plans – should be one year in detail and two year outline. There is a risk that the school will not be able to demonstrate or evidence forward planning to link to their strategic vision for the school and demonstrate the direction of travel to the Governing Body around standards and quality of the school.

 Asset Registers/ Inventories – need to be complete for insurance and probity purposes. This means ensuring all details are complete including serial nos, asset numbers, replacement costs, location of asset and acquisition dates are logged on register.

Page 12 of 68

 Benchmarking - of financial information analysis may be beneficial to the school as it will allow them to improve financial efficiency, compare expenditure, performance and staffing structures with other similar schools. It can also inform their school development process.

3.2 Fraud Performance

3.2.1 For the financial year 2017/18, two fraud cases are being investigated by the Audit and Investigation team.

3.2.2 Please do contact us if you have any concerns, our professional fraud investigation can often help you manage the process.

3.3 Fraud Risks

3.3.1 All organisations are subject to fraud risks, including schools. Generally, the reason frauds arise is because controls in financial systems become weak. There is a risk of fraud at all levels, head teachers, teachers, support staff and governors.

Emerging Trends

3.3.2 Audit & Investigation are flagging the following areas as emerging fraud risks for the sector, rather than issues identified specifically in Ealing:

Mandate fraud attempts continue, but schools have responded well. A reminder this is where fraudsters write to the school pretending to be the company, but provide their own bank details. You should ensure they always confirm the change of bank details with the company directly making the change, being mindful not to use the contact details on the letter requesting the change.

Phishing, particularly “Chief Officer fraud” has also continued to be an issue for the sector. This is where an email is received, purporting to be from a senior officer asking for urgent assistance/payments. Simple advice is don’t make the payment, if you reply to try and validate the information it is generally going back to the fraudster.

Other Fraud Risks

A reminder of some of the other fraud risks you should watch out for.

3.3.2 Procurement

 Buying from a contractor known personally to a member of staff without declaring a conflict of interest.  Colluding with a supplier/contractor in order to obtain an advantage over their competitors, sometimes in return for an inducement.  Purchase of school equipment for personal use.

Page 13 of 68

 Split invoicing to avoid getting quotes or carrying out a tender process.  Bid rigging at the pre-contract stage.  False invoicing at the post contract stage.

3.3.3 Income

 Unauthorised use of school facilities, resulting in a loss of income to the school.  Misappropriation of petty cash for personal use.  Redirecting school funds into a third party account.  Theft of money generated through fund raising events.

3.3.4 Payroll

 Wages and overtime claimed fraudulently.  Ghost employees set up, with the intention of diverting funds to a third party account.  False overtime claims submitted.  False claims for expenses.

3.3.5 Recruitment

 No right to work in the UK.  Concealed employment history.  False professional memberships and qualifications.  Undeclared employment of friends and family.

Many of these risks can be mitigated through compliance with key controls.

3.5 Responding to an incident of fraud

If you suspect fraud or bribery in any of a school’s activities, committed by the public, teachers, support staff or school governors, you have a duty to inform Audit & Investigation.

You should make a note of your concerns and report them immediately; this will help to limit financial and reputational damage and ensure a detailed and proper investigation is carried out by trained Fraud Investigation Officers. The following methods can be used to report fraud.

 Fraud Hotline 0800 328 6453  Email [email protected]

Investigations will be undertaken with a view to prosecution through the courts and/or assist in internal disciplinary action. If offenders have benefited from their criminal conduct, it may also be possible to seek confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).

Page 14 of 68

4 Financial

4.1 All audit and fraud activity covered in this report will be delivered within the current Audit & Investigation budget.

5 Legal

5.1. Counter Fraud work is carried out in compliance with criminal and civil law and criminal investigation procedures relevant to investigation work including: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) 1996, the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (as amended), the Human Rights Act 1998, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, the Anti- Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and relevant Employment Law.

6 Value For Money

6.1 Compliance with best practice guidance ensures that the requirements of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2011 will be met.

7 Sustainability Impact Appraisal

7.1 Not applicable

8 Risk Management

8.1 Strong corporate governance including counter fraud and corruption should minimise officer distraction from key corporate objectives as a result of governance failure(s).

9 Community Safety

9.1 Not applicable.

10 Links to Strategic Objectives

10.1 The issues outlined in this report have a particular focus on the Council’s objectives in ensuring it protects public funds and provides value for money.

11 Equalities and Community Cohesion

11.1 An initial Equalities Impact assessment has been conducted and approved in relation to the Counter Fraud and Corruption Policy.

12 Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications:

12.1 Not applicable.

13 Property and Asset

Page 15 of 68

13.1 Not applicable

14 Any other implications:

14.1 None.

15 Consultation

15.1 As per attached table.

16 Appendices

None

Consultation

Name of Department Date sent to Date Comments consultee consultee response appear in received report para: from consultee Ian O’Donnell Executive Director of 14/6/2018 Corporate Resources Ross Brown Interim Director of 13/6/2018 13/6/2018 Throughout Finance (Deputy s151 Officer) Gary Redhead Asst Director Schools 11/6/2018 11/6/2018 Throughout Planning & Resources Cllr Bassam Portfolio Holder – 13/6/2018 Mahfouz Finance and Leisure

Report History

Decision type: Urgency item?

For information No

Authorised by Cabinet Date report Report deadline: Date report sent: member: drafted:

Report no.: Report author and contact for queries: Mike Pinder, Head of Audit & investigation. Ext 5792

Page 16 of 68 *Report for: CONSULTATION and ACTION.

Item Number:

10 Contains Confidential NO or Exempt Information Title School Funding 2018/19 to 2019/20 Responsible Officer(s) Gary Redhead, Assistant Director Schools Planning & Resources, [email protected] 020 8825 5773 Author(s) Tamara Quinn, Resources and Planning Strategic Lead [email protected] 020 8825 8444 Portfolio(s) Councillor Yvonne Johnson, Children and Young People For Consideration By Schools Forum Date to be Considered 5th July 2018 Implementation Date if Not applicable Not Called In Affected Wards All Keywords/Index School Funding, Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)

Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to highlight issues relating to funding that the Forum will need to consider as part of the Early Years, High Needs, Schools and Central Schools Budgets for 2018/19 and 2019/20. It also provides a summary of the outturn position for the LA’s maintained schools 2017/18. Further reports will be made in November 2018 and January 2019.

1. Recommendations It is recommended that the Schools Forum:

i. Note an update on the implementation the National Funding Formula (Appendix 1). ii. Note the summary of Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding decisions to be made for 2019/20 and consider their views on these: • Schools Funding Formula • De-Delegation • Retained Duties • General Duties • Historic commitments • Ongoing Commitments • Growth Fund and Support for Falling Rolls • SEN Support Fund (Appendix 2)

iii. Note the Early Years growth and funding pressures, and an update on the projected impact of the Early Years National Funding Formula (EYNFF) for 2019/20. iv. Note an update on high needs funding pressures, and progress on the High Needs Review and Strategy Review. v. Note the update on the implementation of the Resource Allocation System RAS

1 of 27 Page 17 of 68 vi. Note the update on Ealing Learning Partnership ELP and Planning for 2019/20 (Appendix 3) vii. Note the level of school balances as well as loans and deficit agreements at 31st March 2018 (Appendix 4 and 5). viii. Consider what action the Forum would wish to take where schools have excessive surpluses or deficits or loans, noting the DfE’s Financial Risk Tool (Appendix 6) ix. Consider a recommendation to retain 2017/18 DSG underspend for expected claw back of Early Years Block Funding

2. Reason for Decision The local authority is required to establish a Schools Forum that operates within the statutory framework set out in section 5 of this report.

At the July meeting of the Schools Forum officers report on the financial outlook for the coming financial year 2019/20. Further reports are made in November and then in January. At the January meeting, final budget proposals are considered before the Schools Block is agreed by the Council and submitted to the Department for Education.

Under the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2017 the Schools Forum must be consulted on possible changes to the formula for the next financial year. The Regulations relating to the financial year 2019/20 have not yet been published for consultation.

3. Key Implications

i. National Funding Formula The national funding of schools was implemented for the 2018/19 financial year. The government moved to funding the Schools, Early Years and High Needs blocks on a formulaic rather than historical spend basis. A central schools block was created which will reduce year on year, and could decline further in line with any academisation. Additionally, in Ealing high needs pressures were funded by efficiencies in the High Needs Block and transfers from the Schools Block.

We anticipate further information on formula factors which remain under review in relation the schools block such as pupil growth, pupil mobility, and premises. The impact of any changes on local authorities (LAs) will be published in the autumn, at which point there will be clarification on the 2019/20 formula allocations and implementation at both LA and schools levels, and for the Schools and Central Schools blocks of the DSG.

The DfE have indicated that the current funding arrangements for mobility, PFI, split sites and rates will remain in place for 2019/20. They have also indicated that growth may move to a lagged model for 2019/20. Details of these arrangements are to be published July 2018. The DfE have also indicated that there could be a separate grant to fund schools for in year FSM growth.

The below tables set out some of the key activities that will need to be undertaken.

2 of 27 Page 18 of 68

Table 1: Indicative DfE and ESFA updates and LA actions for the Schools Block SCHOOL FUNDING FORMULA DfE Schools Block: Confirmation of grant value December 2018 Unit values for formula factors confirmed, and operational July 2018 guidance

LA actions: Model the impact of a move from the existing formula (and any November 2018 updates to that formula) towards the national funding formula. Consult on the value to be used for local Minimum Funding November 2018 Guarantee (MFG) capping (this can be locally determined within limits to be confirmed) If supported by the Schools Forum hold an exceptional October 2018 meeting of the schools funding working group or full Forum

Table 2: Indicative DfE and ESFA updates and LA actions for the Central Schools Block CENTRAL SCHOOLS BLOCK and De-Delegation DfE Central schools block: Confirmation of initial grant value December 2018

LA actions: Seek Schools Forum views on estimated grant value, and July and November proposed central and combined budgets. As well as De- 2018 Delegated budgets and General Education functions Seek agreement from Schools Forum on centrally retained January 2019 budget lines

The Forum agreed at its January 2018 meeting to move towards the National Funding Formula (NFF) from 2018/19. Due to affordability of the formula in 2018/19 some factors were set below the national funding formula. These were Free School Meals (FSM) and Prior Attainment (PA). To set these factors at the NFF rates would cost approximately £2.615m which is broadly in line with growth in the schools’ block expected in 2019/20.

Table 3: FSM and Prior Attainment - NFF and Ealing funding formula factors Formula Factor per NFF £ Ealing Factor 2018/19 £ eligible child FSM Primary and 503.67 450 Secondary Prior Attainment: Primary 1201.95 1001.95 Secondary 1774.39 1574.30

Note: all other factors align to the national funding formula. The NFF and Ealing factors can be found in Appendix 1.

3 of 27 Page 19 of 68

Based on the 2017/18 data set we welcome the Forum’s view on the speed of moving towards the NFF. The options are:

 To increase these factors to NFF values, whilst setting MFG at minus 1.5%, gainers would be capped at 6.33%. The MFG cost to gainers would be £579k. 58 schools would be on the NFF, 17 schools would be capped, with the remainder being protected by the MFG

 To increase these factors to NFF values, whilst setting MFG at 0%, gainers would be capped at 5.54%. The MFG cost to gainers would be £907k. 50 schools would be on the NFF, 21 schools would be capped, with the remainder being protected by the MFG.

 To increase these factors to NFF values, whilst setting the MFG at +0.5%, gainers would be capped at 4.7%. The MFG cost to the gainers would be £1.7m, 44 schools would be on the NFF, 24 schools would be capped with the remainder being protected by the MFG.

ii. Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding decisions to be made for 2019/20

In addition to the schools funding formula consultation, the forum is required to vote and approve a range of de-delegated and central budgets line by line at its meeting in January 2019. To assist us in our planning we are seeking the Forum’s view on a number of these services.

De-Delegation It is expected that de-delegation will still be possible at the Forum level for maintained schools for 2019/20 subject to the usual voting requirements. The LA seeks the Forum’s view on the funding of these services (line by line) going forward.

De-delegation is based on pupils on roll across all areas, the below table outlines the decisions made in January 2018 for the current financial year.

4 of 27 Page 20 of 68

Table 4: The below table outlines 2018/19 agreed funding

Descriptio Contingencies Free School Meals Staff costs supply cover Behaviour support Additional school Total Unit value n Eligibility TU Duties services improvement services

Phase Primary Secondar Primary Secondar Primary Secondar Primary Secondary Primary Secondar Primary Secondary y y y y Rate Per £3.90 £1.69 £3.88 £6.94 £3.49 £19.90 Pupil £3.90 £1.69 £2.72 £22.15 £30.46 Total £112,398 £48,705 £111,821 £200,010 £100,581 £573,51 Budget 8 £34,569 £14,980 £0.00 £24,110 £196,337 £0.00 £269,997

5 of 27 Page 21 of 68

Items not de-delegated in 2018/19:

 Long term and maternity supply cover  Support to underperforming ethnic minority groups and bilingual learners  Insurance  Support for ethnic minority groups and bi-lingual learners  Museum and Library Services  Licences and subscriptions (certain nationally negotiated agreements are funded from the retained schools block) Due to the high risks faced by schools who are subject to an academy order the LA asks the Forum to consider an increase in the contingency to between £0.5m and £2m and consider other steps that need to be taken to ensure all schools have robust and sustainable financial plans.

The LA seeks the Forum’s view on the below de-delegated budgets:

 Contingencies – increasing the budget from £0.147m to between £0.5m and £2m

 Free School Meals Eligibility – maintaining the existing budget value

 TU facilities Staff costs – maintaining the existing budget value

 Behaviour support services – maintaining the existing budget value

 Additional school improvement services – maintaining the existing budget value

Retained Duties The Education Services Grant (ESG) for retained duties ceased from 2017/18. The DfE transferred £0.745m of funding into the DSG on an ongoing basis. The additional funding allocated was significantly less that the existing budgets for these areas as outlined below. The LA seeks the Forum’s view on the funding of these services (line by line) going forward.

Table 5: Breakdown of Retained ESG in Ealing full year 2018/19 (limited to the value of ESG transferred into the DSG) All Schools Budget Full Agreed DSG Per Pupil for Year 2018/19 Contribution to Agreed Retained Budget Duties Statutory & Regulatory duties £533,700 £354,000 £7.75 Education Welfare £473,300 £314,000 £6.88 Asset Management £116,000 £77,000 £1.69 Total £1,123,000 £745,000 £16.32

6 of 27 Page 22 of 68

General Duties The Education Services Grant (ESG) for general duties ceased in September 2017. The DfE provided part year one off transitional funding directly to LA’s. The Forum agreed the following funding for 2018/19. The LA seeks the Forum’s views on the funding of these services (line by line) going forward.

Table 6: 2018/19 General Duties Top Slice Summary NOR in maintained Per pupil rate for Education functions schools including maintained for mainstream reception uplift schools maintained schools

Maintained 37684.00 £24.00 £904,416.00 schools

Table 7: General Duties Budgets as Agreed 2018/19 Maintained Schools Full Year Budget Per Pupil (illustrative) Statutory & Regulatory duties £684,416 £18.16

Education Welfare, Inspection of £70,000 £1.86 Registers Central Support Services £0 £0.00 Asset Management £150,000 £3.98 Premature Retirement & Redundancy £0 £0.00 Monitoring National Curriculum £0 £0.00 Assessments Total Primary and High £904,416 £24.00

Special School Place Rate based on £106,801 £163.06 655 places PRU Place Rate based on 113 places £16,258 £143.87

Note: the LA does not currently charge special schools or PRU this rate, as it would result in an equivalent top up increase in some instances

Historic Commitments The DfE expects that historic commitments through combined budgets are reduced over time. The Forum vote on the detailed breakdown of the budget line by line. The LA seeks the Forum’s view on the full year funding of these services (line by line) going forward.

7 of 27 Page 23 of 68

Table 8: The below table shows the funding agreed 2018/19. Service 2018-19 Comments £m SAFE Supportive 0.219 2016/17 value £0.437m. A significant proportion of the Action for Families in children and young people supported through the Ealing service have High Needs.

It was agreed to transfer £0.2185m to High Needs from 2017/18.

Parenting Service - 0.074 2016/17 value £0.148m. Again a significant proportion Interventions in of the children of these families do have high needs and families with children it was agreed to transfer £0.074m to the High Needs who have challenging Block. behaviour. . LAC teaching service 0.145 2016/17 value £0.290m. In November the Schools Forum asked if this could be funded from the LAC Pupil Premium. We do not think that all of the service could be funded in that way as allocations do need to be made directly to schools. However, we propose to fund £0.145m from the DSG.

Travellers Service 0.125 2016/17 value £0.250m.

Support for High 0.607 The forum agreed to retain the overall combined Needs budget level while service continue to make savings to fund HN pressures. It is proposed to use this funding in 2019/20 for high needs pressures Total Combined 1.170 Budgets

Central Schools Block In 2018/19 the Central Schools Block (CSB) included not only the former retained ESG functions but those such as school admissions, that were previously funded from the Schools Block. Many of these ongoing commitments have not been increased since 2014/15. Existing NFF proposals provide significant protection through the national funding formula, however it is expected the savings of £50,000 each year will need to be made to be in line with the 2019/20 funding allocation. We propose these savings are taken from Schools Admissions and Servicing of Schools Forum, £25,000 each.

The Forum voted on the detailed breakdown of the budget line by line as set out below. Again to assist our planning the LA seeks the Forum’s view on the full year funding of these services (line by line) going forward.

8 of 27 Page 24 of 68

Table 9: The below table shows the CSB funding agreed 2018/19: Section 251 Statement Line 2018-19 Comments Number £m 1.4.2 School admissions 0.645 Reduced from £684k in 17/18 1.4.3 Servicing of schools forums 0.072 1.4.4 Termination of employment - costs 1.4.5 Carbon reduction commitment - allowances 1.4.6 Capital expenditure from - revenue (CERA) 1.4.7 Prudential borrowing costs - 1.4.8 Fees to non-maintained 0.435 independent schools (Education element of LAC Placements) 1.4.9 Equal pay - back pay - 1.4.12 Exceptions agreed by - Secretary of State 1.4.13 Other Items 0.222 Copyright licences paid centrally as calculated by DFE all sectors. 1.5.1 Other Specific Grants - Retained duties 0.745 Retained Duties covered in detail in item (ii) above, are part of this block Total 2.119

In addition to the above the below item is also voted on by the Forum, this is funded from the High Needs Block.

Cost avoidance made 1.4.11 SEN transport 0.338 through increase in Ealing specialist places

Growth Fund The DfE have indicated that they intend to move growth funding at LA level to a lagged formula basis. This may present a challenge in 2019/20 for the LA and its schools. Further details are expected to be announced in July 2018.

2019/20 will see an increase in the growth fund for high schools and it is intended to retain this fund. The LA seeks the Forum’s views on the growth fund allocations to schools for 2019/20.

To assist our planning the LA seeks the Forum’s view on a proposal to retain the methodology for allocating the growth fund. The rate for schools was increased in 2017/18 so that it amounts to 7/12th of the basic entitlement funding for primary and Key Stage 3. In 2018/19 the LA retained the fund at the current value, £2.3m. It is expected the funding requirement to be similar in 2019/20. This is the current amount funded through the 2018/19 formula however this may change in 2019/20

9 of 27 Page 25 of 68

The regulations require new schools to be funded through the formula for pupils forecasted to join such schools in the September of each financial year. In this case, the value of the fund would be adjusted should the proposed new high school opens in September 2019 rather than the need being met through bulge classes in maintained schools. The proposed rules of the growth fund are as follows:

Primary Schools  £60,100 per additional 30 places (pro-rated) for Reception increases agreed by the LA for the September intake (for infant and primary schools) and Year 3 (Junior Schools); and

 Where building works are required and agreed by the LA costing in excess of £2m, £15,000 a year for two financial years, the timing of the release of funding will be following the approval of statutory proposals or the increase in the school’s planned admission number where statutory proposals are not required. Funding may be released earlier at the discretion of the LA.

High Schools  £78,800 per 30 additional places for planned expansion in places agreed by the LA, pro-rated

 Where building works are required and agreed by the LA costing in excess of £2m, £15,000 a year for two financial years, the timing of the release of funding is following the approval of statutory proposals or the increase in the school’s planned admission number where statutory proposals are not required. Funding may be released earlier at the discretion of the LA.

In both sectors, in exceptional cases, for example where additional furniture, learning resources or support staff costs are required which cannot be charged to capital, a case may be made to the LA for additional revenue funding up to a maximum of £15,000 one-off payment.

Falling Rolls Falling Rolls across London have created significant pressures on schools budgets in some areas. In a number of instances this has been sudden and unexpected at regional, LA, and school level

Within the funding regulations the Schools Forum may agree to a falling rolls fund to assist a school in managing the transition to a smaller establishment. A number of the schools in deficit are in this category. A key limitation of the falling rolls fund is that it limits the allocation to only schools judged Good or Outstanding at their last Ofsted inspection. The fund can only support those schools where places may be needed in the near future.

Falling rolls criteria  Criteria for allocating falling rolls funding should contain clear objective trigger points for qualification and a clear formula for calculating allocations. Compliant criteria would generally contain some of the features set out below: o Support is available only for schools judged Good or Outstanding at their last Ofsted inspection (note that this is a mandatory requirement) 10 of 27 Page 26 of 68 o Surplus capacity exceeds x pupils or x% of the published admission number o Local planning data shows a requirement for at least x% of the surplus places within the next x years o Formula funding available to the school will not support provision of an appropriate curriculum for the existing cohort o The school will need to make redundancies in order to contain spending within its formula budget Methodologies for distributing funding could include:  £x per vacant place, up to a specified maximum places (place value likely to be based on AWPU)

 a lump sum payment with clear parameters for calculation (e.g. the estimated cost of providing an appropriate curriculum, or estimated salary costs equivalent to the number of staff who would otherwise be made redundant)

SEN Support Fund There was extensive consultation on the SEN Support Fund in 2016/17, and the Forum have retained the fund for 2018/19. The fund has reduced from £450k in 2017/18 to £412k in 2018/19. The fund provides support for schools with a disproportionately high number of pupils with Education Health and Care plans or statements of special educational needs.

Previously the fund has been measured against historic level of delegation of SEN funding to schools within the schools funding formula. As Ealing moved towards the national funding formula this funding has now been replaced with significant increases in deprivation and prior attainment factors.

Many schools who have in the past been in receipt of the SEN Support fund are also significant gainers under the schools funding formula and therefore have seen growth in their funding per child. Through the schools funding formula all schools gained 0.5% per pupil in 2018/19 and 15 of the 22 schools in receipt of the SEN Support Fund gained more than this.

The rules currently provide funding to schools so that no primary school would fund more than £18,000 (3 x £6,000’s) above its historic rates of delegation of £6K formula allocation. In the case of high schools the fund limits the cost to £36,000 (6 x £6,000) above this allocation.

If this were amended to £30,000 for primary and £60,000 for high, this would reduce the fund value to £202k. To assist our planning the LA seeks the Forum’s view on the 2019/20 fund rules, reducing the value of the fund by increasing the minimum historic losses for primary and High, and ceasing the fund in 2020/21.

Using the 2018/19 data, Appendix 2 shows the illustrative impact for schools.

11 of 27 Page 27 of 68 iii. Early Years Block

Budget Changes for 2018-19 A new method of allocating early years funding to local authorities through a national early years funding formula was introduced in April 2017. Moving into 2018/19, the second phase of the national funding formula has been implemented:  Ealing saw a further drop on our central rate received from government from £6.15 per hour to £5.85 per hour, this is a loss of £0.30 per hour and applies for both the universal hours and the extended entitlement.  The maximum a Local Authority will be able to retain for central spend is now 5% as opposed to the current 7%.  In addition, with the changes to the demographics of the borough a 3% drop in headcount is also being built into budget forecasts through contingency, which will affect the overall Early Years grant allocation. A £0.800m contingency has been built into the budget projections to ensure adequate funding is in place to cope with any in year changes in headcount. Spring headcount returns have seen a slight decrease from previous year and early Summer headcounts have not shown significant movement. Therefore it appears that the population of eligible 3 and 4 year olds has stabilised from the previously established downward trend. Early Autumn headcounts will be received by the end of September indicating any further changes in headcount trends which will be reported to the forum at the next meeting.

The DfE will publish updates to the early years funding allocations late in the Summer term and this will determine how the contingency will be allocated. If the allocation is reduced as expected based on the current headcount pattern this will need to be managed through contingency. There has also been strong take up of inclusion funding which has been welcomed by schools and other early years providers and there will be a detailed update at the next forum meeting.

Maintained Nursery School Supplement Supplementary funding for maintained nursery schools was allocated to local authorities to maintain their current maintained nursery schools funding levels. Ealing received £0.800m of supplementary funding to support their provisions. The expectation was for this funding to continue for 3 years from its announcement in 2017, we are expecting further announcements on this from the DfE in the Autumn term.

Additional 15 Hour Entitlement Offer The additional 15-hour offer for working parents has been successfully implemented in Ealing. There are currently 139 childcare providers offering 30hrs provision (21 Schools/Academies; 91 PVIs; 27 Childminders) and there has been an increase in take up each term. Additional schools will be offering the 30 hour entitlement from September. During the current Summer term, 1294 children are taking up a 30-hour place and the offer is making a significant difference to local families. In Spring Term 2018, 41.5% of all places were taken up by those children living in the 30% most deprived lower super output areas (LSOAs) in England and 56.9% of all places have been taken by children living in the top 40% most deprived in England.

12 of 27 Page 28 of 68 Ealing has now secured additional funding from the DfE to build on promotion of the 30hrs entitlement to those families who may be harder to reach using strategies such as developing videos in community languages.

From 1st April 2018, Ealing made changes to how the Early Years Single Funding Formula payments are claimed and paid. We saw all our schools move over to using the Synergy portal to submit monthly headcount returns, similarly to our PVI and childminder providers. The change has been positively received and we can report in month 1 (April) and 2 (May) we have had 100% submissions from all our schools.

iv. High Needs Pressures

Ealing’s High Needs Block (HNB) expenditure has increased year on year in both mainstream and specialist provision, as a result of both unit cost and pupil numbers. In 2018/19 growth of £4.5m was expected and funded from savings, a transfer from the schools block and HNB DSG increases.

Ealing’s 2018/19 high needs block is £52.831m including £1.065m funding for baselines of Ealing children in other LAs specialist provision and the Non Maintained sector. This is assumed to remain at a similar level going forward. In addition to this the Forum agreed to transfer £1.2m for one year to the HNB from the schools block.

Table 10: High Needs Block 2018/19 Growth Description £m Places Unfunded Pressure Brought Forward 2017/18 1.217 Funded from previous DSG Underspends (one off) Growth Reported to Schools Forum 2018/19: Ealing specialist placements, expansions and new Planned expansions ARPs 1.242 Post 16 FE. 0.160 Historic growth trends Non Ealing SEN Specialist placements Historic growth trends 0.477 Ealing Specialist or commissioned for ASD/SLD Additional commissioned places 0.345 over and above historic average Total Growth – reported 2018/19 2.224 Further Growth Forecasted 2018/19: Equalisation of pre 16 funding to special schools Independent Review with similar cohort 0.200 commissioned Top Up requests for more complex needs, placements over planned numbers, and Post 19 0.880 Total Further Growth – reported 2018/19 1.080 Grand Total Growth 4.504

Table 11: 2018/19 HNB Growth has been funded by: Summary of HNB Growth and Savings £m SB to HNB Transfer (1.197) HNB Grant Growth (0.703) Efficient Use of Grant across blocks and (1.997) Central Savings Combined budget underspends (0.607) Total (4.504)

13 of 27 Page 29 of 68

Growth In 2019/20 is expected to be in the region of £3m to £4m based on the previous 3 years of growth. This level of growth could continue for the next 3 years creating a budget gap of £9m to £12m by 2021/22. This growth is as a result of increases in Education Health Care Plans (EHCP) of 7%, increasing costs of provision, complexity of need and numbers receiving provision post 16 and post 19. Total EHCPs are expected to increase from 2202 to between 2300 and 2350.

Graph 1: Number of Ealing statutory plans (EHC Plans) by year

The DfE has not indicated any changes in the HN National Funding Formula with the key factors being historic spend and area cost adjustment, with population and a number deprivation and disability factors. The funding formula protects Ealing with a cash floor, which means under the current proposals, Ealing are unlikely to receive any significant growth funding.

High Needs Strategy and Spend Review The LA commissioned a high needs spend review, the final report and recommendations is expected to be complete July but no later than August 2018. This report summarises early findings, and updates the forum on the LA’s initiatives to reduce spend

The purpose of the review was to consider existing use of the High Need Block budget and resources, and the effectiveness and value for money in delivering outcomes for young people with SEN. This review is set in the context of a static budget but increasing expenditure. Therefore, many of the recommendations focus on strategies both the LA and schools can use to reduce growth and manage demand within existing budgets, as well as deliver savings on existing budgets to fund new growth. Key recommendations of this review are expected cover some

14 of 27 Page 30 of 68 short to medium term cost reduction and avoidance, as well as longer term transformational changes.

Early findings through an analysis of key areas of comparative data show that Ealing:  after being at the national average percentage of EHC Plans / Statements for several years, in 2017 had this figure grow from 2.8% to 3.0%, placing Ealing above the national, London and outer London averages, this equates to around 140 plans. The cost to the high needs block is in the region of £2m to £3m.

 is a higher-than-average spender on provision in the Early Years phase;

 has higher than average provision costs for Alternative Provision

 has around the average percentage of placements in the Independent and Non-Maintained sector, although because these are almost entirely out of borough, and because Ealing is a large borough, this represents a significant percent of the HNB budget and considerable transport expenditure

 has below the average number of young people in ARP provisions, although planned openings and expansions are highly likely to change this

 has a high percentage of young people at FE Colleges; this may well reduce as schools retain young people for longer, and develop post-19 provisions.

Table 12: High Needs Block Budget by Service Area 2018/19

Central Teams and Commissioned Grand Total Services Provision Behaviour incl AP 1,801,001 3,505,513 5,306,514 Ealing Learning 166,000 166,000 Partnership Early Years 591,306 1,214,283 1,805,588 Overheads 722,461 722,461 SEN 742,101 44,166,876 44,908,977 Grand Total 4,022,869 48,886,671 52,909,540

Outside of this review the LA are proceeding with a number of initiatives on an invest to save basis:  Additionally Resourced Provision (ARP), increase capacity, reducing numbers in high cost provision both mainstream and specialist.

 16 to 25-year-old action plan to improve outcomes and decrease costs and future growth, including creating a specialist Autism post 16 provision to reduce costs per place for students currently placed in the non-maintained and independent sectors.

 Working with the local college to develop provision to increase the number of students accessing local mainstream provision with support in post 16 and post 19 on an invest to save basis. Investigating opportunities to offer a joint community base (social care) and education

 Providing capital to mainstream schools to enable greater levels of inclusion 15 of 27 Page 31 of 68  Conducting a business process review of SEN Service including introducing a parent and professional portal to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the EHCP application and ongoing review of EHCP’s.  Increased the capacity of leadership and business development within ESCAN

 Introducing a resource allocation system for transparent consistent decision making

 Developing a more robust and accurate demand and financial model over multiple years to effectively plan provision

 Increasing the primary PRU places from 12 to 32 on an invest to save basis, reducing the unit cost from £46k per place to £33k per place. Further savings are being investigated.

 Developing strategies to improve strategic and operational commissioning and links with providers.

 Developing interventions and strategies to build trust and improve relationships with parents and carers At the meeting in November it is intended to consult the Forum on recommendations from the review.

v. Update on the implementation of the Resource Allocation System (RAS)

The LA is progressing with the implementation of the RAS from April 2019. Introducing the matrix / RAS funding framework is designed to improve the transparency of how resources are allocated to support Education Health and Care Plans and increase the confidence in the system.

Any transition to the new system would seek to maintain continuity of resourcing for existing plans while the framework is being implemented. The LA proposes to take the following approach:  Apply the RAS assessment framework to all new applicants and to young people undergoing transition in provision, all other young people will continue as they are.  To provide clarity and coherence to the overall funding framework during the transition period, it proposes to move the existing Band A – E as well as Top Ups for Additionally Resourced Provision and Special Schools into the RAS funding framework.  This would allow one funding framework to function during the transition period rather than two and greater comparability

The LA will undertake a consultation and mapping exercise in the autumn term. We continue to pilot the RAS through Ealing’s EHCP decision making process and will update the forum in the autumn report.

16 of 27 Page 32 of 68 vi. Ealing Learning Partnership (ELP) update and decisions for 2019 – 2021

The Interim ELP Board becomes the substantive ELP Board from September 2018. On 13 June 2018, the interim board reviewed the distribution of spend across all aspects of ELP for 2018-2019. The board concluded that a two-year subscription running alongside the ELP Business Plan 2019 – 2021 should be put to schools alongside proposals to cabinet on medium term investment in the partnership for the same period. Schools Forum (working with the ELP Shadow Board) will be asked to review the ELP core offer and decide whether this should be funded entirely through subscriptions or supported in part by a de-delegation of £100K as in 2018 – 2019. 2018/19 ELP Funding is as follows:  79 schools bought into the ELP, total subscription to £500,952.

 De-delegated amount from Schools Forum for ELP £100,000

 Council matched-funding for ELP £571,000 ELP total core income for agreed functions and services £1,171,952

Further details of income and expenditure 2018/19 can be found in Appendix 3 Below is a summary of the expected next steps and timescales between July 2018 and February 2019:

 Autumn 2018: Draft ELP Business Plan 2019 – 2021 and summary of offer to schools

 4th October 2018: ELP Board to consider agreeing a two-year subscription rate and make recommendations to Schools Forum re de-delegation

 By December 2018: Council contribution to ELP confirmed

 Nov - Dec 2018: ELP offer 2019 - 2021 published for all schools

 Jan 2019: School orders

The ELP core charge to schools funds infrastructure and functions that are deemed essential to the partnership’s aims. The core is likely to include:

 Partnership leadership (non-statutory functions)

 Data support (non-statutory functions)

 Collaborative school improvement clusters

 ELP Learning Communities

 Health checks for schools in proportion to need

 Newly Qualified Teacher support via Appropriate Body

17 of 27 Page 33 of 68  Assessment and accountability support

 Governor support services

 Ealing Grid for Learning centralised communications

 Leadership networks and commissioned leadership development programmes The ELP is established to deliver the very best outcomes for children and young people in Ealing. The council’s ongoing commitment to ELP adds significant value to its statutory functions and the central capacity to achieve these aims whilst driving economies of scale across a wider range of service functions.

vii. School Balances

Background School Balances totalled £13.2m as at the 31 March 2018. This represents a decrease of £1.1m from 2016/17. (There were 2 schools that converted to academy status, in year, excluding these schools for comparison would show a small net increase in balances of £510k from 2016/17).

Schools with excess balances Guidance from the Department for Education (DfE) within the “Scheme for Financing Schools” (March 2018) outlines the following framework that local authorities should adopt regarding surplus school balances

“The scheme [the LA Scheme for Financing] may contain a mechanism to clawback excess surplus balances. Any mechanism should have regard to the principle that schools should be moving towards greater autonomy, should not be constrained from making early efficiencies to support their medium-term budgeting in a tighter financial climate, and should not be burdened by bureaucracy. The mechanism should, therefore, be focused on only those schools which have built up significant excessive uncommitted balances and/or where some level of redistribution would support improved provision across a local area.”

An extract from the Ealing Scheme for Financing (Appendix 5), that deals with surpluses is attached. This suggests that reasonable levels of balances are defined as 8% of budget for primary and special schools and 5% of budget for High Schools (these were percentages prescribed in the previous DfE guidance). The Ealing Scheme stipulates that the Authority shall deduct from the current year’s budget an amount equal to the excess over the 5% and 8% levels as appropriate.

The full details of Schools balances are shown in Appendix 4. 30 schools had surpluses that were defined as excessive (excluding Foundation Schools) as at 31 March 2018. Of these 27 schools had increased their balances from 2016/17 by an average of £100k. The schools are required to return a Balance Control Mechanism (BCM) form to the LA detailing how they were going to use their excess balances. To date, 13 schools have submitted a return.

As the Schools and the High Needs Block are experiencing funding pressures, it is important for the Schools Forum to have a discussion on whether any clawback is to be enforced and if so, how this should operate.

18 of 27 Page 34 of 68

Schools in deficit There were 11 schools in deficit at the end of 2017/18. The deficits in total amounted to £1.4m and ranged from between £0.002m to £0.407m. The LA has strengthened its monitoring requirements for schools that fall into deficit. All deficits have to be repaid within 3 years. Details of the updated Extract of the Scheme can be found in Appendix 5.

It is important to note that deficits are funded by the individual schools budget balances reserve, and therefore the collective balances across maintained schools in Ealing. A risk of granting licenced deficits is that a school can struggle to repay that deficit within 3 years and also necessitates a cost cutting exercise. There is a further risk that if schools convert to academy status through an Academy Order whilst in deficit then this can fall on the LA. Schools that are not subject to Academy Orders and who decide to convert would take their deficit with them.

The LA seeks the Forum’s view on what steps schools and the LA can take to manage

i) Excessive balances. In particular, how to manage those schools with increasing balances year on year. ii) Whether any clawbacks should be approved and what these should be used for? iii) Where schools are in deficit what support does the forum suggest the LA puts in place

viii. DfE Risk Tool

In March 2018, the DfE published to LAs a ‘Local Authority Analysis’ (LAA) Risk Tool. This is a risk analysis of maintained schools’ financial sustainability which is presented at LA and school level. LAs are able to use this information to identify areas of concern and implement preventative measures. Many LAs have developed their own tools as well.

The LAA has been developed in collaboration with the Office of National Statistics (ONS). It combines a range of publicly available data and, using 20 individual indicators, identifies those schools in immediate financial difficulty and those potentially at future risk. The DfE lso consulted with a group of pilot LA’s and Ealing were involved in this.

The LAA is available to LAs to assist with making reasoned assessments and comparisons between the financial health of maintained schools within their control (primary, secondary, special schools, PRUs and nurseries).  Every local authority has a tailored version that allows access to school level data.  It provides a high-level overview to local authorities with similar characteristics allowing for meaningful comparisons.  Local authorities will be able to identify schools in need of support to take preventative measures where action is required or advisable.

Each school is ranked alphabetically A-G, on a Red Amber Green (RAG) basis. 19 of 27 Page 35 of 68

The tool analyses the school and its broader characteristics; attainment, parental preference and financial position. Therefore, some schools are Red/Amber because they are using surplus to balance their budget on an ongoing basis, or pupil numbers/standards are a challenge. The tool is based on publicly available info such as pupil census and Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR). Further details can be found in Appendix 6 Indicators –Data sources and how are they calculated, and Grade Boundaries.

Summary of Indicators – shown split by 3 areas of concern:

Table 13: LAA, LA level DfE selected comparator LAs

Local Authority A* A B C D E F G

Ealing 1% 10% 13% 33% 20% 14% 6% 2% Hounslow 0% 4% 16% 36% 29% 7% 5% 2% Merton 2% 4% 21% 31% 10% 17% 13% 2%

20 of 27 Page 36 of 68 Redbridge 2% 7% 21% 44% 15% 10% 0% 2% Hillingdon 0% 9% 9% 35% 22% 15% 7% 2% Brent 0% 3% 13% 39% 25% 11% 8% 0%

Ealing has experienced an increase in the number of schools in deficit over the past 2 years. There were 11 schools in deficit at the end of 2017/18. The deficits in total amounted to £1.4m and ranged from between £0.002m to £0.407m.

How Ealing will be using this information:  Schools and Governors can request this information for their school from Schools Accountancy Services [email protected] (or their Bursarial Support Service Officer should they buy into this service)  LA will contact schools flagged in risk bands D to G and request to send their 18/19 outturn forecast as well as their 3 to 5 year plan, along with a summary of actions being taken to prevent or recover from a deficit position.  At a strategic level the Ealing Learning Partnership (ELP) with the Financial Sustainability Schools Committee, to decide how best to work with schools that are rated as red and amber.

4. Financial The DSG carry forward 2016/17 has been fully deployed to fund high needs overspends with the remainder being funded from council reserves and one off mitigations.

The carry forward for 2017/18 £624k is an estimate of the clawback expected for a reduction in early years numbers and the early years block of funding. The Forum is asked to approve the use of this funding to mitigate a retrospective grant adjustment. This is expected to be confirmed in July 2018

21 of 27 Page 37 of 68 Table 14: The below table outlines the DSG outturn 2017/18.

There has been a further update to the 2018/19 allocation in relation to high needs places deducted at source by the ESFA which is as a result of high needs places in Further Education (FE) Colleges. A further funding update is expected in July 2018 in relation to the Early Years Block for 2018/19. This is expected to confirm a reduction due to lower numbers of children compared to those we received grant and will be funded by the Early Years contingency agreed at the January Forum

The current allocation is as follows, this does not include the agreed 0.5% schools block to high needs block transfer as the DfE at this stage do not intend to rebase the blocks:

Table 15: DSG 2018/19 as at June 2018

Dedicated 2018-19 DSG allocations, prior to recoupment and deductions for schools grant: direct funding of high needs places by ESFA 2018-19 2018-19 2018-19 central 2018-19 2018-19 2018-19 allocations schools school high early total DSG local authority block services block needs years allocation summary block block Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 (£million) (£million) (£million) (£million) (£million) 307 Ealing 239.429 3.289 52.831 28.138 323.688

Notes 1. Includes pupils in Academies and Free schools as at October 2017, it does not include the adjustment transferring of 0.5% to the high needs block agreed by the Forum January 2018. 2. Includes High Needs funding which is deducted for places funded by ESFA. 22 of 27 Page 38 of 68 3. 2018 to 2019 financial year early years block allocations are provisional, based on school census data from January 2016. These allocations will be updated based on January 2018 (x 5/12ths) and January 2019 (x 7/12s) census data. There will be subsequent adjustments in allocations related to early years 2017/18 in July 2018, and 2018/19 in July 2018 and July 2019.

The DSG is forecasted to be fully committed due to growth in high needs and overall pupil numbers. Some of this growth is centrally retained for commissioned services for young people with high needs, in year delegations of funding to schools, and some is devolved to schools at the outset. There is a pressure forecasted of around £1m in relation to provision (top ups and placements) for High Needs young people with Education Heath and Care Plans (EHCP).

Any financial implications of this report are financed within the ring fenced Dedicated Schools Grant. One off and alternative funding will need to be found going forward to finance any overspends which are rolled forward against the DSG. There is a risk to the General Fund unless future savings are identified.

5. Legal The School Standards and Framework Act 1998, s 47A, requires the Council to set up a Schools Forum body representing the governing bodies and head teachers of schools maintained by the authority.

The Schools Forum Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2261, School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/44 and the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/2033 set out the matters on which the council must consult the Schools Forum or seek the approval of the Schools Forum or the approval of the Secretary of State.

Consultative Role i. To respond to consultation by the local authority on changes to the formula for determination of school budget shares. (Only school members, academy members and members representing early years, private, voluntary and independent providers can vote on this.) ii. On the terms of any proposed contract for supplies or services paid out of the authority’s schools budget where the estimated value of the proposed contract is more than the relevant threshold at least one month prior to invitations to tender. iii. in respect of the authority’s functions relating to the schools budget in connection with arrangements for the education of pupils with special educational needs, arrangements for the use of pupil referral units and the education of children otherwise than at school, arrangements for early years provision and administrative arrangements for the allocation of central government grants paid to schools via the authority (Consultation must be at least annually), iv. Any other matters concerning the funding of schools as the authority sees fit.

23 of 27 Page 39 of 68 The Forum has the responsibility of informing the governing bodies of all schools maintained by the authority of the results of consultations carried out by the authority

Decision making role The areas on which the forum makes decisions on local authority proposals are:

a. De delegation for mainstream schools in relation to expenditure listed in Schedule 2 Parts 6 and 7 of the School Finance (England) Regulations 2017 i.e. behavior support services, administration of free school meals, staff costs (supply cover), insurance in respect of premises, library and museum services, licenses and subscriptions, contingencies, support for minority ethnic groups or meeting needs of bilingual pupils (only primary representatives can vote on primary school de delegation and only secondary representatives can vote on secondary school de delegation); b. Central expenditure and the criteria for allocating funding from growth fund, falling rolls for surplus places at good or outstanding schools where a population bulge is expected in 2-3 years; c. Central expenditure on funding for significant pre 16 pupil growth, pay arrears not chargeable to a maintained school’s budget share, places in independent schools for non-SEN pupils and early years expenditure; d. Expenditure on Central Services up to the value committed in 2014/15 i.e. admissions and servicing of Schools Forum, capital expenditure funding from revenue, prudential borrowing, contribution to combined budgets, schools budget centrally funded termination of employment costs, SEN transport and other purposes provided that the expenditure does not amount in total to more than 0.1% of the schools budget; e. Carry forward of deficit on central expenditure to the next year to be funded from the schools budget; and f. Changes to the Scheme of Financial Management. In each of these cases, the local authority can appeal to the Secretary of State if the Schools Forum rejects its proposal.

A Local Authority may also apply to the Secretary of State for authorisation to make a number of alternative arrangements including to deduct from its schools budget any expenditure falling outside the classes of expenditure set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, to alter the threshold below which schools will be expected to meet the additional costs of pupils with SEN from its budget share, to increase the amount deducted for Central Services beyond what was agreed in the previous funding period and to make variations to the minimum funding guarantee.

Voting requirements All members are entitled to vote on all matters put to a vote with the exceptions set out above, i.e. consultation on changes to the Formula and de-delegation of services

Publications In February 2017 the Education Funding Agency published ‘Schools revenue funding 2017 to 2018: Operational guide’.

24 of 27 Page 40 of 68 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/59016 7/Schools_revenue_funding_guide_updated_07_Feb_17.pdf)

Additionally, the Education Funding Agency published a guide for Councils and schools forums with respect to what can be funded centrally as an acceptable historic commitment under the regulations. ‘2017 to 2018 schools funding: historic commitments, Supplementary guidance for local authorities’ ( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/57014 3/2017_to_2018_schools_funding_historic_commitments_FINAL_V4.1.pdf)

Information published by the Education and Skills Funding Agency on schools funding: arrangements for 2016 to 2017 can be found on: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48674 7/Schools_revenue_funding_2016_to_2017_operational_guide_updated_December_ 2015.pdf Implications of the Equality Act 2010 Under s82 (5) of the Act the responsible body (and this means for maintained schools the LA and the Governing Body) must not discriminate against a pupil because of a ‘protected characteristic’: a) in the way it provides education for the pupil b) in the way it affords the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service c) by not providing education for the pupil d) by not affording the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service e) by excluding the pupil from the school f) by subjecting the pupil to any other detriment The protected characteristics for the schools provisions are: disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.

As public bodies schools and local authorities also have separate duties under S 149 the Equality Act 2010. In summary, those subject to the S149 must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to: • Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act. • Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. • Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others.

6. Value For Money This report is concerned with allocating funding between schools.

7. Sustainability Impact Appraisal None required.

8. Risk Management This report provides information for schools about the direction of travel in the medium term on budgets and should help them consider the longer-term implications of the

25 of 27 Page 41 of 68 changes. In the short term, the MFG will moderate the impact of any changes in funding for individual schools.

9. Community Safety None.

10. Links to the 3 Priorities for the Borough The report is concerned with securing educational services for children and young people and in also ensuring that value for money in delivered.

11. Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion N/a. An initial equalities assessment will be undertaken in the autumn following consultation on the schools funding formula.

12. Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications: None.

13. Property and Assets None.

14. Any other implications None.

15. Consultation The Forum, Individual schools and others have been consulted on funding arrangements.

16. Timetable for Implementation Schools funding agreements and decision making January 2019 for 2019/20 financial year

17. Appendices and Annexes

Appendix 1: National and Ealing Funding Formula Rates Appendix 2: SEN Support Fund Appendix 3: ELP Summary of Income and Expenditure Appendix 4: School Balances 2017-18 Appendix 5: Extract from the Scheme for Financing Schools Appendix 6: LAA Risk Tool

18. Background Information School Forum Reports, January 2018 and April 2018

26 of 27 Page 42 of 68 Consultation (Mandatory)

Name of consultee Post held Date Date Comments Sent to response appear in consultee received paragraph: Internal Judith Finlay Executive director of 21.6.18 Children, Adults and Public Health Carolyn Fair Director of Children and 21.6.18 Families Julie Lewis AD School 22.6.18 Effectiveness Charles Barnard Head of Early Years 22.6.18

Justin Morley Legal Services 20.6.18 22.6.18

John Miller Head of SEN and EP 21.6.18

Debbie Grey AD ESCAN 21.6.18

Geraldine Chadwick Interim Senior Finance 20.6.18 21.6.18 Business Advisor Bridie McDonagh Children’s Services 21.6.18

Mark Nelson Schools HR 21.6.18

Gary Redhead AD School Resource 20.6.18 20.6.18 Throughout and Planning Kim Price Schools Data 21.6.18

Report History

Decision type: Urgency item?

Report no.: Report author and contact for queries: Tamara Quinn: Planning and Resources – Strategic Lead [email protected] 020 8825 8444

27 of 27 Page 43 of 68

Page 44 of 68

Table xxxx: the below table shows the National Funding Formula and the 2018/19 Ealing Formula Values:

10

1 of 2 Page 45 of 68

2 of 2 Page 46 of 68 SEN Support Allocations 2018-19, and illustration of funding recommendations 2019-20 Appendix 2

2018/19 SEN Support Allocations Proposed Support Fund 2019-20

Variance '+ive £ = MORE FUNDING SEN SUPPORT School SEN SUPPORT Total THAN DIRECT FUND 2018/19 Funding Total SEN FUND 2019/20 NOR before delegated £6,000 Cap losses to Fund Variance Formula % Stms or EHCP % STM/EHCP Current Total Cap losses to School Name adjustments 10 formula ALLOCATION £18,000 between years Change before R to Y11 exc of NOR @ £6,000 £30,000 primary October 2017 funding for '-ive £LESS primary and (-ive=more fund) MFG and ARPs and £60,000 High first £6,000 FUNDING £36,000 High Capping (+I = School THAN DIRECT School Gain, - = Los) £6,000 ALLOCATION

Primary 30906 446 1.44% £2,676,000 £1,978,116 £2,382,000 -£305,131 -£119,141 £185,990 + 15334 250 1.63% £1,500,000 £1,704,280 £1,398,000 -£107,498 -£83,498 £24,000 Total 46240 696 1.51% £4,176,000 £3,682,396 £3,780,000 -£412,629 -£202,639 £209,990 Holy Family Roman Catholic Primary School 384 3 0.78% £18,000 £24,577 £6,577 £0 £0 £0 1.27% Berrymede Junior School 376 10 2.66% £60,000 £24,065 -£35,935 -£17,935 -£5,935 £12,000 0.64% Berrymede Infant School 235 5 2.13% £30,000 £15,041 -£14,959 £0 £0 £0 4.54% East Acton Primary School 275 11 4.00% £66,000 £17,601 -£48,399 -£30,399 -£18,399 £12,000 -1.46% OLDFIELD PRIMARY SCHOOL 366 12 3.28% £72,000 £23,425 -£48,575 -£30,575 -£18,575 £12,000 1.46% North Ealing Primary School 622 12 1.93% £72,000 £39,809 -£32,191 -£14,191 -£2,191 £12,000 -1.45% St John's Primary School 401 14 3.49% £84,000 £25,665 -£58,335 -£40,335 -£28,335 £12,000 -0.13% ST MARK'S PRIMARY SCHOOL 437 7 1.60% £42,000 £27,969 -£14,031 £0 £0 £0 -0.92% West Twyford Primary School 369 8 2.17% £48,000 £23,617 -£24,383 -£6,383 £0 £6,383 1.70% West Acton Primary School 619 7 1.13% £42,000 £39,617 -£2,383 £0 £0 £0 4.12% Mayfield Primary School 347 7 2.02% £42,000 £22,209 -£19,791 -£1,791 £0 £1,791 5.53% Beaconsfield Primary and Nursery School 293 2 0.68% £12,000 £18,753 £6,753 £0 £0 £0 -2.44% Coston Primary School 388 8 2.06% £48,000 £24,833 -£23,167 -£5,167 £0 £5,167 2.36% Downe Manor Primary School 392 8 2.04% £48,000 £25,089 -£22,911 -£4,911 £0 £4,911 4.66% Drayton Green Primary School 371 8 2.16% £48,000 £23,745 -£24,255 -£6,255 £0 £6,255 -13.72% North Primary School 409 6 1.47% £36,000 £26,177 -£9,823 £0 £0 £0 3.26% Ravenor Primary School 623 10 1.61% £60,000 £39,873 -£20,127 -£2,127 £0 £2,127 3.40% Selborne Primary School 550 5 0.91% £30,000 £35,201 £5,201 £0 £0 £0 -0.15% Hambrough Primary School 414 11 2.66% £66,000 £26,497 -£39,503 -£21,503 -£9,503 £12,000 3.95% Hobbayne Primary School 627 14 2.23% £84,000 £40,129 -£43,871 -£25,871 -£13,871 £12,000 -1.51% John Perryn Primary School 391 2 0.51% £12,000 £25,025 £13,025 £0 £0 £0 5.06% Southfield Primary School 431 6 1.39% £36,000 £27,585 -£8,415 £0 £0 £0 -1.36% Allenby Primary School 222 6 2.70% £36,000 £14,209 -£21,791 -£3,791 £0 £3,791 -9.92% BLAIR PEACH PRIMARY SCHOOL 417 6 1.44% £36,000 £26,689 -£9,311 £0 £0 £0 3.16% Clifton Primary School 425 7 1.65% £42,000 £27,201 -£14,799 £0 £0 £0 5.81% Dairy Meadow Primary School 410 6 1.46% £36,000 £26,241 -£9,759 £0 £0 £0 7.82% Derwentwater Primary School 591 4 0.68% £24,000 £37,825 £13,825 £0 £0 £0 3.23% Durdans Park Primary School 420 3 0.71% £18,000 £26,881 £8,881 £0 £0 £0 5.63% Fielding Primary School 837 11 1.31% £66,000 £53,569 -£12,431 £0 £0 £0 -4.59% Gifford Primary School 828 13 1.57% £78,000 £52,993 -£25,007 -£7,007 £0 £7,007 3.48% Greenwood Primary School 578 6 1.04% £36,000 £36,993 £993 £0 £0 £0 2.42% Havelock Primary School and Nursery 390 5 1.28% £30,000 £24,961 -£5,039 £0 £0 £0 6.22% Horsenden Primary School 822 9 1.09% £54,000 £52,609 -£1,391 £0 £0 £0 2.68% Willow Tree Primary School 625 5 0.80% £30,000 £40,001 £10,001 £0 £0 £0 4.78% Lady Margaret Primary School 589 7 1.19% £42,000 £37,697 -£4,303 £0 £0 £0 1.63% Little Ealing Primary School 621 6 0.97% Page£36,000 47 of 68 £39,745 £3,745 £0 £0 £0 -4.65% Variance '+ive £ = MORE FUNDING SEN SUPPORT School SEN SUPPORT Total THAN DIRECT FUND 2018/19 Funding Total SEN FUND 2019/20 NOR before delegated £6,000 Cap losses to Fund Variance Formula % Stms or EHCP % STM/EHCP Current Total Cap losses to School Name adjustments formula ALLOCATION £18,000 between years Change before R to Y11 exc of NOR @ £6,000 £30,000 primary October 2017 funding for '-ive £LESS primary and (-ive=more fund) MFG and ARPs and £60,000 High first £6,000 FUNDING £36,000 High Capping (+I = School THAN DIRECT School Gain, - = Los) £6,000 ALLOCATION

Oaklands Primary School 465 9 1.94% £54,000 £29,761 -£24,239 -£6,239 £0 £6,239 -1.52% Perivale Primary School 407 3 0.74% £18,000 £26,049 £8,049 £0 £0 £0 2.68% Stanhope Primary School 495 10 2.02% £60,000 £31,681 -£28,319 -£10,319 £0 £10,319 2.56% VIKING PRIMARY SCHOOL 206 1 0.49% £6,000 £13,185 £7,185 £0 £0 £0 1.39% Wolf Fields Primary School 365 3 0.82% £18,000 £23,361 £5,361 £0 £0 £0 13.64% Featherstone Primary and Nursery School 617 5 0.81% £30,000 £39,489 £9,489 £0 £0 £0 6.30% Three Bridges Primary School 394 5 1.27% £30,000 £25,217 -£4,783 £0 £0 £0 2.75% Montpelier Primary School 627 6 0.96% £36,000 £40,193 £4,193 £0 £0 £0 -4.58% TUDOR PRIMARY SCHOOL 409 6 1.47% £36,000 £26,177 -£9,823 £0 £0 £0 2.44% Vicar's Green Primary School 385 4 1.04% £24,000 £24,641 £641 £0 £0 £0 -7.41% Grange Primary School 813 15 1.85% £90,000 £52,033 -£37,967 -£19,967 -£7,967 £12,000 1.05% Mount Carmel Catholic Primary School 419 6 1.43% £36,000 £26,817 -£9,183 £0 £0 £0 0.92% Our Lady of the Visitation Catholic Primary School 419 5 1.19% £30,000 £26,817 -£3,183 £0 £0 £0 2.11% ST JOHN FISHER CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL 387 6 1.55% £36,000 £24,769 -£11,231 £0 £0 £0 5.82% St Anselm's Catholic Primary School 207 5 2.42% £30,000 £13,249 -£16,751 £0 £0 £0 -3.27% St Gregory's Catholic Primary School 609 3 0.49% £18,000 £38,977 £20,977 £0 £0 £0 1.98% St Joseph's Catholic Primary School 576 9 1.56% £54,000 £36,865 -£17,135 £0 £0 £0 3.21% St Raphael's Catholic Primary School 595 7 1.18% £42,000 £38,081 -£3,919 £0 £0 £0 6.55% St Vincent's Catholic Primary School 449 3 0.67% £18,000 £28,737 £10,737 £0 £0 £0 4.83% Edward Betham Church of England Primary School 415 2 0.48% £12,000 £26,561 £14,561 £0 £0 £0 2.20% Petts Hill Primary School 199 8 4.02% £48,000 £12,737 -£35,263 -£17,263 -£5,263 £12,000 0.72% Khalsa VA Primary School 408 2 0.49% £12,000 £26,113 £14,113 £0 £0 £0 5.10% Christ the Saviour Church of England Primary School 810 14 1.73% £84,000 £51,841 -£32,159 -£14,159 -£2,159 £12,000 0.93% Wood End Infant School 256 2 0.78% £12,000 £16,385 £4,385 £0 £0 £0 3.71% DORMERS WELLS JUNIOR SCHOOL 454 11 2.42% £66,000 £29,057 -£36,943 -£18,943 -£6,943 £12,000 0.71% Dormers Wells Infant School 304 4 1.32% £24,000 £19,457 -£4,543 £0 £0 £0 5.53% ARK Priory Primary Academy 292 1 0.34% £6,000 £18,689 £12,689 £0 £0 £0 -0.50% St Mary's C of E Primary School 103 1 0.97% £6,000 £6,593 £593 £0 £0 £0 -3.46% Ark Byron Primary Academy 180 2 1.11% £12,000 £11,521 -£479 £0 £0 £0 4.11% Brentside Primary School 390 3 0.77% £18,000 £24,961 £6,961 £0 £0 £0 5.46% Wood End Academy 378 6 1.59% £36,000 £24,193 -£11,807 £0 £0 £0 -0.78% Alec Reed Academy 576 4 0.69% £24,000 £36,864 £12,864 £0 £0 £0 4.69% Woodlands Academy 202 5 2.48% £30,000 £12,929 -£17,071 £0 £0 £0 2.15% £0 VILLIERS HIGH SCHOOL 1080 7 0.65% £42,000 £119,781 £77,781 £0 £0 £0 6.22% DORMERS WELLS HIGH SCHOOL 1195 18 1.51% £108,000 £132,636 £24,636 £0 £0 £0 -3.32% ACTON HIGH SCHOOL 1095 19 1.74% £114,000 £121,717 £7,717 £0 £0 £0 2.47% Elthorne Park High School 1059 15 1.42% £90,000 £117,883 £27,883 £0 £0 £0 -0.50% The Cardinal Wiseman Catholic School 1477 29 1.96% £174,000 £164,085 -£9,915 £0 £0 £0 2.54% Brentside High School 1209 11 0.91% £66,000 £134,596 £68,596 £0 £0 £0 1.36% Greenford High School 1225 18 1.47% £108,000 £136,051 £28,051 £0 £0 £0 2.57% The Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls 1066 10 0.94% Page£60,000 48 of 68 £118,442 £58,442 £0 £0 £0 3.05% Variance '+ive £ = MORE FUNDING SEN SUPPORT School SEN SUPPORT Total THAN DIRECT FUND 2018/19 Funding Total SEN FUND 2019/20 NOR before delegated £6,000 Cap losses to Fund Variance Formula % Stms or EHCP % STM/EHCP Current Total Cap losses to School Name adjustments formula ALLOCATION £18,000 between years Change before R to Y11 exc of NOR @ £6,000 £30,000 primary October 2017 funding for '-ive £LESS primary and (-ive=more fund) MFG and ARPs and £60,000 High first £6,000 FUNDING £36,000 High Capping (+I = School THAN DIRECT School Gain, - = Los) £6,000 ALLOCATION

Northolt High School 653 5 0.77% £30,000 £72,465 £42,465 £0 £0 £0 3.62% William Perkin Church of England High School 990 21 2.12% £126,000 £109,996 -£16,004 £0 £0 £0 0.11% FEATHERSTONE HIGH SCHOOL 1255 23 1.83% £138,000 £139,441 £1,441 £0 £0 £0 1.49% Twyford Church of England High School 974 42 4.31% £252,000 £108,502 -£143,498 -£107,498 -£83,498 £24,000 1.22% Drayton Manor High School 1169 26 2.22% £156,000 £129,743 -£26,257 £0 £0 £0 0.25% Ealing Fields High School 239 1 0.42% £6,000 £27,008 £21,008 £0 £0 £0 11.17% Alec Reed Academy 648 5 0.77% £30,000 £71,934 £41,934 £0 £0 £0 4.69%

Page 49 of 68

Page 50 of 68 10

Ealing Learning Partnership Income and spend estimates summary 2018-19

Julie Lewis, Director Learning Standards and School Partnerships 8/6/18

Page 51 of 68 Summary of income strands

Income strand

ELP core £ 1,171,952

DfE tbc £ 258,000

DSG £ 180,000

Grants £ 209,500

SLA/Buy-Back £ 414,455

£ 2,233,907

Page 52 of 68 Summary of ELP core allocations Allocation ELP Learning Communities £ 30,000 ELP Clusters £ 53,000 Link Partners (health checks /schools not in clusters) £ 31,000 Special school peer review model £ 5,000 Link Partners Special schools £ 10,000 Assessment support £ 15,000 Secondary school collaborative £ 65,000 Data support £ 95,000 NQT Appropriate Body and support £ 48,000 Governor support £ 83,163 Leadership for SEND £ 50,000 Participation and pathways £ 39,800 Web, communications and online systems £ 134,000 Business development and support £ 122,000 Leadership Commission £ 23,000 SEND Commission £ 15,000 ELP Leadership £ 200,000 EHE Monitoring support £ 36,000 Non-staffing and contingency costs £ 116,989 TOTAL ELP CORE £ 1,171,952

Page 53 of 68 Summary of ELP core allocations

School-led projects £ 191,000 Link partners £ 41,000 Salaries/associates £ 822,963 Non-staffing operating and contingency £ 116,989

Page 54 of 68 Summary of grant funded and traded services

Salaries, associates, venue/facilities, training programmes

DfE £ 258,000 • Securing Good Programme • Statutory functions admin • Directorate leadership • Prevent Supplementary schools • Health Improvement PiP

DSG £ 180,000 • SACRE • Health Improvement safeguarding • GRT and Vulnerable Groups

External grants £ 209,500 • School Partnerships Enrichment • Health Improvement mental health & physical health

SLA/Buy-Back £ 414,455 • Workforce and Business Manager support • School Partnerships Enrichment • Health Improvement support • NQT Appropriate Body services (high schools/independents) • EEC facilities/CPD Programme

Page 55 of 68 Summary of spend estimates across whole partnership

Associates & link partners £ 91,000 Salaries £ 1,638,918 School-led projects and commissions £ 191,000 Non-staffing operating and contingency £ 312,989

£ 2,233,907

Page 56 of 68 Overview of ELP staffing model

Julie Lewis, Director, Learning Standards and School Partnerships

Nigel Cook (A) Principal Quality & Partnership Lead (LEP) (0.6) Angela Doherty Principal Quality & Partnership Lead (LEP) Glinys Weller (A) Quality & Partnership SEN Lead (LEP) (0.5 SEN/0.2 PQ&PL) Deborah Dent Progression and Pathways Senior Associate (30 days) Hazel Callaghan Securing Good Programme Senior Associate (30 days) Deb Whittle Assessment and Moderation Manager (Associate 35 days) Therese McNulty School Governance Development Adviser (EIP) Sukhvir Kang School Improvement & Governance Development Support Officer Sinead Galbraith Elective Home Education and Supplementary Schools Adviser Alison Bennett School Workforce Development Consultant (0.6)

Sarah Thompson Vulnerable Groups & Schools Partnerships Lead (EIP) Mirela Temo NQT & Ethnic Minority Achievement Adviser (EIC) Elizabeth Des Vignes Gypsy Roma Traveller Engagement Co-ordinator Maria Wright Schools Partnership Co-ordinator Sally Davies Communications & Business Development Senior Manager Elizabeth Giarraputo Schools Partnership Co-ordinator Saynap Isman Senior Business Support Officer Sarah Jay Schools Partnership Co-ordinator Janet Van Der Meulen Web Commuications & Business Systems Manager (TTO) Karen Gibson Health Improvement & Safeguard Prevention Lead (EIP) (0.6 TTO) Ava Baptiste Web Commuications & Business Systems Officer Nicole McGregor Senior Health Improvement Officer Deirdre Pollard Web Communications & Business Systems Officer (0.86) Claire Meade Health Improvement Officer Stacey Edmead-Payne Health Improvement Officer Tina Birch Ealing Education Centre and training manager (0.5 TTO) Shakeiya Hill Business Support Officer (TTO) Nadia Awan Business Support Officer Shahida Mughal Receptionist Business Support (TTO)

Jean Dewey Premises Assistant (0.4) Kishor Pankhania Premises Assistant (0.15)

Page 57 of 68

Page 58 of 68 2017-18 Outturn for Ealing Schools (Excluding Academies)

Original Budget outturn balance Balance School Balance % above Above 2016-17 Final Budget (Increase)/Decrease School (BML Calculated on this (Surplus)/ as a % of Mechanism or below Above BML BML Outturn (£) and school generated between years (£) Income) Deficit (£) budget (BML) Limit % BML (yes/no) Balance (£) GREENFIELDS CHILDREN´S CENTRE 1,518,515 1,286,668 (275,860) 21% 8% 13% -172,926 Yes (231,847) (44,013) GROVE HOUSE CHILDREN´S CENTRE 1,030,275 924,089 (166,073) 18% 8% 10% -92,146 Yes (106,186) (59,887) SOUTH ACTON CHILDREN´S CENTRE (EX HEATHFIELD) 1,848,411 1,800,228 (133,372) 7% 8% -1% 10,646 No (48,183) (85,189) MAPLES CHILDREN´S CENTRE 790,686 691,853 (47,750) 7% 8% -1% 7,598 No (98,833) 51,083 Total NURSERY 5,187,887 4,702,838 (623,055) 12% 8% 4% 0 (485,049) (138,006)

ALLENBY PRIMARY 1,850,625 1,702,139 (187,891) 11% 8% 3% -51,720 Yes (148,486) (39,405) BEACONSFIELD P 2,133,630 1,939,225 (195,760) 10% 8% 2% -40,622 Yes (194,405) (1,355) BERRYMEDE INF 1,750,161 1,655,425 (64,679) 4% 8% -4% 67,755 No (94,736) 30,057 BERRYMEDE JNR 2,547,505 2,361,588 (227,244) 10% 8% 2% -38,317 Yes (185,917) (41,327) BLAIR PEACH P 2,402,199 2,309,728 (76,026) 3% 8% -5% 108,752 No (92,471) 16,445 CLIFTON P 2,347,204 2,202,683 (175,514) 8% 8% 0% 701 No (144,521) (30,993) COSTONS P 2,138,712 2,134,692 62,454 -3% 8% -11% 233,229 No (4,020) 66,474 DAIRY MEADOW P 2,341,398 2,255,653 (40,958) 2% 8% -6% 139,494 No (85,745) 44,787 DERWENTWATER P 3,298,195 3,206,768 (279,444) 9% 8% 1% -22,902 Yes (91,427) (188,016) DOWNE MANOR P 2,646,626 2,497,748 (195,852) 8% 8% 0% 3,968 No (148,878) (46,974) DRAYTON P 3,000,101 2,595,690 (560,127) 22% 8% 14% -352,471 Yes (404,411) (155,715) DURDAN´S PARK P 2,432,798 2,368,776 (2,703) 0% 8% -8% 186,799 No (64,022) 61,318 EAST ACTON P 2,103,197 1,908,730 (149,872) 8% 8% 0% 2,826 No (194,467) 44,594 EDWARD BETHAM P 1,981,474 1,911,273 (60,507) 3% 8% -5% 92,395 No (70,201) 9,694 FEATHERSTONE P 3,729,193 3,625,628 (221,916) 6% 8% -2% 68,134 No (103,565) (118,351) FIELDING P 4,216,902 4,183,356 (70,599) 2% 8% -6% 264,069 No (33,546) (37,053) GIFFORD P 5,199,623 5,129,426 (155,392) 3% 8% -5% 254,962 No (70,197) (85,195) GRANGE P 4,644,542 4,287,109 (328,864) 8% 8% 0% 14,105 No (357,433) 28,569 GREENWOOD P 2,943,253 2,873,703 (257,384) 9% 8% 1% -27,488 Yes (69,550) (187,834) HAMBROUGH P 2,616,771 2,411,444 (350,851) 15% 8% 7% -157,936 Yes (205,327) (145,524) HAVELOCK P 2,340,301 2,170,063 (164,108) 8% 8% 0% 9,497 No (170,238) 6,129 HOBBAYNE P 3,539,137 3,305,383 (237,889) 7% 8% -1% 26,542 No (233,754) (4,135) HORSENDEN P 4,296,717 4,214,969 (104,216) 2% 8% -6% 232,982 No (81,748) (22,468) JOHN PERRYN P 2,662,950 2,385,476 (304,008) 13% 8% 5% -113,170 Yes (277,474) (26,534) LADY MARGARET P 3,201,492 3,175,371 (75,993) 2% 8% -6% 178,037 No (26,121) (49,872) LITTLE EALING P 3,260,089 3,134,956 (285,202) 9% 8% 1% -34,405 Yes (125,133) (160,069) MAYFIELD P 2,169,840 1,911,782 (299,248) 16% 8% 8% -146,305 Yes (258,058) (41,190) MONTPELIER P 3,515,588 3,164,202 (411,763) 13% 8% 5% -158,626 Yes (351,386) (60,377) MOUNT CARMEL P 1,989,875 1,839,038 (119,766) 7% 8% -1% 27,357 No (150,837) 31,072 NORTH EALING P 3,282,191 3,170,382 (141,571) 10 4% 8% -4% 112,060 No (111,809) (29,761) NORTH P 2,079,331 1,938,048 (35,162) 2% 8% -6% 119,882 No (141,283) 106,121 PETTS HILL P 1,756,954 1,556,349 (235,857) 15% 8% 7% -111,349 Yes (200,605) (35,252) OAKLANDS P 2,565,477 2,501,450 (91,160) 4% 8% -4% 108,956 No (64,027) (27,133) OLDFIELDS P 2,280,797 2,318,179 37,134 -2% 8% -10% 222,588 No 37,382 (249) VISITATION P 2,146,679 1,979,272 (292,617) 15% 8% 7% -134,275 Yes (167,407) (125,210) PERIVALE P 2,334,518 2,215,540 (195,648) 9% 8% 1% -18,405 Yes (118,978) (76,670) RAVENOR P 3,465,435 3,430,986 (7,341) 0% 8% -8% 267,137 No (34,449) 27,107 SELBORNE P 3,532,434 3,279,278 (288,925) 9% 8% 1% -26,583 Yes (253,156) (35,769) SOUTHFIELD P 2,603,450 2,551,037 39,138 -2% 8% -10% 243,221 No (52,413) 91,551 ST ANSELM´S P 1,336,955 1,248,002 (94,314) 8% 8% 0% 5,526 No (88,953) (5,360) ST GREGORY´S P 2,653,965 2,664,567 71,940 -3% 8% -11% 285,106 No 10,602 61,338 ST JOHN FISHER 2,037,159 1,917,408 (188,939) 10% 8% 2% -35,546 Yes (119,751) (69,188) ST JOHN´S P 2,747,752 2,729,869 (254,966) 9% 8% 1% -36,577 Yes (17,883) (237,083) ST JOSEPH´S P 2,727,075 2,528,022 (230,029) 9% 8% 1% -27,787 Yes (199,053) (30,976) ST MARK´S P 2,327,072 2,226,031 (88,000) 4% 8% -4% 90,082 No (101,041) 13,041 ST RAPHAEL´S P 2,766,550 2,762,760 (51,588) 2% 8% -6% 169,433 No (3,790) (47,798) ST VINCENT´S P 2,583,514 2,296,326 (273,961) 12% 8% 4% -90,255 Yes (287,188) 13,227 STANHOPE P 3,024,176 2,969,069 (179,339) 6% 8% -2% 58,187 No (55,107) (124,232) THREE BRIDGES P 2,529,212 2,418,049 (119,842) 5% 8% -3% 73,602 No (111,163) (8,680) TUDOR P 2,576,931 2,205,354 (301,978) 14% 8% 6% -125,550 Yes (371,577) 69,599 VICARS GREEN P 2,442,604 2,144,502 (394,794) 18% 8% 10% -223,234 Yes (298,102) (96,692) VIKING P 1,622,439 1,525,264 (123,835) 8% 8% 0% -1,814 Yes (97,175) (26,660) WEST ACTON P 3,755,252 3,265,178 (604,606) 19% 8% 11% -343,392 Yes (490,074) (114,532) WEST TWYFORD P 2,334,773 2,289,697 (101,272) 4% 8% -4% 81,904 No (45,076) (56,196) WILLOW TREE P 4,327,465 3,989,551 (242,178) 6% 8% -2% 76,986 No (337,914) 95,736 WOLF FIELDS P 2,038,836 2,037,050 115,098 -6% 8% -14% 278,062 No (1,786) 116,884 KHALSA P 2,110,043 2,178,602 45,417 -2% 8% -10% 219,705 No 68,559 (23,143) CHRIST THE SAVIOUR P 2,874,234 3,091,535 2,410 0% 8% -8% 249,733 No 217,301 (214,891) THE HOLY FAMILY CATHOLIC P 2,078,036 1,872,147 (158,688) 8% 8% 0% -8,916 Yes (205,889) 47,202 Total PRIMARY 160,241,409 152,161,528 (9,926,795) 6% 8% -2% No (8,079,881) (1,846,915)

ACTON HIGH 10,344,861 10,126,123 407,393 -4% 5% -9% 913,699 No (218,738) 626,131 CARDINAL WISEMAN HIGH 11,415,365 10,718,389 (392,588) 4% 5% -1% 143,331 No (696,976) 304,387 DORMERS WELLS HIGH 9,013,408 7,634,800 0% 5% -5% 381,740 No (1,378,607) 1,378,607 ELTHORNE HIGH 8,012,698 7,719,688 (427,487) 6% 5% 1% -41,503 Yes (293,010) (134,477) VILLIERS HIGH 8,478,934 8,172,512 (741,526) 9% 5% 4% -332,900 Yes (306,422) (435,104) Total HIGH 47,265,264 44,371,512 (1,154,208) 2% 5% -3% No (2,893,752) 1,739,545

BELVUE SPECIAL. 4,023,729 3,746,340 (347,247) 9% 8% 1% -47,540 Yes (277,389) (69,858) CASTLEBAR SPECIAL. 4,478,597 4,513,421 (340,947) 8% 8% 0% 20,126 No (293,029) (47,919) JOHN CHILTON SPECIAL. 2,981,832 2,659,277 (412,538) 16% 8% 8% -199,795 Yes (322,555) (89,982) MANDEVILLE SPECIAL. 4,325,471 4,308,985 (84,338) 2% 8% -6% 260,381 No (16,486) (67,853) ST. ANN´S SPECIAL. 3,759,679 3,510,317 (167,650) 5% 8% -3% 113,175 No (249,362) 81,712 SPRINGHALLOW SPECIAL. 3,119,075 3,104,482 (66,899) 2% 8% -6% 181,460 No (14,593) (52,306) Total SPECIAL SCHOOL 22,688,383 21,842,822 (1,419,619) 6% 8% -2% No (1,173,414) (246,205)

WOOD END Infant 1,358,418 1,268,309 97,179 -8% 8% -16% 198,644 No (90,109) 187,289 DORMER'S WELLS Infant 1,934,773 1,882,879 166,137 -9% 8% -17% 316,768 No (51,894) 218,031 DORMER'S WELLS JUNIOR 2,218,336 2,029,379 0% 8% -8% 162,350 No (188,957) 188,957 GREENFORD HIGH 11,734,293 11,112,439 (534,100) 5% 5% 0% 21,522 No (621,854) 87,754 ELLEN WILKINSON HIGH 9,392,881 8,892,555 (69,894) 1% 5% -4% 374,734 No (500,326) 430,432 NORTHOLT HIGH 4,010,544 4,122,268 362,793 -9% 5% -14% 568,906 No 111,724 251,069 BRENTSIDE HIGH 9,565,243 9,318,896 (62,656) 1% 5% -4% 403,289 No (246,347) 183,691 Total FOUNDATION SCHOOLS 40,214,489 38,626,725 (40,540) 0% 6% -9% No (1,587,763) 1,547,223

GRAND TOTAL 275,597,432 261,705,426 (13,164,217) 5% 8% -3% 0 No (14,219,859) 1,055,642

Page 59 of 68

Page 60 of 68

Appendix xx Extract from LB Ealing Schools for Financing

Appendix xx

Appendix 2: Scheme for Financing Schools 2018/19 Loans and Deficits 10

SECTION 4: THE TREATMENT OF SURPLUS AND DEFICIT BALANCES ARISING IN RELATION TO BUDGET SHARES

The right to carry forward surplus balances Subject to section 4.2 of this scheme, a school shall carry forward from one financial year to the next any cumulative deficit or surplus balance from the previous year.

4.1 Reporting on and control of the use of surplus balances A new Balance Control Mechanism (BCM) to control school balances was introduced from financial year 2013-14. The mechanism will operate as follows:

a) The Authority shall calculate by 31 May each year the surplus balance, if any, held by each school as at the preceding 31 March. For this purpose the balance will be the recurrent balance as defined in the Consistent Financial Reporting Framework, including creditor and debtor provisions. b) The Authority shall then deduct from the resulting sum: (i) Accruals falling below the year end outstanding provisions limit of £250 per account code (ii) Committed expenditure where orders were placed before 31st March but awaiting delivery for goods and services and (iii) any amounts which the school has assigned for specific purposes. All items under this category must have been signed off by the Governing Body prior to the end of the financial year in question c) If the result of steps a and b is a sum is the greater of 5% of the total budgeted income for that year for secondary schools, 8% for primary and special schools and nurseries, then the authority shall deduct from the current year’s budget an amount equal to the excess over the 5% and 8% levels as appropriate. d) A school may appeal against a decision to deduct excessive school balances. Membership of each Panel will comprise: Chair or the Vice Chair of the Schools Forum and 2 Members (Head teacher or Governor Members) of the relevant “group” of School Members on the Forum to which the school belongs. The two members shall be appointed by the Chair or Vice Chair who is convening a particular panel. e) At year end every school with balances above the prescribed % will need to complete a School Balances form. Any item not clearly recorded in the School Improvement plan will be rejected and may be subject to claw back.

Page 61 of 68

4.2 The right to carry forward surplus balances Subject to section 4.2 of this scheme, a school shall carry forward from one financial year to the next any cumulative deficit or surplus balance from the previous year.

4.3 Reporting on and control of the use of surplus balances A new Balance Control Mechanism (BCM) to control school balances was introduced from financial year 2013-14. The mechanism will operate as follows:

f) The Authority shall calculate by 31 May each year the surplus balance, if any, held by each school as at the preceding 31 March. For this purpose the balance will be the recurrent balance as defined in the Consistent Financial Reporting Framework, including creditor and debtor provisions. g) The Authority shall then deduct from the resulting sum: (i) Accruals falling below the year end outstanding provisions limit of £250 per account code (ii) Committed expenditure where orders were placed before 31st March but awaiting delivery for goods and services and (iii) any amounts which the school has assigned for specific purposes. All items under this category must have been signed off by the Governing Body prior to the end of the financial year in question h) If the result of steps a and b is a sum is the greater of 5% of the total budgeted income for that year for secondary schools, 8% for primary and special schools and nurseries, then the authority shall deduct from the current year’s budget an amount equal to the excess over the 5% and 8% levels as appropriate. i) A school may appeal against a decision to deduct excessive school balances. Membership of each Panel will comprise: Chair or the Vice Chair of the Schools Forum and 2 Members (Head teacher or Governor Members) of the relevant “group” of School Members on the Forum to which the school belongs. The two members shall be appointed by the Chair or Vice Chair who is convening a particular panel. j) At year end every school with balances above the prescribed % will need to complete a School Balances form. Any item not clearly recorded in the School Improvement plan will be rejected and may be subject to claw back.

4.4 Interest on surplus balances Interest on surplus balances will only be earned on amounts, which are held in the school's bank account, which shall attract interest fixed by the bank or building society where the account is held.

4.5 Obligation to carry forward deficit balances Deficit balances must be carried forward and will be deducted from the following year's budget share.

The deficit balance would be shown on the out-turn statement published in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State under s.251 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

Page 62 of 68 4.6 Planning for a deficit budget No school shall plan for a deficit budget unless it has been authorised under the LA's licensed deficit arrangements. Where a school considers that it needs to plan to incur expenditure that would be in excess of the aggregate of the school's budget share and cumulative balances it must apply to the LA for a licensed deficit. (See Paragraph 4.9)

4.7 Charging of interest on deficit balances Interest will be charged at the Bank of England base rate on licensed deficits.

4.8 Writing off Deficits Under the scheme, the Authority has no power to write off deficits.

4.9 Balances of closing and replacement schools and academy conversions.

The balance (whether surplus or deficit) of a school which closes shall revert to the LA.

Where in the funding period, a school has been established or is subject to a prescribed alteration as a result of the closure of a school, a local authority may add an amount to the budget share of the new or enlarged school to reflect all or part of the unspent budget share (including any surplus carried over from previous funding periods) of the closing school for the funding period in which it closes.

The surplus balance of a school which closes transfers to an academy where a school converts to academy status under section 4(1)(a) of the Academies Act 2010. Schools must declare their intention to repay any deficit prior to converting to an Academy.

4.10 Licensed deficits

These arrangements apply to any school, which from 1 April has no deficit at the start of a financial year but considers that it needs to plan for a deficit.

Schools should only apply for a licensed deficit in circumstances where they cannot set a balanced budget without seriously impacting on the educational provision at the School.

The Purpose of the licensed deficit

The purpose of the licensed deficit process is to enable schools to:  Identify the financial circumstances that has led to a deficit position  Agree with the LA a plan of action and monitoring arrangements  Take strategic action to improve the long term financial stability of the School  Balance the budget over a period of no longer than 3 years.

3 of 6 Page 63 of 68 Any such school must seek in writing the approval of the LA for the deficit to be licensed by completing:-

 a Licensed Deficit Application and Agreement Form.  A Summary Recovery Plan  A detailed Deficit Recovery Plan setting out how the School budget will be balanced over a 3 year period, together with supporting documentation.  All requests should in the first instance be sent to the Senior Finance Business Advisor (SFBA) or Head of Accountancy to be reviewed. If agreed then the request, with the relevant details will be signed off by the Director of Finance and Executive Director of Childrens’ and Adults.

The detailed and summary deficit recovery plans are the responsibility of the Headteacher and the Full Governing Board at the School. In preparing the plan, it is suggested that Schools seek the support of the Ealing Bursarial Support Service (if the School buys into the Service); the School Improvement Service and seek HR advice if any plans will affect the staffing at the School.

The Criteria for approving an application for a Licensed deficit

The Licensed deficit process is used by an Authority to provide schools with an appropriate level of challenge and support to help them set a balanced budget or if this is not achievable to prepare a recovery plan that sets out the action the school will take to achieve a sustainable balanced financial position over an agreed period of no longer than three years.

The Director of Finance and Executive Director of Childrens’ and Adults may agree to license a deficit which is equal to or less than that requested by the school. Any such an arrangement will be funded by the collective surplus of schools’ balances held by the authority on behalf of schools. In any year, the amount of existing licensed deficits and new commitments shall not exceed 30 percent of the collective surplus (ISB) held by the LA.

The LA will not unreasonably reject an application for a Licensed Deficit, and will consider the following in reaching a decision:  The nature of the circumstances which gave rise to the deficit and specifically whether they could have been foreseen;  The school’s track record in financial management;  The robustness of the deficit recovery plan and the appropriateness of the timescales proposed;  Any other mitigating circumstances

The following conditions will apply to any arrangement under this scheme:

a) The maximum length over which a school may repay a planned deficit (i.e. reach at least a zero balance) is three financial years;

b) Requests for planned deficits may be considered where, in the opinion of the LA, the expenditure which it is proposed to fund is reasonable and satisfies one or more of the following conditions: i)assists with the phasing of staff reorganization or restructuring which cannot be achieved within the current financial year;

4 of 6 Page 64 of 68 ii) covers lumpy items of repair and maintenance work which is the responsibility of the School where it would be more effective to undertake the work in one financial year;

iii) finances in part or in full capital projects.

c) Any school that has set a deficit budget should show how they propose to mitigate the overspend, which will include any funding available in their bank accounts. i) As stated in the Scheme, schools will not be considered as being in deficit if they are planning expenditure which is not in excess of the aggregate of the school’s budget share and cumulative reserves (i.e.money in their bank accounts). ii) A school should only consider asking for additional support if it still expects all these other available funds to be exhausted. iii) Short term cashflow can be dealt with via cash advances.

d) The maximum size of planned deficits for which this provision will apply is 10 per cent of a school’s budget share. However, it is the ability to pay the deficit which will determine the actual amount of deficit permitted.

e) An advisory panel of officers and head teachers may be established to advise the LA on any aspect of applications.

f) No school may fund a planned deficit from any other source than the LA's approved licensed deficit scheme.

g) No school may loan money to any other school.

h) Schools are to submit requests for licensed deficits before the end of Period 9 (December ) if not before.

4.11 Loans

Principle

The scheme provides for a loan arrangement to operate for schools whereby the Authority shall make actual payments to schools or their expenditure in respect of a particular school, on condition that a corresponding sum is repaid from the budget share. The funding of such agreements would be through the collective surplus of school balances held by the authority on behalf of schools, and will be considered on an individual basis. The maximum proportion of the ISB reserves held by the authority which will be used to support the arrangement shall not exceed 30%,

The Authority shall show in its budget statements the amount centrally retained for this purpose as a devolved item to schools and any such payments shall appear in out-turn statements.

Loans must not be used as a means of funding a deficit that has arisen because a school’s recurrent costs exceed its current income. If loans are or have been made to fund a deficit, the Secretary of State will consider using the power under paragraph 13(4)(d) of Schedule 1 to the

5 of 6 Page 65 of 68 Academies Act 2010 to make a direction to the effect that such a loan does not transfer, either in full or part, to the new Academy school in individual cases.

A school must apply for a loan in writing by completing:-

 An application for a loan which details the reasons for applying and incorporates how the School meets the criteria below.  A Summary Recovery Plan of how the School will pay back the loan  All requests should in the first instance be sent to the Senior Finance Business Advisor (SFBA) or Head of Accountancy to be reviewed. If agreed then the request, with the relevant details will be signed off by the Director of Finance and the Executive Director of Childrens’ and Adults.

Cash values

The maximum size of any loan is 10 per cent of a school’s budget share. However, it is the ability to pay the deficit which will determine the actual amount of deficit permitted.

Interest will be charged at the Council’s cost of borrowing on the date on which the loan is advanced unless the authority agrees for it to be waived.

Circumstances in which a loan may be agreed:

a) Where a school undertakes a large project or where there is a requirement to repay money to the Authority (e.g. PFI schools) they may apply for a loan arrangement. b) where major capital projects which would otherwise result in the project not being undertaken and there are clear benefits to the school over more than one year (there will be a requirement of the governing body to demonstrate repayment).

c) Loans must only be used to assist schools in spreading the cost over more than one year of large one-off individual items of a capital nature that have a benefit to the school lasting more than one financial or academic year

d) The maximum length over which schools may repay the loan is 3 years which will be determined on a case by case basis, linked to the expected useful life of the asset and the ability of individual schools to repay any loan

e) A school should only consider asking for a loan if it has exhausted all other available funds ( budget allocation plus all reserves) f) Arrangement for a loan will only be agreed where the governing body agrees in writing that should the school convert to an academy, to fully repay any outstanding balance, including where relevant any associated interest, no later than one month before conversion.

6 of 6 Page 66 of 68

Appendix 6

1) Indicators – Data sources and how are they calculated 10

Page 67 of 68

2) Grade Boundaries

Page 68 of 68