Milton Keynes' Schools Forum

Agenda

Milton Keynes Schools Forum

Milton Keynes Professional Development Centre (MK PDC) Galley Hill, Milton Keynes, MK11 1PA

17 October 2019 3.00pm – 4:30pm Lead Time

1. Opening matters Chair 3.00 1.1 Apologies for Absences 1.2 Disclosures of Interest 1.3 Minutes and Matters Arising

2. To Note 2.1 Forecast Outturn 2019/20 SH 3:10

3. Discussion Items 3.1 Government Updates and 2020/21 Budget Setting NH 3.20 3.2 Growth Fund SH 3.40 3.3 De-delegation Services 2020/21 SH 3.55

4. Standing Items 4.1 Membership and Constitution NH 4.15 4.2 Update from sub-groups of the Schools Forum  Schools Reference Group – not met  Early Years Reference Group – not met  High Needs Reference Group – not met

5. Closing matters 5.1 Forward Planning All 4.20  12 December 2019 Forecast Outturn 2019/20 Government Updates Budget Setting 2020/21 Annual Report on High Needs Annual Report on Early Years Annual Report on Alternative Provision Section 251 2019/20 Budget

 16 January 2020 Forecast Outturn 2019/20 Budget Setting 2020/21

5.2 Any Other Business All 4.25

MILTON KEYNES’ SCHOOLS FORUM

Milton Keynes Professional Development Centre (MKPDC) Galley Hill, Milton Keynes, MK11 1PA

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2019 AT 3.00 PM

PRESENT: Primary School Representatives Lizzie Bancroft – Loughton Manor First School Kirk Hopkins – Oldbrook School Elisabeth Morrison – Brooklands Farm School

Primary School Governors Francis Grant – Great Linford Primary School Paul Hussey – Roman Village Federation (Chair)

Secondary School Governor Paul Herbert – St Paul’s Catholic School

Special School Representative Finlay Douglas – White Spire School

Academy Representatives Neil Barrett – Stephenson Academy David Gibson for Michelle Currie – Walton High John Howe – Denbigh School Glen Martin – Shenley Brook End

Academy Governors Dave Moulson – Ousedale School

14-19 Partnership Lindsey Styles – Milton Keynes College

Nursery School Representative Natalie Fowler – Knowles Nursery School Shared vote Deb Spinks – Moorlands Centre Nursery School

Diocesan Authority Michael Manley – Northampton Catholic Diocese Tony Wilson - Oxford C of E Diocese

Trade Union Representative Anita Richards – National Education Union District Secretary

LA OFFICERS: Sonia Hattle – Senior Finance Business Partner Natasha Hutchin – Strategic Finance Business Partner

CLERK: Sue Puddifoot – Governor Support – Children’s Services

ALSO PRESENT: David Tooley – Member of the press SCHOOLS FORUM 27 JUNE 2019 PAGE 1

SF 724 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES Item 1

The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. There were two new members of Schools Forum; Kate Warren, SBM from St Paul’s and Tony Wilson from the Oxford Diocese.

Apologies for absence had been received by the clerk from:

Norman Miles – MK Primary PRU Antony Moore – Giles Brook School Andy Squires – Denbigh School Kate Warren – St Paul’s SBM

Jane Edwards – Heronsgate School, Helen Middleton - Pre School Learning Alliance, Christine Ryan – Cold Harbour C of E School and Jake Yeo – Bushfield School were absent

SF 725 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Item 2

There were no declarations of interest made.

SF 726 MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING Item 3

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2019 were agreed as an accurate record. There were no matters arising.

SF 727 BUDGET MONITORING - 2018/19 FORECAST OUTTURN AND 2019/20 BUDGET (Sonia Hattle) Item 4

The purpose of this report was to receive a report on the final outturn position for 2018/19 and the initial budget for 2019/20.

Sonia Hattle drew attention to the report which included the 2018/19 final outturn position and variances. The final DSG allocation had increased by £946k since the January report as a result of an estimated early years funding adjustment which would not be confirmed until July 2019. The outturn was a surplus balance of £2.870m, a slight reduction on the previous forecast position. The summary table on page 5 of the report gave the final outturn position, which was still subject to review by the DfE as part of the DSG assurance process and this would take place in October 2019.

Since the January 2019 report there had been an increase in the schools block underspend of £104k and adverse movements in the early years and high needs blocks of £99k and £207k respectively.

Significant variations were detailed in section 3.7 of the report.

 Schools Block – resulted in a £578k underspend  Early Years – resulted in a £517k underspend  High Needs Block – resulted in a £1.774m underspend. There had

SCHOOLS FORUM 27 JUNE 2019 PAGE 2

been £720k of additional funding announced in December 2018 and this was not spent in year and would be carried forward to 2019/20.

A de-delegated budget update was given in section 3.8 and the primary schools contingency for those in financial difficulty had been agreed at the October 2018 Schools Forum meeting to be redistributed to maintained primary schools within their 2019/20 school budget.

For 2019/20, the only changes were that the overall DSG carry forward was £164k less than anticipated when the budget was set and the growth fund allocations for an additional 30 places at Milton Keynes Academy and 30 places at The Radcliffe School.

Schools Forum noted the 2018/19 final funding allocation and outturn position, including balances carried forward on both the DSG and de- delegated budgets. Schools Forum also noted the budget for 2019/20, including the opening balances carried forward.

SF 728 2020/21 SCHOOL FUNDING AND GROWTH FUND CRITERIA (Sonia Hattle) Item 5

The purpose of this report was to provide members of Schools Forum with an update on the 2020/21 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget plan and proposals for the 2020/21 growth fund criteria.

The 2020/21 final allocations would be confirmed in December 2019 after October census information was available. The MK formula had been fully transitioned to the National Funding Formula (NFF) with small changes to be considered in a consultation with individual schools:

 A review of the mobility factor  A review of split site funding  A review of the MFG  A review of the CAP

The growth fund was funded from the Schools Block and in view of the reduction of growth funding allocated to MKC, a review of all aspects of growth expenditure and the schools funding formula was required. The change in DfE funding meant that only positive growth in a Middle Super Output Area (MSOA) would be funded. MKC would receive protection funding for two and a half years and the table in section 5.5 of the report showed the pressure based on the estimated funding allocations and growth projections.

The two School Reference Group meetings had discussed the options available to bring growth expenditure in line with the allocation received.

Further financial modelling had taken place and presented to the second SRG meeting Benchmarking against other local authorities was difficult as each set their own criteria so there was no like for like comparison.

SCHOOLS FORUM 27 JUNE 2019 PAGE 3

Schools Forum members then discussed the options put to them from the SRG:

Does Schools Forum agree that the use of any carry forward surplus should be prioritised towards the following year’s growth funding shortfall?

Points raised in the ensuing lengthy discussion included:

 There was a total of £664k which could be used towards the 2020/21 growth funding shortfall.  This was not sustainable and a sustainable solution was required. Natasha responded that the cost of growth was expected to naturally reduce as schemes came to an end and the criteria was changed for new schemes and therefore it would be reasonable for the carry forward to be used as a first call on the 2020/21 pressure.  For existing schemes the surplus would go towards the 2020/21 pressure.  Existing agreements had already been made on a set of growth funding criteria so should be honoured.  Only spend what is received.  For new schemes, have a new set of criteria.  Change the growth funding criteria for new schemes based on the amount of funding received. After this, discuss on deducting from schools budgets and how the CAP is applied to manage the difference.  There may be a hard NFF for growth implemented, which would then affect funding available for schemes already in place (although there was uncertainty about the timeline for hard implementation).  Deducting the same percentage for each school from the NFF (i.e. through the AWPU).

There was some discussion about the application of the NFF and a view that schools who are gaining should see a full gain now and not be capped. Natasha Hutchin explained that funding received was not on the same methodology as the funding allocated through the formula and the principle behind NFF was that capping would need to apply throughout the transition through to full NFF. The MFG and CAP cannot be applied to the formula (under regulation) based on absolute values and were applied as percentages to be consistent and fair so that all were proportionately capped. Changes should not penalise some while others benefited.

Under the NFF regulations, the following could be considered:

 Apply a higher MFG (more schools would lose funding and see an actual reduction)  A blanket reduction in AWPU (this moves MK away from the NFF rates which could result in more turbulence when moving to hard NFF)  For clarification, capping is applied on gains only, so these schools were still seeing a year on year increase in per pupil funding – the NFF always stated that there would be cap on gains throughout SCHOOLS FORUM 27 JUNE 2019 PAGE 4

transition  The SRG could discuss logistics after the outcome of the consultation

Schools Forum were broadly in agreement that the carry forward surplus be used towards the following year’s shortfall, however members requested more detail for following years but this was not yet available.

Should the revenue allocation per pupil be removed from the criteria for new schemes?

The criteria would be changed for new schemes and a revised growth fund would be brought to Schools Forum for approval in October. No new schemes should be accepted under the existing criteria.

It was also requested that the Schools Forum wanted to consider reviewing future funding for existing schemes - Natasha Hutchin could include modelling options on both scenarios and take back for further discussion at SRG in September, for which all members were welcome to attend.

John Howe declared an interest at this point regarding his association with Watling Academy which would be affected as a large new school and he would not vote on any decision.

It was agreed that further discussion on the options would take place at the SRG meeting on 26 September at 1.00pm when further modelling would be available.

SF 729 GOVERNMENT UPDATES (Natasha Hutchin) Item 7

The purpose of this report was to provide Schools Forum with an update on Government announcements relating to the DSG and information relevant to all schools.

Natasha Hutchin explained that funding announcements were likely to be later than usual this year linked to uncertainty on the spending review and government position. No changes to the formula were expected, however mobility may be reviewed. One off funding grants had only been confirmed for 2019/20.

The Pension Grant would have the biggest impact and this per pupil rate of funding, in some cases, would not cover the increase in costs. A pension supplementary fund had been announced but schools would have to apply for this individually and would be encouraged to do so.

Tony Wilson left the meeting at this point.

Schools Forum asked if the per pupil funding included nursery classes and it would be based on the January census. This was not reflected in the allocation and could be challenged.

SCHOOLS FORUM 27 JUNE 2019 PAGE 5

There was no further information on teachers’ pay beyond 2019/20. Nursery School supplementary funding had been confirmed into the summer term of 2020.

Further additional High Needs funding had not been confirmed nor had confirmation that the one off funding received in 2018/19 and 2019/20 would be in the base.

Full funding announcements were not expected before December 2019. There was no indication of a date for hard formula transfer to the DfE and this would continue to stay local for 2020/21. Some elements of the local formula i.e. split sites, mobility, sparsity and prior attainment would need to be reviewed for 2021/22 onwards.

Schools Forum noted the latest updates on the DSG and other areas as included in the report.

SF 730 SCHEME FOR FINANCING SCHOOLS UPDATE (Natasha Hutchin) Item 7 The purpose of this report was to update Schools Forum on the Scheme for Financing Schools (the LMS Scheme) following directed changes and updated guidance issued by the DfE in February 2019.

Schools Forum noted the directed change and revisions to the LMS Scheme as set out in Annex A. Any comments could be made via email.

SF 731 SECTION 251 OUTTURN STATEMENT 2017/18 (Sonia Hattle) Item 8

The purpose of this report was to inform Schools Forum of the budget statement provided to the DfE under Section 251 of the Apprenticeships Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

Benchmarking data had been included in Annex 3, which members found interesting.

Schools Forum noted the statements.

SF 732 MEMBERSHIP AND CONSTITUTION (Natasha Hutchin) Item 9

There remained a primary academy vacancy on Schools Forum.

SF 733 UPDATE FROM SUB-GROUPS OF THE SCHOOLS FORUM Item 10

Meetings of the Reference Groups had taken place since the last meeting of Schools Forum as follows:

 Schools Reference Group - 9 May 2019 and 13 June 2019  Early Years Reference Group – 23 May 2019

Members would be invited to the next Schools Reference Group meeting to be held on 26 September 2019 at 1.00pm at Shenley Brook End School.

SCHOOLS FORUM 27 JUNE 2019 PAGE 6

SF 734 FORWARD PLANNING Item 11

Issues to be considered by Schools Forum and dates of the next meetings were:

17 October 2019

- Forecast Outturn 2019/20 - Government Updates - De-Delegation 2020/21 - Budget Setting 2020/21 - Annual Report on Early Years Provision - Annual Report on Alternative Provision

12 December 2019

- Forecast Outturn 2019/20 - Government Updates - Budget Setting 2020/21 - Annual Report on High Needs - Section 251 2019/20 budget

16 January 2020

- Forecast Outturn 2019/20 - Budget Setting 202/21

All meetings 3pm – 4.30pm to be held at MKPDC, Galley Hill

The meeting closed at 4.25pm

SCHOOLS FORUM 27 JUNE 2019 PAGE 7

Briefing note

2.1 Forecast Outturn 2019/20

Sonia Hattle – Senior Finance Business Partner, Children’s Services 01908 253524 [email protected]

1 Purpose

1.1 To advise the Schools Forum of the latest Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding allocation and the period six forecast outturn position for 2019/20.

2 Recommendations

2.1 That the Schools Forum notes the latest DSG funding allocations for 2019/20 and the latest forecast outturn position.

3 2019/20 Position

Latest DSG Funding Allocation for 2019/20

3.1 High Needs Block The high needs block allocation has been updated to reflect the latest data from the January 2019 school census and as a result the allocation for MK was reduced by £0.024m. This was made up of the import/export adjustment which resulted in a reduction of £0.030m and additional funding for special free schools of £0.006m. This reduction will be covered by the high needs contingency and has been reflected in the budget.

3.2 Early Years Block At the time of setting the 2019/20 budget the early year’s final allocation was provisional as the January 2019 census data had not been confirmed. This has since been confirmed and the block funding adjustment has resulted in an increase of £1.139m to £21.293m (from £20.154m) and the budget has been updated to reflect this. The 2019/20 allocation is also subject to recalculation based on the actual take up in January 2020.

3.3 The following table shows the change in the funding allocation from the draft budget in January to the latest budget allocation in July 2019.

MNS 3&4 YO 3&4 YO Pupil Disability Supplementa Total Early (Universal) (Additional) 2 YO Premum Access Fund ry Funding Years Block £m £m £m £m £m £m £m January 2019 Allocation 13.302 4.209 2.359 0.090 0.063 0.131 20.154 July 2019 Allocation 13.723 5.110 2.155 0.115 0.063 0.127 21.293 Variance 0.421 0.901 (0.204) 0.025 0.000 (0.004) 1.139

Latest 2019/20 Budget Forecast Outturn Summary (Period Six)

3.4 This report details the income and expenditure on the DSG for 2019/20. The DSG is a ring-fenced grant that must be used in support of the Schools Budget as defined in the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2019. It cannot be used for any other purpose and is not available to support general council services.

3.5 With effect from 2018/19, the funding blocks within the DSG have been ring- fenced; therefore brought forward and carried forward balances will be reported on a block by block basis. Given that the blocks are now ring-fenced it is essential that a reasonable level of contingency / surplus is held to manage volatility against each of the blocks.

3.6 The 2019/20 budget was set with an overall estimated surplus balance of £2.956m at 31 March 2020. The period six forecast position estimates a surplus carry forward of £2.807m. This surplus will be carried forward and distributed in 2020/21 against the relevant blocks to which it relates.

3.7 At the last report to forum a budget forecast was not available therefore the variance in this report is a comparison to the revised budget reported to schools forum (27 June 2019).

3.8 A summary of the forecast variance is shown in the following table;

Budget Forecast Variance DSG Income and Expenditure £m £m £m Schools Block Budget Shares 186.693 186.663 (0.030) MFG 1.006 1.006 0.000 Growth Fund 1.052 1.012 (0.040) Expenditure 188.751 188.681 (0.070) Surplus C/Fwd (0.578) (0.578) 0.000 DSG Allocation (188.837) (188.837) 0.000 Income (189.415) (189.415) 0.000 Total Schools Block (0.664) (0.734) (0.070) Central School Services Block Admissions 0.557 0.557 0.000 Schools Forum 0.036 0.036 0.000 ESG Retained Duties 0.670 0.670 0.000 CLA and MPA Licence Fees 0.224 0.224 0.000 Miscellaneous 0.025 0.025 0.000 Contribution from High Needs Block (0.047) (0.047) 0.000 Expenditure 1.466 1.466 0.000 DSG Allocation (1.466) (1.466) 0.000 Income (1.466) (1.466) 0.000 Total Central Services Block (0.000) (0.000) 0.000 Early Years Block Providers 3 and 4 Year Olds 17.945 17.945 0.000 Providers 2 Year Olds 2.155 2.155 0.000 MNS Supplementary Funding 0.127 0.127 0.000 Pupil Premium 0.115 0.115 0.000 Disability Access Fund 0.063 0.063 0.000 Early Years Inclusion Fund 0.230 0.230 0.000 Central Expenditure 0.658 0.650 (0.008) Expenditure 21.293 21.285 (0.008) Surplus C/Fwd (0.517) (0.261) 0.256 DSG Allocation (21.293) (21.293) 0.000 Income (21.810) (21.554) 0.256 Total Early Years Block (0.517) (0.269) 0.248 High Needs Block Special School Place and Top Up Funding 20.515 20.523 0.008 Departments / Unit Place and Top Up Funding 1.974 1.718 (0.256) Alternative Provision Place and Top Up Funding 3.138 3.127 (0.011) Mainstream Top Up funding (EHCP and No EHCP) 4.069 4.455 0.386 College Place and Top Up Funding 2.450 2.433 (0.017) Independent School Fees 5.550 5.175 (0.375) Contingency 0.447 0.447 0.000 Central Expenditure 2.657 2.893 0.236 Expenditure 40.800 40.770 (0.030) Surplus C/Fwd (1.774) (1.774) 0.000 DSG Allocation (40.800) (40.800) 0.000 Income (42.574) (42.574) 0.000 Total High Needs Block (1.774) (1.804) (0.030) Total Expenditure 252.309 252.202 (0.108) Surplus C/Fwd (2.869) (2.613) 0.256 DSG Allocation (252.396) (252.396) 0.000 In-Year Deficit/(Surplus) (2.956) (2.807) 0.148

4 Significant Variations to Budget

4.1 A full explanation of the significant forecast variations are as follows:

Schools Block There is a predicted surplus carry forward into 2020/21 of £0.734m. This amount represents 0.4% of the total DSG allocation.

This underspend is due to £0.664m carry forward from 2019/20. The growth fund contingency for additional places required at primary schools is not expected to be required resulting in a reduction of £0.040m. There have been four primary school academy conversions which will result in a business rates rebate of £0.030m.

Early Years Block There is a predicted surplus carry forward into 2020/21 of £0.269m. This amount represents 1.2% of the DSG allocation.

This underspend is due to £0.517m carry forward from 2019/20, however there was a shortfall between the allocation and the funding paid to providers of £0.256m which has been covered by the contingency. There are some minor underspends within the early years central budgets.

The current forecast is based on block one actuals only. The estimates for block two and three are being calculated and a forecast will be reported to schools forum on 12 December 2019.

High Needs Block There is a predicted surplus carry forward into 2020/21 of £1.804m. This amount represents 4.4% of the DSG allocation.

Top up funding for special schools is forecast to overspend by £0.008m. Bandings have recently been reviewed with the special schools for the new academic year, and the review will be concluded shortly. This may result in a change in the forecasts but it is not foreseen that it will cause any difficulties.

Funding for special units is forecast to underspend by £0.256m. This is as a result of vacant places within departments and therefore reductions in top up spend. This was partly addressed through the reduction of 12 department places in September 2019, reducing from 130 places down to 118. This will be reviewed as part of the 2020/21 budget setting in order to ascertain the level of places needed across the departments.

Top up funding in mainstream schools is forecast to overspend by £0.386m. The overspend is predominantly from top up funding for children with an EHCP, where we have seen an additional 41 plans agreed across primary and secondary schools since July 2019. SEN support for children who do not have an EHCP is forecast to have a small overspend of £0.002m against a budget of £0.695m.

Independent Special School Fees is forecast to underspend by £0.375m. Residential school placement numbers continue to be maintained at the same level it was in 2018/19 (16 compared to 26 in 2017/18). Where suitable for the child’s needs and working closely with the families, packages will be moved from residential placements to day placements, which are of a lower cost to. One example in 2019/20 was a child moving from a £0.250m 38 week placement to a £0.093m day placement.

The high needs contingency is forecasted to be fully spent in-year. It is vital that the high needs block has a prudent level of contingency in order to manage volatile expenditure due to the nature of the services. It is expected that future years will be challenging and so it is important that forward planning is put in place to ensure a strong position going forward.

The high needs central budgets are forecasting an overspend of £0.236m. Since April 2019, the Outreach team’s caseload has grown from 32 to 65 children. The team have had a number of removals in and the children need to be transitioned into their next suitable setting, with the aim to support the child to go into or stay in mainstream or local specialist provision. Therefore, the increased caseload has meant that the use of external supply teaching is required due to staff’s time being taken up elsewhere delivering full time packages. For example, if the four children who are currently being supported through full time packages were provided by external provision, it would cost the LA upwards of £0.004m a week.

Briefing note

3.2 Government Updates and 2020/21 Budget Setting

Natasha Hutchin 01908 253413 [email protected]

1 Purpose

1.1 To provide the Schools Forum with an update on Government announcements relating to the National Funding Formula (NFF) and the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).

2 Recommendations

2.1 That the schools forum notes the latest updates on the national funding formula and the DSG.

2.2 That the schools forum votes on making a disapplication request to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) for those areas identified in sections 4.8.

2.3 That the schools forum vote on the preferred communication process for when further details are expected from the Department for Education (DfE) - including the consultation document to be shared with all schools on consideration of changes to the formula; 1. An additional extra-ordinary meeting of the schools forum to be held early November OR 2. A briefing on the changes together with the consultation document to be shared with all schools and the outcome of which reported to the December schools forum.

3 Headlines and Changes for 2020/21

3.1 Since the last meeting of the schools forum, there have been a number of unexpected announcements from the Government regarding funding for 2020/21 and beyond. This included additional funding as well as changes to the schools formula. Although the headlines have been announced, we are still awaiting both the technical guidance and the allocations at LA level so at this stage there are still a significant number of unknowns.

3.2 The setting of the schools funding formula is the responsibility of the local authority but this must be done in conjunction with schools and the schools forum. Before these recent announcements, we had planned to bring a draft consultation document to the October schools forum meeting in order to ask all schools their views on how the pressures relating to growth fund should be managed via changes to the formula in 2020/21. However, given the uncertain implications of some of the government announcements, we are not yet in a position to understand the amount of the overall pressure, the options available to us and the implication of each of these (either overall or at individual school level). As this information is expected imminently, we have not included a draft consultation as part of this update but will share this when the technical announcements are released later this month. Two budget workshops will also be held to support schools in understanding individual impact so they can respond to the consultation accordingly. Details will be shared with all school heads, business managers and governors and will also be shared in educ@te.

3.3 In 2020/21, as in previous years, each LA will continue to set a local schools formula, in consultation with local schools. The government has confirmed its intention to move to a single ‘hard’ national funding formula to determine every school’s budget and the DfE continue to work with LAs and other stakeholders to make this transition in the future. Further information on this is expected in later announcements.

3.4 In September 2019, the DfE published the operational guidance for local authorities in England for 2020 to 2021. The guidance can be found here. 2020/21 is the third year of the NFF for schools, high needs and central school services. Provisional 2020/21 NFF allocations at local authority level for the schools and high needs blocks will be published in October, together with notional school-level allocations. All of the information on funding allocations is provisional, subject to being recalculated based on actual census information and is also dependent on local factors. Final allocations will be published in December with the exception of early year’s block which will be determined by the separate national formula for early years.

3.5 It is important that schools understand that the DfE published school level allocations are not necessarily what the school will receive in funding for 2020/21. This is because of a number of reasons; demographic pressures (e.g. increases in the number of children attracting a particular formula factor i.e. free school meal funding), local measures for managing pressures (including growth pressures and lag and rates increases) and transfers between funding blocks.

3.6 LAs will also still only be funded at an average unit of funding for primary and secondary pupils so the very nature of the different models (i.e. how the money comes into the LA and how it is calculated to go out to schools through the formula) will likely mean that there will be an overall difference that will need to be managed.

3.7 Summary of Main Changes (National)

The main changes are as follows (further detail is included in the relevant sections later in this paper).

 Additional funding for schools and high needs compared to 2019/20: £2.6bn 2020/21, £4.8bn 2021/22 and £7.1bn for 2022/23.  Mandatory minimum per pupil funding levels: £3,750 primary (£4,000 21/22) and £5,000 secondary.  Change to mobility: both through the funding allocation and method of distribution through the formula.  Teacher pay and pension funding: separate grant funding continuing in 2020/21.  Affirmation of commitment to hard national funding formula implementation – although no timelines are reported.  Block transfers up to 0.5% are still allowable (although expected to be reduced given additional funding for high needs).

4 Schools Block

Headlines

4.1 The DfE have announced additional funding into the schools block nationally of £1.9bn (£2.6bn overall additional funding less £0.7bn allocated to high needs). This will be allocated to LAs via the NFF per pupil funding rates. To allocate this to schools, there will be a change to some of the factor rates payable and some other technical changes to the formula, which will be detailed in the NFF technical note and policy document published in October (this is still awaited).

4.2 Funding for the first two years of the NFF (2018/19 and 2019/20) was capped at LA level during the transition years meaning that although the DfE had published school level expected allocations, this would be phased over a number of years as funding into LA was capped annually. The additional funding announced this month for 2020/21 will flow through to LAs via the release of the NFF cap on gaining authorities plus the remaining additional funding allocated through the funding formula; therefore it is not possible to estimate what this will be for MK at this stage.

4.3 The following changes have been confirmed to the national school funding formula:

 Minimum per pupil funding levels will increase to £3,750 in primary schools (£4,000 from 2021/22) and in £5,000 secondary schools. This will also become a mandatory factor and the DfE have launched a consultation into how this will work. There will be an exceptions policy where LAs can ask for this to be disapplied in cases where there are local pressures (for example transfers to other funding blocks or where there are pressures on growth).

 The funding floor will be set at 1.84% to protect pupil-led per-pupil funding in real terms. This minimum increase in 2020/21 allocations will be based on the individual school’s NFF allocation in 2019/20.

 Schools that are attracting their core NFF allocations will benefit from an increase of 4% to the formula’s core factors. Exceptions to this are that the free school meals factor will be increased at inflation as it is intended to broadly reflect actual costs, and premises funding (rates) will continue to be allocated at LA level on the basis of actual spend in the 2019/20 APT.

 There will be no NFF gains cap, so that all schools may attract their full allocations under the formula. However as referenced in section 3.5 and 3.6 this will still be subject to local pressures such as demographic changes, contributions to other blocks, pressures for growth and the average rate of funding received. LAs will still be able to use a cap in their local formulae as an optional way of managing any pressures.

 A new formulaic approach to the mobility factor will be introduced so that is allocates this funding fairly to all authorities, rather than on the basis of historic spend.

 Growth funding will be based on the same methodology as last year, and will have the same transitional protection ensuring that no authority whose growth funding is unwinding will lose more than 0.5% of its 2019/20 schools block allocation. There will be no capping or scaling of gains from the growth factor. (Growth is covered separately in item 3.2 of this schools forums meeting.)

 The teachers’ pay grant and teachers’ pension employer contributions grant will both continue to be paid separately from the NFF in 2020/21. The rates that determine the 2020/21 allocations are awaited.

 To reflect the additional funding available to LAs, the minimum funding guarantee range has been amended. LAs will have the freedom to set the minimum funding guarantee (MFG) in local formula between +0.5% and +1.84% per pupil.

Considerations for MK

4.4 Although the additional funding announced is welcome news for schools, despite several reviews and discussion at the schools forum regarding the growth fund criteria, the cost of the growth fund is expected to exceed the amount of funding available in 2020/21 and in future years. This will mean that the additional cost will need to be managed within the overall schools block allocation (see Growth paper).

4.5 There are several options that can be considered to manage this pressure within our formula and these will form the basis of consultation to all schools once the technical information and LA level allocations are available from the DfE (expected in October).

 Use of In-Year Surplus: Any schools block underspend can be used to support the cost of growth in the following year as made clear in the DfE guidance. The surplus underspend (currently forecast £0.734m) is one off and as the cost of growth does

reduce in future years, it will be reasonable to apply this first before considering any other changes to the funding formula.

 MFG Choice: this has to be a minimum of +0.5% but can be as high as +1.84%. Even at the lower end of the scale, it would ensure schools do not lose funding.

 Split Site Funding: this remains one area of the formula still entirely within LA control but for MK is historical and out of date. The DfE requires the criteria to be explicit (e.g. only to be included where a school has genuine unavoidable additional costs for example when sites are a minimum distance apart as the crow flies and are separated by a public highway). Any changes to this factor would also require a disapplication request to be submitted to the DfE to disapply the MFG (i.e. so schools don’t just get this back via the MFG protection funding).

 Cap on Gains: LAs still have the ability to apply a cap on schools that gain to manage pressures in the wider schools block. The same percentage cap would have to be applied across all gaining schools. This would obviously then only effect schools that have gained so wouldn’t be an even share of the pressure across all schools.

 Reduction in the AWPU: the impact of this would need to be assessed as this could simply result in more protection through other formula factors (e.g. MFG and the minimum per pupil funding levels). This also moves away from the NFF which may cause issues in future years when we move to a hard NFF.

 Minimum per pupil funding levels: this is now a mandatory factor within the NFF but LAs can apply to the DfE for this not to be applied in certain circumstances. Choosing to disapply this factor would likely impact the schools receiving the least funding as the minimum per pupil funding level is in effect a top up on the factor funding to a minimum level.

4.6 In 2020/21 the minimum per pupil funding will become a mandatory requirement for the first time and the DfE are running a consultation on how best to implement this change, which closes on 22 October 2019. The government response will be published in November 2019 and the LAs draft response is included in annex A to this report.

Minimum Funding Guarantee Disapplication

4.7 The MFG is automatically applied to all schools as part of modelling the school budget share. This has to be applied consistently to all schools however there may be occasions where applying the MFG would give rise to unintended or excessive protection, for example, in schools where there is growth or where there are changes to the school funding formula and schools no longer qualify for certain funding.

4.8 Disapplication requests are submitted to the ESFA for approval and are expected in cases where MFG will lead to significant inappropriate levels of funding. Locally the areas to be requested are:

 New and growing schools – when a school receives funding for the first time, as there are no pupil demographics (as there are no children on the census), these factors have to be estimated initially (usually by using a comparable school in a similar area). Then as pupils arrive and the school grows the pupil demographics can change significantly from one year to the next, potentially resulting in high levels of MFG. Without disapplying MFG in these cases, the schools could see high levels of protection funding (in addition to the growth funding the school(s) receive and therefore be a further top slice to the schools block and therefore existing schools. A disapplication request will be submitted to disapply the MFG for all growing schools as outlined in the Planned Growth annex of the Growth Fund report.

 Changes to formula factors: if there are any changes to split site funding (after consultation with all schools) then a request for disapplication of the MFG specifically relating to any reduction would need to be submitted.

4.9 The deadline for LAs to submit any applications to disapply the MFG for 2020/21 is 11 October 2019. The purpose of this deadline is to get decisions back to local authorities before the APT is issued in December. Any later requests must be submitted by submitted by 20 November 2019 in order for them to be considered in order to meet the APT submission deadline.

5 Central School Services Block (CSSB)

5.1 The government has not yet confirmed the level of funding for the CSSB in 2020/21 - provisional allocations will be published in October along with the technical documents setting out the formula for the ongoing responsibilities element of the block. The DfE expect the historic commitments to start reducing, however MK has no historic commitment and therefore receives no funding for this element – it is not clear at this stage if this will mean potential additional funding for MK as other LAs commitments unwind or whether this will be taken centrally.

6 De-delegated Services

6.1 De-delegated services are for maintained schools only and funding for these services must be allocated through the formula but can be passed back or de-delegated for maintained mainstream primary and secondary schools. The request for 2020/21 de- delegated services are included in a separate paper of this meeting. At this stage there is no further information beyond 2020/21 or how and if this will be effected by the introduction of the hard formula.

7 High Needs Block

7.1 The high needs operational guidance was published in October 2019. Provisional high needs block allocations for 2020/21 alongside technical notes explaining the

calculations are still awaited (expected October 2019). The following headline changes have been confirmed to the high needs funding formula:

 An increase in the funding floor so that all LAs will see a gain of at least 8% (like for like but this would need to take into account changes in the 2 to 18 population). This increase will be based on LA’s high needs allocations in 2019/20.

 Further release of the gains cap, increasing to 17% allowing LAs to see up to this percentage increase under the formula, based on per head of population.

 Special school MFG protection to be raised to 0% (from -1.5%) in context of the additional funding to be allocated to LAs (exceptions can be agreed in exceptional circumstances, e.g. a significant change in funding formula).

7.2 It is not clear exactly how the distribution of the additional funding will flow through at LA level yet but we have been told to plan for an increase of at least 8% which for MK is £3.2m. A full review of the high needs budget for 2020/21 is currently taking place to reflect increases in demand and will be reported with the draft budget in December. Should there be a surplus of funding after considering a reasonable contingency, we will also review rates paid out via the various formulas from the high needs block.

8 Early Years

8.1 There is not expected to be any changes to early years funding – either the funding received or the formula for allocation to settings.

9 General – DSG Reporting

9.1 An increasing number of LAs have been incurring a deficit on their overall DSG account, largely because of overspends on the high needs block. With effect from 2019/20 the rules were tightened and any LA with a deficit in their overall DSG will need to have robust plans as to how this will be brought back into balance although the DfE do anticipate that the additional funding announced this month will ease some of these pressures. A response will need to be formally reported to the DfE where the deficit is expected to be greater than 1% and this is expected to be regularly discussed with the schools forum. It is therefore appropriate that the LAs work to reasonable levels of contingency and surplus within the DSG (to be determined locally) to ensure that deficits do not occur.

10 Summary

10.1 A timetable of the required actions and interdependencies with DfE actions and information in order to draft the DSG budget are summarised in the table below:

Action Timeline Technical guidance from the DfE (high needs and schools October 2019

block) Draft funding allocations and draft APT from the DfE October 2019 Consultation to all schools on formula changes November 2019 Final APT issued to local authorities, containing October mid December 2019 2019 census-based pupil data and factors Action Timeline Publication of Schools, High Needs and Central Schools mid December 2019 Services block final allocations for 2020/21 (DfE) Schools Forum 12 December 2019 - update on forecast 2019/20 DSG carry forward - outcome of school formula consultation - central funding early years - high needs budget and places - central school services - draft budget and allocations Schools Forum 16 January 2020 - update on forecast 2019/20 DSG carry forward - final DSG allocation - growth protection update (based on final modelling and data) - school funding formula unit rates - update on grants Deadline for submission of final 2020/21 APT to ESFA 21 January 2020 Full Council ratification of the budget (and noting of the 26 February 2020 DSG position) School budget shares confirmed to schools 29 February 2020 Special school and PRU funding confirmation 29 February 2020

11 Other Schools Funding Updates

Teachers’ Pay and Pension Grant

11.1 The teacher pay grant and teacher’s pension employer contribution grant will continue to be paid as an additional grant (separate to the NFF) in 2020/21. No further information beyond this date has been given and the rates and allocations for 2020/21 are also not yet available.

11.2 Schools are reminded to check whether they are eligible for the supplementary teacher pension grant. Schools are able to apply to the fund if their grant allocation falls short of their actual pension cost increase by more than 0.05% of their overall budget. Further guidance is available here. School level allocations for 2019/20 together with the application details for the supplementary fund, are expected later this month.

12 Financial Transparency Consultation – Maintained Schools

12.1 The DfE has been looking at ways of improving transparency and the financial health of local authority maintained schools and believes that a number of accountability measures currently used in the academy trust sector could be adapted for local authority maintained schools. The DfE recently issued a consultation seeking the views of individual schools and LAs.

12.2 In summary the DfE proposals include placing additional reporting requirements onto schools including a change to the schools financial value standards, mandatory three year budget plans to be submitted to the LA, reporting related party transactions, increasing minimum frequency of audit visits and formal recovery plans for schools in financial difficulty.

12.3 A link to the consultation was included in educ@te and schools were encouraged to submit a response ahead of the deadline on 30 September 2019. The LA has submitted a response to the consultation – in summary we welcomed some of the measures to improve transparency and ensure consistency between academies and maintained schools but we were concerned about how schools and the LA would manage the additional work required as a result and asked for clarification about what tools would be available to support schools to deliver this as well as possible additional funding.

13 School Improvement Funding

13.1 School improvement is not included in the NFF arrangements and LAs receive the school improvement monitoring and brokerage grant to cover their statutory intervention functions and monitoring and commissioning of school improvement support. MK’s allocation for 2018/19 was £0.247m and for 2019/20 funding was £0.302m. Funding beyond March 2020 is yet to be confirmed.

Annex 1 Minimum Per Pupil Funding Level Draft Consultation Response

Q1: Do you agree that, in order to calculate mandatory minimum per pupil funding levels, all local authorities should follow the NFF methodology? If not, please explain your reasons.

A1: Yes. It does not make sense for LAs to take individual or different approaches to the NFF methodology when the government's aim is still a hard national funding formula implementation. Exceptions will need to be given to LAs where other circumstances may limit their ability to afford minimum funding levels (i.e. historic growth commitments, rapid on-going growth, transfers between blocks and demographic pressures).

However we are concerned about the implication of the weighting on growing all- through schools and how this could change as year groups and classes open meaning the calculation will vary and could significantly impact the per pupil funding value. We would like to request additional information on these cases specifically.

Q2: Do you agree that any requests from local authorities to disapply the use of the mandatory minimum per pupil levels should only be considered on an exceptional basis and in the context of the grounds described above? If not, please explain your reasons.

A2: Yes. However it should be noted that identifying "alternative options" to manage funding pressures is extremely difficult within the context of the national funding formula (i.e. growth). Uncertainty about how areas such a growth funding will be managed within a hard formula is also making discussion and decision making with the schools forum challenging.

As referenced in answer one, in cases where all-through schools are new and are growing both primary and secondary classes, the weighting of the number of classes may have a significant impact on the amount of the minimum per pupil value. In these cases we would expect a disapplication process to ensure this is fair and consistent.

Q3: Please provide any additional comments you wish to make on the implementation of mandatory minimum per pupil levels.

A3: Minimum pupil levels of funding does bring into question the very principle of the national funding formula i.e. the NFF rates and factors are intended to reflect a schools' entitlement based on relevant demographics and weighting of funding - what is the point of this model at all when a number of schools will simply b "topped up" to a minimum amount - it is not clear what this is based on and therefore does it really reflect the need and costs in schools.

Briefing note

3.2 Growth Funding 2020/21

Sonia Hattle 01908 253524 [email protected]

1 Purpose

1.1 To provide schools forum with an update of the growth funding, pupil number adjustments and a review of the growth criteria as a result of the change in funding for growth.

2 Recommendations

2.1 That the schools forum agrees the pupil number adjustments required to support growing schools for 2020/21 (section 4).

2.2 That the schools forum approves the revised growth fund criteria as a result of the change in funding for growth (section 5.1).

2.3 That the schools forum votes on whether to apply the removal of future revenue funding from the second year for existing schemes (section 5.2).

2.4 That the schools forum notes the draft growth forecast for 2020/21 (section 6).

2.5 That the schools forum votes on whether to consider any further changes to the growth fund criteria for 2020/21 and outlines what further areas are to be included for discussion.;  Lump Sum (section 7.4)  Protection Funding (section 7.5)  Historical Review (section 7.6)

3 Background

3.1 The growth fund is funded from the schools block. This covers any payments made for schemes meeting the criteria of the LA growth fund (e.g. lump sum, pre-opening and protection funding and weighted pupil adjustments for new and growing schools.

There is a specific allocation for growth funding and shortfall against which becomes a top slice from the rest of the schools block.

3.2 The growth fund can only be used as follows:

 Support growth in pre-16 pupil numbers to meet basic need  Support additional classes needed to meet the infant class size regulation  Meet the costs of new schools

3.3 The growth fund must not be used to support:

 Schools in financial difficulty, any such support for maintained schools should be provided from a de-delegated contingency  General growth due to popularity, this is managed through lagged funding

3.4 The LAs are responsible for funding these growth needs for all schools in their area, for new and existing maintained schools and academies.

4 Growth Pupil Numbers 2020/21

4.1 The schools where adjustments to pupil numbers are to be applied in 2020/21 are contained in annex 1 for the approval of the schools forum. In line with previous years, a contingency of places is planned. In 2019/20 there were 60 primary places held at £3,900 and 30 secondary places held at £5,100. However for 2020/21 there will not be any primary places instead there will be 90 places held for secondary at £5,304.

5 Growth Fund Criteria 2020/21

5.1 The current growth fund criteria for new schemes were approved at the meeting of the Schools Forum on 13 December 2018. In light of the increasing pressures on the schools block (in relation to a recalculation of the growth fund) it is essential that the growth fund criteria are reviewed again in full.

5.2 At the schools forum meeting of 27 June 2019 it was agreed that the revenue allocation per pupil would be removed from the criteria and the revised criteria would be brought to schools forum on 17 October 2019 for approval. No new schemes would be accepted under the existing criteria. The revised criteria can be found at annex 2.

5.3 At the schools forum meeting of 27 June 2019 it was suggested that schools forum considered the removal of future revenue allocations for schools from the second year of growth. The revised criteria can be found at annex 3. The cost of this revenue funding for future years can been found on annex 4.

6 Growth Forecast 2020/21

6.1 The financial cost of these places is estimated based on an average pupil funding amount and the draft census information for October (as the final amounts will be dependent on individual school per pupil funding allocations and final school census data). The draft financial costs are contained in annex 5.

7 Further Considerations

7.1 Funding for 2020/21 growth will be calculated on actual growth between two census years as it was in 2019/20. The ESFA have announced that as well as uplifting the per- pupil and new school rates used on the growth factor, the only difference to the methodology in 2020/21 is the removal of the gains cap on growth funding allocations. This means LAs will no longer see gains above 50% from the previous year scaled back. LAs including MK that received growth funding protection in 2019/20 will continue to receive protection in 2020/21 meaning the maximum reduction in growth funding for these local authorities will be set at -0.5% of their total DSG schools block allocation in 2019/20. Although additional funding is to be expected, as MK was receiving protection funding, this is not likely to have any impact overall.

7.2 MK is expecting to have a shortfall between the funding allocated and the cost of the growth; however the exact amount cannot be confirmed until the final allocations are announced as this will affect both income received but also the cost of the growth places due to changes in the NFF (further details on this are be included on the Budget 2020/21 paper for this meeting). To support LAs to plan ahead of their growth allocation in the DSG settlement, LAs will be sent information by the end of October to allow them to forecast pupil numbers in the October 2019 census and estimate the growth funding that they can expect to receive in 2020/21. This information is still awaited.

7.3 The latest DfE Operational guidance recognises that a number of LAs are facing funding pressures due to the recalculation of growth funding and historical commitments so there may be a need for many LAs to support these cost through the rest of the school block funding – i.e. via a top slice of the schools block. However the guidance also makes clear that the forum should be considering alternative options to manage or reduce this, hence the need for an ongoing review of the growth fund criteria.

7.3 Other areas of the growth funding criteria that schools forum may wish to consider are as follows:

7.4 Lump Sum

Lump sum payments made to schools are in line with the allocation that MKC receives, the rates are:

New Schools £0.065m

Lump sum payments made in 2019/20 totalled £0.000m.

Lump sum payments forecast for 2020/21 total £0.100m and will be paid to one school.

The forum may wish to consider a further reduction in the rate paid or removal of the funding altogether.

7.5 Protection Funding

To allow a school to grow to size over a period of time, funding protection is currently provided for two full years (should the school not reach the number of funded places at the next October census). The rate payable is currently the AWPU rate and is not paid for the first five places unfilled in each class.

Protection funding paid in 2019/20 was a total of £1.557m and paid to 15 schools.

Protection funding forecast for 2020/21 totals £0.934m and will be paid to 11 schools.

Consideration could be given to; reducing the amount of time that protection funding is paid for (i.e. reducing from two years), the rate that it is paid at (i.e. an amount less than the AWPU rate) or consider a completely different funding approach – i.e. holding a central fund for schools to demonstrate the funding gap in a class when that class isn’t full at census date.

7.6 Historical Review

Schools forum to give consideration as whether the criteria changes be applied to existing schemes either in full, tiered scale or implemented over time.

8 Funding the 2020/21 Pressure

8.1 If no further changes are to be made to the growth fund, the shortfall between the costs of growth funding will need to be funded from within the schools block by considering the following options:

 MFG – rates have been restricted by the DfE and can be set between 0.5% - 1.84% per pupil (2019/20 MKC rated applied -0.5%)  Disapplication of minimum per pupil – option to apply however this would need to be exceptional and would be moving away from the NFF  Split site allowances – currently being paid to seven schools, total cost £0.468m  Individual factor reductions (e.g. AWPU – but will impact minimum pupil and MFG)  Cap on schools who are gaining under the NFF

8.2 Further information on the impact on the formula is outlined in the Budget 2020/21 schools forum paper.

9.0 Funding Beyond 2020/21

9.1 It is still the intention of the ESFA that a hard NFF will be implemented but it still remains unclear at this stage what this will mean especially in areas where there are areas of local decision making and control, most significant of which is the growth fund and growth fund criteria. It is for this reason that a full review of the growth fund criteria and an understanding of the impact of that on the rest of the schools block is essential.

The latest guidance from the DfE simply states that they will continue to work closely with local authorities, schools and others to make the transition as simple as possible.

It is unlikely that given the technical requirements of the treatment of growth (i.e. the requirement to vary pupil numbers via the APT) it would not be possible to simply only allocate the money you get for growth for growth – pupil numbers that are varied pick up all elements of the formula and this cannot be adjusted. In order to do this, there would need to be a change in the Schools Finance Regulations and formula calculation. It would also likely be too significant a change and therefore not fit with the DfE’s messaging about a “simple transition”.

In other recent funding changes, there has often been an element of historical protection so as not to destabilise funding for individual schools – this may well be reflected in a hard NFF.

This area remains the most uncertain regarding future funding and we will be raising again at the annual briefing session with the DfE on 11 October 2019.

Annex 1 Planned Growth September 2020

Start End Growth School Name Description Year Year Sept 20

Primary Schools Brooklands Farm Primary 2015 Expansion 3FE to 6FE Sep-15 Sep-20 30 Fairfields Primary 2017 New 3 FE School opening Sep-17 Sep-25 120 Haversham 2018 Infant to all-through primary Sep-18 Sep-21 25 New Bradwell 2015 Expansion 2FE to 3 FE Sep-15 Sep-21 30 Newton Leys Primary 2016 New 3 FE school Sep-16 Sep-22 60 St Mary & St Giles 2018 Expansion 2FE to 3FE Sep-18 Sep-21 30 St Marys Wavendon (Eagle 2018 Moving to new site at Eagle Sep-18 Sep-24 90 Farm South) Farm South Whitehouse Primary 2016 New 3 FE School Sep-16 Sep-22 150

Secondary Schools

Lord Grey 2020 1 bulge class of 20 Sep-20 Sep-20 20 MK Academy 2020 1 bulge class of 30 Sep-20 Sep-20 30 St Pauls 2020 1 bulge class of 30 Sep-20 Sep-20 30 2016 Expansion by 8fE on second Walton High Sep-16 Sep-23 150 site Watling Academy 2020 New school opening Sep-20 Sep-24 180 Secondary Contingency Expansion yet to be identified Sep-20 - 90

All Through (Primary/Secondary) Schools

Kents Hill Park Primary 2018 New school opening Sep-18 Sep-20 60 Kents Hill Park Secondary 2018 New school opening Sep-18 Sep-22 150 Oakgrove (Primary) 2016 New Primary Provision Sep-16 Sep-28 60

Total 1,305

Annex 2

Milton Keynes Council Schools Growth Fund Criteria 2020/21

This document sets out the funding criteria for new or growing schools in Milton Keynes.

1. Introduction

1.1. Under the current School and Early Years Funding Regulations 2019, Local Authorities (LA) can set up a growth fund from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The purpose of the growth fund is to support maintained schools and academies which are required to provide extra pre- 16 places in order to meet basic need.. It cannot be used for general growth in pupil numbers at a school due to its popularity.

1.2. The growth fund criteria is subject to annual amendments to reflect both local and national policy changes and also subject to approval annually at the Schools Forum. Schools in receipt of lump sum pre-opening funding may be required to submit a report to the Schools Forum on how the funding has been used although there will be no clawback mechanism for unspent funds.

1.3. The criteria and funding for 2020/21 as agreed by the Schools Forum at its meeting on 17 October 2019 are set out below. This criteria will be applied to any new growth commissioned by the LA agreed from this date. All previous funding arrangements will continue to be honoured based on the criteria in place at the time the growth was agreed.

2. Growth Funding Criteria – New Schools

2.1. Pre-Opening Funding New Schools

The pre-opening funding is intended to cover revenue costs prior to the opening of the new school and include costs such as staffing and recruitment costs and other materials. Funding will be in the form of a lump sum payment of £65,000 (for all school types). This will be payable in April, prior to the school opening in September.

2.2. Diseconomies of Scale

the school funding formula and paid to the school via the school budget share (or annual grant for academies). These estimates will be adjusted each year to take account of the actual pupil numbers in the previous funding period.

2.3. Protection Funding

To allow the school to grow to size over a period of time, protection funding is provided for two full years (should the school not reach the number of funded places at the next October census). This funding protection criteria applies in the case of secondary schools, where the initial intake is one year group into Year 7. The criteria for intakes across more than one year group would be set outside of this criteria.

Whilst the school is still growing and does not yet have all year groups opened, the protection funding is applied via continuing to vary the pupil numbers in the APT. Once all year groups have opened protection funding is calculated in the same way as for other growing schools (see 4.2). If, at the following October census date, the school did not manage to fill all of the additionally commissioned places, then the difference will be protected through funding from the growth fund, with the exception of the first five places in each class (or proportion of the class where part classes are opened). This will be calculated at the Average Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) rate and paid directly to the school from the LA.

3. Growth Fund Criteria – Growing Schools

3.1. Pre-Opening Funding Growing Schools

No pre-opening funding will be payable to growing schools (unless there is a major expansion onto a second site – section 3).

3.2. Diseconomies of Scale Funding

Each year, the school will be funded through the school funding formula for the additional commissioned places as agreed with the LA. This is funded by adjusting the school’s pupil numbers in the school funding formula and seen in the school budget share (or annual grant for academies).

3.3. Protection Funding

To allow the school to grow to size over a period of time, funding protection is provided for two full years. For example 30 additional places agreed from September 2020 will be fully funded until August 2022. The initial year of growth will be applied through adjusting pupil numbers in the school funding formula funding. If, at the following October census date, the school did not manage to fill all of the additionally commissioned places, then the difference will be protected through funding from the growth fund, with the exception of the first five places in each class (or proportion of the class where part classes are opened). This will be calculated at the Average Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) rate and paid to the school directly from the LA.

3.4. Bulge Classes

Where an exceptional bulge class is agreed, funding for the additional pupils will be reflected on the APT via a variation to pupil numbers. There will be no additional protection funding for bulge classes beyond this.

Date Issued: October 2019 Review Date: October 2020 5 Prepared by: Finance

Annex 3

Milton Keynes Council Schools Growth Fund Criteria 2020/21

This document sets out the funding criteria for new or growing schools in Milton Keynes.

1. Introduction

2. Growth Funding Criteria – New Schools

2.1. Pre-Opening Funding New Schools

2.2. Diseconomies of Scale

The school will be funded through the funding formula for the number of places commissioned by the LA. This will be reviewed on an annual basis whilst the school is growing to full capacity. This is funded by adjusting the school’s pupil numbers in the school funding formula and paid to the school via the school budget share (or annual grant for academies). These estimates will be adjusted each year to take account of the actual pupil numbers in the previous funding period.

2.3. Protection Funding

3. Growth Fund Criteria – Growing Schools

3.1. Pre-Opening Funding Growing Schools

No pre-opening funding will be payable to growing schools (unless there is a major expansion onto a second site – section 3).

3.2. Diseconomies of Scale Funding

3.3. Protection Funding

3.4. Bulge Classes

Date Issued: October 2019 Review Date: October 2020 5 Prepared by: Finance 3.2 Growth Fund Annex 4 – Planned Growth Resource Funding

Unit 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 School Name Description Rate £ £ £ £ £

Primary Schools Fairfields Primary 2017 New 3 FE School opening 250 31,500 31,500 Hanslope 2021 Expansion 250 10,500 10,500 10,500 Haversham 2018 Infant to all-through primary 250 6,250 6,250 New Bradwell 2015 Expansion 2FE to 3 FE Newton Leys Primary 2016 New 3 FE school 250 31,500 Orchard Academy 2018 Expansion 250 7,500 7,500 7,500 Oxley Park – Shenley Wood 2017 Expansion onto 2nd site 250 21,000 21,000 St Mary & St Giles 2018 Expansion 2FE to 3FE 250 7,500 7,500 St Marys Wavendon (Eagle 2018 Moving to new site at Eagle Farm 250 26,250 26,250 26,250 Farm South) South Whitehouse Primary 2016 New 3 FE School 250 31,500

Secondary Schools Walton High 2016 Expansion by 8fE on second site 533 127,920 Watling Academy 2020 New school opening 500 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000

All Through (Primary/Secondary) Schools Kents Hill Park Primary 2018 New school opening 250 16,500 16,500 16,500 Kents Hill Park Secondary 2018 New school opening 500 75,000 75,000 75,000 Oakgrove (Primary) 2016 New Primary Provision 277 34,902

Total 589,822 382,000 315,750 198,000

17 October 2019 3.2 Growth Fund Annex 5 - Draft 2020/21 Growth Forecast

Growth Summary 2020/21 2020/21 Growth Funded via Formula 2020/21 Growth Fund Allocations Total

Protected Vacant 2nd Year Number of Cost of Number of Number of Growth Cost via Funded Places Growth Initial New Revenue Set Protected 2nd Year Cost of Total Cost of Growth Funded In-Year In-Year Places Formula Places (2nd Year Protection School Up Vacant Growth Growth Fund Funding Funded via Places Places Places Sept 2020 2020/21 * Sept 19 New (New Schools Allowance Allowance Places Protection allocations Growth the Formula Sept 19 (Sept 20) Schools only) (2nd Year) only)

School Name £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Primary Schools Brooklands Farm Primary (Countess Way) 30 70,980 70,980 60 30 87,627 87,627 158,607 Bushfield 7 19,581 19,581 19,581 Chestnuts 8 9,791 9,791 9,791 Fairfields Primary 120 283,920 90 41 166,296 450,216 31,500 31,500 481,716 Haversham 25 59,150 59,150 6,250 25 6,250 65,400 New Bradwell 30 70,980 70,980 30 70,980 Newton Leys Primary 60 141,960 141,960 31,500 75 32 95,215 126,715 268,675 Oxley Park 21,000 60 27 79,305 100,305 100,305 Priory Rise 0.4 1,224 1,224 1,224 St Mary & St Giles 30 70,980 70,980 7,500 30 26 75,144 82,644 153,624 St Marys Wavendon (Eagle Farm South) 90 212,940 212,940 26,250 60 64 186,881 213,131 426,071 Whitehouse Primary 150 354,900 354,900 31,500 60 72 211,113 242,613 597,513 Currently Unallocated Primary Places

Secondary Schools Denbigh 60 Hazeley 30 Lord Grey 20 61,880 61,880 20 61,880 Milton Keynes Academy 30 92,820 92,820 92,820 St Pauls 30 92,820 92,820 30 92,820 Shenley Brook End 60 Walton High (Brooklands Campus) 150 464,100 464,100 127,920 150 127,920 592,020 Watling Academy 180 556,920 556,920 100,000 180,000 280,000 836,920 Currently Unallocated Secondary Places 90 278,460 278,460 278,460

All Through (Primary/Secondary) Schools Oakgrove Primary 60 141,960 141,960 34,902 30 34,902 176,862 Oakgrove Secondary 60 Kents Hill Park Primary 60 141,960 30 141,960 16,500 16,500 158,460 Kents Hill Park Secondary 150 464,100 150 0.4 2,210 466,310 75,000 75,000 541,310

Total 1,215 3,282,370 270 41 168,506 3,450,876 100,000 589,822 840 266 765,881 90 278,460 1,734,163 5,185,039

2019/20 Growth Payments 1,110 2,917,250 645 313 1,224,074 4,141,324 552,298 130 174 333,261 90 225,750 1,111,309 5,252,633 Change (Decrease) / Increase 105 365,120 (375) (272) (1,055,568) (690,448) 100,000 37,524 710 92 432,620 - 52,710 622,854 (67,594)

* Average per pupil funding rates used, (£4,056 primary and £5,304 secondary) this is a 4% increase from the 2019/20 rates. * Funding through the formula is intended to be indicative only as rates will vary school by school

Briefing note

3.3 De-Delegation Requests 2020/21

Sonia Hattle – Senior Finance Business Partner, Children’s Services 01908 253524 [email protected]

Purpose

1.1 To give the maintained primary school members of the Schools Forum the opportunity to agree to de-delegate funding during the 2020/21 financial year for the specific purposes outlined in this report.

Recommendations

2.1 That maintained primary school members agree (by way of an individual vote for each item) to de-delegate £0.345m funding for the following items:

Forecast Carry 2019/20 Cost of Service De-Delegated Amount Forward as at Amount Service 2020/21 Requirement per Pupil* 31 March 2020 per pupil £'000 £'000 £'000 £ £ Social, Emotional and Mental Health 232 0 232 15.97 13.22 Difficulties Specialist Teaching Team Facilities Time - Teaching staff 30 30 0 0.00 0.87 Facilities Time - Support staff 25 0 25 1.72 1.75 Support for Ethnic Minority Pupils 108 20 88 6.06 7.40 Total 395 50 345 * The current amount per pupil has been calculated on the forecast pupil numbers excluding academy conversions. The amount per pupil will be adjusted once the October census figures are confirmed. Background

3.1 Maintained schools can collectively agree annually through a vote at the schools forum, that a service should be centrally funded because it provides better value or pools risk. This only applies to specific items as set out in The School and Early Years Finance Regulations 2019.

3.2 For any item not de-delegated, the service will not be provided by the Local Authority from 1 April 2020. Schools will be expected to procure the service directly using their school budget share. All of the above services would look to provide a traded service

and the offer of this will be worked on following the outcome of the schools forum decision.

3.3 For any item that is de-delegated an amount will be deducted from the school budget share to create a central budget held by the Local Authority, ring-fenced within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). This deduction would apply to all the maintained schools within the sector. It does not apply to academies, special schools, nurseries or PRUs, although they may be offered the opportunity to buy into any de-delegated service by local agreement.

3.4 If there is an underspend on any of the budgets de-delegated in a previous year, the balance will be carried forward and used for the purpose it was originally de- delegated, reducing the de-delegation requirement in the following year or be repaid to schools if the service ceases to be de-delegated. The following underspends are expected in 2019/20:

Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils £0.020m  The EMA Network is aware of the current pressures on school budgets and has worked hard to reduce all possible costs while not reducing the quality of the service required by schools  Primary schools have been able to access seminars for secondary schools funded under the Creating Cohesive Secondary School Communities (CCSSC) budget  There will be a reduction of 1 EMA consultant from October 2019, but the core functions of the service will still be maintained  Costs of the resource centre up-grade and seminar have come in under budget

Facilities Time Teaching Staff £0.030m  Provision of services was much lower in 2018/19 than had been anticipated.

3.5 The ability to de-delegate funding for services under the hard national formula is uncertain and it is possible this will be removed when the hard formula is introduced. However the DfE funding guidance confirms this is able to continue in 2020/21.

4 Services to be De-Delegated

4.1 The following services are offered to maintained primary schools for de-delegation in 2020/21:

 Social, Emotional and Mental Health Difficulties Specialist Teaching Team – Annex 1  Facilities Time – Annex 2  Support for Minority Ethnic Pupils – Annex 3

Annex 1 Social, Emotional and Mental Health Difficulties Specialist Teaching Team de-delegated funding request for 2020-21

September 2019 Caroline Marriott Head of Delivery – SEN and Disability

Recommendation

We are proposing that de-delegation continues for one final year, from April 2020-April 2021 to enable the SEMH Specialist Teaching Team to continue to deliver the service that is currently provided. We are proposing this on the basis that we will not seek de- delegation even if possible after this point as we will then offer a traded service of the SEMH Team to schools.

Service Data and Summary 2018 -2019: The Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) Specialist Teaching Team, form part of the Inclusion and Intervention Team, and supports maintained primary schools to meet the needs of children with SEMH difficulties. The team works closely with schools to promote inclusion and prevent exclusion of children presenting with SEMH needs. To achieve this, the support offered to schools includes:

 Consultations with class teachers, SENCo and senior leaders: themes include strategic behaviour support on policy, procedures and practice, statutory guidance, outcome setting, advice and guidance on appropriate strategies and intervention  Individual work: observations, working alongside class teachers to support practice, behaviour management and outcome setting to enable the child to make progress and access the mainstream classroom  Direct work with the child to gain their views and to support their emotional needs  Leading group interventions which supports emotional and social understanding  Developing the expertise of school staff by offering universal free training, bespoke training packages for schools  Telephone advice on supporting children with SEMH needs, local processes and statutory guidance on exclusions  Managing Dual Placements to the Primary PRU and support packages following placement  SEMH Team members are all trained in elements of Nurture Group practice and principles. We work with schools to complete and analyse Boxall Profile Assessments, to help further understand children’s needs and to support interventions and to monitor impact. We continue to promote and support Nurture Groups and Nurture Practice in MK primary schools - this was highlighted as an effective approach in the recent ‘Timpson review of school exclusion’.  Work with families to provide a link between home and school by sharing and modelling strategies and interventions and building positive relationships.

Without the continuation of the team, maintained schools would be required to seek alternative support for this group of children.

Activity and outcomes for academic year 2018-19

Number of consultations Number of permanent % of maintained primary

and activities exclusions that were schools supported current SEMH Team involvements

449 1 – out of 6 permanent 64% exclusions in 2018-19

Requests for Involvement: 42 consultations became involvements and more intensive cases which involved professional meetings, observations, and 1:1 work with a child: Individual cases can vary in length from 6 weeks – where a Specialist Teacher would have made an initial visit and use an Inclusion and Intervention Worker to model strategies and give advice in a school to at least 6 months where a Specialist Teacher has worked with a school and then supported a Dual Placement with the Milton Keynes Primary PRU.

Permanent Exclusions: Of the 6 cases excluded 3 were from primary academies and had not requested support from SEMH Team and 2 were not current cases.

Additional elements of the work of the team included

Work with Inclusion and Intervention Work with other MKC LA Teams: Team:

Organised regular Primary SENCo Supported Dual placements co-ordinated with Meetings MK Primary PRU Provided advice on Inclusion and Supported 8 children to increase their time in Intervention Team Duty Telephone school from a part-time timetable Support Line Delivered 8 training sessions for Attended Fair Access Protocol Panel Meetings Inclusion and Intervention Team Centralised Training Programme

2020/21 De-delegated Service

Financial: 2020/21 – Cost of service £232k

It is proposed to deliver the same offer to schools as 2019-20 with current staffing levels. This aligns with the reduction in the number of maintained schools - as since the last de-delegation there have been further primary academy conversions. Following previous feedback from schools the team’s structure remains the same.

Proposed staffing arrangements:

Senior SEMH Specialist SEMH Specialist Teachers SEMH Inclusion and Teacher Intervention Workers

1 1 3

Survey Results:

Following a survey that was sent to maintained primary school Head teachers in July 2019 about de-delegated funding the following responses were received:

Responses: 35% of Head teachers 62% of these were willing to agree to continue to de- responded = delegate funds

Of the remaining 38% of 63% of these were willing to buy the service back in respondents = some form

Issues:

 The proposed model for the SEMH Team would enable schools to continue to have

access to advice and support for children with ongoing SEMH needs that follow MK Local

Authority advice and principles

 Prevent Primary permanent exclusion figures would be kept at existing levels or lower

where the team had been involved with primary schools

 If the SEMH Team ceased to exist there would be redundancies of established, SEMH

team members and there are limited similar roles in Milton Keynes Council the team

could be re-deployed to and their skill set and knowledge would be lost

Future Service Provision

The proposal from April 2021 is that the team would offer a traded service. We are planning to consult with schools over the remainder of this academic year for any further suggestions of what this offer could be so we could offer a seamless service following a year of de-delegated funds.

Current Traded Service options include:

 Maintained primary schools continuing to buy into the service delivered by the SEMH Team using the amounts of funding that they currently contribute

 Maintained primary schools would be allocated into bands, linked to school size,

and each band would pay an increasing amount of money to cover the team

costs.

Caroline Marriott – Head of Delivery – SEN and Disability

[email protected] 6

Annex 2 - Facilities Time 2020-21 De-delegated Funding Request

September 2019 Cindy Stanton Pay and Reward Manager

Background

Over the past few years, the Schools Forum has de-delegated budget provision for the cost of providing cover for professional association representatives representing teaching staff and for the cost of facilities for school support staff so that trade union duties can be undertaken. The duties include:

 Negotiations with the employer, or other functions connected with the subjects of collective bargaining, such as terms and conditions, redundancy and dismissal arrangements  Preparations for negotiations, including attending relevant meetings  Informing members of progress and outcomes of negotiations  Carrying out statutory requirements, notably the statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing  Attending training in aspects of industrial relations relevant to carrying out their trade union duties. This training must be approved by the Trades Union Congress or by the trade union of which he/she is an official.

The union duties covered by the professional associations have been carried out either by regional officers, or by representatives employed within a small number of schools. The professional associations agreed that the de-delegated sum would be split in line with their membership numbers and this is paid to the employing school towards the cost of any cover required. In practice, few schools request this funding.

The union duties undertaken in respect of school support staff are undertaken by two union representatives employed centrally by the Council (the Senior Convenor for UNISON and the Senior Convenor for GMB). The de-delegated budget goes towards the salary costs of these 2 members of staff.

This year, the amount requested for facilities time for support staff is reduced to £25k from £30k. This is because the overall cost to the council has reduced.

Recommendation

The Council recommends the continued de-delegation of budget for facilities time because it:

 Ensures that the council and any schools wishing to transfer to Academy status meet their legal obligations to consult with employee representatives  Ensures that council employees in schools are able to access their legal right to representation in disciplinary, grievance, redundancy consultation and any other employment matters that might lead to dismissal  Provides centrally based Council union representatives to support non- teaching staff in employment matters. The benefits of this are: o It provides economies of scale and a level of expertise that would be difficult to match by local representatives within schools undertaking this role in addition to their day job. o The ongoing relationship between the union representatives, the school and HR helps to shorten processes and nip issues in the bud. This may be negatively impacted with representatives who are not so familiar with the schools and Council’s employment policies. o The MKC senior convenors deal proactively with issues raised by their members, providing coaching and friendly advice to help resolve difficulties before they become an issue. This helps to avoid confrontation and leads to fewer formal processes being undertaken, such as grievances.

Consequence of not de-delegating

The consequence of not having de-delegation approved is that:

 Each school would have to consult with all recognised trade unions in schools on employment issues;  Each school would have to develop their own agreement on working with the trade unions for all of their staff;  Each school would have to put arrangements in place to ensure that employees had access to representatives of their recognised trade union and also release the representative from their substantive role to attend individual and collective processes as this is their legal right. If there was not a recognised representative based in their school they would have to give the employee the opportunity to find someone to represent them. This may potentially slow processes down as regional officers do cover large areas.

 Each school would be required to retain records in order to provide information on facilities time undertaken within their school and the associated cost in order to fulfil the requirements of the Trade Union (Facility Time Publication Requirements) Regulations 2017. The Council is required to publish this on an annual basis and this would be co-ordinated centrally.

 The Facility Time service for school support staff could be purchased from MKC by individual schools. In order for appropriate arrangements to be made, all schools wishing to purchase this service from the Council would need to notify Cindy Stanton, Pay and Reward Manager, by 30 November 2019.

2020/21 De-delegated Service

Proposed amounts for Maintained Primary schools:

Service Cost of Amount Per Service £’000 Pupil £

Professional Association members (teaching staff) 30 0.00

funded from 2019/20 carry forward

Consultation and union representation for school 25 1.72 support staff

DfE advice on trade union facility time (Published in 2014, updated in 2015) The DfE Advice on Trade Union Facility Time sets out what each school’s responsibility is in respect of facilities time. It is recommended that you read this before making any decision.

Cindy Stanton – Pay and Rewards Manager

[email protected]

Annex 3 Ethnic Minority Achievement Network de-delegated funding request for 2020-21

September 2019 Linda Bartlett Improvement Partner

What the Ethnic Minority Achievement (EMA) Network has successfully provided for maintained primary schools

94% of maintained primary schools have engaged with the EMA Network over the last 12 months. On average each school has received support at least 15 times throughout the year, either through Primary Assured Visits (PAVs), training, in-school follow-up after training, attending a seminar, borrowing resources, seeking and receiving advice and guidance on a range of issues.

Primary Assured Visits (PAV)

A day has been allocated to each LA school to review whole school provision for Black and minority ethnic (BME) pupils, including those pupils learning English as an additional language (EAL). Following a shared data review, the EMA Network has collaborated with school staff to identify and improve specific areas of provision.

70% of eligible schools took up the offer. This has led to:

 Improved action planning, setting clearer priorities, updated policies, and more targeted provision  Better identification of staff professional development needs; addressed through training, confidence building, and personalised support from an EMA consultant  Signposting to key guidance produced by EMA Network and national organisations  Induction and coaching of schools’ EMA staff, particularly those new to role  Identification of what is working well in schools, providing an opportunity to celebrate with staff, pupils and families and share good practice across schools.

‘The support was helpful because it gave me time to thoroughly discuss the role and my school and receive relevant training. I felt supported with any questions that I had. Having time to explore resources was also useful. If I had to sum up the process I would say it was valuable, helpful and supportive. I have been able to take the support forward in my school by re-launching the NASSEA assessment system, using resources to support colleagues and developing admissions systems with the office staff, so that data about ethnicity and home languages is more accurate which can help staff plan. We’ve also developed parent workshops.’ Giffard Park

Focused case studies

During PAV visits strengths and areas for development were identified in 17 schools, which were supported through additional specialist consultant support. Information on good practice was shared widely through events, training and publications on: effective leadership of EMA; maths activities; improving attendance; teaching phonics to EAL learners well; and developing parental engagement. All schools have benefitted from case studies on the improvements made. These included: better assessment of English language acquisition; stronger practice in assessing pupils learning EAL who may also have special educational needs and/or disability (SEND); and improved teaching of mathematical language.

‘Senior leaders’ observations revealed increased pupil engagement, improved staff confidence and extended language and vocabulary. In fact, the success of this work has led to the school arranging support for phonics teaching across the school.’ Greenleys First

‘The visits were felt to be valuable and reassuring, as the consultant was able to quickly identify progress which was not so clearly seen by those working with the pupil on a daily basis. The pupils’ engagement developed significantly across the year as positive learning behaviours and social expectations were established. Investigation of the pupils’ home contexts established an unconventional multi- language set-up which informed productive discussions with the parents. The school has revised its EAL assessment and tracking procedures and consolidated EAL support resources.’ Holmwood

Training available to all schools

445 colleagues received training in the last year through seminars, network meetings, and specialist events such as asylum seeker and refugee meetings. Outcomes reported by delegates included:

 Improved pupil outcomes as a result of whole school use of new strategies  Better short term planning and teaching  Increased access to learning for the most vulnerable pupils  Greater staff knowledge and confidence  More access to guidance and resources  Successful sharing of good practice across schools.

‘I feel more confident in my role and I am now enriched with inspiring information which will inform my practice.’ (Reported from February 2019 Seminar)

‘Attending this EMA staff development meeting has given me more strategies to engage our parents and I have lots to share with other staff members.’ Wyvern

Religious and cultural guidance

The EMA Network remains a vital knowledge base of religious and cultural guidance. Strong links have been developed with local communities and the 93 supplementary schools that operate within Milton Keynes. Schools have benefitted from:

 Updates on religious festivals and advice on attendance  Information on sensitive cultural issues  Links to local communities to support translation, organise visits to places of worship and set up guest speakers in schools  Support for vulnerable and isolated BME families by supplementary schools  Facebook (70 followers) and WhatsApp (30 members) groups used to share good practice and provide mutual support across schools.

‘Thank you so much for helping to facilitate support for the meeting this morning. It was greatly appreciated. I am extremely grateful for your support, especially with such short notice.’ Broughton Fields Primary School

Attainment Data KS1 and KS2 by ethnicity and EAL

The high standards for primary schools’ BME and EAL pupils are a strength of the LA and reflect the high quality support from the EMA Network. Without continued support this may present a risk to schools, due to the growing diversity in MK schools.

KS1

The % of MK pupils learning English as an additional language reaching expected standards in reading, writing and maths has outperformed the national average (all pupils) over the last three years (2016-2018).

The % of MK pupils of mixed and Asian heritage reaching expected standards in reading, writing and maths has also outperformed the national average (all pupils) in both 2018 and 2017.

In 2018 % MK pupils of Black heritage has performed slightly below the national average (all pupils) but continued to outperform White pupils in both reading and writing.

KS2

The % of MK pupils learning English as an additional language reaching expected standards in reading, writing and maths combined has outperformed the national average (all pupils) over the last three years (2016-2018).

In 2018 the % of MK Mixed and Asian pupils reaching expected standards in reading, writing and maths combined outperformed the national average (all pupils). The performance of pupils of Black heritage was slightly below the national average but continued to outperform White pupils. See Appendix 1

Ethnic Minority Achievement Resource Centre

Half of the schools have borrowed resources from the EMA resource centre; which holds almost 5000 resources. Dual language books and ‘talking pens’, bilingual dictionaries, religious and cultural artefacts, and story sacks are the most borrowed items. The library system has been up-dated, allowing schools to view the resource catalogue and reserve resources on-line.

‘The children and staff enjoyed the artefacts from different countries. The mosque and Hindu temple I borrowed from the resource centre were a success, as a couple of children stood up and spoke about their religion. You could see how proud they were.’ Newton Leys Primary School

School Survey

In a recent survey1, all schools reported that as a result of EMA de-delegated funding staff confidence and their ability to provide appropriate and targeted support for BME pupils and those learning EAL have improved and that this increased knowledge and confidence have led to improved pupil outcomes.

80% of schools also reported that strategies learnt through engagement with the EMA Network have supported other pupils within the school setting, including those who are disadvantaged.

‘Your input was very useful last year. OFSTED were very impressed!’ Francesca Thompson, Assistant Head-Caroline Haslett School

‘Leaders have ensured that pupils who speak English as an additional language have additional support if they need to acquire language skills. As a result of this and the highly inclusive ethos of the school, these pupils flourish alongside their peers. The whole community benefits from the rich cultural capital created by the diversity of the school’s population.’ Ofsted Report-Caroline Haslett June 2019 (judged Outstanding)

1 Survey sent to LA Maintained Schools September 2019 5

Offer for 2020-21

If funding is de-delegated in 2020-21 the EMA Network will continue to improve outcomes for pupils of minority ethnic heritage by:

 Offering schools one day of bespoke support through a Primary Assured Visit tailored to the needs of the school  Delivering a range training for all school staff accompanied by bespoke in-school follow-up support  Researching, planning and delivering high quality seminars informed by national developments, school practice and local school needs  Coaching EMA staff and inducting those who are new to role  Sharing specialist knowledge on working and engaging with specific groups, e.g. newly-arrived pupils; asylum seekers/refugees; hard-to-reach groups; and parents  Providing expert and up-to-date guidance on: British values and SMSC; equality and diversity; Ofsted and the implications for BME and EAL pupils; assessment, including the assessment of EAL pupils who may also have SEND  Providing a significant lending and reference library of specialist resources, including supplying boxes of resources to help support targeted groups of pupils  Advising on religious and cultural issues including: safeguarding, religious holidays and observations, visits to places of worship, organising speakers at assemblies  Writing regular EMA guidance updates  Supporting schools to work collaboratively with other professionals, organisations and supplementary schools.

2020-21 de-delegated funding request

This proposal is based on the assumption that the level of de-delegated funding from the Schools Forum to support the Ethnic Minority Achievement Network in 2020/21 will be £88,000.

The 2020-21 funding request takes into account:

 The loss of revenue from four schools (Holmwood, Ashbrook, Christ the Sower, Moorland Primary) who have converted or will convert to academy status over during the 2019/20 financial year

 A 10% reduction in the requested level of funding for the remaining maintained primary schools compared to 2019-20 funding levels

 An underspend in this financial year of £20k; which will be carried forward as DSG money into the next financial year, and will lower the request for de- delegation from £108k to £88k.

The cost per pupil is £6.06

The current underspend is a result of:

 The EMA Network being aware of the current pressures on school budgets, and so has worked hard to reduce all possible costs while not reducing the quality of the service required by schools

 Primary schools being able to access seminars for secondary schools funded under the Creating Cohesive Secondary School Communities (CCSSC) budget

 A reduction of 1 EMA consultant from October 2019, although the core functions of the service will still be maintained

 Costs of the resource centre up-grade and seminar have coming in under budget.

Appendix 1

KS1 KS2

Attainment by Ethnic % Reaching the % Reaching the % Reaching the % Reaching the Group - expected standard expected standard expected standard expected standard in Reading in Writing in Maths in Reading, Writing 2018 and Maths combined MK National MK National MK National MK National White 74 75 65 69 75 76 62 64 Mixed 81 77 72 72 78 77 67 66 Asian 83 78 79 74 82 78 79 69 Black 76 77 70 72 73 74 63 64 Chinese X 84 X 83 X 91 86 82 Pupils with EAL 77 73 71 69 77 75 68 65 Milton Keynes – All pupils 76 76 65 National average – All 75 69 70 76 65 pupils

KS1 KS2

Attainment by Ethnic % Reaching the % Reaching the % Reaching the % Reaching the Group - expected standard expected standard expected standard expected standard in Reading in Writing in Maths in Reading, Writing 2017 and Maths MK National MK National MK National MKcombined National White 75 76 66 68 75 75 61 61 Mixed 80 78 73 70 78 76 61 63 Asian 85 77 80 72 86 77 75 64 Black 81 77 73 71 73 73 60 61 Chinese X 84 80 82 X 91 75 78 Pupils with EAL 78 72 72 67 80 74 65 61 Milton Keynes – All pupils 77 76 63 National average – All 76 69 68 75 62 pupils

KS1 KS2

Attainment by Ethnic % Reaching the % Reaching the % Reaching the % Reaching the Group - expected standard expected standard expected standard expected standard in Reading in Writing in Maths in Reading, Writing 2016 and Maths combined MK National MK National MK National MK National White 74 74 61 65 71 73 54 54 Mixed 80 76 73 68 74 74 57 56 Indian 88 83 85 77 89 82 85 64 Pakistani 73 71 60 63 68 69 59 47 Bangladeshi 78 75 69 69 76 73 50 56 Black 79 76 69 69 70 71 53 51 Chinese 85 80 78 77 85 88 71 72 Pupils with EAL 75 70 69 64 75 72 60 52 Milton Keynes – All pupils 75 65 72 56 National average – All 74 65 73 54 pupils

Source: Department of Education Revised Statistics

ent of Education Revised Statistics

Linda Bartlett – Improvement Partner [email protected] 9

Milton Keynes Schools Forum

Constitution

1. Purpose

1.1 The Milton Keynes School Forum is an advisory and decision making body on matters relating to the schools budget, established in accordance with Section 47A and 138(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Schools Forums (England) Regulations 2012 and the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2014.

1.2 All members and persons associated with the Milton Keynes Schools Forum shall act in accordance with the seven principles of public life - selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. They shall also act in accordance with the Schools Forum Operational and Good Practice Guide, particularly regarding effective challenge and scrutiny (paragraph 72).

2. Specific functions

2.1 The Forum shall be consulted by Milton Keynes Council on:

(a) Any proposed changes in relation to the factors and criteria that were taken into account, or the methods, principles and rules that have been adopted, in the local funding formulae.

(b) The financial effect of any such changes.

2.2 The Forum shall be consulted at least one month prior to the issue of invitations to tender in respect of terms of any proposed contract for supplies or services paid or to be paid out of the schools budget where the estimated value of the proposed contract is not less than the threshold which applies to the authority for that proposed contract pursuant to regulation 8 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006(b).

2.3 The Forum shall be consulted annually in respect of the Council’s functions relating to the schools budget in connection with:

(a) The arrangements to be made for the education of pupils with special needs.

(b) Arrangements for the use of pupil referral units and education of children otherwise than at school.

(d) Administrative arrangements for the allocation of central government grants paid to schools via the Council.

Page: 1 of 6 Date issued: October 2012 Updated June 2019

(e) Consultation on future school development

(f) Any other relevant matters identified by Milton Keynes Council.

2.4 The Forum has decision making responsibility for the following:

(a) Agreeing de-delegation for mainstream schools; primary and secondary school member representatives will decide for their phase.

(b) Agreeing central expenditure and criteria for allocating funding from the growth fund.

(c) Agreeing central spend on; places in independent schools for non-SEN pupils, early years expenditure, admissions, servicing the Schools Forum and contributions to combined budgets.

(d) Agreeing to carry forward a deficit on central expenditure to the next year to be funded from the schools budget.

(e) Agreeing changes to the LMS Scheme; maintained school members only.

(f) Determining voting procedures.

(g) Electing the Chair of the Schools Forum.

2.5 The Forum must be consulted on the following:

(a) Any changes to the local funding formula.

2.6 The Forum should be asked to give the LA a view on the following:

(a) Any contracts where the LA is entering a contract to be funded from the schools budget.

(b) Any proposed applications to the DfE for exclusions from the minimum funding guarantee (MFG).

(d) The length of office of members.

3. Membership

3.1 There shall be twenty seven members of the Schools Forum comprising the following:

Schools and academies members

(a) Twenty two schools and academies members broadly proportionate to the total number of registered pupils and must include both Headteachers/Principals or their representatives and Governors. Currently this is 13 schools members and 9 academy members.

Page: 2 of 6 Date issued: October 2012 Updated June 2019

Non-schools members

(b) Two Diocesan Authority representatives (c) One early years providers representative (d) One 16 to 19 provider (e) One recognised teachers’ trade union representative

4. Election and appointment

4.1 Schools and academies members (including Pupil Referral Units)

The Department for Education has made it clear that it wants to move away from the current funding arrangements over time with the role of the Schools Forum set to change or be abolished. In this context from July 2016 all currently serving members of Schools Forum will continue to hold office until such time as the future of Schools Forum has been clarified. Any schools and academy vacancies occurring by resignations during this period will be filled by schools and academies members broadly proportionate to the total number of registered pupils.

Headteachers/Principals, senior members of staff and Governors can join the Schools Forum. During 2016 a reserve list will be established of people willing to join the Schools Forum and when vacancies occur we will ask the next person on the reserve list if they are willing to become a member. The reserve list will have sub categories of primary, secondary and special schools and primary, secondary and special academies.

Wherever possible, only one representative from each school or formalised groups of schools, such as federations or multi academy trusts, will be members of the Schools Forum.

4.2 Non-school members

Non-school members will be appointed by Milton Keynes Council.

4.3 Any member of the Forum will not be eligible to continue to serve on the Forum should they cease hold the office by virtue of which he or she became eligible for election or appointment. Membership of the Forum ceases should any member fail to attend three consecutive meetings without good reason.

4.4 There is an entitlement for members of the Forum to claim expenses. The Council shall reimburse all reasonable expenses of members in connection with attendance at meetings of the Forum and charge any expenses to the schools budget.

5. Meetings and proceedings

5.1 There shall be at least four meetings of the full Schools Forum held each year. Additional meetings will be held if the Forum deems it necessary.

5.2 A Chair and Vice Chair will be elected annually and will hold office until the next meeting which falls after the date which is a year after the meeting at which the Chair and Vice

Page: 3 of 6 Date issued: October 2012 Updated June 2019

Chair were originally elected. On ceasing to hold office, the Chair and Vice Chair shall be eligible for re-election.

5.3 In the event of a casual vacancy in the office of Chair or Vice Chair, the Forum shall, at their next meeting, elect one of their membership to fill that vacancy and the member so elected shall hold office until the date of the meeting to which the Chair or Vice Chair would have held office had the casual vacancy not occurred.

5.4 Meetings of the Forum will be convened by the Clerk to the Schools Forum, but he or she will comply with any direction in the matter given by the Forum in a previous meeting or given by the Chair (or in his or her absence the Vice Chair).

5.5 Written notice of a meeting, along with a copy of the agenda and papers for the meeting will be given at least six working days before the date of the meeting itself. Agendas, reports and minutes of meetings will be published promptly and made available through the Milton Keynes Council website.

5.6 All meetings of the Forum will be open to members of the public unless there is a good reason for the business to be conducted in private.

5.7 The following persons may speak at the Forum even though they are not members:

(a) The director of children’s services or their representative (b) The chief finance officer or their representative (c) The elected member who has primary responsibility for children’s services (d) The elected member who has primary responsibility for resources (e) Any person invited to provide financial or technical advice (f) An observer appointed by the Secretary of State (g) Any person presenting a report (but are limited to matters related to that item)

5.8 Any member of the Forum may nominate an alternate member to attend meetings of the Forum in his or her absence. Where a member has nominated an alternate member, the alternative member may attend and vote in place of the member. A member may only nominate an alternate member who would himself or herself be eligible to be appointed or elected to the Forum under the same category as the member.

5.9 The name of the intended alternate must be notified to the Clerk of the Forum at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting in question where possible.

5.10 Where a decision is required to be made this should be determined through a majority vote. In some circumstances those entitled to vote may be limited to those representing a specific sector. In the case of an equality of votes the Chair will have a second or casting vote. Non-school members, other than those who represent early years providers, should not vote on matters relating to the funding formulae to determine the amounts to be allocated to schools and early years providers.

5.11 When voting on proposals, members are not delegates or representatives of their particular school. Members should duly consider the proposals and vote in accordance with what they consider to be in the best interests of children and young people in Milton Keynes.

Page: 4 of 6 Date issued: October 2012 Updated June 2019

5.12 It is recognised that all Schools Forum members may have an interest in more than one school. It is important that members should declare if the item under discussion could make a material difference to that school, or where they may have a personal or prejudicial interest. The Forum member can make a short presentation at the start of the agenda item and continue contributing to the discussion at the discretion of the Chair but should not vote on that particular proposal which uniquely changes funding for their particular school/schools.

5.13 The Forum may establish standing sub groups. Membership of all sub-groups may include those who are not members of the Forum. All sub-groups will report back to the Forum.

5.14 Any formal recommendations made to the Council shall be determined by a majority of the votes of members present at a meeting of the Forum and not by any sub groups.

5.15 The Forum shall be quorate if at least forty percent of the current voting membership (excluding vacancies) is present at a meeting.

6. Review of the Constitution

6.1 The Forum will regularly review its constitution to ensure that it continues to comply with regulation and equally remains workable in the context of major change and reform to school funding arrangements.

Page: 5 of 6 Date issued: October 2012 Updated June 2019

Annex 1 Item 9

Schools Forum Membership List

Schools members Natalie Fowler/Deb Spinks (N) Knowles Nursery/Moorland Nursery Kirk Hopkins (P) Oldbrook Paul Hussey (P) Chair Roman Village Federation Christine Ryan (P) Cold Harbour Lizzie Bancroft (P) Loughton Manor Jake Yeo (P) Bushfield (The Viaduct Federation) Francis Grant (P) Great Linford Finlay Douglas(SP) White Spire Kate Warren (S) St Paul’s Paul Herbert (S) St Paul’s Norman Miles (PRU) Primary Pupil Referral Unit Antony Moore (P) Giles Brook Elisabeth Morrison (P) Brooklands Farm Total: 13

Academies members Neil Barrett (SP) Stephenson (AP) Glen Martin (S) Shenley Brook End Andy Squires(S) Denbigh John Howe (S) Denbigh Jane Edwards (P) Heronsgate - MKET Michelle Currie (S) Walton High - MKET Dave Moulson (S) Ousedale Vacancy (P) Total: 9

Non-schools members How Chosen Tony Wilson - Diocesan Authority (Oxford C Selected by Oxford Diocese of E Diocese) Michael Manley - Diocesan Authority Selected by Catholic Diocese of Northampton (Northampton Catholic Diocese) (Vice Chair) Helen Middleton - Early years providers Selected by Pre School Learning Alliance representative Lindsay Styles – Post 16 provider Selected by Milton Keynes College Anita Richards - Recognised teachers’ trade Selected by teachers’ trade unions union representative Total: 5

(N) Nursery (maintained) (P) Primary (S) Secondary (SP) Special (PRU) Pupil referral unit

Page: 6 of 6 Date issued: October 2012 Updated June 2019