Meeting of the Worcestershire Schools Forum

MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM

Tuesday 6th December 2005 2.00pm Perdiswell Young People’s Centre, Worcester

(MAP OF LOCATION ATTACHED)

A G E N D A

1. Apologies

2. Minutes of the Last Meeting 5th October 2005 (attached – blue)

3. Matters Arising

4. Schools Forum Good Practice Guide (attached – yellow deferred from last meeting)

5. Schools in Deficit (attached – white)

6. Schools Forum Consultation Matters a) Teachers Pay Reform Grant (attached – green) b) Multi Budget Period – Varying of Non-AWPU Data (attached – blue)

7. Further Notifications: - a) LSC Priorities for Success 6th Form Funding (attached – yellow) b) Funding for Personalised Learning (attached – white) c) Pupil Number Projections (attached – green)

8. Autumn Term 2005 Funding Consultation Outcomes (attached - blue)

9. Bank Account School Issues – Direct Debits

10. Any Other Business

th Colin Weeden Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday 25 January 2006 at 2.00pm Policy Division Pitmaston House, Worcester Children’s Services Directorate Please pass apologies to Hannah Draper who can be contacted on PO Box 73 Tel 01905 766347, fax 01905 766190 or e-mail [email protected] County Hall Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2YA Tel 01905 766346 Fax 01905 766190 Minicom (01905) 766399 DX 29941 Worcester 2

AGENDA ITEM 4 SCHOOLS FORUM 6th DECEMBER 2005

NOTE TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM DfES SCHOOLS FORUM GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE (DRAFT)

PURPOSE

1. To provide a summary list of the above draft document circulated by the DfES at their recent conference series in September 2005.

AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION

2. The guide is split in 3 parts: -

• Constitutional and Procedural Issues

Size – only minimum level specified Type of membership – school, non school, phase, etc Term of office – to be stipulated Bar to membership – elected members and local authority employees Resignation Nomination and election – from sub groups Non school members – no more than 20% e.g. dioceses, professional associations, early years, etc Observer status – LSC, academies Substitutes – nominated only Procedures – quorum, election of Chair, voting Schedule and timing of meetings including location Public or private meetings Working Groups Urgency Procedure – between meetings

• Effective Working

Relationship with the LEA – central to the issue Partnership with the LEA – commitment working Support arrangements – management of issues Openness – in proceedings Responsiveness – on all sides and resource implications for Forum and LEA Strategic view – needs of the whole Challenge and scrutiny – reaching agreement in an appropriate way Role of elected members – attendance of executive member and shadow member? Attendance of LEA Officers – support by specific officers Administrative arrangements – papers, circulation, minutes, etc Clerking – link, minutes, advice, prepare papers, etc Resources – budget available Agenda Setting – meeting schedule, timing with consultation, budget, etc Chairing – key role Communication – avenues Commissioning of reports – by Forum, working groups, etc

• Training and Information

Induction – materials, one-off sessions News updates – avenues

CONCLUSION

3. The full draft is attached for information and will be developed by the DfES following the completion of the conference series.

4. The Forum may wish to consider, when the final guidance is published, if its approved constitution gives coverage to the significant areas in the guidance.

Andy McHale Policy Officer Resources September 2005 PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL AGENDA ITEM 5 SCHOOLS THAT HAVE BEEN IN DEFICIT FOR 2 CONSECUTIVE YEARS IN THE LAST 3 YEARS SCHOOLS FORUM 6th DECEMBER 2005

School 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 Reason for Deficit Primary Schools Broadway, St Mary's Catholic Primary -278 -33,697 Staffing issues. School submitted a balanced budget, the small overspend was not Claines Primary -2,304 -941 planned. Matchborough First -18,571 -48,604 -31,520 Falling rolls and staffing issues Sidemoor First -6,104 -8,968 School error in formulating staffing budget.

The Grove Junior, Malvern -26,758 -18,736 Staffing issues including Headteacher absence. Upton Snodsbury First -8,915 -19,252 -20,023 Staffing issues. School overstated their standards fund and high levels of sickness Warndon Junior -3,100 -22,876 absence. Discussed revised staffing structure with Inspectors.

Middle Deemed Primary Schools Westacre Middle -15,524 -14,467 Sickness and falling rolls

Middle Deemed Secondary Schools The deficit is ongoing dating back to 2002/03. School had intended to recover by reducing staffing but this has not been possible Franche Middle -68,216 -70,635 -106,601 because of PPA and Wyre Forest review.

St Bede's Catholic Middle -10,411 -8,348 Bank account school - budget deficit identified at year end.

Secondary Schools with sixth form The deficit is ongoing and dates back to 2002/03 where there were Baxter College -212,771 -129,085 -204,495 funding issues. Bewdley High -38,709 -34,381 -2,937 School underestimated their spending. Funding difficulties. School used devolved capital to balance Hollywood, The Woodrush High -7,108 -21,338 budget.

Special Schools Cliffey Special -170,967 -329,856 Staff costs and closure issues. Closed 31/8/04. AGENDA ITEM 6a) SCHOOLS FORUM 6th DECEMBER 2005

REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM TEACHER’S PAY REFORM GRANT (TPRG) ISSUES

1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 From April 2006, TPRG will be included as part of the new Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) each Authority will receive to fund the total Schools Budget. The DfES is, therefore, ‘mainstreaming’ this area of grant funding. In order to prepare for this change, each Authority, in consultation with their Schools Forum, must decide on how to allocate funding from the DSG to individual schools to meet the costs previously supported by the TPRG for UPS1, 2, 3 and the Leadership Group.

1.2 In 2005/06 the Schools Forum agreed the following position on the allocation of the total TPRG of £10.4m that: -

• it be allocated in full as soon as possible in the financial year;

• it be allocated on the basis of the cost of all existing awards on actual staffing numbers in post in receipt of UPS1, UPS 2, UPS3 and the Leadership Group;

• the date for such staff numbers will be 31st March 2005;

• if there were insufficient grant to allocate 100% funding to all existing awards at that date to scale back pro-rata to the total allocation.

1.3 In considering the possible future position of this grant the Forum also agreed to use the cut off date at 31st December in future years if the grant is continued to be received and is able to be allocated on the basis of staff numbers.

1.4 The purpose of this report is: -

• To share with the Forum the existing allocations of TPRG for schools in 2005/06 requested at the last Forum meeting;

• To agree options to consider for its allocation in 2006/07 and 2007/08 for discussion at the January 2006 Schools Forum meeting when the TRPG allocation will have been confirmed in the total DSG.

2. EXISTING ALLOCATIONS OF TPRG 2005/06

2.1 Attached at Appendix 1 are the current allocations for TPRG in 2005/06 across all schools on the basis of the above agreed methodology. They are matched against the initial section 52 budget resources in 2005/06 as requested.

2.2 This analysis therefore gives the Forum the current position and any proposals for change will need to be managed carefully to ensure that school budgets remain stable.

3. ISSUES FOR 2006/07 AND 2007/08

3.1 The commitment from the Government is that every local authority will receive at least the current total level of resource for TPRG in the DSG for 2006/07.

3.2 The Forum is reminded that the DfES are adjusting the grant element for an element deemed to relate to post 16. This will be passed onto the LSC for distribution back to local authorities via the LSC block grant for the funding of school sixth forms.

3.3 The DfES believes the default position should be for authorities to distribute relevant DSG resource, including TPRG, through the local formula. This is their aim particularly for the long term, however for TPRG in the short term this would probably produce significant turbulence and undermine the objective for stability. To recognise this, the DfES have decided this is an area for local discretion.

3.4 There are effectively 3 options to consider: -

Option 1: Full Delegation through the existing formula.

• This would probably be through an appropriate formula factor. Areas that may be appropriate are the Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) – the main source of teacher funding in the formula or the base per pupil allocation.

• This could be achieved by allocating the amount of grant received (net of the DfES post 16 adjustment) in the DSG for 2006/07 and 2007/08 to the existing formula factor.

• Consideration would need to be given on the potential level of turbulence and whether any transitional arrangements would be required or whether the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) sufficiently mitigates this issue.

• There would also probably need to be a baseline adjustment to each school’s adjusted budget share, which is the start point of the MFG methodology.

Option 2: Full delegation or devolvement using a new formula factor.

• This could be based upon the cost of all existing awards on actual staffing numbers in post in receipt of UPS1, UPS2, UPS3 and Leadership awards.

• This is the approach used for 2005/06, which could be repeated in 2006/07 and 2007/08 using the base data of the number of such qualifying teachers as at 31st December 2005 and 31st December 2006.

• This could be either within the delegated ISB (as permitted in the draft regulations) or from central contingency outside the ISB devolving the resource to schools. For the ISB route there are again implications for MFG and from outside the ISB potential issues for the Central Expenditure Limit (CEL).

• There is an expectation from the DfES that over time that there is a move away from this approach to a new formula distribution.

Option 3: A variation on options 1 and 2.

• The amount targeted on post threshold teachers in option 2 is reduced over time and replaced by option 1 through an existing formula factor.

4. RECOMMENDATION

Once the level of TPRG resource is known and data sets are available, that further analysis on the above options are brought to the Schools Forum at its January 2006 meeting in order to agree upon a distribution methodology for TPRG in 2006/07 and 2007/08.

Andy McHale Policy Officer Resources November 2005 Teachers Pay Reform Grant 2005-06 Appendix 1 TPRG Cost Allocation Allocation TPRG/Allocation Centre Establishment 2005-2006 2005-06 * % ££ £ Nursery Schools 10212 Evesham Nursery 1,571 154,259 1.02

Primary Schools 10051 Abberley Parochial Primary School 4,561 272,583 1.67 10054 Alvechurch, Crown Meadow First 15,815 653,963 2.42 10055 Areley Common First 5,636 263,829 2.14 10056 Areley Kings, The Windmill First 4,043 500,457 0.81 10058 Ashton-Under-Hill First 3,955 249,977 1.58 10059 Astley C.E. Primary 2,651 254,321 1.04 10071 Badsey First 20,354 580,296 3.51 10072 Barnt Green St. Andrew' S C.E. First 13,652 469,146 2.91 10073 Bayton C.E. Primary 2,694 255,958 1.05 10074 Belbroughton C.E. Primary 18,655 454,674 4.1 10075 Beoley First 3,587 252,965 1.42 10076 Bewdley, St. Anne'S C.E. First 26,208 528,978 4.95 10078 Bewdley, Wribbenhall First 18,637 584,009 3.19 10080 Blakedown C.E. Primary 4,740 338,279 1.4 10086 The Bredon Hancock'S Endowed First 13,204 375,361 3.52 10087 Bretforton First 3,792 222,071 1.71 10090 Broadheath C.E. Primary 5,294 383,941 1.38 10091 Broadwas C.E. Primary 6,160 267,141 2.31 10092 Broadway First 5,636 311,902 1.81 10093 Broadway, St. Mary'S Catholic Primary 3,927 234,097 1.68 10096 Bromsgrove, Catshill First School And Nursery 8,161 758,776 1.08 10097 Bromsgrove, Charford First 40,286 977,320 4.12 10098 Bromsgrove, Finstall First 35,344 703,142 5.03 10099 Bromsgrove, Lickey End First 901 379,355 0.24 10100 Bromsgrove, Meadows First 31,283 988,664 3.16 10101 Bromsgrove, Millfields First 12,811 510,272 2.51 10102 Bromsgrove, St. Peter'S Catholic First 20,202 702,355 2.88 10103 Bromsgrove, Sidemoor First School And Nursery 23,359 561,039 4.16 10104 Rubery, Lickey Hills Primary 54,157 1,127,383 4.8 10105 Bromsgrove, Blackwell First 2,373 291,316 0.81 10121 Callow End C.E. Primary 6,284 243,980 2.58 10124 Castlemorton C.E. Primary 7,226 263,679 2.74 10125 Chaddesley Corbett Endowed First 17,700 397,043 4.46 10127 Church Lench C.E. First 5,201 213,476 2.44 10128 Claines C.E. Primary 13,620 527,857 2.58 10129 Cleeve Prior C.E. First 5,923 222,739 2.66 10131 Clent Parochial Primary 7,625 300,158 2.54 10133 Clifton-Upon-Teme Primary 11,714 266,571 4.39 10137 Cookley Sebright Endowed First 20,117 483,036 4.16 10140 Cropthorne With Charlton C.E. First 5,023 246,220 2.04 10141 Crowle C.E. First 6,419 237,091 2.71 10142 Cutnall Green C.E. First 14,266 258,489 5.52 10151 Defford-Cum-Besford C.E. First 8,642 216,128 4 10153 Dodford First 3,927 190,134 2.07 10155 Droitwich, Westlands First 25,543 759,684 3.36 10156 Droitwich, Chawson Community First 24,012 999,539 2.4 10157 Droitwich, St. Joseph'S Catholic Primary 22,024 572,558 3.85 10158 Droitwich, St. Peter'S C.E. First 35,370 987,689 3.58 10176 Eckington C.E. First 6,425 263,033 2.44 10177 Eldersfield Lawn C.E. Primary 6,841 243,108 2.81 10178 Elmley Castle C.E. First 4,893 257,952 1.9

2005-12-6 WSF Agenda Item 6a) Appendix Teachers Pay Reform Grant 2005-06 Appendix 1 TPRG Cost Allocation Allocation TPRG/Allocation Centre Establishment 2005-2006 2005-06 * % ££ £ 10179 Evesham, Bengeworth C.E. First 29,115 802,669 3.63 10180 Evesham, St. Richard'S C.E. First 59,399 1,089,047 5.45 10181 Evesham, St. Andrew'S C.E. First 8,951 403,295 2.22 10182 Evesham Swan Lane First 24,851 737,583 3.37 10183 Evesham, St. Mary'S Catholic Primary 8,636 390,744 2.21 10201 Fairfield First 18,900 300,324 6.29 10202 Far Forest, Lea Memorial C.E. First 4,925 329,024 1.5 10203 Fladbury C.E. First 8,777 257,470 3.41 10204 Flyford Flavell First 10,043 290,115 3.46 10224 Great Witley C.E. Primary 20,388 384,219 5.31 10225 Grimley And Holt C.E. Primary 5,779 229,657 2.52 10241 Hagley Primary 34,186 1,208,550 2.83 10242 Hallow C.E. Primary 12,464 446,210 2.79 10243 Hanbury C.E. First 907 290,285 0.31 10245 Hanley Swan, St. Gabriel'S With St. Mary'S C.E. Pri 7,855 290,575 2.7 10246 Hartlebury C.E. First 6,138 332,452 1.85 10247 Harvington C.E. First 13,132 454,147 2.89 10276 Himbleton C.E. First 4,882 218,483 2.23 10277 Hindlip C.E. First 13,973 293,756 4.76 10280 Honeybourne First 6,721 330,537 2.03 10282 Hollywood, The Coppice Primary 50,357 1,044,409 4.82 10291 Inkberrow First 14,052 275,262 5.1 10296 Kempsey Primary 14,137 626,951 2.25 10299 Kidderminster, Birchen Coppice Community First 15,291 684,164 2.23 10300 Kidderminster, Comberton First 21,872 651,096 3.36 10301 Kidderminster, Foley Park First School And Nursery 15,585 467,245 3.34 10302 Kidderminster, Franche First 33,904 1,151,311 2.94 10303 Kidderminster, St. Barnabas C.E. First 10,109 286,203 3.53 10305 Kidderminster, Lea Street First 8,950 352,071 2.54 10307 Kidderminster, St. Ambrose Catholic Primary 8,410 495,865 1.7 10309 Kidderminster, St. George'S C.E. First 13,038 502,430 2.59 10310 Kidderminster, St. John'S C.E. First 20,208 759,524 2.66 10311 Kidderminster, St. Mary'S C.E. First 10,136 484,959 2.09 10312 Kidderminster, St. Oswald'S C.E. First School And N 22,211 601,070 3.7 10313 Kidderminster, The Marlpool First 16,995 530,105 3.21 10314 Kidderminster, The Offmore First 37,006 756,460 4.89 10315 Kidderminster, Sutton Park First 11,084 758,889 1.46 10316 Kidderminster, Spennells First 27,116 602,971 4.5 10342 Leigh And Bransford Primary 4,882 284,551 1.72 10349 Lindridge St. Lawrence'S C.E. Primary 7,318 270,970 2.7 10351 The Littletons C.E. First 6,473 371,455 1.74 10353 Longdon, St. Mary'S C.E. Primary 5,412 262,084 2.06 10370 Malvern, Northleigh C.E. Primary 14,207 674,135 2.11 10372 Madresfield C.E. Primary 10,444 305,378 3.42 10374 Malvern, Great Malvern Primary 31,958 1,107,867 2.88 10375 Malvern Hills Primary 2,651 273,727 0.97 10376 Malvern Link C.E. Primary 3,470 552,636 0.63 10377 Malvern, Somers Park Primary 32,147 1,051,710 3.06 10380 Malvern Parish C.E. Primary 15,604 523,760 2.98 10381 Malvern, St. Joseph'S Catholic Primary 19,595 445,030 4.4 10382 Malvern, The Grove Junior 7,639 578,481 1.32 10383 Malvern, The Grove Infants' 7,460 484,724 1.54 10384 Malvern Wells C.E. Primary 6,184 312,159 1.98 10385 West Malvern, St. James' C.E. Primary 3,927 261,609 1.5 10386 Malvern, Wyche C.E. Primary 14,429 361,277 3.99

2005-12-6 WSF Agenda Item 6a) Appendix Teachers Pay Reform Grant 2005-06 Appendix 1 TPRG Cost Allocation Allocation TPRG/Allocation Centre Establishment 2005-2006 2005-06 * % ££ £ 10388 Martley C.E. Primary 11,329 362,730 3.12 10403 Norton Juxta Kempsey C.E. Primary 8,057 439,952 1.83 10411 Offenham C.E. First 907 308,373 0.29 10412 Ombersley Endowed First 11,073 273,843 4.04 10414 Overbury C.E. First 4,576 200,007 2.29 10421 Pebworth First 4,834 211,524 2.29 10424 Pendock C.E. Primary 5,038 180,588 2.79 10426 Pershore, Abbey Park First And Nursery 17,379 444,838 3.91 10427 Pershore, Cherry Orchard First 7,533 425,289 1.77 10428 Pershore, Holy Redeemer Catholic Primary 4,081 327,288 1.25 10430 Pinvin C.E. First 6,243 267,081 2.34 10431 Powick C.E. Primary 15,214 466,097 3.26 10442 Redditch, Astwood Bank First 34,496 735,048 4.69 10443 Redditch, Batchley First 13,132 725,110 1.81 10445 Redditch, The Harry Taylor First 20,232 626,136 3.23 10446 Redditch, Feckenham C.E. First 9,278 295,597 3.14 10447 Redditch, Holyoakes Field First 12,858 653,572 1.97 10450 Redditch, Marlfield Farm First 7,951 389,300 2.04 10451 Redditch, Moon'S Moat First 19,385 594,875 3.26 10452 Redditch, Our Lady Of Mount Carmel Catholic First 22,356 677,236 3.3 10453 Redditch, Roman Way First 34,296 633,471 5.41 10454 Redditch, St. George'S C.E. First 27,702 801,791 3.46 10456 Redditch, St. Luke'S C.E. First 17,356 432,020 4.02 10457 Redditch, St. Thomas More Catholic First 5,798 490,862 1.18 10458 Redditch, St. Stephen'S C.E. First 14,871 570,879 2.6 10459 Redditch, The Vaynor First 44,675 959,169 4.66 10460 Redditch, Webheath First 20,782 671,699 3.09 10461 Redditch, Tenacres First 31,553 646,621 4.88 10462 Redditch, Woodrow First 26,373 878,313 3 10463 Redditch, Ravens Bank First 16,689 338,037 4.94 10466 Redditch, Oak Hill First School 37,045 1,158,299 3.2 10467 Redditch, Matchborough First 51,310 1,002,810 5.12 10471 Romsley St. Kenelm'S C.E. Primary 12,891 427,595 3.01 10476 Rushwick C.E. Primary 7,712 369,945 2.08 10477 Rubery, Holywell Primary And Nursery 44,265 1,091,098 4.06 10492 Sedgeberrow C.E. First 9,682 403,672 2.4 10497 Stoke Prior (Bromsgrove) First 17,275 351,526 4.91 10499 Stone C.E. First 3,307 220,920 1.5 10500 Stourport-On-Severn First 26,134 569,726 4.59 10501 Stourport-On-Severn, Lickhill Lodge First 6,881 371,252 1.85 10503 Stourport-On-Severn, Burlish Park First 40,179 784,535 5.12 10504 Stourport-On-Severn, St. Wulstan'S Catholic Primar 19,684 524,792 3.75 10508 Suckley Primary 935 199,305 0.47 10510 Sytchampton Endowed First 6,890 313,659 2.2 10521 Tardebigge C.E. First 6,477 386,489 1.68 10523 Tenbury C.E. Primary 25,947 737,030 3.52 10524 Tibberton C.E. First 9,301 210,113 4.43 10531 Upper Arley C.E. First 1,896 221,028 0.86 10532 Upton Upon Severn C.E. Primary 26,029 454,746 5.72 10533 Upton Snodsbury C.E. First 4,242 225,610 1.88 10542 Welland Primary 14,600 370,486 3.94 10548 Whittington C.E. Primary 15,480 488,577 3.17 10551 Wilden, All Saints' C.E. First 10,167 418,907 2.43 10553 Wolverley Sebright First 9,005 303,900 2.96 10554 Worcester, Cherry Orchard Primary 62,169 1,436,495 4.33

2005-12-6 WSF Agenda Item 6a) Appendix Teachers Pay Reform Grant 2005-06 Appendix 1 TPRG Cost Allocation Allocation TPRG/Allocation Centre Establishment 2005-2006 2005-06 * % ££ £ 10556 Worcester, Cranham Primary 50,627 1,056,766 4.79 10557 Worcester, Dines Green Primary 26,930 604,644 4.45 10560 Worcester, The Fairfield Community Primary 5,302 582,114 0.91 10561 Worcester, Gorse Hill Community Primary 25,887 939,230 2.76 10565 Worcester, Northwick Manor Junior 18,262 750,501 2.43 10566 Worcester, Northwick Manor Infants' 29,157 631,810 4.61 10567 Worcester, Nunnery Wood Primary 31,307 887,116 3.53 10568 Worcester, Our Lady Queen Of Peace Catholic Prim 7,093 470,589 1.51 10569 Worcester, Perdiswell Primary 50,643 930,171 5.44 10570 Worcester, Pitmaston Primary 84,751 1,395,151 6.07 10572 Worcester, St. Barnabas C.E. Primary 43,446 1,039,612 4.18 10573 Worcester, Perrywood Primary 0 684,380 0 10574 Worcester, Red Hill C.E. Primary 40,276 729,116 5.52 10575 Worcester, Ronkswood Junior 24,463 330,151 7.41 10576 Worcester, Ronkswood Infants' 14,513 284,765 5.1 10577 Worcester, St. Clement'S C.E. Primary 19,931 688,145 2.9 10578 Worcester, St. George'S C.E. Primary 28,890 588,037 4.91 10579 Worcester, St. George'S Catholic Primary 18,290 501,657 3.65 10581 Worcester, St. Joseph'S Catholic Primary 13,754 519,502 2.65 10582 Worcester, Stanley Road Primary 33,928 834,385 4.07 10585 Worcester, Warndon Junior 17,493 741,803 2.36 10586 Worcester, Warndon Infants' 22,288 580,155 3.84 10587 Worcester, Oldbury Park Primary 51,608 1,054,955 4.89 10589 Worcester, Lyppard Grange Primary 12,254 769,777 1.59 10592 Wychbold First And Nursery School 7,541 276,748 2.72 10593 Wythall, Meadow Green Primary 34,815 777,104 4.48 10606 Rubery, Beaconside Primary And Nursery 17,926 630,303 2.84

Primary Total 3,192,081 98,183,962 3.25

Middle Schools Deemed Primary 10601 Drakes Broughton, St. Barnabas C.E. First And Midd 53,864 986,783 5.46 10604 Pershore, Abbey Park Middle 27,298 655,752 4.16 10605 Pinvin St. Nicholas C.E. Middle 22,849 830,975 2.75 10634 Droitwich, Westacre Middle 38,593 873,541 4.42 10635 Droitwich, Witton Middle 73,598 1,322,743 5.56

Total Middle Schools Deemed Primary 216,202 4,669,794 4.63

Middle Schools Deemed Secondary 10621 Alvechurch C.E. Middle 53,371 1,011,090 5.28 10622 Areley Kings, Windmill C.E. Middle 22,649 817,608 2.77 10623 Bewdley, St.Anne'S C.E. Middle 36,927 908,977 4.06 10624 Bewdley, Wribbenhall Middle 45,465 1,006,715 4.52 10625 Bredon Hill Middle 74,665 1,216,385 6.14 10626 Bromsgrove, Aston Fields Middle 66,039 1,560,537 4.23 10627 Bromsgrove, Catshill Middle 46,875 1,118,412 4.19 10628 Bromsgrove, St. John'S C.E. Foundation Middle 80,568 1,528,486 5.27 10629 Bromsgrove, Parkside Middle 63,700 1,198,721 5.31 10638 Evesham, Blackminster Middle 55,830 1,063,689 5.25 10639 Evesham, Simon De Montfort Middle 83,146 1,361,211 6.11 10640 Evesham, St. Egwin'S C.E. Middle 34,241 940,347 3.64 10645 Kidderminster, Birchen Coppice Middle 51,341 875,941 5.86 10646 Kidderminster, Comberton Middle 98,636 1,655,336 5.96 10647 Kidderminster, Franche Middle 47,337 1,295,303 3.65

2005-12-6 WSF Agenda Item 6a) Appendix Teachers Pay Reform Grant 2005-06 Appendix 1 TPRG Cost Allocation Allocation TPRG/Allocation Centre Establishment 2005-2006 2005-06 * % ££ £ 10648 Kidderminster, Sion Hill Middle 37,560 1,011,271 3.71 10649 Kidderminster, St. John'S C.E. Middle 69,075 1,381,964 5 10650 Kidderminster, The Sladen C.E. Middle 49,129 1,188,377 4.13 10656 Redditch, Birchensale Middle 47,230 1,126,127 4.19 10657 Redditch, Dingleside Middle 27,049 787,206 3.44 10660 Redditch, St. Bede'S Catholic Middle 78,411 1,647,849 4.76 10663 Redditch, Ridgeway Middle 53,226 1,111,845 4.79 10664 Redditch, Walkwood C.E. Middle 94,514 1,969,345 4.8 10665 Redditch, Church Hill Middle 62,651 991,037 6.32 10666 Redditch, Woodfield Middle School 88,558 1,643,748 5.39 10667 Redditch, Ipsley C.E. Middle 91,627 1,687,143 5.43 10670 Stourport-On-Severn, Burlish Middle 43,300 1,025,425 4.22 10671 Stourport-On-Severn, Lickhill Middle 37,354 893,605 4.18

Total Middle Schools Deemed Secondary 1,640,474 34,023,700 4.82

Secondary Schools without Sixth Form 10806 Martley, The Chantry High 110,965 2,166,297 5.12 10833 Tenbury High 90,180 1,476,174 6.11 10846 Worcester, Bishop Perowne C.E. High 138,299 3,247,009 4.26 10847 Worcester, Blessed Edward Oldcorne Catholic Colle 113,523 3,318,215 3.42 10851 Worcester, Nunnery Wood High 219,480 4,281,409 5.13 10856 Worcester, Christopher Whitehead High 169,008 3,661,397 4.62 10857 Worcester, Elgar Technology College 98,754 3,536,971 2.79

Total Secondary Schools without Sixth Form 940,209 21,687,472 4.34

Secondary Schools with Sixth Form 10733 Bewdley High 102,054 2,521,422 4.05 10734 Bromsgrove, North Bromsgrove High 137,408 3,470,151 3.96 10735 Bromsgrove, South Bromsgrove Community High 210,981 4,639,647 4.55 10741 Droitwich Spa High 183,749 4,833,894 3.8 10746 Evesham High 155,423 3,488,008 4.46 10747 Evesham, Prince Henry'S High 192,048 4,853,198 3.96 10756 Hagley Catholic High 167,438 3,242,177 5.16 10757 Hanley Castle High 109,425 2,796,367 3.91 10758 Haybridge High School And Sixth Form College 133,227 4,564,462 2.92 10776 Woodrush Community High School - A Specialist Te 120,085 3,410,092 3.52 10781 Kidderminster, King Charles I 219,577 3,793,306 5.79 10782 Baxter College 93,622 2,524,046 3.71 10801 The Chase 292,148 5,873,854 4.97 10802 Malvern, Dyson Perrins C.E. High 164,329 3,456,455 4.75 10811 Pershore High 187,296 4,290,986 4.36 10816 Redditch, Arrow Vale Community High - Sports Colle 171,781 3,539,979 4.85 10818 Redditch, St. Augustine'S Catholic High 114,321 3,101,040 3.69 10822 Redditch, Trinity High School And Sixth Form Centre 149,464 3,463,611 4.32 10823 Redditch, Kingsley College 190,020 4,192,001 4.53 10831 Stourport High School - Language College 126,158 3,643,434 3.46 10839 Waseley Hills High School And Sixth Form Centre 140,533 3,420,002 4.11 10842 Wolverley High 74,510 2,826,159 2.64

Total Secondary Schools withSixth Form 3,435,597 81,944,291 4.19

Special Schools 10903 Bromsgrove,Chadsgrove 88,869 1,809,970 4.91

2005-12-6 WSF Agenda Item 6a) Appendix Teachers Pay Reform Grant 2005-06 Appendix 1 TPRG Cost Allocation Allocation TPRG/Allocation Centre Establishment 2005-2006 2005-06 * % ££ £ 10905 Bromsgrove, Rigby Hall 29,868 854,393 3.5 10929 Kidderminster, Blakebrook 7,069 1,067,268 0.66 10943 Redgrove 10,400 717,806 1.45 10946 Redditch, Pitcheroak 61,372 1,337,026 4.59 10951 Stourminster 48,979 1,248,496 3.92 10956 The Vale Of Evesham 46,411 1,970,833 2.35 10960 Riversides 13,682 800,968 1.71 10961 Worcester, Manor Park 44,342 1,452,756 3.05 10962 Worcester, Rose Hill 68,254 1,604,062 4.26 10963 Worcester, Thornton House 37,247 1,229,551 3.03

Total Special Schools 456,493 14,093,129 3.24

Total Schools 9,882,627 254,756,607 3.88

* Allocation = Budget Share + Schools Standards Grant + Standards Fund from Section 52 (ie initial allocations) The total TPRG allocation was £10,433,983 which included an allocation of £551,356 for non-school establishments.

2005-12-6 WSF Agenda Item 6a) Appendix Teachers Pay Reform Grant 2005-06 Appendix 1 TPRG Cost Allocation Allocation TPRG/Allocation Centre Establishment 2005-2006 2005-06 * % ££ £

2005-12-6 WSF Agenda Item 6a) Appendix AGENDA ITEM 6b) SCHOOLS FORUM 6th DECEMBER 2005

REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM MULTI BUDGET PERIOD – VARYING OF NON-AGE WEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT (AWPU) DATA

1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 The new Funding Regulations require Local Authorities to set from 2006/07 two- year school budgets and from 2008/09 three-year budgets. There will be a requirement to update funding for future year’s budgets delivered through the AWPU to reflect annual pupil number changes but there will be local discretion over the extent to which non-AWPU data driving the formula (e.g. free school meals numbers, square metres, SAT’s attainment, etc.) should be updated.

1.2 The key considerations are how best to balance: -

• predictability and stability of budgets for schools – which points towards less updating of non-AWPU data, and a corresponding clarity over the impact of pupil number changes; with

• responding to schools’ changing needs and circumstances – which points towards more updating of non-AWPU data, with a correspondingly more complex impact on school budgets.

1.3 What this specifically means is that in March 2006, individual schools will be issued with their share of the ISB driven by the approved formula as follows: -

• 2006/07 ‘Final’ School Budget Share (SBS); • 2007/08 Indicative SBS.

1.4 In March 2007, we will issue the ‘final’ SBS for 2007/08 which will, as a minimum, be updated to reflect actual January 2007 PLASC numbers in respect of the AWPU.

1.5 The purpose of this paper is to consider and agree whether any non-AWPU factors should also be updated for data changes which will change the individual SBS: -

• in-year; and • between years

within the multi-year budget period.

2. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

In-Year

2.1 The DfES have made clear that after multi-year budgets have been set, they would, for stability and predictability purposes, prefer no or very little in-year changes to a schools individual budget. If any in-year re-determinations are to be made they must relate to specific issues such as: -

• funding for named pupils;

• specific variations in data the costs of which it would not be reasonable to expect schools to manage. Examples could include school re- organisations resulting for instance in significant in-year pupil number changes, other data changes such as floor area and changes to learning resource units;

• those agreed locally by Schools Forums.

2.2 Such costs would have to be funded from school specific contingencies under the regulations.

2.3 It must be noted that if the proposal for a single pupil count date using January PLASC is confirmed, there will be no in-year re-determination or prior year adjustment in the following year to reflect either September actual numbers or the following year’s PLASC.

Between Years

2.4 There are three areas of funding classification to consider:-

• AWPU funding – that which is delivered through AWPU and will be changed as a result of the up to date PLASC;

• Other pupil-led funding – that which is delivered through other factors related to general pupil numbers or through proxies e.g. FSM, funding for nursery or SEN pupils/places, named pupil funding, etc;

• Non-pupil led funding – that which is delivered through factors which are not related to pupil numbers, for example for rates, PFI costs, premises, or school specific factors.

2.5 Some of the key factors in determining what approach local authorities and Schools Forums will take in updating non-AWPU data include: -

• the relative importance of the funding it delivers across the authority and for individual schools;

• which non-AWPU factors that reflect actual costs can and need to be updated;

• which of the remaining non-AWPU factors might be updated, and how essential it is that they are;

• the potential impact of the proposed pattern of updating, both at school level, and on the overall ISB;

• how much predictability is sacrificed by the proposed level on non-AWPU updating.

2.6 There are effectively 3 options for the Schools Forum to consider for variations between years of a multi-year budget period: -

Option 1 – Vary all non-AWPU data

• This reflects the current system, school budgets will be as accurate as possible and will continue to vary year-on-year;

• However, when schools receive their planned budget for future years, there will be much less certainty about the indicative budgets provided.

Option 2 – Do not vary any non-AWPU data

• This will give more certainty for schools in that the only reason their future budget allocations will change will be for changes in pupil numbers in the AWPU from the most up to date PLASC;

• This could result in much less accuracy and for example, if a school has had significant changes in some data sets in 2007/08, it will need to wait until the next round of multi-year budgets (in this case 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11) are issued for the changes to be reflected with no retrospective adjustment.

Option 3 – Vary specific non-AWPU data

• This potentially provides a balance between giving schools certainty over future year allocations with having budgets as accurate as possible;

• However there is still an element of uncertainty over future years' budgets but not as much as in Option 1 and the degree of change in future years' budgets will be less than Option 1.

2.7 Attached at Appendix 1 is an analysis of the existing formula, details of the current level of resource in the total ISB and a proposal as to whether the data should be varied both in-year and between years in the multi-year budget period.

2.8 It can be seen that the proposals provide for the data sets for the majority of factors to be fixed for the multi budget period. The main data set areas proposed for updating are: -

• AWPU and the per pupil line; • SEN funding for named pupils; • SEN matrix; • learning resource centres; • internal floor area; • sector specific protection • falling rolls; • reorganisation and PFI; • NQT’s; • Minimum Funding Guarantee; • LSC allocation and non-AWPU deduction; • business rates.

2.9 This is designed to adjust for the more significant formula areas including those provided by outside agencies. It is intended to cover those that would potentially have a significant effect for schools. It also supports the need to balance certainty and accuracy in the allocation of school budgets. 3. RECOMMENDATION

The Forum considers the attached list and decides on the data sets to be varied in- year and between years in the multi-year budget period.

Andy McHale Policy Officer Resources

Trish Mallinson Principal Finance Officer

November 2005 Mainstream Formula Budget Factors

Formula Factor Total £ % of total Data sets used Current practice Proposed changes in Proposed changes 2005-06 formula Fixed/Variable year between years funding £ %

From pupil numbers: Age Weighted 160,168,300 74.2 Pupil count data Updated at Sept count None Update with Jan Pupil Unit PLASC Per Pupil Line 2,645,221 1.2 Pupil count data Fixed at Jan pupil None Update with Jan (incl. School numbers PLASC improvement)

SEN & AEN: FSM Social 1,449,480 0.7 Pupil count data and % Fixed at Jan pupil None None deprivation of school population numbers EAL Social 534,326 0.2 Pupil count data Fixed at Jan pupil None None deprivation numbers EAL Ethnic 104,400 0.0 EAL pupil numbers for Fixed at Jan pupil None None minority support – nursery and KS1 numbers per pupil EAL Ethnic 41,000 0.0 Lump sum for pupil Fixed None None minority support - numbers bands Lump sum SSA for 5,360,351 2.5 Statemented hours Updated Sept and year Update Sept & year end Update statements end Midday 302,153 0.1 Statemented hours Updated Sept and year Update Sept & year end Update supervision for end statements Support for School 2,650,388 1.2 Lump sum, pupil Fixed None None action plus numbers, FSM numbers, attainment score and statemented pupil numbers Learning Resource 1,940,480 0.9 Place led Updated Sept Update Sept Update Centres SPLD Base 97,727 0.0 Banded according to Updated Sept None None pupil numbers Mainstream Formula Budget Factors – cont.

Factor Total £ % of total Data sets used Current practice Proposed changes in Proposed changes 2005-06 formula Fixed/Variable year between years funding £ %

Grassed & Planted 314,893 0.1 Square meters Fixed None None areas Internal floor area 7,067,571 3.3 Square meters Updated Sept Update Sept Update Lump sum 713,481 0.3 Lump sum Fixed None None

School Specific Factors Small School 658,003 0.3 Average teacher salary Fixed None None Salary protection in school compared to sector average Sector specific 3,820,029 1.8 Small school protection Updated at Sept count None Update protection – based on numbers below threshold

Other: FSM Provision 1,598,584 0.7 Pupil count data Updated at Sept count None None Swimming pool 44,891 0.0 Square meters Fixed None None Split site 0 0.0 Pupil count data Fixed None None Lump sum (incl. 991,845 0.5 Fixed None None School improvement) Falling rolls 211,911 0.1 Uses pupil count data Updated at Sept count None Update Salary 23,515 0.0 Based on actual Updated Sept and year None None Safeguarding safeguarding end Reorganisation 1,557,595 0.7 Specific allocation Updated Sept and year Update Sept & year end Update and PFI end Admissions 15,996 0.0 Standard admission Fixed None None number Appeal on 13,024 0.0 Lump sum Fixed None None admissions Shared Use 291,739 0.1 Specific allocation Updated Sept None None Transport 2,930 0.0 Agreed number of Updated Sept None None (journeys) journeys NQTs 233,314 0.1 (£ = Summer term only) Updated Sept and year Fixed for full year based Update Number of NQTs end on January numbers Mainstream Formula Budget Factors – cont.

Factor Total £ % of total Data sets used Current practice Proposed changes in Proposed changes 2005-06 formula Fixed/Variable year between years funding £ %

Other continued: Minimum Funding 1,226,165 0.6 Amount will change if Updated Sept Update Update Guarantee any other factor is changed LSC Allocation 18,738,532 8.7 As per LSC Updated Sept None Update Non AWPU -513,696 -0.2 Based on 6th form Updated Sept None Update deduction for post numbers as % of school 16 population Business Rate 3,426,293 1.6 Actual Updated Sept Update Update Optional insurance 42,992 0.0 Calculated using Fixed None None delegation insurance factors and values

Special School Formula Budget Factors

Formula Factor Total £ % of total Data sets used Current practice Proposed changes in Proposed changes 2005-06 formula Fixed/Variable year between years funding £ %

From pupil numbers: Age Weighted 2,517,776 18.9 Pupil count data Updated at Sept count None Update with Jan Pupil Unit PLASC Per Pupil Line 54,075 0.4 Pupil count data Fixed at Jan pupil None Update with Jan (incl. School numbers PLASC improvement)

Place led funding: Matrix funding 8,765,253 65.7 Assessment of children Updated in September if Update Sept Update with Jan at PLASC date numbers exceed the total PLASC funding Boarding Places 310,170 2.3 Number of places Fixed None None SEN Outreach 548,479 4.1 Number of places Fixed None None

AEN: EAL Social 0 0 Pupil count data Fixed at Jan pupil None None deprivation numbers Inclusion allocation 60,956 0.5 % of pupils Updated at Sept count None None

Site specific: Grassed & Planted 8,205 0.1 Square meters Fixed None None areas Internal floor area 258,286 1.9 Square meters Updated Sept Update Sept Update Lump sum 48,202 0.4 Lump sum Fixed None None

School Specific Factors Small School 17,151 0.1 Average teacher salary Fixed None None Salary protection in school compared to sector average Sector specific 94,071 0.7 Small school protection Updated at Sept count None Update protection – based on numbers below threshold

Special School Formula Budget Factors – cont.

Formula Factor Total £ % of total Data sets used Current practice Proposed changes in Proposed changes 2005-06 formula Fixed/Variable year between years funding £ %

Other: FSM Provision 87,217 0.7 Pupil count data Updated at Sept count None None Lump sum - 331,295 2.5 Weighted for type of Fixed None None equipment school Lump sum (incl. 46,255 0.3 Lump sum Fixed None None School improvement) Split site 0 0 Pupil count data Fixed None None Swimming pool 13,696 0.1 Square meters Fixed None None Shared Use 315 0 Specific allocation Updated Sept None None Salary 0 0 Based on actual Updated Sept and year None None Safeguarding safeguarding end Reorganisation 94,972 0.7 Specific allocation Updated Sept and year Update Sept & year end Update and PFI end NQTs 0 0 (£ = Summer term only) Updated Sept and year Fixed allocation for full Update Number of NQTs end year based on January numbers Minimum Funding 80,647 0.6 Amount may change Updated Sept Update Update Guarantee when any other factor is changed Business Rate 4,408 0 Actual Updated Sept Update Update

Stephen Crowne Director School Resources Group Schools Directorate

Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street Westminster London SW1P 3BT

To all Directors of Children’s Services / Directors of Education of Local Authorities in England Our Ref: LEA–1954-2005 21 October 2005

Dear Colleague

Sixth Form Funding In 2006/07 and 2007/08

The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is sending to all schools with sixth forms and to local authorities the enclosed document ‘Priorities for Success: School Sixth Form Funding for 2006/07 and 2007/08’. The document reflects the government’s decisions on the way school sixth forms should be funded in these years, and sets out the details of the LSC’s funding methodology. I am writing to draw your attention to the implications for the new pre-16 school funding arrangements.

The LSC’s funding approach is intended to support both the government’s pre-16 school funding reforms and the coherence and affordability of post-16 funding. Thus in December 2005, schools with sixth forms will receive budgets for their post-16 provision that cover two funding years, from August 2006 to July 2008. Their funding rates will be increased by the level of the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) for secondary school funding; and their sixth form allocations will be based on a single pupil count - in September 2005 for their 2006/07 budgets and in September 2006 for their 2007/08 allocations - with no in-year adjustments. These moves are designed to ensure that all elements of schools’ budgets will be subject to similar principles of predictability, allowing them to plan with confidence.

The government has also decided to phase out over three years the Real Terms Guarantee (RTG), so that from 2008/09 all school sixth forms’ funding is based on the LSC formula; and to introduce for both school sixth forms and FE colleges a revised maximum average qualification funding per student. This is set at a level that will allow sixth form students to pursue a broad AS curriculum and specialise at A2 level, and to encourage genuinely challenging and enriching courses of study while recognising economies of scale and bearing down on the practice of pupils taking very similar qualifications or low level ‘add on’ courses.

The government recognises that these changes may have a greater impact on some schools than others, depending on circumstances. In order, therefore, to mitigate the impact of the changes on individual schools, Ministers have agreed with the LSC that they should operate a ‘minimum funding floor’ in both 2006/07 and 2007/08, to ensure that for every school sixth form, average per pupil school sixth form funding does not fall in cash terms year on year. As a further measure to ensure continued stability for school funding as the changes to post-16 funding are implemented, Ministers have also decided to extend the methodology for the MFG in 2006-07 and 2007-08 to include funding for sixth forms. The calculation of the MFG for those years by local authorities should therefore include schools’ LSC allocations and their numbers of post-16 pupils. I enclose a note that explains the implications of this arrangement for the school funding regulations, including a revised draft of Schedule 5 to the regulations that were circulated for consultation on 22 September. The consultation closes on 31 October.

The LSC document also refers to arrangements for paying the Teachers’ Pay Grant in respect of school sixth forms. Stephen Bishop’s letter of 15 September to Chief Executives of local education authorities in England (ref: LEA-1797-2005) set out the arrangements for transferring the pre-16 elements of authorities’ 2005-06 pay grants into their DSG baselines; announced that in 2006-07 and 2007-08 the post-16 element would be paid by LSC as a block grant to local authorities; and invited authorities to check the Department’s estimate of the pre-16/post-16 split or their total pay grants. Authorities’ responses to the letter are still being considered and revised figures for the post-16 component, where accepted, will be incorporated into overall baseline figures to be advised soon. The LSC document confirms that the LSC will pass on to the relevant local authority the sixth form element of the Teachers’ Pay Grant for distribution to schools with sixth forms according to the authority’s own criteria; and that the only stipulation the LSC will make is that the distribution is transparent and separately identified.

If you wish to read the LSC’s document ‘LSC Funding for Learning and Skills 2006/07 and 2007/08’, that is also published today and that refers to the LSC’s plans for the whole learning and skills sector, you can find it on the LSC website, at www.lsc.gov.uk/.

A copy of this letter and enclosures is being sent to local authority Chief Executives and Chief Finance Officers, and to our Education Finance and Standards Fund contacts in the authority.

Yours sincerely

2 AGENDA ITEM 8 SCHOOLS FORUM 6th DECEMBER 2005

FAIR FUNDING CONSULTATION 2006/07 AND 2007/08 - OUTCOMES APPENDIX 1

Nursery Primary Middle D P Middle D S High Special Total Number of Schools 1 186 5 28 29 11 260 Number of Responses 43 1 7132 66 Percentage % %% %%% % 0 23 20 25 45 18 25 YNYN Y N Y NYNYN YN Q1 Do you agree to the proposal that 2% of the AWPU be designated under the budget for notional SEN from 2006/07? 27 13 1 6 1 7 4 1 42 18 Q2 Do you support the introduction of a new Pupil and School Support formula factor as detailed from 2006/07? 23 12 1 4 2 10 2 1 39 16 Q3 Do you agree to the introduction of transitional arrangement safety net to support the introduction of the new Pupil and School Support formula as detailed? 29 8 1 6 11 2 1 48 10 Q4 Are there other areas of centrally retained services that should be considered for delegation? 432 1 6 3 6 2 747 Q5 Do you support a change from the 3 existing salary safeguarding formula provisions to a single revised standard for those schools being re-organised or for staff being redeployed? 38 1 1 5 1 11 1 2 57 3 Q6 Do you support the creation of a funding mechanism and the allocation of resources as required to meet the requirement of the management contract in respect of the Bromsgrove schools PFI? 17 10 1 3 3 5 5 2 28 18 Q7 Do you support the proposed change in the funding model to support the induction of NQT's? 28 14 1 5 2 12 1 2 47 18 Q8 Do you agree with the proposal to use the Schools Forum as the main source of additional consultation for the 2006/07 and 2007/08 budgets? 39 2 1 5 2 12 1 2 59 5 Q9 Do you support the proposal for the management of surplus balances to continue as a trial run for 2 years from 2006/07 as described? 37 6 1 5 2 11 2 2 55 11

NB - Schools did not, in some cases, answer all the questions Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 1 Abberley Parochial Primary 2 Abbey Park First & Nursery School 3 Areley Common First 4 Ashton-under-Hill First 5 Astley C.E. Primary

Q1 - From the document you say this is for statemented and non statemented pupils at the approroate level - currently this would only fund one of my statemented pupils and I have4 all with SEVERE difficulties - what about the 3 other and those at School Action Plus etc? Q2 - In our schools 3 of factors would not contribute any fuding ACORN ATTAINMENT POST CODE. Just because our children have severe SENdoesn't mean they can't 6 Astwood Bank First achieve and they don't live in deprived areas !! Q3 - Yes because these are people's jobs and Head Teachers/Gov-Bodies have to plan for change.Q6 -? General comments - This document in extremely hard to understand - a straw poll at the primary heads meeting demonstrated that we are in the majority. If we are to be truly consulted we need to understand. Suggestion : There are some discussion forums so that interested parties can come and ask for clarification (not to be lectured at) - this would enable us to be truly part of the process. As it is I do not have a clear picture of the 'effects' of the proposals and feel both frustrated and powerless to 11111 11contribute to the debate.

All schools are different - we have a predominently middle class school, less than 5% fsm and yet we are chosen for our SEN provision - have a high number of children with statements with SEVERE difficulties. Who is looking after us - we are inclusive and want to be! Thi children do very well so the SATS won't tell you that either! 7 Badsey First 111111111 Q1 - Governors feel strongly that there should be additonal funding that does not come from the AWPU. Q2 - ? Support a new formula but the details are difficult to understand. Models of how this would affect an individual school's budget are needed. Q3 - Any change would need a transitional arrangement. Q5 - Some disagreement on this. Concerns that staff may be disadvantaged in re-organisation were expressed by some Governors. Q6 - Head yes - PFI schools cannot be expected to fund buildings from resources for teaching and learning. - 8 Batchley First 1 1 11 11 1 Governors No - concerned that this means reduced funding for other schools. All think that premesis funding should be more related to need and age of building. Q7 - Money needs to follow actual posts. Q9 - If we are moving to two year/three year budgets, any future schemes for redistribution should be based on a three year period. General comment - Additional funding is neede for PPA time in First Schools. Funding to maintain old buildings should be more than for new buildings. 9 Bayton C.E. Primary 111 111111Q9 - Ability to retain up to 1 FTE teacher in small schools is very beneficial & necessary. 10 Beaconside Primary & Nursery School 11 Belbroughton C.E. First 12 Bengeworth C.E. First 13 Beoley First 14 Birchen Coppice First 15 Blackwell First 16 Blakedown C.E. Primary 17 Bredon Hancock's Endowed First 18 Bretforton First 19 Broadheath C.E. Primary 20 Broadwas C.E. Primary 21 Broadway First 22 Burlish Park First 23 Callow End C.E. Primary 24 Castlemorton C.E. Primary Q1 - This waters down available budget considerably. I am very concerned that this is in response to requests for SEN money to be identified following LEA claims that it was already in budget. If the money allowed in AWPU w adequate then there would bet better provision for SEN pupils anyway. Q2 - Again school budgets are increasingly tight. This does not allow for the different proportions of SEN children in schools. With criteria tightening First Schools are less likely to have any SEN above Action Plus. Pupils will suffer. Q3 -If this is the wa 25 the consultation implementation proceeds. Q6 -Providing that Bromsgrove schools not in the PFI are not further financially disadvantaged. I am very concerned that these schools will have better facilities and now increased finance when those not involved will be competing for children. Q7 -This may place schools in a deficit budget d Catshill First School & Nursery to contactual obligations. Would the LEA consider not charging interest on the appropriate amount? Q9. Surplus balances should be re-distributed. 111111111 General comment - It is necessary to be mindful of the impact of both falling rolls and workforce reform upon schools in the primary sector. Many are providing support for SEN children without LEA funding as children need to be 4 years behind before statutory assessment can occur. Therefore in a first school virtuallyno children will 26 receive statemented hours. To gain stability and sustainability of all initiatives, workforce remodelling, increased delegation of property repair and maintenance the budget available for teaching and learning are squeezed tighter each year. Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 27 Chaddesley Corbett Endowed First Q7 Keep the current model. General comment - I was unable to answer questions 2 & 3. After reading this part of the document several times I still struggles to understand the text. The 28 Charford First Headteacher and myself would be grateful of any guidance so that we have a clearer 1111111understanding. 29 Chawson Community First 30 Cherry Orchard First (Pershore) Q2 - NOT THE ONE PROPOSED Free school meals are not an indicator of need - this school would be severely underfunded with FSM as a factor. 'Acorn' data understates need here as does post code analysis. Existing and historic spending, including funds put into SEN support by the school in excess of SEN-related income, should be the main guide. Q3 - Schools will miss out on 31 Cherry Orchard Primary (Worcester) funding progressively from 2007/08. Seems to be a bit of a 'sop' for those who are disadvantaged by the new formula.Q6 - Not fully understood so no comment. Q8 - Although wonder if Primary (as option for First) schools are fully represented. Q9 - Important that schools can have a planned 1 1111 111carry forward though. 32 Church Lench C.E. First 33 Claines C.E. Primary 34 Cleeve Prior C.E. First 35 Clent Parochial First 36 Clifton-upon-Teme Primary 37 Comberton First 38 Cookley Sebright Endowed First 39 Cranham Primary 40 Cropthorne-with-Charlton C.E. First 41 Crowle C.E. First 42 Crown Meadow First 43 Cutnall Green C.E. First 44 Defford-cum-Besford C.E. First 45 Dines Green Primary 46 Dodford First 47 Eckington C.E. First 48 Eldersfield Lawn C.E. Primary

Q1 - Could schools not continue to apply for a specific supplement for actual declared numbers of SEN/AEN? Q2 - Is it not a fairer system to allocate funding on the basis of actual need rather than notional need? Q3 - There is no need of a safety net if the scheme is not changed. Q4 - Could 49 Elmley Castle C.E. First staff absence insurance not be negotiated centrally? Surely administrative and premium costs would be reduced, given the scale of the LA as opposed to individual schools. Q7 - Does this mean funding for NQT's will be retrospective? This is not good for smaller schools, especially 111111111when trying to fund NQT non-contact time and training and development. 50 Evesham Nursery School 51 Fairfield First (Bromsgrove) 52 Far Forest Lea Memorial C.E. First 111 11 111

Q1 - A lump sum or % for in school SEN and intervention provision. All statemented children provided by LEA. In case in a small school it became impossible to fund many statemented children. Q2 - As above. Q3 - If it is going to be introduced - transition arrangements are essential. Q6 - Don't know. Q9 - I think schools should be encouraged to spend their excess budget. General 53 Feckenham C.E. First comments - It is difficult to ask for a fairer funding system for Worcestershire when some schools have an enormous carry forward figure - of course if the money is waiting to pay a high list scheme (e.g. buildings) then each case has to be looked at individually. However 8% Primary 5% High and FTE teacher for small schools is a reasonable formula. There should be more 11111111accountability from schools with high carry forward figures. 54 Finstall First 55 Fladbury C.E. First 56 Flyford Flavell First 57 Foley Park First School & Nursery Unit 58 Franche First 59 Gorse Hill Community Primary 60 Great Malvern Primary Q7 - Most NQT's start their post in September. Schools should receive funding from the point 61 Great Witley C.E. Primary 111 111 111where an NQT's employment begins. 62 Grimley and Holt C.E. Primary 63 Hagley Primary 64 Hallow C.E. Primary 65 Hanbury C.E. First 66 Hanley Swan St Gabriel's with St Mary's CE Primary 1 1 111 67 Hartlebury C.E. First Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Q1- The Acorn data is flawed for our school as we have a traveller site with a Post Code that 68 Harvington C.E. First 11111 111shows a type 27 in the Acorn classification. E.g.. Family Income High. 69 Himbleton C.E. First 70 Hindlip C.E. First 71 Holy Redeemer Catholic Primary 72 Holyoakes Field First 73 Holywell Primary & Nursery School 74 Honeybourne First 11111 111 75 Inkberrow First 76 Kempsey Primary 111 111111 77 Lea Street First 78 Leigh and Bransford Primary 79 Lickey End First

Q3 - Quite honestly, I would rather it just be all introduced in one go so that budgeting is easier. Q6 - If I have read this correctly, the new schoolss will get extra funding for contracts, but existing schools also have to pay (contract) cleaners, site managers etc from current budgets. An extra 80 Lickey Hills Primary amount for being new seems unfair. If I have not understood this then 'yes'. Q7 - makes sense. Q9 - There needs to be more clarity here- 8% carry forward of what? Do grants count? Does revenue/income count? Does previous carry forward count? General comment - There will be concern on the SEN funding issue with schools wanting to know how it affects them. The LEA 11 1111111may need ready figures for such queries. 81 Lickhill Lodge First 82 Lindridge St Lawrence's C.E. Primary 83 Longdon St Mary's C.E. Primary General comment - A 3.2 Presumably this means 6% for each year not 6% spread over two years? A 4.6 - Will 'flat rate' take into account the school's size - regardless of pupil numbers? Will pupil numbers no longer be grouped in categoreis - eg, between 101 and 200? Following the 84 Madresfield C.E. Primary 'deficit' problems of 2003 the Sec. of State promised publication of Budgets earlier than at present to help planning. Hpw can this be achieved by delaying finalising pupil numbers until the financial 111 111111is up and running [A3.7.] 85 Malvern Hills Primary 86 Malvern Link C.E. Primary 87 Malvern Parish C.E. Primary 88 Malvern Wells C.E. Primary 89 Marlfield Farm First 90 Martley C.E. Primary 91 Matchborough First 111 111111 Q2 - Will any historical information be used? Q6 - Not sure I understand the implications for other schools - would there be a reduction in their dissolved Capital Money? Q9 - Low response from 92 Meadow Green Primary schools might have been because of accompanying letter which suggested that schools should 111 11 111only respond if balances were over the limit. 93 Meadows First 94 Millfields First Q1 - Reasonable. Q2 - ? Details difficult to understand-Q7 - Money should follow NQT's - although 95 Moon's Moat First over 2/3 years schools would still get funding -General comment - Additional funding for PPA time 11111111is needed. 96 Northleigh C.E. Primary 97 Northwick Manor Infants 98 Northwick Manor Junior 1 1 1 11 11 11 99 Norton Juxta Kempsey C.E. First 100 Nunnery Wood Primary Q2 - Some concerns over SAT results. As true indicator of need may not be evident in a 101 Oak Hill First 111 111111successful school i.e. where SEN make good progress. 102 Offenham C.E. First Q7- This arrangement could cause difficulties for small schools and those with very tight budgets. 103 Offmore First 11 1 11 11 1 NQT's would not have cover they are entitled to. 104 Oldbury Park Primary 105 Ombersley Endowed First 106 Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic First 1 - 2% will be too low allowing for the increase into schools of children with SEN. See B51 Notes costs ranged from 5% to 20% of the total resources available. Q3- see above. Q7- This will be lost in school budget. Q8 - There doesn't seem to be a representative from a primary school - surely this would be useful (advisable?) General comments - If the budget proposals are for 2006/07 and 2007/08 what will happen in schools where a child with statement hours (under 15) moved to the 107 Our Lady Queen of Peace Catholic Primary school where you have already allocated SEN funding which will not be changed/ how is the school to fund the SSA hours? Free School Meal Entitlement is unreliable as many families who can claim, choose not to, for a variety of reasons therefore data held by schools/LEA gives false readings leading to incorrect calculations. Attainment data (SATs) will penalise schools with high 11 1 1achievers 108 Overbury C.E. First Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N General comment - Very concerned about some of the government proposals particularly TPRG 109 Pebworth First 111 111111into DSG if this eventually goes with Budget.

Q1 - Agrees in principle - the complicated task the committee had appears to have resulted in a 'blunt instrument' solution. It is a fact that SEN provision in small schools will always be higher than average. Q2 - As understood, this appears to result in a 110 Pendock C.E. Primary drastic reduction in SSA hours. Q3 - okay in 2006/07 (100%), what about 2009/10 (0%)? Have little confidence that the new funding system will be adequate. Q4 - It appears that it could be difficult to attract long-term commitment from staff unless the system can hopefully account for this. Q7 - A sensible proposal. Q8 - If listened to. General comment: Why, oh why, is the 11111n/a111budget to revert to the financial year with the possibility of returning to the academic year in the future? -Chaos ! 111 Perdiswell Primary 112 Perry Wood Primary & Nursery School 113 Pinvin C.E. First 114 Pitmaston Primary 115 Powick C.E. Primary 116 Raven's Bank First 117 Red Hill C.E. Primary 118 Roman Way First 119 Rushwick C.E. Primary 120 Sedgeberrow C.E. First 121 Sidemoor First School & Nursery 122 Somers Park Primary 123 Spennells First 124 St Ambrose Catholic Primary Q1 - As Worcestershire are currently £400 per child less than the average AWPU, we can not absorb this 2% of our budget towards SEN. Q2 - This formula would disadvantage schools that manage their SEN. Free school meals and attainment are not good indicators, just beacuse SAT results are good doesn't mean these are not siginificant SEN children. Q3 - See above. Q4 - Don't think so. Q5- 1system ought to be more efficient than 3. Q6 - The problem ofcontracts > delegated budgets should have been addressed before the contracts were awarded. Money is being diverted 125 St Andrew's C.E. First (Barnt Green) from schools not within the PFI project. Q7 - This would put the schools into a deficit budget. What happens if NQT doesn't do 3 terms in the same school? Would budget be claimed back? Q9 - Can't see what another 2 years consultation will achieve. General comments - Two/Three year rolling budgets will probably benefit our schools, as the pupil numbers vary greatly year to year. Our school would benefit greatly if the AWPU was closer to the national average!! (£80,000 extra 11111111on a £417,000 AWPU budget)!! 126 St Andrew's C.E. First (Evesham) 127 St Anne's C.E. First 128 St Barnabas' C.E. First (Kidderminster) 129 St Barnabas C.E. Primary (Worcester) 130 St Clements C.E. Primary 131 St George's C.E. First (Redditch) 132 St George's C.E. First & Nursery (Kidderminster) 133 St George's C.E. Primary (Worcester) 134 St George's Catholic Primary (Worcester) 135 St James' C.E. Primary 136 St John's C.E. First 137 St Joseph's Catholic Primary (Droitwich) 111111111 138 St Joseph's Catholic Primary (Malvern) 139 St Joseph's Catholic Primary (Worcester) 140 St Kenelm's C.E. First Q1 - Difficult to project how this will advantage St Luke's. AWPU disadvantages First Schools, which often require high levels of intervention. Q2- Welcome improved flexibility to support pupils with SEN/AEN - that is equitable. How will this be communicated to parents/carers? Can't support because St Luke's could be a 'loser'. Q3 - We agree tp safety net, but fear that schools will actively and progressively discourage admission of pupils with special educational needs as we approach 2009/10. Where does this sit with Every Child Matters and Childrens Act? Q4 - Would value 141 information and clarity as to which services are still centrally retained so an informed response could be made. Q6 - Do not fully understand the implications for all schools, other than those in Bromsgrove. Further info required. Q8 - I undertstand that Forum members have existed since Forum inception. How long do they serve in office? Do LS have a policy for re-election of members? Clearly, a turn over of members on a regular basis would bring about increased 111111111participation. Concerned that small schools not represented. Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

St Luke's C.E. First

General comments - I am aware that headteachers have voiced and expressed concer, particularly in respect of Part B. It would have been helpful if a series of models culd have been included to illustrate impact on schools, using current data & safety net proposals. Whilst accepting benchmaking strategies with other LEA's provide insight into various funding models, there is no reference information as to whcich LEA's practive has been expolred, relative to that LEA's funding. Could information have been included? It would be useful to know categories of governors represented on Forum. Are any governors Parent Governors? If you intend to conduct any further consultation via the Forum, I would welcome & support a 'Parent Voice' representation particularly in light of outcomes for PART B. A summary for governors would have been appreciated, alongside full document. Informing all governors and inviting their views has been an onerous task for headteachers. Can'r help concluding that small schools , high percentage of pupils with statement of SEN, satisfactory/good attainment in KS1 SAT's not the requisite ACORN da would result in schools being penalised in terms of funding. I'm concerned that this does not support the E.G. agenda or inclusion! (separate Letter also received from David Heaselgrave, Governor) 142 St Mary's C.E. First (Kidderminster) 143 St Mary's Catholic Primary (Broadway) 144 St Mary's Catholic Primary (Evesham) 145 St Oswald's C.E. First School and Nursery 146 St Peter's C.E. First (Droitwich) 147 St Peter's Catholic First (Bromsgrove) 148 St Richard's C.E. First 149 St Stephen's C.E. First 150 St Thomas More Catholic First 151 St Wulstan's Catholic Primary 152 Stanley Road Primary 153 Stoke Prior First 154 Stone C.E First 155 Stourport-on-Severn First 156 Suckley Primary

Q2 - I am responding to Q9. Q5 - I am responding to Q9. Q9 - I do not agree with the 8% maximum carry-forward suggested. Our school has falling rolls and yet is endeavouring to retain single age classes. Staff absence is very unpredictable and a large carry-forward (i.e. above 8%) enables the school to cushion the effect of long term absences which may not be covered by 157 Swan Lane First sickness absence insurance. General comment - First schools are not able to predict with any clarity the number of pupils expected to start in September. Whereas Middle and High Schools know which children are already in the system, we have to rely in numbers form Healthy Authority information which is often not up to date, or pre-school information. However not all children attend a pre-school group. In the past out school surplus has been very low and we have struggles 1 to forward plan. I think the 8% is unrealistic. 158 Sytchampton Endowed First

159 Tardebigge C.E. First Q1 -Although within my own schools more than this is allocated to SEN. Q6 - Robbing Peter to 111 111111pay Paul springs to mind - or have I misunderstood! 160 Tenacres First 161 Tenbury C.E. Primary 162 The Coppice Primary 163 The Fairfield Community Primary (Worcester) 164 The Grove Infants' 165 The Grove Junior 166 The Harry Taylor First 167 The Littletons C.E. First 111 11 111 168 The Lyppard Grange Primary 169 The Marlpool First Q1 - At least schools will then know where it is and how much - and therefore be able to plan 170 The Sutton Park First accordingly. Q2 - Annual update of pupil numbers won't be enough where schools have high pupil 111 111111mobility. 171 The Vaynor First 172 The Windmill First 111 111111 Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Q1- As a small school (57) I need to be confident that my sudden variation in needs, due to intake, will adequately reflect the increased need, particularly if we only relfected once annually. Q2 - I feel unable to make a judgement. Q3 - I feel unable to make a judgement. Based on SATA will it mean Yr1 and 2 go unsupported and only J/4 be addressed? SATA quartile - would this identity 173 Tibberton C.E. First 1/2 very poor pupils in a 'capable cohort'. This scenario would have significant protection needs. Q4- None. Q6 - It is not quite clear how any suddent inflated costs will be met (LA) over 30 years, should the increases be greater than school budget settlement. Q7 - For a small school its a long time to wait. Q8 - A long as small schools are represented? Q9 - If the questionnaire is simpler! General comments - this is a very comples area. I think that colleagues are somewhat bafffled by 1111these complexities. it is very difficult to try to unravel. Q1 - No for small schools as they trend to attract more pupils with SEN than larger schools just 174 Upper Arley C.E First because of size. Q2 - No see above. Q 6 - Unable to comment - will this mean that schools cannot 11111 111determine how the accommodation can be developed in the future? 175 Upton Snodsbury C.E. First 176 Upton-upon-Severn C.E. Primary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q4 - No opinion. Q7 - What happens to funds if NQT moves school mid-year? Q2 - Should this read 2006/07? Q7 - We feel that funding should be based on an academic year 177 Warndon Infants 111 111 111basis. 178 Warndon Junior 179 Webheath First 111111111 Q1 - It would give schools a very clear way to identify budget. Q2 - What if we feel we should be 180 Welland Primary getting more hours than we have currently allocated? We have big 'swing' in terms of numbers of 1 111111statemented children - I don't follow how the funding will work. 181 Westlands First 111 111111 182 Whittington C.E. Primary 11111 183 Wilden All Saints' C.E. First 184 Wolverley Sebright First 185 Woodrow First 186 Wribbenhall First 187 Wychbold First and Nursery School 188 Wyche C.E. Primary 189

Q1- It will help in defining amounts being used for SEN and provide a baseline. Q3- I guess some schools are going to need the support! Q7- We need the funding when the NQTs arrive rather than 190 Abbey Park Middle in the next financial year to support them and balance the budget. Q9 - We think that schools with excessively surplus balances should lose their uncommitted surpluses immediately as this not only 111111111disadvantages other schools but gives a false impression of the real situation for all of us. 191 Alvechurch C.E. Middle 192 Aston Fields Middle 193 Birchen Coppice Middle 194 Birchensale Middle 195 Blackminster Middle 196 Bredon Hill Middle 197 Burlish Middle 198 Catshill Middle 199 Church Hill Middle 200 Comberton Middle

Q1 - In principal this should help to direct funding towards he appropriate need. However it does not address the key issus that SEN funding is totally inadequate in all aread of provision for SEN. The need is ot being met. Q4- Further delegation results in additional workload for Headteachers, SLT and Governors who are already over loaded, quite often without the required expertise. Q6 - There are concerns how funding for education in other areas of Worcestershire will be effected as a result of identifying resourcces from the overall DSG. Q7 - High quality training andinduction of NQT's is essential to maintain the standard of Learning and Teaching required. Q8 201 Dingleside Middle - This has proved a successful vehicle in the past. Q9 - Funding allocated is intended for pupils in the school at the time. Long term projects may necessistate a carry forward. Excessive surplus balances have no justification. 111 111111Monitoring of surlpus balances is essential.

General comments - As long as Schools continue to be funded mainly through AWPU . Small schools continue to be penalised. As the Government agenda continues to drive radical, fast moving change, for example WorkForce remodelling, Staffing Structures , Inclusion, small schools are disadvantaged and pupils attending these schools are not being given equal opportunity. Support for SEN often requires expertise which is not always readily available with a small number of Staff. External support is essential and the costs of this support is prohibitive. The small schools must be supported in meeting the needs. Passing more of this cost to school budget with envitably results in this need not being fully met. Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Q1 - No in year adjustment could be detrimental to schools where SEN% is greater than 2% and also in light of inclusion policy where additional SEN pupils are admitted after PLASC. Could also present problems for schools with high SEN ratio and deficit budget. Q2 - Could work against inclusion. Could result in pupil son SAP not being able to be as supported as they should be. 202 Franche Middle Financial burden on schools taking in additional SEN pupils. Q3 - If the changes are to take place this shoule be essential/minimum support. Concerns still remain see 1 and 2 above. Q4 - Services are excellent BUT - need quicker response to cirses e.g. Learning/Behaviour/Inclusion support. Q7 - This will not relfect staffing nos and NQT nos for following academic year which cannot be known at time of budget and could result in funds not being spent 'in case' of NQT appointments. 111 11 111If no of NQTs exceeds planned no problems for schools with deficit budget. 203 Hagley Middle Q1 - Provided that there are no significant overall winners and losers this approach would seem to have merit. This should not be allowed to affect the LEA support for other areas such as LSUs by reducing the budget available for these as separate entities. Q2 - This is a complicated change and I will not comment on the effects without seeing how the level of this allocation is different in practice to current. The logic behind the change to reduce the complexity of allocations and allocate budgets over a longer term is good. Whether the Acorn data is a good measure of educational need depends on how it is applied. Q3 - 204 Transitional arrangements will allow for the changes to be implemented and if there are anomalies these may be able to be reassessed during the transfer period. A three year adjustment would seem to be a good compromise between a timely and an efficient change. Q4 - Delegated services are less cost effective than centrally organised – this is now being recognised as governments now want schools to group together for more efficient bargaining powers.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q5 - Support change but not necessarily to 3 years. Safeguarding should mean that no-one suffers a reduction in the actual pa they receive – pay rises over a period should be allowed to erode the safeguarding after the first year. This might be more than years. The safeguard should not maintain the full status of the employee for all three years then end. Q6 - Forcing the new schools to have their services provided by a single nominated provider for a thirty year period runs counter to all ideas of delegated authority. This should be removed from the requirements of the PFI contract and the schools treated as all others. 205 The hands of governors must not be tied for short term gain in the LEA. Q7 - A sensible change to funding which allows longer term planning and less administration. Q8 - The Schools Forum is a small group and meets during the daytime. Governors are drawn from those who are retired or otherwise available during normal working hours. Notes are not made public. It does not therefore in its current form represent a wide enough constituency to ratify such sweeping changes.

Q9 - This is the most compelling evidence that previous formulae have not adequately addressed the needs of the children in our schools. See below - Additional comments - Thefact that a quarter of schools in the LEA are carrying surplus balances while others struggle to fund teaching staff to maintain class sizes of 34 is deplorable. This makes a mockery of any claim that Ipsley C.E. Middle (response from David Hargreaves, Ch schools are under funded within the county. It is the distribution formula which needs to be addressed. Of course there needs t be an eye to profligate spending which might be used to keep the surplus down, and an audit of efficient use of funds should be 206 part of the LEA oversight of budgets for those who find themselves in danger of overspending. The LEA must also shoulder some of the blame. For years I have complained that budgets are impossible to set with any accuracy when the budget figures are demanded at the beginning of April and the Standards funds are allocated in September as they were once again this year (around £50,000 of our budget). I hope that the move to 3 year budgets will mean that this no longer occurs.

The LEA needs to ask how these balances have been built up – obviously there are schools which do not need the level of funding they have been allocated to produce their results. Whether this is because of prudence (unlikely) or simply by factors used in the formula which tilt allocation in favour or against a school needs to be determined. You will be aware that the main spending of a school is on staff, mainly teaching staff. This is now the business of the school but in practice the level of staffing and the salaries paid are not flexible within the budget – there is little room for manoeuvre. The other areas of spending 207 including heating, water, and other services are also difficult to make economies on. The net effect of these fixed spends is that the amount left for teaching resources – books and equipment is the easiest to flex, along with the quantity of TA support. Schools which are LUCKY enough to have surpluses are able to fund these well and tend to produce good results.

Schools which have older, more expensive teachers; poor facilities and which have an unexpectedly high level of staff absence for a period continue to suffer. I write from experience here. Hopefully the changes in staffing which have occurred this year will mean that we can look forward to a more settled period. A funding formula which allows schools to build up surpluses, some of these huge, without a firm project plan will continue to increase the disparity in education provision. The formula should be 208 adjusted to target more funds at schools with poor demographic catchments, disadvantaged families and poor achievement standards. The government and the opposition seem to want to champion successful schools and allow them to flourish whilst allowing the poor to go to the wall. This is a sure recipe for disaster.

Ipsley CE Middle School (response from Mr P.A. Q2- We believe that the implementation and progress of the new arrangement will require close monitoring by support personnel -by Education Psychologists and Access & Inclusion. Importantly, will the scheme be responsive to the special Mitchell, Headteacher, views of Chair of Governors & 1 11 111111Educational needs of pupils in high-achieving schools with favourable Acorn indices? Q6 - but we believe that we need more Leadership Team) information concerning the implications of PFI for the Authority, for the schools concerned and for other schools.

209 Lickhill Middle 111 111111 210 Parkside Middle 211 Ridgeway Middle 212 Simon de Montfort Middle 213 Sion Hill Middle 214 St Anne's C.E. Middle 215 St Barnabas C.E. First and Middle (Drakes Broughton) 216 St Bede's Catholic Middle 217 St Egwin's C.E. Middle 218 St John's C.E. Foundation Middle (Bromsgrove) 111 111111 219 St John's C.E. Middle (Kidderminster) Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 220 St Nicholas' C.E. Middle 221 The Sladen C.E. Middle Q2 - There are no SEN factors - it is illogical and unfair. General comment - Several of these 222 Walkwood C.E. Middle questions are too complex for a consultation process of this nature. The minutes of the SEN funding meeting do not accurately record the meeting. The SEN funding is being pushed through 1 1 11 111without genuine consultation. This model is far too crude! 223 Westacre Middle 224 Windmill C.E. Middle 225 Witton Middle 226 Woodfield Middle 227 Wribbenhall Middle Q1 - ? Concerns regularly the number of students who receive less than 15 hours - if the school 228 Arrow Vale Community High - Sports College receives students in the future with less than 15 hours per week over and above the base budget 11 11 111allocations would the school have to fund from their own budgets? Q6 N/A. 229 Baxter College 230 Bewdley High 231 Bishop Perowne C.E. College 111 1 111 232 Blessed Edward Oldcorne Catholic College 233 Christopher Whitehead High 234 Droitwich Spa High

Q1 - The current system enables schools to effictively identify SEN/AEN funding and therby ensure appropriate deployment of these resources to support target pupils. The proposed funding formula would make this process 235 less transparent. Q2 - The schools remains unconvinced that the porxy factors identified under the proposal will ensure a fair allocation of funding. It is this Schools position that funding should directly be linked to an individua Dyson Perrins C.E. High need to ensure the highest quality of SEN/AEN support. Q3 - If the proposed changes are adopted this school feels that transitional arrangements should be made over a longer period. 100% in the first year, 75% in the second year, 50% in the third year, 25% in the fourth year with 0% by 2010/11. Q6 - Yes provided any reduction in pupil numbers within Bromsgrove Schools, over the life-time of this project, does not therfore require corss- 111111111subsidisation from funding that would otherwise be given to other Worcestershire schools. Q8 - Any further proposals to change existing funding structures should be made available to all schools for their consideration and feedback. Headteacher representation (High Schools) should be made available on the forum for the Malvern Hills district. 236 Elgar Technology College 111 1111 1Q5 - Old system needs to be phased out. Q9 - Proceed with balance management scheme. 237 Evesham High 111111111Q9 - Surplus balances must be firmly managed NOW for the good of ALL County Schools. 238 Hagley Catholic High 239 Hanley Castle High 240 Haybridge High School & Sixth Form 241 King Charles I 242 Kingsley College

Q1- It would be useful to know what the national % is at the moment in the AWPU. Q2 - But would require more details on amounts, proportions involved. Q3 - I do have reservations about this, I understand the need for a 243 transitional period but the nature of contracts that our TA's are employed will render this difficult - historical contracts (permanant for a significant number) New Able Autistic and MLD Unit should provide opportunities for North Bromsgrove High these staff. Q6 - I would say that! But there is a porjected shortfall in the amount required for schools to contribu towards PFI, this is not just applicable to North Bromsgrove. There is a long term issue with respect to funding PFI or their successor schemes and this will need to be addressed at the LA level as individual schools will not mee the short fall. Q9 - I do not agree with schools having excess surpluses, in my previous role looking at 111 111111organisation with surpluses in excess on *5-8%.

We as a public body would not continue to fund them, or challenge that organisation as the funds could be put to better use with other organisations or if they had a policy to cover redundancy costs, or a clear objective for the stated surplus. Taking the school's current position aside, it does not seem fair or equitable for public money to b held in this way. Obviously good financial management should not be penalised. 244 Nunnery Wood High

Q1- I welcome the openness. Q2 - I would like to see more detailed models. Q3 - Essential. Q4 - 245 Pershore High Behaviour. Q7 - This will not work efficiently - most NQT's are appointed in September - we will 11111 1111wait seven months to receive any funding. Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Q1 - This is probably meaningless because as you say in your notes the interpretation of what constitutes SEN will differ greatly. Q2 - But it is difficult without seeing any models. Q4 - U think 246 Prince Henry's High that the Authority needs to work with schools over the next 12 months and have a fundamental review of all services and see how these can be brokered. Q9 - I do not believe that the Authority 111 1 1111has any real understanding of the issues surrounding supposed surplus balances.

Q1 - As a notional allocation it gives a clear benchmark for the level of expenditure expected. Q2 - The current volatile SSA hours gives little security or opportunity to plan. Whilst in principle I support the model, it lacks detail on the weightings. I have reservations on the ability of SATs to accurate determine special needs! Q3 - Given the vulnerability of most schools' budgest in Worcestershire this would be a prudent proposal. Q4 - The ares of SAID should be commercially 247 South Bromsgrove Community High and qualitatively accountable. Q5 - With a growth in reorganisation and clear demographic downturns it is vital that this area of funding is kept in check. Q6 - The proposed funding model will see a 70% increase in site specific costs for schools. Other schools under programme should also be constrained by the same regime. Q7 - This will allow for clear and effective planning. Q8 - Significant training should be made available to forum members and a recharge to the school 11111 1111budget for the extensive time and responsibility. 248 St Augustine's Catholic High

Q1 -Whilst we accept a rigorous and planned approach to SEN funding is critical our view is that we would lose this year £83,000. Clearly as a school with many issues and a fully comprehensive intake we question the valid of the formula and wonder how we can provide for students with SEN. Q2 (Yes With reservations) - In principle a formula is a good idea – however, in our area we have a significant number of carers and receive students mid 249 year with difficulties. Should the school be penalised for this? Q3(Yes With reservations)- The transition arrangements seem very sensible. However, where does the funding come from to support everyone’s baseline in the first year or so? Is it new money or will it come from other parts of the budget, if so where from? We wou Stourport High School - Language College not agree if we lose money elsewhere to pay for it. Q4 - Premises money? School transport? Q9 - We never have a surplus and we are fed up of getting bad press because of this. The more we can do to get a clear picture out 111111111there, the better.

General comments - We are really concerned about SEN funding and need assurance as an effective inclusive school that we will be able to maintain the provision at at least it’s present level. We don’t see the advantage in academic year funding. The Post 16 funding needs rationalising and simplifying and Education Finance and LSC need to work closer so we don’t wait over 15 weeks for either money or confirmation. Any news on Standards Fund? Why does it take so long to get to us? Can we look at electronic mailing on information? What is the status of AST, standards fund and specialist schools money, are we anticipating any new money? 250 Tenbury High 251 The Chantry High 111 111111 252 The Chase Technology College 253 The Woodrush High 254 Trinity High School & Sixth Form Centre Q1- Don't fell we have enough details on this. It would be a useful exercise to work out how all AWPU is used - not just 2% on SEN. This would give a useful context. Q2 - This seems sensible. However there may be a tricky situation in some schools where the change results in reduced funding. How would it be decided which staff would be made redundant? Q3 - Sensible if 255 Waseley Hills High introduced. Q4- ? Q5 - Not sure. Does this proposed change take into account the differences in safeguarding arrangements under new TLR payments? Q6 - ? ? This is vague -no details of costs involved. No decision. 111 111 1 111111Q1 - The Governors of Wolverley agree that 2% of AWPU be designated for notional SEN use. However, there must be a corresponding undertaking from the Directorate that schools will not be expected to fund additional hours for statemente pupils from this as is being required at the moment. As the consultation paper makes clear, schools bear consideable additonal costs in catering for children with SEN whether statemented or not. It is not just the cost of the SENCO bu other senior staff, admin staff, additional TA's addressing such things as literacy & numeracy and all teachers who teach children on the SEN register. No such undertaking appears in the 256 consultation paper. Q2 - The consultation paper suggests that the current system encourages schools to exaggerate the need in order to obtain more resource. This is a fair point. However whilst statements continue to be used in Worcestershire a formula driven allocation will invite those compiling statements to accede to parental Wolverley High demands for increased support because such central staff will have no responsibility for providing it.

This will create massive problems for schools who will be robbing the AWPU for all students to fund statements over which they have no control. The principle of a formula allocation is a good one for the LEA as it provides a clear limit to the funds allocated to SEN. There must be some safeguard for schools or some input for a school to 257 limit the resource determined by the statement. Q3 - yes if the P&SS Formula is introduced. Q7 - NB. The Governors here originally did not see the need for identified funding and still do not.

258 Blakebrook Special 259 Chadsgrove Special 111111 260 Manor Park Special 261 Pitcheroak Special Fair Funding Consultation 2005 - Detailed Comments

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Comments Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 262 Redgrove Special 263 Rigby Hall Special Q1- Does this have any effect on the matrix figures? Q7 - Will schools be able to go into deficit by the amount of the grant? General comments - Document is largely silent on special schools. How can we perform any financial planning when we don't know how this document will affect us? The use of a single pupil count date causes concerns as out intake varies during the year. Also concerned about TPRG - special schools need experienced teachers but are pupils number are lower. This couls have a significant impact on our budget. If SEN funding is not going to follow the 264 Riversides Special pupil, what is going to happen when a pupil transfers from mainstream to the special sector? This will limit our ability to accept pupils at other than the normal admission dates. We are also concerned about the Standards Funds Grants for ICT infrastructure and hands on support becomibg part of devleved capital. This restricts how the grant can be used and increased the administrtaive burden. Are the same requirements going to apply to this grant as to devolved 111 111111capital and can County assure us that there will not be long delays in getting applications approved? 265 Rose Hill Special 266 Stourminster Special 267 Vale of Evesham Special 268 Thornton House Special 269 Habberley PRU 270 Holyoakes Field PRU 271 Ipsley PRU 272 Kidderminster PRU 273 Martley PRU 274 Oakfield PRU 275 St Johns PRU 276 Stourport PRU 277 St Mary's PRU

Minutes Of The Meeting Of The WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM Tuesday 6th December 2005 Perdiswell Young People’s Centre, Worcester

The meeting started at 2.05 pm

PRESENT: Forum Members:

Peter Garner - Walkwood Middle (Chair) Frank Howard - School Governor, Bromsgrove (Vice Chair) Terry Holland - Blackminster Middle School Phil McTague - South Bromsgrove High School Liz Quinn - Stourport High School, David Freeman - School Governor, Redditch Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham Richard Aust - Chadsgrove Special School David Braham - Bengeworth First School Naomi Christelow - Evesham Nursery School Richard Beckett - School Governor, Malvern Hills Prue Winton - Governor, Tenbury Cherril Illingworth - Oakhill First School Nick Howard - Governor, Worcester City Julie Farr - Church of England Board of Education

Officers in attendance:

Colin Weeden - Children’s Services Andy McHale - Children’s Services Trish Mallinson - Children’s Services

1. MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

1.1. Resignations

The resignations of Tom Revell, Church of England Board of Education and Mary Dhonau – Special School Governor representatives were noted.

RESOLVED – Worcestershire Association of Governors (WAG) be requested to make a nomination in the Special School Governor Category.

1.2 New Member

The Chair welcomed Julie Farr, Headteacher, Bishop Perowne CE High as the new representative from the Church of England Board of Education.

2005-12-06 WSF Minutes 1 2. APOLOGIES

Patrick Cosgrove - H&W LSC (Non-Voting Member) Paul Crosher - Union Representative Lesley Towey - Early Years & Childcare Partnership Flora Wright - School Governor, Wyre Forest

3. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING 5th October 2005

Agreed

4. MATTERS ARISING

4.1 It was confirmed that the level of response to the surplus balances questionnaire reported at the last Forum meeting was the final position.

5. SCHOOLS FORUM GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE

5.1 The Forum were advised that the completed guide has just been published. Some members of the Forum raised concerns on the increased responsibilities and potential capacity issues.

5.2 Andy advised the DfES had also circulated changes to the Schools Forum regulations to be adopted by 31st August 2006.

RESOLVED – The final good practice guide and key issues on the regulations to be discussed at the next Forum meeting.

5.3 There were further discussions on the role of the Forum and its link to the Children’s Services portfolio holder. Colin advised that proceedings of the Forum are reported accordingly and that minutes are circulated to all schools. There were mixed views on inviting the Cabinet Member to a Forum meeting.

RESOLVED – The Forum agreed at this stage not to extend an invitation to the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People to attend a future meeting of the Forum.

5.4 Some members of the Forum felt it may be beneficial to invite an officer from the DfES to attend a future meeting to view the proceedings.

RESOLVED – The Forum agreed to extend an invitation to the DfES to attend a future Forum meeting.

6. SCHOOLS IN DEFICIT

6.1 The details provided showed an analysis of schools in deficit for two consecutive years out of the last three. The outturn figures were those from the published section 52 out turn statements. The Forum were reminded that there was no provision in the schools budget to financially support schools in deficit. Any such support was from the LEA budget from intervention resources to support schools in categories against national and SIAD criteria.

2005-12-06 WSF Minutes 2 6.2 In response to a question on the treatment of deficit balances on school closure Colin advised that this situation was rare and any deficit balance is charged to the schools budget contingency. On reorganisation issues, in line with the regulations, balances accrue back to the local authority and any net surplus will be redistributed to the new schools on an agreed basis.

6.3 A full discussion ensued and the following points were made:-

a) The incentive must be to manage resources effectively; b) There is a need for a prevention strategy and monitoring of overspends; c) The level of deficit does not effect the resource in the schools budget; d) The majority of schools in deficit are able to manage this position within their budget planning cycle; e) For some individual schools it is not possible to recover a deficit within a short space of time.

6.4 On the process for a debt recovery strategy Colin confirmed that there are ongoing discussions with the schools and governors and detailed work on finance (including future projections) and other factors. Schools causing financial concern are monitored on a monthly basis and discussions are held regularly with SIAD and HR.

RESOLVED – That the Schools Forum monitor the position of schools in deficit during the year.

7. SCHOOLS FORUM CONSULTATION MATTERS

7.1 Teacher’s Pay Reform Grant (TPRG) a) The Forum were advised on the current position and the allocations made in 2005/06 for the allocations of TPRG. The grant would be part of the DSG from 2006/07 and the Forum would need to consider options for allocation. The Forum noted the 3 options in the paper. b) The Forum raised issues on: -

• the differences between schools and sectors of the existing allocations; • there being no specific pattern in terms of size and phase of school; • the treatment of the DfES adjustment for post 16; • transparency in methodology required. c) Colin advise that the DfES expectations is for the grant to be part of the mainstream formula in future.

RESOLVED – That representatives from the Forum be part of a working group with Andy and Trish to model some options for the January 2006 Forum meeting.

7.2 Multi-Budget Period – Varying of non AWPU Data a) Andy introduced the report and advised that the Forum was requested to consider the varying of data sets both in year and between years during the multi-year budget period. It was confirmed that the DfES proposal for a single pupil count data based upon the January PLASC would proceed.

2005-12-06 WSF Minutes 3 b) The report included a table summarising the existing formula and ISB share of the individual formula components including the data sets. The Forum felt this was a very useful summary and helped the decision making process. c) Colin confirmed that due to the use of a single pupil count date there would no longer be a September pupil adjustment in year or as a prior year adjustment. The paper suggested having a small number of in year and between year adjustments due to non-AWPU data changes. d) On the data sets the Forum raised the appropriateness or using ACORN data for the allocations for social deprivation – Colin suggested this could be looked at for the next multi budget period. e) The Forum felt there was a danger in having no changes to data and that sensitivity was more important than stability. There were concerns on the effect of significant data changes, e.g. floor area, FSM, etc not being reflected until the start of the next multi budget period. f) In the option to not vary any data sets between years the Forum recognised the need for in year stability and that these data changes be limited to those listed in the report summary. However, for between years the Forum agreed that all data sets be varied. This was agreed for the first multi-year budget period 2006/07 and 2007/08 and for this position to be reviewed for the start of the 3 year multi-budget period from 2008/09.

RESOLVED – The Forum agreed to introduce option 1 for the varying of non-AWPU data for the 2 year budget period starting 2006/07.

RESOLVED – That this position is reviewed for the new 3 year multi-budget period starting in 2008/09.

8. FURTHER NOTIFICATIONS

8.1 LSC Priorities for Success 6th Form Funding

a) The Forum noted the decisions by the LSC on the funding for school 6th Forms. The proposals for a single count date in September and for no in year adjustments from 2006/07 were noted.

8.2 Funding for Personalised Learning

a) Colin advised that ministers had decided to use some of the national DSG headroom to fund KS3 personalised learning. At this stage the amounts are unknown but the national formula would be driven in some part by deprivation factors. Local authorities are able to use existing or new factors to allocate the resource locally.

b) The Forum were supportive of the use of KS2 data to allocate resources but raised concerns on data sets available to drive resources to gifted and talented activates such as music and the arts. Liz Quinn commented that such data was available and agreed to forward for modelling purposes.

2005-12-06 WSF Minutes 4 8.3 Pupil Number Projections

a) The Forum noted the projections used by the DfES in the provisional DSG allocations for 2006/07 and 2007/08 were noted.

9. AUTUMN TERM 2005 FUNDING CONSULTATION OUTCOMES

9.1 Andy tabled a revised analysis of the consultation outcomes summarising the final position. Overall 25% of schools responded and the consultation proposals were supported. There was no drive for any additional delegation.

9.2 The Forum raised concerns on the level of responses and suggested that alternative process e.g. more use of Headteacher/Chair consultation meetings be explored. Colin advised that a number of evening and day time meetings were serviced and that there is a statutory requirement to consult all schools. The Forum welcomed the support for their role shown in the consultation in being the main source of additional consultation for 2006/07 and 2007/08.

9.3 The main consultation area discussed by the Forum related to the proposals for supporting statemented pupils in mainstream schools. Some members of the Forum raised concerns on the proposals and the ability of the new formula to recognise and support SEN. Other Forum members welcomed the proposals and supported the need to allocate resource into core funding to support both early intervention and the provision of stable resources to support SEN in all schools.

9.4 Colin advised that the model is attempting to address the issue of SEN resources into core funding and supporting SEN across all schools in a measured and consistent way.

9.5 The Forum commented that the following issues were important: -

a) That schools allocate resources from their school budgets for SEN over the resources delegated in these factors; b) The demand for statements could be high in areas of social deprivation as it is linked to benefit payments; c) Staff are trained and professionally developed but as the current funding system is volatile they move on.

9.6 In summary the Forum supported the outcomes arising from the consultation but requested a review of the new SEN model prior to the new multi budget period commencing from 2008/09.

RESOLVED – The Forum concurred with the consultation outcomes and agreed to the resultant schools formula and scheme changes for 2006/07 and 2007/08.

RESOLVED - The Forum requested that in respect of the new pupil and schools support factor that it be subject to further review for the second multi year budget period commencing from 2008/09.

10. BANK ACCOUNT SCHOOLS – DIRECT DEBITS

10.1 Trish requested that the Forum consider a change to the existing scheme for bank account schools to provide for direct debit transactions to replace cheque payments

2005-12-06 WSF Minutes 5 to the County Council. This was designed to streamline administration centrally and at the schools for the small number of bank account schools.

10.2 Some Forum members raised concerns on the effect on cash flow and the need to have a reciprocal arrangement when schools were owed monies by the County. It was recognised that the current instalment system over 12 months was an issue. However it was introduced, as schools did not want to pay interest on the advances they receive.

10.3 Trish commented that some schools do not meet the credit terms for paying invoices but recognised the need to consult bank account schools on the issues.

10.4 It was agreed that Trish would consult directly with bank account schools on this issue.

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None

The meeting closed at 4.10pm

Date of Next meeting:

Wednesday 25th January 2006, 2.00-4.00pm, Pitmaston House, Worcester

2005-12-06 WSF Minutes 6