SCHOOLS FORUM MEETING

6 May 2015

5.00 to 7.00 Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Committee Room 3/3a

Attendees: Robert Lobatto (Chair), Ann Bowen-Breslin, Ludmilla Morris, Phil Haigh, Tony Eginton, Jim Edgecombe, Jo Palmer, Elaine Caffary, Peter Ryerson, Kris O’Sullivan, Wendy Bhad, Mark Bland, Robert Dixon, Laurie Cornwell, Chris Weaving, Chris Shasha, Alison Moore, Robert Jones, Sudhi Pathak, Ross Macdonald, Duncan Greig, Rhona Johnston, Bob Charlton, Debbie Gilder, Sue Illsley (Clerk), Peter Malewicz, Ruth Munro, Dan Kennedy, Graham Young, Sarah Hydrie

Shadow Representatives: Lisa Corrigan, Joanna Nightingale

Apologies: Joan Greening

AGENDA

Item Time Lead Update Election of Chair 5.00 – 5.05 1. Apologies and Welcome of New Members 5.05 – 5.10 2. Minutes of Meeting held on 5 March 2015 5.10 – 5.20 Chair Report 3. Matters Arising from meeting on 5 March 2015 5.20 – 5.45 • Membership of Schools Forum PM Report • Expanding the Remit of Schools' Forum - DK Report Funding and Next Steps • Census Returns Training PM Verbal • Review of Laurel Lane, Hewens and DK Report Rosedale Two Year Old Funding Bids • Capital Funding - Contribution to School DK Report Condition Works • Local Safeguarding Children's Board PM Report • Early Support Management Team TM Verbal 4. Minutes of Meeting held on 23 March 2015 5.45 – 5.50 Chair Report 5. Feedback from Sub Group Meetings 5.50 – 6.20 • Early Years LM Verbal • DSG PH Verbal • High Needs PH Verbal 6. Information Items • 2014/15 Provisional Outturn Report 6.20 – 6.25 PM Report • School Surplus Balances Report 6.25 – 6.40 GY Report • School Audits (Standing Item) 6.40 – 6.55 SH Verbal • Procurement of Utility Contracts 6.55 – 7.00 PM Report

Timetable – Meeting Dates:

Thursday 25 June 2014 - 17.00 - Committee Room 6, Civic Centre

Schools Forum Meeting 6 May 2015 Item 2 Hillingdon Schools Forum

Minutes of the Meeting held on Thursday 5 March 2015 Commencing at 17:00 Civic Centre Committee Room 6

Present: Maintained Primary Ms Chris Shasha (CS) Oak Farm Infant School Representative Members: Ms Kris O’Sullivan (KOS) Deanesfield Primary School Chris Weaving (CW) Whiteheath Infant School

Maintained Secondary School Mr Mark Bland (MB) Abbotsfield School Representative:

Special School Mr Sudhi Pathak (SP) The Eden Academy Representative:

Academy Representative Mr Robert Lobatto (RL) Chair Barnhill Community High Members: Mrs Ann Bowen- Breslin (ABB) Hillingdon Primary School Ms Wendy Bhad (WB) Bishop Ramsey CofE School Mr Peter Ryerson (PR) Mr Robert Jones (RJ)

Maintained Special Mr Ross Macdonald (RM) Meadow School School Representative:

Maintained Primary Mr Phil Haigh (PH) Cherry Lane Primary School, Moorcroft Governor Members: Special School and the Eden Academy Mr Tony Eginton (TE) Minet Nursery & Infant School and Hillside Junior School Ms Jo Palmer (JP) Hillside Infant School

Other Members: Ms Laurie Cornwell (LC) The Hillingdon Tuition Centre Pupil Referral Unit (Arrived during item 3.2) In attendance from : London Borough of Hillingdon Mr Peter Malewicz (PM) Group Finance Manager - Education Ms Ruth Munro (RM) Senior Accountant School Funding Mr Dan Kennedy (DK) Head of Education, Policy and Standards Mr Graham Young (GY) Lead business Partner for Schools Mr Muir Laurie (ML) Head of Internal Audit Hillingdon LA Ms Sarah Hydrie (SH) Internal Audit Hillingdon LA Mr Tom Murphy (TM) Statutory Director of Children's Services

Associate Members: Ms Debbie Gilder (DG) Pield Heath School

Observers : Mr James Ambrose (JA) EFA Mr Jim Edgecombe (JE) Abbotsfield School Mr Bob Pannell (BP) ATL

Clerk: Ms Sue Illsley (SI) Independent Clerk

Apologies: Ms Elaine Caffery (EC) Nursery Manger - 4 Street Nursery Mr Robert Dixon (RD) Uxbridge High Ms Ludmila Morris (LM) McMillan Early Childhood Centre Ms Alison Moore (AM) The De Salis Studio College

The meeting was quorate

Minutes:

Item 1 Welcome & Apologies 17:00 RL welcomed everyone to the meeting and apologies were received from EC, RD, LM & AM. RL particularly welcomed Mr James Ambrose (JA) EFA, who attended to observe the meeting; SH and ML from the LA audit team who were attending to give a presentation later in the meeting; RJ who was joining forum as an academy representative and BP who attended to observe the meeting - introductions were made. 5 Position of Chair of Schools’ Forum RL reminded members that he was elected as the Chair of Schools’ Form three years ago and has served the full two year term plus an extended year. The constitution requires a new chair to be appointed at the first meeting of the financial year and this will be the next meeting. RL would, therefore, be chairing this meeting and asked that members consider 10 putting their name forward as chair, by notifying RL, PM or SI, and the appointment will be All made at the next meeting on 6 May 2015.

Item 2 Minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2015 17:10 The minutes were approved and signed by the chair once the following corrections were 15 noted: ‹ P3 line 60 should read (Published Admission Number); ‹ P4 Item 7 – ABB asked for it to be made clear that she had asked for, and received, assurances that children in mainstream schools, with the same needs, will receive the same amount of funding as children in a Special School; 20 ‹ P4 line 145 – remove ‘this will represent approximately 3% of DSG’ as the figure is incorrect; ‹ P8 line 324 – earmarked should read ring-fenced.

Item 3 Matters Arising from the meeting held on 15 January 2015 25 17:15 Matters arising not covered elsewhere on the agenda. 3.1 Item 3.1 – Membership of Schools’ Forum

PM reminded members that there will be two Academy vacancies once RL steps down and wondered if there is a better process for election – it was agreed that there is not because the constitution requires there to be an election process. PM will advertise the two positions, to PM 30 replace RL and Eric Blair who has also resigned.

PM will speak with LC to clarify her position. PM KOS also informed the meeting that Primary Forum has discussed the vacancy arising from

Philip Rutter’s retirement and two members will be attending the May meeting as observers. 3.2 Item 3.2 – Expanding the remit of Schools’ Forum 35 DK reported that the consultation on the Terms of Reference has come to an end and he received no concerns about them. TE asked who will be funding the review and this has not

yet been decided. RL suggested that Schools’ Forum could approve the Terms of Reference at this meeting and ask to receive a paper on funding to be considered at the next meeting in May. PR asked JA if he is aware of any other Schools’ Forums which have expanded their 40

remit in this way and he referred members to the new ‘Schools Forums: operational and good practice guide’ which will be published in a few weeks’ time. ML also referred members to

Wokingham where their Schools’ Forum has extended its remit and he offered the audit teams services to review effectiveness and talk with Wokingham. ABB said that she had understood that once Schools’ Forum had agreed the Terms of 45

reference they would be sent to all Headteachers & governors for comment. RL asked if more

time is needed for a wider consultation. ABB explained that, whilst Primary Forum has taken a look at the Terms of Reference and commented, they did not distribute the document to all Primary Headteachers. Members asked that the document should be circulated to all

Primary Headteachers and noted that it had been distributed to all Secondary Headteachers, DK 50 the Governor Executive and many governors but not necessarily all.

Members approved the Terms of reference, subject to their being no negative feedback from

a wider circulation, and asked for a ‘funding and next steps’ report for the next meeting of 3.3 Schools’ Forum in May. DK

Item 5.1 – Growth Contingency Allocation 2015/16 55 PM reminded members that Pinkwell and Ryefield schools do not have the number of pupils that you would expect to see as an expanding school. A small group of forum members was set up at the last meeting, to bring back a proposed mechanism for funding. The group will be

meeting on Friday and, therefore, PM recommended that both these schools receive the first term’s funding whilst the matter is considered in greater detail. Members unanimously 60 approved this recommendation and to release all other Growth Contingency Allocation 3.4 funding recommended to the previous meeting. Item 8 – Formula anomalies

PM reported that he has contacted all the schools as agreed to try and get a better understanding of their arguments regarding the census returns: 65 ‹ Hewens Primary School - set out how they have approached reporting their numbers,

and the difficulties they have had in recording these for the census. PM has arranged a

meeting with Executive Principal Clive Neathey to help him to better understand their business. For now PM is not recommending any changes to the Funding Formula in relation to Hewens. 70

‹ – PM now accepts their 87% mobility because they explained how they take all pupils into the trust and then allocate which school they will attend.

For now PM is not recommending any changes to the Funding Formula in relation to Parkside Studio College. RL recommended that this should be considered in greater detail by the ISB sub-group and 75 asked that it be noted that if Schools’ Forum later takes a different view, some of the funding

might be clawed back next year. PH expressed some concern about the ability of Schools’ Forum to claw back money and RL reminded members that, although there were reasons why mobility funding was not effectively clawed back from Laurel Lane School, the funding was

clawed back from Belmore Primary School. In answer to a question from PH, PM said that he 80 could guarantee that the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) will not stop Schools’ Forum

clawing back any agreed overfunding. Members approved the recommendation not to make any changes to the funding formula, at this stage, but to recommend this matter be looked into in more detail by the ISB sub ISB sub – group group. 85

RL also suggested that, with the changing financial landscape, it might be helpful for the Local

Authority to offer schools some training sessions on completion of the census return. PM PM agreed to look into providing sessions on the census for schools and to feed back to these

two schools about the funding decision.

3.5 KOS asked if this could be looked at earlier in future years and PM explained that although 90 they can ask for academy census data, the LA cannot insist on seeing it earlier.

Item 9 – Schools block funding

RL reported that he has drafted a letter, about maintaining education standards with RL continuing cut backs in funding, and asked members whom they would like him to send it to. It was agreed that the letter should be sent to the DfE; Nicky Morgan – Education Secretary; 95 Local MPs and the main candidates for election.

Item 4 Feedback from the sub -groups 100 17:45 Early years Sub-Group 4.1 PH had offered to feedback from this group because the Chair, LM, could not be at this

meeting. PH informed Schools’ Forum that the group had discussed/recommended: ‹ Quality Premium – The committee recommended to Schools Forum that the 2014/15 position, regarding which schools receive the Quality Premium funding, should be 105

carried through to 2015/16 with a review of this position before the following financial year;

‹ Grant Application (Total application - £139,300.15) – from the McMillan Early Childhood Centre - Following a further site visit from PH, PR and TE , the committee

recommended the application; 110

‹ Grant Application –Aktiva at the John Locke Academy – the application has been withdrawn; ‹ Grant Application – KiddiCare Nurseries Ltd – Cowley - PR, PH & LM visited (on 15

January 2015) and the application has been reduced from £33,509.20 down to £23,509.20. The members who visited confirmed the original recommendation to 115 Schools Forum on 15 January 2015. ‹ Grant Application – KiddiCare Nurseries Ltd – West Drayton – (For - £45,223.69) The committee recommended the application subject to planning permission; ‹ Grant Application – Hewens (£228,344.56 ) the committee recommended the

application; 120 ABB sought assurances that the applications are for buildings and equipment and not for funding staff and this was confirmed.

Members asked how the projects will be monitored and members were reminded that officers will monitor the grant spending and contracts will have claw back clauses. RM also suggested

that the contract should direct what happens to any resources should a provision close. 125 It was also noted that DK has to report back to the DfE on the spending of this money. Schools’ Forum unanimously approved the recommendations from the sub-group. PH also reminded members that only primary members should vote on this item because the

spending only relates to that sector’s funding - because the voting was unanimous the decisions stood. 130 ‹ Play Van – Members of the sub-group agreed to ask Cherry Lane School to purchase

the van on behalf of Schools’ Forum and organize the fit out and equipment for the van, in consultation with their Children’s Centre and Liz Marsh.

‹ Sensory Equipment – has been purchased and arrangements are being made for storage and loaning the equipment. 135 ‹ Feedback from Officers – The committee would like feedback from officers which

should have been received at the last Schools’ Forum meeting in January. This relates

to the haste with which Schools’ Forum was asked to approve the Laurel Lane – 2 Yr old Capital Grant; and the delay in the Local Authority submitting the Hewens and DK Rosedale bids. Officers will be asked to feedback to the next Schools’ Forum meeting. 140

High Needs Sub-Group 4.2 This meeting was cancelled because there was nothing new for the agenda.

4.3 DSG Sub-Group PH reported from the sub-group meeting: ‹ Early Years Centre Subsidy - DK reminded Schools’ Forum that as a consequence of 145 their decision, to withdraw the Early Year’s Centre subsidy, the council has decided to

increase the fees in these centres. This has generated a considerable amount of disquiet locally and parents have contacted both the authority and RL about this. RL explained that parents have asked for some transitional arrangements to be made.

DK reminded members that charges are for the Council to decide and this is not 150 something for Schools’ Forum to consider. It was also noted that a sub group will be

meeting to discuss how the subsidy funding will be managed now that it has been retained. This group will report back to the meeting in May. ‹ Funding retained in the DSG for salary costs of Council Staff – The Families’

Information Service; The Early Years Inclusion Team; and The Early Years Advisory 155

Team. The funding was discussed and members agreed that they would like some additional information and will discuss this again at the next meeting of the sub- group.

‹ DSG Work Programme for next year – members again asked officers for more information so that they can decide the priorities at the next meeting of the sub- 160 group. ‹ Capital Funding – contribution to school maintenance costs – RM spoke to this item because he had raised it. RM would like to know why the LA is asking maintained

schools to contribute, up to 20%, to capital funding from revenue surplus. The LA has also referred to a policy re garding this but members were not aware that a policy had 165

been approved by Schools’ Forum. RM added that he would like to understand the

landlord tenant agreement. DK responded that this relates to the maintained schools conditions surveys and the LA has asked schools to make a contribution based on the reserves in their budget. RL asked if this is reasonable. PM said that it is a grey area

as to who is responsible for the upkeep of the buildings and there are lots of schools, DK 170 in a number of authorities, who pay towards the maintenance of their buildings. JP

noted that schools used to receive around £60k per year capital funding for maintenance work but this has now been reduced to just £6k. Regarding the policy – DK explained that this is a Council Policy which was approved by Cabinet a number of years ago – RL asked if there had been any consultation and 175 DK did not know as it was introduced before his time. Members agreed that revenue funding is for spending on the education of children – not buildings. RL

Members asked officers for the following information for the next meeting: ‹ Where does the policy and this request come from? 180 ‹ What was the rationale behind the request? ‹ What consultation was there? ‹ When were the decisions made? RL will confirm these requests in writing to DK. 4.4 Additional Sub-Groups 185 DK asked how forum should be approached to set up a new sub-group to discuss a particular matter. RL suggested that he bring a paper to Schools’ Forum and the members will decide which sub-group to refer the matter to; or set up a separate task and finish group.

Item 5 Funding Updates 18:15 Early Years Pupil Premium Funding 5.1 PM informed members that the Early Years Pupil Premium funding will be paid into DSG and 190 some guidance has now been published. The money needs to follow the child and will be about 50p per hour. An eligibility checker will be available from 1 April 2015.

DK added that he has noticed a drop in Pupil Premium numbers since the introduction of the Universal Free School Meals and in some schools this has been a double digit drop in numbers (26% in one school) – he asked what schools can do to encourage the take up. However, it 195 was noted that some schools have addressed this successfully.

Item 6 Local Safeguarding Children’s Board

18:20 DK reminded members that the training demands on the board are considerable but the 6.1 board needs to find additional funding in order to meet demand. It was noted that this has 200

been discussed previously by the DSG subcommittee and TE had pointed out the legal position regarding funding – he has established that it is illegal Schools’ Forum, or schools, to make any payment to the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board. DK and PM were asked to bring a paper

to Schools’ Forum to clarify the position. DK & PM Early Support Transformation update 205 TM reported to this item and explained that the authority has been reviewing the Children’s 6.2 Pathway Programme and one of the key features will be the introduction of a key worker

service. The authority will be working with schools to put together a management team and

TM will circulate the details of this. Members were invited to ask any questions and ABB commented that her school has accessed TM 210

some of the services and been impressed. KOS also suggested that HASH and Primary Forum

should be briefed. Budget Monitoring – Month 9 Reference paper – Dedicated Schools Grant - Month 9 (item 6c) (Appendix 1) 6.3 PM referred to his report and highlighted from this that: 215

‹ Projected in year overspend - £1,540k – this is an improvement of £694k on the

month 8 projection. This is because the 2yr old capacity funding figure now shows known commitments and there has been a reduction in the projected cost of SEN placements now that there are known costs.

‹ Projected carry forward 31 March 2015 - £2,241k 220

PM described the budget to be in good shape and PH asked if this should continue to be the case in the future. It was noted that High Needs numbers are increasing (ref section 7 of the report) and this will have an impact on the budget. PM suggested that it might be useful to

carry out some medium term projections – these will be considered by the ISB sub-group. PM/ Members were also reminded that despite an increase in numbers by 7.24%, a funding ISB 225 increase of only 4 additional places was approved – PM has appealed against this decision. PM also reminded members that only £5k of the £10k place funding is funded through the GUF (Guaranteed Unit of Funding). Priority Schools Building Programme 2 (PSBP)

6.4 DK reported that 8 schools were successful in their bids: 230 ‹ Hillingdon Tuition Centre ‹ Minet Junior School

‹ Minet Nursery and Infant School ‹ Botwell House Catholic Primary School

‹ 235 ‹ Meadow High School ‹ ‹ The Douay Martyrs Catholic School

Schools’ Forum thanked the authority for its work in enabling these bids to be successful. It was also noted that Guru Nanak has also been successful in securing funding from the EFA 240 bid.

Basic Need Funding Capital Allocations PM reported that the programme is now moving from the primary sector to the secondary 6.5 sector. Despite the authority already having a significant discrepancy in the region of £5-6 m from the primary expansion, the authority will not receive the funding it needs to meet the 245 future demands in the secondary sector – the authority is challenging this decision. (The

authority has only been awarded £6,322,803.15 for 2015-2018).

Feedback from Schools on budget 6.6 PM reported that his team is seeing a range of challenges for schools due to growing costs such as increases in the London Living wage; changes in teacher’s pensions; the removal of the 250

NI rebate (the increases will be around 3.4%); and pay awards. PM also highlighted additional challenges – eg – Post 16 has seen a significant drop in funding and they have

reported that they can no longer deliver the curriculum they should be providing for their students. PM has suggested that he carry out a four year financial modelling exercise looking at the 255 challenges facing the schools, and offered to bring the 3 yr budget plans to Schools’ Forum. RL

suggested that the ISB group should look at this. PH also offered to take a look at the impact of the NI decision on Cherry Lane School, where he is Chair of Governors. The discussion will be progressed at the Schools’ Forum meeting in June. Members also agreed to look at PM / 260

encouraging schools to share some costs and this discussion should feed into the formula ISB

debate for next year. Schools Audits Reference PowerPoint– School Thematic Reviews 2014/15 (Appendix 2)

ML and SH attended the meeting to present this item, but because of time constraints the 265 6.7 PowerPoint presentation was not shown, instead it was circulated after the meeting. The

following points were highlighted:

‹ From 1 April 2014 the audit team introduced a fully risk-based approach to their

audits of schools. Specifically, they carried out cross-cutting audits of themed areas at

a risk-based selection of several schools. The results of this work were made 270 anonymous and then shared with all Hillingdon schools. It was hoped that this new

approach will help facilitate shared learning and best practice across all Hillingdon schools. ‹ The themes included; schools’ budgetary controls; payroll arrangements; contract

and procurement arrangements; and governance. 275 ‹ Some schools were judged to be very good and others require improvement but

overall schools are meeting the requirements. They would like to see some more

sharing of good practice between schools. ‹ The next two themes will be the use of supply teachers and Pupil Premium spending. Next 280 Members agreed that it would be helpful to look at ways to share the good practice and Meeting agreed to discuss this again in May.

Defibrillators

DK reported that guidance has been published on the use of defibrillators in schools – 6.8 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/automated-external-defibrillators-aeds-in-

schools and schools are being encouraged to install these machines. 285

The council has agreed to fund the purchase of the defibrillators (£90k) for fitting in primary and secondary schools provided the guidance is adhered to. Training will need to come from

revenue funding along with maintenance of the machines. 2-4 staff will need to be trained in each school. The defibrillators will be available to all state funded schools – maintained or 290 academies.

Free School Milk PM reminded members of the requirement for schools to provide free milk to all Free School

6.9 Meal & Pupil Premium pupils. It was agreed that a reminder should be circulated to all Headteachers through the fortnightly bulletin.

PM / 295 Procurement of Utility Contracts Future PM will bring this back to a future meeting when he has more information. Meeting 6.10

Item 7 AOB 300

‹ None

‹ Future Meeting Dates :

Meeting: Date & time: Venue:

Early Years Sub-Group Tuesday 28 April 2015 at 11:30 Cherry Lane School

DSG Monitoring Group Tuesday 28 April 2015 at 13:00 Cherry Lane School

High Needs Group Tuesday 28 April 2015 at 14:00 Cherry Lane School Schools’ Forum Wednesday 6 May 2015 at 17:00 CR3/3a Early Years Sub -Group Tuesday 16 June 2015 at 11:30 Cherry Lane School DSG Monitoring Group Tuesday 16 June2015 at 13:00 Cherry Lane School High Needs Group Tuesday 16 June 2015 at 14:00 Cherry Lane School Schools’ Forum Thursday 25 June 2015 at 17:00 CR6 The meeting closed at 19:05

Signed: ...... Date: ...... If you have any issues to refer to the Schools Forum you should contact one of the representatives. You may contact the Chair as follows: Robert Lobatto c/o Barnhill Community High, Yeading Lane, Hayes, Middlesex UB4 9LE or by e-mail to [email protected]

Membership of Schools Forum – Contact Details

Members Representing Sector Email Voting Members Duncan Greig Breakspear Primary School Maintained [email protected] Primary - Headteacher Kris O’Sullivan Deanesfield Primary School Maintained [email protected] Primary - Headteacher Christine Shasha Oak Farm Infants Maintained [email protected] Primary - Headteacher Chris Weaving Whiteheath Infant School Maintained cweaving@whiteheath- Primary - inf.hillingdon.sch.uk Headteacher Phil Haigh Cherry Lane Primary School, Maintained [email protected] Moorcroft and Grangewood Primary - Special Schools Governor Tony Eginton Minet Nursery & Infant Maintained [email protected] School and Hillside Junior Primary - School Governor Jo Palmer Newham Infant School and Maintained [email protected] Hillside Infant School Primary - Governor

Mark Bland Abbotsfield Secondary Maintained [email protected] School Secondary – Headteacher

Ross Macdonald Meadow School Maintained [email protected] Special - Headteacher

Ludmilla Morris MacMillan Nursery Maintained [email protected] .uk Nursery

Elaine Caffery 4 Street Nursery PVI [email protected]

Laurie Cornwell Hillingdon Tuition Centre Pupil Referral [email protected] Unit

Members Representing Sector Email Wendy Bhad Bishop Ramsey Church of Academies [email protected] School Robert Dixon Uxbridge High School Academies [email protected] Academy Trust Robert Jones Haydon School Academies [email protected] Peter Ryerson Guru Nanak Sikh Academy Academies [email protected] Ann Bowen-Breslin Hillingdon Primary School Academies [email protected] Joan Greening Northwood Academy Academies joan.gre [email protected] Rhona Johnston Queensmead Academies [email protected] Bob Charlton Charville Primary School Academies [email protected]

Robert Lobatto Barnhill Community High Academies [email protected] Stepping Down May School 2015

Sudhi Pathak Eden Academy Trust Special [email protected] Academy

Alison Moore De Salis Studio College Post 16 [email protected]

Non Voting Members Debbie Gilder Pield Heath School Independent [email protected] Non Maintained Special School

Jim Edgecombe , Hewens Independent [email protected] College, Abbotsfield School Observer

Sue Illsley Clerk to Schools Forum Clerk [email protected]

Shadow Representatives Lisa Corrigan Highfield Primary School Maintained [email protected] Primary - Headteacher Joanna Nightingale Whitehall Junior School Maintained [email protected] Primary - Headteacher

Local Authority Officers Tony Zaman Director Adult Social LBH [email protected] Services and Interim Director Children’s and Young Peoples Services Dan Kennedy Interim Head of LBH [email protected] Performance and Improvement Andy Evans Deputy Director Corporate LBH [email protected] Finance & Head of Operational Finance Peter Malewicz Finance Manager – LBH [email protected] Children’s and Young Peoples Services Ruth Munro Senior Accountant – LBH [email protected] Schools Funding Graham Young Lead Finance Business LBH [email protected] Partner – Schools

Schools Forum Review of Schools Forum 6th May 2015

1. Introduction This paper presents an update on the proposed review of the Schools Forum, options for the review and the potential next steps. For ease of reference a copy of the terms of reference are attached as an appendix to this report (appendix 1).

2. Recommendations Schools Forum is asked to: 1. Note the update. 2. Consider the options set out below to progress the review. 3. Subject to Schools Forum agreeing either option 2 or option 3, agree to delegate the responsibility for recruiting / appointing the independent person to undertake the review to the Chairman of Schools Forum, supported by 2-3 members of the Forum. 4. Agree to receive a report before the end of July setting out the findings of the review for consideration.

3. Resources for the Review At the previous meeting of the Schools Forum in March it was reported that there had been no objections or concerns from stakeholders to the circulated terms of reference for the review. It was agreed that the review should proceed, subject to any final comments.

It has been estimated that the review will take 10 working days and agreed that the review will be undertaken by an independent person appointed by the Forum. The Schools Forum has requested that the Local Authority contribute to the cost of the independent person undertaking the review.

The Local Authority has considered the request and unfortunately does not have the funding available to contribute to the cost of appointing an independent person. As an alternative, by way of a contribution to the review, the Local Authority is able to offer an equivalent level of resource to that offered by the Forum ‘in kind’ using existing staff resources to complete some of the tasks needed for the review. The following is a suggested outline of the tasks to be undertaken and how they could be split according to the independent person and the Local Authority.

Independent R eviewer Local Authority Undertake interviews. Administrative support. Chair workshops / attend meetings with Analysis of education performance in Groups of Heads / Governors. Hillingdon. Write up report and recommendations. Analysis of finance / resources. Present findings to Schools Forum, Research – other models for Schools Primary Forum, HASH, Governors. Forum, education strategies, policy reviews etc…

In essence this means that overall a reduced number of days would be required from the independent reviewer to complete the review (an estimated 5-6 days in total instead of the full 10 days originally estimated). This would require Schools Forum to meet the total cost of the independent reviewer.

The estimated number of days contribution from the Local Authority is a minimum of 6 days, with 4-5 days estimated for the appraisal of education performance for Hillingdon, including a financial appraisal.

4. Options for the Review

Given the update, Schools Forum is therefore asked to consider and decide upon their preferred option for the proposed review:

Option 1 – do not continue with the proposed review.

Option 2 – Schools Forum agrees to fully fund the review and does not need the ‘in-kind’ contribution from the Local Authority.

Option 3 – Schools Forum agree to the ‘in-kind contribution from the Local Authority to the review and therefore Schools Forum also agrees to fully fund the cost of the independent reviewer for the reduced number of days required.

5. Next Steps

Subject to consideration from Schools Forum to the options set out above, should the Forum decide upon either option 2 or option 3, the Forum is asked to delegate authority to the Chairman of Schools Forum to progress the appointment of the independent person. Forum is asked for 2-3 members of the Forum to work with the Chairman to progress the appointment.

Dan Kennedy 1st May 2015

Appendix 1

Independent Review of Schools Forum - Draft Terms of Reference

1. Introduction

This paper presents the terms of reference for a review of Schools Forum (and its associated groups) with a view to making recommendations on what role it might play in the broader education strategy within Hillingdon..

2. Objectives for the Review

There are four key objectives for the review:

2.1 to explore what an enhanced Schools Forum might look like, and in particular, how it might contribute to the broader Education Strategy in Hillingdon

2.2 to assess the feasibility of Forum taking on an enhanced role

2.3 to assess the desirability of Forum taking on an enhanced role

2.4 to assess any other implications of Forum taking on an enhanced role

3. Methodology

3.1 Research other Schools Forum structures, governance/ leadership and organisation.

3.2 To explore how education strategy is delivered in other Schools Forum areas and how Schools Forums and other Groups contributes to this.

3.3 To interview a selection of Head Teachers and Governors in Hillingdon.

3.4 To interview a selection of members of the School’s Forum, Cllr Simmonds as lead Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s services, other Members as required, a selection of officers from the local authority and members of HASH and the Primary Forum as agreed.

3.5 To review the education performance outcomes for Hillingdon.

4. Timescales and Budget

It is estimated that the review will take 10 working days to complete, at a cost to be agreed. The findings of the review will be presented to the X (TBC) meeting of the Forum, HASH Executive and the Primary Executive for discussion.

Dear Robert

Hillingdon School Condition Programme

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Schools Forum of 6 th March 2015. I hope that the following provides Schools Forum with some helpful background to the current policy on school contributions to building condition projects, and the wider investment the Council has and continues to make to ensure local children have access to a decent school place as close to home as possible.

Background - School Conditions Contributions

Whilst the Local Authority retains a capital budget for condition-related work in community schools, it has to prioritise the use of this resource. Overall, the level of resources allocated by the Local Authority to the School Condition Programme for community schools is higher than the government grant we receive. In 2014/15, the grant was £2.5m and the outturn spend was £3.47m. School contributions, at £0.347m were just 10% of total expenditure on the condition programme. In 2015/16, the Government grant is £2.2m and the provisional programme (subject to confirmation of school contributions) is £2.86m. Seventeen schools benefited from capital works to improve their buildings in 2014/15 and eight schools are scheduled to receive condition works in 2015/16, including major works such as replacement boilers and heating systems, roof replacement and repairs, and new flooring.

Given the many competing demands on the school condition budget, the Local Authority has therefore sought a contribution from community schools to the total costs of programmed conditions works at each school to enable a more ambitious programme to be delivered in any one year. This approach has helped to bring forward improvements to school accommodation rather than defer them to a future year. This directly puts our residents first by ensuring school accommodation of a decent standard is available for teaching and learning, and directly benefits schools who will, as a result of improvements to their school buildings, incur lower future costs in maintaining and running their schools.

The current policy requiring LA schools to make an affordable contribution to their condition programme was introduced in 2013, but the principle that schools would contribute to the central capital building condition programme has a longer history. Arrangements prior to the current policy did include a threshold below which condition projects would not be considered for funding from central capital resources. This varied over time but was of the order of £25,000 for primary school projects and £60,000 for secondary school projects. Schools were also responsible for meeting any costs over and above the budget that had been set. This approach was first put in place around ten years ago.

In terms of consultation on the current school conditions policy, I recall from the officer at the time who was leading on the schools condition programme that some schools were involved in commenting on the proposed policy when first drafted. As the policy relates to contributions from community schools a consultation with Academy Schools and Schools Forum was not undertaken. The Local Authority is, as always, keen to receive feedback to improve services and will consider and respond to individual enquiries from community schools on the policy.

I understand that schools, like the local authority, have many competing priorities for expenditure. The schools contribution policy to condition works for community schools seeks to be sensitive to the ability of individual schools to contribute. Without school contributions, the scheduled condition programme would need to be reduced in size. For reference, appendix 3 of the Hillingdon Scheme for Financing of Schools (extract included below) sets out the categories of work which governing bodies would finance from their budget and also illustrates categories of work that would be considered capital expenditure.

Additional Resources for Capital Investment Capital resources at local authority level are, of course, only part of the overall resources for improving and developing schools. Academies and Voluntary Aided schools have access to separate funding streams for building condition and schools also have DFC allocations.

Local Authority Capital Investment in Hillingdon Schools In terms of the wider capital investment programme in schools, it is helpful for the Forum to note that Hillingdon Council has made a significant investment directly to improve school buildings through the school expansion programme. The Local Authority has also been highly successful in bidding for additional funds from central government for improvements to school kitchens and major school condition works through the Priority Schools Building Programme (phase 2).

Since 2010, the Council has financed 28 primary school expansions (including academies). In some cases, due to building condition and site constraints, rebuilding and major building improvement work has been necessary. Therefore, this programme has contributed significantly to addressing building condition priorities and reduced future maintenance costs for schools. In addition, three new primary schools have been funded. As the need for additional school places moves into the secondary sector, the Local Authority has now made significant capital budget provision for future expansion. Two of the three secondary schools currently being replaced are receiving funding from the Local Authority. One of the secondary schools being completely rebuilt is being funded mostly by Local Authority capital investment.

Overall, this means that by 2020, more than £300m will have been invested in additional places alone. At least a third and possibly more dependant on future grant allocations of this investment will be financed through Council resources, this will require the Council to borrow and bear the burden of future financing costs. The scale of investment needed is exceeding available external funding (that is government grants and developer contributions). There are also other investment programmes, such as additional Special Resource Provision places and the primary school meals programme. Further information on investment in schools can be found in the monthly Schools Capital Programme reports for Cabinet.

As mentioned at the previous meeting of Schools Forum in March 2015, the Local Authority has in principle successfully secured an investment estimated to be worth circa £22m of additional capital funding for five community schools in Hillingdon under the Priority Schools Building Programme scheme (phase 2). Subject to site feasibility studies and confirmation from the Education Funding Agency to the programme of the works, the funding will address long-standing building issues for some of our schools, and will directly reduce the maintenance and running costs for these schools. In addition, two Academy Schools and one Voluntary Aided School were successful in their expressions of interest for the programme.

Summary

In summary, the Council is committed to putting our residents first and has therefore made, and continues to make, a significant capital investment in Hillingdon schools through a range of ambitious improvement programmes. This includes a programme to expand schools (£300m+), school condition improvement works for community schools, investment in new school kitchens and kitchen equipment, and successfully securing additional school conditions funding for five schools. Collectively, these investments are providing high quality schools for local children and reducing the burden of building maintenance and running costs to local school budgets.

Turning to the school conditions programme for community schools, contributions to the total cost of the annual programme are sought from community schools on a case by case basis to enable a larger programme of works to be delivered for the benefit of our residents. Contributions are not sought from schools to replace the funding the Local Authority receives as it is important to note that the Local Authority is investing more in improving school conditions than it receives in grant funding every year from Central Government.

I hope this letter provides Schools Forum with further information to clarify the current position.

Yours sincerely,

Local Safeguarding Children's Board Funding

1. Introduction

At its meeting on 5 March 2015, Schools Forum asked officers to provide further clarification on the funding of the Local Safeguarding Children's Board (LSCB). This paper sets out the legislation governing this and the impact on the Dedicated Schools Grant and Schools funding.

2. Information

At the Schools Forum meeting, Tony Eginton advised members that he had sought legal advice from the Borough Solicitor on the funding of the LSCB. The response is set out below.

The funding of the LSCB is covered in statute by sections 13 and 15 of the Children Act 2004, where section 15 of the Children Act 2004 is an enabling provision in the sense that it gives express statutory power to a local authority and its Board partners, as set out in section 13[3], to contribute financially to expenditure incurred in relation to the running of the LSCB. Payments can either be made directly or by contributing to a fund [a pooled fund] out of which the payments may be made.

Section 15 also prescribes that Board partners can provide non-pecuniary resources such as staff, goods, services or accommodation in support of the activities of the LSCB.

It is clear from the wording of section 15 that no statutory duty as such is being imposed but instead, a very specific power is being given to a number of prescribed persons/bodies which have been set out in a very specific statutory list.

In order to assist me in answering your question, I have also had a look at the Guidance issued by the Government, 'Working Together to Safeguard Children' dated March 2013.

Chapter 3 of this Guidance states,

''The LSCB Chair must publish an annual report on the effectiveness of child safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the local area...The report should also list the contributions made to the LSCB by partner agencies and details of what the LSCB has spent, including on Child Death Reviews, Serious Case Reviews and other specific expenditure such as learning events or training. All LSCB member organisations have an obligation to provide LSCBs with reliable resources [including finance] that enables the LSCB to be strong and effective. Members should share the financial responsibility for the LSCB in such a way that a disproportionate burden does not fall on a small number of partner agencies''

Reading sections 13, 15 and the Guidance together, it is my view that Parliament has been careful to prescribe precisely who may be able to provide both pecuniary and non pecuniary resources to the LSCB and therefore, no person or body outside of this list appears to have the power to do so. There are no provisos or exceptions set out in the legislation and it seems that the list has deliberately been made as comprehensive as possible for the purpose of capturing the persons and bodies organisation who have a vital role to play in the safeguarding of children. The Guidance also specifically refers to LSCB member organisations and no one else.

A further consideration is that if, for example, other persons or bodies were allowed to make financial contributions towards the LSCB, partner agencies may see this as an opportunity to pay less or nothing at all and this may have the effect of bringing the whole issue of funding into disrepute.

Based on this advice it is clear that the most critical aspect is on the definition of the Board Members, as it is these that are required to provide sufficient resources to enable the LSCB to carry out its functions.

Section 13 (3) of the Children Act 2004 defines the range of Board Members, the extract from the Act is set out below:

13 Establishment of LSCBs (3) For the purposes of this section each of the following is a Board partner of a [F1 local authority ] in England— (a) where the authority is a county council for an area for which there is also a district council, the district council; (b) the chief officer of police for a police area any part of which falls within the area of the authority; (c) a local probation board for an area any part of which falls within the area of the authority; [F2 (ca) the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under sections 2 and 3 of the Offender Management Act 2007, so far as they are exercisable in relation to England; (cb) any provider of probation services that is required by arrangements under section 3(2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 to act as a Board partner of the authority; ] (d) a youth offending team for an area any part of which falls within the area of the authority; (e) a Strategic Health Authority and a Primary Care Trust for an area any part of which falls within the area of the authority; (f) an NHS trust and an NHS foundation trust all or most of whose hospitals, establishments and facilities are situated in the area of the authority; (g) a person providing services [F3 in pursuance of section 68 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 ] in any part of the area of the authority; (h) the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; (i) the governor of any secure training centre in the area of the authority (or, in the case of a contracted out secure training centre, its director); (j) the governor of any prison in the area of the authority which ordinarily detains children (or, in the case of a contracted out prison, its director).

3. Summary

It is clear from the legislation that schools are not included, which suggests that schools are not required to make a contribution towards the costs of the LSCB. However, it does not preclude the LSCB from running courses for which a charge can be levied. A review of other local authorities, indicates that this is the approach that they have adopted.

Schools Forum 6 May 2015 Item 3 Hillingdon Schools Forum

Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on Monday 23 March 2015 Commencing at 15:30 Barnhill School

Present:

Maintained Primary Representative Members: Ms Kris O’Sullivan (KOS) Deanesfield Primary School

Maintained Secondary School Mr Jim Edgecombe (JE) Abbotsfield School Governor Representative: (Deputising for Mark Bland)

Academy Representative Mr Robert Lobatto (RL) Chair Barnhill Community High Members: Mrs Ann Bowen- Breslin (ABB) Hillingdon Primary School Ms Wendy Bhad (WB) Bishop Ramsey CofE School

Maintained Special Mr Ross Macdonald (RM) Meadow School School Representative:

Maintained Primary Mr Phil Haigh (PH) Cherry Lane Primary School, Moorcroft Governor Members: Special School and the Eden Academy Mr Tony Eginton (TE) Minet Nursery & Infant School and Hillside Junior School

Other Members: Ms Laurie Cornwell (LC) The Hillingdon Tuition Centre Pupil Referral Unit Ms Ludmila Morris (LM) McMillan Early Childhood Centre

In attendance from : London Borough of Hillingdon Mr Peter Malewicz (PM) Group Finance Manager - Education Mr Graham Young (GY) Lead Business Partner for Schools

Orchard Hill College Academy Trust: Dr Caroline Allen (CA) Principal of Orchard Hill College

Clerk: Ms Sue Illsley (SI) Independent Clerk

Apologies: Ms Jo Palmer (JP) Hillside Infant School Ms Chris Shasha (CS) Oak Farm Infant School Ms Elaine Caffery (EC) Nursery Manger - 4 Street Nursery Mr Robert Dixon (RD) Uxbridge High Ms Alison Moore (AM) The De Salis Studio College Mr Robert Jones (RJ) Haydon School Mr Sudhi Pathak (SP) The Eden Academy Mr Mark Bland (MB) Abbotsfield School Ms Chris Weaving (CW) Whiteheath Infant School Mr Peter Ryerson (PR) Guru Nanak Sikh Academy

The meeting was quorate

Minutes:

Item 1 Welcome & Apologies RL welcomed everyone to the meeting and apologies were received from JP, CS, EC, RD, AM, RJ, SP, MB, CW & PR.

Item 2 Funding guarantee for Chantry School – 2015/16 LC declared an interest in the item as the Headteacher designate for Chantry School. 5 The Request RL explained that this meeting had been called to discuss a request from Orchard Hill College Academy Trust (OHCAT), on behalf of Chantry School, to award an additional £250k funding to make Chantry School financially viable for the next financial year 2015/16 – this is roughly equivalent to fully funding top-up to 60. 10 RL reminded members that Schools’ Forum has already agreed to underwrite any budget deficit for the current financial year 2014/15 and to fully base-fund the school for 60 place next year. There are currently 49 students on roll at Chantry. RM asked if Schools’ Forum has the power to make a discretionary payment outside the funding formula and PM explained this can only happen if Schools’ Forum has already decided 15 to put money aside in the retained budget, such as it does into the Growth Contingency Fund. Schools’ Forum has not already put money aside for requests such as this one so there is currently no vehicle to pay a one off payment as requested. Background to the request CA explained that Orchard Hill College was originally a specialist SEN College with schools 20 across London. It was then approached by the DfE to sponsor other schools and it converted to a Multi-Academy Trust. Orchard Hill College Academy Trust (OHCAT) was approached by the DfE to see if it could help Chantry School; met with the IEB and visited the school. OHCAT has since been supporting the school which has now applied to join Orchard Hill College Academy Trust (OHCAT) as a sponsored academy. Having seen the indicative budget for next 25 year the EFA is aware that another £250k is required to guarantee the school is financially viable for the financial year 2015/16 and they would like to see this guaranteed before signing the funding agreement. Members calculated that this potential shortfall would be met if Schools’ Forum would guarantee the top-up funding for 60 students. CA explained that the school has had no stability in its leadership for a number of years and 30 she is committed to the students, and local community, and wants to provide the students with the education they deserve. OHCAT has also been working with local businesses to improve the reputation of the school and build links to help students into work. The Local Authority, DfE and OHCAT had a conversation on Friday and the Local Authority and Chantry/OHCAT has been given until 5pm tomorrow to guarantee the additional funding. If 35 st this is not confirmed the school cannot convert on 1 April 2015. CA also explained that OHCAT had always explained to the Local Authority that the school will require a guaranteed amount of funding for the first year if it is to be able to turn the school around and then become viable in future years. The trust believes that the school will be able to attract the number of students it needs to fund it after the first year – it will need this year to build up the 40 school’s reputation and student numbers. Discussion ‹ RM asked if the trust is staffing for 60 students and CA reaffirmed that the school already has 49 pupils on roll and a further 4 are set to join the school – the number starting in Yr 7 in September are roughly the same as the number leaving from Yr 11 – 45 so yes the school is staffing for 60 students. ‹ JE asked what happens if the meeting decides against the request. CA explained that, if the decision is a ‘no for now’, the conversion can take place later in the year; but students, and their parents, are anticipating the change from Easter and the school will be renamed and branded to a name and designs which have come from the 50 students. The new name will be the Young People’s Academy. If Schools’ Forum is not able to guarantee the funding for this one year then OHCAT will not be able to proceed with the sponsorship arrangement and the school will not convert to an academy. ‹ CA also pointed out that this is a small school with a budget of £1.7 - £1.8m if full. 55 ‹ ABB asked when the trust expects the school to be full and CA explained that Hillingdon’s forecast is by 2018 but it is known that there is demand from other local boroughs and, therefore, the trust would expect this to be earlier. Members also discussed with CA the possibility of Hillingdon block funding places for Hillingdon students. 60 ‹ ABB asked if the trust is keen to work with Hillingdon and CA explained that the trust’s ethos is to work with schools in their local communities and they have already started to build some promising links locally. ‹ PH asked if the IEB had been involved in looking at the budget and CA confirmed that they were. 65 ‹ PH said that he had a number of concerns about underwriting the budget and these were addressed: ‹ What happens if the school returns a surplus at the end of the year? – CA explained that this is highly unlikely because the school needs a lot of investment; 70 ‹ Will you go over the 60 students – because you would then receive an additional £35K per student? – CA explained that they would not expect to take more than 60 students, in this first year, because they need to focus on improving the quality of the provision. ‹ Is the school having difficulty recruiting staff? CA explained that the school 75 needs to recruit good quality staff and currently is having to cover some posts with supply staff. ‹ If Schools’ Forum agrees to underwrite the top up funding for 60 students would it be possible for a member of Schools’ Forum to sit on the Governing Body? CA explained that the trust is already discussing the possibility of RM 80 joining the new Governing Body. CA added that they have also been looking at the skills they need governors to have and, she and LC, have been looking for people locally - including recruiting a member from HASH. ‹ RL asked: ‹ Is the trust is planning to use any of the funding to improve the site? CA 85 explained that the IEB has had to address some Health & Safety matters, such as the perimeter fencing, but on a larger scale the trust will be applying for appropriate grants for this – such as bidding for a grant from the Condition Improvement Fund . It was noted that 80% of the budget will be spent on staffing so there will be little in the budget for anything other than routine 90 maintenance – certainly no more than 5%. ‹ Are there any additional grants specifically for conversion to a sponsored academy? CA explained that there used to be but these are no longer available – the only conversion grant is the £25k for legal fees etc. and this will all be spent. 95 ‹ RL asked about previous letters between the Local Authority and the trust about funding requirements. CA explained that both the trust and the Local Authority thought that they were being clear about what was required but it appears that they both had a different understanding – hence the need to clarify the agreement at this meeting. 100 ‹ What is the trust’s top slice and what is it used to provide? CA explained that it is currently 5% (it could be reduced if the trust expands) also schools can purchase some additional buy in services. This provides schools with support for school improvement; HR and Finance compliance. ‹ KS asked about the new school’s admissions criteria and CA explained that they will 105 need to fill spaces on a first come first served basis but the Local Authority could negotiate to purchase a block number if they would like to. If two applications are made at the same time, preference will be given to Hillingdon students. ‹ TE suggested that it might be better for Schools’ Forum to underwrite the places and adjust the funding at the end of the year in case the remaining places are filled with 110 students from out of borough (because the funding borough will pay the top-up fees). CA explained that they need to have the funding guaranteed for the EFA to sign the Funding Agreement. ‹ ABB asked about the trust’s track record and CA explained that OHCAT is an approved sponsor academy trust and the college is graded ‘outstanding’. 115 ‹ JE asked about Hillingdon Tuition Centre and members heard that it has applied to join the same trust. He also asked about the college’s experience with students with behavioural difficulties and CA explained that around 75% of their students have behavioural issues. CA then left the meeting whilst members discussed the request 120 Decision Members discussed the request and PM explained that Schools’ forum could guarantee the school’s funding for the Year April 2015 – March 2016 to full funding for 60 students at a total funding level of £1.8m. It would then be for members to decide how to deal with any out of borough funding. 125 RL asked if forum was satisfied that OHCAT is an appropriate sponsor for Chantry and all members agreed that they do appear to be. RL then asked if members think that a budget of £1.8m is credible for the school – all members agreed that it is. ABB added that although she is supportive of the school she is concerned that this sets a precedent. Members discussed this and agreed that the situation is a one off and unique 130 because the only other behaviour school in the borough is already an academy. LC also reminded members that the school has had significant difficulties over the past 8 years. RL summed up that Schools’ Forum wants to do what is right for the students. It was also noted that this is not necessarily funding which is being taken from elsewhere because it would be paid if the school were full. 135 Members asked LC to be transparent with Schools’ Forum about student numbers. RL put to a vote a proposal that: Schools’ Forum will underwrite the top-up funding for 60 students to be paid in the 2015/16 funding allocation. Schools’ Forum will also ask OHCAT to undertake to compensate DSG for any funding received for out of borough placements. 140 One member abstained and all other members voted in favour of the proposal which was, therefore, approved. CA/P CA re-joined the meeting and RL explained the decision and asked CA to agree with PM the M final wording of the agreement which will be used in discussions with the DfE/EFA – RL and RL/PH PH will also take a look at this before the telephone conversation with the DfE tomorrow. CA will forward the wording to the clerk to file with the minutes.

Meeting closed at 16:50

Signed: ...... Date: ...... If you have any issues to refer to the Schools Forum you should contact one of the representatives. You may contact the Chair as follows: Robert Lobatto c/o Barnhill Community High, Yeading Lane, Hayes, Middlesex UB4 9LE or by e-mail to [email protected]

5a Hillingdon Schools Forum Early Years’ Group Meeting Meeting: Tuesday 28 April 2015 11:30 – 13:15 Venue: Cherry Lane School

Present: Ludmila Morris (LM) (Chair) McMillan Early Childhood Centre Peter Ryerson (PRy) Guru Nanak Sikh Academy Governor Kris O’Sullivan (KOS) Deanesfield Primary School Phil Haigh (PH) Cherry Lane Primary School and The Eden Academy Elaine Caffary (EC) 4 Street Nursery Jo Palmer (JP) Hillside Infant School Governor Chris Shasha (CS) Oak Farm Infant School Christine Weaving (CW) Whiteheath Infant and Nursery School

In attendance from : Satwinder Saraon (SS) Principal Educational Psychologist (from 4.3) London Borough of Hillingdon Peter Malewicz (PM) Group Finance Manager – Education Philip Ryan (PR) Families information service Manager Ruth Munro (RM) Senior Accountant Schools Funding Graham Young (GY) Lead Business Partner for Schools Sue Illsley (SI) Clerk

Apologies: Ann Bowen-Breslin (ABB) Hillingdon Primary School

Minutes: Agenda item: Action: 1 Welcome LM welcomed everyone to the meeting. 2 Apologies Apologies were received and accepted from ABB 3 Minutes from the Previous Meetings 3.1 The minutes from 2 March 2015 meeting were noted. 4 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting Matters Arising – which were not covered by the agenda: 4.1 ‹ Item 4.1 – Feedback from Officers– PM confirmed that this item will be addressed at the main Schools’ Forum meeting. 4.2 ‹ Item 4.2 – The Laurel Lane – 2 Yr old Capital Grant - PH reported that he is still trying to arrange the site visit with PR and LM because the last visit date had to be cancelled because they had an Ofsted inspection. 4.3 ‹ Item 7.1 – Play van – PH reported that Carole Wright, from Cherry Lane Childrens’ Centre, had been to look at the van which was being proposed and recommends that it is too large – it was agreed, therefore, that a smaller van should be purchased. Carole Wright had also recommended that the van does not need to be specially fitted as the materials can be easily secured using the bars and ties which are fixtures in the van. The van is in stock and will be ordered this week – it will be serviced at Stockley. Members also suggested that the van should have a logo reading Early Years’ Outreach. Members reaffirmed that all drivers should have received MiDAS training – the cost for this is in the budget – Cherry Lane will organize and reclaim the expense. LM added that she has mentioned the van at Primary Forum – but everyone should spread the word. The contact for booking the van will be Daisy-Mae Rollins, Cherry Lane Children’s Centre Reception. E-mail [email protected] Tel: 01895 671984 LM will check to see if the van can be used by private providers, and academies, LM under the insurance arrangements. ‹ Item 7.2 - Sensory equipment – LM to clarify, with Julie Mellor (Inclusion Team, whether the use of the equipment can be managed by the resource library; and clarify the position regarding its use by all providers including the PVIs. KOS pointed out that all children should have equal access. 10 schools across the borough have agreed to store the equipment and LM reminded members that training is required for the electronic equipment – LM is organizing the LM training. EC has provided LM with a copy of the LA contract for the use of equipment which will be adapted. 5 Notification of any other business 5.1 ‹ Update on vulnerable children funding (PM) ‹ Early Years Pupil Premium (PM) ‹ Process for informing bidders of the outcome of 2 yr old capacity grant funding applications (PM) 6 2 yr old grant applications (Appendix 2) 6.1 Grant Application – Brookside Nurseries and Hewens (Applications circulated at a previous meeting) Application for Brookside - £68,937.56 (exc VAT) – number of places 24 - 48; Application for Hewens - £230,421 - number of places 30-60. ‹ Brookside Nursery – it was noted that the application is mainly for equipment. EC expressed some concern that the equipment listed might not be the best equipment for a single room provision and offered to speak with the school. EC to contact the EC school to discuss the equipment they need. Hewens – This application relates to the refurbishment of rooms and access areas –

members agreed that a further visit should be made and revised costings provided relating to the room(s) only – not the access areas. PR will arrange a visit; request adjusted and costed plans; and report back to Schools’ Forum. PR 6.2 Grant Application – Harefield Infant Nursery & Children’s Centre (Appendix 1a) Application for - £323,806.00 – number of places 10-15 Members were informed by PR that if they approve this very large amount, there will be very PR little funds left in the budget. LM and PR visited this school and informed members that the intention is to build the provision in a space between current buildings – members looked at the plans. Members agreed that a permanent building might be unnecessarily expensive and it was suggested that a less expensive building might be considered such as a porta-cabin. PR will arrange for members to make another visit but the general consensus of the meeting was that the project would be too expensive for just 15 places. 6.3 Grant Application – Twinkle Totz Day Nursery Limited (Appendix 1b) Application for - £11,122.69 – number of places – not provided It was noted that the initial application was to increase the free 3-4 year old take up and the funding is for 2 yr old places, however a second application refers to two year old places. The committee refused to accept the applications as they stand and would like a revised bid if the nursery would like to pursue this – PR will contact the nursery. PR

7 Project updates 7.1 Early Intervention - Educational Psychologists (Appendices 2) SS explained that she had sent apologies for the last meeting but these had not been noted – she apologized again. She then circulated her report (Appendix 2a) and highlighted from this that: ‹ She has not been personally overseeing the Assistant Psychologists, but two of her Senior Educational Psychologists have, and they have been meeting with LM – although a further meeting needs to be scheduled; ‹ The appointment of one of the existing Educational Psychologists to take up the role of Early Years Educational Psychologist has been confirmed for September 2015 and a second has yet to be confirmed; ‹ The Assistant Psychologists contributed to the report which details what they have been doing since they started work back in January 2015. This time has mainly been spent on their induction, training and visits to Early Year’s providers. Service offer & Target settings SS discussed with members where to target the service and suggested that they start by targeting schools based on their ‘on entry’ score. There are 14/15 schools where this is significantly low. Members expressed their concerns about this approach and would like to see the service more widely available and the resource used for the individual children in greatest need. KOS shared an occasion when she was told that her school is outstanding, therefore, it should pay for the service – but the targeted children for this service are pre- school. It was noted that provision for children over 5 is determined by a panel and it was KOS; agreed that this might be a better option for allocating the Educational Psychologists’ time. CW; KOS; CS; CW; SS and LM agreed to follow-up this discussion outside the meeting and will ask CS; SS for additional members from Primary Forum. & LM It was also agreed that the service should be primarily for 2 yr old children but might offer support for 3yr olds if appropriate. 8 AOB & Future Meeting Dates 8.1 Update on vulnerable children funding – PM reported that he is not sure what the outcome was from the sub-group which met with DK (Dan Kennedy) which was going to work on the criteria for this meeting. He will report back to the next meeting. PM 8.2 Early Years Pupil Premium – PM reported that it is still not clear from government how this money will be distributed. However, it is known that it will be based on a similar basis to the eligibility for free School Meals. Parents will need to supply their National Insurance number to check their eligibility – it was also noted that parents need to be reminded to tick a box, on a separate page to agree to the check being made. 8.3 Process for informing bidders of the outcome of 2 yr old capacity grant funding applications – PM asked about this and it was agreed that the officers should complete a form which LM Officer (as Chair of this Committee) should sign. s/LM 8.4 Impact of the election on Early Years – PM recommended that this should be a discussion Next item at the next meeting. Agenda 8.5 Refurbishing a building for2 yr old provision – PR reported that the authority is considering refurbishing an unused building, in an area of greatest need in the borough, for 2 yr old provision, and then ask an existing provider to deliver the provision. 8.6 Reading – SS will circulate links to the latest documents which she would recommend SS members read. 8.7 Date for the next Meeting Tuesday 16 June 2015 at 11:30 - Cherry Lane School The meeting closed at 13:15 Signed …………………………………………… Date …………………………

Item 5b Hillingdon Schools Forum DSG Monitoring Group Meeting

Meeting: Tuesday 28 April 2015 from 13:15 – 14:30 Venue: Cherry Lane School

Present:

Maintained Primary Mr Phil Haigh (PH) (Chair) Cherry Lane Primary School, and Governor Members: Moorcroft Special School.

Academy Representative: Mr Peter Ryerson (PRy) Guru Nanak Sikh Academy & Nanaksar Primary School

Maintained Primary Sector : Ms Kris O’Sullivan (KOS) Deanesfield Primary School Ms Chris Weaving (CW) Whiteheath Infant School

Maintained Special School: Mr Ross MacDonald (RM) Meadow High School

Academy Special School Mr Sudhi Pathak (SP) Finance and Resources Manager – Eden Member: Academy

Other Member: Ms Laurie Cornwell (LC) The Hillingdon Tuition Centre Pupil Referral Unit & the Young People’s Academy In attendance from : London Borough of Hillingdon Ms Ruth Munro (RM) Senior Accountant School Funding Mr John Goddard (JG) Hedgewood Special School Mr Graham Young (GY) Lead Business Partner for Schools Mr Peter Malewicz (PM) Finance Manager–Children & Young people’s Services Mr Jim Edgecombe (JE) Abbotsfield School Governor Mr Philip Ryan (PR) Families information service Manager Clerk Ms Sue Illsley (SI) Independent Clerk

Apologies: Mrs Ann Bowen-Breslin (ABB) Hillingdon Primary School

Minutes: Agend Action: a item: 1 Welcome & Introductions PH opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. Apologies were received from ABB. JP commented that her apologies for the previous meeting had not been noted. 2 Minutes Minutes from the meeting on 2 March 2015 – The minutes have already been presented to Schools’ Forum. 3 Matters Arising from the minutes on 2 March 2015 Which were not covered elsewhere on the agenda: ‹ Item 5 - The Families’ Information Service – PR asked for the PR – next moderation report to be carried forward to the next meeting. meeting ‹ Item 7.2 – Capital funding – this will be followed up at the Schools’ Forum meeting next week. 4 Notification of AOB ‹ ISB Group – it was noted that an ISB group needs to meet to discuss the Hillingdon Grid for Learning (JE). 5 DSG Programme of work for 2015/16 Financial Year Members looked through the DSG Centrally Retained DSG Budgets 2014/15 report (Appendix 1) and heard from PM that there is a need for the officers to report on the DSG funded positions like they do to the Council. GY and PM will be following the same council discipline and will establish a proper budget funding process. GY then went PM/GY through the report:

Cost Code: Budget: Notes: Action: 5.1 1.2.2 Top-up The top-up funding is for post 16 GY will provide a list of the funding - education colleges. This budget is not colleges the budget covers GY academies, for Schools’ Forum to amend. PM and provide a breakdown of free schools added that the budget could rise funding in the outturn

and colleges significantly because of provision rising report. to 25yrs. 1.2.3 Top-up and This budget covers children who are GY will provide a list 5.2 other funding receiving education outside of schools. detailing where children are - non- The students are not those receiving placed and an outturn GY maintained education in hospital. report detailing the funding and each provider has received. independent Members asked about any providers possible double funding and GY will report on this too. 1.2.5 SEN Support Members established that the manager GY will provide an outturn Services for the Hearing Impairment Advisory report detailing the posts 5.3 GY Teachers is Clare Rule and she reports which are currently filled to Jackie Wright (JW). A breakdown of and those which remain the staffing structures funded by DSG vacant. was noted at the end of the report. It Members would also like to was also noted that all of the teams, know how to access these under this budget, are being re- services and suggested that structured – work JW is carrying out, there migh t be a better way and many of the posts listed are not of delivering these services currently filled. such as outreach from the Special Schools. JW will be asked to attend DSG, as part JW of the work programme, to report on these services. GY will also try and find a way to report on the actual overheads – especially in GY relation to unfilled posts. 1.2.7 Other This budget covers post 16 FE college GY will circulate a list of GY 5.4 Alternative provision; provision for Children Looked providers. provision After and pupils who are sick and Members would also like to services vulnerable – eg in hospital. KOS pointed have the primary/secondary out that some of this funding leads to split. double funding – for example when Work programme to include Work children are in hospital. a discussion about posts PH noted that DSG is paying for staff in managed by Social Care. Programme. relation to domestic violence and these are managed by the Safeguarding lead who comes under Social Care not education. Members would welcome a discussion about this under the work programme. Members would also welcome more information on the part funding of the PM to provide more Head of All Age Disabilities post. This is information for the Work JW’s post and PM reported that DSG Programme on funding for pays about 10% towards this post. the Head of All Age Disabilities post. PM 1.3.1 Central PR provided a paper for the last PR will report on the expenditure meeting and was asked to provide following: 5.5 on children additional information. ‹ The management under 5 structure – to include who pays for each post; ‹ If any of these people are managed byPR someone who is not paid for from DSG or if anyone paid for from DSG manages staff who

are not paid for from DSG; ‹ How this compares with other boroughs; ‹ Do any of the DSG funded posts include statutory duties in their job description? ‹ Who carries out the Performance Management?

‹ Will all pay be moving onto the Soulbury Pay Scale? This budget includes the Local Leaders Andrew Wilcock to be 5.6 in Education. Members asked about the invited to the next meeting National Leaders and heard that they to report on the Local are paid for by way of grants from the Leaders in Education group 1.4.1 Contribution DfE. Members would like to discuss this and provide a 2013/14 Next Meeting to combined function as part of the work outturn statement and budgets programme. impact report. It was noted that the group was originally set up to support schools to

move from good to outstanding – but recently the support has been, almost entirely, directed at schools who are struggling. Members wondered whether the funding for this should continue to

come from DSG top slice or whether the

support should be directly funded from the schools using it.

It was noted that the budget will be underspent this year.

Members also discussed the targeted support for the key work team – which no longer exists; the funding for Procurement position which it was agreed should continue; and the Courier Services which Primary wanted and it

was agreed should continue. However, it was agreed that the virtual

school service, and budget, should be reviewed as part of the work programme. It was also agreed that performance measures need to be drawn up for the service because the authority is one of the highest funding authorities for children who are looked after, yet, the achievement of these

pupils is one of the lowest nationally. Bernadette Alexander is the new Headteacher for the service. Members heard that DSG contributes Virtual School to be included about 35% of the costs for education if a in the work programme Work child is being looked after out of Programme borough and this compares favourably with some other authorities where it is as high as 50%. RM explained that the need for a DSG contribution is determined by whether or not the

borough can provide the education the GY will provide a list of the child needs. providers and actual fundingGY received. 1.4.2 Schools PM reported that although this is a 5.7 admissions statutory duty, legislation permits the funding to come from DSG. It was also noted and accepted that there is still a need for the additional post, however, members would like to GY to report on the know how much DSG pays towards Dan proportion DSG pays to Dan Kennedy’s post. Kennedy’s post.

1.4.8 Fees to Members noted that regulations allow This budget to be 5.8 GY Independent DSG to provide funding to keep children considered under the work schools on the verge of requiring a statement/ programme. without SEN EHCPlan from needing one. It was noted that this budget is for £100k but Work only about £15k has been spent. Programme

PH will liaise with PM and GY after the meeting to agree the priorities for the work PH; PM & GY programme. 6 AOB 6.1 HGFL (Hillingdon Grid for Learning) - Schools Forum to be asked to organize an ISB Recommendatio Group meeting to discuss the future of HGFL. n to SF 7 Future Meetings Dates for future Meetings Tuesday 16 June 2015 at 13:00 - Cherry Lane School Meeting concluded at 14:30

Signed …………………………………………………………………. (Chair) Date ………………………………

Item 5c Hillingdon Schools Forum High Needs Group Meeting

Meeting: Wednesday 7 January 2015 from 14:30 – 15:45 Venue: Cherry Lane School

Present: Maintained Primary Mr Phil Haigh (PH) (Chair) Cherry Lane Primary School, and Governor Members: Moorcroft Special School.

Academy Representative: Mr Peter Ryerson (PRy) Guru Nanak Sikh Academy & Nanaksar Primary School

Maintained Primary Sector : Ms Kris O’Sullivan (KOS) Deanesfield Primary School Ms Chris Weaving (CW) Whiteheath Infant School

Maintained Special School: Mr Ross MacDonald (RM) Meadow High School

Academy Special School Mr Sudhi Pathak (SP) Finance and Resources Manager – Eden Member: Academy

Other Member: Ms Laurie Cornwell (LC) The Hillingdon Tuition Centre Pupil Referral Unit & the Young People’s Academy In attendance from : London Borough of Hillingdon Ms Ruth Munro (RM) Senior Accountant School Funding Mr John Goddard (JG) Hedgewood Special School Mr Graham Young (GY) Lead Business Partner for Schools Mr Peter Malewicz (PM) Finance Manager–Children & Young people’s Services Mr Jim Edgecombe (JE) Abbotsfield School Governor Ms Debbie Gilder (DG) Pield Heath School Mrs Debra Barlow (DB) Hayes Park Primary School Mr Arif Hasham (AH) Harlington School Ms Sue Illsley (SI) Independent Clerk

Apologies: Mrs Ann Bowen-Breslin (ABB) Hillingdon Primary School Ms Jackie Wright (JW) Head of All Age Disabilities

Minutes: Agenda item: Action: 1 Welcome & Introductions PH opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. Apologies were received from ABB. 2 Minutes (Appendices 1) 2.1 Minutes from the meeting on 7 January 2015 – The minutes have already been presented to Schools’ Forum and it was noted that the planned meeting on 2 March 2015 was cancelled because there was nothing urgent for the agenda. 2.2 Matters Arising –There were no matters arising which were not covered elsewhere on the agenda. 3 Notification of Any Other Business 3.1 None 4 Proposed Special Resource Provision (SRP) 4.1 Capacity PM reported that Cherry Lane and Lake Farm SRPs will have 12 places and St Martin’s 12 plus an additional 3 assessment places. 4.2 Opening dates PM reported that Cherry Lane will open in September 2015; Lake Farm opened in September 2014; and St Martin’s will open after September 2015. 4.3 Pre-opening Budgets PM reported that the pre-opening revenue budget for St Martin’s will be modelled on the budget for Cherry Lane (ref Appendix 1) - funding will be received in the term before opening to cover recruitment costs. Lake Farm and St Martin’s are new Basic Needs Academies, and Cherry Lane an existing school, so there will be some differences in relation to capital funding. GY is working with the Capital Team (Local Authority) to check what equipment was originally included in the original budget, to ensure that there is no duplicate funding. PRy asked what the specialisms will be and PM reported that they will all be ASD (Autism spectrum disorder) . 5 Speech & Language Therapy (SALT) - Contract Review GY spoke to the briefing paper (Appendix 2), prepared by Clare Harris (CH) – All Age Disabilities Category Manager, and this highlighted that: ‹ The Children & Families Act 2014 requires Local Authorities to consider which services might be suitable for joint commissioning. CH is recommending that this service is an ideal candidate for joint funding between Education and Health. ‹ The service is only for mainstream schools; ‹ Speech and language is one of the commonest difficulties for children with special education needs in the borough. PH asked how many children and GY explained that this is difficult to calculate exactly; ‹ The Local Authority has a statutory duty to provide a service to children with a statement/EHC Plan, and it is currently commissioned from the Central North West London NHS Foundation Trust (CNWL). Children without a statement or EHCPlan, also receive support which is met by the provider CNWL, but commissioned via the CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group); ‹ There are also some in house services; ‹ The current cost of the service, to DSG, is £250k; ‹ An SEN joint commissioning group has been set up in response to the question of joint commissioning. A working group has been set up to agree on the priorities for the future delivery of speech and language therapy (for 0-25 yr olds) and to design and agree the structure and content of a single service specification for the purposes of procuring the service jointly from April or September 2016. Consultation is currently taking place with stakeholders and this will be considered by the group. The group currently comprises of CH; a representative from CCG; GY and a representative from Parent’s Forum. RM questioned DSG money being used to provide this service when he believes that education has specialists in the Special Schools, who could deliver a better service. It was agreed that there should be representation from the primary sector; secondary PH sector; special schools and schools with an SRP. KOS volunteered to join the group and PH volunteered the speech and language lead from the Eden Academy and will CW/KOS forward her details to GY when he has spoken with her. CW/KOS will raise this at LC Primary Forum and LC will seek a volunteer from HASH. 6 Harlington School SRP Funding AH attended the meeting for this agenda item. AH explained that: ‹ Harlington School will experience a serious funding situation in its SRP next year; ‹ Currently the SRP is funded for 7 students, but 5 are leaving at the end of Yr 11 this year and a further student is leaving – this will leave just one student at the start of next year; ‹ A new cohort in 2017 should improve the situation, but the school has to wait for children to be placed with them by the panel, and this will not place new students with them until the existing students have left; ‹ Although the base funding for 7 students will still be in place, AH would like Schools’ Forum to consider providing transitional funding to support the provision until the student numbers can be increased; otherwise the school will have to consider making staff redundant and it will be difficult, and potentially more costly, to reopen another year; ‹ The SRP takes students with moderate learning difficulties and physical disabilities. Members discussed the situation and were reminded that School’s Forum had recently guaranteed top up funding for all agreed places at the Young Peoples Academy (formerly Chantry School). Members noted, however, that if Chantry School had closed the need for places would not have diminished and it would have been more costly to send students out of borough. The school has already discussed this with JW and PM was able to inform members about the funding situation – he explained that DSG is governed by the funding rules and the planned places funding should cover staffing costs – maybe there is a need to consider increasing base funding/weighting factor to ensure the viability of the provision. KOS reminded members that her school has had to subsidize funding for her SRP because her pupils are often only in the provision for a short time due to their success Harlington in getting them back into mainstream – members agreed that schools should not be School financially penalized for being successful. PH established that it is too late to request a paper for the main Schools’ Forum PM meeting next week. PM suggested that the school submits a business case to Schools’ Forum . PH also took a poll of the members eligible to vote and it was agreed that PM should put together a paper on transitional funding for a future meeting for the next High Needs meeting - it was also agreed that any request for transitional funding should be by way of a business plan from the provider. RM also suggested that schools in similar circumstances should flag this up to Schools Forum at a much earlier date and effective placement planning would negate the need for transitional funding. 7 AOB 7.1 SEN Strategy – RM reported that he and other members looked at the SEN strategy with JW and this work has now been completed. 7.2 Apology – RM apologized for sending e-mails, relating to funding streams and monopolies; and the need for equality of funding and transparency, which were contrary to protocol. The matters will be tabled for a meeting where JW can be present – and it is hoped that this will be at the next meeting. 7.3 The Young People’s Academy (Chantry School) – LC updated members on the recent conversion of the school which is now called the Young People’s Academy. Numbers of students on roll are increasing and the final deficit for 2014/15 was lower than anticipated at £112k (the original projections had been for a deficit in the region of £250k). The school’s official opening will be 10 June 2015 and all members will be welcome to attend. It was also noted that the PRU and HTC are hoping to join the trust in August 2015. 8 Future Meetings Dates for future Meetings Tuesday 16 June 2015 at 14:00 - Cherry Lane School Meeting concluded at 15:45 Signed …………………………………………………………………. (Chair) Date ……………………………… Schools Budget

Dedicated Schools Grant (£302k underspend, £1,819k improvement)

1. The 2014/15 outturn position for the Dedicated Schools Grant is reporting an in year underspend of £302k, an improvement of £1,819k on the month 11 position, due in part to a double count of expenditure on SEN pupils and delays in a number of new initiatives, such as the Early Years Educational Psychology service, the Play Van and the Two Year Old capacity funding. This underspend is due to additional 16-19 funding from the EFA for SEN pupils along with funds set aside for two year old capacity funding not yet being allocated to specific projects and a reduction in the projected cost of SEN placements. The underspends are partly off-set by an overspend on the centrally retained budgets relating to payments made for additional bulge year classes, that have opened in September 2014 and the cost of the two new Basic Need Academy school set up costs and diseconomies of scale funding.

2. The underspend on the DSG, includes the planned use of the surplus balance that was carried forward from 2013/14, where additional resources totalling £1,294k were delegated to schools above the actual amount of DSG. Due to a number of school conversions to academy status, the budget has been realigned to match the actual DSG received and the actual funds delegated to schools. Additionally the pressure identified on the funds delegated to schools has been aligned to the centrally retained budgets. The following Table summarises the Total DSG income and expenditure for 2014/15.

Provisional Variance (+ adv / - fav) Variance Original Budget Change Revised Variance (As at Budget Changes Funding Block Outturn from Budget (Outturn) Month Month 11) 11 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 (145,373) 7,097 Dedicated Schools Grant Income (138,276) (138,276) 0 0 113,606 (7,883) Delegated to Schools 105,723 105,723 0 0 4,581 (144) Early Years 4,437 3,893 (544) (89) (455) 3,604 (704) Centrally Retained 2,900 3,966 1,066 1,780 (714) 23,582 1,634 Special Needs 25,216 24,392 (824) (174) (650) 0 (0) Total Schools Budget 0 (302) (302) 1,517 (1,819)

0 0 Balance Brought Forward 1 April 2014 (3,781) (3,781)

Balance Carried Forward 31 March 0 0 (3,781) (4,083) 2015

Dedicated Schools Grant Income 3. The budget for the Dedicated Schools Grant income was realigned to take account of the actual grant received as notified by the (DfE), taking into account any school academy conversions of which there were four (Pinkwell Primary (1.4.14), Ruislip High (1.4.14), Hillingdon Primary (1.7.14) and Ryefield Primary (1.2.15). This realignment includes the £467k adjustment for Pentland Fields Special Free School where the DfE increased the funds that had been deducted at the beginning of the year.

Early Years (£544k underspend, £455k improvement)

4. The Early Years funding block underspent by £544k, an improvement of £455K on the month 11 position. This is primarily due to the funds set aside and committed for two year old capacity funding (£482k), which are yet to be allocated to specific projects and will be required in 2015/16 and an increase in the underspend on the two year old free entitlement provision (£51k). 5. The Council is still in the process of identifying suitable sites and properties to ensure that the level of 2 Year Old free places meets the target set by the Government. Additionally, Schools Forum agreed at its meeting on 15 th January 2015 that a provision of £856k would be provided for in 2015/16, which would be funded from the base budget of £519k, with a further £337k being funded from a retained earmarked balance.

Centrally Retained (£1,066k overspend, £714k improvement)

6. The centrally retained budgets overspent by £1,066k, an improvement of £714k on the month 11 position, which is due to a reduction of £138k in the actual deficit incurred by Chantry School prior to academy school conversion and less resources being required to be drawn down from the surplus balances following the realignment of the budgets to take account of school academy conversions.

7. The overspend relates to payments that have been made for additional bulge year classes, that have opened in September 2014 and the cost of the two new Basic Need Academy school set up costs and diseconomies of scale funding totalling £817k. In addition there is an overspend on admissions of £56k due to a higher number of admissions in the year, an overspend on overheads of £110k, due to the actual recharge being higher than budgeted and an overspend of £61k on the Barnhill PFI costs due to an increase in the number of in year variations.

Special Needs (£824k underspend, £650k improvement)

8. The Special Needs budgets underspent by £824k, an improvement of £650k on the month 11 position, due to a decrease in the cost of SEN placements, where the actual cost is less than the estimated cost built into the initial projections, where a high proportion of placement costs were based on the independent school rate, due to most in borough provision being at capacity. The underspend relates to a lower than projected increase in the number of children with a statement, where the actual growth in the SEN pupil population in 2014/15 was 4.5% compared with the estimated increase of 7.24% reported at month 11. The actual position for this expenditure is hard to predict as a high proportion of costs are still not known at the year end, especially where children are placed out of borough in either other local authority schools or independent schools, who raise invoices after the year end. At the year end the value of accruals raised was in excess of £1.5 million for SEN placements.

9. The following table sets out the change in the number of pupils with an SEN statement over the last 4 years:

Yr end Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals actual Difficulty 31/03/11 31/03/12 31/03/13 31/3/14 2014/15 Autistic Spectrum disorder 315 355 405 440 496 Behaviour, Emotional and Social Difficulty 152 143 149 129 126 Hearing Impairment 37 31 38 42 46 Mild Learning Difficulty 295 290 298 298 302 Multi-Sensory Impairment 7 7 6 6 6 Other ie: (Medical/mental health) 34 32 37 39 39 Physical Disability 76 85 89 90 91 Profound & Multiple learning diffs 29 33 32 30 34 Speech Language and Communication Needs 237 247 259 272 280 Severe Learning Difficulty 108 115 114 117 122 Specific Learning Difficulty 23 28 32 37 32 Visual Impairment 18 18 21 26 29 Blank 9 3 8 Total 1,340 1,387 1,480 1,534 1,603 Change - Numbers 47 93 54 69 Change - Percentage 3.51% 6.71% 3.65% 4.5%

Year End Balances

10. The DSG is allowed to carry forward any in year over or underspends. It should be noted that where the DSG is expected to underspend, it is anticipated that this will be factored into the total DSG available for delegation in the following year. Based on the outturn position reported in the table above, the projected year-end balance will be £4,083k.

School Balances Report 2014/15

4. Introduction

This report provides Schools Forum with information on the level of revenue and capital balances held by Hillingdon schools as at 31 March 2015, including the balances of schools that converted to Academy school status during the 2014/15 financial year.

2. Information

Appendix A shows schools balances as at 31 March 2015 for all Hillingdon schools. The following table summarises the information on the revenue balances for each sector including the movement between 2013/14 and 2014/15:

Sector Revenue Revenue Movement Balances Balances Between 2013/14* 2014/15 Years £ £ £ Maintained Schools Nursery 70,062 136,695 +66,633 Primary 10,560,720 10,960,158 +399,438 Secondary 1,033,342 246,538 -786,804 Special 413,627 605,197 +191,570 Hillingdon Tuition Centre 297,240 395,611 +98,371

Total Maintained Schools 12,374,991 12,344,199 -30,792

Converter Academy Schools 375,137 365,896 -9,241

Total All Schools 12,750,128 12,710,095 -40,033

*Adjusted to remove those schools that converted to academies in 2013/14

The total reserves for all schools (both revenue and capital, including those schools that converted to Academy status during 2014/15) as at 31 March 2015, is £13.2 million.

• Overall balances decreased by £842k compared to 2013/14 • Revenue balances decreased by £40k • Capital balances decreased by £802k

The movement in revenue balances from 2013/14 varied from +£269k to -£448k. The appendix illustrates where schools are expanding in capacity to attempt to give some insight into possible reasons for some of the balances.

Out of the 58 schools which were maintained by the LA as at 31.3.2015 (including Chantry which converted on 01.04.2015), all except two closed the 2014/15 accounts with a surplus balance.

The table below shows each schools revenue balance as a percentage of total revenue income plus carry forward. Overall, 55.2% of schools hold revenue balances greater than 8%, or 5% for secondary schools. This is compared to 48.4% in 2013/14. The below table summarises the percentages by sector:

Sector Number Number Number of Number Number of of Schools of of Schools Schools with Schools Schools with with Balances in with Balances Balances > 20% Deficit Balances > 2% and > 8% and < 2% < 8% < 20% Nursery 0 0 0 1 0 Primary 0 2 22 25 2 Secondary 1 0 1 0 0 Special 1 0 0 3 0

Total Maintained Schools 2 2 23 29 2

3. Revenue funding of capital spend

Appendix B details those schools that have used revenue budget to fund capital spend in 2014/15. As can be seen in the attached, £2.4m of revenue funding was used for capital expenditure in 2014/15. This was a significant increase when compared with the previous year when £1.3m was used for this purpose.

Procurement of Utility Contracts

5. Introduction

This report provides an update on the procurement of gas and electricity contracts which are coming up for renewal on 30 September 2016. This update was deferred from both the January 2015 and March 2015 meetings.

6. Information

Laser's current framework for the supply of gas and electricity expires on 30th September 2016. Laser have completed an OJEU compliant tender and have awarded new suppliers to their new Framework for the period Oct 2016 - Sept 2020. This will directly impact on a number of schools, who currently use Laser for the provision of Gas and or Electricity. These schools have been contacted to discuss whether they wish to continue onto the new framework or make their own energy supply contract arrangements.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 19 March 2015, agreed to the renewal of the sites, under the current LASER flexible electricity & gas Framework, to continue onto the new LASER framework from 1 October 2016 for a period of 4 years until 30 September 2020.

On 5 March 2015, the DfE issued EFA e-bulletin 81, which provided some advice and guidance on purchasing energy for schools, where the Department for Education has announced an arrangement with Crown Commercial Service (CCS) to enable schools achieve greater value for money when purchasing their energy requirements.

This will help minimise the issues for schools caused by the complexity and volatility of the energy markets.