People and Communities
Strategic Schools Forum
6th March 2019 9:30am Backwell BS48 3BX Agenda Action Lead Apologies and Declarations of Interest - SSF 1. 9:30 members are reminded that they need to declare an John Simpson interest in any item that is on the agenda
2. 9:35 Minutes of the previous meeting John Simpson
Matters arising: 3. 9:40 John Simpson Notification of AOB -
Chair’s Business 4. 9:45 John Simpson Letter from the National Education Union
Governance: • Draft Principles to underpin 5. 10:00 Decision John Simpson decision making relating to the schools budget.
Finance Report, incorporating: • 2018-19 Monitor Information 6. 10:15 Emma Whitehead • 2019-20 Schools Budget & Decision • 2019-20 Council Budget
Education Inclusion Service Report: • Top up Funding 7. 11:00 Information Wendy Packer • Specialist/AP Provision Update • Invest to Save
Future Meeting Dates of SSF 8. 11:30 Information Emma Whitehead (Verbal)
9. 11:45 Evaluation of meeting – Date of next meeting- 19 June 2019 – Venue: TBC Papers will be issued on the 12th June 2019 where possible.
People and Communities Strategic Schools Forum
Wednesday 16th January 2019 09:30 – 11.15, Worle Community School
Present John Simpson (JS) C Chair Chris Hildrew (CHi) V Head Teacher, Churchill Academy and Sixth Form Sarah Harding (SH) V Head Teacher, Kewstoke Primary School Tracy Towler (TT) V Head Teacher, Westhaven Special School Martin Kerslake (MK) V Chief Operations Officer, Priory Learning Trust Sue Elliott (SE) V Head Teacher, Worle Village Primary School Paul Conkie (PC) V Assistant Head Teacher, Backwell School (Lighthouse MAT) Maria Davidson (MD) V Chief Finance Officer, Extend Learning Academies Network Wendy Farrier (WF) V Governor, Churchill Primary Tony Hill (TH) V Acting Principal, Voyage Learning Campus Karen Worthington (KW) V Weston College (in substitution for Jacqui Ford) Stephen Webber (SW) V Head Teacher, All Saints Primary School Paul Trauberman (PT) V Rainbow Smiles Nursery Cllr Jan Barber (JB) NV Councillor – Executive Member for C&YP Services Emma Whitehead (EW) Of Education Funding and Traded Services Manager, NSC Wendy Packer (WP) Of Service Leader - VLS and Virtual School Head, NSC Katherine Sokol (KS) Of Finance Business Partner, NSC Jenie Eastman (JE) Of Early Years Team Manager, NSC
Becky Farler NSC Clerk
Item Issue Action
1. Apologies and Declarations of interest (JS) JS welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked the PLT for hosting.
Apologies have been received from: Adam Matthews, ELAN (Marie Davidson representing) Mike Evans, Ravenswood Claire Hudson, Diocese of Bath & Wells Gary Lewis, LSP (Paul Conkie representing)
JS acknowledged that everyone present has an interest in the items for discussion today as decisions regarding school budgets will impact on all schools within North Somerset. 2. Minutes of the previous meeting (JS) Approved for accuracy, apart from one typographical error which will be corrected. 3. Matters arising that are not on the agenda and notification of
AOB (JS)
Matters Arising
Page 2
1
A response has yet to be received from the RSC regarding the Alternative Provision Review. It is now likely to be February before an update is available.
Page 3 There has been no feedback from the DfE in response to North Somerset’s submission regarding DSG deficits.
A number of expressions of interest have been received regarding membership of the FRWG, and a further request for support will be issued shortly. The positive response is encouraging and will hopefully lead to a stronger group being formed for the future.
Page 4 With regard to multi-agency contributions towards support for young people; KS advised that there has been an independent examination which has concluded that current arrangements should be reconsidered. However, this is unlikely to have a significant impact on the contributions from education because the focus is more on health and social care. SS has emailed some example figures to KS who will forward these for inclusion in the minutes. Please see detail below:
Case 1 Current funding: Health 0%/Education 33%/Social Care 67% Proposed funding: Health 48%/Education 34%/Social Care 18%
Case 2 Current funding: Health 0%/Education 33%/Social Care 67% Proposed funding: Health 3%/Education 34%/Social Care 63%
Case 3 Current funding: Health 9%/Education 33%/Social Care 58% Proposed funding: Health 9%/Education 34%/Social Care 57%
Case 4 Current funding: Health 0%/Education 33%/Social Care 67% Proposed funding: Health 3%/Education 34%/Social Care 63%
Page 9 JS has discussed with Officers how to improve support for new SSF members. 4. Chair’s Business (JS) JS shared his reflections regarding two issues that arose at the previous SSF meeting.
Firstly, he has asked NS officers to contact the DfE about the fact that it is very disruptive to decision-making when the deadline dates for receipt of information from the Local Authority and Strategic Schools Forum are changed. In order to meet previous amended deadlines, the date of the last SSF had to be moved; and subsequently a request has been made for information that is being discussed at this meeting to be submitted tomorrow. JS has asked for the point to be raised that it is very difficult to plan meetings and make decisions within the timescales that are being issued.
Additionally, JS has suggested that some consideration could be given to the process through which proposals are tabled for discussion at the Strategic Schools Forum. At the last meeting the SSF was asked to make decisions regarding the transfer of money from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block; but the proposals submitted by officers had not been modelled beforehand to
2
illustrate to the SSF their potential impact on schools. A meeting has been arranged with Sheila Smith to consider how some work could potentially be done in advance of future meetings to provide some additional context before voting takes place. Initially there will be a need to establish what information schools are likely to prefer. JS will keep the SSF informed of the discussions. JS 5. Governance (EW) No issues to discuss.
6. Internal Audit – Annual Report 2018-19 JS confirmed that this has been issued for information; and it sets out the main findings from the recent Audit. EW advised that the Auditors will use the findings to inform the audit plan for the next Financial Year, and they have invited comments from the SSF if there are any areas that require particular focus.
The SSF sought clarification that this report involves mainstream schools only; because Academies have their own audit processes. EW confirmed that this is correct. The query was then raised about the value of the report as the number of mainstream schools reduces. With the majority of schools now having Academy status, the SSF has less of an overview of potential audit risks.
It was suggested that Academies could potentially share data to feed into the audit report. EW confirmed that this could be done if schools are willing; but it may not be a feasible request to make.
The SSF noted this item. The SSF noted 7. Finance Report JS confirmed that this report incorporates a series of items, and he suggested that each mini-report is discussed as an individual item.
Exceptional Growth Policy EW confirmed that the changes made since the last draft are highlighted in yellow. The responses to the consultation were in favour of the policy on the whole; but responses from the Secondary Sector were not so faviourable. Consequently, EW has spoken to Secondary colleagues and has made the highlighted changes. Class sizes have initially been reduced from 30 to 28, and they may need to reduce again for future years. Also, the percentage shown is now of the year group, not of the whole school.
This policy needs to be agreed by the SSF at this meeting; and if more work is then required it can be done for 2020/2021.
MK queried whether the changes affect Priory; and he commented that point 3 is unclear regarding the PAN figures. EW advised that Priory should not be affected. The SSF The SSF agreed the Exceptional Growth Policy. agreed
VLC Deficit This is an update following previous discussions and is for information. EW requested confirmation that the SSF is satisfied that the Local Authority are taking the action required and there was agreement with this.
The SSF noted the report. The SSF noted
3
2018-19 Monitor The SSF are asked to note the the forecast budget position. EW confirmed that the overspend on redundancies and VLC rent have previously been discussed at this Forum. The SSF The SSF noted the report. noted
Additional High Needs Funding Announcement EW confirmed that at the last Forum meeting an agreement was reached on a figure for the disapplication, and this was submitted. However, having received a number of disapplication requests from Local Authorities, the Government then responded shortly after the deadine by announcing some additional funding for High Needs in both 2018/19 and 2019/20. Although this money is welcome, it is important to note that it does not solve the financial challenges; and the actions being taken to reduce deficit budgets must still be taken.
The DfE will be carrying out a spending review in 2019/2020 so it is unclear whether this additional funding is a permanent increase. However, there is now a high expectation that Local Authorities will reduce their disapplications, or withdraw them completely.
The Local Authority is recommending that the additional money for 2018/19 is put back into the High Needs Block in order to reduce the overspend, and is asking the SSF to support this recommendation. The comment was made that it would be preferable to use the money to sustain existing commitments rather than just offset an overspend. This was acknowledged, but the point was also made that the overspend is considerably more than the SSF originally agreed to; so using the money to reduce the additional overspend would not be unreasonable. The suggestion was made that the wording could be amended to make it clear that the funding is being used to help the SSF to continue with the commitment made to support schools while also bringing budgets back under control. JS felt that these discussions do not contradict the recommendations within the report; and he asked the SSF if they would be in agreement with the recommendation if it was reworded.
The SSF agreed without a vote.
The SSF also agreed with the proposal to amend the disapplication request to 1.65%.
Additionally, the SSF is being asked to consider how the additional funding should be used in 2019/2020. Two options have been tabled as part of the finance report, but SSF members have also been invited to propose any alternative options for discussion. EW reiterated that these options are for one year only.
JS confirmed that the money has to stay in the Schools Block, and the two suggestions from the Local Authority are to either put the money into the SS Targetted Support Fund, or put it into AWPU and increase the amount of funding per pupil. Putting the money into the Targetted Support Fund would go some way towards mitigating the impact of the proposed TUF cuts for affected schools. Putting it into AWPU would give schools an increase per pupil for one year, but this would then reduce again the following financial year.
4
JS advised that before the meeting CHi approached him to advise that he has an alternative suggestion to put forward on this matter; and he invited CHi to present this to the Forum.
CHi advised that in his opinion the recommendations put forward by the Local Authority are two extremes where option one does not sit comfortably against middle ground and option two does not recognise high needs at all. He suggested that the discussions at the last SSF meeting about the level of disapplication to apply for, and the eventual vote which was a compromise, are an indication that the Forum feels that the needs of the many should be balanced against support for students with high levels of need. CHi advised that his proposal is to split the money in half between the two options.
JS thanked CHi for his input, and advised the Forum that in procedural terms he will seek a vote on CHi’s amendment first. If it is passed the other options tabled by the Local Authority will be put aside, but if it is not agreed these other options will be put forward for a vote. Prior to votes being cast, JS invited comments from Forum members.
SW commented that under option one there would be no benefit for smaller schools, but with CHi’s proposal there would be some benefit.
TT expressed significant concern that half of the money would not be enough for special schools, or for mainstream schools who have high numbers of pupils with high levels of need.
SH commented that some schools have pupils with high needs who do not meet the thresholds for additional funding, and these students still need to be supported. Having some money added to AWPU would go a small way towards mitigating this situation.
JS asked the SSF to vote on CHi’s proposal to split the money with half going into the Targetted Support Fund and half going into AWPU. The SSF Those in favour 9 agreed Those against 2 Absentions 1
JS confirmed that this recommendation has been passed.
School Budget – continuation of support services JS confirmed that the SSF is being asked to consider the continuation of funding for the Truro Pathways and School Placement Support Team (SPST) in the 2019/20 budget and he asked WP to provide some contextual information about this item. WP confirmed that these services were agreed by the SSF a couple of years ago to help to prevent youngsters having to go out of county. The proposal is to keep this in the budget so that the work can continue. If it is not kept in, alternative options would have to be considered because the costs of out of county placements cannot be met. JS asked WP if it is clear that having these services in the budget reduces the cost of out of area placements and WP confirmed that this is definitely correct. Additionally, if the services were removed any redundancy costs would have to be covered.
WF commented that she has visited the facility at Westhaven and she was extremely impressed with the work that is done there. In her opinion it is a valuable resource that should definitely remain in place. TT commented that
5
she would ideally like the facility to become permanent, and SH suggested that if it is a proven way of keeping young people in county it should be protected and developed. WP confirmed that it is cost-effective and it makes an enormous difference to children’s lives, so she would like it to be part of the Alternative Provision review.
JS thanked everyone for their comments but it was agreed that this is a discussion for another time. The SSF needs to decide today whether the funding for the service should remain in the budget for next year. EW also drew the Forum’s attention to the fact that there is a recommendation around areas that will no longer need to be funded and how this money will be used in small part to for the SPST that this money could possibly be used to progress alternative provision and possible new hubs.
JS suggested that the SSF should make a combined decision against the The SSF recommendations for keeping the budget for the support services, and using agreed funding from ceased areas to progress alternative provision. The SSF agreed to do this, and agreed with the recommendations without a vote.
Repayment of deficit At the last SSF meeting it was agreed that the deficit should be repaid over six years. The proposal for consideration today is not about changing the repayment period; but to agree to repay at least £0.5 million each year. The Government has made it clear that they want the deficit to be paid back within 3 years, but the discussions today and at previous meetings show that options have been discussed and considered with the conclusion made that it is not possible to do this. The comment was made that the deficit has built up entirely due to efforts to support the most vulnerable children in North Somerset during a time when budgets have been exceptionally tight and support services have been reduced. Many schools are starting to see deficit budgets as a result of having to respond to national budget challenges.
MK commented that the figures work out at about £17.50 per student. The SSF agreed The SSF agreed with the recommendation on this item without a vote. 8. Education Inclusion Service Report – Outcome of the Top Up
Funding Consultation
JS reminded the SSF that the TUF review was commissioned by the Forum to
bring the budget back under control and also look at how processes can be
improved for the future. He also highlighted the need to ensure that the Equality
Impact Assessment is taken into consideration throughout the decision-making
process. The report presented at this meeting details the responses to the
consultation, including detailed comments that were made by respondants.
JS asked WP to introduce this item.
WP advised that the consultation period was interesting. It launched on 29th
November 2018, and closed last Thursday – 10th January. On Tuesday 8th
January only 50 responses had been received, but by Thursday morning this
had increased to 180 responses. WP has looked at the responses to each item
in the consultation and has put together recommendations for the SSF to
consider. Some of these recommendations are completely in line with the
results from the consultation, but others are not because there is no money to
take forward other recommendations made. WP confirmed that there is a set
budget against which the Authority has to operate, and this has to be adhered
to.
6
JS advised that as per usual procedure when there are a lot of recommendations to consider, he has identified the ones that he feels require discussion before agreement. As always, however, SSF members are welcome to put forward any other recommendations that they wish to discuss. Any points not specifically put forward for discussion will be taken as agreed.
JS proposed that all recommendations are discussed except for the following:
4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5A, 5C and 5D.
The SSF agreed with this proposal.
JS suggested that the SSF refer to the paperwork from page 4 onwards as a guide for the discussion, rather than using pages 2 and 3. This is because pages 4 onwards contain the voting figures and commentary. The first point to be discussed is question 8 on page 6.
Prior to discussions, CHi asked for it to be recognised that the votes submitted during the consultation will have come from different representative groups with different priorities and opinions, and this needs to be borne in mind during decision-making. JS agreed and confirmed that the consultation was held to ensure that everyone is listened to and that their views are taken into acccount; but it is ultimately the SSF who has the final decision on the recommendations.
Question 8 – Post to monitor the use of TUF The consultation responses show that although there is support for the notion of having a post, this is not wanted at the present time. Therefore the recommendation from the Local Authority is that the post is not agreed.
SE queried whether it is possible to make the necessary changes to the TUF process without having someone to manage it. WP advised that this post would not have operational control because that will remain with the SEN team; it would be a role to support schools with making their applications. SE suggested that if the TUF Panel is experienced enough and well trained the process should work well enough without the post, and WP agreed. KS recognised the reasons why schools would not want TUF money to fund the post, but consideration could be given to whether it is a post that comes under ‘invest to save’. SW felt that schools should be responsible for ensuring that their applications are sound, and that Head Teachers who sign off the submissions should be responsible for them. TT advised that she often sees children with the same targets in their EHCP plans for several years, instead of them changing as the child grows older. She suggested that this indicates a lack of monitoring. WP agreed that there is a need for better consistency, and she advised that in fact the idea of having a post arose from a conversation with Head Teachers. It has been suggested that some schools may not always use TUF money to the best effect and it is important to make sure that funding is used in a way that benefits the child the most. SH asked what would happen if it was identified that a school was not using money appropriately. It is one thing to go in and tick some boxes, but another matter if money needs to be taken back. WP advised that with moderation panels happening more regularly there would be an opportunity to take action to stop or amend future funding. It would not be a case of taking any money back from schools. The post in question would be around monitoring spend after it has been allocated. JE commented that the Early Years team provide TUF for young children and members of the team do go out to settings to monitor how it is used.
7
JS thanked the SSF for their discussion on this item, and requested a vote. He confirmed that the recommendation is that a monitoring post is not agreed, so if a vote is in favour this is in favour of not having the post.
Those in favour 7 Those against 4 Absentions 1 The SSF JS confirmed that this recommendation has been passed, but it could be agreed revisited in future.
Question 9 – Appeals Panel criteria WP advised that this recommendation was proposed by the consultant commissioned to carry out the TUF review, and the Local Authority feels it is right to look at the entire criteria.
The SSF agreed with this recommendation without a vote.
Question 11 – PDR and external professional advice The SSF WP confirmed that the consultation responses were quite evenly split on this agreed item, and the final recommendation from the Local Authority is a bit of both. It is proposed that Plan Do Review is used, but that the need to consult for external advice is removed.
The SSF agreed with this recommendation without a vote.
WP confirmed that from this point onwards the questions cover particular areas of concern and this is reflected in the consultation responses. The SSF Question 14 – Approval of new TUF criteria agreed The recommendation from the Authority is that the proposed criteria are accepted, but that the FRWG looks at this in more detail for 2020/2021. The recommendation to approve at this stage is due to the timescales involved, and the need to start bringing the budget under control. The SSF queried wehther the new criteria would apply immediately for the next round of applications and this was confirmed. The SSF The SSF agreed with this recommendation without a vote. agreed
Question 15 - Band Tariffs The recommendation is to accept this proposal, as per a previous request from the SSF even though this is contrary to the consultation responses. SW felt that it was unclear in the consultation where the money would be coming from and he suggested that some of the responses may have been affected by this lack of clarity.
There was some discussion about contracts for staff who work to support this cohort of students. Some schools issue annual contracts, but other contracts are worded that the position will last for the period of time that a child is at school which could indicate a longer period of time. It was acknowledged that because TUF is attached to a child it can be difficult for schools to commission staff.
JS requested a vote.
Those in favour 8
8
Those against 2 Absentions 1
JS highlighted the need to communicate with schools that there has been a commitment to review expenditure, and that decisions are being made in this vein. It will be important to confirm that this is the reason such difficult decisions are being made.
Question 16 – Moderation after two years This question is very similar to the issue above, but it is for new students in receipt of TUF.
JS requested a vote.
Those in favour 11 Those against 0 Absentions 0
Question 17 – Fixed place funding for Special Schools and the VLC WP advised that during the consultation period there were a number of significant additional conversations with schools about this item. The recommendation is that there is not a fixed amount per place for special schools, and the three special school heads are in agreement with this. However the recommendation is that there should be fixed place funding for the VLC.
WF commented that although she understands that the higher levels of funding (3 and 4) mean that children are likely to be in special schools, it does not seem fair that children at levels 1 and 2 will receive different rates.
MK advised that he thought from previous conversations that special schools wanted to have a set amount of place funding and he queried why this has changed.
TT advised that some children in special schools have extreme levels of need so consideration had to be given to whether a school would be able to take these children on a set amount of place funding rather than a level of TUF. The £10K base funding level per place for special schools has remained the same for a long time even though the money went much further years ago than it does now.
KS confirmed that at the last SSF meeting it was agreed that special schools should be protected as much as possible, and the recommendation tabled under this item will achieve this objective.
JS asked the SSF to vote on the recommendation from LA that there is not a fixed amount per place for special schools for 2019/2020.
Those in favour 12 Those against 0 Absentions 0
JS asked the SSF to vote on the recommendation that there is a fixed amount for the VLC for one year – 2019/2020.
9
The SSF assumed that this is because students at the VLC will not necessarily be in receipt of TUF when they join the school and WP confirmed that this is correct.
Those in favour 12 Those against 0 Absentions 0
Question 18 – TUF band tariffs for Resource Bases, Special Schools & the VLC The SSF requested more information about the Resource Bases. WP confirmed that there are bases at Castle Batch and Mendip Green where youngsters in mainstream schools with sight and hearing difficulties receive additional support. It was noted that the expenditure at these bases has increased considerably although pupil numbers have not, and the SSF would like to understand the context of this. Action – WP to investigate and update at the next meeting.
It was also noted that the Resource Bases currently offer drop-ins for children from other schools at no cost. The question was raised about whether there would be an expectation that the bases should start asking schools for funding contributions, or whether they might even stop offering this outreach support. Action – WP to investigate and update at the next meeting.
The SSF agreed with this recommendation without a vote.
The SSF agreed that the other recommendations within this item regarding Special Schools and the VLC have already been passed under Question 17.
Question 19 – Band values WP confirmed that this recommendation is being made with a heavy heart, but it is necessary in order to bring the budget back in line. As previously discussed some very difficult decisions are having to be made.
The SSF expressed clear understanding about why the consultation responses are against the proposals, and all present would prefer it if such steps did not have to be taken. However, if existing levels of funding were maintained it would have a massive impact on AWPU for other students and it is very important for the limited funding available to be shared as equitably as possible between all students in North Somerset.
JS requested a vote.
Those in favour (with regret) 11 Those against 0 Absentions 0
JS confirmed that this is consistent with previous decisions made.
Question 20 – Weston College JS requested clarification about why this proposal is in the document, when none of the other recommendations have actually named a provider in this way. WP advised that Weston College is the main provider for Post 16 education, and they are being referred to in the same way that Special Schools and the VLC have been referred to under previous items. She confirmed that the propsoals are for one year only, and are consistent with other decisions made for this sector.
10
JS invited KW to comment on the recommendation. KW advised that although the college understands how difficult the situation is, it does seem that they are being specifically targetted through these proposals. The college has always stayed within budget year on year, and has therefore not contributed towards the overspend at all, despite supporting a high number of vulnerable students. There are 350 young people on roll with EHCP’s, and approximately 510 high needs students who have annual reviews etc. She suggested that the proposals should also affect other post 16 providers in the area. EW advised that although the college is the primary provider of Post 16 education in North Somerset, there are also 6th Forms attached to mainstream schools, and these students have been affected by the cuts to the school budget. KW acknowledged this, but also commented that 6th Forms predominantly support students who take A-levels whereas the college offers a much wider curriculum with additional support including a sensory learning base. The intake includes young people from both in and out of county who often come from complex backgrounds, and the college does not have any additional funding streams or contributions from other local authorities.
JE queried what the proportion of the overall budget goes to Weston College, and KS advised that it is about 1% of the budget.
The SSF advised that it would be very helpful to have a paper containing more information about how Weston College works so that they have a better understanding of the system in orer to make informed decisions about funding in future.
JS thanked the SSF for this robust conversation, and he agreed that it would be helpful to have some additional information. However, a decision has to be made today so that the budget can be set and further discussions can then take place, perhaps as part of the AP review. He suggested that this might be another ‘invest to save’ consideration.
JS asked for a vote on the recommendation so that the budget can be set.
Those in favour 7 Those against 2 Absentions 3 9. Evaluation of Meeting JS confirmed that some extremely important and difficult decisions have been 6. made at this meeting. He feels that these decisions have been taken very well and that there have been productive discussions during the process. The meeting has been well attended which has meant that there has been good representation across all sectors, and consistent attendance at previous meetings has enabled informed decisions to be made. JS also thanked the LA officers for their hard work in putting the paperwork together despite very short timescales.
The SSF requested that the decisions made today are communicated to schools via a Red Noticeboard, and that it is clearly explained that the recommendations have been adapted in response to the consultation comments so that the school community knows they have been listened to. 9. Date of Next Meeting Wednesday 6th March 2019 – venue TBC (WF will check availability at Backwell)
11
SSF 6th March 2019 Agenda Item 4 - Chairs business,
Letter from National Education Union
Dear John,
We would like the following item placed on the next North Somerset Strategic Schools Forum to be held on the 6th March.
Agenda item: Restoration of the Trade Union Facilities Arrangements in North Somerset in line with the National Burgundy Book Agreement – Ian Scott National Education Union Regional Officer
Summary
Through the national Burgundy Book agreement, local authority schools and academies throughout England provide funding to enable reasonable facilities time to elected accredited union representatives to perform their roles both locally and nationally.
Local authorities (LAs) and schools both maintained and academies all benefit from the contributions made by union reps working at a local authority level.
The Burgundy Book (BB) provides (para 1) that “Each local education authority is advised to agree jointly with each of its recognised teacher organisations the detailed arrangements for the granting of facilities in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.” Since we are one of those recognised unions and North Somerset is a local education authority we would like to discuss how we and the schools in the Strategic Schools Forum can both benefit by adhering to the national agreement.
Burgundy Book National Agreement Background
The BB is contractual, so failure to adhere to it can (ultimately) result in a breach of contract claim in addition to the possibility of complaints about TU detriments etc.
In line with local authorities throughout the Country, we are seeking to restore the trade union facilities time in the North Somerset local authority area covering local authority and academy schools to provide facilities time release to enable elected accredited union representatives to perform their responsibilities to the benefit of all the schools covered by the North Somerset Strategic Schools Forum.
The BB states (para 3): “An accredited representative of a recognised teachers’ organisation will be a teacher who is: Para 7 (a) states: “It is recommended that local agreements on the provision of facilities for the local officer of the recognised teachers’ organisations should include: (a) …..and for obtaining permission to leave the school in which he or she is employed so that he or she can perform his or her functions as an accredited representative;” Para 8 states: “Absence from teaching duties for the performance of their responsibilities as local officers of the recognised teachers’ organisations is to be allowed without reduction in pay.” Para 9 also states: “They should not unreasonably be refused the time necessary for the performance of their responsibilities. The time which these responsibilities is likely to occupy should be taken into account in respect of its effect on their teaching duties
I understand that Schools (DSG) formula allocations include a small element of funding for “special staff costs” (e.g. jury service, magistrate’s duties, trade union, maternity etc).
We hope the local authority schools and maintained schools covered by the Strategic Schools forum will recognise its responsibilities in line with the Burgundy Book to enable reasonable facilities paid release as other schools and local authorities do throughout the Country.
We hope we can speak to this as an agenda item at the next North Somerset’s Strategic Schools Forum due to be held on 6th March 2019.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Ian Scott National Education Union Regional Officer
Strategic Schools Forum -4 6th March 2019
Agenda Item No.: 5
Governance Report:
Draft principles to underpin decision making relating to the school’s budget
John Simpson
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE OF MEETING: 6 MARCH 2019
SUBJECT OF REPORT: DRAFT PRINCIPLES TO UNDERPIN DECISION MAKING RELATING TO THE SCHOOLS BUDGET
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Strategic Schools Forum consult the wider school community about adopting an explicit set of principles (as set out in section 3 below) to inform future decision making.
1. SUMMARY OF REPORT
This report sets out some possible principles for SSF to adopt when making decisions about the schools budget. It is proposed that this general approach, and the draft principles, be widely consulted on.
2. POLICY
DfE advice on Schools Forum decision making is that “members of schools forum should consider the needs of the whole of the educational community.” DfE Best Practice Guidelines for School Forums.
3. DETAILS
3.1 At its meeting on 16 January 2019, SSF took important decisions in relation to school and high needs funding. These decisions were widely consulted on and the outcome reflected an implicit set of principles. This report sets out what officer’s believe these principles to be. They are as follows.
• When addressing the funding implications of demand on the out of authority and TUF budgets exceeding provision, a balance should be struck between funding schools in general and funding pupils with high needs. This will be reflected in School Forum budget setting decisions being rooted in the middle ground between reducing AWPU and reducing TUF funding bands. • A key purpose of continuing the TUF funding review is to ensure that TUF funding bands always match available resources. This will mean that funding band values are reviewed annually. • The particular challenges faced by specialist providers – special schools, resources units, VLC, and Weston College – will be fully considered in School Forum decision making. • School based invest to save proposals (such as Truro Pathways at Westhaven; expansion of, and new, specialist provision; and the establishment of more school based hubs) will be treated favourably in budget setting decision making where the invest to save model can be evidenced.
4
• To support effective decision making, School Forum members should regularly attend meetings and nominating groups should seek to maximise continuity of representation.
4. CONSULTATION
4.1 It is recommended that this approach, and the above principles, be widely consulted on and that a report summarising the outcome be brought back to SSF for final consideration.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 None other than the costs of consultation.
6 RISK MANAGEMENT
6.1 The above principles are suggested as a way of securing informed and robust decision making designed to provide schools with less uncertainty about how conflicting budget pressures will be managed.
7 EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Budget pressures frequently result from budgets associated with provision for pupils with additional need. These principles show how the needs of these pupils will be balanced against the needs of pupils without such need.
8 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
8.1 If these principles are adopted, they will enable officers to produce option reports which are consistent with them.
5
Strategic Schools Forum -4 March 6 2019
Agenda Item No. 6
Finance Report
Incorporating: • Monitoring of the 2018-19 School Budget • School Budget for 2019-20 • Elements of the Council Budget for 2019-20
Emma Whitehead
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE OF MEETING: 6 MARCH 2019
SUBJECT OF REPORT: FINANCE REPORT; MONITORING OF THE 2018-19 SCHOOL BUDGET, SCHOOL BUDGET FOR 2019-20 AND ELEMENTS OF THE COUNCIL BUDGET FOR 2019-20
OFFICER/MEMBER PRESENTING: EDUCATION FUNDING MANAGER
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Strategic Schools Forum is recommended to: - i) Note the period 10 monitor and the forecast budget position to the end of 2018-19 and the key contributing ii) Approve the 2019-20 Schools Budget iii) Note the savings within the Council’s budget and their impact on children and young people and the education community.
1. SUMMARY OF REPORT
This report provides the opportunity to review the monitoring position as at the end of period 10 of the 2018-19 schools budget. Endorse the 2019-20 schools budget and be informed of the appropriate savings within the Council’s budget for 2019-20 to be aware of the implications for children and young people and the education community.
2. POLICY
The Strategic Schools Forum’s setting and monitoring of the schools budget and being kept informed of key financial items is an integral feature of its overall responsibilities and it ensures that resources are planned, aligned and managed effectively to allow schools the maximum resources available and in turn aides schools successful delivery of their aims and objectives. The 2018-19 schools budget was set within the allowable parameters after consultation with key stakeholders and decisions taken by the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) and the same applies to the 2019-20 schools budget.
- 2
3. DETAILS
2018-19 Monitoring Report until the 31st January 2019
3.1 This report covers the period April 2018 to January 2018. Set out below are explanations of the headings as set out in Appendix A.
Column 1 Description Cost centre and budget description Column 2 Revised Budget 2018/19 Column 3 Use of Carry Forward Column 4 Final Budget 2018-19 Column 5 Expenditure to Based on spend to 31st January 2019 date Column 6 Budget to date Column 7 Variance to date The difference between columns 5 and 6 Column 8 Projected Outturn This is the projected end of year actual expenditure based on levels of activity Column 9 Variance for year The difference between columns 8 and 9. This is the most important column as it highlights those areas of anticipated under and over spending. Column 10 Earmarked for This would show if the SSF have already agreed use that resources should be earmarked for a specific purpose in future years Column 11 Balance available This identifies funds that maybe available
3.2 This monitor shows what spend has been up to the end of month 10 (31st January 2019) of the financial year and what the forecast spend to the end of the financial year is.
3.3 Five areas continue to forecast an overspend, the Inclusion Advisory Team and Business Rates and Rent for AP remain as reported at the January SSF meeting. These should remain at £134,160 (redundancy costs) and £65,000 (rent) respectively. The rent cost has been built into the 2019-20 schools budget.
3.4 The SEN Equipment and other costs the projected overspend is £262k - in October there were proposals tabled in the Vulnerable Learners Service (now known as the Education Inclusion Service) report that should still mitigate this in future financial years and the SEND Manager is continuing to work on what can be in place for 2019-20.
3.5 The next budget forecasting a significant variation, is, Out of Authority Placements – This budget is estimated to overspend by £661k. Attached as Appendix B is an analysis of the current projected outturn compared to the budget set.
- 3
3.6 The requests continue to be made for out of authority provision and this position is one that will continue to change and but it is unlikely to come in within budget. One placement can make a considerable difference to the projected outturn position. The SEN team always do what they can to minimise these placements and the cost if a placement is unavoidable.
3.7 As Appendix B shows there has been 5 new places since the last monitor report. It also displays there has been 7 placements that have ended and a number of cases where there has been a change which has reduced the projected overspend since the January report to SSF
3.8 Included within Appendix B is a line for Independent Hospital costs – it was felt the most appropriate place to record these. These costs are for the educational element of a Tier 4 admission to a non- NHS hospital. North Somerset must pay the educational element. The Head of the Education Inclusion Service is currently working with the relevant NHS division to try and determine a different approach to the charging.
3.9 The last budget where a significant overspend is forecast is Top Up Funding (TUF), the forecast overspend is £787,840k. Appendix C is the TUF analysis.
3.10 The overspend with just the information in this report is forecast to be £2.44M. This reduction in forecast overspend is due to the additional High Needs Monies for 2018- 19 of £457,629.
School budget 2019-20
Strategic overview and executive summary
3.11 The DfE have issued provisional allocations for the various blocks of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) according to the national funding formula. These allocations are now, in the main, based on October 2018 data.
3.12 Details of the national funding formula can be accessed using the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-funding-formula-tables-for- schools-and-high-needs-2019-to-2020
3.13 This link provides access to a range of information including: 3.13.1 National Funding Formula summary table 2019 to 2020 3.13.2 Impact of the schools NFF, 2019 to 2020 3.13.3 Impact of the high needs NFF,2019 to 2020 3.13.4 Impact of the central services block NFF, 2019 to 2020 3.13.5 Technical notes for the operation of each of the blocks
3.14 The DfE also provides operational guidance on the distribution of funding to schools which provides useful information on the makeup of the formula:
- 4
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pre-16-schools-funding-guidance-for- 2019-to-2020
3.15 The table below was produced by the DfE to summarise the final decisions on the national funding formulae to be implemented from 2018-19 onwards where locally budget circumstances allow:
Schools national funding formula High needs national funding formula
• In 2018-19 and 2019-20 funding will • A national funding formula for be allocated to local authorities based allocating high needs funding to local on the notional school allocations authorities will be introduced from according to the national funding 2018-19 formula, while local authorities will continue to allocate funding based on • The formula will provide basic per their local formulae pupil funding of £4,000 for pupils in special schools, and allocate the rest of • The formula will consist of 4 building the funding using historic spend and blocks: basic per-pupil funding; proxy factors additional needs funding; school-led funding; and geographic funding • The following proxy factors will be used: population, deprivation, low • All schools will attract at least 0.5% attainment, health and disability more per pupil funding in 2018-19 and at least 1% more by 2019-20, • 50% of what local authorities are compared to 2017-18 baselines spending on high needs from their 2017-18 dedicated schools grant • Gains in per pupil funding will be allocation will be allocated through the capped in both 2018-19 and 2019-20 at historic spend factor 3% on the previous year • Basic entitlement and proxy factors will be adjusted for the variations in • Additionally, all primary schools will area costs attract minimum per pupil funding of £3,300 in 2018-19 and £3,500 in 2019- • All local authorities will receive at 20, and secondary schools of £4,600 in least 0.5% more funding per head in 2018-19 and £4,800 in 2019-20; this 2018-19 and at least 1% more per minimum will not be subject to the 3% head of population by 2019-20, cap on gains compared to their 2017-18 baselines
• The funding floor for new and growing • Local authorities will be able to gain schools will be calculated on an if-full up to 3% a year, in proportion to any basis increase in their 2-18 population, in 2018-19 and 2019-20 • With agreement of their schools forums, in 2018-19 local authorities may transfer up to 0.5% of funds from the ring-fenced schools block for other purposes, e.g. to the high needs block
- 5
3.16 In the announcements ahead of 2018-19 the headline was that an additional £1.3 billion was being put into schools and high needs. It meant that all local authorities received some increase in 2018-19, over the amount they had planned to spend on schools in 2017-18. In the DfE modelling every school attracted a higher level of per- pupil funding than it would have done had the December 2016 proposals been adopted. Also, the DfE modelling meant that no school will lose funding through the national funding formula in 2018-19 and 2019-20. Please note that these statements refer to the national allocation of funding to LAs through the DSG. The actual impact on individual schools in North Somerset will be determined locally by the decisions made by the SSF.
3.17 It remains the government’s long-term intention that schools’ budgets should be set on the basis of a single, national formula (a ‘hard’ national funding formula) but they recognise that this represents a significant change, and the importance of stability for schools was a consistent theme during both stages of the consultation. For 2018-19 ,2019-20 and now 2020-21 at least, the schools formula will be a so called ‘soft’ approach. The ‘hard’ implementation of the national funding formula requires primary legislation and the DfE will not comment on the timescales on this any further than it will not be before 2021-22.
3.18 Under the ‘soft’ system, the DfE use the national funding formula to set notional budgets for each school. These are aggregated to give the total schools block. You can see the notional budget for each school, and the aggregated schools block funding for each local authority using the link provided at the start of this section. For the next two financial years, local authorities will continue to set a local formula to distribute their schools block funding, in consultation with their local schools and their schools forum. Each local area will therefore be funded on a fair and equitable basis, according to the national funding formula.
3.19 Local authorities then distribute their schools block allocation between maintained schools and academies and, although it will be a local decision, the DfE may adjust the rules governing the setting of local formulae so that the national formula can be more closely mirrored.
3.20 The schools block became ring-fenced in 2018-19 and this continues in 2019-20 which means that the vast majority of schools block funding allocated to local authorities must be passed directly to schools. Local authorities have limited flexibility to transfer funding to other areas, such as high needs, where these best match local circumstances. Such transfers are limited to 0.5% of authorities’ total schools block, and can only be made with the agreement of the schools forum.
3.21 Movements from the schools block approved for 2018-19 have been pre-approved for 2019-20. Which means that the movement of 0.97% from the schools block to the high needs block that occurred for 2018-19 can occur without new permission.
3.22 Local Authorities can apply to the Secretary of State for Education to transfer an amount over 0.5% or pre-approved amounts which for North Somerset is 0.97% out of the schools block or to request a transfer over this. As recorded later in this report a disapplication over 0.97% was submitted for 2019-20.
- 6
3.23 Pupil Premium plus - Stage one of the national funding formula consultation detailed how it would target support for looked after children and children who were previously looked after through the pupil premium plus, rather than include a looked after children factor in that national funding formula. The value of the total national amount spent through the looked after children (LAC) factors in local formulae in 2017-18 has been transferred from the DSG to the pupil premium. The pupil premium plus rate increased in April 2018 to £2,300 and is remaining the same for 2019-20.
3.24 The final value of the DSG for 2019-20 is not yet known. It will depend on the actual take up of the free entitlement by 2, 3 & 4 year olds.
SSF 16th January 2019
3.25 At the SSF meeting on 16th January it was not possible to table a draft schools budget for 2019-20 due to:
1) not having received a response to our 2.03% disapplication request
2) then and due to the additional high needs money announced on Sunday 16th December by the Education Secretary Damian Hinds (an additional £250 million of funding for English local authorities for high needs, across the 2018- 19 and 2019-20 financial years) £457,629 for North Somerset in both years. The SSF needed to approve the recommendation to revise its disapplication request for 2019-20 from 2.03% to 1.65% - which the SSF did.
3.26 We received approval of the revised disapplication request in writing from the Secretary of State on Thursday 21st February 2019. Resulting in the following per pupil in 2019-20:
Factor Per Pupil £ AWPU Primary £2,759.95 AWPU KS 3 £3,926.12 AWPU KS 4 £4,456.78 Minimum Funding Primary £3,276.00 Minimum Funding Secondary £4,556.00
With a CAP on gains ceiling of 6% and an MFG of 0%.
3.27 At the SSF meeting on the 16th January a few decisions were approved in respect of the 2019-20 schools budget as detailed in the next three paragraphs and have been incorporated into the 2019-20 schools budget.
3.28 Truro Pathways and the School Placement Support Team would continue and that any increase to either budgets from the 2018-19 values would be funded from the cessation or change in format of commissioned provision for students with no school place; prevention and re-engagement or the administration of the placement protocol.
- 7
3.29 At the meeting it was discussed about making Truro Pathways permanent and the reasons why it cannot were explained. It needs to be recorded by SSF that if there were in the future to be any redundancy costs that these would need to be covered by SSF and not Westhaven, as this is an SSF funded provision.
3.30 That the additional £457,629 would be used as follows; in 2018-19 it would be used to reduce the projected carry forward deficit due to the overspend having arisen from High Needs pressures. Whilst in 2019-20 it will be split in half, to increase the AWPU rate and the other half to targeted support. The later mitigating in part, for some, the Top up Funding changes.
3.31 That a minimum of £500k would be paid off the deficit each year.
The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)
3.32 The DfE have issued updated allocations for the various blocks of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) according to the current national funding formula. These allocations are, in the main, based on October 2018 data.
3.33 The mechanics of the DSG remain unchanged for 2019/20. The only minor exception is the additional High Needs Monies which is referenced in this report.
3.34 The final value of the DSG for 2019-20 is not yet known. The final DSG will depend on the actual take up of the free entitlement by 2, 3 & 4 year olds.
3.35 It should also be noted that the DSG for 2019-20 does not include an explicit allowance for inflationary pressures. This has been the case for several years now. The DfE expects schools and LAs to make efficiency savings elsewhere within their budget to meet these pressures.
Delegated funding
3.36 Schools - The delegated funding budget for schools has been calculated on the basis on the national funding formula, as proposed following consultation with schools. This has then been adjusted by the decisions made by the SSF at the November 2018 and January 2019 meetings to set a balanced budget.
3.37 The net effect of all of the proposed changes to the delegated funding budget amounts to an increase of £2,929,144 in 2019-20 which is 2.3% more than the 2018- 19 schools budget.
3.38 Appendix D displays: • the 2018-19 budget, • the 2018-19 forecast outturn, • the 2018-19 projected variance, • the 2019-20 budget, • the 2019-20 budget compared with 2018-19 forecast outturn and the 2019-20 budget compared with the 2018- 19 budget. - 8
3.39 In the main the budgets for 2019-20 only have minor changes compared to the 2018- 19 budget. The detail which follows below concentrates on the areas highlighted in yellow on in Appendix D which have not been approved already by SSF or been covered elsewhere in this report.
3.40 Top up Funding - This budget provides top up funding for individual children and young people that schools and other providers receive on top of their delegated budget shares.
3.41 These arrangements apply to all settings i.e. mainstream schools, special schools, resource bases, PRU’s, early years settings, FE colleges, independent specialist providers and non- maintained special schools.
3.42 The composition of the proposed budget reflects the decisions taken by SSF because of consultations held and is detailed in the table below:
Top up funding Budget Budget Element 2018-19 2019-20 £ £ Mainstream schools 3,362,304 3,823,766 (pre and post 16) Resource bases 43,247 43,940 Special schools (pre 16) 2,007,856 2,162,259 Special schools (post 381,260 290,354 16) Early years providers 473,596 473,596 FE (post 16) 2,978,428 2,989,900 Alternative Provision 665,503 640,000 Provision in other LA’s 650,000 847,780 (pre and post 16) Other Top up related 619,285 143,410 costs Total budget 11,181,479 11,415,005
3.43 Education Inclusion Service - The Educational Inclusion Service (EIS) is made up of a number of teams and functions that provide support for vulnerable children and young people in North Somerset. The reduction in the budget of between 2018-19 and 2019-20 of £155k is due to the cessation of providing central funding for the preventative psychology and advisory teachers (learning, language and communication) time allocations to schools with effect from September 2018.
3.44 Out of Authority placements - This budget currently funds placements for children and young people with high level need in out of authority independent schools and non- maintained special schools and those that are admitted to independent hospital provision. The budget has been increased by one million pounds from £4M in 2018- 19 to £5M in 2019-20.
- 9
3.45 The budget has been calculated by forecasting the cost of placements as at November 2018 for the 2019-20 financial year and building in expected changes to placements such as leaving dates. There has been a contingency built in for new placements and changes.
3.46 SEN equipment and other costs – This budget has been increased by £74k from £170,833 in 2018-19 to £244,999 in 2019-20. This increase will not be enough to cover the projected overspend in 2018-19 of £262K as covered in paragraph 3.4 above.
3.47 This area of spend is to be reviewed during 2019-20 as stated in paragraph 3.4. This budget has Education Health Care Plan (ECHP) directed therapy and intervention costs charged to it. These are costs that if are in the EHCP must be covered. The SEND manager will be working with health colleagues and procurement experts to reduce the spend in 2019-20.
3.48 Contingencies - The contingencies budget provides funding to be allocated during the financial year for a few areas; infant class size funding (not been needed for many years), exceptional pupil growth for new and existing schools and for allocations to schools with a disproportionate number of high needs pupils (targeted support).
3.49 The targeted support element of this budget has been increased for 2019-20 from £50k to £279k because of the decision taken by the SSF in January to allocate half of the additional 2019-20 High Needs monies (£228k) to targeted support as noted in paragraph 3.30 above.
3.50 All calculations in respect of exceptional growth have been completed with what is known currently. It should be noted that an unintentional consequence of the exceptional growth policy approved at the last SSF meeting in respect of secondary schools has been identified and resolved with two revisions but that these do not fundamentally change the estimated exceptional growth cost in 2019-20.
3.51 Deficit recovery of the DSG overspend of the agreed minimum of £500k per year (paragraph 3.31) is what the contingency for unallocated DSG line is and is why the amount has increased from the 2018-19 budget.
The impact of the Council’s budget for 2019-20.
3.52 There has always been a close working relationship between the Council and the Strategic Schools Forum in North Somerset. This had led to a strong partnership, shared goals and the shared resourcing of some areas of work.
3.53 The decisions made by the Council, in relation to how resources are prioritised, have implications for children and young people, schools, early years providers and other education providers. The decisions made by the SSF equally have an impact within the Council.
- 10
3.54 The Council set its budget at its meeting on 19 February; this followed consideration of the draft budget by the Executive at its meetings on 4 December and 5 February.
3.55 Medium Term Financial Planning (MTFP) modelling has required savings of around £11m to be found in order to balance the budget for the 2019/20 financial year, something which has become incredibly challenging given that savings of c£100m have been incorporated into the Council’s budgets since 2010, and means that there will inevitably be an impact on some areas of service delivery in the future.
3.56 The following challenges, risks and strategies in relation to Children’s Services were considered by the Council’s Executive at their meeting on 5 February 2019:
a) Children’s Services continues to experience budget pressures in areas which have long been established as volatile. The main areas of overspend relate to looked after children, services for disabled children and delayed budget savings. The current year total forecasted overspend is c. £1.9m, although, notably, forecast spend on children’s placements has reduced by c. £650k when compared with last year. The council is not alone in experiencing pressures in this area - the 2017/18 overspend on children’s services across English local authorities amounted to £800m.
b) The 2019/20 budget setting process will see a continuation of the principle of providing budget growth to close the gap caused by significant demand-led pressures. In addition, growth is proposed to be allocated to increase resources to improve services for children with SEND following the Joint Local Area Review of SEND Services.
2019/20 Budget Growth Items £000 Inflation for pay and pensions 425 Inflation for energy costs 21 Re-base children’s placement budgets aligned to current cost and volume 1,300 Growth for inflation and demand pressures 1,250 Growth for services for children with Special Educational Needs 200 Growth for historical pressures in relation to the Education Inclusion Service 100 Growth for outcome payments associated with the Social Impact Bond 50 TOTAL 3,346
c) The Children’s Transformation Programme is designed to address some of the underlying issues. A Programme Board is in place and has identified the following work streams:
• Visioning; • Culture and Workforce • Early Intervention; and • Commissioning, governance and financial management
d) Detailed scoping of each of these work streams is underway with priority given to those that will underpin MTFP savings proposals. In 2019/20, the priorities for savings are the Positive Steps project (£500k), which is designed
- 11
to move appropriate children who are currently in residential care into foster care, and a reduction in staffing costs (£235k).
e) Significant cost avoidance savings (£945k) associated with the Edge of Care Social Impact Bond (SIB), are also included in the MTFP. Analysis indicates that the number of children aged 10 and over coming into care under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 in 2018/19 (April to August) has reduced by over 60% when compared with 2016/17.
f) Initial activity and unit cost data analysis in relation to placements spend has been completed, and the table below illustrates the 2019/20 proposed budget in terms of those metrics. Comparison with the current year’s forecast spend indicates that the proposed placements budget is robust.
2018/19 forecast out-turn 2019/20 budget Average Average numbers Unit Total numbers Unit Total per Cost (£ / Spend per Cost (£ / Spend annum annum) £ annum annum) £ In-house fostering 103 20,350 2,096,032 108 21,424 2,310,664 Independent fostering 56 42,881 2,394,499 59 45,714 2,706,231 Residential 18 172,455 3,061,072 15 171,938 2,561,851 Sub-total 176 42,802 7,551,602 182 41,652 7,578,746
Kinship 37 10,903 403,421 38 11,121 418,959 Special Guardianship 67 7,489 505,230 68 7,639 520,743 Parent and Baby 1.7 76,398 132,169 3 77,926 243,402 Supported Living 4.4 103,522 456,533 5 105,593 573,826 Secure Accommodation 0.9 354,045 322,181 1 361,126 330,413 Sub-total 112 16,317 1,819,534 115 18,102 2,087,344
TOTAL 288 32,545 9,371,136 297 32,517 9,666,090
g) The table below illustrates the continued increased investment overall into children’s services (a 9% increase in the last two years). This, together with a focus on cost reduction is resulting in a continuing improvement in the robustness and sustainability of the children’s services budget.
2018/19 2017/18 2017/18 2018/19 forecast 2019/20 budget outturn budget outturn budget Placements 7,808,590 10,050,701 8,561,090 9,371,136 9,666,090 Other 18,708,678 19,438,978 19,328,555 20,370,761 19,248,077 Total 26,517,268 29,489,679 27,889,645 29,741,897 28,914,167
- 12
h) However, some key risks remain. The delivery of the Positive Steps project is challenging – it involves finding appropriate and cost effective alternative placements for looked after children in residential care with complex needs. The other main risks going forward include existing and sustained budget pressures, the potential impact of reductions in preventative services, the ability to recruit and retained experienced social work staff, the increasing needs of families with disabled children, the volatility associated with looked after children numbers and the availability of cost effective placements.
3.43 The report also referred to the risks and challenges associated with the schools’ budget funded by the Dedicated Schools Grant, particularly referencing the continuing pressures on High Needs and the need to curb spending and address the deficit.
4. CONSULTATION
The report has been developed through consultation with the relevant stakeholders, officers and with each of the departmental management teams. At this stage, there is no opportunity or need to consult any further.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The financial implications are included throughout the report
6. RISK MANAGEMENT
This report discusses the risks and opportunities in relation to the revenue budget. As such, risks are included throughout the report
7. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The 2018-19 school budget has considered the equality implications. The EIA has been subject to consultation and discussion with a wide range of stakeholder groups to ensure all risks have been identified and understood. At this stage, there are no proposals / decisions that require consideration of impacts that are not covered via existing EIA’s.
7.2 The Equalities Impact Assessments for Children’s Services are available on the Councils website.
8. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
The schools budget monitoring process is an important part of the Council’s overall corporate governance and financial management arrangements. There are no specific corporate implications other than those already identified throughout the report. - 13
9. OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The report has mix of decision making and for information only; options have included where appropriate.
AUTHOR
Emma Whitehead, Education Funding Manager [email protected] 01934 426407
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Previous papers to the SSF including the budget setting reports for 2018-19.
- 14
Appendix A DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT MONITORING 2018/19 - As at 31st JANUARY 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Budget description Revised Use of Final Budget carry Budget Expenditure Budget Variance Projected Variance Earmarked Balance 2018/2019 forward 2018/2019 To Date To Date To Date Outturn for year for use available £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 1 UNIVERSAL PROVISION AND EARLY INTERVENTION 2 Delegated Funding 117,311,185 117,311,185 12,292,701 97,759,321 (85,466,619) 117,311,185 0 0 0 2 Less Academy Funding (103,328,315) (103,328,315) (86,106,929) 86,106,929 (103,328,315) 0 0 0 3 Provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds 10,058,049 0 10,058,049 8,469,082 8,381,708 87,374 10,058,049 0 0 0 4 Retained Services 443,273 0 443,273 332,455 369,394 (36,939) 443,273 0 0 0 5 Learning Exchange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Total Universal Provision and Early Intervention 24,484,192 0 24,484,192 21,094,238 20,403,493 690,745 24,484,192 0 0 0
7 INTENSIVE SUPPORT FOR VULNERABLE LEARNERS 8 Inclusion Advisory Team 122,648 122,648 238,117 102,207 135,911 256,808 134,160 0 134,160 9 Travellers Service 93,167 93,167 84,369 77,639 6,730 93,167 0 0 0 10 Sensory Impairment - Joint Arrangement 248,440 248,440 160,260 207,033 (46,773) 248,440 0 0 0 11 Psychology Service 81,017 81,017 67,515 67,514 1 81,017 0 0 0 12 Portage 66,840 66,840 55,700 55,700 0 66,840 0 0 0 13 VLS Management 106,683 106,683 88,903 88,903 0 106,683 0 0 0 14 Virtual Schools 134,783 134,783 73,324 112,319 (38,995) 134,783 0 0 0 15 Advisory Teachers (previously M.Green) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Safeguarding 58,300 58,300 54,833 48,583 6,250 58,300 0 0 0 17 Targeted Mental Health in Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 SALT & SALSA 103,036 0 103,036 85,435 85,863 (429) 103,036 0 0 0 19 1,014,914 0 1,014,914 908,455 845,761 62,693 1,149,074 134,160 0 134,160
20 Delegated Place Funding 3,691,709 0 3,691,709 3,569,096 3,537,888 31,209 3,691,709 0 0 0 21 SEN equipment & Other costs 0 0 0 0 0 (457,629) (457,629) 0 (457,629) 22 Out of Authority Placements 170,833 0 170,833 361,473 142,361 219,112 433,000 262,167 0 262,167 23 Early Years Commissioned Services 4,000,000 0 4,000,000 4,278,683 3,333,333 945,349 4,661,004 661,004 0 661,004 24 Top-up Funding 166,106 0 166,106 126,378 138,422 (12,043) 166,106 0 0 0 25 Truro Pathways (Ex Westhaven Horizons) 11,171,015 0 11,171,015 8,605,935 9,309,179 (703,244) 11,958,855 787,840 0 787,840 School Placement Support Team (Ex 26 Westhaven Phoenix) 252,867 252,867 294,427 231,795 62,632 252,867 0 27 Elective home educated children 116,031 0 116,031 29,008 96,693 (67,685) 116,031 0 0 0 28 Out of school Panel for CME 18,333 0 18,333 21,389 15,278 6,111 18,333 0 0 0 29 Commissioned students - no school place 100,000 0 100,000 68,605 83,333 (14,729) 100,000 0 0 0 30 Prevention and re-engagement 120,000 0 120,000 120,000 120,000 0 120,000 0 0 0 31 Administration of placement protocol 19,800 0 19,800 19,800 19,800 0 19,800 0 0 0 32 Business Rates and Rent for AP 19,999 0 19,999 19,999 19,999 0 19,999 0 0 0 33 Commissioned tuition service 45,000 0 45,000 110,000 45,000 65,000 110,000 65,000 0 65,000 34 Enhanced Provision 540,000 0 540,000 540,000 540,000 0 540,000 0 0 0 35 94,409 0 94,409 39,337 78,674 (39,337) 94,409 0 0 0 20,526,102 0 20,526,102 18,204,130 17,711,754 492,376 21,844,484 1,318,382 0 1,318,382 36 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED 37 Strategic Schools Forum 38 Support and advice for SSF 7,700 0 7,700 2,862 6,417 (3,555) 7,700 0 0 0 39 Licences and Subscriptions 147,950 0 147,950 60,608 123,292 (62,683) 147,950 0 0 0 40 Early Years Administration 141,178 0 141,178 988 117,648 (116,660) 141,178 0 0 0 41 Headteacher Support Service 79,595 0 79,595 66,328 66,329 (2) 79,595 0 0 0 42 Pupil Admissions Section 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 Costs of Prudential Borrowing 225,195 0 225,195 187,663 187,663 0 225,195 0 0 0 44 Structural Repair and Maintenance 632,704 0 632,704 632,703 632,704 (1) 632,704 0 0 0 45 Independent Top Up Funding Review 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 Contingencies 15,600 0 15,600 15,600 15,600 0 15,600 0 0 0 47 Contingency for Unallocated DSG 593,069 (1,625) 591,444 432,910 591,444 (158,534) 591,444 0 0 0 48 427,458 (1,418,305) (990,847) (990,847) 990,847 0 990,847 0 990,847 2,270,449 (1,419,930) 850,519 1,399,662 750,249 649,412 1,841,366 990,847 0 990,847 49 TOTAL SCHOOLS BUDGET 50 ADDITIONAL GRANT 48,295,657 (1,419,930) 46,875,727 41,606,484 39,711,258 1,895,226 49,319,116 2,443,389 0 2,443,389 51 PUPIL PREMIUM GRANT 0 0 52 DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT 0 0 0 53 BALANCE (48,295,657) 1,419,930 (46,875,727) (42,469,946) (42,469,946) 0 (46,875,727) 0 DE-DELEGATIONS (0) (0) (0) (863,462) (2,758,688) 1,895,226 2,443,389 2,443,389 De-delegations To Date To Date To Date Outturn for year for use £ available £ 54 Inclusion Advisory Team 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 Vulnerable Learner Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 E.M.A.S. Contribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 R.P.T.A. 0 0 (176) (176) 0 0 0 0 58 Pupil Admissions Section F.S.M. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 Future Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 School Specific Contingencies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Insurance 273,272 0 103,441 103,441 273,272 0 0 0 62 Supply Cover (Maternity, Suspensions) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 Rates 540,232 0 247,995 247,995 540,232 0 0 0 64 813,504 0 351,259 351,259 813,504 0 0 0 65 BALANCE INCLUDING DE-DELEGATIONS 813,504 2,443,389 0 2,443,389 Age in the Budgetted financial Category 2017/18 Costs 31/05/2018 30/09/2018 31/12/2018 31/01/2019 Diff Details of change 31/10/17 year 1 9 - 10 ASD 0 4,960 4,960 New 2 10 - 11 ASD 24,749 25,080 24,186 24,834 24,602 24,602 0 3 10 - 11 ASD 14,004 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 - 13 ASD 29,291 29,291 29,748 29,487 29,291 29,291 0 5 13 - 14 ASD 14,130 18,647 19,200 19,285 19,670 19,670 0 6 13 - 14 ASD 19,829 19,829 19,829 19,829 19,829 19,829 0 7 13 - 14 ASD 68,028 46,964 40,043 40,043 40,043 40,043 0 8 13 - 14 ASD 0 19,075 19,075 New 9 14 - 15 ASD 15,154 0 0 0 0 10 15 - 16 ASD 37,876 37,876 15,782 15,782 15,782 15,782 0 11 15 - 16 ASD 39,708 39,708 39,708 39,708 39,708 16,545 -23,163 Ended 12 15 - 16 ASD 18,681 74,725 74,725 74,725 74,725 0 13 15 - 16 ASD 24,095 24,095 24,095 24,095 24,095 24,095 0 14 15 - 16 ASD 20,543 20,543 20,543 20,543 20,543 20,543 0 15 16 - 17 ASD 10,154 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 - 17 ASD 10,220 0 0 0 0 0 17 16 - 17 ASD 30,075 30,075 30,075 30,075 30,075 30,075 0 18 16 - 17 ASD -70,146 0 0 0 0 0 19 16-20 ASD 30,913 17,665 0 0 0 20 16-20 ASD 108,752 108,752 186,432 186,432 186,432 186,432 0 21 17 - 18 ASD 20,538 20,538 20,538 20,538 22,652 23,071 420 22 17 - 18 ASD 4,676 0 0 0 0 0 23 17 - 18 ASD 46,765 46,765 46,765 0 24 17 - 18 ASD 65,598 51,645 50,598 50,598 50,598 21,083 -29,516 Change 25 17 - 18 ASD 124,800 52,000 0 0 0 0 0 26 17 - 18 ASD 3,366 3,366 3,366 0 27 18 - 19 ASD 24,777 27,675 29,772 29,772 28,633 28,633 0 28 18 - 19 ASD 39,398 38,016 40,030 39,488 41,344 41,344 0 29 18 - 19 ASD -23,433 0 0 0 0 0 30 18 - 19 ASD 8,873 29,003 27,403 27,910 33,011 5,101 31 18-19 ASD 34,525 34,525 0 0 0 32 18-19 ASD 31,613 31,613 31,613 36,250 4,637 33 18-19 ASD 31,613 31,613 31,613 36,250 4,637 34 18-19 ASD 29,404 27,190 21,829 21,829 21,829 0 35 18-19 ASD 70,838 112,161 45,733 55,108 72,720 60,358 -12,361 36 19-20 ASD 49,054 49,054 20,439 20,439 20,439 20,439 0 37 19-20 ASD 28,583 28,583 35,993 35,213 44,615 44,615 0 38 20 - 21 ASD 66,240 69,465 82,818 82,818 82,818 27,606 -55,212 Ended 39 20 - 21 ASD 14,277 42,828 42,828 42,828 5,000 -37,828 40 20-21 ASD 82,860 82,860 82,860 0 0 0 0 41 20-21 ASD 68,829 28,679 0 0 0 42 21-22 ASD 24,073 24,073 0 0 0 43 8 - 9 ASD 18,681 74,725 74,725 74,725 74,725 0 44 9 - 10 ASD 43,787 71,022 71,022 71,022 71,022 0 45 9 - 10 ASD 21,852 36,421 94,694 87,410 87,410 0 46 14 - 15 ASD & SLD 100,450 96,265 100,450 41,854 72,987 72,987 0 47 14 - 15 ASD & SLD 88,837 41,854 41,854 0 48 10 - 11 HI 33,803 32,001 33,803 33,803 48,835 47,549 -1,286 49 12 - 13 HI 12,216 46,681 41,955 50,794 48,995 -1,799 50 13 - 14 HI 51,815 46,775 42,995 37,955 37,955 37,955 0 51 14 - 15 HI 37,955 41,288 37,955 37,955 37,955 37,955 0 52 14 - 15 HI 37,955 37,955 37,955 37,955 37,955 37,955 0 53 19 - 20 HI 42,503 42,503 42,503 42,503 42,503 9,342 -33,161 Ended 54 8 - 9 HI 2,915 2,915 2,915 0 55 7 - 8 MLD 0 8,650 8,650 New 56 11 - 12 MLD 9,624 10,741 10,812 10,911 11,010 11,010 0 57 12 - 13 MLD 33,576 34,023 35,238 35,561 35,884 35,884 0 58 12 - 13 MLD 17,052 17,279 17,393 17,552 19,270 19,270 0 59 15 - 16 MLD 15,499 45,185 44,988 60,873 47,443 -13,430 Change 60 15 - 16 MLD 29,292 28,654 29,292 29,292 29,292 29,292 0 61 16 - 17 MLD 29,970 34,859 35,088 35,410 35,731 35,731 0 62 17 - 18 MLD 17,944 19,948 16,377 19,948 31,942 11,994 63 17 - 18 MLD 20,543 21,924 20,543 20,543 20,543 8,560 -11,983 Ended 64 18 - 19 MLD 15,324 9,099 8,830 8,445 8,575 8,575 0 65 18 - 19 MLD 83,485 83,485 82,929 34,554 34,554 34,554 0 66 19-20 MLD 45,000 45,000 45,000 18,750 18,750 18,750 0 67 20 - 21 MLD 24,806 10,336 0 0 0 0 0 68 22 - 23 MLD 60,526 60,526 40,707 16,961 16,961 16,961 0 69 9 - 10 SEMH 21,667 13,941 -7,726 70 9 - 10 SEMH 29,804 29,804 0 71 9 - 10 SEMH 31,246 31,246 0 72 11 - 12 SEMH 2,273 54,529 54,529 54,529 54,529 0 73 11 - 12 SEMH 31,286 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 11 - 12 SEMH 29,804 29,804 0 75 12 - 13 SEMH 11,397 0 0 0 0 76 12 - 13 SEMH 48,213 34,981 48,213 16,071 16,071 16,071 0 77 12 - 13 SEMH 22,256 21,751 5,209 5,209 5,209 5,209 0 78 12 - 13 SEMH 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,928 228 79 12 - 13 SEMH 30,346 30,346 30,346 30,346 30,346 30,346 0 80 12 - 13 SEMH 14,700 0 0 0 0 0 81 12 - 13 SEMH 31,011 31,011 30,471 30,403 -68 82 12 - 13 SEMH 0 27,943 27,643 25,089 25,089 0 83 12 - 13 SEMH 53,988 53,988 54,529 54,529 54,529 54,529 0 84 12 - 13 SEMH 51,300 61,027 74,644 16,536 15,155 15,155 0 85 12 - 13 SEMH 34,803 34,803 0 86 12 - 13 SEMH 48,470 48,470 48,470 0 87 13 - 14 SEMH 10,608 10,637 10,637 10,637 10,637 10,637 0 88 13 - 14 SEMH 35,992 54,529 54,529 54,529 54,529 0 89 13 - 14 SEMH 58,119 58,119 -0 90 13 - 14 SEMH 36,807 38,105 36,807 -1,298 91 13 - 14 SEMH 40,421 80,843 80,843 60,632 60,632 0 92 14 - 15 SEMH 6,300 13,500 13,500 13,500 0 93 14 - 15 SEMH 41,850 23,416 31,935 33,248 31,240 57,576 26,337 94 14 - 15 SEMH 35,956 35,956 0 95 14 - 15 SEMH 42,767 38,419 39,385 41,701 2,317 96 14 - 15 SEMH 57,960 58,119 58,119 58,119 58,119 58,119 -0 97 14 - 15 SEMH 53,988 53,988 54,529 54,529 54,529 54,529 0 98 14 - 15 SEMH 53,988 53,988 54,529 0 0 0 0 99 14 - 15 SEMH 0 0 12,866 12,866 New 100 14 - 15 SEMH 53,988 54,022 54,529 54,529 54,529 17,996 -36,533 101 14 - 15 SEMH 47,333 47,333 47,333 0 102 14 - 15 SEMH 52,000 4,896 52,000 52,000 52,944 11,058 -41,886 Ended 103 14 - 15 SEMH 57,830 6,961 -9,638 -9,638 -9,638 -9,638 0 104 14 - 15 SEMH 38,598 19,368 -19,230 105 14 - 15 SEMH 34,375 34,473 33,672 33,672 33,672 33,672 0 106 14 - 15 SEMH 53,988 35,992 54,529 54,529 54,529 54,529 0 107 15 - 16 SEMH 7,987 46,417 50,942 50,942 49,296 -1,646 108 15 - 16 SEMH 53,988 53,988 55,009 56,829 56,829 58,919 2,090 109 15 - 16 SEMH 46,356 36,830 48,673 51,606 68,929 49,161 -19,768 110 15 - 16 SEMH 32,470 32,470 32,470 0 111 15 - 16 SEMH 53,990 30,310 54,529 17,996 17,996 17,996 0 112 15 - 16 SEMH 64,593 107,611 110,879 3,268 113 15 - 16 SEMH 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 27,083 27,083 0 114 15 - 16 SEMH 14,600 14,600 14,600 0 115 15 - 16 SEMH 36,060 36,060 26,904 38,133 11,229 116 15 - 16 SEMH 40,615 31,412 44,530 14,843 14,843 14,843 0 117 15 - 16 SEMH 48,213 49,970 46,637 16,609 16,609 16,609 0 118 15 - 16 SEMH 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 16 - 17 SEMH 43,535 14,512 0 0 0 0 120 16 - 17 SEMH 53,990 30,310 54,529 54,529 54,529 54,529 0 121 16 - 17 SEMH 71,748 74,464 73,147 73,714 25,076 25,076 0 122 16 - 17 SEMH 43,440 37,463 54,420 55,904 55,904 55,148 -757 123 16 - 17 SEMH 23,554 45,080 46,501 46,501 45,808 -693 124 16 - 17 SEMH 51,300 35,681 60,832 60,832 63,939 61,560 -2,379 125 16 - 17 SEMH 38,000 37,833 38,000 38,000 0 0 0 126 17 - 18 SEMH -12,244 0 0 0 0 127 17 - 18 SEMH 50,700 31,544 31,544 9,952 9,952 0 128 17 - 18 SEMH 18,476 0 0 0 0 0 129 17 - 18 SEMH 28,425 0 0 0 0 0 130 18 - 19 SEMH 53,988 57,587 85,122 85,122 -12,597 -12,597 0 131 18 - 19 SEMH 53,988 53,988 54,529 54,529 54,529 54,529 0 132 19 - 20 SEMH 42,372 10,488 0 0 0 0 0 133 19-20 SEMH 81,801 61,671 47,293 19,705 19,705 19,705 0 134 8 - 9 SEMH 18,519 12,835 20,649 20,885 20,830 20,830 0 135 9 - 10 SEMH 69,090 69,918 71,022 71,022 71,022 71,022 0 136 9 - 10 SEMH 34,433 31,137 51,652 51,652 51,653 51,653 0 137 13 - 14 SEMH/SPLD 9,739 9,739 0 138 13 - 14 SLCN 32,921 32,921 32,921 32,921 32,921 32,921 0 139 14 - 15 SLCN 39,708 39,708 39,708 39,708 39,708 39,708 0 140 16 - 17 SLCN 1,875 10,500 10,500 8,600 8,600 0 141 9 - 10 SLD 19,163 19,163 0 142 21 - 22 SLD 6,732 6,732 0 0 0 143 11 - 12 SPLD 40,443 38,533 65,543 65,543 65,543 65,543 0 144 12 - 13 SPLD 29,694 29,938 34,901 29,696 29,696 24,581 -5,115 145 13 - 14 SPLD 7,073 20,286 19,435 17,728 17,728 0 146 13 - 14 SPLD 12,360 12,780 12,780 0 147 13 - 14 SPLD 24,801 24,904 23,880 23,898 24,413 24,413 0 148 14 - 15 SPLD 32,700 27,521 34,170 37,630 37,630 37,630 0 149 16 - 17 SPLD 106,000 106,008 106,008 106,008 106,008 106,008 0 150 16 - 17 SPLD 19,881 18,026 7,511 7,511 7,511 7,511 0 151 17 - 18 SPLD 32,412 32,211 31,128 30,066 29,747 29,747 0 152 18 - 19 SPLD 20,808 18,255 20,808 20,119 20,119 6,247 -13,872 Ended 153 19 - 20 SPLD 18,099 19,117 18,099 18,377 18,528 18,528 0 154 19 - 20 SPLD 16,293 26,484 20,374 20,374 20,374 6,791 -13,583 Ended 155 9 - 10 SPLD 10,608 14,270 10,806 12,805 12,906 12,906 0 156 12 - 13 VI 0 0 24,984 24,984 New 157 11 - 12 36,306 36,306 36,306 0 158 19-20 29,374 50,356 50,356 50,123 54,610 4,487 159 2,013 5,100 11,088 5,988 160 62,227 62,227 62,227 0 161 26,692 26,692 26,692 26,692 0 162 29,829 29,829 53,028 23,199 19,608 19,608 19,608 0 3,975,909 3,830,266 4,571,639 4,673,317 4,822,305 4,614,480 -207,825
Independent Hospital Placements 46,524 £ 4,661,004
N New Cases N 5 70,536 E Ended cases E 7 -187,508 C Changes C 31 -90,854
-207,826 Contingency Appendix C Mainstream Schools, Academies & NSETC NCY 10 & 11 pupils
TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 55.4 55.4 56 56 56 64 64 63 63 62 62 62 A2 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 16.6 16.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 A3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 B1 91 93 93 93 93 100 100 105 105 105 105 105 B2 39.6 38.4 37.4 37 37 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 B3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C1 54 54 56 56 56 72 71 76 74 73 73 73 C2 65 68 67 69 68 60 60 63 63 63 63 63 C3 7 7 8 8 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 C4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 DH1 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DH2 3 3 3 3 3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 DH3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DV1 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 DV3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 E1 37.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38 37 37 37 37 37 37 E2 15 16 16 16 16 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 E3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OLA 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 bespoke package 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Grand Total 412.5 417.3 418.9 420.5 419.5 463 460 475 472 470 470 470 Totals 414.5 420.3 421.9 424.5 424.5 494 493 493 489 489 489 489 Difference inc / dec -2 -3 -3 -4 -5 -31 -33 -18 -17 -19 -19 -19
TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total Funding A1 34,718 34,718 35,094 35,094 35,094 40,107 40,107 39,480 39,480 38,854 38,854 38,854 450,450 A2 13,806 13,806 13,806 13,806 13,806 14,691 14,691 17,346 17,346 17,346 17,346 17,346 185,142 A3 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 3,509 3,509 3,509 3,509 3,509 3,509 3,509 33,337 B1 48,571 49,639 49,639 49,639 49,639 53,375 53,375 56,044 56,044 56,044 56,044 56,044 634,095 B2 35,046 33,984 33,099 32,745 32,745 45,135 45,135 45,135 45,135 45,135 45,135 45,135 483,564 B3 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 63,165 C1 28,823 28,823 29,890 29,890 29,890 38,430 37,896 40,565 39,498 38,964 38,964 38,964 420,595 C2 57,525 60,180 59,295 61,065 60,180 53,100 53,100 55,755 55,755 55,755 55,755 55,755 683,220 C3 11,699 11,699 13,370 13,370 13,370 11,699 10,028 8,356 8,356 8,356 8,356 8,356 127,015 C4 2,223 2,223 2,223 2,223 2,223 2,223 2,223 2,223 0 0 0 0 17,785 DH1 520 520 520 520 520 434 434 434 434 434 434 434 5,636 DH2 650 650 650 650 650 737 737 737 737 737 737 737 8,410 DH3 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 26,610 DV1 1,734 1,734 1,734 1,734 1,734 2,168 2,168 2,168 2,168 2,168 2,168 2,168 23,843 DV3 3,872 3,872 3,872 3,872 3,872 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 53,244 E1 28,622 29,385 29,385 29,385 29,385 29,004 28,240 28,240 28,240 28,240 28,240 28,240 344,607 E2 16,109 17,183 17,183 17,183 17,183 19,331 19,331 20,404 20,404 20,404 20,404 20,404 225,523 E3 0 0 0 0 0 2,572 2,572 2,572 2,572 2,572 2,572 2,572 18,002 add sup 0 375 375 375 375 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 3,831 Add TUF 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 7,000 OLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTH 851 851 851 851 851 6,637 6,637 6,637 4,504 5,913 5,913 5,913 46,411 Personal Budget 0 0 0 0 0 -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 -292 bespoke package 2,425 2,425 2,425 2,425 2,425 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 40,081 Grand Total 294,588 299,460 300,805 302,221 301,336 336,347 333,378 342,802 337,378 337,626 337,626 337,626 3,861,194 Totals 297,936 302,808 304,153 306,102 306,102 360,775 360,775 360,775 357,937 357,937 357,937 357,937 4,035,172 Difference inc / dec -3,348 -3,348 -3,348 -3,882 -4,767 -24,428 -27,396 -17,973 -20,559 -20,311 -20,311 -20,311 -173,979
Combined Specials Schools inc Alternative Provision
TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 52.6 52.6 53 53 53 43 44 43 43 44 44 44 A2 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 A3 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 A4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 B1 39 40 40 40 40 43 42 41 41 41 41 41 B2 56.6 55.6 55.6 56 56 59 60 61 61 61 61 61 B3 25 26 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 B4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 C1 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 C2 61 61 61 64 64 57 60 60 63 63 63 63 C3 18 18 18 18 17 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 C4 16 17 15 14 14 13 14 11 11 11 11 11 DH1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DH2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DH3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DV2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DV3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DV4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E1 6 6 6 6 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 E2 12 11 11 11 11 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 E3 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 NIL 27 27 27 27 27 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 OLA 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 OTH 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 397.1 399.1 396.5 398.9 397.9 386.4 391.4 388.4 392.4 393.4 393.4 393.4 Totals 397.1 399.1 396.5 398.9 398.9 347.9 347.9 347.9 347.9 347.9 347.9 347.9 Difference inc / dec 0 0 0 0 -1 38.5 43.5 40.5 44.5 45.5 45.5 45.5
TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total Funding A1 15,429 15,429 15,546 15,546 15,546 12,613 12,907 12,613 12,613 12,907 12,907 12,907 166,963 A2 15,116 15,116 15,116 15,116 15,116 20,632 20,632 20,632 20,632 20,632 20,632 20,632 220,006 A3 14,923 14,923 14,923 14,923 14,923 17,055 15,634 15,634 15,634 15,634 15,634 15,634 185,473 A4 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 75,390 B1 7,816 8,017 8,017 8,017 8,017 8,618 8,418 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 98,005 B2 31,225 30,673 30,673 30,894 30,894 32,549 33,100 33,652 33,652 33,652 33,652 33,652 388,265 B3 35,531 36,953 35,531 35,531 35,531 35,531 35,531 36,953 36,953 36,953 36,953 36,953 434,903 B4 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 18,848 18,848 18,848 18,848 18,848 248,159 C1 802 802 802 802 802 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,203 12,426 C2 33,652 33,652 33,652 35,307 35,307 31,445 33,100 33,100 34,755 34,755 34,755 34,755 408,236 C3 24,083 24,083 24,083 24,083 22,745 17,393 17,393 17,393 18,731 18,731 18,731 18,731 246,177 C4 30,237 32,127 28,347 26,458 26,458 24,568 26,458 20,788 20,788 20,788 20,788 20,788 298,593 DH1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DH2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DH3 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 4,870 DV2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DV3 317 317 317 317 317 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 6,030 DV4 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 1,421 17,055 E1 2,580 2,580 2,580 2,580 2,580 1,720 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 27,515 E2 8,887 8,146 8,146 8,146 8,146 10,368 10,368 10,368 10,368 10,368 10,368 10,368 114,049 E3 32,456 32,456 32,456 32,456 32,456 38,052 38,052 38,052 38,052 38,052 38,052 38,052 428,640 NIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTH 1,046 1,046 1,046 1,046 1,046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,231 Grand Total 284,198 286,417 281,333 281,319 279,981 282,479 285,678 278,346 281,339 281,632 281,632 281,632 3,385,987 Totals 30/09/18 286,531 287,745 282,328 282,647 282,647 263,261 263,261 263,261 263,261 263,261 263,261 263,261 3,264,729 Difference inc / dec -2,333 -1,328 -995 -1,328 -2,666 19,218 22,416 15,085 18,078 18,371 18,371 18,371 121,259 Schols budget 2019-20 Appendix D 2019/20 budget 2019/20 2018/19 2018/19 2018/19 2019/20 compared with compared forecast projected Breakdown of blocks Notes budget budget 2018/19 with 2018/19 outurn variance forecast budget outturn Central Schools schools Early years High needs block services block block block £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Universal provision and early intervention Delegated funding 127,268,179 130,197,323 2,929,144 120,069,446 0 10,127,877 0 Pargraph 3.37 Early years pupil premium & 101,055 117,668 16,613 0 0 117,668 0 Disabled access fund Less formula recoupment for 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 academies Retained services (O) 443,273 443,273 0 0 443,273 0 0 Sub-total 127,812,507 127,812,507 0 130,758,264 2,945,757 2,945,757 120,069,446 443,273 10,245,545 0 Intensive support for vulnerable learners Delegated place funding 3,691,709 3,691,709 0 3,696,914 5,205 5,205 0 0 0 3,696,914 Top up funding 11,171,015 11,958,855 787,840 11,415,005 (543,850) 243,990 0 0 303,101 11,111,903 Paragraph 3.40 Education Inclusion Service 1,014,914 1,149,074 134,160 859,342 (289,732) (155,572) 0 304,386 0 554,956 Paragraph 3.43 Out of Authority Placements 4,000,000 4,661,004 661,004 5,000,000 338,996 1,000,000 0 0 0 5,000,000 Paragraph 3.44 Early years services 166,106 166,106 0 170,906 4,800 4,800 0 13,603 126,582 30,721 Electively home educated 18,333 18,333 0 18,333 0 0 0 0 0 18,333 children Commissioned tuition service 540,000 540,000 0 540,000 0 0 0 0 0 540,000 Business rates and rent for AP 45,000 110,000 65,000 110,000 0 65,000 0 0 0 110,000 Paragraph 3.3 Enhanced Provision 94,409 94,409 0 94,409 0 0 0 0 0 94,409 SEN equipment and other 170,833 433,000 262,167 244,999 (188,001) 74,166 0 0 0 244,999 Paragraph 3.46 expenses Out of School Panel for 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 provision for CME Commissioned provision for 120,000 120,000 0 0 (120,000) (120,000) 0 0 0 0 Paragraph 3.28 students with no school place Prevention and Re- 19,800 19,800 0 0 (19,800) (19,800) 0 0 0 0 Paragraph 3.28 engagement provision subsidy Administration of the placement 19,999 19,999 0 0 (19,999) (19,999) 0 0 0 0 Paragraph 3.28 protocol Truro Pathways 252,867 252,867 0 258,861 5,994 5,994 0 0 0 258,861 School Placement Support 116,031 116,031 0 110,037 (5,994) (5,994) 0 0 0 110,037 Team Additional High Needs Grant -457,629 -457,629 0 457,629 0 Sub-total 21,541,016 22,993,558 1,452,542 22,618,806 (374,752) 1,077,790 0 317,989 429,684 21,871,134 Strategic and centrally administered Strategic Schools Forum costs 7,700 7,700 0 7,841 141 141 0 7,189 652 0 Support and advice to 147,950 147,950 0 150,588 2,638 2,638 0 134,566 15,431 592 SSF/Schools (O) Prudential Borrowing (H) 632,704 632,704 0 632,704 0 0 0 632,704 0 0 Licenses & subscriptions (O) 141,178 141,178 0 148,237 7,059 7,059 0 147,466 0 771 Admissions Service 225,195 225,195 0 229,699 4,504 4,504 0 229,699 0 0 Early years administration 79,594 79,594 0 79,953 359 360 0 18,358 60,924 672 Contingencies 591,444 591,444 0 685,907 94,463 94,463 685,907 0 0 0 Paragraph 3.48 Top Up Funding Review 15,600 15,600 0 0 (15,600) (15,600) Contingency for unallocated 427,458 427,458 0 500,000 72,542 72,542 500,000 0 0 0 Paragraph 3.31 DSG Sub-total 2,268,823 2,268,823 0 2,434,930 166,107 166,107 1,185,907 1,169,981 77,007 2,035 Total estimated schools budget 151,622,346 153,074,888 1,452,542 155,812,000 2,737,112 4,189,654 121,255,353 1,931,243 10,752,235 21,873,168 Funded by DSG 151,623,972 155,822,000 122,519,000 2,115,000 10,752,000 20,436,000
Strategic Schools Forum -4 6th March 2019
Agenda Item No.: 7
Education Inclusion Service Report Wendy Packer
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE OF MEETING: 6 MARCH 2019
Introduction
In January 2019, the SSF agreed to the recommendations presented to it in respect of the Top Up Funding Consultation. This, coupled with the ongoing work related to the development of specialist and alternative provision in North Somerset, marks significant changes and developments in the way that the Local Authority and our schools’ community are working together. Our aim is to enhance the support and provision available to our most vulnerable learners, the numbers of which are increasing whilst the available resources, both financially and otherwise, do not match readily the identified needs.
An area, which has recently, suffered from reductions in budgets is early intervention, whilst at the same time the positive impact of its role has been noted and missed by the school community. The Inclusion Panel, which works very closely with all schools to reduce exclusions and provide appropriate advice and guidance relating to challenging behaviour, is often asked for early intervention support to enable schools to continue to manage their complex students. Such support is both better for the young person and is a more efficient and effective use of money, however, it has been reduced to a minimum. The centrally managed School Placement Support Team (SPS) is now the only LA team and it always has a waiting list. Even with increased outreach support, which is planned from our special schools, there is a need for a consideration to increase the nature of this kind of intervention. Westhaven Pathways also currently provides very successfully support for 8 students, who are either awaiting EHCPs or placement in specialist provision and who are not able to be educated within a mainstream school.
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of the report is to: i) update SSF on progress following the Top Up Funding consultation; ii) update SSF on actions and decisions related to the Specialist/ Alternative Provision Review; iii) ask SSF to consider various Invest to Save options.
Recommendations
The SSF are recommended:
i) to note the developments/ progress in relation to the progress following the Top Up Funding consultation and on actions and decisions related to the Specialist/ Alternative Provision Review;
ii) to consider further investment into Invest to Save measures
Executive Summary
1. TOP UP FUNDING
Top Up Funding Timeline
Mandatory Training took place on 4 occasions throughout February 2019. 1. Friday 8th February 2 – 4pm, Castlewood 2. Monday 11th February 1 - 3 pm The Hive 3. Thursday 14th February 10 - 12 The Hive 4. Monday 25th February 4.30-6.30pm Castlewood
April Moderation June Moderation
ACTIVITY DATE DATE Schools to email list of pupils for Schools to email list of pupils for Mar whom Top Up Funding is sought June whom Top Up Funding is sought 2019 (with pupil name, DoB, 2019 (with pupil name, DoB, category, category, and level requested) and level requested) by 5pm Friday by 5pm Monday 25 March to 7 June to Lucy Frampton, Senior Lucy Frampton, Senior SEN SEN Officer. topup.funding@n- Officer. topup.funding@n- somerset.gov.uk somerset.gov.uk
Wednesday 3 April – Tuesday 18 June – Moderation of Apr Moderation of applications by June applications by school staff, Local 2019 school staff, Local Authority 2019 Authority Officers and relevant Officers and relevant medical medical professionals. professionals.
Tuesday 23 April – decisions Wednesday 26 June – decisions Apr sent to schools, followed by June sent to schools, followed by 2019 indicative budget statement - 2019 indicative budget statement - identifying all SEN funding identifying all SEN funding streams streams
Schools to notify SEN of Schools to notify SEN of appeals Apr appeals they wish to submit by July they wish to submit by 5 pm 2019 5 pm Friday 26 April to Lucy 2019 Thursday 4 July to Lucy Frampton Frampton at topup.funding@n- at topup.funding@n- somerset.gov.uk somerset.gov.uk
We are unable to receive We are unable to receive notification of appeals in notification of appeals in other other formats. formats.
Thursday 2 May 2018 - Appeals July Tuesday 9 July - Appeals Panel May Panel meeting to consider 2019 meeting to consider cases. Schools 2019 cases. Schools will be notified of will be notified of appeal outcome appeal outcome by Wednesday by Monday 15 July. 8 May.
October/November Moderation January/February Moderation
Schools to email list of pupils for Schools to email list of pupils for Oct whom Top Up Funding is sought Jan whom Top Up Funding is sought 2019 (with pupil name, DoB, 2020 (with pupil name, DoB, category, category, and level requested) and level requested) by 5pm by 5pm Tuesday 22 October to Wednesday 22 January to Lucy Lucy Frampton, Senior SEN Frampton, Senior SEN Officer. Officer. [email protected] topup.funding@n- somerset.gov.uk
Wednesday 6 November – Tuesday 4 February – Moderation Nov Moderation of applications by Feb of applications by school staff, 2019 school staff, Local Authority 2020 Local Authority Officers and Officers and relevant medical relevant medical professionals. professionals.
Wednesday 13 November – Tuesday 11 February – decisions Nov decisions sent to schools, Feb sent to schools, followed by 2019 followed by indicative budget 2020 indicative budget statement - statement - identifying all SEN identifying all SEN funding streams funding streams Schools to notify SEN of Schools to notify SEN of appeals Nov appeals they wish to submit by Feb they wish to submit by 5 pm Friday 2019 5 pm Wednesday 20 November 2020 14 February to Lucy Frampton at to Lucy Frampton at [email protected] topup.funding@n- somerset.gov.uk We are unable to receive notification of appeals in other We are unable to receive formats. notification of appeals in other formats.
Formula Review Working Sub Group (FRWG)
It has been identified that two sub-groups of the FRWG should be established to consider the criteria for each of the different Top Up Funding bands: one for mainstream schools; the other for special schools. At each of the training sessions, staff were encouraged to indicate whether they would like to be members of these groups. Membership and dates for the groups are still to be determined.
TUF financial implications
Work has already begun in relation to the different monetary allocations for the next financial year.
2. SPECIALIST/ ALTERNATIVE PROVISION
Wave 13 SEMH Free School bid
There has been a further delay in the date for notification as to whether we have been successful or not in our bid for the SEMH free school. The DfE have now promised a decision in March 2019. We have, however, been contacted by them asking for some minor revision to our submission, which have been completed and returned.
SPLD/ High Functioning ASD Hubs/ Resource Bases
Aims and Expected Outcomes of an ASD Resources Base The Resource Base is specially designed to cater for children with social and communication needs (predominantly Autism) who would benefit from inclusion into the main school for all or part of the week. The role of the Resource Base is to facilitate inclusion for its pupils to enable them to be part of a thriving school community whilst receiving specialist support.
Schools were asked to submit expressions of interest for the establishment of SPLD/ High Functioning ASD Hubs to the relevant working group for consideration at its meeting on 05.02.19.
Secondary One referral was received from the secondary sector. Nailsea School submitted a proposal to convert their existing library into an area, which will provide five separate spaces within a hub, for students who do not currently attend the school. Agreement was reached for the hub to offer 10 places initially, for students in Years 7 to 11. Nailsea School have been informed that this agreed proposal is subject to final agreement by the Regional School Commissioner (RSC).
Primary Whilst several primary schools had indicated some initial interest and had requested greater clarification regarding some of the details, no clear, costed expression of interest had been received. It was, therefore, decided to extend the period in which schools could submit any expressions of interest until 25.02.19. A further date has been set for consideration of any submissions.
Details
• For all hubs that are agreed; a certain amount of funding will be allocated to the build on the basis that costs can go up to this amount. If the project is then underspent, any difference will go back into the central budget held by the Local Authority. • The revenue funding for the hubs will be £6K per place initially, plus AWPU and any assessed Top-Up Funding. • Access each of the Resource Bases, will be via the SEND Panel and all students will have an EHCP. • Further admissions criteria and processes are currently being developed by the SEND Team
Baytree Special School
Work continues relating to the development of Baytree Special School to cater for the
increase in demand/ complexity of need for children with complex physical and medical needs. Architects have been engaged and funding agreed for some further exploration. Approaches are being made to both health and social care to ensure that there is an opportunity for joint investment into this project.
3. INVEST to SAVE
The specialist provision landscape in North Somerset is in a transitional stage. We are awaiting judgement on the provision of a SEMH Free School, which will, if successful, open opportunities for us to provide within the LA opportunities to support and educate complex and challenging individuals. Until its establishment, and possibly after to complement it, we continue to need support our schools with these children and young people. This paper wishes to highlight the positive impact of both the SPS Team and Westhaven Pathways. It also intends to remind the SSF of the positive response in the TUF Consultation to a possible post to monitor/ track and support schools with their TUF. This is a quality assurance role, which the Education Inclusion Service would like to investigate further.