People and Communities Strategic Schools Forum

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 09:30am, School

Member Title P – Present S – Substitute A - Apologies ACADEMY REPRESENTATIVES - vote GARY LEWIS Academy CEO, Lighthouse Schools Partnership P CHRIS HILDREW Academy Headteacher, Churchill Academy & Sixth P Form WILLIAM HARDING Academy Governor/Trustee, St Katherines School A

MARK ANTOINE Academy representative – Secondary Business P Manager/Chief Operations Officer ADAM MATTHEWS Academy CEO, Extended Learning Academies P Network SUE ELLIOTT Academy Head Teacher, Worle Village Primary P School - Kaleidoscope STEPHEN WEBBER Academy Headteacher, Clevedon Learning Trust P

TONY SEARLE Academy Principal – A

VACANT Academy Governor

MAINTAINED SCHOOLS HEADTEACHERS - vote SARAH HARDING Primary Headteacher Kewstoke P TRACEY TOWLER Special School Headteacher Westhaven School P EMMA GUNDRY PRU Principal, Voyage Learning Campus P MAINTAINED SCHOOLS GOVERNORS (PRIMARY) - vote WENDY FARRIER Maintained School Representative – Primary A Governor (Churchill Primary) NON-SCHOOLS MEMBERS – no vote JOHN SIMPSON Independent Community Representative, Chair P CLLR CATHERINE Executive Member for Children and Young Peoples A GIBBONS Services CLLR WENDY GRIGGS Chair of CYP Policy and Scrutiny Panel P

CLAIRE HUDSON Diocese of Bath and Wells P

PAUL TRAUBERMAN Early Years – Rainbow Smiles Nursery P

DR PAUL PHILLIPS OR 14 – 19 – P JAQUI FORD – REPRESENTED

1

BY KAREN WORTHINGTON JON REDDIFORD RTPA A

OBSERVERS – no vote MIKE EVANS Special School Governor (Ravenswood School P (CoG)) IAN SCOTT National Education Union A SALLY VARLEY Service Leader – Strategic Planning & P Governance, North Council

PRESENTING OFFICER PRESENT – no vote RICHARD BLOWS Transformation Programme Manager A WENDY PACKER Vulnerable Learners Service Lead and Virtual School P Headteacher KATHERINE SOKOL Finance Business Partner A COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES (FOR INFORMATION) – no vote SHEILA SMITH Director of People and Communities A BECKI WONG PA to the Principalship A EFION PRICE Assistant Director Children’s Support & A Safeguarding CO-ORDINATOR – no vote EMMA WHITEHEAD Education Funding Manager P CLERK – no vote HANNAH CUSHEN Business Support P

2

Item Issue Action

1. Apologies and Declarations of interest (JS) JS welcomed everyone to the meeting

Apologies were noted.

There were no conflicts of interest reported.

2. Minutes of the previous meeting (JS) Approved for accuracy, subject to the following amendments:

• William Harding – delete: ‘- Inspirational Futures Trust’

3. Matters arising that are not on the agenda and notification of

AOB (JS)

Matters Arising

There were no matters arising.

There were no notifications of AOB.

4. Chair’s Business

JS advised that this meeting would be an information sharing opportunity as national developments had meant that the usual agenda for this meeting gong by past October meetings was not available. He hoped that it would be available by the next meeting on 6th November 2019 – an additional meeting.

JS explained that there would be two presentations on funding in the Further Education (FE) and Early Years (EY) sectors, in response to requests at the last meeting.

5. Governance– Welcome to new members (JS)

JS welcomed Mark Antoine, who is the new Chief Operations Officer of The Priory Learning Trust. MA advised he had previously been at as the Business Manager.

JS welcomed Cllr Wendy Griggs, who is a District Councillor and Chair of the Children and Young Persons Scrutiny Panel.

JS welcomed Emma Gundry, who is the new Principal of the Voyage Learning Campus.

JS advised that Tony Searle would be the new representative for the Cabot Learning Federation.

3

6. Introduction to Funding – Early Years, Schools, Post 16

(EW/KW)

Early Years (EW)

EW asked that if more information is required, to let her know and she would

provide it for the next meeting.

The presentation will be distributed with the minutes, it is summarised below:

• Funding breakdown: Schools Block - £121million

Central Block - £2million

Early Years Block - £11million

Post 16 Block - £22million

• Top slice (can go up to 5%) but NSC use 1.5% • Top-up – the whole child is funded if over 30 hours • NSC does not have Flexibility Suppliments • 2 year old rate is likely to be top-sliced and the rate for 3 – 4 year olds is likely to be fixed.

EW explained the following abbreviations: • EYPP – Early Years Pupil Premium • DAF – Disability Access Fund (this can only go to one provider and the parent decides which setting will receive it)

JS asked what the key decisions will be for the SSF, EW advised that everything should be considered. She advised that there were no big changes expected for 2020/2021, but pointed out that if the minimum wage goes up to £10 per hour, the EY funding announced will leave some settings struggling.

PT warned that settings will struggle in deprived areas to meet pension requirements etc.

Post 16 (KW)

The presention will be distibuted with the minutes, it is summarised below:

KW advised that there is a pre-conception that Post 16 settings have access to several funding pots. The funding streams that serve this bracket are: • 16 – 19 learners (and 19 – 24 with an EHCP) • Adult Education Budget • 24+ Adult Learning Loan (not paid back if student goes on to University) • Apprenticeship • Additonal funding bids to deliver training to a pre-defined group of learners eg, European Social Fund • Higher Education (funded by Student Finance England and Disability Student Allownce) • Prison Education • Capital Funding

Money can only be accessed from one funding stream per student. Learning Support Funding is also available.

4

KW advised that the core funding has been frozen for a seventh year and it is calculated over a 2 year period, she explained how it is calculated. It is not able to predict what the allocation will be year on year. If there is a reserve in an academic year the setting cannot access it until it goes into deficit and any additional reserve funding has to be grown for 2 years.

The funding has a very detailed audit process.

KW advised that Weston College are a specialist SEND College and they have 509 High Needs learners form 6 different LA’s. The number of High Needs learners has grown by 25% in the last year and this is a continuting trend. As the numbers are unpredictable and different for each student, it is not possible to predict the funding levels year on year.

TT asked, as a result of KW’s presentation, for her to provide the college’s full financial figures for each work stream, so the SSF can have a clear understanding before passing judgement. Action: KW KW

JS thanks EW and KW.

7. Finance Report, incorporating: 2019-20 budget monitor (EW):

The report was circulated prior to the meeting and covers the Period 5 to the end of August 2019, it is summarised below:

• Top-up funding – predicting an overspend of £90k, which is likely to have implications on the High Needs Budget • Out of County placement costs – costs cannot be controlled as all children and young people have statutory rights to education and training. • Out of County placements are the largest overspend, which is likely to be in the region of £600,000.

• Current finances do not allow for growth, but it is expected there will

be extra funding for the High Needs block.

• It is hoped that the Special School place funding will increase.

EW advised that she would bring the Period 6 figures to the meeting on 6th

November. Varients would include change to actual provision. JS asked

that SSF can be re-assured that where prices go up, providers are

challenged. EW confirmed that this is done. EW agreed to include in future EW reports. Action: EW

GL advised that the location of places are usually determined by tribunal so challenge would be limited. JS asked if there was much success with these challenges, WP advised she did not have figures, but felt that it was not often successful.

EW advised that there is work being done in the South West to set up a framework contract.

SH asked for figures to be broken down to show each element, eg, Travel, but EW advised that the figures shown are the DSG figures only. SW asked for the age of the child to be included.

5

SE asked how the funding is enforced, she gave an example of a student who was receiving £40,000 funding for a placement, but was not attending due to transport issues.

JS acknowledge that the budget would be a real challenge.

8. National Updates and Local Budget Setting Process (EW)

The report was circulated prior to the meeting and the headlines are:

• The school’s budget will rise by £2.6 billion in 2020-21, £4.8 billion in 2021-22 and £7.1 billion in 2022-23 compared to 2019-20 funding levels. Separately to this, the government will provide £1.5 billion of funding yearly to compensate schools for the increased cost of employer pension contributions. • Part of this funding will be used to continue to implement the schools National Funding Formula. • Provision of £700 million more in 2020-21 compared to 2019-20 funding levels has been made to support students with SEN.

• The government is making a £400 million investment in Further

Education in 2020-21.

• Early Years spending has increased by £66 million.

• The DfE settlement, taking into account the schools, Further Education and Early Years funding, represents a 3.3% increase to the overall resource budget from 2019-20 to 2020-21.

EW advised that there are no figures for next year yet, she expects them at the end of Term 1. As soon as they are received, the calculations will be completed as quickly as possible and the consultation will be drafted and th brought back to SSF on the 6 November.

EW advised that the Growth Policy last year took a number of attempts to Approved by gain agreement and so she asked SSF if they felt a Formula Review the SSF Working Group with probably only the Growth Policy to review would be a th worthwhile in the week commencing, 14 October 2019. This was approved.

EW advised that the Review into Children with SEND was for information. Noted by the SSF JS summarised that this report was for information only and this was noted by the SSF. He reminded the meeting that the Budget Setting process was listed in point 3.3.

GL asked if the deficit in the High Needs Block will be clawed back from in future years from the High Needs Block. EW confirmed that it is very likely this would remain the case. It maybe that notional SEN amounts may increase from £6k before Top-up funding would be paid but this is another unknown.

AM advised that he had been to a briefing regarding the High Needs Block funding recently. He advised that DfE are looking for ideas on how to solve the funding issues and are prepared to fund a solution.

6

ME advised that the Governors at Ravenswood School have offered space to accommodate up to another 8 SEND pupils previously and reiterated this offer, but would need a temporary building to do this.

There were discussions regarding the expansion of Baytree School and those present were encouraged to support the consultation.

JS suggested that a sub-group is formed to investigate a solution to the High Needs Block funding. TT, AM, SE and SH agreed to become part of the FRWG for this item if a meeting occurs. GL suggested that they look at the NHS model and suggested inviting someone to talk to them about it. SV asked that the SEND Board is included in these discussions.

CH left the meeting.

9. Education Inclusion Service Report (WP):

The report was distributed prior to the meeting.

• Verbal updates on: Top-up Funding Review and new

and expanding Schools, including Baytree School. WP advised that EW had covered the Top-up funding in her report.

She continued: The Specialist and Alternative Provision Review was conducted in 2017 and had identified gaps in the provision, so a new model was created to implement the recommendations from the review. This included the creation of a number of Outreach Resource centres attached to mainstream schools for high functioning ASD students.

WP advised that the Hub would open in September 2020 with 10 places for secondary provision and work was continuing looking at primary provision, possibly in two primary schools, one in the North and one in the South. Each would have 5 places. It is hoped they will open in September 2020.

JS formally thanked Nailsea School and the two primary schools on behalf of the SSF.

WP advised the SEMH School will be part of the Wave 13 bid and th applications closed on 30 September 2019. Five Academy Trusts have expressed an interest. NSC and the DfE will work together on the applications with a decision on the successful applicant to be reached in the new year.

TT advised that Westhaven School opened its Early Years arm on st 1 October 2019.

WP advised that students with Complex Physical Needs are supported by Baytree School, but the current site is no longer fit for purpose. This site does not have capacity for expansion, so another site has been identified in Clevedon. Keeping the existing site, this would give Baytree School capacity to expand to a 120-place provision.

7

There are a number of local residents who, whilst appreciative of the need to expand provision for young people with PMLD, are not in favour of the site being proposed for the school. We understand that the residents will be submitting a Village Green application.

WP advised that 13 sites had been considered and, upon request an Executive Member had independently re-examined each of these and had come to the same conclusion that this was the most suitable site.

JS reminded the meeting that the focus of the SSF should be on the need for the extra provision and how it can formally support the process. WP asked the individual school communities to support the expansion of the school regardless of where it is.

GL proposed a resolution for the SSF to pledge support to this project. The SSF This was approved unanimously. unanimously agreed to SW advised that he had been approached for comment by the community support this group who are against the proposed site for this project, regarding the project reasons why All Saints had decided against this site for their school. He advised that the site had not been considered by them as an option.

WP advised that she proposed to add the following Prevention and Early Intervention report to the consultation documents.

• Proposal for Early Intervention WP advised that cuts to Top-up funding and reductions to additional support has highlighted the need for support for schools. She asked the SSF for further consideration to be given to investing in early intervention/prevention with more of a focus on the primary age, to mitigate the levels of need for Top-up funding.

WP advised that historically North Somerset had a relatively low number of statements/ EHCPs, however, since 2015 there has been an 81% increase in demand for assessments. This is creating additional pressures and capacity issues.

WP explained that North Somerset is the sixth highest in the country for Primary exclusions. There is a need for short-term interventions to support schools to prevent some of the escalating behaviours and challenges.

WP advised that there are currently two newly-appointed education workers in her team, one primary integration worker and one secondary integration worker who will be working towards supporting children without a school place. She would now like to consider the creation of a Prevention Team to work with pupils and their families who are in danger of losing their place.

JS suggested that the proposal is put on hold until the consultation process.

SW asked whether the costs were all year round or term time only, WP confirmed that they were year-round costs. WP advised that the High

8

Impact Funding is funded by a grant that is coming to an end, and there is still a gap in funding.

TT advised that the proposed costs were a drop in the ocean to what they could be.

AM advised that there are large numbers of extreme need pupils in mainstream schools and nowhere to send them. The only way schools can place them, is to permanently exclude them. This year the funding for supporting these students in school has been drastically reduced, which means that there is a higher risk of students being permanently excluded. This could well lead to an increase in the number of children being placed out of county.

JS asked that this proposal is discussed within the individual school All communities and the feedback is fed into the next meeting. Action: All

10. Evaluation of Meeting

6. JS asked for suggestions on how the meeting could be improved. There were no suggestions.

11. Date of Next Meeting Wednesday 6th November 2019 – 09:30am Venue to be confirmed.

9