231 ACTION REDCAR AND CLEVELAND SCHOOLS FORUM
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD AT 3.00 P.M. ON THURSDAY 9TH FEBRUARY 2012 AT THE CITY LEARNING CENTRE, ESTON
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Headteachers:
Mrs A Johnson, Dormanstown Primary School (Chair) Ms L Halbert, Freebrough Academy Mrs H Hall, South Bank Primary School Mrs A Hill, Wilton Primary School Mr A Hobbs, Bydales School Mrs A Hull, Chaloner Primary School Mr S O’Gara, Education Other Than at School Service & Pathways School Mrs K Reilly, Riverdale Primary School Mr K Thompson, Kilton Thorpe School Mr P Tyreman, Hummersea Primary School
School Governors:
Mrs L Davies, St Peter’s Catholic College Mrs D McLay, Caedmon Primary School Mr V Peel, Lakes Primary School Mr S Richardson, Sacred Heart School Mr J Tombs, Lockwood Primary School
ALSO PRESENT
Mr J Anthony, Head of Education Ms A Back, School Improvement Adviser Mr S Harrison, Special Educational Needs Manager Ms W Nixon, Early Years Development Officer Mr K Smith, Directorate Accountant Mrs K Slingsby, Business Manager Mr M Gershman, Clerk to the Schools Forum
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from the following:
Cllr W Wall, LA Representative • • Mr G Douglas, NASUWT • Mr G Groom, Principal, Redcar and Cleveland College • Mr N Appleby, Headteacher, Ryehills School • Mrs R Mayes, Headteacher, Huntcliff School • Mrs K Redfern, Principal Manager, Inclusion
232 ACTION 2. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR FOR REMAINDER OF 2011/12
Mr John Anthony had been seconded from his position as Headteacher of Gillbrook College to the position of LA Head of Education. The Clerk had requested nominations for the position of Chair for the remainder of the academic year 2011/12 and Mrs Anne Johnson had indicated her willingness to be appointed.
RESOLVED that Mrs Anne Johnson be appointed to the position of Chair of the Clerk Schools Forum for the remainder of the academic year 2011/12.
3. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR FOR REMAINDER OF 2011/12
In the event of the appointment of the Vice-Chair as Chair for the remainder of 2011/12, the Clerk had requested nominations for the position of Vice-Chair for the same period. Mr Neil Appleby and Mr John Tombs had both indicated their willingness to be appointed. A secret ballot was held and Mr Appleby was elected.
RESOLVED that Mr Neil Appleby be appointed to the position of Vice-Chair of the Clerk Schools Forum for the remainder of the academic year 2011/12
4. MEMBERSHIP UPDATE
An updated membership list had been circulated and the Clerk pointed out that Mrs Helen Hall had been appointed as a representative of the Eston Primary Headteacher’s cluster to replace Mrs Ryan and Mr Peter Tyreman had been appointed as a representative of the East Cleveland cluster to replace Ms Walker.
5. MINUTES
Members had received minutes of the last meeting held on 7th December 2011.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 7th December 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair. Chair
6. MATTERS ARISING
Arising from Item 3.6 – Consultation on Transport
6.1 The LA’s review of discretionary school transport had ended on 19th January. 1,300 responses had been received. The Area Management Directorate was preparing a paper for Cabinet and this would be discussed again at the next meeting. Clerk/Agenda
Arising from Item 6.7 – Final DSG Allocation
6.2 The final deduction from the 2011/12 Dedicated Schools’ Grant for academies still could not be confirmed, because Gillbrook had not yet converted to academy status. This was expected to happen on 1st March.
233 ACTION
Arising from Item 12.3 – DfE Consultation on Schools Funding Reform
6.3 Since the last meeting the DfE had put an analysis of the collated responses to the consultation on their website. This would be discussed at the next meeting. Clerk/Agenda
7. 2012/13 DEDICATED SCHOOLS’ GRANT
7.1 The Forum had received the draft DSG budget for 2012/13. Mrs Slingsby highlighted that the Guaranteed Unit of Funding per pupil was exactly the same amount in cash terms (£5,147.55) as 2011/12. Redcar and Cleveland’s revenue would fall by c. £1.48M to reflect a fall in pupil numbers of c.289. A census had been carried out since the LA had prepared its estimates, which had confirmed the forecasts to be very accurate. The census was only six pupils higher than the forecast and there were still duplicates and transfers between schools to resolve.
Pupil Premium
7.2 Estimated income to schools from the increased pupil premium was available on the DfE website and would be updated to reflect the numbers of pupils eligible for free school meals on the census date in January 2012. The premium was now based upon all pupils who had been eligible for free school meals at any time in the previous six years. The LA’s income from the pupil premium would increase by £1.74M, around £0.26M more than was being lost through falling rolls.
Retained DSG
7.3.1 The approval of the Forum was required for the retained DSG to reduce at a slower rate than the Individual Schools’ Budget. It would be simpler to retain the Carbon Reduction Premium budget centrally, which would require Individual School Budgets to reduce at a faster rate than the retained element.
(Mr Harrison joined the meeting)
7.3.2 The Speech and Language service was not considered in this report because headteachers had decided that the proposed change to in-house provision with two therapists should not be implemented.
7.3.3 A number of other budget reductions totalling £465,700 had been identified by the Formula Review Group and were detailed in the report.
7.3.4 Budgetary pressures totalling £439,000 had been identified and were also detailed. The £150K increase in the allowance for overspend for 2011/12 was a provision for the LA having to inherit an overspend from a school converting to academy status. The final figure would depend on the actual position on the eventual date of conversion. The final figure for increased central support costs was also yet to be confirmed.
234 ACTION
Individual Schools Budgets
7.4.1 A number of factors such as rates and the SEN Index were excluded from the Minimum Funding Guarantee of no more than a 1.5% per pupil reduction before Pupil Premium. Every school’s budget had been modelled to establish an accurate position.
7.4.2 Most other LAs operated a higher place value banding for special schools and the net cost of introducing this, after a £95K reduction to the Individual Pupil Support Budget, was £52K.
7.4.3 The £35K reduction in the catering subsidy had been achieved through efficiencies in central catering costs.
Allocation of Former Grants
7.5.1 The FRG had reconsidered the primary and secondary level probability ranges as requested and recommended that 50-80% be retained, as this was appropriate for children on the borderline of achieving their age appropriate targets, which was the original objective of the one to one funding.
7.5.2 Mrs Slingsby had been asked to contact the schools listed in the report for details of how they had utilised the funding allocated to them on behalf of clusters and these were attached to the report as appendices 2-5. The Forum would need to determine whether this funding should continue and the impact on the MFG. There were fairly strict rules on exemptions from the MFG and corrections to historical anomalies were not always approved if these would have a negative effect on the budgets of schools in areas of higher than average deprivation. There was no requirement on the schools to continue to provide these services if exemption was not granted.
7.5.3 Primary school clusters had been consulted regarding the allocation of former primary strategies funding, which was c. £580K in 2010/11. Some of the funding had been held back and the rest distributed on the basis of prior attainment and size. There had been one response from the Eston cluster supporting the allocation. Some schools had asked about the retained element and leading teachers. £14K had been retained for EYFS moderation and some of this funded the cost of supply cover for the staff carrying out the moderations. Mr Smith added that there was a sum of £86K for MFL included which would be revisited for any possible savings.
7.5.4 The draft budget showed an overspend of £484K for 2012/13. In order to balance the budget, the Age Weighted Pupil Units would need to be reduced by an estimated c.1% which would save £560K, but there would be no effect on the c.30% of schools already at their minimum funding levels.
The Chair thanked Mrs Slingsby, Mr Smith and the FRG for the great deal of work that had gone into preparing the draft budget and asked for questions.
235 ACTION 8. QUESTIONS & DECISION ON 2012/13 DRAFT DSG
Retained DSG
8.1.1 A member asked about the increase in the daily cost of the Specialist Teaching Service from £250 to £295 per day. Mr Smith responded that this was good value compared to the charge of around £350 per day for external professionals.
8.1.2 The member also asked if progress was being made towards reducing the cost of the Carbon Reduction Premium. Mr Smith responded that the LA was implementing a range of measures, but he could not comment on the extent to which schools were doing the same.
8.1.3 A member asked for an explanation of the academy deficit and why the LA was required to inherit this balance. Mr Smith explained that this was a DfE requirement. Mr Anthony added that this deficit was due to strategic redundancy costs, arising from falling rolls at the school concerned and that these costs would have fallen on the LA anyway if the school had continued to be a maintained school. The Chair asked Mr Smith if there were any other deficits that could similarly fall on the LA and he responded that there were not many. Mrs Slingsby explained that in the case of academies converting without an external sponsor the deficit or surplus on conversion was retained by the school, but where there was a sponsor, the deficit or surplus came to the LA.
8.1.4 A headteacher asked how the reduction in expenditure on the GTP was being achieved. Mrs Slingsby responded that the LA had cut back on the costs of its supplies and services and Mr Smith added that this was now being more effectively managed. The FRG had not wanted to cut the Programme.
8.1.5 The estimated £60K increase in central support costs related to indirectly provided services. Only services detailed in the financial regulations could be charged against the DSG. The Clerk would send a copy of the paper submitted to a Clerk previous meeting detailing these charges to Mrs Davies. Mr Anthony pointed out that Mr Smith had done a very good job of representing Education’s case in relation to these charges.
8.1.6 A headteacher asked if the LA would need to recover more funding from the DSG if more schools converted to academies. Mr Smith responded that theoretically the LA’s costs were supposed to reduce pro-rata and no allowance was made in the LA Central Spend Equivalent Grant for reductions in economy of scale. Mrs Slingsby added that the LA still had to model academies as if they were maintained schools for budget-setting purposes. A member expressed concern that the LA’s costs were to an extent fixed and could not always reduce in the manner Mr Smith had described and he asked if any academies were purchasing services from the LA. Mrs Slingsby responded that the Government would have to review the formula at some point. Some academies were entering into SLAs with the LA. Mr Anthony commented that he had to secure a LA Education Service fit for the future and a great deal of work remained to be done.
236 ACTION
ISBs
8.2.1 A member asked if the economies in Catering would impact upon pupils. Mr Smith responded that schools below a certain size received a subsidy for the provision of catering. This was quite significant and it had been the LA’s intention to review this for some time. The central service had been able to save the £35,000 without affecting provision.
8.2.2 Ms Halbert pointed out that the LA did not yet have Freebrough Academy’s Fischer Family Trust data and she was in touch with the Children and Young People’s Team about this.
8.2.3 Mrs Slingsby had built the cost of the allocations within the former School Development Grant into the draft budget model. The Chair observed that the schools concerned had put a lot of effort into these services and she accepted these were significant sums of money. Mr Anthony pointed out that these schools should have to account for their use of this funding annually and that Gillbrook College should be required to provide more detailed information on their expenditure the following year. Ms Halbert responded that Freebrough Academy had not been conscious of this funding allocation until it was pointed out, but they were happy to continue to provide the service. A headteacher observed that all these services should be provided to the wider community.
8.2.4 Mrs Slingsby asked if all the primary school clusters had agreed the proposed allocation methodology for the primary strategies funding in 2012/13. Mrs Hull responded that this had not yet been discussed by the East Cleveland cluster and Mrs Hall had only just received the papers for the Eston cluster. The Chair was surprised there had been so little response concerning the allocation and asked that the headteachers ensure that these two clusters discussed this. Concern was expressed that the budget setting process should not be held up as a result and the Forum agreed that the allocation should be made on the proposed basis.
8.2.5 A headteacher commented that Redcar Community College and Freebrough Academy were doing a great deal with their allocations from the former School Development Grant. Gillbrook College’s work appeared to be mainly internal, apart from the outstanding work that had been done on reducing exclusions from school across the Borough and it was hoped this would continue after conversion to academy status. Mr Anthony indicated that there were no plans to discontinue the Inclusion Team.
Approval of Draft DSG Budget for 2012/13
8.3.1 The Forum was asked to determine whether the Central Expenditure Limit could be breached. The Chair observed that the retained proportion of the budget was still high but Mrs Slingbsy and Mr Smith responded that this had been about average compared to other LAs, when this had been benchmarked in the past. Most of the retained proportion was in fact spent in schools providing them with services that just happened not to be included in the ISBs.
237 ACTION
8.3.2 A member asked about carbon reduction and Mr Smith responded that he had a separate tonnage figure for each school and schools would be informed of this. Mr Smith
8.3.3 Mr Anthony commented that it would be useful to have benchmarking information for the retained element of the DSG and Mr Smith would provide this for the next Mr Smith meeting Clerk/Agenda
8.3.4 RESOLVED that the Central Expenditure Limit could be breached as set out in the report and that the draft DSG Budget for 2012/13 be approved.
The Chair thanked Mrs Slingsby and Mr Smith again for their work.
A member asked when schools would receive their 2012/13 budgets. Mrs Slingsby responded that if she received the pupil number information the following Monday she would need about three weeks after this and she had informed schools that they would receive their allocations during the week commencing Monday 5th March. She would email schools if there was any change to this schedule.
9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None.
10. DATES AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
Members were reminded that the next meeting would be held at 3:00 pm in the City Learning Centre on Tuesday 26th June 2012.
(The meeting closed at 4:15 p.m.)