MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Friday 28th February 2014 at 2.00pm in the Redditch Room, County Hall, Worcester
A G E N D A 1. Apologies
2. Minutes of the Last Meeting 16th January 2014 (attached)
3. Matters Arising
4. Any Other Business
5. Spend to Save Initiative (Apryl Pheasant and Andy Spencer in attendance)
6. Critical Incident Response Service (attached)
7. Commissioning of Business Support Services a) Update on Strategic Issues (attached) b) Sold Services to Schools 2014-15 and 2015-16 (verbal update)
8. Mainstream Schools Funding APT 2014-15 (attached)
9. High Needs Funding 2014-15 Consultation Outcomes (attached)
10. Early Years (EY) Update (attached) Steph Simcox Head of Finance and 11. Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Resources Projections 2013-14 (attached)
Children's Services 12. School Funding Review Update PO Box 73 a) F40 Group Conference 6th February 2014 (attached) County Hall Spetchley Road b) DfE Current Position on NFFF (verbal update) Worcester WR5 2YA 13. Academy Update (attached) Tel 01905 766342 Fax 01905 766156
E-mail [email protected]
Dates of Next Meetings: -
Thursday 15th May 2014 at 2pm, Redditch Room, County Hall Thursday 3rd July 2014 at 2pm, Redditch Room, County Hall
Please pass apologies to Andy McHale who can be contacted on Tel 01905 766285 or e-mail [email protected]
Energy Management and Spend to Save funding for Worcestershire Schools Apryl Pheasant BSc (Hons) MEI Energy Manager Andrew Spencer MEI Senior Energy Officer
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechangewww.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Energy Management support for schools
• SLA: 97% sign up to energy management • 90% Ecoschools – 71 Green Flags • AMR coverage and training • Benchmarking data/performance ranking • Newsletters, energy walk rounds, policy and guidance, technical advice and feasibility • BEMS support • DECs and AC inspections tender and coverage • Spend to save funding: Academies can access
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Where is energy used within a typical school?
Source: Carbon Trust Publication: CTV019
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange The Energy hierarchy
1) Behaviour change, reduce the need for energy (e.g. reduce temperatures, switch off equipment when not needed). 2) Improve air tightness and reduce heating losses: Insulate and draught proof. 3) Use energy more efficiently (e.g. fit energy saving light bulbs, buy more A-rated electrical appliances) 4) Any continuing use of fossil fuel should be clean and efficient (e.g. condensing gas boilers) 5) Use renewable energy (in order of effectiveness, e.g. biomass, ground source heat pumps, solar thermal).
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Worcestershire’s AMR strategy
• Stark have installed Automated gas and electricity metering (AMR) in the majority of schools supplied by WME. 365 Electricity meters and 300 gas meters • Approval for the project was received through the Head’s forum • Competitive tendering undertaken for the best system ~ • STARK selected. • Bespoke reports were created based on feedback from schools using existing software to maximise the benefits • Benefits: Data, accurate and timely billing, behaviour change – savings identified! • Individual logins for all schools to access reports
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange AMR data
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange AMR Training
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange AMR data interpreted
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Big bar charts!
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange School estate benchmarking
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange School ICT Energy Saving support
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Benefits of BEMS and energy control
COMPARATIVE FUEL CONSUMPTION In 2005, based on 2002-3 DCSF 50th PERCENTILE FIGURES benchmarks, Worcestershire schools were, on average, 15%
UK Schools more energy efficient than the 190 kWh/sq m/yr UK norm Worcestershire Schools 165 kWh/sq m/yr In 2009, based on DEC scores, Worcestershire schools are, on average, 25% more energy efficient than the UK norm
Achieved through BEMS and 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 ## ## 315 ## ## effective liaison with schools
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Display Energy Certificates
• 269 DECS • All schools over 500 M2 now covered • Best value contract tendered for 3 years • All schools consulted • 10% B rated 59% C rated 29% D rated • Top 3 performing authority • Correlated against benchmarked data to pinpoint performance.
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Spend to Save funding • £1m capital fund over 3 years approved by Council • £700k extension agreed • Fund is essentially in the form of interest free loan • Investment is repaid annually from the energy savings obtained, these are calculated and fixed. Energy Price increases not factored in - understated • Maximum payback period is 10 years – more flexible than Salix • The school can contribute if the payback exceeds 10 years and the payback is sensible. • Schools keep the ongoing savings once investment is paid back
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Revenue Budget impact
FIT &/or Savings
Loan FIT Repayment &/or savings
Energy Cost Energy Energy
Cost Cost Total Annual Spend Annual Total
Before investment Payback period Ongoing impact
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Spend to Save Fund – Projects
• Property Services can project manage Spend to Save projects – An expression of interest will be required • Projects that may be eligible include: • Lighting upgrades 6 – 12 year payback • Cavity wall, loft insulation and draught proofing 2 – 4 years • Photovoltaic panels (solar) and Biomass boilers in some cases ~ may be more expensive than last year due to change in FITs 6 – 10 year payback • The fund is less likely to support • Wind turbines, Double glazing, Ground source heat pumps – 20 year + payback
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Spend to Save self organised insulation projects • A straightforward process exists to fund cavity wall and loft insulation using the Spend to Save fund • The school simply obtain and send in a quotation for the work along with the completed Spend to Save Application Form. • A payback period of 4 years is assigned to insulation projects and 3 years for draught proofing. • If approved, the Spend to Save form is returned confirming whether funding has been awarded from the Spend to Save fund. • When the work is completed, the school sends the contractors' invoices to [email protected] together with the signed off* Spend to Save form. • *A slightly different process exists for Academy Schools.
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Feed in tariffs and Solar PV
• Designed to incentivise investment in micro-generation, a tariff is paid per kWh (unit) generated and guaranteed for 20 years • Small-scale low-carbon electricity technologies eligible for FITs are: • Wind; Solar photovoltaics (PV); Hydro; Anaerobic digestion; and Domestic scale micro CHP. • The value of this subsidy has been reduced from its original 42p per kWh in 2010 to 16p per kWh from August 2012 onwards. The cost of panels has reduced resulting in typical paybacks of between 6 and 8 Years • Many schools have installed Solar PV panels using spend to save funding • Installers and providers need to be MCS accredited • Planning consent is no longer required although ecology and asbestos surveys may be.
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Solar PV examples
• 10 kWp arrays – 42 panel av. • Whittington Primary: • Cost £14.7k • Annual savings and FIT: £2.37k Payback 6.28 years • Pitmaston Primary: • Cost £15k. • Annual savings and FIT: £2,300 Payback 6.6 years
Smaller arrays tend to have a longer payback – 8/9 years FIT reducing time to act is now!
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Solar PV projects
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Voltage Optimisation
• Reduces incoming voltage generating savings of between 6 – 8% suitable for secondary schools • Christopher Whitehead and Pershore High have installed • Guaranteed savings by Powerperfector • Costs typically £30k approx. • Savings £4 - £6,000 p/a • Payback typically 6 years
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange Worcestershire County Council Further information : www.worcestershire.gov.uk/spendtosave [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
www.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechangewww.worcestershire.gov.uk/climatechange
AGENDA ITEM 6 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 28th FEBRUARY 2014
Service Specification for Worcestershire County Council Critical Incident Response Services
Please find attached the Service Specification for Worcestershire County Council Critical Incident Response Services.
The Service Specification is intentionally brief and provides the following information: The services and level of support schools can expect to receive by adopting this Service Specification The cost to each school depending upon size
Critical incident support costs for schools are competitive and are in line with charges made by other local authorities offering these services.
Guidance for schools in dealing with critical incidents has recently been revised and republished on EduLink following consultation with a number of schools in the county. This document provides schools with an overview and template for use in completing their own Emergency Plan, guidance on the evaluation of risk and a number of Emergency Response Information Cards for use when responding to critical incidents.
Currently, these documents are available to all on EduLink. However, from the 1st April 2014 access to these documents, and any updates to them, will be restricted to those schools signing up to the Service Specification.
If you would like to discuss arrangements for your school under this Service Specification in more detail please contact Lisa Peaty, Corporate Business Planning and Performance Manager.
Direct line: 01905 728536 Mobile: 07971 998977 Email Address: [email protected]
Yours sincerely
Lisa Peaty Corporate Business Planning and Performance Manager
Tel: 01905 728536 Fax: 01905 728816 Email: • [email protected] www.worcestershire.gov.uk
Worcestershire County Council Critical Incident Response Services
Service Specification (2014-2015)
1. Critical Incident
A critical incident is defined as 'an event or events, usually sudden, which involve the experience of significant personal distress to a level which potentially overwhelms normal responses, procedures, and coping strategies and which is likely to have emotional and organisational consequences.'
Critical incidents can occur on school sites or off-site (for example, during field trips). This Service Specification covers both eventualities. Examples of what are deemed to be critical incidents can be found in the School's Critical Incident Guidance document on EduLink.
2. Service
The service includes the following:
Access to the Schools' Critical Incident Policy and Guidance on EduLink Emergency Response Incident Cards giving step by step information on EduLink Access to the 24-hour Emergency Duty Officer Support Line Telephone advice and support by the Children's Services Emergency Planning Team Education Psychologist support in school in the event of a critical incident which necessitates this kind of support (not time limited and at the discretion of the Education Psychology Team) Support from Worcestershire County Council's Marketing and Communications Team in the event of media enquiries during a critical incident Access to support and advice from Head of Service or a Group Manager within Learning and Achievement, as necessary Access to the Critical Incident site on EduLink with further information and guidance about managing specific issues as they arise (e.g. seasonal pandemics, bomb threats, specific illnesses). e-Black Bag/e-mail updates and real time information on emerging issues (e.g. pandemic flu, adverse weather etc.).
In the event of a critical incident, the Information and Planning Officer – Critical Incident Support Team or out of hours - Emergency Duty Officer will offer advice on how to deal with the immediate impact of a critical incident and will be able to guide you through the process of alerting other key services as required.
Tel: 01905 728536 Fax: 01905 728816 Email: • [email protected] www.worcestershire.gov.uk
Once you have made contact with the Critical Incident Support Team, a range of other key individuals and services within Worcestershire County Council (relevant to the nature and scale of the incident) will be alerted, including the Educational Psychology Service, if appropriate.
Support could be delivered in one of two ways depending on the nature and scale of the incident: immediate telephone advice and/or, if appropriate, a team to visit the school to support students and staff.
3. Training
School staff have many demands on their time. It is vital, however, that staff and governors are aware of their respective roles when responding to an incident. Training events/simulation exercises provide an excellent opportunity for staff to become acquainted with emergency procedures and discuss any queries or concerns they may have. As part of the Service Specification, WCC will be able to assist with appropriate training and emergency response exercises.
4. Costs
For critical incident purposes schools in Worcestershire have been split into one of the following three groups;
Schools Academies 200 pupils or less £200 per annum £300 per annum
201-600 pupils £350 per annum £500 per annum
Above 600 pupils £500 per annum £800 per annum
If you choose not to sign up to the Critical Incident Response Service Specification, schools can still purchase the services offered by the Service Specification in the event of an emergency at a cost of £3,000. If you do not intend to sign up, WCC will make contact with you in the spring to ascertain how you intend to manage critical incidents in your school if they should occur.
Tel: 01905 728536 Fax: 01905 728816 Email: • [email protected] www.worcestershire.gov.uk
AGENDA ITEM 7a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 28th FEBRUARY 2014
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) COMMISSIONING OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES UPDATE ON STRATEGIC ISSUES
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the current position on Commissioning Business Support Services.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The WSF have been advised at previous meetings on the progress of the Commissioning of Business Support Services.
2.2 Following the consultation with schools in the Autumn Term 2013 the County Council Cabinet considered a report on the issues. The detailed report and minutes of the meeting can be found on the following link: - http://public.worcestershire.gov.uk/web/home/DS/Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootF older=%2Fweb%2Fhome%2FDS%2FDocuments%2FCommittees%2C%20Panels%20an d%20Reviews%2FCabinet&FolderCTID=0x01200002FEC5A935DD7249B89E1A0164F7 DA72&View={F63EB537-6E56-4C99-B168-175967DA6019}
3. CURRENT POSITION
3.1 The decisions taken by Cabinet are detailed in Appendix A.
3.2 A letter to schools detailing the current position, including details on buy back options, is attached at Appendix B.
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF notes the current position requirement and comments as required.
Steph Simcox Head of Finance and Resources Children's Services
February 2014 APPENDIX A
CABINET DECISIONS 6th FEBRUARY 2013 COMMISSIONING SUPPORT SERVICES
RESOLVED: that
[in relation to Services provided to the Council only]:
(a) approval is given to taking the Council's ICT Infrastructure service to market as a single package in April 2014 with a likely contract award in late Autumn 2014;
(b) approval is given to taking Internal Audit to market as a single package to market in January 2015 with likely contract award in Summer 2015;
[in relation to Services provided to the Council, Schools and other customers]:
(c) approval is given to the Property Maintenance service (hard and soft facilities management, as specified in paragraph 31) and Building Energy Management being included as part of the Joint Property Vehicle proposal for decision by Cabinet on 6 March 2014;
(d) endorsement is given to the taking of Property Design Unit to market as a single package with likely contract award in Autumn 2014;
(e) approval is given to taking Transactional HR, Transactional Finance (Accounts Payable/Receivable), Payroll, HR and Finance Advisory (provided to schools) to market in July 2014, as part of a package combining Council, schools and other partnered services with likely contract award in Summer 2015;
(f) the retention by the Council of the strategic and statutory element of schools finance be approved;
(g) the retention by the Council of the Health and Safety advice service that is provided to the Council and schools be approved;
(h) approval is given to offering IBS schools (ICT) for sale to the market in April 2014 with likely disposal in October 2014;
(i) approval is given to the procurement of Occupational Health services, as an individual separate package, to be taken to market in April 2014 with likely contract award in Summer 2014;
(j) the transition phase in relation to the services provided for schools be supported whilst the Council works with schools to secure their alternative provision;
(k) the Director of Resources be authorised to take all appropriate steps to put the above recommendations into effect; and
(l) a further report or reports be received on the results of the above market testing and procurement and any proposed transfer of Council staff to alternative providers as appropriate.
APPENDIX B 5 February 2014
Dear Head Teacher,
Update on the commissioning of business support services currently provided by Worcestershire County Council to schools
Firstly, thank you to those of you who took part in the recent consultation on the commissioning of business support services, currently provided by Worcestershire County Council to schools. Just over half of you shared your views with us on the proposals and these have been used to inform the final business case and recommendations going to Worcestershire County Council's Cabinet on Thursday 6 February.
The report, along with background papers, can be accessed via the Cabinet agenda (item no.6) here: http://public.worcestershire.gov.uk/web/home/DS/Documents/Committees,%20Panels%20and%20Reviews/C abinet/Agendas%20and%20Reports%202014/Thursday,%206%20February%202014.pdf
The Council is already offering schools a 3 year contract opportunity for the ongoing provision of the County's Public Broadband Network Infrastructure (WAN). The Council will also continue to provide you with statutory and strategic finance services including the development of funding formulae, health and safety and legal advice to schools.
The County Council will still be selling business support services to schools for the 2014/15 financial year. We will be issuing our annual "Sold Services to Schools" brochure shortly and more details about the options for schools, outlined below, will be provided.
The consultation has shown that 85% of schools want the Council to take a lead on procuring some services moving forwards and, subject to cabinet approval, the Council will be offering two options to schools from April 2014, in relation to: Payroll; HR Advisory and Transactional Services; Schools Finance Advisory (including Payment4Schools) and Transactional Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable Services; Property Services; IBS; Occupational Health and Educational Support Services.
From 1 April, you will be able to sign up for a two year contract with the County Council, we will continue to provide your business support services during 2014/15 and during 2015/16 the contract will be assigned to new providers. We will also be informing you at the time of contract sign up of the prices for 2014/15 and 2015/16 so that you can plan your budget for future years more effectively. We will also support you in the procurement of and transition to new provider(s).
Schools will not only benefit from known pricing for two years, you will also be in the best position to take advantage of the Council's procurement capacity and expertise. Schools will also have the opportunity to test out the provider(s) chosen by the County Council before making your final decision on your future provider of support services in 2016.
Schools can however chose a one year contract option, for the Council to provide your business support services for the 2014/15 financial year. Schools will then be free to procure their own business support services from the external market to take effect from the end of that contract.
Recognising that schools have different SLA commencement dates with the County Council i.e. 1 April or 1 September, the 2014/15 contracts with schools will be offered in line with your current SLA expiry dates. (This excludes the Worcestershire Schools & Academies Wide Area Network (WSAWAN) which operates to a separate contract and term).
(continued over leaf) The Council is also introducing a new "on-line" sign up process for schools, which is expected to be hosted on Edulink. You will be able to identify your intention to sign for one or two years and contract(s) will then be sent out to you for consideration and signature. Schools will have a choice on which services they want to continue to purchase from the County Council and you will also have the option to select one year or two year contracts on a service by service basis.
If you have any questions in the meantime, or would like someone to talk you through the options available to you, please contact Pauline Harris, Programme Manager, on 01905 766235 or email [email protected]
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Birch – Director of Resources Worcestershire County Council
Copy To: Gail Quinton, Director of Children's Services
FOR INFORMATION AND ACTION
AGENDA ITEM 8 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 28th FEBRUARY 2014
The Headteacher All Maintained Schools
Feb 2014
Dear Colleague,
SCHOOLS BLOCK FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-2015
Today, the Mainstream Schools Block funding allocations and indicative Pupil Premium Grant for the financial year 2014-2015 have been published in the Headteacher's area of 'School Secure' on Edulink.
Schools Block - Actual Allocation
The Schools Block allocations are based on a single pupil count using data collected from the Schools Census held on 3 October 2013. There may be minimal changes to pupil numbers as a result of the DfE's audit process, with adjustments made if the changes affect your school. This allocation will not be subject to any further in-year adjustments.
Schools will notice a variation in their Schools Block allocation when comparing it to the indicative allocations published as part of the 2014-15 funding consultation process in the autumn term 2013. This is due to the following factors:
A revised Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocation for 2014-15, Changes in DfE data sets between the October 2012 figures used in the consultation model and the October 2013 figures which are required to be used for the actual allocation.
The Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) remains fixed at the DfE's level of - Caroline Brand 1.5% per pupil. The DfE has now restricted the use of a cap on gainers so that it Principal Schools can only be set at a level which is sufficient to fund the cash requirement of the Finance Officer MFG. For 2014/15 it is +1.095%. Children's Services
PO Box 73 Please note the MFG WILL NOT provide protection for schools experiencing a County Hall drop in pupil numbers from 2013-14. We have provided details of the MFG or Spetchley Road Cap calculation for information on the reverse of the Mainstream Schools Block Worcester funding allocation sheet. WR5 2YA
Tel 01905 766277Fax 01905 728577Minicom (01905) 766399DX 29941 Worcester 2 [email protected]www.worcestershire.gov.uk
U:\U161 CHS\U038 ChSF\01 SFT\02 Funding\2014-15\School Block\Schools Block Funding Allocation Letter to Schools 2014- 2015.doc
All units of resource for the formula allocation, except for the AWPU, are as detailed in the October 2013 model 1 circulated as part of the Autumn Term 2013 formula consultation. As a consequence of the revised DSG for 2014-15, all the revised data sets for 2013 and the statutory capping requirements it has been necessary to reduce the AWPU's slightly from those in the October 2013 consultation model to keep within the Schools Block funding quantum. However, to compensate the capping percentage has increased. This will have a minimal impact for schools as the changes in the data sets between 2012 and 2013 are the main drivers for any difference in the consultation model and the final allocation for 2014-15.
For maintained schools only the allocation will show any adjustment for those services subject to de-delegation. The values of these are now listed on your funding allocation sheet.
The allocation contains, as required by the DfE, funding for Notional SEN to support elements 1 and 2 of the High Needs Funding. Separate allocations will be made to support those pupils with High Needs Top up Element 3 (see below).
High Needs Funding Allocations
Initial allocations for those pupils entitled to High Needs funding will be made, as required by the DfE, by the end of March. For those schools with resourced units this will include the £10,000 per commissioned place based upon the number of agreed places.
Funding for High Needs Top up Element 3 will be allocated as required to those schools with such pupils. This will be subject to the outcomes of the recent High Needs funding consultation just completed. Schools are reminded that funding for High Needs Top up will be adjusted and vary during the year depending upon the movement of such pupils. Indicative allocations will be provided for budget purposes only based upon information as at 31 March 2014.
Schools with Early Years Settings
Funding for the free nursery education entitlement of 15 hours is determined by the Early Years Single Funding Formula. Towards the end of March you will receive an indicative budget allocation for the financial year 2014-15. This allocation will be amended termly to reflect actual numbers on roll and hours of attendance throughout the financial year.
Pupil Premium Grant
From April 2014, each Primary Free School Meal (FSM) Ever 6 pupil will attract funding of £1,300. Each Secondary FSM Ever 6 pupil will attract funding of £935. In addition, Looked After Children (LAC) will attract funding of £1,900 whilst a child recorded as a Service Child or with a parent receiving a war pension on any January census from 2011 will attract £300.
The indicative grant allocations are based on January 2013 pupil numbers, the actual allocations will not be confirmed until the January 2014 School Census data has been audited and agreed by the DfE later in the summer term. The actual allocations will then be paid over in three instalments, when the LA
receives the grant from the DfE. We anticipate that the first half will be paid in October 2013, with the final two quarters being paid in January 2014 and at the end of the financial year.
Budget Plans
We have now published the 2014-15 Budget Planning Booklet on Edulink. The booklet is in two parts:
1. Budget Planning Booklet worksheet pages – prepared in Microsoft Excel 2. Guidance and information pages, together with staffing costs ready reckoners. Please note that the ready reckoners do not reflect any anticipated pay awards for both teaching and support staff.
All schools are required to complete an actual budget plan for the coming financial year. This must be returned to the Schools Finance Team by 31 May 2014. Please ensure that your Governors' meeting is scheduled so that this deadline can be achieved.
Budget plans must be approved by the Full Governing Body unless this action is delegated to the Finance Sub-committee. It is important to stress that any decision to delegate the budget plan approval to the Finance Sub-committee must be evident in your Finance Policy and Governors' minutes.
If your 2014-15 budget plan indicates a deficit balance, please contact the Schools Finance Team for a Deficit Budget Approval form. This form must be completed in full, signed by yourself and the Chair of Governors and submitted together with your budget planning summary; this should also be received by 31 May 2014.
If you buy back our Service Level Agreement and would like to request staffing projections, arrange a budget meeting or discuss your budget plan, please contact your Lead Officer in the Schools Finance Team.
Please share the details of this letter with your Governors. If you would like to discuss any of the items raised in this letter in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact either your Lead Officer or myself.
Yours sincerely
Caroline Brand Principal Schools Finance Officer
Local Authority Funding Reform Proforma
LA Name: Worcestershire LA Number: 885
Pupil Led Factors Reception uplift Yes Pupil Units 57.00
Proportion of total pre MFG Description Amount per pupil Pupil Units Sub Total Total Notional SEN (%) funding (%) 1) Basic Entitlement £2,890.90 41,138.00 41.41% 5.00% Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) Primary (Years R-6) £118,925,844
Key Stage 3 (Years 7-9) £3,455.07 16,283.00 £56,258,905 £222,339,575 19.59% 5.00%
Key Stage 4 (Years 10-11) £4,115.45 11,458.00 £47,154,826 16.42% 5.00%
Secondary Primary Secondary Primary amount Eligible proportion Eligible proportion Proportion of total pre MFG Description amount per Sub Total Total Notional SEN Notional SEN per pupil of primary NOR of secondary NOR funding (%) pupil (%) (%)
FSM % Primary £857.75 5,682.82 £4,874,435 50.00%
FSM % Secondary £725.68 3,274.51 £2,376,245 50.00%
IDACI Band 1 £0.00 £0.00 3,495.21 2,169.57 £0 50.00% 50.00%
IDACI Band 2 £0.00 £0.00 2,256.21 1,414.72 £0 50.00% 50.00% 2) Deprivation £12,329,654 4.29% IDACI Band 3 £0.00 £0.00 4,589.45 2,865.53 £0 50.00% 50.00%
IDACI Band 4 £894.00 £1,250.65 1,209.86 796.05 £2,077,197 50.00% 50.00%
IDACI Band 5 £1,118.00 £1,531.00 1,074.17 661.83 £2,214,177 50.00% 50.00%
IDACI Band 6 £1,229.00 £1,671.65 354.59 210.45 £787,600 50.00% 50.00%
Secondary Primary Secondary Primary amount Eligible proportion Eligible proportion Proportion of total pre MFG Description amount per Sub Total Total Notional SEN Notional SEN per pupil of primary NOR of secondary NOR funding (%) pupil (%) (%)
3) Looked After Children (LAC) LAC X March 12 £0.00 416.29 £0 0.00%
EAL 3 Primary £928.95 4) English as an Additional 1,853.77 £1,722,057 £2,180,487 0.76% Language (EAL) EAL 3 Secondary £2,273.24 201.66 £458,430 Pupils starting school outside of 5) Mobility £0.00 £0.00 519.03 170.60 £0 0.00% normal entry dates
Eligible proportion Percentage of Primary Secondary Amount per of primary and Proportion of total pre MFG Description Weighting eligible Y1 and Y2- Sub Total Total Notional SEN Notional SEN pupil secondary NOR funding (%) 5 NOR respectively (%) (%) respectively
Low Attainment year 1 100.00% 50.68% £1,236.57 11,557.67 £14,291,864 100.00% 6) Prior attainment Low Attainment % Y2-5 78 22.25% £34,057,485 11.86% Secondary pupils not achieving (KS2 £2,875.47 6,873.87 £19,765,621 100.00% level 4 English or Maths)
Other Factors
Proportion of total pre MFG Factor Lump Sum per Primary School (£) Lump Sum per Secondary School (£) Total (£) Notional SEN (%) funding (%)
7) Lump Sum £42,000.00 £42,000.00 £9,492,000 3.31%
8) Sparsity factor £0 0.00%
Please provide alternative distance and pupil number thresholds for the sparsity factor below. Please leave blank if you want to use the default thresholds. Also specify whether you want to use a tapered lump sum for one or both of the phases.
Primary distance threshold (miles) Primary pupil number threshold Fixed or tapered sparsity primary lump sum? Fixed
Secondary distance threshold Secondary pupil number threshold Fixed or tapered sparsity secondary lump sum? Fixed (miles) Middle schools distance threshold All-through schools distance (miles) threshold (miles)
9) Fringe Payments £0 0.00%
10) Split Sites £481,632 0.17%
11) Rates £3,713,680 1.29%
12) PFI funding £2,216,295 0.77%
13) Sixth Form £0 0.00%
14 ) Exceptional circumstances (can only be used with prior agreement of EFA)
Proportion of total pre MFG Circumstance Total (£) Notional SEN (%) funding (%)
Additional lump sum for schools amalgamated during FY13-14 £0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Exceptional Premises £361,441 0.13%
Exceptional Circumstance3 £0 0.00%
Exceptional Circumstance4 £0 0.00%
Exceptional Circumstance5 £0 0.00%
Exceptional Circumstance6 £0 0.00%
Total Funding for Schools Block Formula (excluding MFG Funding Total) (£) £287,172,249 100.00% £51,339,291
15) Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG is set at -1.5%) #VALUE!
Apply capping and scaling factors? (gains may be capped above a specific ceiling and/or scaled) Yes
Capping Factor (%) 1.905% Scaling Factor (%) 100.00%
Total deduction if capping and scaling factors are applied #VALUE!
Proportion of Total Total (£) funding(%)
MFG Net Total Funding (MFG + deduction from capping and scaling) £152 0.00%
High Needs threshold (only fill in if, exceptionally, a high needs threshold different from £6,000 has been approved)
Additional funding from the high needs budget £0.00
Growth fund (if applicable) £200,000.00
Falling rolls fund (if applicable) £185,000.00
Total Funding For Schools Block Formula £287,172,402
% Distributed through Basic Entitlement 77.42%
% Pupil Led Funding 82.48%
Primary: Secondary Ratio 1 : 1.29 AGENDA ITEM 9 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 28th FEBRUARY 2014
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) HIGH NEEDS (HN) FUNDING 2014-15 CONSULTATION OUTCOMES
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the outcomes of the January 2014 consultation for High Needs (HN) Funding 2014-15.
1.2 To request the WSF to consider and approves to endorse the recommendations for Cabinet.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 As part of the national changes to school funding commenced in 2013-14 LAs are required to consider implementing a revised scheme for the funding of High Needs Pupils (HNP).
2.2 The WSF are reminded of the key aspects of the national requirements as follows: - The DfE approach is called 'place-plus' and involves 3 elements: - Element 1 – Core Education Funding based for pre 16 pupils on pupil led funding Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) of up to £4,000 already delegated in the Schools Block or for post 16 basic per student EFA funding. Element 2 – Additional Support Funding of up to £6,000 either from Notional SEN funding already delegated in the Schools Block or direct post 16 EFA funding. Element 3 – Top up funding from the commissioner, usually a Local Authority (LA), funded from the HNP Block. Special Schools and Special Units in Mainstream are funded at £10,000 per agreed planned place plus top up funding paid by the commissioning LA or school. Top up funding has to be allocated as pupils are placed and has to move in ‘real time’ with pupil movement. Alternative Provision (AP) including Pupil Referral Units (PRU) receive £8,000 base funding plus any top up. LAs need to determine the number of high needs SEN places on a timescale prescribed by the DfE. Inter LA recoupment for SEN is replaced by direct funding between the commissioner and provider. LAs have had to take on greater responsibility for funding post-16 HNP pupils and students from the 2013/14 academic year.
2.3 The significant consequences of this are: - LAs need to introduce the new system for the funding of HNP. This could cause significant budget instability and turbulence for providers as top up funding is allocated as pupils are placed and has to move in ‘real time’ with pupil movement. The only budget stability for specialist providers is the certainty of the number of commissioned places at the national rate of £10,000 per place. There will be a need to work with neighbouring LAs and those LAs commissioning places with each other. For post 16 this has provided a significant budget pressure as the transfer into the DSG does not readily reflect the significant actual costs.
3. CURRENT POSITION
3.1 So, any new system has to be in line with the DfE 'place/plus' model. However, as there is no specific national prescription or detailed framework for this and no requirement for DfE approval LAs are able to introduce their own local system.
3.2 Given that HNP are more subject to inter LA provision discussions have been taking place regionally in order to introduce an approach that is as compatible as possible with our neighbouring LAs.
3.3 The principles and next steps in establishing a banded funded system in Worcestershire have been developed that is in line with national guidance, the regional LA approach and changes due to take effect in national SEN arrangements in September 2014 as a consequence of the Children and Families Bill.
3.4 Work has continued in this extremely complex area in conjunction with the High Needs Sub Group and all schools have been continued to be briefed on the issues as part of the District Area meetings in November 2013 and January 2014.
3.5 As part of this, the High Needs Sub Group considered at its meeting on 16th December 2013, a formal consultation document detailing a proposed High Needs Funding Scheme. This was circulated on 6th January 2014 with replies requested by 7th February 2014.
3.6 Based upon the work completed so far and the new legislative requirements, it is proposed that in establishing a banded approach to top up funding the following principles should apply: - A banded model for top up funding will be based on need. It will, as far as possible, endeavour to meet the aspiration of being a single system for the majority of providers – mainstream, school SEN bases, special schools and other specialist providers. Consideration to be given to providers that will not be part of the standard banding system. Given the national requirements for Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans, the existing 'currency' of hours will absorbed into the proposed banding system from April 2014 and need and funding will be expressed in terms of the banding elements and notional SEN funding. In the longer term the current method of measuring need by hours will cease and the new approach will start for new EHC plans from September 2014. A needs based banded model will build on the current mainstream schools model together with the best elements of the Special School matrix funding system but will have a range of bands in line with the regional approach meaning that there are likely to significantly fewer e.g. four or five bands of exceptional funding. The Worcestershire Banded funding system will, as far as possible, be in line with the regional approach in order to enable and support cross border transfer and a common definition of need. Higher Needs Top Up funding allocated though a banded model will support children and young people whose needs cannot be met through the ordinarily available provision that is funded through notional SEN resource. The banded model will work alongside the ordinarily available document to provide system wide support for SEN provision.
4. CONSULTATION OUTCOMES
4.1 The consultation paper provided information on the proposals and implications for changes to the existing 2013-14 arrangements for HNP and requested responses to 5 questions as follows: - The principles to underpin the new policy and funding arrangements for HNP. The types of provider to be included in the new banding arrangements from 2014- 15. The required changes to the funding adjustments, as a consequence of the School Funding Regulations, to pupils permanently excluded from school. The consideration of transitional protection for providers. Criteria for the funding of exceptional SEN.
4.2 Appendix A shows the responses from all consultees to these questions and a summary is provided in the following Table 1.
Table 1: Consultation Responses
Type of school Total Number of Number of Percentage Providers Responses of Responses % (January 2014)
Maintained First/ Primary 163 10 6 Academy Nursery/First/ Primary 14 0 0 Maintained Middle 16 3 19 Academy Middle 5 1 20 Maintained Secondary/High 9 1 11 Academy Secondary/High 20 7 35 Maintained Special 5 1 20 Academy Special 4 2 50 Other Providers N/A 5 N/A Total 236 25 * 11 #
* Excludes the 'other' category. # A much lower response rate than usual.
4.3 Appendix B provides a summary of the issues detailed on the consultation returns. 4.4 Overall the consultation outcomes support the issues detailed. On the basis of the consultation responses and feedback at the District Meetings in January 2014 there is support for: - The introduction of the new HNP funding system from April 2015 on the principles as detailed in consultation. The introduction of a new banding system replacing the existing arrangements to encompass a maximum of 6 banding levels: - Ordinarily available. Unpredicted. Exceptional 1, 2, 3 and 4. For 2014/15 the following to be part of the new banding system: - Mainstream SEN Bases. SEN Pupils with High Needs Statements in Mainstream Schools. Special Schools (including nursery aged pupils). Post 16 and FE. For 2014/5 the following not to be part of the new banding system: - Early Years (except nursery aged pupils in Special Schools). Pupil Referral Units (PRU's) and Alternative Provision (AP). Other Non-Worcestershire Provision. The introduction of the required funding adjustment in line with the School Funding Regulations for those pupils permanently excluded from school. The need for specific transitional protection for providers in 2014-15 to enable the new system to be implemented. The introduction of the ability to fund exceptional SEN on the criteria based model detailed.
4.5 However, key concerns have emerged from providers: - The complexity of the issues to be introduced and the national changes yet to come that are significantly challenging both in terms of future provision and funding. It is recognised that this could have had a significant impact on the response rate. The impact of the changes for provider budget planning and stability, particularly for special schools, given the only fixed element is the place funding and the top up element 3 having to move in real time and be changed during the year. The changes could create significant budget turbulence and as such transitional protection for at least the first year needs specific consideration.
4.6 The consultation document provided indicative top up funding rates based upon the existing funding models, as detailed in Table 2, for both: - Mainstream Schools – School Support Assistant/Lunch Time Supervision hours on statements. Special Schools – SEN Matrix and Non Matrix Funding.
Table 2: Indicative Top Up Funding Rates
BAND NAME INDICTIVE PROVIDER BASIS TOP UP APPLICABLE ANNUAL £ Ordinarily O 0 Mainstream Schools HN, Notional SEN Available Post 16, FE, Special and £10k Units, Special Schools Place Funding Unpredicted U 1,200 Mainstream Schools HN, < 5 hrs. Post 16, FE SSA/LTS Exceptional 1 E1 3,400 Mainstream Schools HN, 5 and up to Post 16, FE, Special 7.5 hrs. Units, Special Schools SSA/LTS; SEN Matrix 1D, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A and non matrix Exceptional 2 E2 5,600 Mainstream Schools HN, > 7.5 and up Post 16, FE, Special to 12.5 hrs. Units, Special Schools SSA/LTS SEN Matrix 1E, 2E, 3B, 3C, 3D and non matrix Exceptional 3 E3 10,300 Mainstream Schools HN, > 12.5 and up Post 16, FE, Special to 17.5 hrs. Units, Special Schools SSA/LTS SEN Matrix 1F, 2F, 3E, 3F and non matrix Exceptional 4 E4 21,400 Mainstream Schools HN, > 17.5 hrs. Post 16, FE, Special SSA/LTS Units, Special Schools SEN Matrix 1G, 2G, 3G and non matrix
4.7 It is noted that these areas of the funding model for both mainstream and special schools have always varied as pupils needs change requiring school budgets to be adjusted during the year i.e. they are demand led. As such there has always been a potential budget pressure for the HN Block DSG. This will be no different in the new proposed banding system with any pressure having to be managed within the HN Block and overall DSG accordingly.
4.8 Draft modelling has been completed for mainstream and special schools based upon the above consultation banding ranges and amounts. Based on current data sets the overall funding: - For mainstream schools, given the changes over the last year to the data sets, results in a budget pressure. This is approximately £565k in order to support the above banding amounts and ranges. It is recommended this be funded from within the DSG. (Note – this funding pressure aspect is considered further, with other issues, as part of the current DSG position for 2013-14 under Agenda Item 11). Given the support in the consultation for the new system it is proposed to introduce the above banding ranges and top up amounts in 2014-15. If supported, there will be no need for transitional protection and it will mean more HN top up funding being allocated to the mainstream schools. Also, the WSF are reminded there is already significantly more financial support for ordinarily available in the Schools Block notional SEN. This is a consequence of the DfE prescribed parameter changes increasing substantially the number of qualifying pupils' in the low prior attainment data formula factor. Therefore, both of these aspects will provide additional support for SEN for all mainstream schools. Any ongoing HN budget pressures for mainstream schools will have to be funded from the HNP Block DSG and overall DSG. For special schools the overall quantum available is unchanged but the distribution between schools is different to the current allocations. This is not surprising as this is a consequence of: - The 2013-14 schools' tops ups being unique to and varying between each school due to the national prescribed MFG requirement which protected allocations based upon 2012-13 budgets. The change back to same top up rates having to apply to all schools. Previous AWPU funding being able to be differentiated by age having to be included in the top ups at the same rate for all schools. Previous non place/pupil funding, which took account of individual school issues such as size, having to be included in the top ups at the same rate for all schools. Vacant places not able to be funded at a differential rate for each school, having to be included in the top ups at the same rate for all schools and in the future merely being the difference between the commissioned places and actual numbers. Variations in actual pupil numbers and their matrix positions between 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The extent of the difference between commissioned places and actual numbers and how this varies during the year. For the new place/plus the ratio of the budget for individual schools between place funding which is fixed and secured and top up which is variable. This varies significantly between schools.
4.9 So, as required by the School Funding Regulations, this will be managed within the Special Schools High Needs Block quantum by the use of the MFG and Capping between the special schools as prescribed by the DfE in the DSG conditions of grant. This is detailed further in section 4.10 below.
4.10 The consultation advised on the ability for the LA to introduce transitional protection for special schools to support any changes in the banding system. The DfE have confirmed LAs has the flexibility within the High Needs Block to include transitional protection in a number of ways. They have indicated this is by a Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) type of protection such as: - Comparing funding under the new banding model for existing pupils compared to the existing baseline in 2013-14 to assess the impact and protect accordingly. The DfE DSG conditions of grant to provide for safety netting for special schools if the number and type of places remained the same in the two financial years, the school's budget would reduce by no more than 1.5% in cash between 2013-14 and 2014-15. The capping of gaining schools to contribute in the funding of any MFG or protection requirement for losing schools.
4.11 For special schools updated pupil data sets will be available in early March 2014, so the actual operation of any protection will be considered as part of this together with when the HNB funding is finalised from the DfE.
4.12 When these issues are finalised, this will enable initial allocations for HN pupils to be made by 31st March 2014 as required by the DfE. Adjustments to provider budgets will continue to be made during the year as pupils with element 3 top up move between providers and LAs.
4.13 As the DfE have yet to publish details on the MFG and capping for 2015-16, the MFG protection for special schools can at the moment only be applied for one year as the new system is introduced. It will need to be reviewed during 2014-15 for 2015-16 as a consequence of any national changes.
5. PROPOSED RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
5.1 Cabinet is due to receive the outcomes of the consultation at its meeting on 6th March 2014.
5.2 As a consequence of the consultation outcomes it is proposed the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families recommends that Cabinet:- Notes the responses to consultation on the Higher Needs Pupil funding scheme. Notes the changes to national policy and the implications of SEN reform. Approves the scheme for 2014/15 as outlined in this report to be implemented from 2014/15. Authorises the delegation of the full implementation of the changes for the new banding system, allocation rates and any transitional protection arrangements, to the Director of Children's Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 The WSF notes, discusses and supports the outcomes of the January 2014 consultation for High Needs Funding from April 2014.
6.2 The WSF considers and approves to endorse the recommendations to be made by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families for Cabinet, as detailed in section 5, with this being reported to Cabinet as required.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development February 2014 APPENDIX A
FAIR FUNDING CONSULTATION RESPONSES FEBRUARY 2014 - HIGHER NEEDS PUPILS FUNDING SCHEME 2014-15
Maintained Academy Maintained Nursery/ Nursery/ Maintained Academy Academy Maintained Academy Other Category of Provider/Responder Secondary/ Total First/ First/ Middle Middle Secondary/High Special Special Providers High Primary Primary Number of All Providers 163 14 16 5 9 20 5 4 N/A 236 Number of Responses 10 0 3 1 1 7 1 2 5 25 % of Responses to Number of All Providers 6 0 19 20 11 35 20 50 N/A 11 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Q1 Do you support the principles as detailed to underpin the new policy and funding arrangements for HNP? 9 1 3 1 6 1 2 4 1 26 2 Q2 Do you support the proposed types of provider for inclusion in the new banding system from 2014-15 and those to be excluded as detailed? 9 1 3 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 1 25 3 Q3 Do you have any comments on the actions required for the financial adjustment for pupils permanently excluded per the School Funding Regulations as detailed? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Q4 Do you support the need for transitional protection for providers as detailed? 9 3 1 1 7 1 2 4 1 28 1 Q5 Do you support the introduction of funding for exceptional SEN on the criteria and methodology as detailed? 8 3 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 25 1
Note - Some schools did not respond to all the questions.
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF THE MAIN ISSUES INCLUDED ON THE HIGH NEEDS CONSULTATION RESPONSES FEBRUARY 2014
Q1. DO YOU SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLES AS DETAILED TO UNDERPIN THE NEW POLICY AND FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR HNP?
Yes Responses
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
These all seem justifiable, however the school is not sure how it will look or work in practice just yet.
The potential to request a personal budget is a little worrying and may need to be carefully managed.
Agree and we have a particular interest in HN in primary mainstream and exceptional SEN in primary mainstream.
We accept that under the old statementing system finances appeared to be allocated to a child by the LA and that the funding did not seem to necessarily correlate to the cost of a child’s need. The funding was often based on how many TA hours were needed but did not take into account equipment, staff training, school site/building upgrades etc.
The principal of higher level of funding that is currently advocated is reasonable but in a school with a large number of children at a higher level of need, could be compromised. Additionally, some schools have a high proportion of children of what is currently regarded at School Action Plus who require considerable support that have an impact on the notional budget too.
Secondary/High – Academy
We understand the pressures on funding and the need for a review.
We are in agreement with the principles providing that the banding funding system will support existing high levels of need. We have concerns that the funding will be minimised resulting in those students who already have statements with high levels of need receiving rather less than previously. We are hopeful that the new principles will not lead to stealth cuts.
Agree provided that there are no in-year changes of the kind that we have some times experienced.
Is there a possibility of greater clarity of the elements of the budget contained within the notional SEN funding?
Special – Maintained
We are concerned over the impact on our school of the national proposal to replace statements with the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. As funding will require pupils to have needs under health as well as education and care we are unsure about how this will impact on funding for our
pupils with SEBD who may not necessarily have a health issue. This makes planning, with particular reference to our staffing structure, almost impossible.
Special – Academy
Given the national changes there is inevitability about the need to impose a new system and Worcestershire has obviously been working towards its introduction – including implementing interim/transitional arrangements – for some time. We are broadly in favour with the new funding arrangements and underpinning principles that have shaped it.
We have some concerns about the assessment, planning and timescales that need to be co- ordinated for the proposed EHC plans. The experiences to date within our school have certainly created some frustration with regard to the input from other agencies who consistently demonstrate that they are suffering from poor working practices and lack of appropriate oversight. We would question what measures are to be put into place under any new directive to overcome this problem.
As a school that has to deal with some parents who have the expectation of an individual funding allocation for their child, will the new arrangements have some form of mechanism that will allow parents to ‘qualify’ for this?
Other Providers
There needs to be some clarity that all VI pupils above a certain level should be included in the High needs block. It is important the HNB is constructed and resourced to reflect this.
The term High Needs creates a risk of confusion because it suggests the HNB should not be used for VI pupils. There are concerns that services will not be able to support mild/moderate VI without an EHC plan.
It is unlikely that the formula factors indicated will accurately reflect actual distribution of VI pupils in individual schools because: - The low incidence means it is statistically improbable that there will be an even distribution of pupils across schools in an area. There could be clusters of pupils in certain schools because of physical attributes of the school or because it is known that certain schools have developed skills and experience of meeting the needs of VI pupils
Will schools fail to declare HN pupils as it would result in a transfer of money from the individual schools budget to the high cost block?
Disagree with the national decision to set PRU and AP place funding at £8000 per place where mainstream base places are being funded at £10,000 per place.
No Responses
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
The notional SEN sum is not enough to provide 'ordinarily available' in a school where there are such a wide range of needs across 7 year groups where it is very difficult to 'group children' with the number our school currently has as School Action+. The notional 5 percent in the AWPU is already
lower for Worcestershire schools being in the F40 group so a percentage disadvantages us compared with other LAs.
Other Providers
We are concerned that our HI students without statements may not have their needs met fully under the new funding arrangements. At present we receive direct referrals to the HI Team from Acute Audiology – would this continue?
If an initial referral regarding hearing loss is sent directly to schools under the 'Ordinarily Available' terms – who has the knowledge base & expertise to assess their HI needs initially and decide on future management? There may be a conflict of interest between schools under estimating the impact of hearing loss so they can absorb it into the 'Ordinarily Available' criteria.
The needs of HI children especially those with mild/moderate losses may be missed by applying this banding system.
Who will oversee liaison between Health, Education and Social Care?
General Comments
Middle – Academy
We have made the assumption that this new policy will go ahead in any event.
Secondary/High – Academy
Not clear about how the figure of £6,000 for additional support funding comes from. If I take the amount of additional funding we receive for those who qualify for the deprivation factor and the low prior attainment factor it is only about £620 per child.
Q2. DO YOU SUPPORT THE PROPOSED TYPES OF PROVIDER FOR INCLUSION IN THE NEW BANDING SYSTEM FROM 2014-15 AND THOSE TO BE EXCLUDED AS DETAILED?
Yes Responses
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
Need to have clarification on the future funding of the school's Nursery Language Unit.
We are not sure if we have understood the proposals in enough detail, as we are responding to the concise power-point presentation. However, under the new proposals we wondered whether mainstream schools without specialist units, such as ours, may struggle to cope with the cost of providing for children with significant physical needs from their standard delegated funding. We currently have two children on roll and are expecting another in September. Would we really be expected to cover the first £10,000 of each child’s needs when they choose to attend their local school?
Middle – Academy
We feel that the PRU’s should be part of the new banding system.
Secondary/High – Academy
Children who require support need the right type of tailored provision.
Could there please be greater clarity over the criteria for the banding system (elements 1 to 4) and exactly who makes the decision on the criteria?
Special – Maintained
Have indicated yes but wish to register two qualifying concerns: - There is no mention of pupils who attend both mainstream and special schools across a week (dual registered). How will these be funded? Also feel that PRU’s are not getting a fair deal because of the continued uncertainty in a permanent funding solution.
Special – Academy
Part of our work is to successfully re-integrate pupils back into a mainstream environment from our BESD environment when it is considered appropriate and beneficial for the pupil to do so. We also work alongside PRU’s who may find difficulty in doing this. If LAs push to reduce the number of statemented pupils there could be a collection of pupils who cannot be moved and remain without statements. How will schools have access to additional funding to maintain these pupils in the future?
No Responses
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
If we have understood this banding correctly it may be that a mainstream school could be compromised because the needs of a child with a certain difficulty in a special school could be facilitated easier there than in a mainstream school. Therefore the banding finance may not be sufficient.
Secondary/High – Academy
There needs to be a mechanism for transferring the high needs funding to PRUs and AP Free Schools if they are taking on children long term who fall into one of the bands for additional funding.
Other Providers
Exceptional 4 E4 – please look with care at this banding level. Students with high cost needs in FE who have in class support plus out of class continuity etc., will easily cost in the region of £15,500 per academic year. This cost does not include meetings or exam support, or indeed any personal care costs, only access to the curriculum to ensure full compliance with deadlines etc.
General Comments
Other Providers
The descriptors are too vague.
It is best that EY funding is not included.
There is not enough information provided to rule out independent providers which we do not support – we support existing services and their delivery models within the new banding system.
Reservations are expressed regarding quality assurance around independent providers.
Does the new banding come into force at the beginning of reception or at age 5 – this is not clear. It may affect transition plans.
Q3. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR THE FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENT FOR PUPILS PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED PER THE SCHOOL FUNDING REGULATIONS AS DETAILED?
General Comments
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
Support money moving with the pupil.
Adjustment based on actual not notional funding is fair.
Schools would need half a terms notice before losing any funding targeted to employ staff supporting an individual HNP, otherwise this could deter mainstream schools from taking on pupils with EBD issues from other educational establishments.
Middle – Maintained
If pupils are permanently excluded the funding should follow them. However, it is not acceptable if a pupil has to be permanently excluded because there is no place for them in a special school despite all professionals agreeing that this is the only answer. The system has to back this.
Middle – Academy
We agree that funding should follow the pupil. However, in the past funds have been clawed back from the school – this does not seem to take into account that these pupils are extremely high cost to the schools before they are excluded.
Secondary/High – Academy
We agree the funding should follow the student.
We are in agreement with the principles which act as a disincentive for the permanent exclusion of SEN pupils.
This is fair, provided it can be worked out accurately. It is assumed that for a year it would look something like: - AWPU £4,122 Social deprivation factor £205 Prior Attainment £415 Pupil Premium £900 = Total cost to school for year £5642
We believe that the arrangements for financial adjustment are perfectly fair.
The only concern is that this may not have been factored into the school budget.
Special – Maintained
We fully support funding following pupils. However our own experience with pupil premium monies is that practice does not always follow theory. What assurance will schools get that out of area fostered pupils and those in receipt of pupil premium will be guaranteed their funding on admission to a Worcestershire school?
Other Providers
Seems a fair action for the adjustments required.
Should schools be fined for permanently excluding pupils? Believe there should be a financial penalty.
Q4. DO YOU SUPPORT THE NEED FOR TRANSITIONAL PROTECTION FOR PROVIDERS AS DETAILED?
Yes Responses
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
A transitional arrangement is good; however schools need to be clear of the end point and the period to address the funding issues.
This needs to be short term.
We accept that some needs (e.g. speech and language, dyslexia, some mobility and emotional needs) must be managed in a mainstream environment and that it is reasonable to expect all schools to fund reasonable a level of SEN provision from their delegated budget allocations.
If however a small school, due to its ethos to being genuinely inclusive, (as publically recognised by Ofsted) has a higher than average ratio of High Level Needs children how will they manage £10,000 per child? Will there be some kind of expected norm i.e. <100 pupils on role could = 1 pupil @ £10,000 to be funded by school, >150 = 2 pupils @ £10,000 each to be funded by school etc. Surely mainstream schools will not be expected to provide for an indefinite amount of needs/pupils. Or would they?
Secondary/High – Academy
As this may drastically affect the income levels in some educational establishments it is sensible to provide transitional protection
This is a key issue – there is an urgent need for transitional protection. When the funding for our Learning Support Centre (around £60,000) was removed a few years ago, it was done without any transitional protection. There was no allowance for the needs of those students still supported by the LRC for several more years.
Special – Maintained
We are very concerned about the sustainability of our staffing structure. The loss of the 1.5% last year and another projected loss of 1.5% this year means in real terms we have lost almost £250,000 from our budget to date. We are grateful that our split site situation continues to attract some funding but we have already had to halt the appointment of a much needed occupational therapist because of the cuts. The short term nature of the budget situation and top up funding amounts could well mean the need for redundancies at our school in the long term.
Special – Academy
We recognise that whatever new system is introduced there will, inevitably, be winners and losers, plus a degree of financial uncertainty and turbulence whilst the new system is being bedded in. A transitional process to minimise this turbulence would appear to be a fair way to ensure that no schools are significantly disadvantaged in the first year although it would seem that longer term protection will not be sustainable.
Other Providers
Smooth transition by considering the following points: - Provide clarity on specialist educational support services. VI service provides a vital role in ensuring VI pupils achieve their potential. SEN services will be funded out of the HNB? Ensure the HNB is resourced and constructed to meet all needs. Review the practical implications of how pre and post 16 funding for high needs will be aligned.
It is felt that there should not be any cuts to support caused by transition to the new banding system and that providers should not be penalised or have deficits during transition.
No Responses
Other Providers
Banding for FE will not give establishments adequate funding to fully support high cost students. Support is far more intricate e.g. 'A' level practical lessons for Chemistry vs. GCSE Chemistry. If the new banding system is to commence 2015/16, FE Colleges will not have sufficient funds to support students fully, leaving providers with the prospect of parents prepared to take action under disability legislation, or more likely providers becoming more careful regarding enrolling high cost LLDD students. There is a danger of going backwards here, where has ‘best practice’ gone.
General Comments
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
There is confusion on the measure of SSA hours being withdrawn but how does this relate to the needs of School Action+ children?
How is protection money going to be determined? If there is an impact of making staff redundant - will there be an appropriate window of time to follow due process by the time schools know the actual budget?
Q5. DO YOU SUPPORT THE INTRODUCTION OF FUNDING FOR EXCEPTIONAL SEN ON THE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY AS DETAILED?
Yes Responses
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
Can understand the rationale; however have concerns regarding the funding for SA+ pupils. Without resources/outside agency support these children will struggle to have their needs met. The notional SEN formula may not provide enough funding to cover this cost effectively.
Our school would welcome a meeting/further communication to seek clarification on these issues.
In the last few years we have not had to approach the LA for extra funding, not because the funding has got significantly more generous but because we have had increased the number of pupils on roll. This could be interpreted as a few high level needs children being heavily subsidised by their peers. (Equipment servicing, expensive coaches for visits, extra staff to cover absence when we would normally muddle by etc.). We feel there could be a danger of some schools before forced to discourage parents from sending their child to a mainstream school if they have significant/expensive needs.
This might help schools with a high proportion of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN).
Middle – Maintained
The school has high levels of SEN pupils. A few are in the resource base but a large number are out of catchment and have chosen this school as it has a good reputation and excellent track record for supporting children with difficulties. The problem is that these are usually very complex needs that require huge amount of time and support. The budget needs to reflect this.
Secondary/High – Academy
However, concerns on judgement/assessment of criteria.
We agree with this providing that this does not impact upon funding elsewhere. However, once again, we feel that there needs to be more clearly defined and shared criteria of what is meant by exceptional SEN. For example, we have a limited number of places commissioned in our MAB, but there are students who it could be argued have exceptional SEN that require support outside the remit of the MAB.
Special – Academy
Broadly in principle – yes: it will only be when the formula has been applied that the full implications of the changes will become clear, by which time the new system will of course have been implemented.
In our school we have to deal with a number of pupils whose needs are such that they exceed the existing top end 3G level. Accordingly there needs to be an appropriate structured mechanism in place to enable schools such as ours to access additional funding when necessary. With the new funding arrangements it is essential that, with LA making payments direct to academy schools, there is clarity over commissioned places allocated and used in a Special School.
Similarly based on our experience there needs to be clarity on what constitutes a ‘commissioned’ place and also how will additional places be secured when all ‘commissioned places have been used. In particular how will this operate when pupils join part way through a year and higher needs funding is required.
Other Providers
This seems a fair proposal.
No Responses
Other Providers
We are happy with the current system – it works well – why change it?
If schools are deciding on specialist HI input needed this will lead to inconsistencies in input provision and support: - Who will advocate for the child? For low incidence disability not all schools will have had prior experience or a knowledge base of such needs and the impact on learning. How will settings and parents know what is required and how to access support?
At present the Educational Audiologist is the bridge between Health and Education post diagnosis of a hearing loss. It may be difficult and dangerous to leave decisions to parents and individual school Heads regarding support, so specifically: - Who will evaluate the effectiveness of the provision? Who can we appeal to if needs are not being met? Who will involve outside and voluntary agencies like Deaf Direct and the NDCS?
General Comments
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
How will mainstream schools cater for the individual medical needs e.g. type one diabetic who needs hourly monitoring and administration of medication by injection or food regulation and lunch
time monitoring and monitoring during PE and outdoor learning and trips, where this is the only child yet this impacts on learning as well as well-being?
Would like to see the criteria on medical need and how the LA propose determining a figure - what is feasible in a special school is not likely to be so collectively affordable in mainstream.
What is meant by 'unpredictable' levels of SEN?
We would like to have seen the criteria in order to respond.
Other Providers
Unsure – there would need to be clarity on the consistent application of the same criteria for SEN across different settings. This is certainly the case with pupils with behaviour issues. What some of our city schools, which work brilliantly with pupils with challenging behaviour, view as SEN is very different to what some of our more rural schools view as exceptionally difficult behaviour.
The rationale for the proposals seems very reasonable. It is difficult to comment on the bands until more specific information is available. The SENCO's we work with often have too little understanding of funding arrangements and involvement in budget decisions within school which can make our discussions with them about provision that is 'Ordinarily Available' difficult. Consequently the more that can be done to make this document and the subsequent decisions available to and discussed with, and between, Heads and SENCO's the better.
FURTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE CONSULTATION ISSUES
Nursery/First/Primary – Maintained
Fully agree to keeping PD outreach a great service not well publicized.
In considering Bandings Universal and Exceptional 1 the development group needs to include some mainstream heads too not just special school heads as often the practical implications are slightly different when catering for odd individuals in a school population and not groups with a similar need.
After due consideration it is difficult to comment. Our school has one child with High Needs and until a language unit place is provided our small school with a deficit budget will provide full time classroom and lunchtime supervision support. The high needs amount in the budget will not cover the support required.
The complexity of applying/qualifying for additional exceptional funding may deter applications and create a mismatch among schools.
How will the LA manage the transition to EHC plans?
Who will be responsible for allocating and transferring the 'personal budgets' to parents and carers?
How will the spending of 'personal budgets' be monitored to ensure value for money?
In a mainstream school who will identify a child as have High Level Needs? Will this be done before they start school?
We are not sure if we have interpreted it correctly but Short Stay Schools, Special Schools and units in mainstream seem better protected. It looks like mainstream, especially small schools like ours, will be struggling again.
Since the previous funding formula was introduced and the draft proposals regarding ‘Ordinarily Available’ have been circulated in Worcestershire, many schools have been reluctant to admit children with SEN. Therefore, a few schools tend to attract children with difficulties, and it is imperative to make funding as fair as possible.
Special – Academy
I think we been overlooked in the category of special schools on a split site. Wyre Forest seems to be the only one mentioned.
Other Providers
Colleagues want to support High Cost LLDD students well, but feel the new funding strategy is forcing a backward trend as FE Colleges will become far more careful regarding enrolling students who have High Cost needs. Please ensure all providers have the opportunity to be included in any further discussions.
AGENDA ITEM 10 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 28th FEBRUARY 2014
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) EARLY YEARS (EY) UPDATE
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on current issues relating to Early Years (EY) funding aspects.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The WSF are reminded that the EY Block DSG is allocated by the DfE on the EY Guaranteed Unit of Funding (GUF) which was reported at the last WSF meeting on 16th January 2014.
2.2 The DfE have confirmed the EY GUF is £3,229.56 in 2014-15 being the same as 2013-14 i.e. cash flat per pupil. The initial allocation has been based upon the January 2013 census with pupil numbers of 4875. These numbers will be updated during 2014-15 for the January 2014 and January 2015 census returns, which will result in an adjustment to the EY Block DSG.
2.3 Further DSG has also been made available in 2014-15 for additional 2 year old funding.
3. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
3.1 There have been discussions within the LA on: - The current position in respect of the Nursery Education Funding (NEF) budget for 2013/14 and 2014/15 and the NEF hourly rate for 3 and 4 year olds. The mid-year Early Years DSG allocation adjustment. NEF 2 year old budget 2013/14 including trajectory funding. September 2014 2 year old eligibility criteria. The uncertainty about the definition of childcare and the implications for funded childminders. The quality requirements and the potential impact on sufficiency of early year provision.
3.2 As far as the current situation is concerned: - There is a 98% take up of free places for 3 and 4 year olds. The percentage remains fairly constant however the actual number of children has increased since September 2013, due to an increase in birth rates. The Early Years Census 2014 should reflect this increase resulting in a mid-year Early Years DSG adjustment. Current 2 year old eligibility criteria are based on eligibility for FSM, Gypsy Roma Traveller, Looked after Children and Child Protection Plans. A recent enquiry to the DfE by another LA has identified a policy issue which potentially affects funded childminders i.e. those offering free nursery education. Childminders can currently claim NEF for their own children as they are considered within ratio for OFSTED purposes and when inspected are required to produce learning journeys and other evidence related to all children, including their own child(ren). The DfE have recently stated that childminders are now unable to claim funding (using DSG) for their own children. This has potential issues for sustainability which could impact sufficiency of places, as many childminders are the only funded provision in the locality.
3.3 The budget for this service is detailed in the DSG within the separate notional EY block, although technically it is not ring-fenced for EY.
3.4 NEF Budget For 2013/14 3 and 4 year old NEF there is a predicted under-spend on the early years DSG budget of between £250,000 and £300,000. This is lower than predicted mainly due to an increase in the birth rate. It is therefore proposed to use the current years under-spend to pay for an increase in the hourly rates in 2014/15 and to increase in subsequent years; should an under-spend be available. On the current estimated under-spend, this would support an increase of 6p per hour. This is the increase recommended.
3.5 Mid-Year EY DSG Allocation Adjustment Given the increasing numbers it is proposed that a commitment to retain any mid- year DSG adjustment resulting from the Early Years Census 2014 calculations for NEF is made to ensure sufficient funding for 3 and 4 year olds. It is recommended that this is ring-fenced to ensure sufficient funding for all 3 and 4 year old funded places.
3.6 NEF 2 year old budget 2013/14 including trajectory funding There is a predicted under-spend on the 2 year old funding of £600,000. This is because budget estimates were agreed at 100% take up, as there was no trend data available. The uptake is on average 87% of eligible children and has reached 97% in the term before the child becomes eligible for 3 year old funding. However children frequently start accessing less than the full 15 hour entitlement and increase their hours over the course of the year. 2 year old NEF from 2015/16 will be paid on the early years census and actual take up (payment by results) so there is unlikely to be a regular significant under- spend which could be used to support the 3 and 4 year old hourly rates. So, consideration has been given to use some of this to support the 3 and 4 year old deprivation supplement. This is currently paid as a termly lump sum so there will be no future expectations regarding future payment. As current NEF hourly rates are below average costs/parental fees allocating a deprivation supplement will support sustainability and therefore sufficiency, which is a statutory duty. It is therefore recommended to use 50% (about £300,000) of the 2 year old NEF under-spend from 2013/14 to support deprivation funding for 3 and 4 year olds in 2014/15. The remaining DSG under-spend (about £300,000) can be used to support other DSG budgets. The projected underspend on the trajectory funding of £357,000 has been agreed to be carried forward to supplement the capital allocation in order to create more 2 year old places.
3.7 September 2014 2 Year Old Eligibility Criteria From September 2014, eligibility criteria will also include families in receipt of working family tax credit with a household income under £15,000, children with a statement or Education, Health and Care or attracting Disability Living Allowance and children who have left care. 2 year old DSG funding for 2014/15 is based on 100% take up for the full financial year, but in 2015/16 it will be based on actual take up as of Spring Term 2015. The DfE are planning to update their national FSM database (which is used to confirm a child's eligibility) to include the September criteria from April 2014. It is therefore recommended that children that meet the September 2014 criteria are funded from April 2014 as there is sufficient funding. It will support the take up of places (payment by results) and the national eligibility checker will be in place.
3.8 Funded Childminders The LA is seeking clarification from the DfE and WCC Legal Services on the detailed aspects. It is recommended that the LA makes a decision on these aspects and future arrangements once the position is clearer.
3.9 Quality Requirements on and Sufficiency of EY Provision LAs should offer to fund places for three-and-four-year olds attending any ‘satisfactory’/’requires improvement’, ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ provider, and two- year-olds attending any ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ provider; Whilst it is preferable to fund 2 year olds attending providers rated as 'good'/'outstanding' this could cause sufficiency issues in some geographical areas. The guidance states the LA could currently fund satisfactory/requires improvement if there is no other provision in the area. However, by 2015 it is proposed by DfE that LAs will only be able to fund 'good' or 'outstanding' providers.
3.10 The Children's Services Leadership Team have discussed and agreed all the above issues and recommendations.
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF comments on the above issues.
4.2 The WSF agrees the recommendations detailed in sections 3.4 to 3.9.
Cath Ellicott Early Years and Childcare Manager Children's Services
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development
February 2014 AGENDA ITEM 11 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 28th FEBRUARY 2014
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) PROJECTIONS 2013-14
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the DSG projections and variations in 2013-14.
1.2 For the WSF to consider and agree to the treatment of the estimated variations in 2013-14 and 2014-15.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The majority of the Schools Block DSG is delegated to schools and allocated through the local schools funding formula. The variations in spend are carried forward and shown as individual school balances as required by the School Finance Regulations.
2.2 Similarly significant shares of both the High Needs Block DSG and Early Years Block DSG are allocated and delegated to providers on the approved formulae. The regulations provide for the requirement to carry forward balances for specific providers such as special schools and PRU's.
2.3 Also, in all 3 blocks there are services that continue to be allowed to be centrally retained or are not subject to the individual school carry forward requirements. The actual spend on these areas against budget forms the DSG carry forward reserve.
3. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
3.1 The current projection as at 31st January 2014 for the DSG carry forward position in 2013-14 is an underspend of £3.331m. This is detailed in Table 1.
Table 1: Projected DSG Variation as at 31st January 2014 DETAIL £'000 COMMENT Schools Formula 597 £69k of this already added to the 2014-15 allocations. De-delegated Services 56 Can be carried forward to support de-delegated services or for return to maintained schools only. Statutory and Historic 486 Includes an amount of £97k for the Early Intervention Duties Family Support Service (EIFS) to be recommended to be carried forward for the service. High Needs (HN) 599 Recommended £565k to be carried forward to support the HN need banding system in mainstream schools. See Agenda Item 9 Further pressure of £55k on ISS places. Early Years See Agenda Item 10 NEF 3 and 4 year olds 250 Earmarked to increase 2014-15 hourly rates. Base 2 year old funding 600 £300k to support one off deprivation allocation. Trajectory 2 year old, 743 Trajectory Funding carried forward of £357k to support SEN and Contingency future years capital for two year olds. TOTAL 3,331
3.2 In summary the proposed breakdown and treatment is detailed in Table 2.
Table 2: Proposed treatment of DSG Projection
DETAIL £'000 Earmarked for Future Use in 2014-15 Schools Allocations 69 De-delegated Services 56 EIFS Service 97 Early Years – NEF Rates, Deprivation, Future Capital 907 High Needs – Banding Rates 2014-15 Mainstream Schools 565 High Needs – Further ISS places 55 SUB TOTAL 1,749 Not Earmarked for Future Use 1,582 TOTAL 3,331
3.3 Included in this is a request to support the new HN banding system for 2014-15. Modelling has been completed for mainstream and special schools based upon the consultation banding ranges and amounts. This is detailed further under Agenda Item 9. Based on current data sets the overall funding for: - Mainstream schools will require an additional £565k, which has been requested to be funded by the above carry forward request. This funding will enable the new banding system to be fully implemented and along with the increases in the Schools Block funding based upon prior attainment supporting Notional SEN provides for significant SEN funding in mainstream schools. For special schools the new banding shows that overall quantum for the sector is unchanged but the distribution between schools is different to the current allocations. This is not surprising and the reasons for this are detailed in Agenda Item 9. This effect has to be managed within the High Needs Block by the use of the required MFG arrangements supported by the capping between the special schools as prescribed by the DfE in the DSG conditions of grant.
3.4 Also, included in this is a request to support the EIFS service. The funding will be used to improve service delivery of EIFS and schools access to the service. As part of the new funding arrangements the schools funding consultation has overwhelmingly supported a centrally retained DSG amount of £1.5m for the EIFS service. The request is for the £97k underspend in 2013-14 to be carried forward and ring fenced to the EIFS in 2014-15. This along with £200k of DSG reserves prior to 2013-14 already earmarked will allow the EIFS to continue its extremely important work supporting vulnerable families and the Early Help programme. Specifically the one-off funding, to support activity with schools and vulnerable families, will include: - Specific training to: - Support issues where schools have highlighted across all Districts the increased number of children presenting with mental health needs, who do not meet the threshold for support through specialist CAMHS provision. Support the delivery of evidence based parenting programmes. Adding to capacity within the current service, which was supported by schools in the last EIFS consultation. In particular, the emergence of the 0-19 Early Help has led to a greater increase in families requesting/accepting support, which has had a major impact on EIFS waiting times in the districts where there is either no Early Help delivery yet or the services have recently started. Increasing the number of workshops/programmes that schools can access. Schools are increasingly asking for more workshops and programme to be run within schools (FRIENDS, Protective Behaviours, Anger Management, etc.). So, more schools would be able to access the workshops and EIFS could continue to focus its priority on one-to-one family support.
3.5 Therefore, an estimated total of £1.749m from the 2013-14 DSG variation plus £0.2m from the existing DSG reserve is currently earmarked for future use and the WSF are recommended to approve the above issues.
3.6 Also, £1.582m of the in-year under spend is currently not earmarked for future use. In view of this the WSF is requested to consider whether a one-off additional allocation estimated to be £1.582m is made to all schools in 2013-14. The Worcestershire Scheme for Financing Schools allows for an allocation of this kind to be made on a per pupil basis, which would be the equivalent of approximately £22 per pupil, subject to the final DSG outturn at year end.
3.7 The WSF are reminded that DSG reserves can be used only once and all the above are one-off proposals from the projected underspend.
3.8 Any ongoing HN budget pressures for mainstream schools will have to be funded from the HNP Block DSG and any further DSG carry forward available.
3.9 The Children's Services Leadership Team have discussed and approved the above issues and recommendations.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 The WSF comments on the above issues.
4.2 The WSF approves the recommendation for the use of £1.749m of the projected underspend in 2013-14 and £0.2m of previous years DSG reserve, as detailed above.
4.3 The WSF considers the appropriateness of a one-off estimated allocation of £1.582m to schools, as detailed above.
Steph Simcox Head of Finance and Resources Children's Services
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development
February 2014 AGENDA ITEM 12a) WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 28th FEBRUARY 2014
REPORT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF) SCHOOL FUNDING REVIEW UPDATE F40 GROUP CONFERENCE 6th FEBRUARY 2014
1. PURPOSE
1.1 To advise the WSF on the issues discussed at the above conference.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 As part of the process for the introduction of a new National Fair Funding Formula (NFFF) for 2015/16 the F40 Group organised a conference planned to coincide with the launch of the national change.
2.2 Unfortunately the DfE consultation document was not launched prior to the event and at the time of writing this report it is still not in the public domain.
2.3 Also the input from the DfE at the conference gave no indication of the date for circulation with the Director of the Education Funding Group indicating 'We will shortly be publishing a document with proposed arrangements for 2015-16'.
3. CONFERENCE ISSUES
3.1 The programme for the day is attached at Appendix A.
3.2 The agenda and presentations from the conference are available on the attached link to the F40 Group web site: - http://www.f40.org.uk/current-activities/national-conference-2014/
3.3 For LAs and schools there will be many aspects to consider when the consultation is finally published. Some key issues include: - Will a NFFF allocate Schools Block funding to a LA area based on the number of pupils and schools and a handful of other factors or will it allocate directly to individual schools? Will the LA Schools Forum have to consider the total Schools Block and determine: - Central retention. Virement to and from another block of funding (High Needs and/or Early Years). Local formula to be used. Will the local formula will be able to use up to 13 factors as set out in the Regulations and the data set provided by the DfE/EFA? LAs (and schools) will know what their share of the national budget for schools should be, so the degree of underfunding will be clear. Schools will know (or be able to work out) what their NFFF allocation is going to be. So accountability for variances from the NFFF will be very sharp – Schools Forums will be under pressure! Major tactical question: are LAs going to add whatever local factors they need or get as close as they can to the NFFF? Or are LAs going to try to maintain something that is based on a local assessment of relative need? What are LAs going to do about sparsity? Minimum Funding Guarantee – will this be national or local and will LAs apply for exemptions for faster implementation?
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The WSF notes the current position and comments as required.
Andy McHale Service Manager Funding and Business Development
February 2014
APPENDIX A The National Funding Formula – the final push for a fairer system
DATE: Thursday 6 February 2014 TIME: 11am to 2pm (please arrive early to clear security checks) VENUE: Room 14, (the main committee room), The Palace of Westminster, London Please note that we are unable to provide refreshments or lunch at this event.
MAIN CONFERENCE PROGRAMME:
11.00am Welcome Councillor Ivan Ould, Chair of f40 and Lead Member, Children & Young Persons Services, Leicestershire County Council
11.05am A DfE perspective on funding Susan Acland-Hood, Director, Education reform Funding Group, Department for Education
11.30am Local flexibility in a National Susan Fielden, Strategic Manager, Executive Funding Formula Officer for the Children and Young People’s Compact, Somerset County Council
11.50am Make the most of the consultation: Stewart King, Chair of f40’s Finance achieving the best result for poorly Managers Research Team and Lead funded LAs Commissioner for Education and Skills, Gloucestershire County Council
12.10pm The LGA perspective on NFF Mike Heiser, Senior Financial Advisor, Local Government Association
12. 30pm Will the NFF create an even playing Councillor Toni Coombs, Cabinet Member for field?: the hopes of an aspirational Education & Communications, Dorset County local authority Council
12.45pm The impact of the proposed formula Martyn Boxall, Head of Montgomery Primary on Devon - a schools view. School, Exeter and Chair of the Devon Association of Primary Headteachers
BRIEFING FOR F40 MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (All conference delegates are invited to attend)
1.00pm MP’s Briefing Stewart King, Chair of f40’s Finance Managers Research Team
1.25pm Open Discussion Panel chaired by Robin Walker MP for Worcester and Vice Chair f40
Panel Members: Susan Acland-Hood Mike Heiser Stewart King Councillor Ivan Ould
2.00pm Close of conference AGENDA ITEM 13 WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM 28th FEBRUARY 2014 Note: For converter academies "Sponsor" indicates involvement in a chain with this sponsor and not a sponsoring relationship
DFE Number URN Academy Name Academy Phase Open Parliamentary Local Authority Government Office Region Predecessor Predecessor School Name(s) Academy Route Sponsor* Constituency School URN(s) 8854008 138505 Arrow Vale RSA Academy Secondary Sep-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116946 Arrow Vale Community High School - A Specialist Sponsored RSA Academies Sports College 8852127 140258 Astwood Bank First School Primary Oct-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116720 Astwood Bank First School Converter Diocese of Canterbury
8854007 138660 Baxter College Secondary Sep-12 Wyre Forest Worcestershire West Midlands 135062 Baxter College Converter
8854754 138107 Bishop Perowne CofE College Secondary May-12 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 116993 Bishop Perowne CofE College Converter
8854432 136890 Christopher Whitehead Language College Secondary Jul-11 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 116978 Christopher Whitehead Language College Converter
8852915 137697 Coppice Primary School Primary Dec-11 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116777 Hollywood, the Coppice Primary School Converter 8852001 139825 Crabbs' Cross Academy Primary Sep-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116723 The Harry Taylor First School Sponsored The Vaynor First School
8854005 136927 Droitwich Spa High School and Sixth Secondary Jul-11 Mid Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116931 Droitwich Spa High School Converter Form Centre 8854801 137186 Dyson Perrins CofE Sports College Secondary Aug-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116995 Dyson Perrins CofE Sports College Converter
8852105 136984 Great Malvern Primary School Primary Aug-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116709 Great Malvern Primary School Converter 8854500 137101 Hanley Castle High School Secondary Aug-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116981 Hanley Castle High School Converter
8854010 136898 Haybridge High School and Sixth Form Secondary Jul-11 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116933 Haybridge High School and Sixth Form Converter
8852078 139749 Honeybourne First School Primary Jun-13 Mid Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116688 Honeybourne First School Converter
8854009 139020 Ipsley CE RSA Academy Middle Deemed Secondary Jan-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 132822 Ipsley CofE Middle School Sponsored RSA Academies 8854501 138032 King Charles I Secondary School Secondary Apr-12 Wyre Forest Worcestershire West Midlands 135060 King Charles I Secondary School Converter 8852904 137825 Lickhill Primary School Primary Feb-12 Wyre Forest Worcestershire West Midlands 135044 Lickhill Primary School Converter
8852919 140309 Matchborough First School Primary Nov-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 132821 Matchborough First School Converter
8854434 137051 Nunnery Wood High School Secondary Aug-11 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 116979 Nunnery Wood High School Converter 8852000 139001 Perry Wood Primary and Nursery School Primary Dec-12 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 134922 Perry Wood Primary and Nursery School Sponsored The Griffin Schools Trust
8854030 136925 Pershore High School Secondary Jul-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116943 Pershore High School Converter
8855403 136469 Prince Henry's High School Secondary Mar-11 Mid Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 117000 Prince Henry's High School Converter
8857024 140261 Regency High School Special Oct-13 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 131532 Regency High School Converter
8854422 139029 Ridgeway Middle School Middle Deemed Secondary Dec-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116971 Ridgeway Middle School Converter 8857003 140397 Riversides School Special Jan-14 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 131492 Riversides School Sponsored Advance Trust 8852204 137292 Somers Park Primary School Primary Aug-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116772 Somers Park Primary School Converter
8854003 140292 South Bromsgrove Community High Secondary Nov-13 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116929 South Bromsgrove Community High School Converter School 8855404 139286 St John's Church of England Middle Middle Deemed Secondary Feb-13 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 117001 St John's CofE Foundation Middle School Converter School Academy 8853354 137185 St Matthias Church of England Primary Primary Aug-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116899 St Matthias Church of England Primary School Converter 8852153 136983 SuckleySchool Primary School Primary Aug-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116741 Suckley Primary School Converter 8854435 136897 The Chantry School Secondary Jul-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116980 Martley, The Chantry High School Converter
8854028 137625 The Chase Secondary Nov-11 West Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 116942 The Chase Converter
8857000 140404 The Kingfisher School Secondary Jan-14 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 131084 The Kingfisher School Sponsored Advance Trust
8854004 137162 The Stourport High School and Sixth Secondary Aug-11 Wyre Forest Worcestershire West Midlands 135039 The Stourport High School and Sixth Form Centre Converter Form Centre 8852134 137960 The Vaynor First School Primary Apr-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116727 The Vaynor First School Converter 8854437 137167 Trinity High School and Sixth Form Secondary Aug-11 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 132819 Trinity High School and Sixth Form Centre Converter Centre 8856905 135913 Tudor Grange Academy Worcester Secondary Sep-09 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 116977 Elgar Technology College Sponsored Tudor Grange Academies Trust
8857011 139444 Vale of Evesham School Special Apr-13 Mid Worcestershire Worcestershire West Midlands 117058 Vale of Evesham School Converter
8854579 139185 Walkwood CofE Middle School Middle Deemed Secondary Jan-13 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116987 Walkwood CofE Middle School Converter
8852005 140041 Warndon Primary School Primary Oct-13 Worcester Worcestershire West Midlands 131375 Warndon Primary School Sponsored Oasis Community Learning
8854044 138664 Waseley Hills High School and Sixth Form Secondary Sep-12 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116951 Waseley Hills High School and Sixth Form Centre Converter Centre 8852135 138026 Webheath First School Academy Primary Apr-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 116728 Webheath First School Converter
8854436 138208 Woodfield Academy Middle Deemed Secondary Jun-12 Redditch Worcestershire West Midlands 132818 Woodfield Middle School Converter
8854017 136924 Woodrush Community High School Secondary Jul-11 Bromsgrove Worcestershire West Midlands 116937 Woodrush Community High School Converter
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORCESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS FORUM (WSF)
Friday 28th February 2014 In the Redditch Room, County Hall, Worcester
The meeting started at 2.00 pm
IN ATTENDANCE:
WSF Members
Marian Barton (Chair) - Trinity High School Marian Gager - Evesham Nursery School Clive Corbett - Pershore High School David Hargreaves (Vice Chair) - Governor, Redditch Malcolm Richards - Governor, Bromsgrove Peter Ingham - Governor, Wyre Forest Richard Taylor - Governor, Bromsgrove (From 2.20pm) Val Houghton - Church of England Board of Education Sean Devlin - Archdiocese of Birmingham Steve Baker - Union Representative Tricia Wellings - PVI Sector Michael Kitcatt - Worcester Sixth Form College
Local Authority (LA) Officers
Stephanie Simcox - Children's Services Andy McHale - Children’s Services Caroline Brand - Children's Services (Until 3.00pm)
1. SPEND TO SAVE INITIATIVE
1.1 The Chair proposed that this item be taken first and reminded the WSF that this item had been requested previously by some WSF members. The Chair welcomed Apryl Pheasant and Andrew Spencer from the County Council's Energy Management Unit to the meeting.
1.2 Apryl introduced the item and with Andrew made a presentation covering the following areas: - Energy Management Support for Schools. Worcestershire's Automated Metering Reading (AMR) Strategy. School Estate Benchmarking, Energy Saving Support and Energy Control. Spend to Save Funding and Impact. Spend to Save Projects including lighting upgrades, cavity wall, loft insulation, solar panels and biomass boilers.
1.3 In response members of the WSF raised issues on the need or not to use a named energy supplier, liaison with and advice from the LA in changing supplier and whether the spend to save initiative was available to the post 16 sector.
1 1.4 In response Apryl advised that West Midlands Energy is the preferred supplier but Spend to Save can be in conjunction with any supplier. Schools are encouraged to liaise with the LA to obtain information on 'spot fixed' prices and this would be communicated to schools. The issue of supporting post 16 institutions would be checked.
The Chair thanked Apryl and Andrew for their input and they left the meeting at 2.25pm.
2. APOLOGIES AND ABSENCE
Elizabeth Spencer - St. Richards CE First School Lawrence Gittins - St. John's CE Primary School Paul Kilgallon - St. Barnabas First and Middle School Julie Reilly - The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre Jane Long - Fort Royal Community Primary School Sean Williams - The Forge Pupil Referral Unit Alison Gleave - Governor, Wychavon David McIntosh - Governor, Wyre Forest Jeff Robinson - Governor, Malvern Hills June Longmuir - Governor, Bromsgrove Councillor Liz Eyre - Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families Trish Mallinson - Children's Services
3. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (16th JANUARY 2014)
Agreed.
4. MATTERS ARISING
None.
5. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 The WSF were advised of the recent circular on the Provision of Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) for all Reception and Key Stage 1 pupils from September 2014.
5.2 The letter provided information on both revenue grant funding of £2.30 per meal taken and a capital allocation of £1.2m to fund improvements to kitchens and dining rooms for Worcestershire's maintained schools.
5.3 Bids were requested for the capital fund by 28th March 2014 from both first and primary schools and from middle and high schools providing a meals service to first and infant schools.
5.4 Andy agreed to circulate the information to the WSF for information.
6. CRITICAL INCIDENT RESPONSE SERVICE
6.1 Andy advised on the details of a service specification for supporting responses to Critical Incidents. This was to be included with the overall sign up for support services for 2014-15 and 2015-16.
2 6.2 The WSF noted the details and that the proposed charge was in line with similar LAs and requested consideration be made to offering the service to Post 16 providers.
7. COMMISSIONING OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES
7.1 Update on Strategic Issues
(a) Steph updated the WSF on the current position which provided information on the Cabinet decisions from 6th February 2014 and a letter sent to schools confirming the latest position.
(b) A member of the WSF queried that when the contracts are out to tender will there be confidentiality on the prices for schools. Steph confirmed the County Council will not be providing potential providers with the current prices. However, schools have access to these so there is no guarantee they will not be passed on. The intention is to give potential providers information on possible volumes, staff numbers but not charges. It was noted that for HR services for example providers would want relevant information to be able to quote.
(c) Steph confirmed currently that market engagement was being pursued, with over 30 being met with in the initial stages.
(d) The WSF were advised that there had been nominations from schools including headteachers, business managers and governors to be part of the tender and contract development stages. The group would also include the LA leads on the specific areas such as HR, corporate finance, schools finance, etc. There would be a meeting convened shortly.
(e) Steph advised that for transactional HR, transactional finance, payroll, HR and finance advisory there would be a package combining Council, school and other partnered services to market in July 2014 with likely contract awarded in the Summer 2015. This will be subject to the OJEU requirements. However, the provider may decide to sub-contract specific elements. The expectation is that existing staff would TUPE across to the new provider.
(f) The WSF felt that schools, particularly small schools, needed re-assurance that they would be supported during the changes. Steph confirmed the Cabinet position of the transition phase supporting the process.
7.2 Sold Services to Schools 2014-15 and 2015-16
(a) Steph confirmed that the Council is introducing a new on line sign up process providing for one or two year buy back option with 2 year known prices. This will be confirmed to schools shortly. If schools sign up for 2 years then they have the opportunity to work with and undertake their own negotiation with the appointed provider for 2016-17 onwards.
(b) As a consequence, there are some complications with academies whose current sign up is for an academic year, so these can only continue until 31st March 2016. During 2015-16 a preferred supplier will be awarded the contract but schools will not be bound by this arrangement for future years. As now, schools will continue to have the choice of their service providers.
3 8. MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS FUNDING APT 2014-15
8.1 Caroline confirmed that the Schools Block funding 2014-15 had been communicated to maintained schools on 24th February 2014 in advance of the statutory deadline of 28th February 2014. This was based upon the APT submitted to the EFA following the decisions from the WSF meeting of 16th January 2014. It was confirmed that academies had also received the GAG funding from the EFA.
8.2 The notification also included the indicative pupil premium.
8.3 Allocations for High Needs and Early Years would be by 31st March 2014 as required as they use the most recent data such as the January 2014 census.
9. HIGH NEEDS FUNDING (HNF) 2014-15 CONSULTATION OUTCOMES
9.1 Andy introduced the report which detailed the consultation outcomes from the recent High Needs Funding (HNF) for 2014-15.
9.2 The WSF noted the support from those who responded for: - The principles to underpin the new policy and funding arrangements for HNP. The types of provider to be included in the new banding arrangements from 2014-15. The required changes to the funding adjustments, as a consequence of the School Funding Regulations, to pupils permanently excluded from school. The consideration of transitional protection for providers. Criteria for the funding of exceptional SEN.
9.3 However the WSF noted and raised concerns on the low responses rate to the consultation but agreed this was due in part to the complexity of the issues.
9.4 In the top up rates proposed in the paper the WSF recognised these support the additional costs for Element 3. For mainstream schools these support the hours above that deemed as 'ordinarily available' in excess of 15 hours and for specialist providers those in excess of the £10,000 national place rate. These are defined as Elements 1 and 2. The proposed rates have been calculated as a combination of the mainstream schools hourly rates and ranges together with the SEN matrix for special schools.
9.5 The WSF noted that these areas of the funding model for both mainstream and special schools have always varied as pupils needs change requiring school budgets to be adjusted during the year i.e. they are demand led. As such there has always been a potential budget pressure for the HN Block DSG. This will be no different in the new proposed banding system with any pressure having to be managed within the HN Block and overall DSG accordingly.
9.6 Andy advised that draft modelling has been completed for mainstream and special schools based upon the circulated consultation banding ranges and amounts: -
(a) For mainstream schools, given the changes over the last year to the data sets and based on current data sets this results in a budget pressure. This is approximately £565k in order to support the consultation banding amounts and ranges. It is recommended this be funded from within the DSG and would be considered further under Agenda Item 11.
4 (b) For special schools, using previous data sets, the overall quantum available is unchanged but the distribution between schools is different to the current allocations. This is not surprising as this is a consequence of: - The 2013-14 schools' tops ups being unique to and varying between each school due to the national prescribed MFG requirement which protected allocations based upon 2012-13 budgets. The required change back to same top up rates having to apply to all schools. Previous AWPU funding being able to be differentiated by age having to be included in the top ups at the same rate for all schools. Previous non place/pupil funding, which took account of individual school issues such as size, having to be included in the top ups at the same rate for all schools. Vacant places not able to be funded at a differential rate for each school, having to be included in the top ups at the same rate for all schools and in the future merely being the difference between the commissioned places and actual numbers. Variations in actual pupil numbers and their matrix positions between 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The extent of the difference between commissioned places and actual numbers and how this varies during the year. For the new place/plus the ratio of the budget for individual schools between place funding which is fixed and secured and top up which is variable. This varies significantly between schools.
(c) So, as required by the School Funding Regulations, this will be managed within the Special Schools High Needs Block quantum by the use of the MFG and Capping between the special schools as prescribed by the DfE in the DSG conditions of grant.
9.7 The WSF were requested to consider the issues arising: -
(a) The WSF noted all the above issues and supported the strategic approach in introducing the changes.
(b) Andy advised that the outcomes were due to be considered by County Council Cabinet at its meeting on 6th March 2014 with recommendations for the HNF arrangements from 2014-15. The WSF were requested to forward any comments and formally consider the Cabinet recommendations detailed in paragraphs 5.2 of the report as follows: - As a consequence of the consultation outcomes it is proposed the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Children and Families recommends that Cabinet:- Notes the responses to consultation on the Higher Needs Pupil funding scheme. Notes the changes to national policy and the implications of SEN reform. Approves the scheme for 2014/15 as outlined in this report to be implemented from 2014/15. Authorises the delegation of the full implementation of the changes for the new banding system, allocation rates and any transitional protection arrangements, to the Director of Children's Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Children and Families.
5 (c) The WSF requested the following comments be forwarded to the CMR for Children and Families for reporting to Cabinet: - The WSF noted, discussed and supported the outcomes of the HNF consultation and recorded their concerns on the low response but agreed this was due in part to the complexity of the issues. The WSF unanimously agreed, by a show of hands of the School Members present 7 votes to 0, the recommendations in paragraph 6.2 of the report, giving full support and endorsement from the WSF to all the recommendations in the Cabinet Report.
RESOLVED –
The WSF approved the following to be forwarded to the CMR for Children and Families as follows: -
That the WSF has noted the outcomes of the January 2014 consultation for High Needs Funding from April 2014 and recorded their concerns on the low response but agreed this was due in part to the complexity of the issues. That the WSF approved to endorse the recommendations to be made by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Children and Families to Cabinet, as detailed in section 5 of the report, with this being reported to Cabinet as required.
10. EARLY YEARS (EY) UPDATE
10.1 Andy introduced the report which summarised a number of issues for consideration for the EY Block DSG.
10.2 The issues had been discussed within the LA and approved through the Children's Services Leadership Team. The WSF were requested to consider proposals for: -
(a) The use of a predicted underspend on the 3 and 4 year old NEF part of the Early Years DSG in 2013-14. It was proposed to use this to support an increase in the hourly rates in 2014-15 and to increase in subsequent years; should an under-spend be available. This was estimated to support an increase of 6p per hour.
(b) Retaining any mid-year DSG adjustment resulting from the Early Years Census 2014 calculations for NEF is made to ensure sufficient funding for 3 and 4 year olds.
(c) The use of a predicted underspend on the 2 year old part of the Early Years DSG in 2013-14. It was proposed to use about 50% to support deprivation funding for 3 and 4 year olds in 2014-15.
(d) Any 2 year old children that meet the September 2014 criteria are funded from April 2014 as there is sufficient funding.
(e) The LA making a decision on the aspects detailed for the funding of childminders' and their future arrangements once the legal position is clearer.
10.3 In respect of the first proposal for an increase in the 3 and 4 year old NEF rates, a member of the WSF requested further consideration of the issues. A short analysis was tabled providing information on the historic and current NEF rate, staffing ratios, actual
6 staff costs and the effect of the proposed increase. It was argued that the true cost of delivering the 15 funded hours for many providers is nearer £4 per hour. The WSF member concluded that the proposed increase of 6p per hour was insufficient so an amendment was proposed to use more of the predicted 2 year old DSG underspend to support an increase in the 3 and 4 year old rate by 12p.
10.4 In response other members of the WSF commented that although they were sympathetic to the request the proposed rate increase was from one off underspend reserves which are non-recurring and to increase by a significant amount of 12p would put unsustainable pressure on the EY DSG in 2014-15. It was hoped a 6p increase would be manageable going forward from 2014-15 but this would have to be re- assessed during next year. Also, continuing increases in the 3 and 4 year old population were putting increasing financial pressure on the EY DSG with the 2 year old funding underspend being used to support the other EY areas. As a consequence of these issues the amendment was not supported.
10.5 The WSF were requested to vote on the issues and agreed, by a show of hands of the School and Early Years Members present with 7 agreed and 1 abstention, the recommendations in paragraph 4.2 of the report.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed to: -
Support an increase in the NEF 3 and 4 year old rate by 6p per hour in 2014- 15 funded by underspends from 2013-14. Ring fence any increases in 2013-14 NEF to support funded 3 and 4 year old places. Use 50% of any 2 year old underspend to support deprivation funding for 3 and 4 year olds in 2014-15. 2 year olds meeting the September 2014 criteria to be funded from April 2014. The LA to make a decision on the funding issues relating to childminders' as detailed in the report.
11. DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (DSG) PROJECTIONS 2013-14
11.1 Andy introduced the report which detailed the projections for the centrally retained DSG in 2013/14 and proposals for its treatment.
11.2 The current projection as a 31st January 2014 was for an underspend of £3.331m. This was analysed in paragraph 3.1 of the report. It was proposed to allocate this as follows: -
7 DETAIL £'000 Earmarked for Future Use in 2014-15 Schools Allocations 69 De-delegated Services 56 Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) Service 97 Early Years – NEF Rates, Deprivation, Future Capital 907 High Needs – Banding Rates 2014-15 Mainstream Schools 565 High Needs – Further ISS places 55 SUB TOTAL 1,749 Not Earmarked for Future Use 1,582 TOTAL 3,331
11.3 On the specific issues Andy advised: -
(a) On the proposal for High Needs Banding Rates 2014-15, the WSF were reminded of the discussions under Agenda Item 9. Based on current data sets the overall funding for: - Mainstream schools will require an additional £565k, which has been requested to be funded by the above carry forward request. This will have to be managed within the HNB DSG in the future. This funding will enable the new banding system to be fully implemented and along with the increases in the Schools Block funding based upon prior attainment supporting Notional SEN provides for significant SEN funding in mainstream schools. For special schools the new banding shows that overall quantum for the sector is unchanged but the distribution between schools is different to the current allocations. This is not surprising and the reasons for this are detailed in Agenda Item 9. This effect has to be managed within the High Needs Block by the use of the required MFG arrangements supported by the capping between the special schools as prescribed by the DfE in the DSG conditions of grant.
(b) On the proposal for the EIFS Service the funding of £97k proposed together with £200k previously earmarked from DSG reserves prior to 2013-14 will be used to improve service delivery of EIFS and schools access to the service as detailed in the report. Some members of the WSF commented this support needs to encompass the entire Early Help range of 0-19.
(c) On other aspects proposed: - £0.907m was proposed to be earmarked for Early Years for 3 and 4 year old NEF rates and deprivation together with 2 year old capital funding. £1.582m was not earmarked and proposed to be allocated to mainstream and special schools as one-off funding as a per pupil allocation. This basis has been previously been agreed. Following a query from a member of the WSF it was confirmed this relates to maintained schools and academies but not early years providers as they will be receiving the increased NEF hourly rate.
11.4 In proposing the treatments Steph advised: -
(a) These are use of DSG projected reserves and as such are one-off allocations. The final allocations in these areas would be subject to the final DSG outturn for 2013-14.
(b) The majority of the items earmarked will be allocated directly to schools and other providers.
8 (c) The proposals have been discussed and approved by the Children's Services Leadership Team and the CMR for Children and Families.
11.5 The WSF unanimously agreed, by a show of hands of the School Members present 7 votes to 0, the recommendations in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of the report.
RESOLVED –
The WSF agreed to, subject to the final DSG outturn for 2013-14, to: -
The estimated total of £1.749m from the 2013-14 DSG variation plus £0.2m from the existing DSG reserve being earmarked for future use for: - Schools Allocations £0.069m; De-delegated Services £0.056m; Early Intervention Family Support (EIFS) Service £0.097m plus £0.2m; Early Years – NEF Rates, Deprivation, Future Capital £0.907m; High Needs – Banding Rates 2014-15 Mainstream Schools £0.565m; High Needs – Further ISS places £0.055m. A one-off additional allocation estimated to be £1.582m is made to all maintained schools and academies as detailed on a per pupil basis
12. SCHOOL FUNDING REVIEW UPDATE
12.1 F40 Group Conference 6th February 2014
(a) Andy advised on the issues included on the agenda for the F40 conference. It was an excellent networking opportunity but with the DfE being non-committal on the national consultation timescales and proposals it was not as useful as it could have been.
(b) The WSF noted the issues and were supportive of the input of the Worcester MP Robin Walker, the CMR for Children and Families together with LA officers in progressing these issues.
12.2 DfE Current Position on National Fair Funding Formula (NFFF)
(a) Andy advised that the proposed national consultation for 2015-16 was still awaited.
(b) The WSF requested their concerns on the delay be duly recorded.
13. ACADEMY UPDATE
The WSF noted the current position on Academy schools in Worcestershire as at the start of February 2014.
The meeting closed at 3.50pm
Date of next meetings: - Thursday 15th May 2014 at 2.00pm, Redditch Room, County Hall
Thursday 3rd July 2014 at 2.00pm, Redditch Room, County Hall
9