YORK SCHOOLS FORUM MEETING

MONDAY 28TH SEPTEMBER 2020 – 9.00am – 12.00pm Meeting to take place via Zoom

Key Information and routine business Decision Consultation

Item Item leader Purpose Paperwork 1. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Clerk For decision 2. Welcome Chair Routine business 3. Apologies Chair For information 4. Membership update Chair For information Attached 5. Minutes of the Schools Forum meeting Chair For approval Attached of 3rd July 2020 6. Matters arising not on the agenda Chair For information 7. 2021/22 budget preparation including Richard Hartle For discussion Attached potential savings and option to transfer to High Needs Block 8. Early Years funding summary report Richard Hartle For information Attached 9. Early Years funding in the PVI sector Helen Gration For information Attached 10. School Improvement Commissioning Maxine Squire For information Verbal Fund report and planning 11. f40 update Richard Hartle For information Attached 12. Schools Forum forward plan Richard Hartle For information Verbal 13. Any Other Agreed Business Chair 14. Date and time of next meetings: 2nd February 2021 4th May 2021 6th July 2021 Chair For information All meetings take place virtually until further notice. Start time is 9.00am with a finish time of 12noon at the latest.

Please send apologies to Salli Radford by email to [email protected]. YORK SCHOOLS FORUM – MEMBERSHIP 2019/20 – FROM JULY 2020

Name Term of office – three years in all cases

Schools Two maintained (including VA and VC) James Rourke (Lord Deramore’s Primary) 23/09/20 – 22/09/23 members: 13 primary school members including a governor representative Jenny Rogers (Copmanthorpe Primary) 28/01/19 – 27/01/22

Two maintained (including VA and VC) Di Gomery (Governor representative) 04/09/18 – 03/09/21 Maintained secondary school members school / John Tomsett (Huntington School) 14/06/19 – 13/06/22 academy representation Six academy members Trevor Burton (South Bank Multi Academy Trust) 19/09/19 – 18/09/22 to be reviewed Helen Winn (Hope Learning Trust) 01/09/20 – 31/08/23 regularly to ensure Andrew Daly (Pathfinder Multi Academy Trust) 20/03/20 – 19/03/23 compliance with Gail Brown (Ebor Academy Trust) 01/01/20 – 31/12/23 regulations. Dee Statham (St Margaret Clitherow Catholic Academy 01/09/19 – 31/08/22 Trust)

Steve Lewis (South York Multi Academy Trust) 01/04/20 – 31/03/23

One special school member Adam Booker (Applefields Special School) 01/06/20 – 31/05/23

One maintained nursery school member Claire Rigden (St Paul’s Nursery) 01/01/18 – 31/12/20

One PRU member Mark Richardson (Danesgate Community) 01/12/17 – 31/11/20

Non-schools One 16-19 representative Lee Probert (York College) 01/09/19 – 31/08/22 members: 2 One PVI early years representative Helen Gration 01/01/18 – 31/12/20

TOTAL MEMBERS: 15 15 Invitees: Executive Member for Children, Young Cllr Ian Cuthbertson People and Education / Appointed Member

Corporate Director of Children’s’ Amanda Hatton Services, Education and Skills

Assistant Director, Education and Skills Maxine Squire

Head of Finance Richard Hartle

TOTAL 4 INVITEES: 4

Updated July 2020

CITY OF YORK SCHOOLS FORUM

Minutes of the Schools Forum held on Friday 3rd July 2020 at 9.00am via Zoom

Attendance list:

Members: Trevor Burton Academy Representative and Chair Adam Booker Special School Representative Gail Brown Academy Representative Di Gomery Maintained Secondary Governor Representative Helen Gration Early Years Sector Representative Steve Lewis Academy Representative Lee Probert FE Representative Mark Richardson Pupil Referral Unit Representative Claire Rigden Maintained Nursery Headteacher Representative Jenny Rogers Maintained Primary Headteacher Representative James Rourke Maintained Primary Headteacher Representative (Deputising for Debbie Glover) Dee Statham Academy Representative (VA) John Tomsett Maintained Secondary Headteacher Representative Helen Winn Academy Representative

Observers / Advisors: Cllr Ian Cuthbertson Executive Member for Children, Young People and Education [from 9.14am] Amanda Hatton Corporate Director of Children, Education and Communities Maxine Squire Assistant Director, Education and Skills, City of York Council Richard Hartle Head of Finance, City of York Council Salli Radford Head of Governor Services, City of York Council, Coordinator and Clerk 1. Welcome

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, particularly Helen Winn and Mark Richardson who were attending for the first time, and James Rourke, deputising for Debbie Glover. Introductions were taken from all participants.

2. Apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Brian Crosby – retiring Academy Representative, Andrew Daly – Academy Representative and Debbie Glover – Maintained Primary Headteacher Representative.

3. Membership update

Previously distributed. The update was noted.

4. Minutes of the York Schools Forum meeting of 6th February and 5th May 2020

Previously distributed. The minutes of both meetings were agreed to be a true and accurate record.

John Tomsett joined the meeting at 9.20am.

York Schools Forum Meeting – 3rd July 2020 1

5. Action Plan and Matters Arising

There were no outstanding action points to report.

Matters Arising: 6th February 2020 – It was agreed that a report on the work of the f40 group would be taken to the next meeting.

5th May 2020 – There were no matters arising.

6. 2019/20 DSG outturn report

Previously distributed. Richard Hartle referred members to the final line of Annex 1, which recorded a significant cumulative deficit against DSG funding at the 2019/20 year end.

Richard outlined a number of planned underspends carried forward into 2020/21, including c400k remaining in the Early Years Block due to timing issues relating to anticipated claw-back and ESFA funding arrangements. It was further noted that funds remained in the Central Services Block relating to unspent SICF / School Improvement funds allocated on an academic year basis, with ring-fenced funds to be carried forward.

Richard advised that the High Needs Block included a cumulative carry-forward deficit of £6.251m. Concerns regarding sustainability were noted.

In response to a question regarding the recovery plan and whether it would be necessary to vire funds between blocks to support High Needs, Richard advised that costs would be analysed in order to identify more efficient ways to deliver support to young people. It was noted that the Inclusion Review would deliver this analysis but that in the meantime the Forum could consider the option to transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block. It was further noted that the LA could request a transfer of 0.5%, with this request coming to the Forum for review. Richard advised that, should the request be refused or be above 0.5%, the LA could appeal to the Secretary of State for a final decision.

Richard advised that limited additional support might be available from the government and that Elected Members could assign budget allocation from general funds.

Adam Booker advised that the special schools partnership was well placed to manage the SEND population more effectively and would contribute to the response to increased budget pressure.

The Chair noted that any proposed virement of funds would need to be underpinned by sufficient detail when brought to the Forum. It was noted that any proposal relating to the 2021/22 budget would need to be initiated in September 2020.

In response to a request for clarification of process, Richard advised that the DfE had not requested a recovery plan from the LA due to a pending change to the regulations, though the LA was required to respond to DfE questions promptly. It was noted that a recovery plan would be required in time.

A Forum member observed that efficiencies totalling £6m would be difficult to comprehend, going on to ask which of the options or combination of options available the LA would be most likely to propose. Richard advised that efficiencies would be York Schools Forum Meeting – 3rd July 2020 2

identified by the inclusion review. Maxine Squire further advised that the review would consider the level of in-year variance and the data collected by an analysis of EHCPs in order to understand the reasons for the significant variance, and was considering when it would be appropriate to build a case to request to cease EHCPs before the age of 25. Maxine outlined some background to the additional budget pressures already identified, advising of the need for greater understanding of changes to the landscape. The Forum noted that increasing demand from schools for statutory assessments impacted on the budget as each EHCP increased overall costs. Maxine advised of the need to consider what appropriate support looked like and whether this always required a statutory process.

Discussion followed, with Maxine advising that the LA would outline to the DfE the approach taken to manage pressures but would also need to point out that the system generated further pressures itself.

Helen Gration queried the Early Years Block adjustment lags and the point at which figures would be available to allow confirmation. Richard confirmed that the data would be available later in July. Helen went on to ask whether Early Years was included in the High Needs Block spend and whether this element would be significantly overspent in comparison to the carry-forward position, with Richard advising that the predictions were generally accurate.

Richard clarified that the only expenditure funded from the High Needs Block relating to Early Years was inclusion funding with a budget of £120k.

In response to a question regarding the number of children from outside York supported by the £1.8M out of area funding commitment, Richard advised that the average per-child cost ranged between £50k and £100k, and that the number of children supported was not significant.

Amanda Hatton sought to clarify the questions regarding efficiencies, advising that transport was being considered in detail and that the independent transport scheme was bringing a positive impact. Amanda advised that the LA was considering how to apply this and other initiatives to increase efficiencies.

The report was noted.

7. School Improvement Commissioning Fund Update

Maxine Squire provided a verbal report, advising that the Coronavirus pandemic had caused delays to some programmes and that the York Schools and Academies Board (YSAB) had agreed not to recoup funds assigned during 2019/20 but to allow this to be carried forward to support planned school improvement work during 2020/21. It was noted that the LA was working with the YSAB to allow a review of support needs at the beginning of the next academic year. Maxine advised that a full report would be brought to the September Forum meeting with an audit of spend during 2019/20 and would be followed by further discussion as required with the YSAB in order to plan for 2020/21.

In response to a question regarding the curriculum review at Danesgate and whether the curriculum and associated funding would be increased to enable provision to support those currently attending out of area facilities, Maxine advised that this was not within the scope of the review. Maxine provided further context relating to this group, with Mark Richardson advising that the review would consider costs of provision

York Schools Forum Meeting – 3rd July 2020 3

and transport costs associated with a non-traditional school day, with the aim being to better meet the needs of different cohorts.

The Chair noted that school improvement projects had been thrown askew by the Coronavirus pandemic, asking whether there was a timetable for new funding bids. Maxine advised that this information would be published at the beginning of the next academic year and that delays would be avoided where possible. It was noted that the LA was aware of emerging priorities and was keen for the YSAB to return to a normal cycle.

The Chair queried the emerging priorities, with Maxine highlighting the need to support children likely to struggle on their return to education, advising that some smaller teaching groups during the pandemic had benefitted some pupils. Maxine recommended a period of reflection on what had been learnt during the lockdown period.

John Tomsett, as Chair of the YSAB, highlighted the importance of assessing the priorities in the light of the pandemic and acknowledged that some pupils had engaged well during the lockdown period and had shown improved outcomes. John advised of the need to redirect funding as appropriate, with some priorities to be reassessed and potentially downgraded. Maxine advised that schools would be informed of this possibility and that the LA would make it clear that the YSAB would review and reprioritise as necessary. Maxine further advised of the need to capture evidence and to ensure that no children were allowed to fail when schools returned in September.

In response to a question regarding the strategy to increase online learning for those that engaged with this method of working, and whether this was being developed, Maxine advised that online learning was being discussed and evidence captured by the YSAB. Maxine further advised of the need to recognise that children were entitled, and required, to go to school, that children did not want to be socially isolated and that it was important to recognise that one-to-one provision did not fully prepare children for adulthood. Maxine stated that education that was over-personalised did not provide a clear route post 16 or 19 into adulthood and that children needed a better blend of learning. Maxine reassured the Forum that a range of approaches was being considered where appropriate and that some examples were available, with the LA keen to create a smooth transition pathway.

Adam Booker advised that the current situation offered an opportunity to repurpose the system following the experiences of closedown.

8. Inclusion Review update

Previously distributed. Maxine Squire highlighted the main points included in the report and invited questions. Maxine recognised that Early Years provision was not referred to but remained a crucial element of the review, particularly in relation to speech, language and communication needs which were supported in part by the inclusion fund. Helen Gration requested amendment of the report to reflect this.

Maxine stated that the review was moving into the final phase of its work, informed by the Local Area SEND Inspection in November 2019. Maxine advised that the resulting written statement of action had been judged to be fit for purpose and would drive improvement work as well as addressing the improvement areas identified by Ofsted. It was noted that the education team would work with health and social care to deliver the identified improvements and that EHCPs were currently overly dominated by factors relating to education. Maxine advised that the LA was refreshing the York Schools Forum Meeting – 3rd July 2020 4

contribution that health makes to SEND children and work was beginning with colleagues in health to enable this to be taken forward. It was noted that the key partnership with parents would need to be reconsidered and refreshed and that York Inspirational Kids had been successfully commissioned to take on the parent participation and engagement role, representing a significant change. Maxine advised that since January 2020 the review had been working to understand the High Needs Block and how each EHCP was resourced at individual child level. It was noted that clear links between school expenditure and outcomes were being identified and areas in which SEND support was not delivering the strongest outcomes had been highlighted.

Maxine advised that Dan Bodey had refreshed the primary BAP protocols and would share this with schools before the end of the summer term. It was noted that Dan was also considering the primary behaviour support which was de-delegated and would propose a different system as costs were currently not being covered.

Mark Richardson advised that Danesgate included a significant EHCP cohort, with there being a clear need to consider the identity of the school as there were currently, in effect, three schools within the Danesgate Community. Mark advised that he was considering the status of pupils as some attended Danesgate on dual placements. Mark outlined the work undertaken with the BAP, advising that culturally there had been a route to Danesgate then to Alternative Provision, with the aim of the new protocols being to empower schools. Mark referred to the £1.8m spend on out of area pupils, advising that this was being considered and would be made more efficient and effective. It was noted that a culture change would be required at the school and amongst the community and that the primary BAP had been highlighted as an area for further development.

Maxine highlighted the need to ensure that the right provision was in place for the right children, acknowledging some overlap between the three aspects of provision and the desire to ensure that the right children benefited from the right specialist support.

In response to a question regarding the evidencing of co-production across settings, Maxine advised that the LA was listening to the voice of children and that the Local Offer was ensuring that the voice of children and young people was carried forward into the process. Maxine advised that children had identified priorities for improvement in schools and broader life through the work being done by the Local Offer Officer.

In response to a question regarding increased involvement of health colleagues in EHCPs, which tended to be managed by education settings due to their ongoing contact with children, Maxine advised that the Local Area Inspection had helped with this and that specific actions around EHCPs had been identified. It was noted that the construction of each EHCP should include contributions from health and social care.. Maxine further advised that the Coronavirus pandemic had brought positive changes as the virtual processes had enabled more collaborative working.

In response to a question regarding the source of funding for aspects of support not delivered by schools, Maxine advised that this was drawn from the High Needs Block. It was noted that other financial contributions had not come through strongly unless the health care needs were dominant. It was noted that where therapeutic needs were identified the LA was ensuring that this was written into the EHCP and funded appropriately.

Helen Gration highlighted the need for a joint check at the two-year-old milestone, with Maxine advising that work was taking place to ensure that integrated checks were York Schools Forum Meeting – 3rd July 2020 5

more effectively rolled out. It was noted that best practice had been identified in Early Years settings and that the intention was to continue to build from this.

9. Schools Forum forward plan

Richard Hartle outlined the forward plan:

September 2020  2021/22 budget preparation including the potential transfer to the High Needs Block  Maintained school start budgets  Maintained school 2019/20 outturn balances – delayed from July due to the pandemic  Priorities and potential saving areas  Update on the work of the f40 group  Early Years summary of funding  Early Years funding in the PVI sector (Helen Gration)  SICF report and planning

10. Any Other Business

There was no other business.

11. Date and time of next meeting

The next meeting would take place on 2nd February 2021 at 9.00am.

The meeting closed at 10.15am.

York Schools Forum Meeting – 3rd July 2020 6

Agenda Item 7

York Schools Forum 28 September 2020

Report of the Corporate Director of Children, Education & Communities and the Head of Finance Adults, Children & Education

THE SCHOOLS BUDGET AND THE DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT FOR 2021/22

Summary

1 This report provides the Schools Forum with initial information on the Schools Budget and Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding for the 2021/22 financial year. The report focuses on decisions that the forum will need to make or areas that the local authority (LA) is required to consult the forum on, in order for budgets for schools, early years providers and LA maintained services to be set.

Background

2 The DSG is ring-fenced for funding the provision of education or childcare for 3 to 16 year olds in all settings. As such it covers funding delegated to individual LA maintained schools, academies and PVI providers through the LMS & Early Years funding formulae, plus funding for other pupil provision which is retained centrally by the LA to support such things as Special Educational Needs and some central education services.

3 The DSG allocations for schools, high needs and the central school services block have been run under national funding formulae (NFF) since April 2018. These arrangements are broadly continued for 2021/22 but with some changes to the Schools NFF and a continuing reduction in the funding allocated to the LA for centrally retained budgets.

DSG Allocations for 2021/22

4 The funding LAs receive in each block is now determined by a specific national funding formula (NFF). At the time of writing this report the allocations for the Early Years block had not been announced. The total DSG allocation (excluding Early Years) for 2021/22 is estimated at £138.293m, an increase of £5.887m (4.4%) from 2020/21 and broken down as follows: 2020/21 2021/22 Adjusted Provisional Increase £m £m £m % Schools Block 108.278 112.828 4.550 4.2% High Needs Block 20.953 22.763 1.810 8.6% Central School Services Block 3.175 2.702 (0.472) (14.9%) 132.406 138.293 5.887 4.4%

Note – excludes Early Years block Schools Block

School Formula Funding

6 The vast majority of the Schools Block DSG (£112.199m) is used to fund the local funding formula for mainstream schools (maintained and academies). Following a detailed consultation with all schools and the Schools Forum prior to setting the 2018/19 budget, the LA agreed to introduce the DfE’s new national funding formula (NFF) at school level from April 2018. For 2020/21 the LA is again proposing to follow the NFF for schools, subject to any decision to transfer funding from the Schools Block to the High Needs block discussed elsewhere in this report.

7 The funding factors used in the 2021/22 NFF remain the same, but the DfE have made two technical changes. Funding from the teachers’ pay grant and the teachers’ pension employer contribution grant, including the supplementary fund, has been added to schools’ NFF allocations from 2021/22. The funding has been added to basic per pupil entitlement, to the minimum per pupil funding levels, and to schools’ baselines so that it is protected through the funding floor will continue to be provided in future years.

8 The 2019 update to the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index has been incorporated so that deprivation funding allocated through the formula is based on the latest data.

9 At a national level, school funding through the NFF is increasing by 4% overall in 2021/22. The key factors in the NFF will increase by 3%, the minimum per pupil funding levels will ensure that every primary school receives at least £4,000 per pupil, and every secondary school at least £5,150 per pupil, on top of that schools will receive an additional £180 and £265 per pupil respectively to cover additional teachers’ pay and pension costs previously funded through the separate grants. This means that the new minimum per pupil amounts for 2021/22 will be £4,180 for primary and £5,415 for secondary schools.

10 The rolling in of these grants into the schools’ NFF allocations will affect the core budgets that maintained schools will receive from April 2021, and that academies will receive from September 2021. Therefore to avoid an unfair gap in the support provided to academies, academies will continue to receive separate grant payments up until the end of August 2021.

11 Under the Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) every school will be allocated at least 2% more pupil-led funding per pupil compared to its 2020/21 NFF adjusted baseline. Additional funding for small and remote schools will also increase in 2021/22, with primary schools attracting up to £45,000, compared to £26,000 previously. Although, as in previous years, no York school is deemed small and remote enough to receive this funding.

12 Looking forward, the DfE have stated that in light of the need to focus efforts on meeting the challenges of COVID-19, they are not changing LAs’ role in the distribution of school funding in 2021/22. However, the Government will, later this year, put forward its proposals to move to a ‘hard’ NFF in future, which will determine schools’ budgets directly rather than through local formulae set independently by each LA.

Growth Fund

13 The remaining £0.629m of the Schools Block DSG is allocated to the growth fund, although this amount will be confirmed once the autumn census numbers are known. The growth fund can only be used to support increases in pre-16 pupil numbers to meet basic need, additional classes needed to meet the infant class size legislation or meet the costs of pupils in new schools commissioned to meet basic need. The growth fund may not be used to support schools in financial difficulty or general growth due to popularity; which is managed through lagged funding. The proposed criteria and formulae for allocating the growth fund are set out at Annex 1.

14 The amount of growth funding allocated to the LA by the DfE continues to fall, from £0.800m in 2018/19 down to £0.629m in 2020/21. The level of funding required to be allocated to schools under the current local growth criteria and formulae is difficult to predict with any certainty each year. In each of the last three years the fund has been overspent and this is likely to continue as the DSG allocation from government reduces. Therefore, for all allocations made for the 2020/21 academic year onwards the LA, following consultation with the Schools Forum earlier this year, has implemented a cash limit on this budget. This means that if the total of all allocations to schools in a particular year, calculated via the relevant formulae, exceeds the budget available then all allocations will be reduced pro- rata.

Early Years Block

15 In 2020/21 the DfE increased hourly early years funding rates to York by 8p per hour (1.9% for 3 & 4 year olds and 1.5% for 2 year olds) and the LA increased provider funding rates (including deprivation) by the same percentage. We do not expect to know what increase, if any, the DfE will provide in 2021/22 until later in the autumn, but we propose, once again, to increase the basic hourly rates to providers and the hourly deprivation supplement by the same percentage as any increase in the hourly rate received by the LA from DfE

16 Similarly, under the formula the DfE established in 2017 to support stand-alone nursery schools, any amount received by the LA will be passed on in full to St Paul’s Nursery School.

High Needs Block

17 The high needs block DSG increases by £1.810m (8.6%) in 2020/21. As has been previously reported, the high needs budget is already under significant pressure due to rising demand from increased numbers of SEND pupils. For 2020/21 there is a projected net outturn overspend on the high needs budget of £5m, contributing to an estimated deficit carry forward DSG balance of £10m into 2021/22.

18 Projections for 2021/22 show that; based on the increased funding, current numbers and expected inflationary pay and contract price increases and without any significant mitigating action, the in-year overspend should reduce to £3.5m. Significant mitigations will therefore be required to bring the in-year pressure back down to a balanced position and to start to make inroads into the cumulative deficit.

19 The forum should note that a deficit carry forward of DSG into 2021/22 at the projected amount (£10m) is significantly in excess of the 1% (c£1.5m) level that is expected to trigger a formal requirement from the DfE for the LA to submit a deficit recovery plan. This requirement was suspended for deficits at the end of 2019/20 due to allow LAs to concentrate on their Covid 19 response.

10 Under the new school funding arrangements for 2018/19 the DfE introduced ring fences around the transfer of resources between blocks. However, under these rules the DfE does allow LAs to make a request to their Schools Forum for up to a 0.5% transfer of funding from the Schools Block to the High Needs block. As part of the LA’s agreement to move schools onto the NFF it was also agreed that no transfer request would be sought in the initial years. However, given these pressures, the LA will need to make a request for 2021/22 as part of an agreed DSG deficit recovery plan.

16 In 2021/22, the block transfer cannot include the additional funding LAs have been allocated for the teachers’ pay and pension grants, thereby guaranteeing that all of this funding remains with schools. Therefore a 0.5% transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block will total c£0.550m, subject to confirmation of the actual autumn 2020 census numbers.

17 As well as seeking the support of the forum, the LA will also need to consult all maintained schools and academies, and the forum should take these views into account before making their final decision. This consultation will include the full implications of the transfer for every school and academy.

18 If the schools forum supports the LA’s request to transfer then an adjustment will be made to the 2021/22 schools funding formula. The proposal would be to apply this to the Age Weighted Pupil Units (AWPU). Subject to the detailed modelling that would be included in a consultation with schools, this could result in a c£25 reduction in the AWPU rates for 2021/22 compared with the published NFF. Indicative AWPU rates would be:

2020/21 2021/22 Increase Primary Pupils (Reception, KS1 & KS2) £2,877 £3,098 +£221 Secondary Key Stage 3 Pupils £4,038 £4,379 +£341 Secondary Key Stage 4 Pupils £4,581 £4,938 +£357

19 In addition some small adjustments may need to be made to the MFG and limit on gains factors to ensure a fair distribution of the transfer across all schools. However, none of this (or the AWPU reduction) would affect the minimum per pupil amounts for 2021/22 that all schools are guaranteed (£4,180 for primary and £5,415 for secondary schools) as these are statutory minimums.

20 If, following the consultation, the forum were not in agreement to the transfer then the LA would need to refer the request to the Secretary of State (SoS) for Education (this is also the case for any requests for transfers in excess of 0.5% with or without schools forum approval). The deadline for SoS referrals is 30 November, meaning an additional meeting of the forum will be required prior to this but after the consultation has closed.

Central School Services Block

21 This funding block was created in 2018/19 from elements of the previous schools block and the former Education Services Grant (ESG). As part of the DfE’s strategy to remove funding within this block that directly supports exceptional expenditure previously agreed between LAs and their Schools Forums, there is a significant net reduction of 14.9% in 2021/22. This follows a similar reduction in 2020/21. This net reduction is made up of a 4% increase in the allocation for the ongoing responsibilities that the LA continues to have for all schools, and a 20% reduction in the allocation for historic commitments.

22 For 2021/22 this means allocations of £0.732m for LA on-going responsibilities and £1.970m for historic commitments. As historic commitments currently total £2.466m in 2020/21 the LA, in consultation with the forum, will need to identify budget reductions totalling £0.496m for 2021/22. A description of the historic commitments and the background to how they were created is set out below.

Termination of Employment Costs (£0.383m)

23 School redundancy and early retirement costs where the revenue savings achieved by the termination of employment to which they relate are greater than the costs incurred. The costs charged to this budget only relate to decisions made prior to 2013/14. For information, the total expenditure incurred by the LA on school staff redundancy and termination costs is expected to be in excess of £1m in 2020/21.

Prudential Borrowing Costs (£0.312m)

24 This budget is set aside to fund the repayment of loans for school building capital works where the original investment contributed towards an overall net revenue saving to the Schools Budget. Contributions to the following schemes are covered by the current budget provision:  York High School (Merger of Lowfield and Oaklands Secondary Schools)  Clifton with Rawcliffe Primary School (Merger of Clifton without Junior and Rawcliffe Infants Schools)  Our Lady Queen of Martyrs Primary School (Merger of Our Lady’s and English Martyrs Primary Schools)

Contribution to Combined Budgets (£1.771m)

25 Under the school finance regulations prior to 2012/13 schools could agree (through the Schools Forum) to allow the LA to use DSG funding to support certain central services that have a wider educational benefit or generate a net overall saving to the Schools Budget.

26 A significant proportion of this funding relates to former standards fund grants that were mainstreamed in 2011/12. At that time a total of £12m of standards fund grants were transferred into the DSG. Of this £11m was delegated directly to schools or other settings through the school funding formula or other mechanisms. As the remaining £1m of standards fund allocations were supporting central services the Schools Forum agreed to allow this to continue in the following areas:  School Improvement Service (£0.641m)  Children’s Centres on school sites (£0.355m)

27 The remaining funding retained under the combined budget heading relates to three specific decisions made prior to 2012/13 by the Schools Forum:  Children Looked After (£0.400m). This is used to support a combined budget for managing education and care placement costs for the city’s LAC population, and the development of a high quality local fostering programme. This followed a report on the placement strategy for LAC that was presented to the lead Member for Children’s Services in 2006. This report set out the advantages both for the individual children’s care and education and financially of the approach being taken. This contribution, towards a totalling fostering budget of £3.4m, allowed the LA to significantly reduce the number of children in out of city placements. Local placements and their associated education costs are significantly lower than more expensive external placements. This resulted in significant savings to the Schools Budget for the education element of these placements with an estimated on-going annual saving of over £1.8m achieved from this investment.  Safeguarding Advisor (Schools) (£0.050m). This funding, agreed in 2009/10, allows the LA to employ an additional post within the Safeguarding Unit with a specific role of supporting schools to deliver on their safeguarding duties.  Schools Causing Concern (£0.200m) / School Improvement Topslice (£0.125m). Although this funding is initially retained centrally by the school improvement service it is all ultimately either allocated to individual schools or spent on activity supporting improvement at individual schools.

28 The forum will note that in respect of the budgets for School Improvement (£641k), Schools Causing Concern (£200k) and School Improvement Topslice (£125k), totalling £966k, the forum has made a further set of decisions to bring these budgets together into a School Improvement Commissioning fund. Decisions on the use of this fund are subject to regular separate reports to the forum.

29 Members of the forum are asked to give their views on how the LA should manage the required £0.496m budget reduction for 2021/22, including any further information they would require, before the final decision needs to be made at the February 2021 Schools Forum meeting.

30 For completeness, the remaining budgets that fund the on-going LA central responsibilities are described below. The LA proposes no further changes to these budgets for 2021/22.

School Admissions (£0.185m)

31 This budget contributes to the costs of the LA’s statutory functions in respect of the schools admissions processes.

Servicing of Schools Forums (£0.045m)

32 This covers the costs of the School Forum meetings including officer time in preparing reports and attendance, and other associated costs such as consultations linked to specific School Forum related decisions.

School Copyright Licence Agreements (£0.125m)

33 This budget is retained centrally to fund the costs of a number of school copyright licence agreements that are now negotiated nationally by the DfE for all publicly funded schools and charged to LAs rather than to individual schools. For 2019/20 these are:  The Copyright Licensing Agency licence  The School Printed Music licence  The Newspaper Licensing Agency Schools licence  The Educational Recording Agency licence  The Public Video Screening licence  The Motion Picture Licensing Company licence  The Performing Right Society licence  The Phonographic Performance licence  The Mechanical Copyright Protection Society licence  The Christian Copyright Licensing International licence

Former ESG Retained Budgets (£0.377m)

34 This reflects the services formerly funded by the education services grant (ESG). LAs are able to retain funding centrally within the schools budget for services which they provide for all schools, including academies (previously funded by the “retained duties” element of the ESG). The services covered include; education welfare service, management of the LA’s capital programme, management of private finance transactions, general landlord duties for buildings including those leased to academies, the director of children’s services and office, planning for the education service as a whole, revenue budget preparation and accounts, external audit, formulation and review of local authority schools funding, internal audit and other tasks related to the LA’s chief finance officer’s responsibilities under Section 151 of LGA 1972, consultation costs and Standing Advisory Committee for Religious Education.

LA Maintained School De-delegations

35 LAs can fund some services relating to maintained schools only from maintained school budget shares, with the agreement of maintained school members of the forum. The relevant maintained schools members of the forum (primary, secondary, special, and pupil referral units (PRUs)) will need to agree any amounts that the LA will retain.

36 The number of de-delegations has reduced significantly over the last few years, and the LA is only asking the forum to consider the following three remaining de-delegations for 2021/22.

Schools General Contingency

37 This small budget has been used in the past by the LA to support significant but unexpected expenditure in some schools on an exceptional basis. The current de-delegation is set at £4 per pupil. Examples from previous years include:  Significant legal costs supporting employment tribunals.  Funding of compromise agreements in certain circumstances.  Backfill costs following the suspension of a headteacher.  Uninsured continuing education costs following a school fire.

Free School Meal Eligibility Assessment Services

38 The FSM eligibility service is provided as part of the overall School Services Team (with the team also covering a range of work from management of the admissions process to organising all of the city’s home to school transport arrangements which are not subject to de-delegation). As the identification of one extra FSM pupil would generate c£3.5k in additional funding for a school, this is potentially a valuable service. The current de- delegation is set at £26.49 per primary FSM pupil and £52.04 per secondary FSM pupil.

Behaviour Support Outreach Service

39 The service is provided to primary schools through the Danesgate Community and is often referred to as the Danesgate Outreach Service. Under its current central de-delegated form it is provided to schools in addition to the Danesgate provision for individually named pupils. The current de-delegation is set at £3.51 per pupil, plus £58.57 per FSM pupil and £38.72 per Low Prior Attainment (LPA) pupil.

40 The forum is asked to consider whether any or all of the current de-delegations should continue in 2021/22 or whether any further information is required prior to a final decision on de-delegation being taken.

Recommendations

41 Members of the forum are asked to note and comment on the report, and;  support to the continuation of the pupil growth & infant class size funds under their existing arrangements (as at Annex 1), including cash limiting the budget as described at paragraph 14,  support an increase in Early Years funding rates to providers in proportion to any increase in the Early Years funding allocated by government to the LA (paragraphs 15 & 16),  approve in principle a transfer of 0.5% of Schools formula funding to the High Needs block – subject to a full consultation with all schools and academies (paragraphs 10 to 20),  give their views on how the LA should manage the required £0.496m budget reduction in centrally retained historic commitment budgets for 2021/22, including any further information they would require, before the final decision needs to be made at the February meeting (paragraphs 22 to 29),  consider whether any or all of the current de-delegations should continue in 2021/22 or whether any further information is required prior to a final decision on de-delegation being taken (paragraphs 35 to 40).

Contact Details Author: Chief Officers Responsible for the Report: Richard Hartle Amanda Hatton Head of Finance: Corporate Director of Children, Education & Adults, Children and Education Communities Tel: 01904 554225 Tel: 01904 554200 email: Report [email protected] √ Date 21 January 2020 Approved

For further information please contact the author of the report

Annexes Annex 1 - Pupil Growth Funding Annex 1

Pupil Growth Funding

Infant Class Size Funding a) To maintain class sizes at no more than 30 pupils, Infant Class Size funding will be allocated based on the actual autumn census numbers for each school, i.e. autumn 2020 for an allocation for the 2020/21 academic year. Schools will be allocated a sum equivalent to the class teacher element of the primary AWPU to provide funding to support a teacher for each infant class, with reductions to take account of the economies of scale available to larger schools. b) The total number of reception, year 1 and year 2 pupils at each school is divided by 30. The remainder (after whole classes of 30 have been accounted for) is deemed to be the size of the “last class”. The amount of funding for the “last class” then depends on its size. c) The formula calculates the total amount of class teacher funding already allocated to the school within the AWPU sum for each pupil in the “last class” (for 2020/21 £1,330 is assumed to be included in the primary AWPU for class teachers). This sum is then deducted from the assumed cost of a class teacher. The result of this calculation is the top-up amount to support a full time equivalent teacher for the “last class”. The table below shows the amount of the top up depending on the size of the “last class”:

Size of Top-up Size of Top-up Size of Top-up “Last Funding “Last Funding “Last Funding Class” £ Class” £ Class” £ 0 0 10 21,362 20 8,061 1 33,333 11 20,032 21 6,731 2 32,003 12 18,702 22 5,401 3 30,672 13 17,372 23 4,071 4 29,342 14 16,042 24 2,741 5 28,012 15 14,711 25 1,411 6 26,682 16 13,381 26 81 7 25,352 17 12,051 27 0 8 24,022 18 10,721 28 0 9 22,692 19 9,391 29 0

d) Each school then receives a proportion of this top-up funding depending on the total number of infant pupils in the school (this is to try and recognise that larger schools are likely to have more flexibility in organising class structures than smaller schools). The following table shows the percentage of the top-up funding actually received:

Number of Funding Infant Pupils Percentage 1 to 90 100% 91 to 120 80% 121 to 150 60% 151 to 180 40% 181 and above 20% e) No retrospective adjustments are made even if pupil numbers change during the year. Example:  Autumn Census = 100 infant aged pupils  Size of “last class” = remainder of 100 / 30 = 10  Top-up funding from table 1 = £21,362  Percentage of top-up from table 2 = 80%  Infant Class Size Funding = £21,362 x 80% = £17,090

Pupil Growth Funding a) Additional funding for basic need growth will be made available to schools that are subject to a significant (i.e. >1%) increase in pupil numbers under the following circumstances:  the LA (or the school at the request or with the support of the LA) carries out a formal consultation and approves an increase in the capacity of a school  the LA requests a school to increase or exceed its published admissions number  the LA requests a school to admit significant additional pupils as part of a reorganisation or school closure b) Funding will not be allocated to a school in the following circumstances:  the school has surplus places and then takes additional pupils up to its PAN outside of the circumstances described above  the school admits pupils in excess of their PAN at their own choice  the school is directed/requested to admit additional pupils as a result of errors, appeals, fair access protocol, SEN, LAC etc. c) Depending on the circumstances, funding will be calculated based on the number of relevant (i.e. whole school, specific year groups, geographic areas etc.) additional pupils admitted as per the autumn census data for each year, multiplied by the appropriate AWPU value and pro-rated for the period that the pupils will be unfunded (normally 7 months for maintained schools and 12 months for academies) in the main school funding formula allocation. Whatever the circumstances, the maximum pupil growth allocation will be capped at an amount equivalent to that attributable to the school’s total increase in reception to year 11 pupils in excess of 1%.

Agenda Item 8

York Schools Forum 28 September 2020

Report of the Corporate Director of Children, Education & Communities and the Head of Finance Adults, Children & Education

EARLY YEARS FUNDING SUMMARY

Summary

1 This report provides the Schools Forum more detail on how the government funds the local authority (LA) for Early Years and how that funding is then passed on to providers.

Background

2 Following discussions at previous meetings, members of the forum felt it would be helpful to receive more information on Early Years funding and an explanation of how the funding system operates.

Early Years DSG Allocations

3 The Department for Education (DfE) provides LAs with six relevant funding streams which together form the early years block of the dedicated schools grant (DSG). They are:  the universal 15 hours entitlement for all 3 & 4 year olds  the additional 15 hours entitlement for eligible working parents of 3 & 4 year olds  the 15 hours entitlement for disadvantaged 2 year olds  the early years pupil premium (EYPP)  the disability access fund (DAF)  maintained nursery school (MNS) supplementary funding

4 For the 2020/21 financial year the estimated amounts allocated to York are as follows: 2020/21 Estimate £m 3 & 4 Year Olds Universal 15 Hours 6.581 3 & 4 Year Olds Additional 15 Hours 3.388 Disadvantaged 2 Year Olds 15 Hours 0.866 Early Years Pupil Premium 0.076 Disability Access Fund 0.034 Maintained Nursery School Supplementary 0.090 11.036

5 The final allocations will be confirmed in June 2021 once actual take up in each of the categories has been confirmed.

3 & 4 Year Olds Universal and Additional 15 Hours

6 The DfE funds LAs on the same basis for both the universal 15 hours entitlement and the additional 15 hours entitlement for working parents. This is because the statutory framework and the quality requirements for the 2 entitlements are the same.

7 The DfE allocation is based on an hourly rate multiplied by the total number of hours taken up over the year in each LA. This means that the final allocation is not known until after the year end and a retrospective adjustment is made. For York the hourly rate for 2020/21 is set at £4.38 per hour. This is the lowest of any LA, although over 50 LAs are funded at this level.

8 The LA is then required to pass at least 95% of this funding on to providers under its own Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF). The remaining 5% is retained to fund the LA’s central early years service. The EYSFF must include a basic hourly rate for all hours taken up and a deprivation supplement. Other optional supplements are allowed for flexibility, quality and sparsity. However, the total planned value of funding supplements must not be more than 10% of the total value of planned formula funding to providers.

9 The York formula for 2020/21 has a base hourly rate of £4.07 per hour and a deprivation supplement of £0.41 per hour for any child whose home postcode lies in one of the 30% most deprived areas of the country, as defined by the income deprivation affecting children index (IDACI). None of the other discretionary supplements are used in the York EYSFF. This formula is applied on a consistent basis to all settings whether they be PVI, schools or childminders.

10 York also operates an inclusion fund for individual providers to make claims against to support children with SEND. The majority of this (£100k) is funded from the High Needs Block but £22k is funded from the 3 & 4 year old allocation.

11 In summary then, for 2020/21 York’s £4.38 3 & 4 year old hourly funding rate from the DfE is being used as follows: £0.22 for the 5% top slice to help fund the Early Years & Childcare service £4.07 for the base hourly rate £0.08 to fund the £0.41 per hour deprivation rate £0.01 to fund the EY contribution to the SEND Inclusion Fund

Disadvantaged 2 Year Olds 15 Hours

12 The DfE allocation is based on an hourly rate multiplied by the total number of hours taken up over the year in each LA by eligible 2 year olds. This again means that the final allocation is not known until after the year end and a retrospective adjustment is made. For York the DfE has set the hourly rate for 2020/21 at £5.28 per hour and all of this funding is passed on to providers at this same rate.

Early Years Pupil Premium

13 The EYPP is set nationally by the DfE at £0.53 per eligible hour up to a maximum of 15 hours per week. The LA passes this funding on in full to providers based on the actual number of eligible hours at each setting. Three and four year olds will be eligible for EYPP if the child receives the universal 15 hours entitlement and they meet any of the following criteria:  their family gets one of the following:  Income Support  income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance  income-related Employment and Support Allowance  support under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999  the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit  Child Tax Credit (provided they are not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)  Working Tax Credit run-on, which is paid for 4 weeks after they stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit  Universal Credit  they are currently being looked after by a local authority in England or Wales  they have left care in England or Wales through:  an adoption order  a special guardianship order  a child arrangements order If a child qualifies for EYPP under more than one set of criteria they will only attract the funding once.

Disability Access Fund

14 Disability Access Funding is again passed on directly to providers by the LA based on the number of children at each school in receipt of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA). The funding rate has been set nationally at £615 per eligible child per year.

Maintained Nursery School (MNS) Supplementary

15 LAs with stand-alone MNS continue to receive supplementary funding in 2020/21. This funding is provided in order to enable local authorities to protect their 2016/17 funding rates for MNS (that is, the rates that existed before the EYNFF) and the Government expects it to be used in this way. Maintained Nursery Schools must be paid a universal base rate, however LAs may continue to use ‘lump sums’ to distribute additional funding to Maintained Nursery Schools. In York all of this funding is passed on in full to St Paul’s Nursery and reflects the unique nature of this setting and the additional costs this entails.

Recommendations

16 Members of the forum are asked to note and comment on the contents of this report.

Contact Details Author: Chief Officers Responsible for the Report: Richard Hartle Amanda Hatton Head of Finance: Corporate Director of Children, Education & Adults, Children and Education Communities Tel: 01904 554225 Tel: 01904 554200 email: Report [email protected] √ Date 21 January 2020 Approved

For further information please contact the author of the report

EARLY YEARS FUNDING IN THE PVI SECTOR

If you’re in education, you must have heard at least two things about the early years: the experiences and impact of a positive start to life are essential to life beyond those years (research has, does and will continue to evidence this: https://www.unicef.org/earlychildhood/index_40748.html); and the early years’ care and education sector has struggled with a very real, poor financial health for many years. The constant pull is a low rate of funding against costs which are increasing at a higher rate, particularly salaries. Added to this for many providers is the drive to quality and good Ofsted grades, something which does not come on a budget.

Whilst funding remains critically below the cost of an hour of high quality education and care in a PVI setting, income from parents’ fees is the only other major source of funds to ‘plug the gap’. However, that income is progressively more controversial year on year, because that gap is becoming wider and wider and the capacity to rely on parental fees to fill it is a government (local and national) problem. There will be a limit as to what level that income can increase.

Historically, the hourly rate for a 3 & 4 year old child was funded far less than the maintained sector. The inequitable division of funding was further impacted as the PVI sector has to plan financially for the additional elements of overheads, increased staffing (with management, teaching, cleaning, chef/cook, administration), utilities, VAT and overheads, to name a few, without the buffer of a school/maintained system. This sector has to cover the unpredictable rises from salaries, rents and rates, Of course, fees vary according to postcode and parental earning potential, economic climate and political climate.

All of these areas have just become much more contentious with the impact of Coronavirus on the society as a whole, but also on the consequences of poor funding. Coronavirus has been particularly damaging for this sector, one with little or no wriggle room to stay sustainable in ordinary times, never mind extraordinary. York has seen several settings close in the past 12 months and the NDNA has had to support many private settings and nursery playgroups with business advice.

We know that the application of Coronavirus help schemes for early years settings has negatively impacted businesses. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme gave us a way of retaining a workforce. Disappointingly, the PVI sector were told days later that they would have to subtract early years funding from a CJRS submission. However, the ‘public sector funding’ conditions which were applied to early years were not conditions intended to be applied to our funding in this way. They were for ‘public sector organisations’ such as schools, which are publicly funded and unmistakably so for staff salaries. By contrast, the Early Years Funding is “intended to cover the cost to deliver 15 or 30 hours a week of free, high quality, flexible childcare", as stated in the Model Agreement issued by the DFE: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/718184/Early_years_provision_free_of_charge_and_free_childcare- model_agreement.pdf )

One further consequence of this is felt keenly by those settings which only provide care and education to funded children. They were then unable to claim any monies from the CJRS and had no financial support and could not furlough staff. It is worth remembering that the hourly rates for early years funding do not cover the cost of employing high quality staff as well as providing resources and buildings which are inspected by Ofsted to uphold a high quality provision. It is ludicrous that any Local Authority or Government could confuse such matters. It has been an unreasonable deduction which we continue to fight to reverse.

This LA publicised a grant available to nurseries in a doorstop leaflet drop, only to withdraw the grant from this sector once claims were made. Many businesses have been rejected for the initial Coronavirus grants because employees or turnover are applied to a whole company and not a single site. For those businesses who have more than one setting, the need for support extends to all their nurseries. However, funding could not be claimed for one or any of the settings.

For all settings and for the City of York, the impact of the lockdown period and lack of financial support will be seen over the next two terms. Undoubtedly, there will be the greatest impact on children from disadvantaged backgrounds who attended, or would have attended, settings whose income solely comes from government funding. Instability in the sector will be felt across the city and country.

Effects on the workforce, and therefore the children and their families, can also be seen in the lack of CPD and recognised training. A well-qualified, motivated and properly recognised workforce is crucial to the quality of care and early education our children receive. From an increased demand for SEND, social and emotional issues, and practitioner development, York lacks a training offer. It is crucial that we appeal for funds to improve this.

Some details follow regarding the situation for the PVI sector before lockdown and since the pandemic emerged:-

FUNDING CHALLENGES OUTSIDE COVID-19

* Ongoing costs outside the Covid-19 related costs are rising faster than inflation, including NMW/NLW. * Prior to the pandemic, Ceeda estimated that the funding gap for the early years sector was £824 million. * Ceeda’s latest data also suggests that the average gap between the hourly cost of delivering a funded 2-year-old place and the funding rate paid for that place in 2020/21 is still an estimated -£2.01 per hour, per child The average gap between the hourly cost of delivering a funded 3&4-year old place and the funding rate paid for that place in 2020/21 is still an estimated £0.90 per hour, per child

* The Low Pay Commission estimates that the Living Wage will rise to around £9.21 and apply to anyone over 23 from April 2021. That comes on top of employees returning on furloughing this year and moving to a new minimum wage when income had seriously decreased. Based on data from NDNA’s early years workforce survey this suggest the statutory minimum wage of over £1 per hour for around 20-23,000 employees on top of a 49p increase for almost half the workforce. * for 2020/21, the average increase in hourly rates was 8pph in most areas, whilst many providers did not increase fees. (I was one of those providers, as my typical fee increase occurs on 1 April of each year, a time when nurseries were closed and fees at their present would not be charged). Even at a staff member working on a 1:8 ratio that would be an additional 64p/per hour. Obviously, the majority of early years settings work to much smaller ratios, with 1:3 being the ratio for Under 2s and 1:4 the ratio for 2 year olds. * Evidence shows that salaries account for 73% of overall costs for group settings, according to the Department for Education’s own ‘Survey of Childcare and Early Years Providers’ 2019. Therefore minimum wage increases always have a significant financial impact on the sector. * The National Audit Office looking at the costs of delivering funded places cited a number of issues with the DfE’s costing methodology for funding saying “that the Department’s studies potentially under-stated the average hourly cost.” * The Low Pay Commission highlights that childcare providers are ‘price-takers’ from the Government, constrained by funding levels. This means that while the national living wage rose by an estimated 8% in real terms from 2016-17 to 2019-20, funding rates paid to local authorities and passed on to providers between 2017-18 and 2020-21 fell substantially in real terms. * By September 2019, there had been a 153% increase in nursery closures since 30- hours began. This challenge has been starkly highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving 25% of providers facing permanent closure within the year. * The impact of this underfunding is that the DfE’s providers’ survey showed that before Coronavirus, 54% of private providers and 74% of voluntary providers were either making a loss or just breaking even.

COVID-RELATED COSTS

· Furlough - IFS estimates that the median furlough payment was worth 55p for every £1 of lost fee income for nurseries

(https://www.ndna.org.uk/NDNA/News/Latest_news/2020/IFS_analysis_many_nurseries_fac e_financial_difficulties.aspx)

· Parents concerned about places according to TUC - 41% of working mums with children under the age of ten either cannot get - or are unsure whether they will get - enough childcare to cover their working hours in September.

(https://www.ndna.org.uk/NDNA/News/Latest_news/2020/TUC_reports_almost_half_mums_ facing_childcare_crisis.aspx)

· Cost of PPE: Early years staff time are having to spend more work hours or ‘out of hours’ time cleaning to ensure workplace safety. Cleaning materials and resources are also becoming more expensive due to demand and are needed in larger quantities. Here in York, one of my setting managers phoned a request for PPE orders and gloves to the helpline we’ve been told we can use because of the lack of available stock from our usual providers. She was asked why she needed so many and was told we were using too much. Perhaps this department’s employees could work for a day in a nursery setting, changing nappies, applying suncream, cleaning up bodily fluids. The need to change gloves between each use would quickly become obvious.

· Cost of alterations and investments to allow settings to reopen safely: some examples include extra sinks, fogging units and sanitiser stations, more toilets, installing screens and dividers, investing in new items (washable rugs), investing in outdoor space and resources, buying new equipment to reduce sharing, hiring portable units for greater staff space, buying PPE for staff travel,

· Settings open throughout lockdown faced higher operating costs to stay open for just a handful of children. Even now, staffing costs are higher as we accommodate bubbles, staff shortages and illness.

· Reduced attendance: many providers are looking at having fewer children, both funded and fee paying, in the autumn term. DfE statistics suggest that occupancy is around 40% while nurseries report it is ranging between 60-70% on average in their settings.

· Coronavirus Job Retention Bonus: Respondents to NDNA’s survey estimated that on average 38% of their income comes from public funding. DfE data suggests 46% of private provider income and 63% of voluntary provider income is from funded hours. This means a large proportion of the early years workforce would not have been eligible for furlough. The early years sector will lose out on access to the Job Retention Bonus due to eligibility for furlough scheme decisions

· As a result of reduced income and increased running costs under the pandemic NDNA’s survey showed that 71% of providers in England expect to operate at a loss until the end of September, with a further 23% only expecting to break even. The effects of reduced attendance will impact the Autumn term initially and then into 2021 as new starters typically expected do not enrol, due to home-working, redundancy, or fear about lack of safety.

PROPOSALS:

- evidence gathering of impact from lower attendance, lack of financial support and wider impact of settings closure on children. Utilise the F40 group for wider evidence. Their recent letter to the DFE was encouraging in that it referred to Early Years, but it was heavily skewed to school issues https://www.f40.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Letter-to-DfE-re-Covid-19-costs-for- schools-and-education.pdf

- Micro discretionary grants: I would like information on how many nurseries successfully applied for this grant in the City of York

- write to local MPs from Councillor Ian Cuthbertson, requesting financial support to the sector this financial year

- seek support from local MPs and the DFE to get the funding rates right for the next 4 years

- campaign for a single childcare account for parents and providers to use, so that the tax-free money and/or benefits paid by the government for childcare and early education, reaches the provider.

- improve the training offer of CPD for the early years’ workforce, with subsidised high-quality training that is relevant and quickly accessible.

I trust this paper provides the other members of the York Schools Forum an accessible look at the dilemma of under-funding for the early years sector. If I can be of further help, please contact me on my email address: [email protected] or telephone number: 07780 335471.

Thank you for your time

Helen Gration

Agenda Item 11

York Schools Forum 28 September 2020

Report of the Corporate Director of Children, Education & Communities and the Head of Finance Adults, Children & Education

F40 UPDATE

Summary

1 This report provides the Schools Forum with an update on the work of the f40 campaign group.

Background

2 The f40 represents a group of the lowest funded local authorities (LAs) in England based on government-set cash allocations for primary and secondary pupils. f40 has been campaigning for a fairer system for the allocation of funding for schools for over twenty years. The Group has the support of MPs, councillors, education directors, governors, head teachers, parents and teaching union representatives.

3 f40 currently has 42 member LAs representing over 3 million pupils (around 35% of the total in England) in c9,000 schools (41%). City of York Council has been a member of f40 since 2004. A full list of f40 members is included at Annex 1. The current Chair of f40 is Cllr James McInnes, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services & Schools at Devon County Council. f40 also has three Parliamentary Vice Chair positions, one from each of the three main political parties. They are; Sir Gary Streeter (Conservative MP for South West Devon), Matt Western (Labour MP for Warwick & Leamington) and Layla Moran (Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West & Abingdon).

Objectives

4 As f40’s primary objective has always been to influence a change in the way the government allocates funding to LAs and schools, it initially welcomed the introduction of the new National Funding Formula (NFF) introduced from April 2018. However, f40 does have fundamental concerns about the new formula and believes that there is still more work to do to tackle the continuing unfairness of funding allocations and the remaining locked-in inequalities. f40’s view is that the NFF is a step in the right direction, but it is based on historical averages rather than on the real cost of running schools and is, therefore, still unfair. In addition, the NFF does not take sufficient account of the interaction between school funding and high needs funding and each block should be funded sufficiently, thus removing any need to make transfers between them.

5 Further details of f40’s current objectives are set out in the synopsis at Annex 2, and in summary are:  Asking for urgent changes to the National Funding Formula to make it fairer, more easily understood and transparent.  Arguing that an additional £5.5bn pa is needed in within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) by 2022/23.  Requesting a commitment from government to provide education funding on a continuous rolling three-year programme, to enable schools to plan their budgets well ahead.

F40’s Campaigning

6 f40 has been campaigning, to various degrees, over the last twenty years. The graphic below (taken from the f40 website) shows a timeline of key events and f40’s response to them.

7 In more recent times f40 has focused its attention on the significant pressures being experienced within high needs (SEND) budgets and the impact of the Covid 19 epidemic on school budgets. Examples of letters sent to government on both of these issues are attached at Annexes 3 and 4.

Financial Implications

8 The LA’s annual subscription to the f40 group is £1,000 (reduced to £500 in 2020/21 due to reduced activity during the Covid 19 epidemic) and is funded from the LA’s (Central School Services) element of the DSG.

Recommendations

9 Members of the forum are asked to note and comment on the contents of this report.

Contact Details Author: Chief Officers Responsible for the Report: Richard Hartle Amanda Hatton Head of Finance: Corporate Director of Children, Education & Adults, Children and Education Communities Tel: 01904 554225 Tel: 01904 554200

email: [email protected] Report Approved√ Date 21 September 2020

For further information please contact the author of the report

Annexes Annex 1 - List of f40 Members Annex 2 – f40 Campaign Synopsis Annex 3 – Letter from f40 Chair to the Secretary of State for Education about SEND funding Annex 4 – Letter from f40 Chair to the DfE funding unit about Covid 19 costs

Annex 1

List of f40 Members Bath & North East Somerset Council Buckinghamshire County Council Cambridgeshire County Council Central Bedfordshire Cheshire East Council Cheshire West and Chester Council Cornwall County Council Derbyshire County Council Devon County Council Dorset County Council East Riding of Yorkshire Council East Sussex County Council Gloucestershire County Council Hampshire County Council Herefordshire Council Kent County Council Leicestershire County Council Lincolnshire County Council North Lincolnshire Council North Yorkshire County Council Northamptonshire County Council Northumberland County Council Oxfordshire County Council Plymouth City Council Shropshire County Council Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Somerset County Council South Gloucestershire Council Staffordshire County Council Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Suffolk County Council Swindon Council Torbay Council Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council Warrington Council Warwickshire County Council West Sussex County Council Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Wiltshire County Council Worcestershire County Council York (City of) Council

Annex 2

Annex 3

Letter from f40 Chair to the Secretary of State for Education about SEND funding Dear Mr Williamson, I am writing to you as deputy leader of Devon County Council, the authority's Cabinet member for children's services and as the national chair of f40. You will be familiar with the continuing national funding difficulties of services for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I realise the Covid 19 emergency has created a massive demand for extra funding and this is not just another plea for more money, although the aspirations of both central and local government for better care for some of our most vulnerable children does require improved funding. However I would like to suggest a number of actions to you which would help to contain the soaring costs of SEND for local authorities whilst not in any way diminishing the care we provide. The changes introduced in the 2014 Children and Families Act were ambitious and designed to reshape support for children with SEND but were not funded at an appropriate level to allow us to meet the increased demand. For example, your own data show the number of children and young people with EHCPs increased by 35 per cent nationally in the five years to 2017/18. In Devon the number of EHCP plans maintained has almost doubled from 3,284 in 2014 to 6,474 in 2019. Currently we have 7,000 children with plans. This has obviously come at a huge cost to us and to my local authority colleagues across the country. Over two years the funding gap we face in Devon between the government grants we receive and the cost of meeting the needs of the children and young people we support has been £19.7million in 2019/20 and £23.1 million in 2020/21, thus giving a cumulative deficit of £43 million. The extra funding we have received from 2019/20 to 2020/21 within the High Needs Block amounts to £6 million after recoupment. Clearly this is not sustainable. Devon, in common with other local authorities, has taken your Government's advice and identified this deficit as a negative reserve but this will never be a long-term solution and will not provide financial stability. We have developed a recovery plan that includes making significant investment in creating special school places. Compared to three years ago we have around 300 more children being educated in state-funded settings rather than independent schools and, although this will require considerable corporate investment on our part at time of intense pressure on our finances, we are planning to deliver another 300 places by 2023. However the current legislation and the SEND code of practice create additional challenges that could in fact be amended to provide better value for the public purse. One of the most costly areas of provision is the independent sector. The code of practice states that independent providers on list 41 must be given equal consideration to state funded special schools. However these settings often include provision which is not stipulated in the child's education, health and care plan but which make the school understandably appealing to parents albeit at significant additional cost. You will be well aware parents have a right to appeal at tribunal. The strong emphasis placed on parental preference at appeal means local authorities find it very hard to defend a decision to place in state-funded provision when the independent provision looks more appealing. Tribunals often dismiss cost as not being significant. However the average difference in cost between a state-funded school and an independent school is £24,000 per child with some costing up to £100,000 a year. We have also seen considerable volatility in the independent sector with some special schools facing problems with both quality and finance. Nationally some 85 per cent of high needs block expenditure is tied to individual pupils and placements. A change in guidance to allow local authorities to secure state-funded provision with less challenge or with a cap on the fees charged by independent schools coupled with a requirement to align the fees with the provision specified in the plan could help to contain escalating costs. We are also now faced with many more legal challenges and local authorities are facing judicial review for not following SEND legislation when in fact we are following the guidance contained in the national code of practice. Even before cases reach this stage, local authorities are spending significant time and resources on managing solicitors and pre-action letters because of the raised awareness of SEND issues within the legal community. We therefore request an urgent review of the underlying regulations and the code of practice to ensure it removes any ambiguity in expectation which would allow local authorities to ensure best value for the public purse while continuing to meet pupils' needs. Yours sincerely, James McInnes

Annex 4

Letter from f40 Chair to the DfE funding unit about the Impact of Covid-19 on school and education funding

Dear Mr Goldman

I hope you are well and managing to navigate your way around the Covid-19 pandemic. I’m sure it has been, and continues to be, a major challenge for the Department for Education.

These are unprecedented times and you have our continued support as you try to work through all of the issues and return schools to some sort of normality.

The f40 group thought it would be beneficial to share with you some of the concerns and feedback we have received during recent weeks, from both local authorities and schools, relating to extra costs and funding pressures during the pandemic.

We appreciate that you are likely to be updating guidance for schools on claiming additional expenses in the coming weeks and thought our insight might be useful.

While the original guidance produced by the DfE was very helpful in the early stages, things have moved on significantly. We have found a number of areas where more clarity is required and where one set of rules cannot apply to all.

Our insight is as follows:

1. Existing issues are exacerbated f40 is made up of 42 local authorities who are among the lowest funded for education in England.

Our members have expressed concern that existing pressures within the school system, such as lack of funding, insufficient resources for special needs, the need for early intervention, and the impact of MPPFL on rural and small schools and those supporting pupils with greater levels of additional need in low funded areas, have been further challenged by the coronavirus.

Covid-19 has focused a sharp lens on issues that already existed. This is particularly the case with High Needs funding.

In many ways, our members are less able to cope with the additional demands of the pandemic than better-funded schools, further highlighting the need for fairer distribution of budgets.

Similarly, with Early Years, while the inflationary 8p increase in funding this year was welcomed, this was the first increase in funding for a number of years. The sector is under immense strain. The loss of private income to Early Years providers has left the future of many in doubt, which could result in a severe lack of places for children.

While some Early Years providers have been able to apply for grants, others have not been eligible. Without financial help, they may close.

Suggestion: f40 believes short and long-term funding and support measures need to be in place to support schools, the High Needs Block and Early Years.

Clarity as to the department’s view on the future of the maintained nursery school sector would also be useful.

2. Clarity of guidance

There was confusion around which additional costs schools and local authorities could reclaim during the pandemic.

For example, it is unclear whether Maintained Nursery Schools were eligible to claim for extra expenses as there was no mention of them in the guidance.

Requests for clarification, either directly with the ESFA or through conversations with Regional Schools Commissioners have thrown up similar contradictions, such as whether extra staffing costs can be reclaimed and how they are recorded and recouped.

Suggestion: We believe schools and local authorities need more clarity on the process for reclaiming expenses in any future claim window, and more recognition of the breadth of extra costs they are facing. One size does not fit all.

3. Breadth of additional costs

The current guidelines have been in place since the beginning of lockdown and, while helpful at the time, they have been superseded by changes to guidance and the length of school closures. We now have the benefit of hindsight and can better understand widespread extra costs, as well as extraordinary costs that may only be relevant to some. f40 believes that schools should be as flexible as possible in their approach to extra expenditure and should be maximising on areas where they can make savings.

However, there are extra costs that all schools are facing, which we believe they should receive financial support with, such as:

 Additional deep, preventative cleaning  Extra water usage for hand washing  Providing hand sanitiser  Displaying floor stickers and signage  Using large quantities of PPE in special schools  Subscription to E-learning platforms

There have also been many exceptional costs, such as:

 Posting of homework to pupils for one school amounted to £7,500  A small school with only one set of toilets had to hire portable toilets to aid social distancing  Providing mobile phones to teachers to enable them to carry out wellbeing/safeguarding calls with pupils – especially vulnerable pupils.

Schools and local authorities have experienced a number of funding pressures in recent weeks, but everyone is agreed that these issues will be magnified when schools return in September. The true financial cost of the pandemic to schools may not become clear until next year.

Suggestion: f40 believes schools should not be worse off due to the coronavirus and should receive financial support with extra costs that are common to all.

Suggestion: We believe allowance should be given for schools to recoup extraordinary expenses that may be specific to their situation. At the end of the financial year(s), it should become clearer whether there is a need for any schools to pay back funds.

4. Additional teaching costs

A number of schools have incurred additional teaching costs as a result of the pandemic. The current guidelines do not stipulate whether extra teaching costs will be met.

While many schools have been able to operate a rota system, either internally or with neighbouring schools, to provide on-going teaching to vulnerable children and children of key workers, we know of several instances where this has not been possible.

There are a number of instances where teachers had to work through their Easter and half-term holidays and have been unable to take time off later in the term to compensate, as suggested by the Department for Education.

Special schools, for example, provide specialist care and have not been able to rotate with others for two reasons:

1) They were open during the Easter holidays and half-term. Some staff were unable to take holidays and were unable to take time off in lieu during term time as they were required to support the number of small bubbles of children. 2) In some cases, pupils with special needs required support from staff they knew well.

Most schools have had reduced numbers of teaching staff, either because of sickness or because some teachers have been shielding, which has put more strain on those teachers available to work.

As a result, the rota system, has not always been a practical option. In some cases, schools have had to rely heavily on the use of supply teachers. The use of supply teachers has added pressure to the budgets of some of the lowest funded schools, with some reporting that their annual budget for supply costs have been spent within the first term.

For low funded schools, many of the staffing flexibilities have been removed in recent years to ensure schools remain viable. The use of teaching assistants in some cases is limited to support named children through an EHCP. Some schools do not even have a supply budget, with the headteacher often having to provide cover (on top of what may already be a regular class commitment).

Many teachers have worked additional hours to set up E-learning platforms for pupils, while continuing to provide homework and ongoing support. This requirement has increased with year groups returning, as in many cases a full teaching establishment has been necessary to cover the returning year groups.

Many support staff required to work in the holidays are on term-time only contracts. They have not been budgeted for or paid during the holidays – but were still needed when the schools were open (e.g. admin/finance/reception and teaching assistants for pupils with EHCPs who were counted as vulnerable.)

All of this has led to additional staffing costs for many schools, which they are now struggling to meet.

Suggestion: f40 believes schools should be able to recoup extra staffing costs where they can show exceptional circumstances, where a rota system could not be utilised, and where staff could not be compensated with time off.

5. Loss of income

The greatest financial concern for many schools has been the loss of income caused by the pandemic. As schools closed, so did many of their private income streams.

Many schools within f40’s member authorities struggle financially and rely heavily on private income, such as from breakfast and after school clubs and the hiring out of facilities, to help fund core education delivery.

The DfE has actively encouraged schools to create private income initiatives like these, but those schools that have are now among the hardest hit.

In many cases, while their private income has stopped, some costs have continued. For example, staff who run the breakfast club may have a second contract within the school, so may not be eligible for furlough, and the school must continue to pay their salaries.

And despite school astro-turf pitches and sports facilities being unavailable for hire, some schools may have to continue paying for their leases. This has placed a greater burden on budgets.

Suggestion: f40 believes the DfE should support schools who have lost income by agreeing to subsidise a percentage of it – for example, funding 75% of lost income. This would be in line with the approach taken with local authorities.

6. Catch-up grant f40 welcomes the Government’s £1bn Coronavirus catch-up grant – with £650m going directly to schools and £350m for a tutoring programme.

However, we believe more information and clarity is needed on how the grant will be distributed and how it is to be used in the months ahead.

Concerns have been raised about the long-term loss of funding through the Year 7 catch up, with any gains received through the National Funding Formula being eroded in meeting this loss in revenue. Special schools have raised particular concerns as, depending on need type, this could represent a substantial loss. f40 believes SEND pupils will remain vulnerable unless a needs-based funding formula is introduced at the earliest opportunity.

Suggestion: The introduction of a needs-led funding formula for High Needs that protects the funding made available through the year 7 catch up grant.

Suggestion: Additional High Needs funding provided to schools to assist with additional pupil need (e.g. emotional support) as a result of the pandemic. This is especially important for pupils in special schools with higher needs which have been exacerbated by the pandemic.

7. September return

a. Allowing a phased return

Many local authorities and school leaders believe that when children return to school in September, a number of issues will arise that may require additional support and discretion.

For example, while it is desirable to have all children back in school at the earliest opportunity, there are going to be instances where it is not practical or safe, such as with special schools.

Suggestion: Schools should be encouraged to bring all of their pupils back to school in September at the earliest opportunity but understanding and discretion should be used where particular challenges arise. Schools should be permitted to use phased returns if they can demonstrate the benefits to both staff and pupils.

b. Reassurance to parents

Some parents are understandably concerned about their children returning to school and f40 believes schools, local authorities and the DfE should provide reassurance to encourage all children to attend – rather than threats of prosecution.

c. Early intervention

Many local authorities and school leaders believe there will be a spike in special educational needs and exclusions when schools return in September. The pandemic and school closure will have had an adverse impact on many children, who may require short-term funding and support to assist them.

While some local authorities are expecting the number of EHCP applications to rise, we do not believe this is necessarily the answer to the expected increase in short-term issues. Rather than increasing the number of EHCPs, we believe early intervention programmes should be available to restore emotional well-being and provide additional support where needed.

Local authorities can play a key role in this bringing together large numbers of schools along with other key associated services such as social care. The importance of the role local authorities play has been highlighted during this current crisis and has demonstrated the impact they can have working closely with their local schools and families.

Suggestion: Early intervention funding, over and above the £1bn catch-up grant, should be provided, where needed, to ensure additional emotional and learning support can be accessed – reducing the likelihood of children needing EHCPs and to help children progress.

d. School transport

Many concerns have been raised by local authorities about how school transport will be managed when schools return in September.

Keeping children socially distanced on buses will be near impossible. It will also be extremely difficult for local authorities to timetable the additional school transport required.

While local transport authorities welcome the £40 million funding package dedicated for transport during the autumn term, it is still unclear how children will be able to arrive at school by public transport on time, due to the double running of routes and additional transport arrangements required to cover multiple destinations.

Suggestion: f40 believes local authorities should be given more guidance and clarity on how the £40 million funding package will ensure children are able to travel to school while social distancing measures remain in place.

Conclusion

Thank you for taking the time to read the insight we have gathered during recent weeks. We hope you find it useful and would be only too happy to discuss it in more detail if you wish.

Don’t hesitate to contact either myself or Karen Westcott, Secretary of the f40 group, if you feel a call would be beneficial.

Kind regards

James McInnes Chairman F40