Children & Young People’s Services
Strategic Schools Forum
5th July 2017 9.30am Bournville Primary School, BS23 3ST
Agenda Action Lead Apologies and Declarations of Interest - SSF 1. 09.30 members are reminded that they need to declare an interest John Simpson in any item that is on the agenda
2. 09.35 Minutes of the previous meeting John Simpson
Matters arising – 3. 09.40 John Simpson Notification of AOB -
Chair’s Business - election of vice chair 4. 09.50 John Simpson - venue for October meeting
Emma Review of SSF remit, constitution 5. 09.55 Decision Whitehead / and membership Louise Malik
2016-17 Outturn report and impact of DSG under / over spend including 6. 10.10 Decision Louise Malik school balances - including request from Hutton Primary School
Schools Budget Monitoring - including 7. 10.20 Top up funding moderation & resulting Decision Louise Malik overspend
Outcome of consultation re Early Emma 8. 10.40 Decision Years Adjustments Whitehead Progress on the Specialist Provision 9. 10.50 Review (Verbal with paper re: the Cost of Information Wendy Packer Reintegration and Prevention provision (REAP)) Impact reports
10. 11:00 10a - Vulnerable Learners Service Information Wendy Packer
Agenda Action Lead
11. 11.10 Evaluation of meeting Date of next meeting Wed 4 October (Paper Deadline 15 September) Venue:
tbc
People and Communities Strategic Schools Forum
Wednesday 17 May 2017 Backwell School
Present
John Simpson (JS) C Chair Stephen Webber (SW) V Headteacher, All Saints Primary School Chris Hildrew (CH) V Headteacher, Churchill Academy and Sixth Form Gary Lewis (GL) V Headteacher, Gordano School Denise Hunt (DH) V Governor, Becket Primary School Sonia Russe (SR) V Governor, Castle Batch Primary School Jacci Ramplin (JR) V Governor, Backwell School Alan Leonard (AL) V Governor, Clevedon Community School Nick Donnelly (ND) V Principal, Voyage Learning Campus Karen Worthington (KW) V Weston College (in substitution for Jacqui Ford) Phil Weston (PW) V Early Years Mike Evans (ME) V Governor, Ravenswood Special School (in substitution for Tracy Towler) Jon Reddiford (JR) NV RTPA Louise Malik (LM) Of Head of Education Transformation Emma Whitehead (EW) Of Education Funding and Traded Services Manager Wendy Packer (WP) Of Vulnerable Learners Service Lead and Head of Virtual School Jane Norris NSC Clerk
Item Issue Action
1. Apologies and Declarations of interest (John Simpson)
Apologies were received from:
Claire Hudson, Diocese of Bath & Wells
Peter Turner, Headteacher, Ashcombe Primary School Philip Pughe-Morgan, Governor, Worle Village Primary School Richard Riordan, Headteacher, Portishead Primary School Tracy Towler, Headteacher, Westhaven School Councillor Jan Barber, Executive Member for C&YP Services
Did not attend:
Kevin Lynch, Headteacher, Golden Valley Primary School (in substitution for Peter Turner, Ashcombe Primary School)
1
Tony Searle, Principal, Hans Price Academy 2. Minutes of the previous meeting (John Simpson) Agreed.
3. Matters arising (John Simpson) Update on national funding formula • LM advised that no update has been received and the last notification had indicated that the outcome would be received by the end of July. 25,000 responses to consultation were received. The timescale of announcements and next steps should not be affected by the general election if there is no change of government as they are still carrying out the analysis of responses and consideration of various options.
Page 3 – Proposals to retain excessive balances • No complaints have been received about the exceptions to excess balances for the 2016-17 financial year. One school will have claw back at the end of the financial year and may choose to appeal that claw back; this will be discussed at the July meeting.
Page 6 – sensory impairment service • Budget recommissioning – it was planned to consider the financial envelop at this meeting but this can be postponed to allow for the engagement with families and communities and development of a service which is comparable with other categories of need. This item will be brought back to the SSF in terms of savings targets in January.
Notification of any other business New schools update • Relates to a new school which was originally due to be opened in September 2017 in WSM (Educate Together Locking Parklands. This may now open in September 2018 or possibly even 2019. If it does open in 2018 this will be in temporary accommodation as the building will not ready until September 2019. 12 children expressed the school as a preference for September 2017, five of which were first preferences and they have been allocated within other schools. • The budget for the new school pre and post opening of just under £100k will not now be incurred in the 2017-18 financial year. The amount of money in the budget for predicted pupil growth was reduced and this money may be used in existing schools which are expanding. However, there may also be a saving.
Work plan • Updated work plan has been included for information.
Declaration of interest:
2
Stephen Webber declared in interest in future schools which is included in agenda item 9.
4. Chair’s Business (John Simpson) • JS reminded the SSF that a vice chair will be needed for the new school year. This will be discussed at the July meeting, when composition of the SSF will also be considered. There are implications as schools will be academies and agreement will be required between different academies about representation. No updated government guidance is expected by July so the agreement reached in July may have be reviewed when guidance is received.
5. Update on Traded Services arrangements for September 2018 (Emma Whitehead)
• EW advised this information has been received in line with previous years. However, the difference is working with a trading partner. The proposed timetable included under paragraph 7 has been put together in conjunction with Somerset County Council. • The current contract expires in March 2018 and it is not proposed that a new contract will be tendered. This is because of low numbers of schools expressing an interest in a new contract. Feedback has been that whilst schools are making decisions about which MAT to join they are not in a position to make decisions about large contracts. Some of the available resource will be used to support who would have been part of the new central contract.
• With regard to paragraph 11 further work on pooled schemes will be undertaken as this will not form part of their transfer to Somerset and the viability of the schemes is being investigated.
The SSF is recommended to: The SSF noted
a. Note the planned timelines and process for Traded Services beyond September 2018, The SSF b. Suggest any additional changes to the process that is being suggested no proposed for services beyond September 2018, changes
c. Note the work being undertaken to ascertain the sustainability The SSF noted and viability of pooled schemes from September 2018,
d. Note the decision to not procure a new school meals contract The SSF noted from April 2018.
6. Review of effectiveness criteria for informing decision making (Louise Malik)
3
• LM did not recommend any changes to criteria as these are still relevant, although the landscape has changed from when these were originally written. The context is now more around savings which might need to be made but no changes are proposed. Use of resources should be borne in mind when decisions are made. The SSF are recommended to: The SSF agreed a. Consider the effectiveness of the criteria for informing decision making and any necessary changes.
7. Development of the Specialist Provision Review (incorporating Alternative Provision) (Wendy Packer)
Recommendations a and b were discussed and then a paper was
distributed regarding recommendations c and d.
Recommendation a:
• WP advised that the SSF, SHINS and other groups had
requested that an alternative provision review be undertaken
and a SEND review has also been ongoing. These were two
separate reviews and the decision was made to streamline the
process and carry out one specialist provision review to
ensure a robust plan for the whole needs of vulnerable
children and young people. Money is available from the high
needs strategic planning fund to support the project plan
beginning with clear audit of current provision, identify gaps
and future needs, and carry out consultation with stakeholders
and then present to the SSF and the council.
• This will not be a quick process so WP advised reports will be made throughout the next academic year at different stages and by Christmas should have firm recommendation for way forward.
Recommendation b: • See statement contained under paragraph 24: The SSF to consider adoption of the statement which has been requested by schools to give reassurance.
The SSF is asked to:
• Acknowledge and agree the process for the Specialist The SSF agreed Provision Review,
• Agree the position statement on the future of specialist The SSF agreed provision in North Somerset,
• Westhaven Horizons: Use the funding agreed by the SSF for a The SSF agreed restructured form of Westhaven Horizons to continue for the (see recommendations next academic year providing an additional resource for contained in paper 7a students who are without a school place ahead of the below) 4
specialist provision review (further information to be tabled at the meeting),
• Westhaven Phoenix: Reconsider the best ways of providing The SSF agreed identified support for individuals who are at risk of losing their (see recommendations mainstream placement and who were the originally intended contained in paper 7a below) cohort for Westhaven Phoenix. An additional paper will be
presented to SSF on the 17th May with proposals for
consideration.
An additional paper 7a was distributed to the SSF and read by the members.
• WP advised that the paper has been discussed by WP and the headteacher of Westhaven School to ensure it is a robust document. It is fully endorsed by the headteacher.
Westhaven Phoenix: • Westhaven Phoenix was established to provide support where there were gaps in provision and WP offered her thanks to Westhaven for support of Phoenix and Horizons. The recommendations contained in the paper are due to requirements now, whilst awaiting results of the specialist provision review. • When the original provision was set up the intention was for a small number of pupils to come out of mainstream school for a short period and then go back into school. This arrangement did not work as other students with greater need required a place in Phoenix. There are a significant number of students to support who are close to fixed or permanent exclusions. Support is not available from the VLC and only a small number would have been provided for in Phoenix – 3 or 4 students for 2 or 3 terms at a time. Therefore, under the old model would have only serviced about 12 pupils per year. • The proposal is now to use the similar amount of funding to support the provision of an outreach team based within the Vulnerable Learners Service. This team would determine support depending on referral on an individual basis from schools. This would have a far greater effect on supporting students through ongoing support with the benefit of supporting and upskilling staff in school. It is hoped that this provision would also reduce number of pupils coming out of schools and requesting places at the VLC (which is needed for more acute placements) or looking for an out of authority placement. It is considered to be a more cost effective model.
• GL asked if this would be on an advisory teacher approach. • WP replied that this would be for inclusion workers to work alongside staff in schools. An advisory teacher has a definite role but what is required is working in tandem with the school providing additional support.
5
• The question of staffing numbers was raised as this was reduced no long ago but it now appears this request will reverting back to the status quo. • WP advised that outreach work will have a greater impact. Phoenix was short term for up to 12 pupils and in few instances this has been used as intended. This is because the support worked well when the pupil was in the setting but when placed back into school did not have strategies and skills to continue and were reverting back to their behaviours. Work in school is more habit forming in the classroom. • ND questioned where this model fits where the setting cannot cope for those challenging students; how will this team work for those students. • WP advised that this support would be at an earlier level. The out of school panel will receive requests from schools to work alongside staff. Without this proposed provision absolutely nothing is available. • JR asked how the model and the size of the proposed team had been determined. • WP advised that financial considerations had been made in order to ensure that the budget was not exceeded and look at staff who have particular skills who are currently employed so no plans for recruitment. There are some staff that are due to be made redundant in August that will now have continued employment for another 12 months. • Regarding the confidence in the proposed team to meet the needs of schools, WP advised that past experiences show that staff currently working with staff and pupils in similar manner already have the skills to develop and manage these pupils.
• Budget – staffing costs based on rates of pay for those
particular roles which fit within the existing Westhaven
Phoenix budget. If the Phoenix provision had continued the
same or less amount of money would have been used.
• The focus can be on any age group.
• GL advised that he would consider it unusual if a secondary school did not to have the expertise already in place and asked if the money could be used to train existing staff in schools. • WP advised that the team would be drawn from staff at risk of redundancy. The proposal is for a period of one year (awaiting outcomes of the specialist provision review). Therefore, these staff would be at risk of redundancy in 12 months’ time. • LM advised that redundancy for these staff at risk is funded by de-delegation and SS4L which has been built into budget projections. The proposal could save this money or postpone it if the SSF agrees to the recommendations. • PW asked what happens if the demand is higher than the budget available. • WP advised that the budget will not be exceeded as only those staff specified will be employed. The proposal should meet a greater demand than the current arrangements for
6
Westhaven Phoenix. The proposed team will meet whatever requested and any shortfall will inform the specialist provision review. • SR asked what the proposed outcomes for staff will be as there is always the risk of losing these staff to other providers. • We cannot legislate for permanent job offers being made; the need is to fill the gap to support children and schools at the moment. • WP advised that this proposal has been brought to the SSF principally as a result of the need to make decisions which are right for young people’s needs and that is why this proposed model is considered to be better than the current model. Staff redundancy is not a high consideration. • GL asked if this model addresses the need of out of school panel and whether schools should be asked to commit to the staff training programme so that the same work is not repeated later on in another class in the same school. • This proposal would be upskilling staff at same time, transferring knowledge to staff in school in order they can go forward with support. • LM asked if the proposed team can carry out this support and upskilling at the same time. • WP advised that the reintegration worker HLTA will be used to provide support and training capacity to work alongside school staff. The specialist provision review will be signed off before any future proposals and decisions are required. This proposal is an approach prior to pupils needing places at the VLC and to support schools in order to prevent pupils coming out of mainstream education.
• JS advised that if the SSF do not agree the recommendations
redundancy notices will need to be issued before the next SSF
meeting. This is one year provision with review in 12 months.
• Staff will be at risk of redundancy if the proposal is not agreed,
although they could be redeployed into alternative roles. If the
proposal is not supported, there will be an underspend and a
bigger gap in provision to which the out of school panel will not
be able to respond.
Recommendation: The SSF agreed a. To cease the provision of Westhaven Phoenix at the end of 8 in favour this academic year. (The school have informed us that there 0 against will be no redundancy costs for the closure of this provision.) 0 abstentions b. To use the funding agreed for the continuation of this provision for a further year, redesignated to support the provision of a The SSF agreed small multi-disciplinary team based within the Vulnerable recommendations Learners Service (VLS) to support schools through outreach b, c, d, e, f, g & h work, following a similar model to the highly effective VLS 8 in favour Enhanced Provision for Social Communication Needs. 0 against c. The proposal is to create a school placement support team to 0 abstentions minimise the need for alternative provision / out of authority placements and reduce the number of fixed term and
7
permanent exclusions. It is proposed that this team will also incorporate the staff delivering the traded service for advisory teacher support for social, emotional and mental health. d. The proposed team with costings is detailed below:
FTE Grade SCP Cost £ Inclusion Worker 1.2 TTO JG5 26 30,818
HLTA 1 TTO JG6 29 29,450
Re-integration Worker 1 TTO JG6 27 27,356 Teacher 1 TTO UPS3 2B 54,710 Total Staffing 4.2 142,334 Travel 4,000 Resources 2,000
Total 148,334
e. The budget available for this provision is £180,000. There is also income from the traded element of the service which is estimated at £35,000. This provides total funding of £215,000. This proposal therefore provides a reduction in cost of £66,666. This saving is proposed to be used, in part, to support the proposals to replace Westhaven Horizons. f. Clear criteria to be agreed upon, which identifies the students eligible for this intervention to be those at risk of placement break down e.g. involvement from VLS or other professionals within the last 6 months; recent and relevant training for key staff working with the child on managing behaviour/
attachment etc. g. The Out of School Panel to receive referrals for this service
and to allocate according to the agreed criteria which will include proposed outcomes and a time limit on the referral. h. This proposal would be for one academic year whilst we await the outcomes of the Specialist Provision Review.
Westhaven Horizons:
• The proposal is to close the existing provision and use the
funding to develop bespoke education packages.
• Differentiation between this and the VLC as these are students who have come out of VLC or are awaiting outcomes of EHCPs. They may require specialist provision which could be out of area and expensive, or require reintegration back into mainstream. • One reason why Phoenix didn’t work as identified students who required placements but level of support meant they could not go to the VLC and needed to carry out assessment whilst there. • Due to support from Westhaven students could be reintegration back into mainstream school. At same time group of students with EHCPs under current model need specialist school provision and no specialist school provision is
8
available. Local neighbours are full and those with residential placements are full. • Of the other provision which is available the provision cost could be as high as £50k+ per child plus transport. There is no wish to educate out of authority. • Currently there are 6 pupils who require placement, 2 mainstream. If North Somerset do not provide bespoke provision these pupils will be out of education. It is not appropriate due to level of need to place them in the VLC. They would not be able to cope with full time education provision and need part time due to their level of need. Occasionally due to nature of their need pupils have to come out of the VLC. Whilst the outcome of the specialist provision/SEND review is awaited, we will need to support them and those who will come out of mainstream education during the year. It is not appropriate to place them in special school or full time in mainstream school.
Westhaven Horizons recommendations:
a. Westhaven Horizons to cease at the end of this academic The SSF agreed year. (The school have informed us that there will be no 8 in favour redundancy costs for the closure of this provision). 0 against b. Establish the Pathways unit for one year to operate from the 0 abstentions
Westhaven site. The SSF agreed c. The proposed staffing for this provision to consist of 2 recommendations teachers, 2 re-engagement workers and 2 teaching assistants. b, c & d These staff would be employed by Westhaven School. It is 8 in favour envisaged that the identification for re-integration into another 0 against setting would be co-ordinated by a LA officer. There would 0 abstentions also be access to Educational Psychologists (EPs) as per the current arrangement with SSF. This is 0.5 fte currently funded through the Phoenix provision and would be part of the requested funding for the new team. d. The 3 students currently being supported at Westhaven Phoenix for whom there is no immediate mainstream or special school provision, plus a further 3 known primary
student whose are undergoing an EHCP assessment and are
currently being supported by individual bespoke packages to
form the first cohort. e. The focus will be on short term placements, whilst appropriate education is being established.
8. Plans for consultation in relation to Early Years (Emma Whitehead)
• Early Years changes for providers making decisions to provide extension to 30 hours per week of funded childcare or not. • A bid was submitted and was successful to streamline the process for providers to submit their data to the LA through a
9
new electronic system. The process would make it possible to provide real-time funding and enable increases and decreases in the hours taken up to be reflected. • A consultation with providers will be undertaken to consult on change/impact.
Agree to recommendation b for consultation with decision in July.
The SSF is recommended to:
a. Note the report, The SSF noted
b. Agree in principle with the proposals for early years funding The SSF agreed detailed in paragraphs 1-10 and Appendix A and to consult with local providers, The SSF agreed c. Agree for the final decision to be made at the next SSF meeting on 5th July 2017. 9. 2016-17 Schools Budget Monitoring (Louise Malik)
• Accounting requirements are changing with earlier deadline for accounts to be closed. This would previously have been a
projection but, due to timescales, this is likely to be the final position. Figures are anticipated to remain as they are. • Some additional information which would normally come with monitoring report, such as out of authority or monthly top up spend, is not included due to the earlier deadlines. The outturn report will be available in July which will include this information but is not expected to be different. • Figures are relatively similar to what is expected overall but with some individual differences. Redundancy costs which are being charged to school budget were expected to be charged during 2017-18 financial year, due to the Learning Exchange
and SS4L services ceasing, have had to be charged in 2016- 17. • The cost of redundancy is incurred in the year in which decision made and not in the year payments are made. The redundancy costs for the Learning Exchange were charged to the 2016-17 financial year but estimated costs set aside in the
2017-18 budget. New rules regarding the cap on redundancy packages are due to come into effect in the 2017-18 financial year but could not be reflected in the cost charged in 2016-17. Any savings in the actual cost will accrue in 2017-18..
Recommendation f: • De-delegations is money from maintained primary and secondary schools (not special schools) to create pool for those schools to access. If there is an underspend/overspend this is earmarked to schools who contributed and is carried forward year on year unless it is material. In the 2017-18
financial year the number of de-delegated services has reduced. It would be wrong to carry forward large overspend
10
as pool of contributing schools will be reduced as conversion to academies takes place. It was proposed to make an additional charge to maintained schools for the overspend including, proportionately, schools who converted during the year. Schools were advised of this proposal but this was not acted upon. • Future schools de-delegation ended on 31 March. There are however a couple of schools still working with future schools
exploring options ahead of academy conversion, i.e. headteacher vacancies, etc. It is proposed that the SSF agree a £20k carry forward to enable this to carry on. The budget has been adjusted to include this figure. • JR asked how many schools this affected. • LM advised that this affects three schools.
Recommendation g: • It is proposed to action the adjustment proposed in October to now charge the schools for the de-delegations overspend. More information will be available in July about redundancy costs so schools will be advised that there could be a further
charge. This would be proportionate according to the time they were still a maintained school. • A monitoring report will be available for the July SSF meeting for the 2017-18 financial year. • Moderation for top up funding for next year has recently been undertaken and figures show an increase. Work will be undertaken before the next meeting to look at implications for the SSF to consider.
The SSF is asked to: The SSF agreed a. Agree the proposed changes to the schools budget as detailed in Appendix A, The SSF noted b. Note the projected outturn overspend in the schools budget for 2016-17 of £1,763,391 (£1,764,655 in the March monitoring report) as detailed in Appendix B and consider any questions, The SSF noted c. Note that after taking into consideration earmarked overspends (such as de-delegations) the actual overspend that will impact on the 2017-18 financial year is £1,707,601 (£1,748,601 in the March monitoring report), The SSF noted d. Note that the cost of redundancies has been charged to the schools budget in the 2016-17 financial year rather than the 2017-18 financial year as anticipated, The SSF noted e. Note the projected overspend on de-delegated services for 2016-17 of £102,333 (£42,472 in the March monitoring report), excl. rates, as detailed in Appendix B and consider any questions,
11
f. Agree to enable spending of up to £20k from de-delegations in The SSF agreed the 2017-18 financial year to support the conclusion of Future Schools work as detailed in paragraph 14,
g. Action the originally proposed adjustment due to the The SSF agreed overspend on de-delegations in the new financial year as detailed in paragraph 16 & 17,
h. Reconsider the recovery of the remaining de-delegations The SSF will overspend estimated at £36,335 at the meeting in July when consider at the July further information about redundancy costs and costs for meeting continuing future school work, etc, is completed as detailed in paragraph 17,
i. Note the funds committed for use in 2016-17 as detailed in The SSF noted paragraph 18.
10. Impact Reports (a) The Learning Exchange (Louise Malik)
• This will be the last report produced as the Learning Exchange will close at the end of term 6. • The report includes a summary of activity and results, together with Ofsted ratings. • The information regarding the Education Excellence Partnership Board is included for information as this will the way forward for school improvement in the future.
The SSF is recommended to:
a. Note the evidence of impact contained within the report. The SSF noted
12. Evaluation of Meeting
• It was noted that the proposals regarding the future of Westhaven Phoenix and Horizons did not give the SSF any alternative option so they didn’t really have a decision to make. The views of the SSF members were sought regarding any future agenda which indicates a shorter than usual meeting. Should the decision be taken to cancel it, meet with the short agenda, carry over items to the next meeting, or correspond with members by email? • The view was that it was important to meet to keep the momentum. • It was felt that it is easier to understand agenda items and to ask questions in a meeting.
14. Date of next meeting
5 July 2017 at Bournville School
12
Strategic Schools Forum -4 5 July 2017
Agenda Item No.: 5
Strategic Schools Forum Membership
Louise Malik
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
Introduction
1. The membership of the schools forum is determined by the Schools Forum Regulations with the main measure being the number of students in different types of school settings. The Schools Forum operational and good practice guide contains more details of the regulations governing the SSF.
2. The membership of the SSF is reviewed annually at the beginning of the academic year to take into account the change in status of schools and pupil numbers. The SSF have agreed to review representation in order to ensure that the group remains representative as more schools convert to academy status as part of a Multi Academy Trust.
Purpose of the Report
3. The purpose of the report is to:
a. Provide details of the current and proposed SSF members for the upcoming academic year,
b. Update the SSF Constitution and Remit to ensure fair and equitable representation,
c. Review the initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSF and consider changes and actions.
Recommendations
4. The SSF is recommended to:
a. Agree that the membership of the SSF is amended to reflect the change in status of schools from maintained to academy status as detailed in paragraphs 10, 13 and 14,
b. Update the membership in September 2018 to reflect further academy conversions during the 2017-18 academic year as detailed in paragraph 8.
c. Agree the proposed changes to the constitution and remit of the SSF as detailed in paragraph 15 and Appendix B,
d. Consider the initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSF and agree the proposed actions as detailed in paragraph 16 and Appendix C.
Detail
5. Under the Schools Forum Regulations the SSF is required to have voting school representatives from the following sectors where a school/setting exists within the Local Authority:
a. Maintained primary b. Maintained secondary - 1 -
c. Maintained special d. Maintained pupil referral unit e. Academies f. Early years provider
6. As at October 2016, pupils in schools were distributed as follows within North Somerset:
Current No. of reps if Pupils (Places for Phase Percentage School based on SP/PRU) at October 16. Reps Percentage
Primary 16,771 60.26% 6 7.83 Secondary 10,712 38.49% 5 5.00 Special 270 0.97% 1 0.12 PRU 80 0.29% 1 0.03 Total 27,833 13
7. At April 2017 59% of pupils in North Somerset are in academies. This would equate to 7 representatives from academies (rounded down).
8. Academy Orders have been received for two more multi academy trusts to be established in North Somerset with six schools in each. The target dates for the conversion of these schools is September 2017 and, whilst the conversion for these schools could happen slightly later than this, it is proposed that these conversions are reflected in the proposed make up of the SSF for the 2017-18 academic year. Incorporating these conversions 74% of pupils in North Somerset will be in academies. This would equate to 9 representatives from academies (rounded down). Further academy conversions are expected during the academic year but it is proposed to update the membership to reflect this in September 2018.
9. If academy representation was to be split proportionally between primary and secondary, this would lead to 4 primary academy representatives, and 5 secondary academy representatives.
10. Following the change in pupil numbers, and school status, it is recommended the SSF amends the constitution to allow for the following school members:
Representatives Current Reps Proposed Reps Maintained Primary Headteacher 2 1 Maintained Primary Governor 2 1 Maintained Secondary 0 0 Maintained Special 1 1 Maintained PRU 1 1 Academy Members 7 9 4 Primary and 5 Secondary
11. There is no requirement for academies members to be split into primary and secondary representatives or for this to be specifically split between Headteachers, Governors or other roles.
12. The regulations also state: - 2 -
“…it is for the proprietors of academies within each of these sub-groups to elect their representatives. It is not appropriate, therefore, for headteacher phase groups to determine representation unless the academy proprietors have agreed and even then the voting would need to exclude maintained school representatives.”
13. Whilst the LA is not allowed to direct how academies elect their representatives Officers would like to recommend the following for inclusion in the SSF Constitution and Remit:
a. Academy representation should be in proportion to the number of pupils in academies in the primary and secondary sector. A representative from specialist providers must also be incorporated once all specialist providers have converted to academy status,
b. There should be no more than one representative from each Multi Academy Trust in North Somerset,
c. Academy representatives should be selected annually through the Education Excellence Partnership Board. This board incorporates all multi academy trusts with more than one school in North Somerset,
d. Academy representation should include both Senior Leaders and Trustees/Governors
14. Attached as Appendix A is a list of the current SSF members (updated for known changes) which highlights areas where change is required and where there are vacancies. The proposed changes to the SSF membership are detailed below:
a. A Secondary Academy Governor representative is at end of 2nd term and therefore needs to be replaced. It is recommended that there be a like for like replacement,
b. An additional Secondary Academy representative is required. It is recommended that a Business Manager/Chief Operating Officer replacement is sought,
c. A Secondary and a Primary Academy representative both form part of the Lighthouse Schools Partnership. It is recommended that one of these representatives is asked to resign from the SSF and is replaced like for like from another multi or single academy trust,
d. Three additional Primary Academy representatives are required. It is recommended that at least one of these should be a Headteacher and at least one a Governor/Trustee,
e. A Maintained Primary Headteacher representative is at end of 2nd term and therefore needs to be replaced. It is recommended that there be a like for like replacement,
- 3 -
f. There are currently two maintained Primary School Governor representatives but only one is required moving forwards. It is recommended that, in the first instance, both of the current reps are asked to consider resigning from the SSF.
15. An updated version of the Constitution and Remit is attached as Appendix B. The SSF are asked to consider the proposed changes and any further changes that are required.
16. The DfE have produced a toolkit to assess the efficiency of the schools forum. This toolkit has been completed by LA Officers and is attached as Appendix C. The SSF are asked to review the LA’s assessment and comment.
17. The review of the efficiency toolkit by LA officers has generated a number of proposed actions as detailed below. The SSF are asked to consider and agree or amend the proposed actions detailed below:
The SSF are recommended to request commitment from Officers to:
a. Issue papers in line with good practice (at least six working days before the meeting) wherever possible,
b. Issue minutes within three schools weeks of the SSF meeting,
c. Formalise induction arrangements for new members and report arrangements back to the SSF,
d. Update name places to detail who attendees are representing,
e. Provide and annual review, highlighting and changes, of the School Forum Regulations.
- 4 - Appendix A Strategic Schools Forum Membership for September 2017 Updated July 2017
Term Voting rights of Term of Offic Office Name Category Address e End Start Date Date Schools Members x13 Academy Representatives x 9 Alan Leonard Clevedon The Old Thatch, Hill Lane, Weston-in-Gordano, BS20 8PY May July 17 Full (except de- Secondary Tel: 01275 842 647 Mobile: 07976 220 107 11 End of 2nd delegations and Community consecutiv Scheme for E-mail : [email protected] e term Governor, Financing Schools) Clevedon Learning Trust
Jacci Backwell Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare, BS23 1UJ July July 18 Ramplin School Tel : 01934 634 648 15 Academy E-mail: [email protected] Governor
Chris Hildrew Academy Head Churchill Academy & Sixth Form, Church Green, Churchill, Dec July 18 BS25 5QN Churchill 16 Academy and Tel: 01934 852771 Sixth Form E-Mail: [email protected]
Gary Lewis Academy Chief Gordano School, St. Mary's Road, Portishead, BS20 7QR Oct July 20 14 nd Executive Tel: 01275 842 606 End of 2 Officer, consecutiv Lighthouse E-Mail: [email protected] e term - 1 - Appendix A Term Voting rights of Term of Offic Office Name Category Address e End Start Date Date Schools Partnership
Vacant Academy representative – Secondary Richard Primary Portishead Primary School, Station Road, Portishead, BS20 Oct July 21 Riordan Academy 7DB 15 End of 2nd Headteacher consecutiv Tel: 01275 843360 e term Portishead E-mail: [email protected] Primary, Lighthouse Schools Partnership Vacant Academy At least one of which should be a Headteacher and at least one representative a governor/trustee – Primary Vacant Academy representative – Primary
Vacant Academy representative – Primary
- 2 - Appendix A Term Voting rights of Term of Offic Office Name Category Address e End Start Date Date Maintained Schools Headteachers x 3 (1 Primary, 1 Special, 1 PRU) Stephen Primary Head All Saints East Clevedon Church of England Primary, All Saints Dec July 17 Full Webber Small School Lane, Clevedon, BS21 6AU 11 End of 2nd Tel: 01275 874 169 consecutiv All Saints e term Primary E-mail: [email protected] Tracy Towler Special Head Ellesmere Road, Uphill, Weston-super-Mare BS23 4UT Jan July 19 Full (except de- (SENS) Tel: 01934 632171 17 delegations) Westhaven E-mail: [email protected] School Nick Donnelly Principal, Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare, BS23 1UJ Oct N/A Voyage Tel: 01934 426 400 Ext 6669 11 Learning Campus E-Mail : [email protected] Maintained Schools Governors x 1 (Primary) Denise Hunt Becket Primary 100 Azalea Road, Wick St Lawrence, Weston Super Mare May July 19 Full Tel: 01934 510 012 work 01179 037847 mobile 07837 966 Maintained 13 End of 2nd Primary 894 consecutiv Governor E-mail: [email protected] e term Philip Pughe- Worle Village 11 Laurel Drive, Uphill, Weston Super Mare, BS23 4SN Dec July 21 Morgan Primary 15 End of 2nd Telephone: 01934 249232 consecutiv Maintained Email: [email protected] e term Primary Governor
- 3 - Appendix A Term Voting rights of Term of Offic Office Name Category Address e End Start Date Date Non-Schools Members x6 John Independent Woodlands, Off New Road, Churchill, BS25 5NR May July 20 None Simpson Community Tel: 01934 853739 Mob: 07989 348203 14 End of 2nd Representative E-mail: [email protected] consecutiv , e term CHAIR Jon RTPA Nailsea School, Mizzymead Road, Nailsea, BS48 2HN April July 19 None Reddiford Tel: 07776 232 349 13 End of 2nd consecutiv E-mail: [email protected] e term
Cllr Jan Executive Tel: Mob: N/A N/A None but carries delegated decision making Barber Member for E-mail: [email protected] Children and powers for the Council Young People’s Services Cllr Ann Chair of CYP High Trees, 86 Sandford Road, Winscombe, BS25 1JJ N/A N/A None Harley Policy and Tel: 01934 842 069 Mob: 07788 716 532 Scrutiny Panel E-mail: [email protected]
Claire Diocese of Bath & Wells Diocese, The Old Deanery, Wells, BA5 2UG July N/A None Hudson Bath & Wells Tel: 01749 670 777 15 E-mail: [email protected] Phil Weston Early Years Oct July 20 Full (except de- Tel: 07802 466619 14 delegations)
- 4 - Appendix A Term Voting rights of Term of Offic Office Name Category Address e End Start Date Date full day care E-mail: [email protected] End of 2nd consecutiv sector e term Dr Paul Post-16 Weston College, Knightstone Road, Weston-super-Mare, BS23 May N/A Full Phillips or 2AL 08 (except de- representativ Tel: 01934 411 447 delegations,Schem e E-mail: [email protected] e for Financing Schools & formula) Observers Mike Evans Special School Ravenswood School (CoG) N/A N/A None Governor E-mail : [email protected]
Vacant Early Years N/A N/A None Provider
CC for Info Sheila Smith Director of Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare, BS23 1UJ N/A N/A People and Tel : 01934 888 891 Communities Email: [email protected] Becki Wong PA to the Weston College, Knightstone Road, Weston-super-Mare N/A N/A Principalship Tel: 01934 411 407 E-mail: [email protected]
- 5 - Appendix A Eifion Price NSC Assistant Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare, BS23 1UJ N/A N/A Director
Louise Malik Education Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare, BS23 1UJ N/A N/A Transformation
Co-ordinator Emma Whitehead Education Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare, BS23 1UJ N/A N/A Funding & Tel: 01934 426 407 Traded Services E-mail: [email protected] Manager
Clerk Jane Norris Senior Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare, BS23 1UJ N/A N/A Business Tel: 01934 427 581 Support Administrator E-mail: [email protected]
- 6 - Appendix B
SSF Constitution and Remit July 2017
PREAMBLE
Schools Forums are governed by Statutory Instrument 2012 No. 2261: The School Forums (England) Regulations 2012. The Department for Education also provides guidance on School Forums - “Operational and Good Practice Guidance” .
The Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) in North Somerset acts as the Authority’s School Forum within the wider remit accorded it by the Authority. This wider remit is set out below.
Schools and Academies are represented on SSF proportional to their pupil numbers within North Somerset.
THE CONSTITUTION
The membership of the SSF will consist of thirteen school members and six non-school members as listed:
⇒ three one Maintained Primary Headteacher representatives (Voting) ⇒ three one Maintained Primary Governor representatives (Voting) ⇒ one Special School Headteacher or Governor representative (Voting) ⇒ two nine Academy Headteacher or Governor/Trustee representatives (Voting) – four Primary and five Secondary ⇒ two Academy Governor representatives (Voting) ⇒ one Pupil Referral Unit representative (Voting)
⇒ Community Representative - Chair (Non-voting) ⇒ one Diocesan member (Non-voting) ⇒ one representative of the Teachers’ Professional Associations (RTPA) (Non-voting) ⇒ one representative of Early Years PVI providers (Voting) ⇒ one 16-19 Provider representative (Voting) ⇒ Chair of Children & Young People’s Policy & Scrutiny Panel (Non-voting)
1. Academy representation should be in proportion to the number of pupils in academies in the primary and secondary sector. A representative from specialist providers must also be incorporated once all specialist providers have converted to academy status,
2. There should be no more than one representative from each Multi Academy Trust in North Somerset,
3. Academy representatives should be selected annually through the Education Excellence Partnership Board,
4. Academy representation should include both Senior Leaders and Trustees/Governors
In Attendance
1. The Director of Children and Young People’s Services or his/her nominee and the Executive Member for Children & Young People will normally attend meetings. Other Officers of North Somerset Children & Young People’s Services shall attend as requested.
Elections
1. The Headteacher, Governor, RTPA, Early Years PVI Provider, PRU and 16-19 Provider members of SSF will be elected by their respective associations where appropriate. Academy representatives will be elected by the Governing Bodies of schools with this statusproprietors of academies in the Local Authority area. In the case of the RTPA representative, he/she must not be an employee of the Authority with a role in the strategic resource management of the Authority. 2. The Diocesan member will be determined by the Diocese of Bath and Wells and the Diocese of Clifton. It could be a representative from a VA school. Chair
1. The Chair, a community representative will be appointed by members of the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) as part of a formal recruitment process. 2. The Chair will represent the SSF to or at other agencies such as Scrutiny Panels as and when required. 3. The Chair may not be an Elected Member or Officer of the Authority.
Vice-Chair
1. The Vice-Chair shall be elected by members of the SSF. 2. The election shall take place at the start of the meeting following the retirement or resignation of the Vice Chair. 3. The results of the vote and the subsequent election of the Chair will be announced at the meeting. In case of a tie, the vote will take place at the meeting. 4. The election shall be conducted by members of the SSF and each member of the SSF shall have one vote.
5. The Vice-Chair will perform the duties of the Chair in the Chair’s absence.
6. In the event of the Vice Chair chairing the meeting, s/he will adopt the role of the independent community representative and be non-voting. If there is sufficient notice, a substitute from the group represented by the Vice Chair, in their substantive role, should be invited to attend in order to cast any vote.
Period of Office
1. The period of office for Headteacher, Governor, Academy, RTPA, Early Years PVI Provider, PRU and 16-19 Provider members and Chair is three years where applicable. 2. Diocesan members shall serve for the duration of their nomination, but it is recommended that this follow the three-year rule. 3. The Chair of CYPS Policy and Scrutiny Panel shall serve for the duration of their nomination. 4. Appointments will usually begin from the start of the academic year. 5. Appointment for a second three-year term of office is possible. 6. When a member’s status as Headteacher, Governor, Academy, RTPA, Early Years PVI Provider, PRU and 16-19 Provider member changes, the member must stand down unless he or she has transferred to a similar position within North Somerset. 7. Should a member of the SSF be appointed or elected to a post with a role in the strategic resource management of the Authority, he/she shall be required to stand down. 8. Where a vacancy occurs, there shall be a new appointment until the end of that academic year plus two further years 9. After two consecutive terms of office, of any length, the same person may not be re- appointed to membership of the SSF until after a one-year gap. 10. In the event of no member of a constituency standing for nomination, the Chair may obtain agreement from the SSF members to co-opt an appropriate person.
Non-attendance
1. If a member is not in attendance for three consecutive meetings, the Chair shall ascertain the reasons and take Chair’s action to consult with the relevant constituency regarding a replacement.
Substitutes
1. Where an SSF member is unable to attend the meeting, he/she may draw to the attention of the Clerk or the Chair, 48 hours in advance, a substitute who is attending from his/her constituency. 2. North Somerset SSF has opted for a named substitute per voting member (Principal, Deputy Headteacher, Bursar or other person responsible for the financial management of the school, Academy or PVI). This information should be supplied to the clerk. 3. In the event of a matter regarding funding being put to a vote, the substitute, if representing a group eligible to vote on funding will have a vote.
Observers
1. The meetings of the SSF are open meetings and members of the public may attend as observers. Observers are requested to notify the Chair of their intention to attend one week before a meeting so as to ensure a suitably sized room is arranged for the meeting. 2. Observers may take part in the meeting with the permission of the Chair. The Chair’s decision will be final. 3. Members of the SSF may request the Chair to exclude observers from discussion of confidential items. Such items shall be clearly indicated in advance on the Agenda for the meeting. Papers relating to such items shall be submitted on coloured paper to be labelled confidential. 4. In the event of a matter being put to a vote, observers will not have a vote.
Organisation of Meetings
1. Normally, the SSF will meet five six times per year. 2. Dates of meetings of the SSF shall be agreed with the membership annually in December for at least the next academic year. 3. Extra-ordinary meetings of the SSF may be called by the Chair or by 40% of its membership. 4. The quorum for a meeting will be 40% of the SSF membership with voting rights. 5. The agenda will be constructed to clearly distinguish between reports which are for information and those which require a decision.
6. All report authors are asked use the templates specified by the SSF and, where relevant, include a consideration of the following issues in the “detail” section of their reports: • A summary of the outcome of any consultations to include number of responders and main issues raised; • Any equalities related considerations; • Any benchmarking data which compares North Somerset with its statistical neighbours and England; • Evidence of impact on outcomes for children and young people; • When a report requests additional resources be allocated to address a particular issue, a clear analysis of why this new demand has arisen; what other options (rather than increasing resources) have been considered to address it; and how sustainable the proposed solution is likely to be.
7. Where visitors are invited to present reports which require a decision, they will usually be asked to sit at a “visitors table” and, due to their interest in the paper, to leave the room after members have asked any relevant questions or sought any clarification. They will be invited back to the meeting to be informed of any decision taken after the meeting.
8. Members must declare any interest associated with any item under discussion related directly to the organisation they represent. When a SSF member declares an interest, they will not be allowed to vote on the matter to which the interest relates. The SSF may, at its discretion and using the test of reasonableness, decide that a voting member who has declared an interest should leave the room for part of the debate on the matter to which the conflict relates.
9. Members are asked to indicate their wish to contribute to a debate or ask a question by raising their hand and waiting to be called by the chair.
10. At the end of each meeting, members will be asked to comment on what went well and what could have been improved.
11. Minutes will be posted on the SSF page of the North Somerset Website once they have been approved at the subsequent SSF meeting.
12. Costs of the Forum will be charged to the Schools’ Budget. 13. The Authority shall pay what it deems to be reasonable expenses of members of the SSF in connection with their attendance at meetings.
Voting
1. The SSF will endeavour as part of its mission to serve North Somerset to avoid the need for matters to be put to a vote.
2. Only primary representatives can vote on primary school de-delegation. Only secondary representatives can vote on secondary school de-delegation. All schools members can vote on the scheme for financing schools. All schools members, academy members and the PVI representative can vote on any other Schools Forum business including the consultation on the funding formula. Non-school members can vote on any other Schools Forum business excluding the consultation on the funding formula.
3. In the case of a tied vote the Executive Member for Children and Young People will take the casting vote.
Urgent Business
1. Should urgent business requiring action be required between meetings, the Chair shall contact all members by email. The Chair may then give the Authority a decision based upon the responses received. This shall be fully reported to the next meeting of the SSF.
Visits
1. All members are encouraged to take part in visits to education providers. The aim of such visits is to enable members to gain, at first hand, a provider’s perspective on the issues they face. This will, in turn, assist informed decision making. Hosts will be sent information about the work of SFF and the purpose of visits in advance. Visitors
will be invited to submit their thoughts arising from the visits, either on the structure of the visit or the matters discussed, to the SSF chair.
THE REMIT
1. This remit is based upon guidance on the SSF and Schools Forums and may change by the revision of:
⇒ The School Forums (England) Regulations 2012 ⇒ Operational and Good Practice Guidance
2. The Local authority, through the right to attend and advise the forum of the Executive Member for Children and Young People, has delegated the following responsibilities to the SSF:
⇒ Proposing and deciding on formula changes (including redistributions) ⇒ Proposing contracts for supplies and services ⇒ Consulting on financial issues, in particular: ⇒ arrangements for SEN ⇒ arrangements for use of PRUs and EOTAS ⇒ arrangements for Early Years ⇒ revisions to Scheme for Financing Schools ⇒ administrative arrangements for allocating Government Grants for schools ⇒ Agreeing any exclusions from the minimum funding guarantee for application to the DfE ⇒ Deciding the length of office of SSF members
3. The SSF is where North Somerset in partnership:
⇒ develops and maintains its vision for learning ⇒ prioritises the use of the Schools Budget to support the needs of children and young people ⇒ agrees the distribution of resources ⇒ monitors the impact of the use of the Schools Budget on children and young people
This partnership is one which seeks to support the Children and Families Partnership Plan and works closely with the North Somerset Partnership.
4. The decisions, recommendations and advice given by the SSF will be minuted for the attention and action of Officers and Executive Members as appropriate, who shall report to the SSF on what actions have been taken as a result.
Appendix C
Schools forum self-assessment toolkit
This toolkit provides local authority officers and elected members with a framework for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their schools forum. The toolkit is designed as a set of questions which can be considered by individuals or the forum as a whole.
Question Yes / No Notes 1. Are meeting dates set in well Yes advance and details (including time and venue) published in an accessible manner to enable interested parties to plan their attendance?
2. Are meetings timed to coincide with Yes key dates? (e.g. reporting of funding formula) 3. Are meetings held in an accessible Yes venue to enable observers to attend easily? 4. Is there a dedicated website link for Yes schools forum, is it current and regularly updated?
5. Are the agenda and papers publicly Sometimes Sometimes papers are issued within 6 available on the authority’s website at working days of the meeting least 6 working days in advance of the meeting? 6. Are the papers published as a single Yes Recent practice has been to make document, so that users can individual documents and an overall download easily? PDF available 7. If papers are tabled at the meeting, Yes are they published on the website promptly after the meeting?
8. Are draft minutes published a No Minutes tend to be provided with the reasonable time (e.g. within 2-3 papers for the next meeting weeks) after the meeting, rather than waiting until the following meeting?
Published: March 2015 Question Yes / No Notes 9. Are the minutes clear and Yes unambiguous, with sufficient detail to illustrate the discussions, without reporting verbatim every point made? 10. Is the constitution clear and Yes appropriate? Including eg - a clear process for ensuring proportional representation - the process for electing members and their tenure - the timescale for review is clearly set out - the process for dealing with repetitive non attenders
11. Is there an induction pack or training No Some standard information is available programme available for new for new members. Support is provided members? to new members on an individual basis 12. Is the election process clear and Yes transparent? i.e. representatives are elected only by the group they are representing, whether phase-specific for maintained schools, or by the proprietors of academies for academy members. 13. Do the papers contain clear Yes recommendations and indicate in a consistent manner whether the item is for information, consultation or decision? 14. Is it clear to observers who attendees No Name plates do not record what sector at the forum are representing? (eg by the member is representing. Voting use of name plates, indicating sector) cards provide clarity when voting is required
15. Does the chair manage the meeting Yes well, ensuring that all are able to contribute to the agenda items, that no bias towards any sector is evident and that no single person or organisation is able to dominate the discussion? 16. Is there inclusive participation in Yes discussions for all phases and types of members?
2 Question Yes / No Notes 17. Do members actively canvass views Yes However this is an area that could be and objectively represent their whole improved peer group at the forum and provide feed back after meetings? 18. Where votes are required, is it clear Yes Voting cards are used for this purpose who is eligible to vote for different items? 19. Where votes are required, are the Yes arrangements for recording the votes clear and unambiguous?
20. Is there a system in place for a Yes This has been put in operation but now decision if votes are tied? proposed to be included in the constitution
21. Is the operational & good practice Yes By LA officers but not by forum guide used to regularly review the members forum’s adherence to good practice?
© Crown copyright March 2015
3 Strategic Schools Forum -4 5 July 2017
Agenda Item No. 6
2016-17 Outturn Report and Impact of DSG Under/Overspend, Including School Balances
Louise Malik
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
Introduction
1) The authority’s accounts have been finalised for the 2016-17 financial year.
Purpose of the Report
2) The purpose of the report is to inform the SSF of the outturn of the Schools Budget for 2016-17, end of year school balances and any implications for 2017-18.
Recommendations
3) The SSF is asked to:
a. Note the overspend on the schools budget in 2016-17 (paragraphs 5 & 6),
b. Recoup the full overspend on de-delegated services of £95,915 from those schools that were maintained schools in 2016-17 (paragraph 11i and Appendix D),
c. Review the recovery plan for the overspend at the end of the 2016-17 financial year in October 2017 in light of the outcome of the national fair funding proposals and the projected under or overspend in the 2017-18 financial year (paragraph 13),
d. Note the implications of the outturn on the budget for 2017-18 (paragraph 5) and to receive regular monitoring reports, the first one at the July meeting,
e. Note the level of school balances (paragraph 15 and Appendix E),
f. Agree that Hutton Primary School should be able to retain their excess balance as requested (paragraph 22 and Appendices G & Ga),
g. Note the overspend in the children’s services element of the People and Communities budget (paragraph 29).
Detail
Schools Budget - Overall Position
4) The SSF has received regular monitoring reports on the schools budget. The last report, in May, identified the following estimated year end position:
a. A projected outturn overspend in the schools budget for 2016-17 of £1,763,391,
b. That after taking into consideration earmarked overspends (such as de-delegations) the actual overspend that will impact on the 2017-18 financial year is £1,707,601,
c. Note the projected overspend on de-delegated services for 2016-17 of £102,333. This is included in the figures detailed above
5) The actual outturn position of the schools budget is an overspend of £1,762,943, £448 lower than the projection in May. Full details of the outturn position are provided in
- 1
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc
Appendix A. The underspend is made up of the £446,216 overspend from the 2015-16 financial year and an in year overspend for the 2016-17 financial year of £1,316,727.
6) In addition to the overspend of £1,762,943 at the end of the 2016-17 financial year, a further £20,125 is committed for projects that will be completed in the 2017-18 financial year whilst £75,915 is the earmarked overspend on de-delegated services (£26,418 underspend from 2015-16 & £102,333 overspend from 2016-17) which will be recovered from maintained mainstream schools. As a result the overspend that will impact on the 2017-18 financial year is £1,707,153. This compares to the estimate in May of £1,707,601 as detailed in paragraph 4 above.
7) A full analysis of commitments in 2017-18 as detailed in paragraph 6 is provided in table 3.
8) Table 1 below sets out the overall outturn position for 2016-17:
Variance Budget Outturn Table 1 (under)/over (£) (£) (£) Schools Budget
Schools and early years providers (incl 64,936,525 64,797,485 (139,040) rates)
Centrally retained 20,357,473 22,157,123 1,799,650
De-delegated services (excl rates) 1,181,487 1,283,820 102,333
Total Schools Budget 86,475,485 88,238,428 1,762,943
Funded by
Grant funding (incl DSG) 84,970,763 84,970,763 0
B/Fwd from 2015-16 (446,216) (446,216) 0
De-delegations (incl rates) 1,950,938 1,950,938 0
Total Funding 86,475,485 86,475,485 0 Total Balance 1,762,943
9) A full analysis of the outturn is attached as Appendix A.
10) The overspend for 2016-17 is made up of a number of significant variations and some small over/underspends. The significant areas are set out in table 2 below:
- 2
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc
Table 2 - Major Variations (rounded) (£) (£) Overspends
Provision for 2, 3 & 4 year olds 66,543
The Learning Exchange 96,006
SEN equipment and other costs 144,875
Out of Authority placements 585,605
Top up Funding 489,105
Contingency for unallocated DSG - 525,857 Overspend from 2015-16 including commitments to spend
Vulnerable Learners Service de- 110,758 delegations
Supply cover – Maternity & Suspensions 97,169 2,115,918 de-delegation
Underspends
Delegated funding (181,210)
Minor Variations (171,765) (352,975)
TOTAL 1,762,943
11) The reasons for the major variances along with implications for 2017-18 and mitigating actions are detailed below:
a. Provision for 2, 3 & 4 year olds – This budget overspent by £67k. It is estimated that the DSG will reduce by £81,430 as a result of the January 2017 early years hours taken up, the actual adjustment will be confirmed by the DfE in July. The budget for 2, 3 and 4 year olds has consequently been reduced which has caused the overspend.
b. The Learning Exchange budget – This budget overspent by £96k. In reality this budget has underspent by £30,684, however, redundancy costs have been charged to the accounts, in line with accounting regulations, in the 2016-17 financial year. Whilst this increases the overspend in the 2016-17 financial year, the funds estimated for these costs have been set aside in the 2017-18 budget so this will have only a relatively small effect by the end of the 2017-18 financial year. The redundancy costs charged are greater than expected at £126,690 compared to the estimated cost of £105,253. The majority of this difference relates to a cap on redundancy costs which - 3
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc
is due to come into place during 2017-18 but, as it was not in place by 31st March, could not be taken into consideration in the 2016-17 accounts. This should enable a refund against these costs of £13,408 in the 2017-18 financial year. The balance of £8,029 will present as an overspend in the 2017-18 financial year.
c. The SEN equipment and other costs budget – This budget overspent by £145k. This is a demand led budget with growing pressures. An impact report on this budget, with proposals to mitigate against the increasing demands is being presented to the SSF at this meeting.
d. Out of Authority Placements – This budget overspent by £586k. Appendix B shows the change in the projection between the detail provided to the SSF in March and the outturn position. The main reasons for the differences are some changes to placements, adjustments to costs and errors built into the monitoring spreadsheet.
e. Top up funding – This budget overspent by £489k. Appendix C shows the total spend and fte number of top up funding allocations for schools per month.
f. Contingency for unallocated DSG – This budget overspent by £525k. As detailed in agenda item 8 from the July 2016 SSF meeting, the overspend from 2015-16, that impacted on the 2016-17 financial year, was £595,634 after taking into consideration the £123,000 that is committed for projects and the £26,418 earmarked underspend on de-delegated services. The impact of this overspend in 2016-17 is £552,275. This is lower due to the unallocated DSG of £20,025 in 2016-17 and the changes to DSG funding of £23,334 that were provided to the SSF in May 2017.
g. Vulnerable Learners Service de-delegation - This budget overspent by £111k. The overspend is due to anticipated redundancy costs of £110,758 for SS4L which have been charged to the accounts, in line with accounting regulations, in the 2016-17 financial year. These redundancies are not due to be incurred until 31st August 2017 and, due to the decision by the SSF to create the School Placement Support team until August 2018, some of them will now be reduced or delayed until later in the year. However, as the funding for the new team has only been agreed for 12 months it is likely that the full cost of these redundancies will remain charged to the schools budget. There is still the possibility that increased trading, or redeployment could reduce this cost and provide a refund in the 2017-18 financial year.
h. The de-delegation for staff cover such as maternity and suspensions overspent by £97k. This is partly due to high levels of staff suspensions which amounted to £67k during the financial year.
i. The overall overspend on de-delegated services at the end of the 2016-17 financial year is £75,915. At the meeting in May 2017 the SSF agreed to earmark up to £20,000 for further spend on future schools activity creating a total potential overspend of £95,915. The SSF also agreed to apply charges to schools for a figure of £59,580 to contribute towards the recovery of this overspend. This leaves a potential overspend of up to £36,335 unrecovered. It is proposed that the SSF look to recoup the full overspend on de-delegated services of £95,915 from those schools that were maintained schools in 2016-17. Appendix D shows the proposed full deduction compared to the original clawback that was previously agreed by the SSF. - 4
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc
j. Delegated funding – The saving of £181k is due to a reduction in rates costs following the conversion of a number of school to academy status during the financial year.
12) Despite the overspend at the end of the 2016-17 financial year, the SSF has already agreed to some further spending commitments beyond those included in the schools budget for 2017-18. Clearly, these additional commitments add to the deficit at the end of 2016-17 to worsen the impact that this will have on the 2017-18 financial year. The overall position is shown below:
Table 3 - Schools budget overspend at the end of 2016-17 £1,762,943 Funds committed to be used in 2017-18 Virtual School £20,125 Overspend on de-delegations to be clawed back from 2016-17 (£75,915) maintain schools Total commitments to date (£55,790) Overspend that impacts on the 2017-18 financial year £1,707,153
13) In setting the budget for the 2017-18 financial year the SSF considered the projected overspend in the 2016-17 financial year, at that time £1.4m. The SSF agreed that the projected overspend should be recovered from providers over a 5 year period starting in 2017-18 and funding allocations for providers were reduced accordingly. The actual overspend is higher than the projected level when the 2017-18 budget was set, although some of this will be recovered from within the 2017-18 budget (such as redundancy costs related to the Learning Exchange). The SSF are recommended to review the recovery plan in October 2017 in light of the outcome of the national fair funding proposals and the projected under or overspend in the 2017-18 financial year.
14) The SSF will be asked to monitor this position with each schools budget monitoring report throughout the 2017-18 financial year.
Schools Budget – Individual Schools element
15) The individual school balances for maintained schools from the schools delegated budget share are shown in Appendix E and summarised in table 4 below.
Table 4 Primary Secondary Special PRU Total (£) (£) (£) (£) (£) Balance brought forward from 2015- 3,310,080 0 404,566 (260,211) 3,454,435 16 Allocations for year 51,193,932 0 5,413,895 2,230,880 58,838,707
Total funds available 54,504,013 0 5,818,461 1,970,669 62,293,142 for 2016-17
- 5
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc
Net expenditure for 51,337,141 0 5,497,729 2,377,691 59,212,560 year Balance carried 3,166,872 0 320,732 (407,022) 3,080,582 forward to 2017-18
16) Please note that the figures detailed in table 2 above do not include any schools that converted to academy status during or before the 2016-17 financial year.
17) Primary school balances have decreased by £143,209 (4%), special school balances have decreased by £83,834 (21%) and the PRU deficit balance has increased by £146,811 (56%). These balances represent 6.2%, 5.9% and (18)% of the planned budget share for primary, special schools and PRU’s, respectively, as compared to 6.6%, 7.9%, 8.2% and (10.9)% at the end of 2015-16.
18) Many schools are using their carry forwards to balance their 2017-18 budgets.
19) North Somerset maintains a scheme that applies restrictions to the level of individual school balances. Schools are required to apply to maintain an excessive balance by 31st December during the financial year.
20) Any excess balances, beyond those agreed, have been clawed back from schools in the 2017-18 financial year. Claw backs have been made in respect of one school totalling £8,778. This information is provided in Appendix F.
21) The SSF have agreed to consult schools on a proposal to remove the control mechanism for surplus balances for maintained schools. This consultation will take place during October/November 2017 with the outcome considered by the SSF at the meeting in December. If agreed the control mechanism on school balances would not be applied at the end of the 2017-18 financial year and beyond.
22) The school that is subject to a clawback of their excess balance has written to the SSF to ask to maintain their excess balance as a result of their specific circumstances. This request is detailed in Appendices G & Ga.
23) The scheme for financing schools specifies any resources clawed back from school budget shares by North Somerset under this provision are to be applied to the schools budget of the authority. This means that the use of these resources become part of the budget management arrangements of the schools budget by the strategic schools forum. These funds are one off and should not be used to fund ongoing commitments.
24) It should be noted that there was one North Somerset primary schools in deficit, by £725, at the end of the financial year. The school has planned to recover the deficit in the 2017- 18 financial year.
25) The VLC also overspent at the end of the 2016-17 financial year by £407,022. Work is being undertaken with the VLC to identify and cost the appropriate staffing and support structure at the provision.
- 6
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc
26) Attached for your information are graphs which plot the level of both revenue and capital balances since the end of the 2007-08 financial year. Please note however that the total of school balances has been significantly effected in recent years by conversions to academy status.
- 7
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc
North Somerset school balances - Total revenue excluding community use
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000 Pr Se
£ 3,000,000 Sp 2,000,000 PR To 1,000,000
0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 -1,000,000
Y
North Somerset school balances - Total capital
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000 Pr 1,500,000 Se £ Sp 1,000,000 PR 500,000 To
0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 -500,000
Y
- 8
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc
27) Benchmarking of school balances in the south west is undertaken on an informal basis and the results of this information will be provided to the SSF at the October meeting.
28) Under Section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Authority operates a loan scheme for schools. Where maintained schools wish to incur capital expenditure and defray the costs over a number of years, they are allowed to borrow from the LA. These loans are effectively offset against the school balances and there are no loan amounts outstanding at 31 March 2017.
Children’s services element of the People and Communities Budget
29) The children’s services element of the People and Communities budget overspent by £3.644m on a budget of £27.828m. The areas of significant overspend in the 2016- 17 financial year were:
a. Children looked after b. Home to school transport c. Education Services Grant (withdrawn as schools convert to academy status) d. Disabled Children’s services e. Community Family services f. Special Educational Needs
Capital
30) Devolved formula capital is managed by the schools and they have up to three years to spend their allocations. A balance of £348,091 remained at the end of 2016-17 as detailed below. Appendix E sets out the individual school figures:
Primary Schools £312,499 Special Schools £42,271 Pupil referral units £(6,679)
31) Devolved formula capital not spent within the three year period will be clawed back. The Authority has clawed back £19,680 from schools at the end of 2016-17 as detailed in Appendix F.
32) Some or all of these resources could be used to contribute towards capital projects at the schools concerned if agreed through Property and Asset Management.
- 9
Z:\Finance\Strategic Schools Forum\Meetings\2017\04 - 5 July - Deadline 16 June\To be Read\Agenda item no 6 Outturn.doc Appendix A
DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT MONITORING 2016/17 - As at 31st March 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Cost Centre Budget description Use of Final Budget carry Budget Expenditure Budget Variance Projected Variance Earmarked Balance 2016/2017 forward 2016/2017 To Date To Date To Date Outturn for year for use available £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 1 UNIVERSAL PROVISION AND EARLY INTERVENTION 2 Delegated Funding 56,214,645 56,214,645 56,033,435 56,214,645 (181,210) 56,033,435 (181,210) 0 (181,210) 3 EBZ001&7(part) Provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds 7,952,429 0 7,952,429 8,018,972 7,952,429 66,543 8,018,972 66,543 0 66,543 4 EEP999+EBZ007 Learning Exchange 568,523 0 568,523 664,529 568,523 96,006 664,529 96,006 0 96,006
5 Total Universal Provision and Early Intervention 64,735,597 0 64,735,597 64,716,936 64,735,597 (18,661) 64,716,936 (18,661) 0 (18,661)
6 INTENSIVE SUPPORT FOR VULNERABLE LEARNERS 7 EBX320 Inclusion Advisory Team 350,789 350,789 350,789 350,789 0 350,789 0 0 0 8 EBX934 Travellers Service 96,000 96,000 94,220 96,000 (1,780) 94,220 (1,780) 0 (1,780) 9 EBX935 Sensory Impairment - Joint Arrangement 278,440 278,440 252,368 278,440 (26,072) 252,368 (26,072) 0 (26,072) 10 EBY999 Psychology Service 140,752 140,752 134,624 140,752 (6,128) 134,626 (6,126) 0 (6,126) 11 EBY999 Portage 66,840 66,840 66,840 66,840 0 66,840 0 0 0 12 EBY999 VLS Management 42,120 42,120 42,120 42,120 0 42,120 0 0 0 13 EES002 Virtual Schools 135,190 135,190 115,065 135,190 (20,125) 115,065 (20,125) 20,125 0 Family support and support for vulnerable 14 EES003 children (PARENTING) 12,671 10,000 22,671 22,671 22,671 0 22,671 0 0 0 15 EES003 Safeguarding 58,300 58,300 58,300 58,300 0 58,300 0 0 0 16 EES003 Targeted Mental Health in Schools 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 17 EES007 SALT & SALSA 97,999 0 97,999 97,999 97,999 0 97,999 0 0 0 18 Total Vulnerable learners service 1,329,101 10,000 1,339,101 1,284,996 1,339,101 (54,105) 1,284,998 (54,103) 20,125 (33,978)
19 EEH803 Delegated Place Funding 3,580,833 0 3,580,833 3,582,667 3,580,833 1,834 3,582,667 1,834 0 1,834 20 EBW002 SEN equipment & Other costs 165,833 0 165,833 310,708 165,833 144,875 310,708 144,875 0 144,875 21 EBW999 Out of Authority Placements 3,278,661 0 3,278,661 3,864,266 3,278,661 585,605 3,864,266 585,605 0 585,605 22 EBZ003 Early Years Commissioned Services 43,438 0 43,438 35,001 43,438 (8,437) 35,001 (8,437) 0 (8,437) 23 EES010 Top-up Funding 9,074,835 0 9,074,835 9,563,940 9,074,835 489,105 9,563,940 489,105 0 489,105 Assessment and Intervention hub 28 EEH805 (Westhaven Pheonix) 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 0 180,000 0 0 0 24 EBX300 Elective home educated children 26,110 0 26,110 26,110 26,110 0 26,110 0 0 0 25 EBX303 Commissioned students - no school place 70,000 0 70,000 70,000 70,000 0 70,000 0 0 0 26 EBX312 Prevention and re-engagement 11,550 0 11,550 11,550 11,550 0 11,550 0 0 0 27 EBX303 Administration of placement protocol 11,666 0 11,666 11,666 11,666 0 11,666 0 0 0 Family support provided through the 29 EBX321 Community Families Service 101,667 0 101,667 101,667 101,667 0 101,667 0 0 0 30 EBX325 Commissioned tuition service 470,791 0 470,791 470,791 470,791 0 470,791 0 0 0 31 EBX800 Commissioned Resource bases 140,000 0 140,000 131,784 140,000 (8,216) 131,784 (8,216) 0 (8,216) 32 Total Other Intensive Support for vulnerable learners 17,155,384 0 17,155,384 18,360,150 17,155,384 1,204,766 18,360,150 1,204,766 0 1,204,766
33 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED 34 EEN700 Strategic Schools Forum 7,700 7,700 6,742 7,700 (958) 6,742 (958) 0 (958) 35 EEN399 Support and advice for SSF 182,716 0 182,716 178,139 182,716 (4,577) 178,139 (4,577) 0 (4,577) 36 EEN199 Licences and Subscriptions 133,038 0 133,038 134,918 133,038 1,880 134,918 1,880 0 1,880 37 EBZ011 Early Years Administration 63,880 0 63,880 55,870 63,880 (8,010) 55,870 (8,010) 0 (8,010) 38 2001CE REDUNDANCY COSTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 EEN599 Pupil Admissions Section 226,301 0 226,301 226,301 226,301 0 226,301 0 0 0 40 EES006 Costs of Prudential Borrowing 632,704 0 632,704 632,703 632,704 (1) 632,704 0 0 0 41 Structural Repair and Maintenance 35,000 113,000 148,000 146,469 148,000 (1,531) 146,469 (1,531) 0 (1,531) 42 EPC001/ECON01 Contingencies 425,983 425,983 466,303 425,983 40,320 466,303 40,320 0 40,320 43 Contingency for Unallocated DSG 43,359 (569,216) (525,857) 0 (525,857) 525,857 0 525,857 26,418 552,275 44 Total Strategic management and centrally administered 1,750,681 (456,216) 1,294,465 1,847,445 1,294,465 552,980 1,847,446 552,981 26,418 579,399
45 TOTAL SCHOOLS BUDGET 84,970,763 (446,216) 84,524,547 86,209,527 84,524,547 1,684,980 86,209,530 1,684,983 46,543 1,731,526 46 ADDITIONAL GRANT 0 0 47 PUPIL PREMIUM GRANT 0 0 0 48 DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (84,970,763) 446,216 (84,524,547) (84,970,763) (84,524,547) (446,216) (84,524,547) 0 49 BALANCE 0 0 0 1,238,764 0 1,238,764 1,684,983 1,684,983 DE-DELEGATIONS Value of Income Expenditure Net Projected Variance Earmarked Balance De-delegations To Date To Date To Date Outturn for year for use £ available £ 50 EBX320 Inclusion Advisory Team 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 EEH790.792.794 Vulnerable Learner Service 221,276 (221,276) 332,034 110,758 332,034 110,758 (110,758) 0 52 EES202 E.M.A.S. Contribution 28,369 (28,369) 28,369 0 28,369 0 0 0 53 EEV17* R.P.T.A. 23,681 (23,681) 20,097 (3,584) 20,097 (3,584) 3,584 0 54 EEN599 Pupil Admissions Section F.S.M. 17,791 (17,791) 17,791 0 17,791 0 0 0 55 EES008 Future Schools 88,240 (88,240) 46,477 (41,763) 46,477 (41,763) 41,763 0 56 EPC001/ECON01/ESSchool Specific Contingencies 28,188 (28,188) (11,841) (40,029) (11,841) (40,029) 40,029 0 57 EBX998 Insurance 430,303 (430,303) 410,085 (20,218) 410,085 (20,218) 20,218 0 58 CE Supply Cover (Maternity, Suspensions) 343,639 (343,639) 440,808 97,169 440,808 97,169 (97,169) 0 59 2001CE Rates 769,451 (769,451) 745,078 (24,373) 745,078 (24,373) 0 (24,373) 60 Total De-delegations 1,950,938 (1,950,938) 2,028,898 77,960 2,028,898 77,960 (102,333) (24,373) 61 BALANCE INCLUDING DE-DELEGATIONS 1,950,938 1,762,943 (55,790) 1,707,153
Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices 28/06/2017 Appendix B
Age in the financial Category March SSF Outturn Diff Details of change year 1 11 - 12 SEMH 10,307 10,307 0 1 11 - 12 SEMH 7,114 7,114 0 2 12 - 13 SEMH 19,473 16,100 (3,373) Estimated costs for 21/11-31/12/17 too high 3 7 - 8 SEMH 51,818 51,818 0 4 15 - 16 SEMH 50,700 50,700 0 4 15 - 16 SEMH 58,288 58,288 Unknown placement but costs built in to 2016-17 while investigations ongoing 5 10 - 11 MLD 33,576 33,197 (379) 6 13 - 14 SEMH 51,621 51,621 0 7 13 - 14 ASD 37,876 37,876 0 8 9 - 10 MLD 26,525 8,107 (18,418) Invoices now rec'd for whole yr since started - lower than anticipated 9 10 - 11 MLD 27,310 14,364 (12,946) Invoices now rec'd for whole yr since started - lower than anticipated 10 14 - 15 MLD 106,008 106,008 0 11 13 - 14 ASD 49,252 49,252 0 12 12 - 13 HI 37,955 37,955 0 13 12 - 13 HI 37,955 37,955 0 14 14 - 15 SEMH 52,316 40,029 (12,287) Reduced fees - credits & new invs rec'd March 17 15 11 - 12 ASD 9,655 9,655 0 15 11 - 12 ASD 11,220 11,220 0 16 13 - 14 ASD 39,708 39,708 0 17 12 - 13 SEMH 14,809 14,809 0 18 11 - 12 HI 31,113 34,446 3,333 budgetted for £10,000 EFA funding - only rec'd £6,666 (2 terms) 19 12 - 13 SEMH 51,621 51,621 0 20 11 - 12 ASD 19,829 19,829 0 21 14 - 15 SEMH 51,621 51,621 0 22 15 - 16 ASD 20,538 20,538 0 23 11 - 12 SLCN 32,921 32,921 0 24 8 - 9 ASD 16,499 9,722 (6,777) Invs now rec'd - projected cost for 7/11-31/12/16 lower than expected 25 10 - 11 ASD 29,291 29,291 0 26 14 - 15 ASD 30,075 30,075 0 27 10 - 11 SEMH 27,663 21,353 (6,310) Additional costs for staffing included within annual costs (had assumed it was additional) 28 10 - 11 SEMH 13,234 8,225 (5,009) Invs now rec'd - projected cost for 21/11-31/12/16 lower than expected 29 14 - 15 SEMH 41,585 41,585 0 30 15 - 16 SEMH 51,621 51,621 0 31 14 - 15 SPLD 19,881 19,881 0 32 12 - 13 SEMH 17,696 17,696 New case 33 10 - 11 SpLD 14,639 19,754 5,115 Additional costs to placement 34 14 - 15 SEMH 32,500 32,033 (466) 35 15 - 15 SEMH 8,848 8,848 New case 36 13 - 14 SEMH 16,712 16,712 0 37 13 - 14 ASD 24,095 24,095 0 38 12 - 13 ASD 12,556 12,556 New case 39 12 - 13 SEMH 16,712 16,712 0 39 12 - 13 SEMH 10,246 10,246 0 40 10 - 11 SEMH 5,628 5,628 New case 41 12 - 13 SEMH 51,621 51,621 0 42 14 - 15 MLD 33,707 33,707 0 43 15 - 16 SpLD 32,547 32,547 0 44 15 - 16 ASD 107,315 94,139 (13,177) Changed from residential to Day pupil 45 15 - 16 ASD 124,800 124,800 0 46 13 - 14 ASD 13,995 12,283 (1,712) Estimated costs for 2 terms but Spring term included April 47 15 - 16 MLD 13,695 11,983 (1,712) Estimated costs for 2 terms but Spring term included April 48 13 - 14 MLD 11,670 11,670 0 49 12 - 13 SLCN 39,708 39,708 0 50 11 - 12 ASD 69,090 69,090 0 51 14 - 15 SEMH 74,860 74,860 0 52 12 - 13 BESD 14,409 14,409 0 53 15 - 16 SEMH 41,169 26,442 (14,727) Pupil is going to college now so fees have reduced 54 13 - 14 ASD 63,186 59,823 (3,363) School made a mistake and charged us for add supp. Credit now rec'd for this 55 14 - 15 SEMH 62,842 62,842 0 56 15 - 16 BESD 51,621 51,621 0 57 15 - 16 ASD 120,250 120,250 0 58 14 - 15 ASD 24,369 24,369 0 59 8 - 9 HI 21,334 21,334 0 60 11 - 12 SPLD 26,332 26,332 0 61 10 - 11 SEMH 16,627 16,627 0 62 11 - 12 SEMH 275 275 0 21 17,830 19,472 1,642 Transport costs 41 17,285 11,070 (6,215) Transport costs 55 7,507 7,507 0 Transport costs 42 176 176 0 Transport costs 51 3,268 2,864 (403) Transport costs 52 15,208 15,214 6 Transport costs 3,850 6,830 2,980 Transport costs 1,225 5,145 3,920 Transport costs 63 16 - 17 SEMH 51,621 51,621 0 64 16 - 17 ASD 24,777 24,777 0 65 17 - 18 SEMH 41,905 41,905 0 66 16 - 17 SEMH 0 0 0 67 18 - 19 ASD 66,420 66,420 0 68 16 - 17 SPLD 25,871 25,871 0 69 16 - 17 ASD 39,398 39,398 0 70 18 - 19 ASD 87,367 61,126 (26,241) Left 71 16 - 17 ASD 195,134 195,134 0 72 17 - 18 HI 38,698 41,366 2,668 Over estimated the amount of EFA funding to be rec'd 73 16 - 17 ASD 41,169 24,457 (16,712) Pupil is going to college now so fees reduced for the Autumn term and no cost from the Spring term 74 18 - 19 ASD 49,067 49,067 0 75 16 - 17 SEMH 24,371 24,371 0 75 16 - 17 SEMH 2,000 2,000 0 76 16 - 17 SEMH 35,392 35,392 0 77 18 - 19 MLD 24,806 24,806 0
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix B
Age in the financial Category March SSF Outturn Diff Details of change year 78 17 - 18 SPLD 19,077 19,077 0 79 17 - 18 SPLD 40,743 40,743 0 80 22 - 23 ASD 40,058 40,058 0 80 22 - 23 ASD 20,959 20,959 0 81 19 - 20 ASD 68,829 68,829 0 82 21 - 22 SLD 15,492 15,492 0 83 19 - 20 ASD 37,705 37,705 0 84 20 - 21 SLD 20,139 20,139 0 85 20 - 21 ASD 57,887 57,887 0 86 17-18 ASD 82,860 82,860 0 87 19 - 20 ASD 55,240 48,335 (6,905) Adjustment to estimated costs 88 21 - 22 MLD 91,358 91,358 0 89 18 - 19 SEMH 81,801 81,801 0 90 18 - 19 ASD 50,872 50,872 0 91 17 - 18 MLD 49,153 49,153 0 92 18 - 19 MLD 26,250 26,250 0 93 17 - 18 ASD 65,427 65,427 0 Errors - duplicate entries 177,482 17,507 (159,975)
Total 4,058,692 3,864,266 (194,427)
New Cases 5 103,017 Ended cases 2 (42,953) Changes 25 (254,491) (194,427) (0)
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix C
2016/2017 TUF allocations as at 31/03/2017
Mainstream Schools / Academies TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total Funding A1 £23,187 £23,187 £23,187 £23,187 £23,187 £29,077 £28,451 £28,451 £29,077 £28,451 £28,451 £27,824 £315,716 A2 £8,673 £8,673 £8,673 £8,673 £8,673 £13,806 £13,806 £13,806 £13,806 £13,806 £13,806 £13,806 £140,007 B1 £33,626 £32,559 £33,093 £33,093 £33,093 £31,491 £32,559 £32,559 £33,093 £33,093 £33,093 £33,093 £394,441 B2 £26,550 £28,320 £28,320 £28,320 £28,320 £28,320 £28,320 £28,320 £30,090 £29,205 £29,205 £33,099 £346,389 B3 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £21,055 C1 £32,025 £30,424 £30,424 £30,424 £30,424 £22,951 £23,485 £22,951 £23,485 £24,019 £23,485 £22,418 £316,514 C2 £38,055 £38,055 £38,055 £43,365 £42,480 £44,250 £46,905 £43,365 £40,710 £44,250 £42,480 £44,250 £506,220 C3 £6,685 £6,685 £8,356 £6,685 £6,685 £5,014 £5,014 £11,699 £10,028 £10,028 £10,028 £11,699 £98,604 C4 £2,223 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £2,223 DH1 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £5,202 DH2 £434 £434 £434 £434 £434 £867 £867 £867 £867 £867 £867 £867 £8,237 DH3 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £1,478 £17,740 DH4 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £1,755 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £8,773 DV1 £867 £867 £867 £867 £867 £1,084 £1,084 £1,301 £1,301 £1,301 £1,301 £1,301 £13,005 DV2 £217 £217 £217 £217 £217 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,084 DV3 £1,936 £1,936 £1,936 £1,936 £1,936 £2,904 £2,904 £2,904 £2,904 £2,904 £2,904 £2,904 £30,010 E1 £20,150 £20,150 £20,150 £20,150 £20,150 £20,608 £20,608 £20,608 £22,134 £22,898 £22,898 £22,898 £253,399 E2 £12,457 £12,457 £12,457 £12,457 £12,457 £8,806 £8,806 £8,806 £8,806 £8,806 £8,806 £8,806 £123,930 Add TUF £583 £583 £583 £583 £583 £583 £583 £583 £583 £583 £583 £583 £7,000 Total £213,089 £209,967 £212,172 £215,811 £214,926 £213,428 £217,058 £219,886 £220,550 £223,876 £221,572 £227,213 £2,609,549
North Somerset Enterprise and Technical College (NSETC) TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total Funding A0 £30 £30 £30 £30 £30 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £784 B1 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £2,643 £31,716 C1 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £5,998 £71,976 C2 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £1,140 £13,674 Total £9,811 £9,811 £9,811 £9,811 £9,811 £9,871 £9,871 £9,871 £9,871 £9,871 £9,871 £9,871 £118,150
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix C
Maintained Schools / Academies FTE by TUF band TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 46.4 45.4 45.4 46.4 45.4 45.4 44.4 A2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 Add TUF 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 B1 63.0 61.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 59.0 61.0 61.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 B2 30.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 34.0 33.0 33.0 37.4 B3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C1 59.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 43.0 44.0 43.0 44.0 45.0 44.0 42.0 C2 44.0 44.0 44.0 50.0 49.0 50.0 53.0 49.0 46.0 50.0 48.0 50.0 C3 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 C4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DH1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 DH2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 DH3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 DH4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DV1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 DV2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DV3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 E1 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 27.0 27.0 27.0 29.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 E2 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 NIL 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OLA 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Total 382.8 378.8 380.8 385.8 384.8 310.2 315.2 314.2 318.2 322.2 319.2 323.6
NSETC FTE by TUF band TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar B1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 C1 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 C2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix C
Specials Pre 16 TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 £11,733 £11,733 £11,733 £11,733 £11,733 £12,203 £12,203 £12,496 £13,376 £13,376 £13,376 £13,669 A2 £11,144 £11,144 £11,144 £11,144 £11,144 £10,702 £10,702 £10,702 £10,151 £10,151 £10,151 £10,151 A3 £13,928 £13,928 £13,928 £13,928 £13,928 £13,928 £13,928 £12,507 £12,507 £12,507 £12,507 £12,507 A4 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 B1 £6,133 £6,133 £6,133 £6,133 £6,133 £4,409 £4,409 £4,409 £4,409 £4,409 £4,409 £4,610 B2 £20,963 £20,963 £20,963 £20,963 £20,963 £21,515 £21,515 £20,963 £20,963 £20,963 £20,963 £21,294 B3 £27,004 £25,583 £25,583 £25,583 £25,583 £25,583 £25,583 £25,583 £25,583 £24,161 £24,161 £24,161 B4 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 £6,283 C1 £1,002 £1,002 £802 £601 £601 £601 £601 £601 £601 £601 £802 £1,002 C2 £3,862 £3,862 £3,862 £3,862 £3,310 £4,965 £5,517 £5,517 £5,517 £5,517 £5,517 £4,965 C3 £4,014 £4,014 £4,014 £4,014 £4,014 £8,028 £9,365 £9,365 £10,703 £8,028 £8,028 £8,028 C4 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £5,669 £5,669 £7,559 £7,559 £9,449 DH1 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 DH2 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 DH3 £406 £406 £406 £406 £406 £406 £406 £406 £406 £406 £406 £406 DV2 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 E1 £1,720 £1,720 £1,720 £1,720 £1,720 £2,150 £2,150 £2,150 £2,150 £1,720 £1,720 £1,720 E2 £3,703 £3,703 £3,703 £3,703 £3,703 £3,703 £3,703 £3,703 £4,443 £5,184 £5,184 £5,184 E3 £27,979 £26,860 £26,860 £26,860 £26,860 £29,098 £29,098 £26,860 £26,860 £26,860 £26,860 £26,860 NIL £4,417 £4,417 £4,417 £4,417 £4,417 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 OLA £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Total £144,290 £141,749 £141,549 £138,207 £137,655 £146,714 £148,604 £150,355 £152,762 £150,866 £151,066 £150,288
Special Post 16 TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 £2,053 £2,053 £2,053 £2,053 £2,053 £1,760 £1,760 £1,760 £1,760 £1,760 £1,760 £1,760 A2 £1,655 £1,655 £1,655 £1,655 £1,655 £2,207 £2,207 £2,207 £2,207 £2,207 £2,207 £2,207 A3 £1,421 £1,421 £1,421 £1,421 £1,421 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 A4 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 £3,141 B1 £401 £401 £401 £401 £401 £802 £802 £802 £802 £802 £802 £802 B2 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 £4,413 B3 £7,106 £7,106 £7,106 £7,106 £7,106 £2,843 £2,843 £2,843 £2,843 £2,843 £2,843 £2,843 B4 £6,283 £6,283 £6,283 £6,283 £6,283 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 £9,424 C1 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £200 £200 £200 £200 £200 £200 £200 DV4 £1,421 £1,421 £1,421 £1,421 £1,421 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 E1 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 E2 £1,481 £1,481 £1,481 £1,481 £1,481 £741 £741 £741 £741 £741 £741 £741 E3 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £2,238 £2,238 £2,238 £2,238 £2,238 £2,238 £2,238 NIL £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 OLA £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Total £29,806 £29,806 £29,806 £29,806 £29,806 £27,769 £27,769 £27,769 £27,769 £27,769 £27,769 £27,769
Westhaven Horizons - Agreed Funding TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar C4 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 Total £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898 £18,898
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix C
Resources Bases TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar B1 £802 £802 £802 £802 £802 £2,004 £2,004 £2,004 £2,004 £2,004 £2,004 £2,004 E1 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 £430 E2 £444 £444 £444 £444 £444 £741 £741 £741 £741 £741 £741 £741 NIL £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Total £1,676 £1,676 £1,676 £1,676 £1,676 £3,175 £3,175 £3,175 £3,175 £3,175 £3,175 £3,175
VLC TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar £10K £1,111 £1,111 £1,111 £1,111 £1,111 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 C1 £200 £200 £200 £200 £200 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 C2 £29,239 £31,445 £32,549 £33,100 £33,100 £21,515 £21,515 £19,860 £21,515 £22,618 £24,273 £24,825 C3 £24,083 £21,407 £20,069 £20,069 £20,069 £8,028 £9,365 £10,703 £10,703 £8,028 £8,028 £9,365 C4 £5,669 £5,669 £5,669 £5,669 £5,669 £7,559 £7,559 £11,339 £11,339 £11,339 £15,119 £13,229 OLA £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Total £60,302 £59,833 £59,598 £60,150 £60,150 £37,102 £38,440 £41,902 £43,557 £41,985 £47,420 £47,419
CME TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar C2 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 C3 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,539 £1,539 £2,877 £2,877 £2,877 £2,877 £2,877 C4 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,890 £1,890 £5,669 £5,669 £5,669 £5,669 £5,669 Total £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £3,428 £3,428 £8,546 £8,546 £8,546 £8,546 £8,546
Specials Pre16 FTE by TUF Band TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 41.6 41.6 42.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 46.6 A2 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 19.4 19.4 19.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 A3 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 A4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B1 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 23.0 B2 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 39.0 39.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.6 B3 19.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 B4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 C1 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 C2 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 C3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 C4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 DH1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DH2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 DH3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 DV2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 E1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 E2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 E3 12.5 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 13.0 13.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 NIL 23.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 24.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 OLA 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 Total 226.1 224.6 223.6 221.6 220.6 226.8 229.8 232.8 234.8 232.8 232.8 235.4
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix C
Specials Post 16 FTE by TUF band TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 A2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 A3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 B1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 B2 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 B3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 B4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 C1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 DV4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 E3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NIL 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 OLA 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0
Westhaven Horizons FTE by TUF band TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar C4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 9.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 9.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.0
Resource Bases FTE by TUF Band TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar B1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 E1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 E2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NIL 19.0 19.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Total 24.6 24.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0
VLC FTE by TUF Band TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar C1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C2 53.0 57.0 59.0 60.0 60.0 39.0 39.0 36.0 39.0 41.0 44.0 45.0 C3 18.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 C4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 OLA 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 75.0 77.0 79.0 80.0 80.0 49.0 50.0 50.0 53.0 53.0 58.0 59.0
CME FTE by TUF Band TUF Band Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar C2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 C4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix D
Recovery of overspend on De-Delegations
£59,580 £36,335 £95,915 Amount per Amount per pupil - Amount per Pupil Numbers pupil - now previously pupil - total proposed agreed DfE No School Name Adjusted to reflect period of the year £4.00 £2.44 £6.44 that de- delegations apply 3122 All Saints East Clevedon VC P 113 £452 £275 £727 2277 Ashcombe CO P 539 £2,155 £1,314 £3,469 3075 Backwell VC J 222 £887 £541 £1,429 2271 Banwell CO P 199 £795 £485 £1,281 2319 Becket, Worle CO P 207 £827 £505 £1,332 2262 Birdwell CO A 0 £0 £0 £0 2272 Blagdon CO P 113 £452 £275 £727 3455 Bournville CO P 417 £1,667 £1,017 £2,683 3351 Burrington VA P 80 £320 £195 £515 2332 Castle Batch, Worle CO P 418 £1,671 £1,019 £2,690 3117 Christ Church, Weston VA P 207 £827 £505 £1,332 3113 Churchill VC P 200 £799 £488 £1,287 3354 Corpus Christi VA P 199 £795 £485 £1,281 3121 Court de Wyck VC A 0 £0 £0 £0 3130 Crockerne C of E VC P 294 £1,175 £717 £1,892 2004 Dundry VC A 0 £0 £0 £0 3091 Flax Bourton VC P 119 £476 £290 £766 2295 Golden Valley CO P 413 £1,651 £1,007 £2,658 2261 Grove CO J 257 £1,027 £627 £1,654 2268 Hannah More, Nailsea CO I 164 £656 £400 £1,055 Haywood Village CO A 0 £0 £0 £0 3451 Herons Moor CO A 0 £0 £0 £0 2254 High Down, Portishead CO C 120 £481 £294 £775 2263 High Down, Portishead CO C 161 £645 £393 £1,038 3116 Hutton VC P 210 £839 £512 £1,351 2273 Kewstoke CO P 94 £376 £229 £605 3000 Kingshill VC A 0 £0 £0 £0 2286 Locking CO P 372 £1,487 £907 £2,394 2310 Mary Elton CO P 415 £1,659 £1,012 £2,671 2305 Mead Vale CO P 418 £1,671 £1,019 £2,690 2285 Mendip Green CO P 539 £2,155 £1,314 £3,469 3454 Milton Park CO P 399 £1,595 £973 £2,568 3095 Northleaze VC P 200 £799 £488 £1,287 2287 Oldmixon CO P 202 £807 £492 £1,300 2252 Portishead CO C 200 £799 £488 £1,287 2283 Sandford CO P 147 £588 £358 £946 3114 St Andrew's, Congresbury VC P 254 £1,015 £619 £1,635 3115 St Anne's, Hewish VC P 262 £1,045 £637 £1,683 3350 St Francis VA P 184 £736 £449 £1,184 3453 St Georges C 88 £351 £214 £566 3450 St John the Evangelist VA C 125 £501 £306 £807 3349 St Joseph's, Portishead VA P 210 £839 £512 £1,351 3447 St Mark's, Worle VA C 175 £698 £426 £1,123 3118 St Martin's VC P 564 £2,255 £1,375 £3,629 3446 St Mary's, Portbury VA C 42 £168 £103 £271
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix D
Recovery of overspend on De-Delegations
£59,580 £36,335 £95,915 Amount per Amount per pupil - Amount per Pupil Numbers pupil - now previously pupil - total proposed agreed DfE No School Name Adjusted to reflect period of the year £4.00 £2.44 £6.44 that de- delegations apply 3129 St Nicholas Chantry VC P 354 £1,415 £863 £2,278 3099 St Peter's C of E VC C 220 £879 £536 £1,416 2003 Tickenham VA A 0 £0 £0 £0 3452 Trinity CO A 0 £0 £0 £0 2276 Uphill CO P 306 £1,223 £746 £1,969 2316 Walliscote CO P 288 £1,151 £702 £1,853 2264 West Leigh CO I 166 £664 £405 £1,068 2280 Windwhistle CO P 383 £1,531 £934 £2,465 3108 Winford VC P 145 £580 £353 £933 2284 Winscombe CO P 209 £835 £510 £1,345 3352 Worlebury VA P 205 £819 £500 £1,319 2292 Worle Village CO P 212 £847 £517 £1,364 3348 Wraxall VA P 97 £388 £236 £624 3119 Wrington VC P 198 £791 £483 £1,274 3120 Yatton VC I 249 £995 £607 £1,602 3111 Yatton VC J 322 £1,287 £785 £2,072 2002 Yeo Moor CO A 0 £0 £0 £0 Total Primary Maintained 12,896 £51,551 £31,439 £82,990
Amount per Amount per pupil - Amount per Pupil Numbers pupil - now previously pupil - total proposed agreed Adjusted to reflect period of the year £4.60 £2.81 £7.41 that de- DfE No School Name delegations apply 4129 Backwell A 0 £0 £0 £0 4142 Broadoak A 0 £0 £0 £0 4139 Churchill A 0 £0 £0 £0 4136 Clevedon A 0 £0 £0 £0 4135 Gordano A 0 £0 £0 £0 4145 Hans Price A 0 £0 £0 £0 4137 Nailsea A 0 £0 £0 £0 4000 Nsetc A 0 £0 £0 £0 4143 Priory A 0 £0 £0 £0 4144 St Katherines CO C 272 £1,251 £763 £2,014 4140 Worle CO Y 1,472 £6,778 £4,133 £10,911 Total Secondary Maintained 1,744 £8,029 £4,896 £12,925
Total all schools 14,640 £59,580 £36,335 £95,915
Maintained Primary 12,896 £51,551 £31,439 £82,990 Maintained Secondary 1,744 £8,029 £4,896 £12,925 Total Maintained Schools 14,640 £59,580 £36,335 £95,915 28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix E
Analysis of overall school balances 2016-2017
Capital Balances as Revenue Balances as at 31.3.17 at 31.3.17 Schools Total of Schools delegated Devolved Revenue & Community DfE no. School Type budget Total Capital Total Capital Focused share Fund 48 balances Fund 06 Fund 01 31.3.16 £ £ £ £ £ £ Primary Schools 3122 All Saints Primary 11,126 0 11,126 10,588 10,588 21,714 2277 Ashcombe Primary 39,497 0 39,497 18,041 18,041 57,538 3075 Backwell Junior 12,828 0 12,828 2,449 2,449 15,277 2271 Banwell Primary 87,298 0 87,298 9,823 9,823 97,122 2319 Becket Primary 116,278 0 116,278 12,647 12,647 128,924 2272 Blagdon Primary 26,051 0 26,051 1,115 1,115 27,166 3455 Bournville Primary 176,102 0 176,102 (0) (0) 176,102 3351 Burrington Primary 41,835 0 41,835 0 0 41,835 2332 Castle Batch Primary 177,040 0 177,040 17,488 17,488 194,527 3117 Christ Church Primary 79,350 0 79,350 2,594 2,594 81,944 3113 Churchill Primary 38,416 0 38,416 5,661 5,661 44,077 3354 Corpus Christi Primary 6,200 0 6,200 0 0 6,200 3091 Flax Bourton Primary 31,089 0 31,089 1,093 1,093 32,181 2295 Golden Valley Primary 120,323 0 120,323 6,880 6,880 127,202 2261 Grove Junior 17,759 0 17,759 3,085 3,085 20,844 2268 Hannah More Infant 0 0 0 2,288 2,288 2,288 3116 Hutton Primary 139,500 0 139,500 18,819 18,819 158,319 2273 Kewstoke Primary 28,430 0 28,430 5,075 5,075 33,505 2286 Locking Primary 148,000 0 148,000 6 6 148,006 2310 Mary Elton Academy 1 36,281 0 36,281 11,522 11,522 47,803 2305 Mead Vale Primary 163,675 0 163,675 4,102 4,102 167,777 2285 Mendip Green Primary 110,128 233 110,361 48,348 48,348 158,709 3454 Milton Park Primary 170,569 0 170,569 8,104 8,104 178,673 3095 Northleaze Primary 59,250 0 59,250 5,893 5,893 65,142 2287 Oldmixon Primary 2,073 0 2,073 6,404 6,404 8,477 2283 Sandford Primary 57,931 0 57,931 9,884 9,884 67,814 3114 St Andrew's Primary 109,076 0 109,076 23,667 23,667 132,743 3115 St Anne's Primary 68,216 18,862 87,078 0 0 87,078 3350 St Francis Primary 40,839 0 40,839 0 0 40,839 3349 St Joseph's Primary 53,710 0 53,710 0 0 53,710 3118 St Martin's Primary 117,376 91,090 208,466 3,863 3,863 212,329 3129 St Nicholas Chantry Primary (725) 0 (725) 259 259 (467) 2276 Uphill Primary 23,141 0 23,141 9,895 9,895 33,036 2316 Walliscote Primary 178,801 0 178,801 6,120 6,120 184,922 2264 West Leigh Infant 1,024 0 1,024 324 324 1,348 2280 Windwhistle Primary 234,064 0 234,064 3,319 3,319 237,383 3108 Winford Primary 58,797 0 58,797 6,985 6,985 65,783 2284 Winscombe Primary 64,941 0 64,941 16,157 16,157 81,098 3352 Worlebury St Paul's Primary 59,742 6,416 66,158 0 0 66,158 2292 Worle Village Primary 103,972 0 103,972 6,239 6,239 110,211 3348 Wraxall Primary 19,245 0 19,245 0 0 19,245 3119 Wrington Primary 20,120 0 20,120 5,324 5,324 25,444 3120 Yatton Infant 95,211 3,212 98,422 11,963 11,963 110,385 3111 Yatton Junior 22,296 2,189 24,484 6,476 6,476 30,960 Total 3,166,872 122,002 3,288,873 312,499 312,499 3,601,372
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix E
Analysis of overall school balances 2016-2017
Capital Balances as Revenue Balances as at 31.3.17 at 31.3.17 Schools Total of Schools delegated Devolved Revenue & Community DfE no. School Type budget Total Capital Total Capital Focused share Fund 48 balances Fund 06 Fund 01 31.3.16 £ £ £ £ £ £
Special Schools 7039 Baytree Special 114,589 0 114,589 8,253 8,253 122,842 7037 Ravenswood Special 37,356 0 37,356 29,247 29,247 66,604 7036 Westhaven Special 168,787 0 168,787 4,770 4,770 173,557 Total 320,732 0 320,732 42,271 42,271 363,003
PRU 1102 Voyage Learning Cam PRU (407,022) 0 (407,022) (6,679) (6,679) (413,701) Total (407,022) 0 (407,022) (6,679) (6,679) (413,701)
Summary Primary 3,166,872 122,002 3,288,873 312,499 312,499 3,601,372 Special 320,732 0 320,732 42,271 42,271 363,003 PRU (407,022) 0 (407,022) (6,679) (6,679) (413,701)
Total 3,080,582 122,002 3,202,584 348,091 348,091 3,550,674
.
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices Appendix F Restrictions on Schools Balances 2016-17 Permitted exceptions
Closing Potential Increasing Falling Actual Fund 48 Capital Balance Allowed c/fwd Maximum balance rolls rolls balance Excess over Project DfE School Type 2016/17 for 10% of in year allowed to be (greater (greater clawed back 3 years to (max 3 calculation income balance clawed than 2% - than 5% - for be clawed yrs) of excess back max 1 yr) max 1 yr) redistribution back 3122 All Saints Primary 11,126 51,758 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2277 Ashcombe Primary 39,497 227,149 227,149 0 0 0 0 0 0 3075 Backwell Junior 12,828 81,940 81,940 0 0 0 0 0 0 2271 Banwell Primary 87,298 95,523 95,523 0 0 0 0 0 0 2319 Becket Primary 116,278 117,369 117,369 0 0 0 0 0 0 2272 Blagdon Primary 26,051 50,814 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3455 Bournville Primary 176,102 297,801 297,801 0 0 0 0 0 0 3351 Burrington Primary 41,835 38,056 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2332 Castle Batch Primary 177,040 186,073 186,073 0 0 0 0 0 0 3117 Christ Church Primary 79,350 103,132 103,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 3113 Churchill Primary 38,416 81,278 81,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 3354 Corpus Christi Primary 6,200 86,919 86,919 0 0 0 0 0 0 3091 Flax Bourton Primary 31,089 56,472 56,472 0 0 0 0 0 0 2295 Golden Valley Primary 120,323 151,677 151,677 0 0 0 0 0 0 2261 Grove Junior 17,759 94,383 94,383 0 0 0 0 0 0 2268 Hannah More Infant 0 70,132 70,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 3116 Hutton Primary 139,500 89,071 89,071 50,429 41,651 0 0 8,778 5,878 2273 Kewstoke Primary 28,430 49,010 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2286 Locking Primary 148,000 146,479 146,479 1,522 15,755 0 0 0 0 2310 Mary Elton Academy 1/ 36,281 151,148 151,148 0 0 0 0 0 0 2305 Mead Vale Primary 163,675 173,571 173,571 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 2285 Mendip Green Primary 110,128 260,919 260,919 0 0 0 0 0 0 3454 Milton Park Primary 170,569 190,539 190,539 0 0 0 0 0 0 3095 Northleaze Primary 59,250 76,813 76,813 0 0 0 0 0 0 2287 Oldmixon Primary 2,073 126,065 126,065 0 0 0 0 0 0 2283 Sandford Primary 57,931 63,549 63,549 0 0 0 0 0 0 3114 St Andrew's Primary 109,076 109,603 109,603 0 0 30,000 0 0 10,021 3115 St Anne's Primary 68,216 111,193 111,193 0 0 0 0 0 0 3350 St Francis Primary 40,839 68,718 68,718 0 0 0 0 0 0 3349 St Joseph's Primary 53,710 79,728 79,728 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices 28/06/2017 Appendix F Restrictions on Schools Balances 2016-17 Permitted exceptions
Closing Potential Increasing Falling Actual Fund 48 Capital Balance Allowed c/fwd Maximum balance rolls rolls balance Excess over Project DfE School Type 2016/17 for 10% of in year allowed to be (greater (greater clawed back 3 years to (max 3 calculation income balance clawed than 2% - than 5% - for be clawed yrs) of excess back max 1 yr) max 1 yr) redistribution back
3118 St Martin's Primary 117,376 228,565 228,565 0 0 0 0 0 0 3129 St Nicholas Chantry Primary (725) 129,520 129,520 0 0 0 0 0 0 2276 Uphill Primary 23,141 122,428 122,428 0 0 0 0 0 0 2316 Walliscote Primary 178,801 152,008 154,033 24,768 40,890 0 0 0 0 2264 West Leigh Infant 1,024 70,170 70,170 0 0 0 0 0 0 2280 Windwhistle Primary 234,064 259,372 259,372 0 0 0 0 0 0 3108 Winford Primary 58,797 66,005 66,005 0 0 0 0 0 0 2284 Winscombe Primary 64,941 84,253 84,253 0 0 0 0 0 3,781 3352 Worlebury St Paul's Primary 59,742 79,872 79,872 0 0 0 0 0 0 2292 Worle Village Primary 103,972 92,119 92,119 11,853 20,000 0 0 0 0 3348 Wraxall Primary 19,245 46,562 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3119 Wrington Primary 20,120 78,158 78,158 0 0 0 0 0 0 3120 Yatton Infant 95,211 100,811 100,811 0 0 0 0 0 0 3111 Yatton Junior 22,296 122,668 122,668 0 0 0 0 0 0 7039 Baytree Special 114,589 160,976 160,976 0 0 0 0 0 0 7037 Ravenswood Special 37,356 183,882 183,882 0 0 0 0 0 0 7036 Westhaven Special 168,787 196,532 196,532 0 0 0 0 0 0 1102 Voyage Learning CampPRU (407,022) 223,088 223,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3,080,582 5,883,871 5,924,695 88,571 138,296 30,000 0 8,778 19,680
Agenda Item 6 Outturn Appendices 28/06/2017 Strategic Schools Forum
5 July 2017
Agenda Item No.: 6 Appendix G
Request for resources for Hutton Primary School
Louise Malik
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
- 1 - Introduction
1. Hutton Primary School have had a clawback of their excess school balance at the end of the 2016-17 financial year amounting to £8,778. The school have written to the SSF to request that the clawback is not applied due to their specific circumstances. The letter from the school is attached as Appendix Ga.
Recommendations
2. The SSF is recommended to:
a. Agree that Hutton Primary School should be able to retain their excess balance as requested.
Detail
3. The dashboard below provides an overview of the funding request:
How reasonable is it for Very reasonable Very unreasonable providers to fund this area?
What is the total cost of Small (<£10k) Large (over £250k) the request (all years)?
What is the level of need Universal provision Highly targeted of those receiving the service?
Is there a financial risk of No financial risk High financial risk not funding this area?
Is there a risk to C&YP of No risk to C&YP High risk to C&YP not funding this area?
How innovative is the Existing practice Highly innovative request?
- 2 - 4. Specific details of the proposed activity, which expands on the summary above, are provided below:
Planned activities – The excess balance will be used to complete building development including timeframe activity which is already in progress. This activity is due to be finished in this financial year
Staff/Resource No staff costs. The excess balance will support the schools costs – itemised per contribution to the capital project such as the purchase of land and annum surfacing reception play space
Planned outcomes - Extract from Hutton Primary School’s plan: To improve and make overall best use of the schools facilities
Specific outcomes – Extract from Hutton Primary School’s plan: (e.g. no. of children / • All areas of the school will be accessible young people / • School is able to meet the needs of most disabled pupils families to benefit, specific targets such as reducing exclusions by x% etc) Research to support n/a proposals (e.g. historical trends, benchmarking information, how delivered in other LA’s areas, opportunities for joint working either intra or inter authority working) Risks if the service If this clawback is made the school will not be able to complete the is not provided surfacing for the reception class play space and it will be left with (risks may be an unusable surface. financial or non financial; short, medium or long term). How the service will n/a one off project be sustained financially in the future Exit strategy n/a/
Other potential None funding sources
5. The recommendation in this report has been made in recognition of the SSF’s agreement to consult schools on a proposal to remove the control mechanism for - 3 - surplus balances for maintained schools and not, therefore, apply the control to balances at the end of the 2017-18 financial year and beyond.
6. There are a number of reasons to review this control mechanism. This include:
a. The increased financial pressure on school budgets,
b. The reducing number of schools that the control mechanism applies to. The mechanism only applies to maintained schools,
c. The relatively low level of clawbacks over the last three years,
d. The increased complexity of additional funding streams such as Teaching Schools,
e. The level of maintained school balances, as a % of in year funding has not increased dramatically over the last three years.
- 4 - Hutton CE Primary School Church Lane Hutton BS24 9SN Telephone: 01934 812852
Headteacher: [email protected] Luci Amos www.huttonceprimaryschool.co.uk
Dear Louise and SSF panel,
I am writing to request the retention of £8,778, which is due to be clawed back from the school as an excess balance, due to the exceptional circumstances at Hutton CE Primary School this year, due to our building project.
In 2015/16 I requested permission to retain £20,000 above our allowable balance for a build project to replace our conservatory space that was beyond its usable life. This was granted. In reality our underspend at the end of the 2015-16 financial year was only in excess of our allowable balance by £1,651
Then before this work took place, I was informed by North Somerset that they were going to replace our three rotting Elliot huts (which housed 5 of 7 classes) and refurbish the 1983 building to make it suitable for the other two classes. The new building and refurbishment of the rest of the school meant that the conservatory project was no longer required but that the money was required for land purchase ( to replace the playground space that was due to be built on.)
In 2016/17 it was agreed that the money approved as an excess balance in 2015/16 should be transferred to the sale of the land rather than the conservatory project. The building works began late (not until November 2016). We then requested that we retain two further amounts of £20,000 in excess of our allowable balance at the end of the 2016/17 financial year which are needed for completing the building projects required in school. One was for the refurbishment of the school staffroom and toilets, the other was for furniture, playground surfacing etc that are not being supplied as part of our build project. Again these were granted.
We would have anticipated that the money for land purchase would have been concluded by now, thus there would have been no issue of excess funds to be clawed back. However as
the project began late and is still in progress, we still require the money for this. We have been closely managing our budget, and followed all the correct procedures regarding requesting the retention of funds, but we are in exceptional circumstances at the moment. Each of the projects that we have earmarked are either dependent on the new build being completed (furniture for classrooms, surfacing the play space for Reception etc) or is restricted by not being allowed two contractors on site at the same time (for the refurbishment of the staffroom and toilets). Thus my hands are tied and I cannot spend the money until the new building is completed. We were under the impression that we would be allowed to carry forward £60,000 over and above our allowable balance from the 2016/17 financial year, due to the three applications that we have made and were agreed.
Believe Achieve Succeed
In our hands we hold the future.
Hutton CE Primary School Church Lane Hutton BS24 9SN Telephone: 01934 812852
Headteacher: [email protected] Luci Amos www.huttonceprimaryschool.co.uk
However, we now understand that because the balance that we carried over from the 2015/16 financial year was £1,651 we are only permitted to have a balance in excess of our allowable limit of £41,651 (the £1,651 from 2015/16 and the two £20,000 projects approved in 2016/17). Our balance at the end of the financial year was £50,429 above our allowable balance limit hence the clawback of £8,778.
If this clawback is made we will not be able to complete the surfacing for the reception class play space and it will be left with an unusable surface.
I would really appreciate it if you could look favourably on my request due to the unusual circumstances that we find ourselves in this year.
Yours Sincerely,
Luci Amos, Headteacher
Believe Achieve Succeed
In our hands we hold the future.
Strategic Schools Forum
5 July 2017
Agenda Item No.: 7
Schools Budget Monitoring 2017-18
Louise Malik & Trevor Isaac
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
Introduction
1. This is the first monitoring report for the Schools Budget in 2017-18 and covers the period to the end of May 2017.
Purpose of the Report
2. The purpose of the report is to:
a. Ask the SSF of to agree the changes to the schools budget,
b. Inform the SSF of the projected outturn for 2017-18 of the schools budget and any implications for 2018-19,
c. Inform the SSF of any significant financial issues that arise from the monitoring report and for the SSF to instigate any necessary remedial actions,
d. Inform the SSF of the projected outturn for 2017-18 of the de-delegated services,
e. Enable the SSF to consider options to recover the projected overspend in top up funding.
Recommendations
3. The SSF is asked to:
a. Agree the proposed changes to the schools budget as detailed in Appendix A,
b. Note the projected outturn overspend in the schools budget for 2017-18 of £1,582,849 as detailed in Appendix B and consider any questions,
c. Note that after taking into consideration earmarked underspends (such as de- delegations) the actual overspend that will impact on the 2018-19 financial year is £1,592,539,
d. Note the projected overspend on de-delegated services for 2017-18 of £9,690, excl. rates, as detailed in Appendix B and consider any questions,
e. Agree the proposals in paragraphs 14 and 15 to mitigate against the overspend in top up funding,
f. Note the funds committed for use in 2017-18 as detailed in paragraph 20.
Detail
The DSG
4. The total estimated DSG has decreased from £146,852,759, as reported to the SSF in January 2017, to an updated estimate of £77,677,586. A decrease of £69,175,172.
1
5. This reduction relates to academy recoupment. Academy recoupment has no overall impact on the schools budget as the allocations that are made to schools reduce by the same amount.
The schools budget
6. The schools budget has been updated, as detailed in Appendix A, to reflect the changes in the DSG as detailed above.
7. The schools budget has also been updated to incorporate the overspend brought forward from the 2016-17 financial year.
8. The schools budget has also been updated to incorporate the budgetary movements agreed by the SSF in May 2017 in relation to the new provision which replaces Westhaven Phoenix and Horizons.
Schools Budget monitoring
9. This report covers the period April 2017 to May 2017. Set out below are explanations of the headings as set out in Appendix B.
Column 1 Description Cost centre and budget description Column 2 Updated Budget As proposed in this paper 2017-18 Column 3 Use of Carry As detailed in the outturn report Forward Column 4 Total Budget 2017-18 Column 5 Expenditure to Based on spend to March in this case date Column 6 Budget to date Profiled budget to May in this case (ie 2/12ths) Column 7 Variance to date The difference between columns 5 and 6 Column 8 Projected Outturn This is the projected end of year actual expenditure based on levels of activity Column 9 Variance for year The difference between columns 8 and 9. This is the most important column as it highlights those areas of anticipated under and over spending. Column Earmarked for This shows if the SSF have already agreed 10 use that resources should be earmarked for a specific purpose in future years Column Balance available This identifies funds available 11
10. Several significant variations are currently forecast. These are detailed below:
a. Delegated funding – No underspend is currently projected for this budget. However there is likely to be a saving due to a reduction in rates costs following the conversion of a number of school to academy status during the financial year. Academy orders are in place for a number of schools to
2
convert with a target date of 1st September 2017. If this happened on time it is estimated that this would generate savings of £92k in the current financial year. Any delay to the conversions, however, would reduce this savings. Further conversions are also expected within the financial year for which there is not yet academy orders. These further conversions would generate additional savings. Further savings are also likely to be made in the delegated funding budget due to the clawback of funding from schools for permanent exclusions. However, no underspend has been assumed as this funding will be moved into other budget lines within the schools budget that fund additional provision for these students. b. Provision for 2, 3 & 4 year olds – It is too early to accurately project an under or overspend on this budget. The level of expenditure is more volatile in the 2017-18 financial year due to the introduction of the 30 hours per week entitlement from September 2017. The DSG will also be adjusted to reflect the number of hours taken up as at January 2017 and January 2018 which could impact on the budget provided. c. The Learning Exchange budget – The SSF may recall that redundancy costs were charged to the accounts, in line with accounting regulations, in the 2016- 17 financial year although funding had been set aside within the 2017-18 financial year budget. Whilst this increased the overspend in the 2016-17 financial year some of the overspend carried forwards has been attributed to this budget to reflect the provision made for redundancy costs. d. Place Funding – This budget will overspend by an estimated £70k. Details to explain this overspend are provided in Appendix C. e. Out of Authority Placements – This budget is estimated to underspend by £163k, assuming the £100k contingency will be spent. Attached as Appendix D is an analysis of the current projected outturn compared to the budget set. Requests continue for out of authority provision and this provision is likely to change. One placement can make a considerable difference to the projected outturn position. f. Top up funding – This budget is estimated to overspend by £493k. Appendix E provides a summary of the projected monthly top up funding to mainstream and specialist providers, and compares this to the monthly expenditure in the previous financial year. This shows a significant increase in the projected spend in mainstream schools. The projection reflects, to the best of our knowledge, children transferring from early years settings, young people due to leave and the results of the top up funding moderation process. The most significant change comes at the start of the 2017-18 academic year.
g. Contingencies. This budget is estimated to underspend by £122k. The underspend in this area mainly relates to new school exceptional pupil growth funding for Locking Parklands, which was budgeted to open in September 2017 but now won’t open until at least September 2018.
h. Contingency for unallocated DSG – As detailed in agenda item 6 from the July 2017 SSF meeting, the overspend from 2016-17, that will impact on the 2017-
3
18 financial year, is £1,707,153, after taking into consideration the £20,125 that is committed for projects and the £75,915 earmarked overspend on de- delegated services that is due to be recovered in the current financial year. Some of this overspend carried forwards (£105,253) has been attributed to the Learning Exchange budget to reflect the provision for redundancy costs in the 2017-18 financial year. The remainder of £1,601,900 is the true overspend to be recovered. In setting the budget for the 2017-18 financial year the SSF considered the projected overspend in the 2016-17 financial year, at that time £1.4m. The SSF agreed that the projected overspend should be recovered from providers over a 5 year period starting in 2017-18 and funding allocations for providers were reduced accordingly. Appendix B demonstrates a contribution from the 2017-18 budget to recovering the overspend of £271,038 leaving a balance to be recovered of £1,330,862.
11. The table below analyses the projected outturn in the current financial year:
2016-17 Overspend from 2016-17 (after partial recovery in 17-18) £1,330,862 2017-18 Underspend on sensory impairment £(16,456) Overspend on place funding £70,000 Underspend on out of authority placements £(163,349) Overspend on top up funding £493,729 Underspend on contingencies £121,923 Underspend on rates £(325) Total overspend in 2017-18 £261,677 Overall Total overspend £1,592,539
12. As detailed in paragraph 10a there is likely to be a saving in the delegated funding budget of approx. £92k due to expected academy conversions. This has not yet been built into the projection but would reduce the projected in year overspend from £261,677, as detailed in the table above, to £169k.
13. The SSF should note that at this relatively early stage in the financial year this projection could change with further overspends or underspends occurring.
14. Given the relatively small overall projected overspend the SSF are not recommended to introduce a cut to top up funding rates at this point in time. Instead the SSF are recommended to request a further quality assurance review of all of the top up funding moderation outcomes to ensure consistency of decision making and to identify if any reductions can be identified. This would be reported back to the SSF in October 2017 along with an updated monitoring report. If the position at this point in time is still an overspend the SSF will be asked to consider an in year cut to top up funding.
15. If the SSF agree this recommendation, information will be shared with schools to ensure that they are aware of the situation and the potential for changes in moderation decisions for individual children and young people and to the overall top up funding rates.
4
De-delegated Services
16. The monitoring summary, attached as Appendix B, includes a section on the resources de-delegated from maintained mainstream schools for the 2017-18 financial year.
17. Please note that the value of the de-delegations is adjusted throughout the financial year as a result of academy conversions.
18. The current estimate is that the de-delegated services will be underspent in the current financial year by £9,690, excluding rates.
19. Any overspend or underspend on de-delegated services (excluding rates) is carried forwards to the following financial year to be used for the same overall purpose. An overspend of £75,915 was carried forwards for de-delegated services from the 2016- 17 financial year and further spending of £20,000 earmarked for future schools activity. The SSF have been recommended to recover the whole £95,915 from schools that were maintained during the 2016-17 financial year.
Funds committed for use in 2017-18
20. Despite the overspend at the end of the 2016-17 financial year, the SSF has already agreed to some further spending commitments beyond those included in the schools budget for 2017-18. Clearly, these additional commitments add to the deficit at the end of 2016-17 to worsen the impact that this will have on the 2017-18 financial year. The overall position is shown below:
Schools budget overspend at the end of 2016-17 £1,762,943 Funds committed to be used in 2017-18 Virtual School £20,125 Overspend on de-delegations to be clawed back from 2016-17 (£75,915) maintain schools Total commitments to date (£55,790) Overspend that impacts on the 2017-18 financial year £1,707,153
21. The figures above relate solely to the overspend brought forwards from 2016-17. It does not include the estimated overspend that will be incurred during the 2017-18 financial year.
5
Appendix A
THE SCHOOLS BUDGET 2016-17
Budget Heading 2017-18 As agreed by SSF January 2017 2017-18 Proposed Agreed from Agreed from Agreed DSG Total incl Agreed DSG Total incl Diff to budget underspend underspend budget underspend underspend previous year b/fwd b/fwd
£ £ £ £ £ £ £ Universal provision and early intervention Delegated funding 124,030,078 0 124,030,078 124,030,078 0 124,030,078 0 Early years pupil premium & Disabled access fund 98,914 0 98,914 98,914 0 98,914 0 Less formula recoupment for academies 0 0 0 (69,175,172) 0 (69,175,172) (69,175,172) Learning Exchange 331,689 0 331,689 331,689 (105,253) 226,436 (105,253) Retained services (ex ESG) 443,273 0 443,273 443,273 0 443,273 0 Sub-total 124,903,954 0 124,903,954 55,728,782 (105,253) 55,623,529 (69,280,425) Intensive support for vulnerable Delegated place funding 3,597,500 0 3,597,500 3,539,167 0 3,539,167 (58,333) Top up funding 9,590,502 0 9,590,502 9,540,218 0 9,540,218 (50,284) Vulnerable learners service 1,314,978 0 1,314,978 1,314,978 20,125 1,335,103 20,125 Out of Authority Placements 3,967,085 0 3,967,085 3,967,085 0 3,967,085 0 Early years services 183,481 0 183,481 183,481 0 183,481 0 Family support provided through the Community Families Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electively home educated children 26,110 0 26,110 26,110 0 26,110 0 Commissioned tuition service 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 500,000 0 Business rates for AP 45,000 0 45,000 45,000 0 45,000 0 Commissioned resource bases 95,000 0 95,000 95,000 0 95,000 0 SEN equipment and other expenses 165,833 0 165,833 165,833 0 165,833 0 Out of School Panel for provision for CME 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 0 Commissioned provision for students with no school place 120,000 0 120,000 120,000 0 120,000 0 Prevention and Re- engagement provision subsidy 19,800 0 19,800 19,800 0 19,800 0 Administration of the placement protocol 19,999 0 19,999 19,999 0 19,999 0 Pathways (Ex Westhaven Horizons) 0 0 0 147,506 0 147,506 147,506 School Placement Support Team (Ex Westhaven Phoenix) 180,000 0 180,000 141,112 0 141,112 (38,889) Sub-total 19,925,289 0 19,925,289 19,925,289 20,125 19,945,414 20,125 Strategic and centrally administered Strategic Schools Forum costs 7,700 0 7,700 7,700 0 7,700 0 Support and advice to SSF/Schools 149,125 0 149,125 149,125 0 149,125 0 Prudential Borrowing 632,704 0 632,704 632,704 0 632,704 0 Licenses & subscriptions 136,237 0 136,237 136,237 0 136,237 0 Future Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RPTA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools Central Funds (maternity cover etc) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools Insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Structural Repairs and Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Admissions and FSM eligibility 225,195 0 225,195 225,195 0 225,195 0 Early years administration 79,593 0 79,593 79,593 0 79,593 0 E-Safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingencies (previously school specific contingencies) 521,923 0 521,923 521,923 (75,915) 446,008 (75,915) Contingency for unallocated DSG 271,038 0 271,038 271,038 (1,601,900) (1,330,862) (1,601,900) Sub-total 2,023,516 0 2,023,516 2,023,516 (1,677,815) 345,701 (1,677,815) Total estimated schools budget 146,852,759 0 146,852,759 77,677,586 (1,762,943) 75,914,643 (70,938,115) Funded by DSG 146,852,759 77,677,586 (69,175,172) Underspend from the previous year 0 (1,762,943) (1,762,943) 146,852,759 75,914,643 (70,938,115) 0 0
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Appendix B
DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT MONITORING 2017/18 - As at 31st May 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Cost Centre Budget description Use of Final Budget carry Budget Expenditure Budget Variance Projected Variance Earmarked Balance 2017/2018 forward 2017/2018 To Date To Date To Date Outturn for year for use available £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 1 UNIVERSAL PROVISION AND EARLY INTERVENTION 2 Delegated Funding 44,906,292 44,906,292 9,202,672 7,484,382 1,718,290 44,906,292 0 0 0 3 EBZ001&7(part) Provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds 10,047,528 0 10,047,528 2,118,081 2,093,235 24,846 10,047,528 0 0 0 4 Retained Services 443,273 0 443,273 38,786 (38,786) 443,273 0 0 0 4 EEP999+EBZ007 Learning Exchange 331,689 (105,253) 226,436 55,282 37,739 17,543 226,436 0 0 0 5 Total Universal Provision and Early Intervention 55,728,782 (105,253) 55,623,529 11,376,035 9,654,143 1,721,892 55,623,529 0 0 0
6 INTENSIVE SUPPORT FOR VULNERABLE LEARNERS 7 EBX320 Inclusion Advisory Team 350,098 350,098 58,350 58,350 0 350,098 0 0 0 8 EBX934 Travellers Service 96,000 96,000 45,940 48,000 (2,060) 96,000 0 0 0 9 EBX935 Sensory Impairment - Joint Arrangement 278,440 278,440 (16,456) 232 (16,688) 261,984 (16,456) 0 (16,456) 10 EBY999 Psychology Service 140,398 140,398 23,400 23,400 0 140,398 0 0 0 11 EBY999 Portage 66,840 66,840 11,140 11,140 0 66,840 0 0 0 12 EBY999 VLS Management 42,120 42,120 7,020 7,020 0 42,120 0 0 0 13 EES002 Virtual Schools 134,783 20,125 154,908 25,635 25,818 (183) 154,908 0 0 0 Family support and support for vulnerable 14 EES003 children (PARENTING) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 EES003 Safeguarding 58,300 58,300 3,383 9,717 (6,333) 58,300 0 0 0 16 EES003 Targeted Mental Health in Schools 50,000 0 50,000 8,333 8,333 (0) 50,000 0 0 0 17 EES007 SALT & SALSA 97,999 0 97,999 88,999 89,832 (833) 97,999 0 0 0 18 Total Vulnerable learners service 1,314,978 20,125 1,335,103 255,744 281,842 (26,097) 1,318,647 (16,456) 0 (16,456)
19 EEH803 Delegated Place Funding 3,539,167 0 3,539,167 3,501,333 3,244,236 257,097 3,609,167 70,000 0 70,000 20 EBW002 SEN equipment & Other costs 165,833 0 165,833 38,566 41,458 (2,892) 165,833 0 0 0 21 EBW999 Out of Authority Placements 3,967,085 0 3,967,085 827,995 991,771 (163,776) 3,803,736 (163,349) 0 (163,349) 22 EBZ003 Early Years Commissioned Services 183,481 0 183,481 424 30,580 (30,156) 183,481 0 0 0 23 EES010 Top-up Funding 9,540,218 0 9,540,218 1,122,411 1,351,531 (229,120) 10,033,948 493,729 0 493,729 Pathways (Ex Westhaven Horizons) 147,506 147,506 0 0 147,506 0 School Placement Support Team (Ex 28 EEH805 Westhaven Phoenix) 141,112 0 141,112 23,519 (23,519) 141,112 0 0 0 24 EBX300 Elective home educated children 26,110 0 26,110 4,352 (4,352) 26,110 0 0 0 25 Out of school Panel for CME 100,000 0 100,000 16,667 (16,667) 100,000 0 0 0 25 EBX312 Commissioned students - no school place 120,000 0 120,000 (7,045) 20,000 (27,045) 120,000 0 0 0 26 EBX303 Prevention and re-engagement 19,800 0 19,800 3,300 (3,300) 19,800 0 0 0 27 EBX303 Administration of placement protocol 20,000 0 20,000 3,333 (3,333) 20,000 0 0 0 Family support provided through the 29 EBX321 Community Families Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Business Rates for AP 45,000 0 45,000 7,500 (7,500) 45,000 0 0 0 30 EBX325 Commissioned tuition service 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 500,000 0 0 0 31 EBX800 Commissioned Resource bases 95,000 0 95,000 5,210 15,833 (10,623) 95,000 0 0 0 32 Total Other Intensive Support for vulnerable learners 18,610,311 0 18,610,311 5,988,895 6,254,080 (265,186) 19,010,692 400,381 0 400,381
33 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED 34 EEN700 Strategic Schools Forum 7,700 7,700 (252) 1,283 (1,536) 7,700 0 0 0 35 EEN399 Support and advice for SSF 149,125 0 149,125 12,354 24,854 (12,500) 149,125 0 0 0 36 EEN199 Licences and Subscriptions 136,237 0 136,237 0 22,706 0 136,237 0 0 0 37 EBZ011 Early Years Administration 79,593 0 79,593 13,266 (13,266) 79,593 0 0 0 38 EEN412 Headteacher Support Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 EEN599 Pupil Admissions Section 225,195 0 225,195 37,533 37,533 1 225,195 0 0 0 40 EES006 Costs of Prudential Borrowing 632,704 0 632,704 527 (527) 632,704 0 0 0 41 Structural Repair and Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 EPC001/ECON01 Contingencies 521,923 (75,915) 446,008 24,533 74,335 (49,802) 324,085 (121,923) 0 (121,923) 43 Contingency for Unallocated DSG 271,038 (1,601,900) (1,330,862) 0 (221,810) 221,810 0 1,330,862 1,330,862 44 Total Strategic management and centrally administered 2,023,515 (1,677,815) 345,700 74,168 (47,307) 144,181 1,554,639 1,208,939 0 1,208,939
45 TOTAL SCHOOLS BUDGET 77,677,586 (1,762,943) 75,914,643 17,694,841 16,142,758 1,574,790 77,507,507 1,592,864 0 1,592,864 46 ADDITIONAL GRANT 0 0 47 PUPIL PREMIUM GRANT 0 0 0 48 DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT (77,677,586) 1,762,943 (75,914,643) (15,612,746) (13,772,181) (1,840,565) (75,914,643) 0 49 BALANCE 0 0 0 2,082,095 2,370,577 (265,775) 1,592,864 1,592,864 DE-DELEGATIONS Value of Income Expenditure Net Projected Variance Earmarked Balance De-delegations To Date To Date To Date Outturn for year for use £ available £ 50 EBX320 Inclusion Advisory Team 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 EEH790.792.794 Vulnerable Learner Service 80,778 0 0 80,778 0 0 0 52 EES202 E.M.A.S. Contribution 9,064 (9,064) 0 (9,064) 9,064 0 0 0 53 EEV17* R.P.T.A. 0 0 1,131 1,131 0 0 0 0 54 EEN599 Pupil Admissions Section F.S.M. 5,508 (5,509) 918 (4,591) 5,508 0 0 0 55 EES008 Future Schools 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 56 EPC001/ECON01/ESSchool Specific Contingencies 9,690 0 0 0 0 (9,690) 9,690 0 57 EBX998 Insurance 303,714 (303,714) 0 (303,714) 303,714 0 0 0 58 CE Supply Cover (Maternity, Suspensions) 0 0 13,430 13,430 0 0 0 0 59 2001CE Rates 683,061 (683,063) 687,480 4,417 682,736 (325) 0 (325) 60 Total De-delegations 1,111,815 (1,001,350) 702,959 (298,391) 1,101,800 (10,015) 9,690 (325) 61 BALANCE INCLUDING DE-DELEGATIONS 1,111,815 1,582,849 9,690 1,592,539
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Appendix D Age in the Budget based at financial Category As at 31/5/17 Diff Details of change 25/11/16 year 1 12 - 13 SEMH 10,400 10,429 29 2 13 - 14 SEMH 45,000 41,850 (3,150) 3 8 - 9 SEMH 69,090 69,366 276 4 11 - 12 MLD 32440 33,576 1,136 5 14 - 15 SEMH 50,136 53,988 3,852 Rate increase 6 14 - 15 ASD 37,876 37,876 0 7 10 - 11 MLD 32,440 9,949 (22,491) Fees lower than originally stated 8 8 - 9 SPLD 0 14,129 14,129 New case 9 11 - 12 MLD 32,440 17,052 (15,388) Fees lower than originally stated 10 15 - 16 MLD 106,000 106,008 8 11 14 - 15 ASD 45,465 45,463 (2) 12 13 - 14 HI 37,955 37,955 0 13 13 - 14 HI 37,955 37,955 0 14 15 - 16 SEMH 43,535 44,174 639 15 12 - 13 ASD 14,130 19,217 5,087 Additional charge for Speech & Language 16 14 - 15 ASD 39,708 39,708 0 17 12 - 13 SEMH 0 58,119 58,119 Started after budget set 18 12 - 13 HI 46,152 32,915 (13,237) Not charged for language enrichment as expected. 19 13 - 14 SEMH 50,136 53,988 3,852 Rate increase 20 12 - 13 ASD 19,829 19,829 0 21 15 - 16 SEMH 50,136 53,988 3,852 Rate increase 22 12 - 13 SEMH 0 53,988 53,988 New case 23 12 - 13 SLCN 32,921 32,921 0 24 8 - 9 ASD 25,000 24,750 (250) 25 11 - 12 ASD 29,291 29,291 0 26 15 - 16 ASD 30,075 30,075 0 27 11 - 12 SEMH 26,010 22,159 (3,850) Fees reduced in Summer 17 28 11 - 12 SEMH 32,500 30,346 (2,154) 29 15 - 16 SEMH 43,440 43,440 0 30 15 - 16 SPLD 18,026 19,881 1,855 Assumed additional charge of £1,855 for therapy 31 13 - 14 SEMH 0 53,988 53,988 New case 32 11 - 12 SpLD 24,579 29,696 5,117 Additional costs 33 15 - 16 SEMH 50,300 52,781 2,481 Charged for additional education support 34 11 - 12 SEMH 0 53,988 53,988 New case 35 14 - 15 SEMH 50,136 0 (50,136) Provision ended 36 14 - 15 ASD 27,095 24,095 (3,000) Termly rate less than advised 37 13 - 14 ASD & SL 0 96,265 96,265 New case 38 13 - 14 SEMH 0 35,602 35,602 New case 39 11 - 12 SEMH 0 51,300 51,300 New case 40 13 - 14 SEMH 51,138 53,988 2,850 41 10 - 11 BESD 0 31,286 31,286 New case 42 15 - 16 MLD 29,970 34,401 4,431 Costs increased 43 14 - 15 ASD 20,543 20,543 (0) 44 14 - 15 MLD 21,998 29,292 7,294 Increase in fees (higher intervention of support needed) 45 13 - 14 SLCN 39,708 39,708 0 46 12 - 13 ASD 68,028 69,918 1,890 Costs increased from April 17 47 15 - 16 SEMH 37,430 37,430 0 48 13 - 14 BESD 19,973 19,254 (719) 49 14 - 15 ASD 62,508 65,000 2,492 Change in fees 50 15 - 16 SEMH 63,098 33,207 (29,891) Change of placement 51 15 - 16 ASD 24,369 24,369 0 52 9 - 10 HI 32,000 33,803 1,803 53 13 - 14 SPLD 0 27,250 27,250 New case 54 12 - 13 SPLD 22,719 24,801 2,082 Change in fees
21 17,760 20,788 3,028 Transport 40 17,355 17,140 (215) Transport 50 12,000 8,807 (3,193) Transport 42 176 0 (176) Transport 47 4,950 7,197 2,247 Transport 48 14,402 15,214 812 Transport 275 7,890 7,615 Transport 0 12,695 12,695 Transport
55 16 - 17 SEMH 50700 50,700 0 56 17 - 18 SEMH 50,136 53,988 3,852 Rate increase 57 17 - 18 ASD 24,777 24,777 0
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Appendix D Age in the Budget based at financial Category As at 31/5/17 Diff Details of change 25/11/16 year 58 16 - 17 ASD 20,538 20,538 0 59 18 - 19 SEMH 42,372 42,488 116 60 19 - 20 ASD 72,216 66,420 (5,796) Change in Provision 61 17 - 18 SPLD 20,808 27,349 6,541 Change in Provision 62 17 - 18 ASD 39,398 39,398 0 63 19 - 20 ASD 26,591 0 (26,591) Left 64 16 - 17 SEMH 50,136 53,988 3,852 Rate increase 65 17 - 18 ASD 140,600 0 (140,600) Left 66 18 - 19 HI 37,955 42,503 4,548 Change in Provision 67 16 - 17 SpLD 32,412 32,481 69 68 16 - 17 ASD 103,305 54,815 (48,491) Changed from residential to Day pupil 69 16 - 17 ASD 130,000 124,800 (5,200) Change in fees 70 16 - 17 MLD 20,543 21,924 1,381 71 16 - 17 SEMH 50,342 0 (50,342) Left 72 17 - 18 SEMH 53,088 53,988 900 Rate increase 73 16 - 17 BESD 50,136 53,991 3,855 Rate increase 74 19 - 20 MLD 8,269 24,806 16,537 Continued Provision 75 16 - 17 ASD 130,000 (70,146) (200,146) Left 76 18 - 19 SPLD 18,099 19,077 978 Also charged for sp & Lang 77 18 - 19 SPLD 40,743 40,743 0
78 20 - 21 ASD 68,829 68,829 0 79 21 - 22 SLD 15,492 0 (15,492) Left 80 19 - 20 ASD 37,705 0 (37,705) Left 81 21 - 22 SLD 20,139 16,156 (3,983) Rate change 82 21 - 22 ASD 57,887 57,774 (113) Rate change 83 18 - 19 ASD 82,860 82,860 (0) 84 20 - 21 ASD 88,393 82,860 (5,533) Rate change 85 22 - 23 MLD 91,358 88,272 (3,086) Rate change 86 19 - 20 SEMH 81,801 81,801 0 87 19 - 20 ASD 50,872 49,054 (1,818) Rate change 88 18 - 19 MLD 84,153 84,263 110 89 19 - 20 ASD 46,250 45,000 (1,250) 90 18 - 19 ASD 177,588 112,161 (65,427) Change in estimated provision Contingency 100,000 100,000 0
3,967,085 3,803,736 (163,349)
New Cases 11 446,024 Ended cases 8 (521,011) Changes 60 (88,361) (163,349)
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Appendix E
Mainstream Schools, Academies & NSETC NCY 10 & 11 pupils
TUF Ban Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total Funding A0 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 1,086 A1 27,824 27,197 27,197 27,197 27,197 33,840 33,840 33,840 33,840 33,840 33,840 33,840 373,495 A2 12,036 12,036 12,036 12,036 12,036 13,806 13,806 13,806 13,806 13,806 13,806 13,806 156,822 A3 0 0 0 0 0 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 12,282 Add TUF 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 7,000 B1 36,269 36,269 36,269 36,269 36,269 46,411 46,411 46,411 46,411 46,411 46,411 46,411 506,220 B2 33,099 33,984 35,400 35,400 35,400 44,250 44,250 44,250 43,365 43,365 43,365 43,365 479,493 B3 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 1,755 21,055 C1 27,882 27,882 27,348 27,348 27,348 30,017 30,017 30,017 30,017 30,017 30,017 30,017 347,925 C2 47,160 47,160 46,275 46,275 46,275 52,470 52,470 52,470 52,470 52,470 52,470 52,470 600,429 C3 6,685 6,685 6,685 6,685 6,685 8,356 8,356 8,356 8,356 8,356 8,356 8,356 91,919 C4 0 0 2,223 2,223 2,223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,670 DH1 434 434 434 434 434 520 520 520 520 520 520 520 5,809 DH2 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 10,404 DH3 1,478 1,478 1,478 1,478 1,478 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 2,218 22,914 DV1 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,517 1,517 1,517 1,517 1,517 1,517 1,517 17,123 DV2 0 0 0 0 0 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 1,517 DV3 2,904 2,904 2,904 2,904 2,904 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 28,074 E1 22,134 21,371 22,134 22,134 22,134 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 286,219 E2 8,806 9,880 9,880 9,880 9,880 12,887 12,887 12,887 12,887 12,887 12,887 12,887 138,536 Grand To 231,307 231,876 234,860 234,860 234,860 278,681 278,681 278,681 277,796 277,796 277,796 277,796 3,114,991
2016/17 222,900 219,778 221,983 225,622 224,737 223,299 226,929 229,757 230,421 233,747 231,443 237,084 2,729,506 inc/dec 8,407 12,098 12,877 9,238 10,123 55,382 51,752 48,924 47,375 44,050 46,353 40,712 385,485
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Appendix E Mainstream Schools, Academies & NSETC NCY 10 & 11 pupils
TUF Ban Apr May Jun Jul Aug inc /(dec) Prim / Sec Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 -2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 A1 44.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 10.6 Prim 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 A2 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 2.0 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 A3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 B1 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 19.0 4 Sec / 15 pri 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 B2 37.4 38.4 40.0 40.0 40.0 10.0 3 sec / 7 prim 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 B3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C1 49.0 49.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 5.0 Prim 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 C2 53.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 7.0 1 sec / 6 prim 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 C3 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 C4 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DH1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 DH2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 DH3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 DV1 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 DV2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 DV3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 -1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 E1 29.0 28.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 4.0 2 sec / 2 prim 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 E2 8.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 2.8 2 prim 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Total 328.6 328.6 330.2 330.2 330.2 61.8 392.0 392.0 392.0 391.0 391.0 391.0 391.0 2016/17 317.6 316.6 316.6 316.6 316.6 364.4 364.4 364.4 363.4 363.4 363.4 363.4 inc/dec 11.0 12.0 13.6 13.6 13.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Appendix E Combined Specials Schools inc Alternative Provision
TUF Ban Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total Funding A1 15,136 14,843 14,843 14,843 14,843 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 166,905 A2 12,909 12,909 12,909 12,909 12,909 12,357 12,357 12,357 12,357 12,357 12,357 12,357 151,047 A3 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 12,507 150,084 A4 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 6,283 59,684 B1 7,416 7,416 7,416 7,416 7,416 7,816 7,816 7,816 7,816 7,816 7,816 7,816 91,792 B2 25,156 25,156 24,825 24,825 24,825 25,377 25,377 25,377 25,377 25,377 25,377 25,377 302,425 B3 25,583 24,161 24,161 24,161 24,161 24,161 24,161 24,161 24,161 24,161 24,161 24,161 291,356 B4 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 21,989 263,865 C1 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,203 1,203 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 11,624 C2 30,342 32,549 33,100 36,962 36,962 33,652 33,652 33,652 33,652 33,652 33,652 33,652 405,477 C3 14,717 16,055 17,393 18,731 18,731 18,731 18,731 18,731 18,731 18,731 18,731 18,731 216,743 C4 41,576 41,576 41,576 41,576 41,576 18,898 18,898 18,898 18,898 18,898 18,898 18,898 340,170 DH1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DH2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DH3 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 4,870 DV2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DV3 0 0 0 0 0 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 4,443 E1 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 3,009 3,009 3,009 3,009 3,009 3,009 3,009 31,814 E2 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 6,665 79,983 E3 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 29,098 349,179 Total 249,993 251,823 253,381 258,581 258,581 235,586 235,586 235,586 235,586 235,586 235,586 235,586 2,921,462
2016/17 240,282 233,064 236,317 229,839 229,287 242,936 246,164 250,645 254,707 251,238 256,873 256,095 2,927,449 Inc /(dec 9,710 18,759 17,064 28,742 29,293 (7,350) (10,578) (15,060) (19,121) (15,652) (21,287) (20,509) (5,987)
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Appendix E Specialist Provision
TUF Ban Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 45.6 44.6 44.6 44.6 44.6 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 A2 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 A3 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 A4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B1 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 B2 37.6 37.6 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 B3 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 B4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C1 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C2 9 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 C3 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 C4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 DH2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DH3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DV2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DV3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E1 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 E2 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 E3 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 NIL 22 22 22 22 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 OLA 9 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Grand To 235.4 231.4 230.8 230.8 230.8 205.2 205.2 205.2 205.2 205.2 205.2 205.2
Westhaven Horizons/Pathways FTE by TUF band TUF Ban Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar C4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Grand To 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Appendix E Specials Schools Post 16 FTE by TUF band TUF Ban Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A2 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 A3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B1 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 B2 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 B3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 B4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NIL 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 OLA 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand To 37 37 37 37 37 33 33 33 33 33 33 33
Resource Bases FTE by TUF band TUF Ban Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar B1 10 10 10 10 10 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 DH1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NIL 16 16 16 16 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Grand To 28 28 28 28 28 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
VLC FTE by TUF band TUF Ban Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar C2 46 51 52 59 59 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 C3 6 7 8 9 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 C4 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Grand To 59 65 67 75 75 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
28/06/2017 Agenda Item 7 Monitor Appendices Strategic Schools Forum -4 5 July 2017
Agenda Item No.: 7 Appendix C
Increase to Westhaven entry for September 2017
Wendy Packer
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
-4
Introduction
1. Previous agreement through SSF identified a budget to support 104 pupils within Westhaven, with further budget aside to support 4 additional pupils if required. A total of 108 pupils.
2. Westhaven school consider they have enough space to accommodate a higher number of pupils and discussed with SSF the ability to place up to 120 pupils comfortably within the school setting. Indeed the head teacher considers that SSF had already agreed to place up to 120 pupils. The SSF agreed to consider funding up to 120 places on a case by case basis hence the present request.
3. Westhaven is always a heavily oversubscribed resource and popular with parents. Indeed despite outlining that the school was full in March 2017, high numbers of families visited the school and through EHCP process continued to make parental preferences for this school.
4. There is now a number of students requesting places for September 2017, requiring consideration of an increase in places to this school.
5. The SEN team has worked down a priority list from the 30 plus applications received to the below list. All of the pupils below have been through an EHC needs assessment and consultation process where their current school have identified they cannot met needs or an annual review where the school has outlined they can no longer meet needs.
6. The LA supports the view that all of the pupils below require specialist provision as mainstream school have outlined they cannot support needs.
Purpose of the Report
7. The purpose of this report is to:
a. Provide detail to SSF to support the request to increase entry to Westhaven from 104 (108) pupils to 120.
b. Ask the SSF to ratify the decision to increase entry to Westhaven to 120 for September 2017
c. Note the budget implications as detailed in paragraphs 9 to 14
Recommendations
8. The SSF is recommended to:
a. Ratify the increase in entry of pupils to this school to support current need (outlined below) and to ensure that local and cost effective provision is used.
-4
b. Note the costs and potential cost avoidance of the increase in entry. The table below indicates the costs associated with the pupils and background information about students for your information.
Detail
Pupil background Proposed costs for Alternatives if not Placement at placed at Westhaven. Westhaven A – Bournville – He is Potential out of area year 6 moving into year 7. TUF Banding – No placement as cannot Secondary school have transport. place locally plus said can’t meet needs. transport. Nearest special school £30-40k and is parental preference B – Walliscote – Annual Potential out of area review school can’t meet TUF Banding – no placement as cannot needs – Parental transport costs place locally plus preference is Westhaven transport. and is nearest appropriate £30-40k special school. High level of outside agency support
C – Lympsham First – Transition and Place funding and no Somerset Maintained professionals advice is transport costs special school with that he needs specialist transport placement – Westhaven £20- 30k is closest school.
D – Hutton – This is parental preference and Place funding and no Somerset Maintained school are having outside transport costs. special school with agency support to try and transport maintain the place but £20- 30k limited progress.
E – Gordano – Not attending school – annual Could consider review identified could not Place funding and no Ravenswood alternatively meet needs. LA support transport costs. as North of area but special school placement. cohort may not be Parental preference for matched. Westhaven.
F – Oldmixon – Long term care placement. Parental Could consider preference is for Place funding and no Ravenswood Westhaven. School transport costs. alternatively, higher
-4 cannot meet needs. LA transport costs with this support Special school. option.
G – Mendip Green – Placement at risk – have TUF and transport Potential out of area consulted with (minimal) placement as cannot Ravenswood who have place locally plus concerns. Brother is transport. moving to Westhaven. £30-40k H – Uphill – Secondary transfer – Mainstream Place funding and no Somerset Maintained secondary have said no. transport special school with Needs to move school for transport secondary school. LA £20- 30k support special school.
I – Out of Authority TUF and transport - £30k Current placement - £75k Placement- Mover back with transport. into LA from independent special school. Alternative school would be another independent provision £70-90k plus transport. J – Yatton - Currently parental preference for TUF and transport Potential out of area Westhaven- LA support placement as cannot special school placement place locally plus and in current tribunal transport. situation. £30-40k
K – High Down – School Potential out of area can’t meet needs in TUF and transport placement as cannot danger of PEx and the place locally plus parental request is for transport. Westhaven. £30-40k L – Gordano school – reduced timetable – Potential out of area School have had annual TUF and transport placement as cannot review and have outlined place locally plus they cannot meet needs transport. in year 10. Parental £30-40k preference is Westhaven.
M – Ravenswood – Coming out of TUF and transport Alternative school would Ravenswood – request is be independent provision to see if Westhaven can £70-90k plus transport take him as a fresh start
-4
to avoid going out of area N – Bournville- been at Phoenix, went back to TUF and no transport Potential out of area Bournville and costs placement as cannot implemented strategies place locally plus but hasn’t coped but did transport. manage in a specialist £30-40k environment. – Westhaven closest special school
O - VLC/Windwhistle – VLC are currently holding TUF and no transport Alternative school would but it’s not a long term costs be independent provision placement – LA agrees £70-90k plus transport needs specialist and Westhaven is closest.
P– Heron’s moor – Secondary transfer - Place funding and Potential out of area parental preference is transport costs. placement as cannot Westhaven. place locally plus transport. £30-40k Q – Locking – secondary transfer – mainstream Place funding and Potential out of area outlined it cannot meet transport costs. placement as cannot needs- parental place locally plus preference Westhaven transport. and is closest Specialist £30-40k placement
R – St Martins – Could Place funding and Could consider possibly remain at School transport costs. Ravenswood with but not making much additional transport costs. progress and is parental preference through annual review.
Other LA’s extras who have already agreed to fund the place funding amount in addition to TUF
S – LAC to Stoke – mover in so we will wouldn’t pay and won’t need to be counted in numbers as we have told them they
-4 have to pay the £10,000. – The LA and family want Westhaven as preference.
T – Somerset child in Care who will also pay the £10,000 for a place who needs to move school as well.
Risks if the service LA unable to meet high demand for places and students is not provided will have to be found placements from other maintained provision with greater transport costs (if places available) or independent provision at additional cost to the authority.
9. The budget is based on places numbers at Westhaven of 104. The budget also included an allowance for Westhaven to go over its place numbers by a further 4 students giving a total budget based on 108 pupils. To increase the funding to 120 places would mean funding a further 12 places. At £10,000 per place this amounts to £120k in a full year and £70k in the part year for 2017-18.
10. One of the students will be returning from an out of authority placement which will generate a saving of approx. £70k in a full year and £41k in the part year for 2017-18.
11. All of the students that are detailed above as meeting the criteria for top up funding are already receiving top up funding in their current setting so there are no additional top up funding costs. The only exception to this is for the student returning from an out of authority placement where the top up funding is estimated at £17k in a full year and £9k in the part year for 2017-18.
12. Transport cost for these placements will not be attributed to the schools budget.
13. The table below summarises the financial implications of the increased entry to Westhaven School:
Full year 2017-18 financial year Place funding £120k £70k Reduction in out of authority costs £(70)k £(41)k Additional top up funding £17k £9k Total £67k £39k
-4
14. The estimate cost avoidance by placing these children and young people in Westhaven rather than an alternative placement is estimated at between £470k and £630k in a full year and £274k and £368k in the part year for 2017-18.
Strategic Schools Forum
5 July 2017
Agenda Item No: 8
Outcome of the Consultation in Relation to Early Years Funding From 1st September
Emma Whitehead
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
Introduction
1. At the meeting on 10th May the SSF members agreed in principle the proposals that a consultation would run between Monday May 22nd and Friday 16th June whereby early year providers and other stakeholders could respond on the proposals to their funding arrangements from the 1st September 2017
2. The consultation documents were available via the e-consult website for the duration of the consultation.
3. The consultation was highlighted at Leaders and Managers sessions on the 23rd and 24th May. Direct emails were sent to all providers at both the launch of the consultation with a reminder sent in the last week as well. E Wilmot also highlighted the consultation in the North Somerset Childminders Facebook group.
Purpose of the Report
4. The purpose of the report is to:
a) Inform the SSF of the views of stakeholders in order to take decisions on the proposals for the funding arrangements relating to early years from 1st September 2017.
Recommendations
5. The SSF is recommended to:
a) Agree the recommendations for the funding arrangements from the 1st September 2017 as detailed in table i below,
b) Acknowledge the views of the stakeholders in relation to the proposals as detailed in Appendix A
Detail
6. Table i below details the recommendations for 2017-18 following consultation. The reference numbers quoted relate to the original consultation document.
Section Description Recommendation C Proposed changes to the Recommendation no.C1 - That the proposals to funding processes for 2,3 make adjustments including increases and and 4 year olds from 1st decreases in hours as they occur (subject to September 2017 monthly deadlines and financial year controls) start from September 1st 2017 (or when the online system is live for all providers) are accepted (paragraphs 4.1-4.6)
91% (51 responders) selected yes 9% (5 responders) selected no
The recommendation to SSF is that adjustments will be implemented when the system is live.
Recommendation no.C2– A cut-off date within the month needs to be applied and it needs to be between the 15th and 20th of the month so the recommendation is that one or the other is used (paragraph 4.7).
20% (11 responders) selected 15th of the month 80% (45 responders) selected 20th of the month
The recommendation to SSF is that the cut-off date will be the 20th of the month.
Recommendation no.C3– That the number of weeks for which funding will be provided for will be up to 52 weeks (paragraph 4.8).
89% (50 responders) agreed that funding should be provided for up to 52 weeks 11% (6 responders) disagreed.
The recommendation to SSF is that funding will be provided for up to 52 weeks.
Recommendation no.C4– That there should be a minimum session length of 30 minutes (paragraph 4.9)
43% (24 responders) felt that the minimum length should be 30 minutes 57% (32 responders) felt that the minimum length should be 1 hour.
The recommendation to SSF is that the minimum length should be 30 minutes, whilst this is different to the response to the question officers experience tells us this is what both parents and providers will welcome once live. As it should make it possible for parents and carers to access more of their available funding. It also enables those that need to claim 30 minutes to be able to – as it has to be noted that the funding can be paid to a variety of providers.
Recommendation no.C5– That the first month of payment with the new system will have the initial payment made and that the end of the month payment (which will become the norm) will be made with the information entered by
the deadline for that month (paragraphs 4.10- 4.11)
93% (52 responders) agreed that there should be a payment made at the start of September so that providers have money for the transition period. 7% (4 responders) disagreed.
The recommendation to SSF is that funding for September will be made in 2 parts so that providers are not left for 7-8 weeks without a payment.
Recommendation no.C6– That there will be a charge for those that do not use the online system of a minimum of £100 each month that a claim is required (paragraph 4.12).
36% (20 responders) accepted that there would be a minimum charge if providers had not used the online system. 64% (36 responders) did not accept that there should be a minimum charge of a £100.
The recommendation to SSF is that where a provider wants to be paid and has not completed the relevant online process that there will be a minimum charge, this is different from the overall responses to the consultation. The Local Authority does not have the resources to complete the process for providers and so there will need to be a charge for this and there will be a minimum charge likely to be £100.
Recommendation no.C7– That all providers that claim funding will have agreed to the North Somerset Funded Education agreement (paragraph 4.13).
80% (45 responders) agreed that in order to claim funding that providers will have agreed to the North Somerset Funded Education agreement. 20% (11 responders) disagreed that in order to claim funding that providers need to have agreed to the North Somerset Funded Education Agreement.
The recommendation to SSF is that funding from September will only be paid to providers that have agreed to the agreement.
Consultation on funding arrangements from 1st September 2017
7. Table ii below provides details of the responses received the consultation:
Table ii Number Responses No. of providers % of potential Providers Total no. responses Phase received by type School Nursery 14 2 2 14.3% Class
Day Nursery & 85 29 27 31.8% Pre-School
Childminders 123 20 20 16.3%
Other 5 5 5 N/A stakeholders
Total 227 56 56 24.7%
8. Appendix B provides an analysis of the responses received to the consultation.
9. Appendix C provides details of the comments made in the consultation responses.
Consultation on changes to Early Years Funding Processes 2017-18
Proposals of North Somerset Council and the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF)
- 1 -
Index
SECTION DESCRIPTION
A Introduction
B Executive Summary of recommendations
Details of proposals: Proposed changes to the funding processes for 2, 3 and 4 year olds from 1st C September 2017
D Overall position and next steps
- 2 -
Section A – Introduction
1. About this consultation
1.1. Early years provision for 3 and 4 year olds is in the midst of a considerable change. Information on the changes were provided to the Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) in both December and January following consultation with the sector.
1.2. There were two national government consultations in 2016 that have led to the changes we are in the midst of. They were;
a) Childcare free entitlement delivery model which closed on the 6th June and the response document was published on 5th November 2016. Response document available here
b) The early years national funding formula that closed on the 22nd September 2016 and the response document was published on 1st December 2016. Document available here
1.3. The hourly funding rates for early years changed on the 1st April 2017 following the partial introduction of a national funding formula.
1.4. The government’s commitment to provide 30 hours per week of funded childcare for those children whose parents/carers meet certain criteria is continuing and we are working to ensure that we are ready for implementation in September 2017. Please note that this is not a universal entitlement for all 3 and 4 year olds unlike the current 15 hours per week of funded early education.
1.5. As part of the changes we have reviewed the processes that are currently in place with regards to funding and it is felt that this presents the opportunity to make things more efficient and offer the solutions that providers have been requesting.
1.6. This consultation considers:
• Adjustments for children increasing and decreasing their hours • The cut-off date within the month for funding changes • The number of funded weeks • The minimum funded claim length • The transition payment • Charges when the electronic system is not used • The North Somerset LA-Provider agreement
1.7. The Strategic Schools Forum (SSF) at their meeting on the 17th May 2017 agreed for a consultation to be held.
1.8. This consultation outlines the proposals and gives all childminders, providers, specialist early years providers, schools and the wider community the opportunity to formally respond to the recommendations.
1.9. If you have any questions about anything contained in this document then please send them via email to [email protected]. - 3 -
Section B – Executive Summary
2. A summary of all the recommendations is provided in the table below. It is recommended that:
Section Description Recommendation C Proposed changes to the Recommendation no.C1 - That the proposals to funding processes for 2,3 make adjustments including increases and and 4 year olds from 1st decreases in hours as they occur (subject to September 2017 monthly deadlines and financial year controls) start from September 1st 2017 (or when the online system is live for all providers) are accepted (paragraphs 4.1-4.6)
Recommendation no.C2– A cut-off date within the month needs to be applied and it needs to be between the 15th and 20th of the month so the recommendation is that one or the other is used (paragraph 4.7).
Recommendation no.C3– That the number of weeks for which funding will be provided for will be up to 52 weeks (paragraph 4.8).
Recommendation no.C4– That there should be a minimum session length of 30 minutes (paragraph 4.9) Recommendation no.C5– That the first month of payment with the new system will have the initial payment made and that the end of the month payment (which will become the norm) will be made with the information entered by the deadline for that month (paragraphs 4.10- 4.11) Recommendation no.C6– That there will be a charge for those that do not use the online system of a minimum of £100 each month that a claim is required (paragraph 4.12). Recommendation no.C7– That all providers that claim funding will have agreed to the North Somerset Funded Education agreement (paragraph 4.13).
- 4 -
Section C – Proposed changes to the funding processes for 2, 3 and 4 year olds from 1st September 2017
3. Background
3.1. As explained in the introduction this consultation is as a result of the changes to early years funding.
4. Methodology
4.1. Currently the majority of funding allocations are made based on previous years or on estimated hourly take up figures and then adjusted 3 times a year based on head counts. This enables funding adjustments to be made for new children that join, and children that leave, individual settings in May, October and February. Currently no adjustments are made for children who increase or decrease the hours that they take up within a funding period.
4.2. We have looked at our processes and were successful in bidding for money to enable the Local Authority to support the purchase of an online system for early years. The online system will replace the paperwork and will be used by providers to record and submit their take up data to the LA.
4.3. The new system is likely to allow for almost real time funding so that funding adjustments within the funding parameters can be made as they happen and as they are entered on the system by the settings.
4.4. Obviously there will be controls around the process and there will be monthly deadlines for changes so that payments can be made each month.
4.5. The new system will provide the data to adjust funding allocations to reflect increases or decreases in hours taken up by individual children as well as enable real time (rather than backdated) adjustments for joiners or leavers.
4.6. In the summer of 2012 an exercise was run to estimate the financial impact of adjusting funding for all changes in hourly take up and this was reported back to the SSF. At the time the SSF decided not to implement funding adjustments for all changes in hourly take up (such as increases and decreases in the hours taken up. This decision was made because overall the financial impact of these changes on providers was relatively small but the administrative burden of making the changes was more significant. However the new system will remove the administrative burden and therefore enables us to reconsider funding adjustments for all changes in hourly take up.
4.7. In order to make the monthly payment, a cut-off date within the month needs to be put in place in order for the payment to be made. This date will need to be either the 15th or 20th of each month.
4.8. Currently providers can stretch entitlement of funded children over a maximum of 50 weeks. In order to be as flexible for providers as possible the proposal is to enable funding to be stretched for up to 52 weeks of the year. Providers will not be funded for days they are closed.
- 5 -
4.9. The government guidelines currently do not have a minimum session length. It is felt that for ease that a minimum session length should be applied, so that funding cannot be claimed for less than 30 minutes.
4.10. Funding is currently paid in advance. With the new system funding will be paid in arrears at the end of the month. For the first month that the system is used there will still need to be a payment at the beginning of the month so that providers are not left without funding for a period of weeks. The easiest way to do this will be to replicate the initial payment for this month and then adjust as required.
4.11. The above will also account for the fact that the increase in hours for the extended 15 hours will also be unknown.
4.12. There will be a need to charge providers that do not use the online system, the amount of charge will be a minimum of £100 per claim (which will be monthly from September 2017). Final monthly charges will be considered and applied on a case by case basis.
4.13. The DfE have issued guidance on what the agreement between local authorities and providers it funds should contain. North Somerset has followed the model and all providers it funds will be expected to agree to the agreement – no payment will be made without an agreement in place.
5. Recommendations
5.1. It is recommended :
• Recommendation no.C1 - That the proposals to make adjustments including increases and decreases in hours as they occur (subject to monthly deadlines and financial year controls) start from September 1st 2017 (or when the online system is live for all providers) are accepted (paragraphs 4.1-4.6)
• Recommendation no.C2– A cut-off date within the month needs to be applied and it needs to be between the 15th and 20th of the month so the recommendation is that one or the other is used (paragraph 4.7).
• Recommendation no.C3– That the number of weeks for which funding will be provided for will be up to 52 weeks (paragraph 4.8).
• Recommendation no.C4– That there should be a minimum session length of 30 minutes (paragraph 4.9).
• Recommendation no.C5– That the first month of payment with the new system will have the initial payment made and that the end of the month payment (which will become the norm) will be made with the information entered by the deadline for that month, (paragraphs 4.10-4.11)
• Recommendation no.C6– That there will be a charge for those that do not use the online system of a minimum of £100 each month that a claim is required, as per the detail at 4.12 (paragraph 4.12).
- 6 -
• Recommendation no.C7– That all providers that claim funding will have agreed to the North Somerset Funded Education agreement, as per the detail at 4.13 (paragraph 4.13).
Section D - Overall position and next steps
6. Overall Position and Next steps
6.1. This section sets out the key next steps towards implementation in of the proposals in this document from September 2017. The timetable for the implementation is provided in table 1 below:
Table 1 Timetable for implementation 18 May 2017 An email was sent to all providers to inform them that consultation is occurring together with useful funding updates and information on the changes.
Also the overall childminder representative for North Somerset was contacted to ensure awareness of the communication and consultation. W/C 22 May 2017 Noticeboard Article and emails to providers to remind all that the consultation is live. 22 May to 16 June Consultation period 23 and 24 May The Education Funding and Traded Services manager to attend Early Years Leaders and Managers sessions to provide funding update and will highlight the consultation. W/C 12 June Reminder email and Noticeboard Article that the consultation ends at noon on the 16 June. 5 July 2017 The Strategic Schools Forum (which has early year’s representation) will consider the responses and recommendations following the consultation.
A communication to all providers will be sent after this meeting to inform all of the decisions taken 1 September 2017 If required funding changes will come into effect from this date.
- 7 - Appendix B – Questionnaire Summary Results This page shows the summary results that have been received in relation to the consultation.
Question 1 (Recommendation C1 in consultation document) Do you agree adjustments for increases and decreases in hours for individual children are made from the time that an online system is in use? Yes 91% (51) No 9% (5)
Question 2 (Recommendation C2 in consultation document) A cut-off date within the month needs to be applied. Should it be the 15th or the 20th of the month? 15th of month 20% (11) 20th of month 80% (45)
Question 3 (Recommendation C3 in consultation document) Do you agree that the number of weeks that funding can be stretched over should be 52 weeks? Yes 89% (50) No 11% (6)
Question 4 (Recommendation 4 in consultation document) Should the minimum session length for which funding can be claimed for be 30 minutes or 1 hour? Yes 43% (24) No 57% (32)
Question 5 (Recommendation C5 in consultation document) Do you agree that in the first month that the new system is used that a payment will be made at the start of the month that replicates your initial payment schedule (where funding is due). Then at the end of the month a further payment is made using the information entered by the deadline for that month? Yes 93% (52) No 7% (4)
Question 6 (Recommendation C6 in consultation document) Do you agree that there will need to be a charge for those that do not use the online system? The minimum charge will be £100 and each month there needs to be an adjustment a further minimum charge of £100 will be applied (it will be deducted from the funding). Yes 36% (20) No 64% (36)
Question 7 (Recommendation C7 in consultation document) That all providers that claim funding will have agreed to the North Somerset Funded Education agreement? Yes 80% (45) No 20% (11)
Appendix D – Comments made in response to questions in the consultation The following pages show the comments made in response to the consultation. Wording in red below, means the responder answered no or 1 hour
Provider Question 1 Do you agree adjustments for increases and decreases in Type hours for individual children are made from the time that an online system is in use? This will prevent claw backs at a later date Day Nursery / Pre-school It would be easier to manage if a setting could set a maximum amount of Day Nursery / changes per month. Pre-school I will comply with this as it seems it the way ahead. Childminder Yes I think this is a good idea Childminder Yes I do agree with real time adjustment but I would like to see a notice period Childminder for leavers What happens if they are not using the online system Childminder As long as pilot run is successful and clear instructions are given on how to Childminder use. 1. Not everyone has online access 2. This is a very difficult consultation to Other answer yes/no I have read the information but don’t understand the question Childminder
Provider Question 2 A cut-off date within the month needs to be applied. Should it be the Type 15th or the 20th of the month?
No Comments were made
Provider Question 3 Do you agree that the number of weeks that funding can be Type stretched over should be 52 weeks?
However I believe we would stick to 50 weeks of the year Day Nursery / Pre-school Personally will be over 50 Day Nursery / Pre-school Although we will only be stretching over 47 weeks per year, this gives Day Nursery / flexibility to all providers Pre-school It would be very helpful when budgeting and Dec and Jan are the most Day Nursery expensive time / Pre-school If nurseries are open for the whole 52 weeks they should be able to claim for Day Nursery / all weeks Pre-school We wouldn't claim the 52 weeks but I'm aware Childminders might Day Nursery / Pre-school we would use 50 weeks rather than 52 Day Nursery / Pre-school Is the idea that by operating over a 52 week period settings open all bank Day Nursery / holidays and xmas week? Pre-school This should be determined between the parent/carer and childcare provider. Childminder
Definitely: because of the way the funding is worked out, my August bill will Other be four figures! even though it won’t affect me others may need this Childminder
Only being open 38 weeks this doesn't affect me Day Nursery / Pre-school If that's what some settings are opened Childminder I do not think this is needed Childminder Providers should be paid for the hours they provide, not limited to 'whole Other weeks only’!! This is a very difficult consultation to answer yes/no Day Nursery / Pre-school We need holiday day time too plus time off for training Childminder This would not apply to us and unsure of the implication on settings that Other open 52 weeks
Provider Question 4 Should the minimum session length for which funding can be Type claimed for be 30 minutes or 1 hour? 30 minutes is not a long enough Day Nursery / Pre-school This so we can claim .5 of an hour eg 2.5 hrs Day Nursery / Pre-school Gives added flexibility Day Nursery / Pre-school high quality provision will be hard to deliver in less time Other Although it doesn’t affect myself, the administration for 30 minutes would be a Day Nursery / nightmare Pre-school preferably remain as present 3 hours Day Nursery / Pre-school this is so .5 of an hour could be used eg: 1.5 Day Nursery / Pre-school Because it divides equally into 4 days at 7.5 hours Childminder more chance of claiming Childminder Most charge whole hours so parents may put undue pressure on providers Childminder This is a very difficult consultation to answer yes/no Other I dont agree with either waiting for a child for 30 minutes or an hour is Childminder pointless and can effect
Provider Question 5 Do you agree that in the first month that the new system is Type used that a payment will be made at the start of the month that replicates your initial payment schedule (where funding is due). Then at the end of the month a further payment is made using the information entered by the deadline for that month? As long as it is just for the first month Day Nursery / Pre-school Thank you!! Was really worried I wouldn't get paid. Day Nursery / Pre-school As long as it is made clear which part of the payment is adjustment and which is Day Nursery / for next month Pre-school I can understand reasoning for this for the first month Day Nursery / Pre-school I cannot view/edit my comments which extend past the visible box so final Childminder comment is unfinished. What happens if you have not used funding before? Childminder Payment in arrears may be difficult for some childminders Childminder This is a very difficult consultation to answer yes/no Other Again don’t understand Childminder
Question 6 Do you agree that there will need to be a charge for those that Provider do not use the online system? The minimum charge will be £100 and each Type month there needs to be an adjustment a further minimum charge of £100 will be applied (it will be deducted from the funding).
This seems excessive - and it's a minimum charge. Is it justifiable? Childminder But i do understand that it will cost more to have paper as well as an online Day Nursery / checker. Pre-school A agree a charge but more like £50 Day Nursery / Pre-school Absolutely. Should give 'free' training to those not familiar/worried about using Day Nursery / online Pre-school I understand the need but this will penalise some small nursery settings and Other potentially force closure Seems very excessive, some people who specialise in childcare may not be Day Nursery / computer literate Pre-school Only if the adjustments are requested in paper format, if online then no Day Nursery / charge Pre-school But for smaller settings there are issues around access to wi-fi Day Nursery / Pre-school why offer the choice of using the new system or pay for (presumably) the Day Nursery / current paper system at all Pre-school i feel it is a bit high £30-£50 would be better, thinking of smaller settings and Day Nursery / individuals Pre-school £100 to high, could there be a grace period for learning new system. Day Nursery / Implement charge in Jan 18. Pre-school However £100 seems a bit extreme given how busy settings and managers Day Nursery / already are! Pre-school As a small setting, we cannot afford to pay such a large penalty. Day Nursery / Pre-school I don't believe £100 represents the cost of administering a paper based claim, Childminder it seems excessive. seems very harsh for old time childminders that dont use computers Childminder Not sure about charging another £100 for adjustments. Perhaps a slightly Day Nursery / smaller amount? Pre-school How rude. If it's as hard to get into and use and not be able to work out what Childminder each individual child I am a Mac user and I frequently cannot access LA systems They need to be Childminder cross platform compatible People may not have access to the online system. Which will then fall on us Childminder practitioners to do it I feel that if ones computer crashes and cannot access the online system this Other is far too much £100 seems a bit too much Day Nursery / Pre-school £100 per month is an extortionate administration charge, a pretty shameful Childminder suggestion in my opinion This is a really large charge if someone is not confident to use the online Childminder system As long as the online system is made reliable and simple to use. Childminder
This is NOT a reasonable charge. Current IT is rubbish and unreliable. Other
No. £100 is excessive for the work involved Other
This is a very difficult consultation to answer yes/no Other
I am dyslexic and dyspraxic poor organisation not out of choice so no Childminder
I do think this is harsh, and that everyone needs time to adapt to the new Day Nursery / system Pre-school
Provider Question 7 That all providers that claim funding will have agreed to the Type North Somerset Funded Education agreement? But only if suits all parties Day Nursery / Pre-school As long as its mutually beneficial ¬ more skewed towards N Som's needs Day rather than the providers Nursery / Pre-school Fundamentally it is the parents that receive the funding not the providers who Day end up subsidising it Nursery / Pre-school This is standard currently I thought Day Nursery / Pre-school Some providers may have genuine reasons why they can't comply with all Day requirements. Nursery / Pre-school This is an extensive document perhaps a simplified document is required for Childminder providers to agree I'm saying yes but haven't seen the agreement Day Nursery / Pre-school With the funding issues that the LA has suffered (TUF) I would not wish to Childminder enter this agreement As long as it is fair and clear Other
This is a very difficult consultation to answer yes/no Other not childminder friendly questions are jargon that i dont understand the website Childminder is not easy to understand We all need to work together, with clear guidance and support from the local Day authority. Nursery / Pre-school
Strategic Schools Forum -4 5 July 2017
Agenda Item No.: 9
The cost of the Reintegration and Prevention provision at the VLC (REAP)
Wendy Packer
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
Introduction
1. The Reintegration and Prevention provision at the VLC (REAP) opened in September 2016 to support students whose behaviour was at a challenging level but not at the stage where a school was on the verge of permanent exclusion.
2. The REAP provision receives £19,800 from the Strategic Schools Forum and the VLC also charge a termly rate to schools of £660 for the use of this provision. The Current termly rate does not cover the cost of running REAP and the VLC are proposing an increase. The VLC wish to consult with the SSF, as a financial contributor to the service, on this proposal.
Purpose of the Report
3. The purpose of this report is to:
a. Inform the SSF of the proposed increase in charges and seek comments
Recommendations
4. The SSF is recommended to:
a. Note and comment on the proposed increase in charges
Detail
5. The detail of the proposal is provided in the draft notification for schools below.
6. This proposal has already been considered and supported by the Secondary Headteacher’s in North Somerset group.
Voyage Learning Campus: Revision to the Cost of Reintegration and Prevention provision (REAP)
Dear Colleagues
Unfortunately I have to advise you that we are having to revise the cost for our REAP provision.
As you are probably aware REAP opened in September 2016 to support students whose behaviour was at a challenging level but not at the stage where a school was on the verge of permanent exclusion. Our REAP provision is staffed with a Teacher, Teaching Assistant and a Therapeutic Support worker. The team have been really successful in turning round the behaviour of students and addressing their individual issues to the extent that the vast majority have made successful moves back to their mainstream school.
Our REAP provision receives a small amount of funding from the Strategic Schools Forum and in addition to this to meet costs, we charge a termly rate to schools for the up to 20 weeks a student is with us. The Current termly rate does not cover the cost of running - 1 -
REAP and indeed we ran at a huge loss last financial year. We need now to charge the full cost minus the SSF subsidy to schools that refer students to us. From September 2017 the cost of a place in REAP will be £1000 per term instead of the current £660. This is still excellent value at £6000 for a full academic year and very much below the cost of other similar provisions across the country.
From September we have also been able to increase the capacity of REAP which will take students from year 6 – 10 who require this short term targeted intervention.
I would like to thank schools for the excellent feedback we have received following their students being in REAP and we certainly look forward to working with you in the future.
For those schools who are not fully aware of the referral process for REAP. This is accessed by using the Out Of School Panel referral form, once submitted the panel meets on a fortnightly basis to agree placements.
Any questions you may have please do not hesitate to contact me.
Nick Donnelly Principal, Voyage Learning Campus [email protected]
- 2 - Strategic Schools Forum -4 5 July 2017
Agenda Item No.: 10a
The Impact of the Vulnerable Learners’ Service
Wendy Packer
On behalf of Sheila Smith Director of People and Communities
Introduction
1. This impact paper serves to inform SSF of the progress made by the VLS and its impact during last year and, as such, will provide a review of the Vulnerable Learners’ Service. It should be noted, however, at the start that the last year has been a time of significant change within the VLS (as well as other service areas). During the time frame of this report, due to budgetary changes, the Service has been involved in major consultations resulting in restructuring; loss of personnel and consequent changes to capacity and models of delivery.
2. It is the key aim of the whole service to build the capacity of schools and settings to meet the needs of vulnerable pupils, to enable those learners to be fully included in school, and to make the most progress possible.
3. The greater degree of co-ordination afforded by the service has been positively acknowledged by schools.
4. Our traded offer is well established and we are commissioned by North Somerset schools and outside the LA. Our time allocation model is well understood by maintained schools.
Purpose of the Report
5. The purpose of this report is:
a. To update the on the progress of the service
b. To inform the SSF of the impact of the service
Recommendations
6. The SSF is recommended to:
a. Note the progress and impact made
Detail
7. Please see below
Planned activities Key activities within Vulnerable Learners Service:
-Delivery of high quality support to schools, families and EY settings from within time allocation and traded models
-Development of a strategic approach to Mental Health in Schools, inclusion in local SEN provision and SEN attainment
-Proactive and early intervention support for children and young people with Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) needs
Integration of SEMH staff (Supporting Skills for Learning: SS4L) - 1 -
into the VLS
Re-identifying the SS4L staff as SEMH practioners and aligning their work with that of other teams
-Statutory SEN activity
-Raising the profile of educational attainment for vulnerable pupils with all other agencies
Staff/Resource costs Total cost from the DSG of all activities provided by the service – itemised £1.7m (including de-delegations) which supports mainly staffing. These staff include Education Psychology, Advisory teachers for cognition language and learning, English as an additional language and Gypsy Roma Travellers, SS4L, Portage, SEN casework, enhanced provision for children with autism spectrum conditions and social communication difficulties. The service also coordinates the work of the Speech and Language Support Assistant program in primary schools and the work of a Speech and Language Therapist in secondary schools. Additionally the service commissions the Sensory Support Service and Supportive Parents, as well as overseeing the top up moderation process and monitoring the Out of District and Top Up funding budgets.
Funding is provided through central funding, DSG and traded activity. The first of three annual planned reductions in council funding took place in April 2016, with others later in the year. The service has also been in receipt of SEN grant funding to increase capacity in the SEN casework team to meet the statutory timescales of the new SEND code of practice. This funding continues until March 31st 2018.
In addition successful bids were made during 2015-2016 for CYP IAPT funding providing cognitive behavioural therapy training to two practitioners. Regrettably, as part of the restructuring and budgetary cuts both these posts have had to be made redundant. Planned outcomes Increase the achievement and progress for vulnerable learners
Improve the emotional health and wellbeing of identified vulnerable groups in EY settings, schools and post 16 provision
Successful and effective inclusion of vulnerable groups in local schools or settings
To provide proactive, early intervention support to vulnerable young people from Foundation to KS4 with identified needs in terms of social, emotional and mental health needs, including those with challenging behaviour
To build the capacity of schools to meet the needs of vulnerable students in order to reduce the need for exclusions - 2 -
. To provide multi-agency support to vulnerable young people and their families within the community
To improve the educational attainment and inclusion of children with English as an additional language and from Gypsy Roma Traveller backgrounds
To ensure robustly audited processes are in place to make decisions with regards to top up and out of district placements
Specific outcomes achieved– no. of Some examples from across the service during April 16 - March 17: children/families who gained from this 3,150 visits were made to schools and settings by cluster teams activity (even where (an increase from 2,539 the previous year). This totalled 6,197 the service was hours and supported 976 individual pupils with an provided to a school) additional1,310 hours provided for whole school support and what they gained (should link back to Schools supported on issues ranging from strategic monitoring the aims) and evaluating, OFSTED preparation, whole school training, transition, individual casework, work with families and close liaison with other professionals
Continued focus on building expertise in the VLS so that we can continue to offer cutting edge support that has included, cognitive behavioral therapy, attachment and trauma, speech and language difficulties, girls and autism etc. (This will be negatively impacted upon in future years as the funding is no longer available to provide the on-going training)
Progress made towards meeting statutory timescales for EHC needs assessment and transferring statements of SEN to EHCPs.
Overall 99% of training provided by the whole service was evaluated as good or better
EAL support totalling 42 hours given directly to primary and secondary schools. In addition, there has been significant intervention for newly arrived refugee families
SEMH team successfully integrated within the AT Team
How could these outcomes be More effective marketing of offer to ensure that schools and improved with these settings are aware of support available (positive use of brochure same costs? and twitter)
A continuous focus on the use of evidenced based programmes of support and of opportunities for even greater co-ordination of - 3 -
service delivery
Speech and Language Support Assistants will be integrated within the VLS from September 2017, enabling direct work with primary aged pupils to continue, working alongside advisory teacher and educational psychology colleagues
How could these As a direct consequence of the budgetary cuts and resultant outcomes be restructuring, it is hard to imagine that there can be any more maintained/ improved efficiency savings. Attention is being directed to deliver a with efficiency quality statutory service to school within a reduced capacity. savings? The reduction in funding streams has reduced our flexibility in delivering services to schools
If any of the planned Greater involvement of schools in strategic planning for outcomes were not inclusion of pupils in local provision achieved, how might they be realised? Increased liaison with specialist CAMHS regarding Mental health and well-being strategy
The Specialist Provision Review , which is currently being undertaken will enable us, following a robust audit and consultation process to identify more effective means of providing SEND and AP provision.
Through the greater challenge and scrutiny now of the Top up Funding and Out of Area budgets
Risks if the service is An inability to meet statutory requirements in relation to SEN not provided An increase in demand for special and independent placements.
Failing to align with the Government’s intentions
Inability to implement legislative changes in relation to SEN statutory processes and funding reform
The loss of the early intervention direct focus would result in an increase in the numbers who, at a later stage, will require more costly intensive support
Limited access to supportive services for children and young people and their schools and communities
Increase in fixed and permanent exclusions
- 4 -