Venue: Beaumanor Hall, Beaumanor Drive, Woodhouse, Leicestershire
Contact: Karen Brown / Bryn Emerson (Tel. 0116 305 6432) Email: karen.m.brown@leics.gov.uk / Email: bryn.emerson@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for absence/Substitutions. Minutes: Apologies for
absence were received from Dave Hedley, Mark Mitchley,
Stephen Cotton and Catherine Drury. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the
meeting held on Thursday 9 February 2017 were agreed as a true and accurate
record subject to the following amendments: Apologies for
Absence/Substitutions Heather Sewell
should read ‘Heather Hall’. 2017/18 Schools’
Budget The fifth paragraph
should read “The High Needs transfer is slightly below the estimated £3M at £2.85
million’. 2017/18 Schools’
Budget Page 7 – Pupil
Premium, second paragraph should read “Mr Ould chaired the recent F40 meeting
attended by Nick Gibb, only organisation disagreed with proposals was F40”. 2018/19
Dedicated Schools Grant and Schools National Funding Formula The first paragraph
of page 9 should read “Karen Allen commented on high amount allocated to
additional factors’ |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Jenny Lawrence introduced a report which sets out actions
arising as a result of current membership reaching their term. Jenny reported that in 2016 there were a number of terms of
office coming to an end and a decision was made to extend time expired
membership by one year. The Association
of Leicestershire Governors was previously used as the route to appoint governor
representatives but this did not exist anymore. Jenny asked the Forum members if they wish to be re-elected
or would members prefer the current membership to continue. Jenny was unsure as to the future role of the
Schools’ Forum and could look at an alternative method but was asking members
to look at the role of the Forum. Callum Orr made the comment that Nigel Leigh represented the
FE sector rather than the wider post-16 sector.
Jenny said that there was a statutory seat at Schools’ Forum for the
post-16 provider but acknowledged this area was wide and varied so difficult to
represent all views. Karen Allen commented that there did seem to be a mechanism
and suggested groups go back to ask how they wanted to be represented. Tony Gelsthorpe commented that he
was no longer representing a maintained school.
Michael Wilson confirmed he was no longer a governor so his vacancy
would come up. Jean Lewis made the comment that the membership roll forward
as it was and make a positive effort to go for new
election process and to look at a new pattern of representation. Suzanne Uprichard suggested asking Governor Development
Service to pick up the governor elections through their weekly bulletin. Jane Moore agreed that the Governor
Development Service would pick up the role of the Association of Leicestershire
Governors with regard to governor elections onto the Schools’ Forum. Karen Allen commented that there are some issues that need
decisions on in the absence of a national formula. Kathryn McGovern commented that it would be helpful to have
more information who is representing what area. It was agreed that Jenny would speak to Governor Development
Service in terms of governors whose expiry date was end of September 2017. Jenny would also inform LPH and LSH for them
to take the necessary actions with their groups to secure the appropriate membership
from September 2017. |
|
Extension of Free Entitlement to Early Education PDF 248 KB Minutes: Sue Wilson
introduced a report on ‘Extension of Free Entitlement to Early Education’ which
provided an overview of the department’s work in the implementation of the
extended offer to parents of 30 hours free childcare as required by the
Childcare Act 2016. Sue explained that
estimates for the number of parents in Leicestershire eligible for the extended
offer was between 4,500 and 4,900; 4,700 parents actually called in to the
service. The DfE
had been impressed with the 82% of take up and the opportunities given by
Leicestershire to parents. To ensure
Leicestershire was ready to implement the extended offer from 1 April, the
Early Learning and Childcare Service developed a clear plan with a number of workstreams as outlined in the report. Sue went through the workstreams
and explained the work carried out for each of them. Leicestershire had been approached to become an early
implementer and implement the extension in April in advance of the statutory
requirement from September and 71% of Leicestershire providers would be
prepared to offer additional hours. The
DFE has praised the quality of the planning and promotional materials. The implementation of the 30 hours provision
was funded by participation funding so there was no new risk to LA
funding. In spite of challenging
timescales good progress had been made in the early implementation of the
extended offer for free early education. A Forum representative made the comment that there was a
suspicion at one point that schools with pre-schools had been left out. Kathryn McGovern said that the funding would
not cover the two year in pre-schools even though recognise the need. Kathryn added that a year ago she had invited
business people from Early Years to look at private and school providers
working together but had not heard anything.
Sue Wilson agreed to follow this issue up. |
|
High Needs Block Inclusion Project PDF 298 KB Minutes: Jane Moore
introduced a powerpoint
presentation report which provided an overview of the High Needs Block
Inclusion Project. Jane reported that
by the end of 2016/17 the High Needs block budget was overspent by £2.5M which
was a reduction from the projected £3.8M.
Jane explained the aim of the High Needs Project and outlined its
objectives, some of which had now been completed. However, Jane acknowledged that a lot of this
work would take time and the key objective was to make sure it led to a
sustainable solution. Jane updated the meeting on the work being carried out
against the project’s workstreams as outlined in the powerpoint. To help guide SEND development the workstreams were being overseen by a newly established SEND
Strategy Board. The Board meets every
six weeks and had representatives from key stakeholders. Janet reported that savings had already been made through
case reviews of pupils in independent provision at key transition points. Jane commented that progress to date was
going really well and detailed some of the training and provision being
provided. Jane outlined key project risks in particular the financial
position and seeking political approvals to change by Cabinet. Jane commented that a SEND inspection of the local authority
was highly likely and the department is in the process of writing a plan to
prepare for this. Jane updated the
meeting on other SEND developments such as changes to the local offer, work
being carried out on short breaks, looking at transition and robust
conversations being held with health.
There was good news that additional capital funding had been received
and would be available for the 2018/19 financial year to help develop local
provision. David Atterbury reminded representatives that there had been
significantly more capital investment to help develop SEND provision, for
example, the £11M allocated to the new building for Birkett House in Wigston opening in September. He also commented that changes had been made
to the LA developer contributions policy in order to seek Section 106 funds for
SEND provision relative to new housing proposals. Graham Bett enquired if the impact
of the new area special school had been assessed yet. Jane commented that every initiative was
costed. A significant number of children
had been taken out of independent provision and placed elsewhere. David advised that the new school will provide additional
places helping to future proof against further demand. A comment was made regarding the importance of cross agency
working to access services and funding – to get the high needs spend under
control. Suzanne Uprichard referred to ASD SEMH provision on page 24
of the paper and asked if this new area special school would specialise in
these two areas. Jane explained that
further work was in progress with mainstream schools regarding the development
of local provision. David said that it was unfortunate that the main thrust of
meeting ASD demand based on the MacIntyre bid for a
free school had now been withdrawn by MacIntyre and
the local authority is now progressing on smaller solutions in mainstream schools/academies
schools but it is not to say there may not be another free school bid which is
outside the control of the LA. Kathryn McGovern enquired
about our ability to negotiate with independent providers, and suggested
working through MATs may offer a more suitable solution. Jane said that this was part of the workstream. Both Callum Orr and Heather Hall emphasised the
need for a solution to be found soon to help ease the pressure on schools. Karen Rixon emphasised the need for more expansion at primary level for ... view the full minutes text for item 36. |
|
2016/17 School Budget Outturn PDF 358 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Jenny Lawrence introduced a report which presented the
2016/17 Schools Budget outturn position and confirms the Dedicated Schools
Grant (DSG) Reserve and its intended use. Jenny referred to
the table on page 38 which indicated overspends and underspends for both the
local authority but that overall the DSG was overspent. There was no information on individual
schools’ budgets, this was being collected for maintained schools but the
authority sees no financial data on academies.. Jenny referred to the table in paragraph 9 and explained
that the DSG grant reserve position was presented at the last Schools’ Forum
meeting based on the financial forecast at period 9. The table presents the movement from that
position which shows a finished year end of £32,000 which was less than
originally thought. Jenny outlined paragraph 11 which showed the challenges
faced in terms of the High Needs Block budget and whether the current
forecasting method worked. The appendix
to the report sets out the volume and unit costs of all High Needs
budgets. Discussion took place on the Oakfield Graduated Response
offer which helps to reintegrate primary pupils with significant SEMH needs
into mainstream provision. Karen Allen
commented that this approach had reintegrated children back into mainstream
instead of going to high cost placements, as they used to, making a saving of
£420,000. The meeting noted the overspend for the Specialist Teaching Service was around
placements costs with ASD. Kath Kelly referred to paragraph 12 on page 41 and asked if
the savings requirement for the high needs block indicated a significant risk
on the schools’ budgets taking into consideration no financial contribution
from the Council. Jenny commented that
it was one of the risks on the County Council’s register in terms of threat and
likelihood and in terms of the £2M DSG reserves this was a difficult one because
the local authority have a statutory responsibility to meet the needs of
children and young people with SEND yet the funding was provided through grant
which did not reflect needs. Kath asked
if the current strategy was robust.
Jenny commented that Period 3 would be the next stock take although the
first real sight of how robust the strategy was would be once all pupil
destinations are known at the beginning of the 2017/18 academic year. Jenny said that any changes would be reported
to Members and Schools’ Forum. Kath
asked Jenny whether mid-year projections were available,
Jane added that a lot was not predictable especially around staffing – talking
about placements or provision. – welcome the challenge on this. Nick Goforth commented about the
low level of funding Leicestershire receives from the Government and the need
to lobby for more resources. Discussion took place on the current situation regarding the
position of the F40 Group and Mr Ould briefed the meeting on this. Sonia Singleton commented that if funding is taken off AWPU
there are going to be headteachers across
Leicestershire stressing over their financial situation and academies would be
issued with notices to improve by the ESFA. Schools’ Forum noted
the financial outturn for the 2016/17 Schools Budget (paragraphs 4-8). Schools Forum noted
the level of DSG reserve and its deployment (paragraphs 9 – 10). |
|
2018/19 School Funding PDF 242 KB Minutes: Jenny Lawrence introduced a report which sets out the
expectations in relation to 2018/19 school funding and 2018/19 school funding
formula. The report also sets out a
proposed new approach from the local authority to develop strategic financial
planning in schools. Jenny reported that it was expected that the Department for
Education would introduce a national formula in 2018/19. However giving consideration to the General
Election announcement this may halt the process of the national funding formula
being introduced, if at all. As a result
of this it is therefore necessary for the local authority to set its intentions
out in terms of the high needs formula.
If there was not a national funding formula in 2018/19 the local
authority would address this by proposing no change to the current funding formula. With regard to school strategic financial planning Jenny
commented that the nationally projected £1bn gap in school funding would be a
cost pressure on schools between 8% and 11%.
The local authority would be running a series of conferences in the autumn
term to bring together a number of professionals to develop a tool kit. Jenny would obviously keep up to date with
developments from the Government and respond accordingly. Kath Kelly asked if there was some movement in terms of
school funding allocation if we were to move some of the school funding and
what would be the timeline to consult.
Jenny was unable to give a definite answer but could explore pushing for
any changes in 2017/18 but the challenge would be for proposals for
consultation as any change would purely redistribute current funding levels and
be restricted by the operation of the Minimum Funding Guarantee and ultimately
achieve very little. Nick Goforth said that as a group
we should be lobbying the Government to put the group’s views across to
them. It was agreed at the LSH meeting
on 23 June a draft letter to parents from heads outlining the funding issues
would be put together. Karen Allen
commented that this could also be carried out for primary schools through LPH. Schools’ Forum noted
and commented on the content of the report. |
|
Any other business. Minutes: There was no
further business. |
|
Date of next meeting. Monday 25 September 2017 Monday 4 December 2017 Both at 2.00 – 4.00 pm at Beaumanor Hall Minutes: Monday 25 September
2017 Monday 4 December
2017 All dates from 2.00
– 4.00 pm at Beaumanor Hall |