Agenda and minutes

(i)            To note that Sandra Wigham has been appointed as representative of pupil referral units.

(ii)          An appointment is awaited to represent primary academies.

The Forum acknowledged and welcomed the new members of the Forum, Sandra Wigham, as representative of pupil referral units and Emma Field as representative of primary academies.

The notes are attached at Appendix A.

The minutes of the last meeting of the Forum held on 18 October 2012 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the removal of the final sentence under Item 9 regarding the 10 day training programme required for Union representatives.

Members debated the removal with many querying where the indicated requirement came from.  Union representatives stated that it was underpinned by statute.  However, this was contested and upon being put to the vote the Forum agreed to remove the sentence by 11 votes to 3.

School Meals

Further to the Forum’s previous meeting, at which the Forum had supported the option of a joint contract between primary schools for the provision of school meals, to enable the continuation of the current catering arrangements, members noted that the views of schools had been sought on the repayment of grant and the method of charging for free meals.

After two letters had been sent out, 35% of schools had responded with 24 schools opting for the central service and only 3 declining.  The Forum agreed that the best option would be to go ahead with a joint contract and to undergo individual negotiations with those schools wishing to opt out.  With regards to billing, schools had been given the option of being charged for the number of meals used or a fixed, agreed yearly budget.  The fixed budget was the overwhelming choice.

A member asked what happened to alternative provision, such as PRUs. Officers explained that in the absence of catering facilities for school meals provision, the only option for PRUs would be a packed lunch, with PRUs needing to decide whether or not to opt in or out of the same central budget, as the money had also been delegated to them.

To receive the recently renewed DFE guidance

(i)            Schools Forum Powers and Responsibilities – Appendix B

(ii)           Operational and Good Practice Guide – Appendix C

The Forum received and considered new DfE guidance outlining the new responsibilities of the Forum and an operational and good practice guide.

Key changes were identified as follows:

• no longer a maximum or minimum membership;
• TOR for the Forum to be decided by the LA;
• the voting and rights of academy/free school/UTC members needed to be considered in greater detail;
• requirement to appoint 14-19 partnership and early years PVI members but non-school members can only be a third of the total membership;
• restrictions on the DCS or deputy, cabinet member and any other officers involved in school funding for the LA.

It was stated that the areas that needed to be worked on in Havering were around training and induction of new members and the use of named substitutes. Members generally agreed that it was preferable that head teachers should still be the key members attending on behalf of schools, along with governors, as business managers would not be able to provide the overview and breadth required for the Forum to fulfil its responsibilities.

The LA has commissioned a review of its strategy for alternative education provision and targeted inclusion support services including revised arrangements for the operation of pupil referral units.  Paul Senior, Senior Consultant will attend to advise on the progress made.  

The Forum noted that the LA had commissioned a review of its strategy for alternative education provision and targeted inclusion support services, including revised arrangements for the operation for pupil referral units.

The Forum received a presentation from a consultant regarding the review and progress made to date.  The Forum noted that the review was taking place owing to Havering’s specific needs as well as the change in policy at a national level, which brought about a changing landscape for the public sector.

The priority areas were:

• Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)/Alternative Provision (AP)
• Prevention of educational and social exclusion
• Integrated support to schools with a focus on inclusion, behaviour and attendance
• Inter-agency working and the continuum of provision

The findings of the review had revealed that there were very low levels of permanent exclusions in primary and special schools, with the Havering School Improvement Service (HSIS) being highly valued by local schools.  Further findings demonstrated that the Behaviour Support Service provided valuable support to local schools and the overall support given to special schools provided good value for money.  Overall, the service provided by primary and secondary schools, PRUs and AP was described as giving good or better support to children and young people.

However, there were a number of areas for development.  Such areas included the inconsistent implementation of LA arrangements for tracking and monitoring the number of pupils with reduced school timetables.  There was also limited joint planning between LA support services such as Education Welfare and Behaviour Support, no risk assessment framework to support the placement considerations for some pupils into school/AP settings, absence of a targeted and coordinated approach to working with high needs families by partner agencies and an increasing number of secondary school pupil permanent exclusions.  Bullying was said to be poorly recorded and managed, online learning was under-utilised and there was no single comprehensive recording of children educated in AP.

Proposals for change were as follows:

• The duties of the ANPP to come under the restructured Fair Access Protocol (FAP);
• the merger of the four PRUs under one executive head teacher’
• the merger of the four PRS management committees under a single committee;
• a timeline with milestones to be developed with local school consortia and LA lead professionals for the work of AP and PRUs that would set out the process to be undertaken for transferring the responsibility for management of local EOTAS provision to school consortia management by 2018.

The next steps would be a stakeholder event to gain the views of all interested parties, followed by a working group and a feedback session.

The Forum noted the update.

(i)            Behaviour Support Service and EAL Service

At the last meeting the Schools Funding Forum agreed on behalf of maintained primary schools to de-delegate budgets for the Behaviour Support Service and the EAL service.  The decision on these two services on behalf of maintained secondary schools was deferred.  A decision is now required in time for the budget setting timetable.

(ii)          Trade Union Facility Time

The Schools Funding Forum at previous meetings has considered the de-delegation of Trade Union Facility Time but deferred its decision on behalf of primary and secondary maintained schools pending a view from academies.

Secondary head teachers have now considered the matter and the vast majority have decided that they would not wish to return the money delegated to them to maintain the current arrangements.

A decision on de-delegation on behalf of maintained primary and secondary schools is now required.

Behaviour Support Service & EAL Service

At the Forum’s previous meeting it had agreed on behalf of maintained primary schools to de-delegate budgets for the Behaviour Support Service and EAL service.  The decision on these two services on behalf of maintained secondary schools was deferred.  A decision was required in time for the budget setting timetable.

Members noted that only one representative was at the Forum on behalf of maintained secondary schools.  It was proposed and agreed that a decision should be taken outside of the meeting, as it was purely a decision to be taken by maintained secondary schools, with 12 of the 18 secondary schools in Havering to be academies in 2013.  The number of schools to which de-delegation applied was very small so the Forum agreed that the decision should be taken by maintained secondary representatives alongside the Chairman outside of the meeting.

Because of the decisions of the Forum to de-delegate funding for the EAL Service and Behaviour Support Service for the primary sector, both of these would be maintained and would be accessible by all schools but at a charge for academies and secondary schools if not de delegated..  It was suggested that the schools be written to letting them know about the availability of the service. Further, a letter to academies should invite them to consider how they wished to interact with the service.

Trade Union Facility Time

At previous meetings of the Schools Funding Forum the issue of Trade Union Facility Time had been considered but a decision had been deferred on behalf of primary and secondary schools pending a view from academies.

Secondary head teachers had now considered the matter and the vast majority had decided that they did not wish to return the money delegated to them to maintain the current arrangements.  A decision on de-delegation on behalf of maintained primary and secondary schools was now required.

Members noted that the £200,000 top slice from the Dedicated Schools Grant paid for three or four trade union representatives for facility time.  From that money schools were reimbursed for the loss of staff time when those representatives needed to be outside of the school on trade union business.  De-delegation was not allowed for academies.  Members queried how much of the £200,000 was reserved to cover primaries and how much for secondary schools and it was explained that it was split (roughly) in half between the two sectors.

Academy head teachers had considered that they would be able to cover the cost for facility time from within additional amounts delegated to them.  The Forum was informed that there was no audit trail for the £200,000.  There was no means of evidencing the work that was conducted by trade unions representatives during their facility time, however, trade union representatives explained that much of the work they did, on a day to day basis to alleviate staffing disputes (often imperceptible) saved far more money than that allocated, and was hard to measure or quantify.

The Forum, noting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The School Funding Reforms allow the central retention of some budgets with Schools Funding Forum approval.  These are listed at Appendix D along with the budgets for each area for agreement.

Criteria for the allocation of funding for pre 16 pupil growth needs to be approved by the Schools Funding Forum and proposals are set out at Appendix E.

The Forum noted that the reforms to school funding allowed for the retention of some budgets with the Forum’s approval. All of these budgets were listed in the report submitted.

Also, the Forum was required to approve the criteria for pre-16 growth funding.

The Forum approved both aspects of Item 8 as listed in the supporting papers.

To consider proposals to review the Early Years Single Funding Formula to take effect from April 2013.  Appendix F to follow.

The Forum was informed that a review of the Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) was proposed for the following reasons:

• The transition from the previous method funding to the EYSFF had effectively ended for both PVI settings and for maintained settings;
• the current methodology for calculating the Deprivation Supplement was based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and under the draft Schools and Early Years Finance Regulations 2013, funding is required to move to the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI).
• the amount and percentage of funding allocated to the Deprivation Supplement was comparatively small.
• the 15 Hours and Flexibility supplements had a comparatively high combined level of funding.  Most settings now delivered a flexible Early Educational Entitlement (EEE) or have surveyed parents who do not require this in practice.

The proposed revisions would:

• Discontinue both the 15 Hours and Flexibility Supplements
• Reallocate the whole of the funding to the Deprivation and Quality Supplements
• Introduce the IDACI methodology for allocating the Deprivation Supplement.
• No increase was proposed to the base rates.

The Forum noted the report and agreed to consultation with PVI and maintained settings with nurseries.

Following the last meeting, Havering’s draft budget pro-forma was submitted to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and has been approved.

The EFA will provide final data sets in the week beginning 10th December, the DSG settlement will be announced in the week beginning 17th December and final factors and values should be submitted to the EFA by 18th January.

The Forum noted that following the last meeting, Havering’s draft budget pro-forma had been submitted to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and had been approved.

The EFA would provide final data sets in the week beginning 10^th December, the DSG settlement would be announced in the week beginning the 17^th December and the final factors and values would be submitted to the EFA by the 18^th January 2013.

The next meetings have been arranged as follows:

All meetings to be held at CEME at 8.30 a.m.

The Forum noted that the next meeting was to take place on Thursday 24^th January 2013 at 8.30am at CEME.