Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Katrina Karwacinski (Early Years PVI rep), Maria Thompson (Post 16 rep) and Daniel Gricks (Academy Governor). Bill Edgar provided advance notice that he would have to leave at 10am.  Emma Allen was substituting for Geoff Wroe.

The notes are attached at Appendix A.

Within the notes of the meeting held on 18^th September 2014, on Page 8, item 50, the second paragraph referred to £40m as removed from the budgets. The £40m removal of funds was from Havering Council and not solely from the Education budget.

With that exception, the minutes were agreed and signed by the Chair.

Item 39 – Election of Chair and Vice Chair refers

It was noted that there had still been no formal nominations for vice-chairman.

Item 48 - LBH Consultation with Schools refers

On behalf of maintained secondary schools, Bill Edgar advised that de-delegation should continue as in 2014-15 i.e. all budgets except Attendance & Behaviour and EAL.

To receive benchmarking data on LA planned expenditure for 2014-15 as recorded in the section 251 budget statement.

A summary of Havering’s position along with detailed comparative data will be tabled at the meeting.

Two packs of information were provided.  The first set showed the changes nationally against section 251 budget headings from 2013-14 to 2014-15, the first two years of the school funding reforms.  The total Schools Budget as funded by the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) had increased by £0.7bn from £38.8bn in 2013-14 to £39.5bn in 2014-15.  The data showed a £1.3bn increase in recoupment from the DSG reflecting the increase in the number of academy conversions.  There had been reductions nationally in per pupil expenditure on centrally funded areas such as School Improvement and Statutory and Regulatory duties reflecting reductions in Local Authorities (LAs’) Education Support Grant. 

Expenditure on Looked After Children (LAC, Fostering, Adoption etc.) had increased from £268 per pupil to £277.  It was also noted that the total services for young people figure (youth services) had dropped from £55 per pupil to £48.  Expenditure on Sure Start Children’s Centres and Early Years had reduced from £88 per pupil to £78.

The planned expenditure by Authority was also shown and Havering was ranked 22^nd highest of the 32 London Boroughs with a gross figure of £194,333,000.  This was slightly better than in previous years, when   Havering was second to last, but with further changes in 2015-16 this may have been a temporary position.  Havering was 27^th of 32 in net core spend for Education, and 29^th for Children and Young People.  It was noted that these were cash amounts, not per pupil.

The second set of tables showed benchmarking of all ‘section 251’ headings against the other 31 London Boroughs.

The DSG schools block funding showed Havering at £4,727 per pupil, 24^th highest of 32.  Havering was 20^th in the percentage of schools who received the minimum funding guarantee, which showed that the formulae worked better than 19 other Local Authorities. For Home to School transport, Havering ranked as 31^st.

Havering was the 6^th highest on money de-delegated but that included insurance which no other LA had de-delegated.

It was noted that Havering was 8^th highest in its budgeting for pupil growth and 3^rd for support for schools with falling rolls.

The expenditure budget held centrally from the DSG for Children under-5 was ranked 29^th highest.

For the total High Needs expenditure budget which included top up funding, Alternative provision (AP) and Special Educational Needs (SEN) Support Services, Havering was 32/32.  Newham appeared to have a lower High Needs budget than the Forum understood to be the case.  David Allen agreed to check the figure. It was acknowledged that some authorities chose to account for their expenditure differently.

The rankings for the different areas of non-DSG budgets were also shown for core Education and Community and core Children and Young Peoples Services.  For School Improvement, Havering was 25^th highest, and for Statutory and Regulatory Services, 16^th.  Within Children and Young People Services Havering was ranked 16^th of 32 for expenditure for Children’s Centres and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To consider a review of the thresholds currently used to challenge schools on high carry forward balances. Appendix B refers.

At the last meeting the Forum considered schools’ returns on the use of high balances.  The Schools Financing Scheme stated that the LA would check the underspend of all schools and if not appropriately assigned above 5% (secondary) or 8% (primary and special) could have been clawed back.  The 5% and 8% were the original figure recommended by the Department for Education (DfE) from 2005.

The Education Funding Agency (EFA) imposed no limit on new academies.  There was a 12% limit on academies that had converted earlier and were subject to the original Funding Agreements.  Balances above the 12% were challenged by the EFA and the assumption was that 10% would relate to premises improvements.

Since 2005, the Government had become less prescriptive on carry forward balances, giving boroughs flexibility to set their own limits. 

The overriding principle of school funding was that it should be used for the benefit of children at the school in the year it was allocated.  Havering would continue to monitor school expenditure and request returns on use of all balances. If 10% was carried over for a number of years, Havering would challenge that, as having scrutinised all use of balance submissions, the LA would seek assurances on the appropriateness of spend where it was considered that it should be part of a school strategy or improvement plan agreed by governors or on staffing that could over commit the school in future years.  In addition, the LA would seek further information on all balances above 10% and claw back any amount it considered to be inappropriately assigned and any surplus above 10% to prevent any school from having a fifth year of carrying forward a balance of more than 15%. Any clawed back balances would be redistributed to the greatest benefit within the areas funded by the DSG.

The Forum voted in favour of the proposed action.

Following the inclusion of a new provision in The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations for 2014-15, Havering introduced arrangements to support schools and academies with falling rolls that are judged by Ofsted to be either Good or Outstanding. LAs were free to develop their own arrangements within the overall criteria and the Schools Funding Forum agreed a budget of £500,000. At the September meeting of the Funding Forum a budget of £500,000 was also agreed for 2015-16 but the local arrangements need to be reviewed for affordability. Appendices C and C.1 refer

Bill Edgar declared an interest in this item.

The existing Falling Rolls support fund 2014-15 report was presented to the Forum with proposed changes for 2015-16.  The DfE Funding Regulations allowed a small fund to support good or outstanding schools with falling rolls, where local planning indicated that surplus places would be required.

The existing arrangements for support were based on the difference between the number of roll at the October census and 85% of the schools published admission number (PAN) for each year group.  A problem was identified in that as low year groups moved through the school they would continue to be supported by this Fund as well as new low year groups.  This would overspend the budget of £500,000.

It was explained that this was a short-term measure as schools began to fill to avoid teacher redundancies when teachers would be needed again as pupil numbers increased again. There was a separate budget for pupil growth.

The proposed change was to allocate financial support where numbers were low in the normal year of admission only for primary and secondary school.

The arrangements would therefore be as follows:

Support was to be provided for Good or Outstanding schools only where surplus capacity exceeded 15% of PAN in the normal year of transfer and local planning data showed a requirement for at least 70% of the surplus places within the following 3 years.  This would support schools where the formula funding would not support provision of an appropriate curriculum and where schools would need to make redundancies in order to contain expenditure within its formula budget. This would not apply to schools that had surplus balances of 5% (secondary) and 8% (primary) in the previous funding period.

Schools that were unable to set their budgets in spite of receiving this financial support could receive a loan from the LA, dependent on their circumstances, having agreed a budget recovery plan with the LA.

From the date of the meeting, using the proposed method, two secondary schools and one primary school were in situations that could be applied to the formulae.

The Forum was advised that Havering had no control of the PAN of academies but schools were working well together.

The proposals were agreed unanimously.

To approve the provisional 2015-16 funding formula for submission to the DFE by 31st October based on October 2013 data and consider options for the allocation of funding based on forecast pupil numbers for October 2014. Proposals will be tabled at the meeting.

The Local Authority was required to submit the figures to the EFA by the 31^st October.

This was the first stage of the EFA process and would be updated when data was received from the DfE from the October census. This item enabled the Forum to agree the principles for going forward.

The document pack provided showed the draft schools funding formula for 2015-16 which used data based on the October 2013 census.

The Forum was taken through a number of scenarios which showed that making no changes was not option as it would not meet the requirements of the DfE formula.  It was, however, shown that current rates could remain the same but with any gains capped at 1.1% (an increase on the 0% cap for 2014-15).

Projections based on revised pupil numbers would allow a 2% gains cap and increases to deprivation factors of 1% and to age weighted pupil unit AWPUs of 0.5% respectively.   The principle was agreed by the Forum but would need to be confirmed based on October 2014 data.

 A confidential document was shared which showed the application of this model to all primary and secondary schools based on the 2013 Census (not using final data).

It was noted that the formulae did not apply to special schools or the child educational service, which was £10,000 per place.

The proposals submitted were approved.

Following the return of the October Census, reworked figures would be brought to the panel for agreement, ahead of the final distribution at the end of February.

To note communications received from the LGA and from trade union associations on de-delegation of trade union facility time.

Appendices D and D.1 refer.

Letters had been received from trade unions and from the National Employers’ Association for School Teachers urging LAs and Schools Forums to consider delegation of budgets for Trade Union facility time. The letters recommended that academies continued to buy-in, pooled arrangements. This model prevented issues arising within schools and suggested that the central retention and distribution of the fund was the most effective and efficient arrangement.

The forum noted the reports as decisions had already been made for budgets to be de-delegated for maintained schools with pooled buy in for academies.

Only representatives of maintained primary schools may vote on de-delegation of the primary school budget and representatives of maintained secondary schools on the secondary budget.

(i) Attendance, Behaviour and Traveller Support Service

To decide on de-delegation of the budget for the Attendance, Behaviour and Traveller Support Service. A summary of responses from schools will be tabled at the meeting.

(ii) School Insurance

To decide on de-delegation of the budget for school insurance. A proposal will be tabled at the meeting.

(i) Attendance, Behaviour and Traveller Service

At the previous meeting, primary school representatives voted in favour of de-delegation of a range of budgets but deferred their decision on the Attendance and Behaviour Service pending a survey of primary colleagues. 

A paper was tabled that showed that form a 67% response rate, 80% of schools had voted in favour of de-delegation.

This Forum agreed to continue de-delegation for the 2015-16 year.

(ii)  Schools Insurance

The benchmarking data considered earlier showed that within London Havering was the only Borough where schools had decided to de-delegate insurance budgets.  This was to maintain a lower rate of insurance costs than could be achieved by schools individually. Academies, special schools and pupil referral units were not permitted to de-delegate and were invoiced directly.

Secondary school pupils showed as much lower costs than primary school pupils. Secondary school costs were artificially low, rather than the primary schools artificially high, as a quirk or the arrangements.

The forum agreed to continue the de-delegation of Schools Insurance.

The next meetings have been arranged as below and further meetings are to be arranged for the Spring and Summer terms.

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

Dates for future meetings were agreed as follows, all to start at 8:30am at the CEME centre:

·         11^th December 2014

·         15^th January 2015

·         12^th March 2015

·         23^rd April 2015

·         18^th June 2015

No items were raised for discussion.