3. · Web view2020/09/09 · 3.2The Authority shall appoint school members following a nomination and, if required, an election process. All schools within the relevant phase where

Schools Forum AgendaWednesday 8th July 2020, Microsoft Teams MeetingStart 08:30

PresenterVoting /

Relevance Page1 Apologies for absence and

substitution noticesChair 2

Decision Papers2 Terms of Reference Yannick

Stupples-WhyleyAll schools 3

3 School Funding 2021/22 Yannick Stupples-Whyley

All schools 16

4 Secondary SEMH Provision Ralph Holloway All schools 215 High Needs Banding in Special

SchoolsRalph Holloway All schools 29

Forum Business6 Any other business and feedback

from schools through Associations. Feedback from Members on other bodies.

Chair All schools

7 Minutes 20th May 2020 Chair All schools 318 Minutes Action Log Chair All schools 44

Information Items9 SEND and PRU Capital Project

UpdateConfidential Paper

45

10 School and Academy Balances Yannick Stupples-Whyley

All schools 46

11 Q1 Schools Budget Update 2020/21

Yannick Stupples-Whyley

All schools 51

12 Q1 Education Functions Budget Update 2020/21


All schools 56

13 Forward Plan Yannick Stupples-Whyley

All schools 59

14 Closing Comments Chair

Page 1 of 62

Schools Forum Agenda Item 1Date: 8 July 2020

Microsoft Teams is now capable of hosting 49 people on screen so it is expected that all Forum members will be visible for the meeting. Please remember to mute your microphone when you are not speaking.

To ask a question or to comment on a paper please use the raise hand function. If you cannot use this function, please use the meeting chat.

The meeting chat will also be used for voting purposes. Please type: Yes, if you agree the recommendation, No, if you do not agree the recommendation Abstain, if you do not wish to vote

Please do not use the chat function for any other purpose.

The agenda and papers will not be shared on screen.

Page 2 of 62

Schools Forum Agenda Item 2Date: 8th July 2020

REPORT TITLE: SCHOOLS FORUM – TERMS OF REFERENCE

Report by Yannick Stupples-WhyleyContact details: Telephone (03330 138464); e-mail: [email protected]

1. Purpose of report

1.1 To present Forum with the Authority’s proposed changes to the Terms of Reference in light of the recent change to the structure of Schools Forum and updated DfE guidance for online meetings.

2. Recommendations

2.1 To agree the proposed changes to the Terms of Reference.

3. Relevant Schools Forum Power and Responsibility

3.1 Table 1 shows the relevant responsibilities in relation to Terms of Reference which is taken from the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s Schools Forum Powers and Responsibilities, published in September 2018.

Local Authority Schools Forum ESFAProposes Decides None

4. Background

4.1 The Authority is proposing to make a number of changes to the Terms of Reference for Schools Forum which are tracked changed in Annex A.

4.2 In section 1.1 the regulations are updated to include the emergency regulation brought in due to COVID-19.

4.3 In section 1.2 the Powers and Responsibilities, carrying forward a deficit on central expenditure is removed as the DfE have changed the regulations concerning DSG deficits and this is no longer a Forum decision.

4.4 The constitution in 2.1 is updated to reflect the decision agreed by Forum at the meeting on 20th May 2020.

Page 3 of 62

mailto:[email protected]


4.5 Substitutions have been updated in 2.3 clarifying that a headteacher from another school can act as a substitute. In addition, it has been difficult to establish a pool of substitutes, so this option is removed.

4.6 Section 3.1 clarifies that pupil numbers also determine the number of members between maintained schools and academies.

4.7 Additional wording is added to section 4.1 concerning members conduct and is taken from the Operational Guide.

4.8 Section 7.5 is updated to include the temporary arrangements during the COVID-19 outbreak.

4.9 Section 9.1 clarifies who is able to vote on specified items.

4.10 Section 14 updates the date of approval.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 The temporary arrangements will reduce expenditure on venue hire and printing.

6. Other Resource Implications

6.1 None

7. Consultation with stakeholders

7.1 Consultation with Schools Forum – 8th July 2020

8. Background / Supporting papers.

8.1 Agenda Item 2 Annex A – Terms of Reference (tracked change)

Page 4 of 62

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE ESSEX SCHOOLS FORUM

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.1 The Terms of Reference for the Schools Forum are drawn from The Schools Forums (England) Regulations 2012 and The Schools Forums (England) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

1.2 The Schools Forum is a statutory consultative body and has the following powers and responsibilities.

Function Local Authority Schools Forum DfEFormula change (including

redistributions)Proposes and decides

Must be consulted and informs the governing bodies of all consultations

None

Contracts Propose at least one month prior to invitation to tender, the terms of any proposed contract

Gives a view and informs the governing bodies of all consultations

None

Financial issues relating to:

Arrangements for pupils with special educational needs, in particular the places to be commissioned by the LA and schools and the arrangements for paying top-up funding;

Arrangements for the use of pupil referral units and the education of children otherwise than at school, in particular the places to be commissioned by the LA and schools and the arrangements for paying top-up funding;

Arrangements for early years provision; and

Consult annually Gives a view and informs the governing bodies of all consultations

None

Page 5 of 62

Administration arrangements for the allocation of central government grants.

Function Local Authority Schools Forum DfEMinimum Funding

GuaranteeProposes any exclusions from MFG for application to DfE

Gives a view Approval

De-delegation for maintained schools for:

Contingencies;Administration of free school meals;Insurance;Licences / Subscriptions;Staff Costs – Supply cover;Support for ethnic minority pupils and underperforming groups;Behaviour support services; andLibrary and museum servicesSchool Improvement

Proposes Primary and Secondary school member representatives (maintained schools) will decide for their phase

Will adjudicate where Schools Forum does not agree LA proposal.

General Duties for maintained schools

services previously funded by the ESG general duties rate. Read the updated ‘Schools revenue funding 2017 to 2018: operational guide’ for more information.

Proposes Would be decided by the relevant maintained school members (primary, secondary, special and PRU).

Adjudicates where Schools Forum does not agree LA proposal.

Central Spend on and the criteria for allocating funding from:

The Growth Fund

Proposes Decides Will adjudicate where Schools Forum does

Page 6 of 62

Falling Rolls Fund not agree LA proposal

Function Local Authority Schools Forum DfECentral Spend on:

Early years block provision;Funding to enable all schools to meet the infant class size requirement;Back pay for equal pay claims;Remission of boarding fees at maintained schools and academies;Places in independent schools for non-SEN pupils;Services previously funded by the retained rate of ESG;Admissions; andSchools Forum

Proposes Decides Will adjudicate where Schools Forum does not agree LA proposal

Central spend on:

Capital expenditure funded from revenueContribution to Combined BudgetsTermination of employment costsPrudential borrowingSEN transport

All must have been approved prior to April 2013.

Propose up to the value committed in the previous financial year and where expenditure has already been committed.

Decides for each line


Central spend on:

High Needs block provision; and

Decides None but good practice to inform forum.

None

Page 7 of 62

Central Licences negotiated by the Secretary of StateCarry forward a deficit on central expenditure to the next year to be funded from the schools budget.

Proposes Decides Adjudicates where Schools Forum does not agree LA proposal.

Scheme of financial management changes

Proposes and consults governing body and Head of every maintained school

Approves (School Members Only)


Membership: length of office Decides None (but good practice would suggest that they gave a view).

None

Function Local Authority Schools Forum DfEVoting procedures None Determines

voting procedure.

None

Chair of Schools Forum Facilitates Elects (may not be an elected member of the Council or an officer).

None.

1.3 The Schools Forum brings together key partners in the provision of education in Essex.

1.4 The Schools Forum is established by the Authority under powers contained within the Education Act 2002.

1.5 The Schools Forum has the abovefollowing powers and responsibilities in accordance with The School Forum (England) Regulations 2012:

2. CONSTITUTION

2.1 The Membership of the Schools Forum shall be as follows:

Page 8 of 62

Membership NumbersFrom September

2017May 2020Nursery schools * 1Private, voluntary and independent early years provider (non-school) *

1

Maintained Primary schools * 57Maintained Secondary schools * 1Maintained Special schools * 1Primary Academies * 54Secondary Academies * 6Special Academies * 1Maintained PRUs * 1Academy PRUs 1Diocesan representative 1Private, voluntary and independent early years provider (non-school)

1

Trade Union reps 216-19 representative (non-school) 1Total 278

* Denotes Schools Members

2.2 Members representing schools may be drawn from Headteachers, CEOs and all classes of Governor. Schools Forum has expressed a wish that the ratio between headteachers and governors will be 50:50 but with the continued conversion of schools to academies the Authority will aim to ensure an equal split between headteachers and governors within maintained and academy representation

2.3 Substitute Members

Where a Forum member is unable to attend, they are responsible for arranging an appropriate substitute to attend the meeting.

The substitute for headteachers must be from the same representative group and can be a member of the headteacher’s senior management team or a headteacher from another school. Alternatively, if a substitute cannot be found the headteacher may ask their headteacher association to substitute. If there is still no substitute available to attend, the Authority will arrange a substitute from a pool of elected substitutes.

Governors can only be substituted by a governor. The substitute can be a governor from the same governing body of from another school within the same representative group. If no substitute can be found, the Authority will arrange a substitute from a pool of elected substitutes.

Page 9 of 62

If a member knows that they need to leave the meeting early, they should arrange for a substitute to attend the whole meeting and then the substitute can take over when the member leaves.

Substitutes have the right to vote.

Members are required, where possible, to notify the Secretary of Schools Forum of any substitutes no less than 24 hours before the meeting.

3. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS

3.1 The Authority shall appoint members in the categories set out in the table in 2.1. The representation for primary and secondary schools will remain proportionate to the number of pupils within each sector. The representation in relation to maintained schools and academies will remain proportionate to the number of pupils.

3.2 The Authority shall appoint school members following a nomination and, if required, an election process. All schools within the relevant phase where the vacancy exists will be able to nominate one member. Elections shall be administered by the Schools’ Forum Secretary. Academy representatives will be elected through nominations from Academies. The Authority is looking where possible to encourage representation also to cover areas across Essex.

3.3 The Authority shall appoint non-school members by contacting the relevant groups asking for nominations. If more than one nomination is received an election will be held and all schools will be balloted.

3.4 If an election is required for headteachers all relevant schools will be balloted. For governors all governing bodies for the relevant section will be balloted. The candidate with the highest number of votes will be appointed. In the event of a tie, a second election will take place for those candidates who have equal votes. If there is more than one vacancy within a representative group, all groups eligible to vote will have one vote per vacancy.

3.5 In the event that no nominations are received that would enable the proportions set out in 3.1 to be achieved the Authority shall appoint such members as it sees fit.

3.6 Any change of the nominated officer from non-school bodies, shall be notified to the Secretary at least 14 days before the next meeting.

4. CONDUCT AND TERMS OF OFFICE

4.1 In carrying out their functions, members of the Schools Forum are expected to act in accordance with the seven principles of public life set out in the first report

Page 10 of 62

of the Committee on Standards in Public Life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Members will need to take a strategic view across the whole education estate whilst acting as representative of the group that has elected them. Furthermore, they should be easily contactable and pro-active in raising the profile of issues and communicating decisions, and the reasons behind them, effectively.

4.2 The term of office for Schools Members will be a maximum of four years from the date of appointment, subject to their remaining eligible. The term of office for Non-Schools Members will be a maximum of four years from the date of appointment.

4.3 Schools Members may resign from membership of the Schools Forum and will also cease to be a member if he or she is no longer eligible to be a member.

4.4 Any member, who fails to attend three consecutive meetings of Schools Forum, even where a substitute attended on his or her behalf, may have their membership terminated on a majority vote of the other members.

4.5 After their term of appointment comes to an end, individuals may choose to stand down, however, there is no limit on the number of consecutive terms of office an individual may serve on Schools Forum if they are re-elected. Members who have not attended regularly are prevented from standing again for 2 years after their last term of office.

5. CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR

5.1 The Schools Forum shall appoint from within its membership a Chair and Vice-Chair, elected (if necessary) by a majority of votes cast. These posts may not be held by an elected member or employee of the Authority.

5.2 A Chair or Vice-Chair shall cease to hold office if he or she resigns by giving written notice to the Secretary of the Schools Forum, or if he or she ceases to be a member of the Schools Forum.

5.3 Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected at the first meeting of the calendar year. A Chair or Vice-Chair may stand for re-election in further successive years.

5.4 The Chair’s responsibilities include chairing meetings and overseeing the preparation of the record of the meeting. In the absence of the Chair the Vice-Chair shall fulfil these roles.

5.5 If in any circumstances, it is necessary that a view be given on behalf of the Forum and it is impossible to convene an urgent meeting in accordance with 7.2, the Chair shall be entitled to express a view on behalf of the Forum. The Chair shall inform the Members of the Forum, informally as soon as possible, but shall nonetheless report that view and the circumstances behind the need to give that view to the next meeting of the Forum.

Page 11 of 62

5.6. The Schools Forum shall select one of its members to preside over a meeting if both the Chair and Vice-Chair are unable to attend.

5.7 The Chair can be removed from office between annual elections only if the Schools Forum passes a resolution on a majority of votes cast to remove him or her; and

a) fourteen working days’ notice of such a meeting is given; andb) removing the Chair is a specific item on the agenda for such a meeting;

andc) before the vote at the meeting, those proposing that the Chair be removed

state reasons for the proposal, and the Chair is given an opportunity to make a statement in reply.

6. SECRETARY OF THE SCHOOLS FORUM

6.1 The Authority shall appoint a Secretary. The responsibilities of the secretary include keeping a record of each meeting and ensuring members of the Schools Forum have all relevant information to make a reasoned decision.

7. MEETINGS OF THE SCHOOLS FORUM

7.1 The secretary shall convene the meetings of the Schools Forum, giving a minimum notice of eight working days, with a full agenda.

7.2 In cases of urgency, the secretary shall convene a meeting of the Schools Forum on the direction of the Chair, or in his or her absence, the Vice-Chair.

7.3 The Schools Forum shall meet at least four times a year.

7.4The Schools Forum shall meet as necessary in order to be consulted on contracts for supplies and/or services or other financial issues.

[7.5] All meetings will be held remotely until it is safe to physically meet in a room. in Meetings will remain public and the website will include contact details for anyone wishing to observe a meeting. These arrangements will remain in place until 31 March 2021 or as soon as social distancing is no longer required..

[7.6] The meetings are quorate if at least two fifths of the total membership is are present at the meeting, currently 11 members.

7.5[7.7] Local Authority attendance is restricted to the Lead Member, Director of Education (or representative), Director of Finance (or representative), officers providing financial or technical advice and officers presenting reports.

7.6[7.8] The Secretary of State can appoint an observer to attend and speak at meetings, for example a representative from the Education and Skills Funding

Page 12 of 62

Agency.

7.9 Agendas, reports and minutes will be published on a website accessible to the public.

8. RECORD OF MEETINGS

8.1 The names of the members present at a Schools Forum meeting must be recorded with the minutes of the meeting. A note of the key points of the meeting shall be circulated within 8 days of the meeting, followed by full minutes presented at the next meeting of the Forum.

8.2 The Forum minutes must be agreed at the following Forum meeting.

8.3 The Authority should make available the agenda, papers and approved minutes for each meeting. The only exception will be for items that the Forum has decided should be confidential.

8.4 Confidential items shall include those which fall within Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The Chair or Vice-Chair when agreeing the agenda for each meeting shall determine items to be considered in private session and shall have regard to Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

8.5 The minutes of any part of a meeting that are confidential should be kept separate and not available for inspection.

8.6 Members of the Schools Forum shall respect the confidentiality of items of business which Schools Forum decides are confidential.

9. VOTING

9.1 Voting shall be by individual member votes cast. Decisions on the Formula for Funding Schools can only be voted upon by school members plus the representative for private, voluntary and independent early years settings. Decisions on de-delegation can only be voted on by the relevant maintained school representatives and the Scheme for Financing Schools can only be voted on by maintained members.

9.2 As the role of the Schools Forum is consultative there shall be no bar upon members abstaining or any need for a Chair’s casting vote except in limited situations set out in 9.3.

9.3 In the event of a tied vote the Chair shall have a casting vote.

10 PROCEEDINGS

Page 13 of 62

10.1 The Forum may establish sub-groups to focus on specific issues. If a view of the Forum is required related to the work of a sub-group, then the sub-group shall present a report and/or recommendation to the Forum.

10.2 Schools Forum shall have regard to the requirements placed on the Authority and school governing bodies by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

10.3 Schools Forum will be considered as a ‘public authority’ for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998. Schools Forum must act in a way which is compatible with the rights and freedoms in the European Convention on Human Rights.

10.4 Any complaints about the operation of Schools Forum shall in the first instance be addressed to the secretary of Schools Forum. The secretary and the Chair of Schools Forum should seek to resolve problems quickly. The action taken to resolve a complaint must be reported to the next meeting of Schools Forum.

11.0 BUDGET

11.1 The Forum shall determine matters for which they may need funds. Approved expenditure may include expenses for members; costs of clerk/secretary; training courses for Members and the hire of a meeting room, where a room was not provided by the Authority. Officers of the Authority will offer guidance on budgetary procedures.

11.2 The Authority shall prepare an annual statement showing total expenditure for the Forum.

12. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO NEW SCHOOLS FORUM MEMBERS

12.1 When a new member is appointed, he or she should receive background information from the secretary of the Schools Forum and an induction, including:

a copy of the Terms of Reference the procedures for meetings recent minutes of meetings

13. CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT

13.1 Schools Forum may review the Terms of Reference as necessary and request changes to be made by the Authority. The Authority shall not unreasonably refuse to make such changes.

13.2 The Authority may revise these Terms of Reference as necessary to reflect either the proportions referred to in section 2.1, new guidance from the DfE or

Page 14 of 62

new statutory requirements.

14. APPROVAL OF TERMS OF REFERENCE

14.1 Approved by Schools Forum on 27th September 20178th July 2020

Page 15 of 62


REPORT TITLE: SCHOOL FUNDING 2021/22



1.1 To update Forum of the review of school funding for 2021/22 and to present the proposed Essex Formula for Funding Schools for 2021/22.

2. Recommendations

2.1 To agree in principle to the Finance Review Group’s recommendation to move the Essex Formula for Funding Schools to the National Funding Formula (NFF) over 2 years, with the exception of the primary lump sum which will move to NFF over 3 years.

2.2 To agree that the proposal is consulted with all mainstream schools during the Autumn term.

2.3 To approve that the Authority seeks a disapplication for the Sparsity Factor to use road distance for the schools that qualify by road distance but not by ‘the crow flies’ distance.


3,1 Table 1 shows the relevant responsibilities in relation to formula change which is taken from the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s Schools Forum Powers and Responsibilities, published in September 2018.

Local Authority Schools Forum ESFAProposes and decides Must be consulted.

Voting is restricted to School Members.

Checks for compliance with regulations.

4. Rationale for Moving Towards the National Funding Formula

4.1 The attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers is not closing. The National Funding Formula (NFF) targets funding towards deprivation and low prior attainment. Moving funding towards additional needs pupil-led factors will support early intervention for the schools that benefit from

Page 16 of 62

NFF as disadvantaged and vulnerable pupils can be targeted to reduce the attainment gap.

4.2 In the 2018/19 academic year there were 174 permanent exclusions of which 116 (67%) were pupils on SEN Support or pupils with an Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP). The impact of the increase in pupils excluded from schools and those who are anxious school refusers increased expenditure in the High Needs Block. The budget for this area overspent by £3 million in 2019/20 due to the need to place excluded pupils and ASR pupils into in individual commissioned placements. (Note –some of this overspend is due to the issues at Aspire PRU). Targeting funding at disadvantaged and vulnerable pupils should reduce exclusions, which in turn will reduce the pressure placed on the high needs block.

4.3 Moving towards the NFF in a managed way will minimise turbulence in school funding when the ‘hard’ national funding is implemented.

4.4 Moving towards the NFF during the period of increased funding will minimise the impact on schools that do not benefit from NFF.

4.5 In 2020/21 there are 216 schools who would have received a higher allocation from the NFF than the Essex Formula and the Authority cannot ignore these schools.

5. Background

5.1 The Authority started to move the Essex Formula for Funding Schools closer to NFF in 2020/21 with the £5,000 reduction in the primary lump sum and £10,000 reduction in the secondary lump sum.

5.2 The Finance Review Group (FRG) has been meeting monthly from January to consider models presented by the Authority. The models considered were:

Status Quo

Move to NFF over 4 years



Move some factors to NFF over 2 years and some over 3 years.

6. The Proposed Essex Formula for Financing Schools 2021/22

6.1 FRG recommend moving to NFF over 2 years with the exception of the primary lump sum which is recommended to move to NFF over 3 years.

Page 17 of 62

6.2 This will move the unit value for each factor to the halfway point between the Essex Formula value in 2020/21 and the NFF value in 2021/22. The primary lump sum will move to a third of the way towards NFF value in 2021/22.

6.3 In 2022/23 with the exception of the primary lump sum all funding factors will be the same as NFF. The only exception may be AWPU as that will depend on the cost of the minimum funding guarantee. In 2023/24 the primary lump sum will be the same value as the NFF lump sum.

6.4 Table 2 shows the indicative value of each factor for primary schools in 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24. Note actual values will depend on the NFF amounts set for each year.

Primary Essex2020/21

NFF2020/21

Essex2021/22

Essex2022/23

Essex2023/24

AWPU 3,061.54 2,857.00FSM 437.00 450.00 443.50 450.00 450.00FSM6 0 560.00 280.00 560.00 560.00IDACI F 238.36 210.00 224.18 210.00 210.00IDACI E 291.33 250.00 270.67 250.00 250.00IDACI D 344.30 375.00 359.65 375.00 375.00IDACI C 397.27 405.00 401.14 405.00 405.00IDACI B 476.72 435.00 455.86 435.00 435.00IDACI A 794.53 600.00 697.27 600.00 600.00Prior Attainment

482.97 1,065.00 773.99 1,065.00 1,065.00

EAL 565.89 535.00 550.45 535.00 535.00Mobility 0 875.00 437.50 875.00 875.00Lump Sum 145,000 114,400 134,800 124,600 114,400Sparsity 0 26,000 13,000 26,000 26,000

6.5 It is unlikely that AWPU will move halfway between the Essex 2020/21 value and the NFF value as this is dependent upon the cost of the minimum funding guarantee.

6.6 Table 3, below, shows the indicative value of each factor for secondary schools in 2021/22 and 2022/23.

Page 18 of 62

Secondary Essex2020/21

NFF2020/21

Essex2021/22

Essex2022/23

KS3 AWPU 4,276.35 4,018.00KS4 AWPU 5,207.87 4,561.00FSM 437.00 450.00 443.50 450.00FSM6 0 815.00 407.50 815.00IDACI F 302.06 300.00 301.03 300.00IDACI E 369.19 405.00 387.10 405.00IDACI D 436.61 535.00 485.81 535.00IDACI C 503.44 580.00 541.72 580.00IDACI B 604.12 625.00 614.56 625.00IDACI A 1,006.87 840.00 923.44 840.00Prior Attainment

991.55 1,610.00 1,300.78 1,610.00

EAL 190.35 1,440.00 815.18 1,440.00Mobility 0 1,250.00 625.00 1,250.00Lump Sum 140,000 114,400 127,200 114,400Sparsity 0 67,600 33,800 67,600

6.7 There are 3 funding factors that will be new for 2021/22

FSM6 Mobility Sparsity

6.8 Free school meals ever 6 forms part of the deprivation calculation, together with free school meals and IDACI, and funds all pupils who have been entitled to a free school meal at any time during the last 6 years.

6.9 Mobility is funded by a new formula introduced by the DfE. Eligibility is based on each pupil’s school census record in the last 3 years. If the first census the pupil appears on was a spring or summer census, they are classified as a mobile pupil. This excludes reception pupils who start in January. Schools are eligible for funding if their total proportion of mobile pupils is greater than 6%.

6.10 The Sparsity factor funds small rural schools where pupils would need to travel significant distance to another school. For pupils whom the school is their closest school the factor measures the distance (as ‘the crow flies’) from their home to the second nearest compatible school and the mean distance for all pupils is then calculated. Table 4 shows the eligibility criteria.

Page 19 of 62

Maximum average number of pupils per

year group

Minimum average distance to second nearest compatible

schoolPrimary 21.4 2 milesSecondary 120 3 milesAll Through 62.5 2 miles

6.11 Local authorities can make exceptional applications to the ESFA for schools not meeting the distance criterion where they would have significantly higher mileage if road distances had been used. Table 5 shows the number of schools that qualify under ‘as the crow flies’ compared to how many schools qualify under road distance.

Crow Flies Road DistanceClass Size Eligibility 79 79Mileage Eligibility 19 58

6.12 FRG recommends that the Authority submit a request to the ESFA to make an exceptional application to use road distance for the 39 schools that do not qualify under ‘as the crow flies’ criteria.


7.1 Moving towards the NFF will create a redistribution of funding between schools which will be dependent on each school’s individual circumstances.

7.2 Schools that do not fare well by the NFF will be cushioned as funding will increase in 2021/22 (£2.2 billion) and 2022/23 (£2.6 billion). Indicatively all schools will receive an increase in funding in 2021/22 above their 2020/21 allocation. However, the final allocation is dependent on the October 2020 School Census and any significant change in data could result in a decrease in funding.

7.3 The final reduction to the primary lump sum will occur in 2023/24 where it is unknown whether school funding will increase. Primary schools will be advised to plan for the reduction to mitigate the final year impact.


8.1 Consultation will be held with all mainstream schools. The plan for consultation is as follows:

Draft consultation document presented to FRG 15th July Final consultation document presented to FRG 7th September Final consultation document presented to Forum 9th September Consultation held 11th September to 11th October

Page 20 of 62


Secondary SEMH provision – revenue funding

Report by Ralph HollowayContact details: Telephone 03330 322691; e-mail: [email protected]


1.1. To seek Schools Forum’s approval for revenue funding of £158,400 from the High Needs Block from April 2021 to establish an enhanced provision at The Stanway School for a minimum of 8 pupils with social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs.

1.2. To inform the Schools Forum of the intention to operate the above provision from September 2020 as a pilot to determine the success of the model.

1.3. To inform the Schools Forum of the intention to establish three further

enhanced provisions for SEMH in Mid, South and West Essex dependent upon the successful implementation of the pilot and the identification of host schools at an additional cost of £475,200 to the HNB.

2. Recommendations

2.1 To agree revenue funding of £158,400 from the High Needs Block from April 2021 to establish an enhanced provision at The Stanway School for a minimum of 8 pupils with social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs (4.2 to 4.3).

2.2 To note the operating model for the pilot of the provision and the intended success measures (4.2 to 4.3, 5.3 to 5.5, 6.1 to 6.2, 7.2).

2.3 To note the intention to develop further provisions, dependent upon the success of the pilot and the identification of host schools, at a further cost to the HNB of £475,200 (4.5, 7.1 to 7.2).

3. Relevant Schools Forum Powers and Responsibility

3.1 Table 1 shows the relevant responsibilities in relation to high needs provision which is taken from the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s Schools Forum Powers and Responsibilities, published in September 2018.

Page 21 of 62

Local Authority Schools Forum ESFAProposes and decides Must be consulted.

Voting is restricted to School Members.

Checks for compliance with regulations.

4 Background

4.1 There has been a steady increase in the number of children and young people who have SEMH needs in schools both nationally and within Essex. This is category of need, was introduced in the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice in September 2014.

4.2 Table one in appendix one shows the increase in the numbers of children and young people with SEMH identified as their primary need at SEN support and EHCP over the last three years; there has been an overall increase of 15%. Tables two and three break this down by EHCP and SEN support; the percentage growth is more significant at EHCP. The rise has been most significant in North East Essex (26%).

4.3 Education for secondary aged children with SEMH needs in Essex is currently provided in a number of settings: mainstream schools; pupil referral units; Essex special schools (Ramsden Hall and Langham Oaks); Other LA special schools; One-to-one tuition provided by private companies; independent special schools.

4.4 There are currently no resourced enhanced provisions for secondary aged children with SEMH in Essex.

4.5 The number of pupils with higher need SEMH (those who may be expected to require a special school place) in Essex PRUs has increased and reduces the ability to support schools with short-term interventions for pupils who should be able to return successfully to mainstream education. As a consequence of increased pressure in PRU places there was a significant over-spend on the alternative provision budget as more individual packages of education were purchased.

4.6 Some additional capacity has been established through the creation of Year 6 places at Langham Oaks and at Ramsden Hall in addition to a limited number of day placements at Wells Park; however, this is insufficient to meet the needs of all those pupils currently educated in Essex pupil referral units, resourced provisions and by one-to-one tuition. Pupils placed in out of Essex LA schools (independent) are likely to continue in these placements until year 11.

Page 22 of 62

4.7 The annual spend on independent special school places for secondary aged pupils with SEMH is high:

YEAR NO COST AVERAGE ANNUAL COST PER PLACE

20/21 99 £6,271,729 £63,35119/20 99 £6,052,659 £61,13818/19 88 £5,760,525 £65,461

5. Financial implications

5.1 The revenue funding model assumes that the optimum number of pupils will be eight.

5.2 It is suggested that the following is the minimum staff required for 8 full-time pupils is; one full time Head of Provision and four senior LSAs and seconded teaching of timetabled subjects (to address curriculum needs)

5.3 The revenue funding required to support this staffing structure and running costs is as follows:

Base funding per full-time pupil - £10,000Top up per full-time pupil - £9,800Total funding per full-time pupil - £19,800Total funding for provision with 8 full-time pupils - £158,400 in 2021/22

5.4 It is also intended that schools commissioning places will transfer the key stage 3 AWPU (pro rata).

5.5 The cost of establishing three further provisions would be £475,200. The total cost for four secondary SEMH provisions would be £633,600 in 2021/22. This is cost avoidance as without the new provisions pupils would likely be placed in more costly independent settings.

6. The purpose of enhanced provision

6.1 The primary GROW model has now been in place since December 2011 and has evolved from the original project-based model into well-established provisions. The success of the Primary GROW has highlighted the need to identify an additional provision to ‘bridge’ the transition for some students into year 7 or 8 in secondary schools.

6.2 This proposal is for the establishment of a secondary GROW provision for the NE quadrant in an extension to the existing primary GROW model; this provision will be based in the ECC Youth Centre building sited adjacent to The Stanway School.

Page 23 of 62

6.3 The purpose of the provision is to be proactive in being able to meet the needs of year 6 pupils who have been assessed, by suitably qualified professionals, as being vulnerable at transition from the primary to secondary phase. The children may at the point of assessment be attending either: one of the primary enhanced provisions; a mainstream primary; Alternative provision such as NEECA; On a tuition package commissioned by the LA Education Access Team.

6.4 The intention of the provision will be to ensure that these children have their needs met so that they can continue to engage in mainstream education into the secondary phase through the more personalised approach and then the subsequent transition plan put together in partnership with their identified secondary school. Some of the impact of the provision will be directly measurable in terms of attendance data and from engagement measures. Ultimately the impact being sought is to have children successfully transition into mainstream secondary and not ultimately to become permanently excluded or requiring a special school place.

6.5 Secondary enhanced provision is required: to enable Essex pupils to be educated in their local community within a

mainstream setting; to increase the capacity of Essex schools to successfully meet the needs of

pupils with SEMH and to enable them to fulfil their academic potential; to prepare pupils with SEMH to be successfully included into Essex

mainstream secondary schools; to support pupils to become more emotionally self-aware, to be able to self-

regulate and to be more resilient; to reduce the level of permanent exclusions from Essex secondary schools

particularly at KS3; to reduce the number of pupils educated in out of LA independent school

provision; to improve parental confidence in the continuum of provision available within

Essex and thus increase parental choice; to empower parents to have greater involvement in their children’s education

and to develop their capacity to support their child’s development and progress;

to promote inclusion in Essex schools by increasing resilience in schools and thus enabling them to meet the challenges of pupils with SEMH;

to reduce admissions to Essex SEMH special schools and to reduce the need to commission independent special schools.

7. Allocation of places

7.1 In order to ensure both local accountability to schools and to LA commissioners there will be an expectation that there will be an established admissions panel made of other local head teachers and LA SEND staff.

Page 24 of 62

7.2 The panel will be responsible for ensuring an equitable allocation of places amongst local schools. An appropriate and purposeful service level agreement will be put in place with the host school to embed effective monitoring of outcomes and cost effectiveness of placements

8. Success measure and development of further provisions

8.1 The success of the pilot and the case to develop further provisions across the rest of Essex will be measured against the following criteria:

Reduction in the breakdown of places for pupils with SEMH transitioning from KS2 to 3 following a referral in the provision;

Reduced numbers of secondary permanent exclusion, particularly n years 7 and 8;

Reduced numbers of pupils with SEMH requiring a referral to an independent special school;

Reduced spend on independent special school places for pupils with SEMH.

8.2 The identification of potential host schools in Mid, South and West Essex will depend on:

An Ofsted rating of good or outstanding with evidence of an ability to deliver good or outstanding outcomes;

An existing physical space to locate the provision or have an area which can be developed;

Commitment to a fully inclusive model which enables referred pupils to participate and be educated alongside the main body of the school as well as benefit from more specialist provision;

An ability to challenge traditional ways of working and pushing the boundaries with regards to intervention and support for pupils with SEMH;

The ability to work successfully with other local secondary schools to build capacity of their staff for support and inclusion of pupils with SEMH;

an evidence and research-based source of expertise in relation to behaviour and emotional difficulties in terms of effective teaching approaches and management;

The ability to provide outreach support for mainstream schools in order to build the capacity of mainstream staff to support pupils with SEMH.

Page 25 of 62

Appendix one

Table one: All SEMH (Primary need)

Boys 2016 – 2019 Girls 2016 -2019 Totals 2016 – 2019

Page 26 of 62

Table two: SEMH EHCP


Page 27 of 62

Table three: SEMH SEN Support


Page 28 of 62


REPORT TITLE: Banding and top up in Essex special schools - update

Report by Ralph HollowayContact details: Telephone 03330 322691; e-mail: [email protected]


1.1 To update Schools Forum on the financial position of Oak View School for the 2020/21 financial year;

1.2 To seek Schools Forum agreement on a one-year interim solution in 2020/21 for the allocation of top up funding to Oak View School in line with the decision taken for other schools forecasting an overall deficit position.

2. Recommendations

2.1 To support Oak View School through a one-off solution with the additional funding required to not to end 2020/21 with a deficit balance which will cost an additional £94,000 (5.1 to 5.3).


Local Authority

Schools Forum

DfE

Financial issues relating to: arrangements for pupils with

special educational needs, in particular the places to be commissioned by the local authority and schools and the arrangements for paying top-up funding

Consults Approves None

Page 29 of 62

4. Background

4.1 At the meeting on 20th May Schools Forum agreed additional funding to support two Essex special schools (Kingswode Hoe and Shorefields) who are forecasting an overall deficit position in 2020/21. Oak View had not completed their budget setting at the time that the request for support was presented. The paper is attached as Appendix One.

4.2 The table below shows Oak View’s forecast balance for 2019/20 and 2020/21:

School

Balance / Forecast2019/20

£

ForecastBalance2020/21

£Difference

£Oak View 97,000 (94,000) (191,000)

5. Financial implications

5.1 The table below shows the updated position with Oak View included.

School

Balance / Forecast2019/20

£

ForecastBalance2020/21

£Difference

£Castledon 25,500 3,300 (22,200)Cedar Hall 212,845 104,000 (108,845)Kingswode Hoe 140,000 (130,000) (270,000)Oak View 97,000 (94,000) (191,000)Shorefields (62,100) (332,590) (270,490)Total 413,245 (449,290) (862,535)

5.2 The proposal is to fund Oak View (in line with Kingswode Hoe and Shorefields) with a one-off solution for 2020/21 which will be the funding required to not end 2020/21 in a deficit position. A further review of funding will be undertaken for 2021/22. The cost of this proposal is £556,590.

5.3 Oak View will need to comply with the following conditions:

No requests for additional funding above the one-off allocated amount will be permitted;

They will need to submit a detailed budget plan for 2020/21; They are required to submit a monthly monitoring return to the Authority; Should Oak View’s circumstances change, and a deficit is no longer

forecast any funding allocated to the school will need to be returned; If a surplus balance is realised at year-end the proportion of the

allocation that creates the surplus would need to be repaid.

Page 30 of 62

Schools Forum Meeting Minutes of Wednesday 20th May 2020Via Microsoft Teams08.30am – 10.55am

(subject to forum approval)In Attendance

Rod Lane (RL) – Chair Simon Wall (SW) Miles Bacon (MB)Jeff Fair (JF) Ruth Bird (RB) John RevillPam Langmead (PM) Simon Thompson (STh) Elizabeth Drake (ED)Mark Farmer (MF) Janet Duke (JD) Bruce Tuxford (BT)Philomena Cozens (PC) John Hunter (JH) Sally Brisley (SB)Jeff Brindle (JB) Dianne Ryan (DR) Carole Herman (CH)Ben Steele (BS) George Constantinides (GC) Richard Green (RG)Sean Moriarty (SM) Nigel Hill (NH) Jo Barak (JB)Matt Surman (MS) Harriet Phelps-Knights (HP-

K)Liz Cornish (LC)

Gary Smith (GS) Simon Dawson (SD) Dianne Ryan (DR)

LA OfficersYannick Stupples-Whyley (YSW)

Clare Kershaw (CK) Ralph Holloway (RH)

Carolyn Terry (CT) Val Cleare (VC) - Minutes

1 Apologies for Absence and substitute notices

Rod Lane welcomed everyone, under these difficult circumstances, to the meeting via Microsoft Teams and the online protocol was duly noted by all. RL also welcomed Matt Surman (Wells Park), Simon Dawson (Langham Oaks), Liz Cornish (Glenwood) and Gary Smith (Market Field) who were in attendance for Agenda Item 2 to answer questions. Dianne Ryan was also available to answer questions.

Apologies were received from Cllr Ray Gooding, Sue Bardetti, Marilyn Smith and Carla Deluca.

Ben Steele substituted for Marilyn Smith.

It was noted that Sean Tobin and Joyce Woodham had resigned.

2 High Needs Banding in Special Schools – Ralph Holloway

The report was seeking the Forum’s agreement to a one year interim solution for special school funding, and to seek agreement for a

Page 31 of 62

comprehensive review of funding for 2021/22 and beyond. RH reported on the proposals for a one year solution for four cohorts of schools.

CK reminded everyone why this is an issue. When the banding was revised within the county, we had looked at different levels but assumed overall spend for top up linked to banding would not increase within the HNB. It was increasing and it is about decisions around banding in special schools. At the time of looking at this not all children had been banded. CK informed the decision had been taken to implement an arbitrary process for all children not banded on a default position and have individual discussions with schools.

RH indicated for 2020/21 it is to be a fairer system. The paper which RH presented had followed significant scrutiny through SEND.

Cohort 14.7 RH described deficit budget for HNB. The number of young people with EHCP has continued to rise from £8,286 in 2017/18 to £9,361 in 2019/20 in line with national increase. In 5.10 support required in Cohort 1, Oak View had been taken out. Support for Kingswode Hoe and Shorefields to fund 2020/21 only. Conditions were set under 5.13.

QuestionsJR – Are deficits purely through banding methodology?RH – This applies to banding and schools staffing structure. The costs have not reduced for the school, but the forecast will. There is an impact on the funding. There are constraints around Shorefields.

PL – Trusts and multi-agency trusts. Is there a conversation about SEAX and Kingswode Hoe? Are there not expectations that trusts will be pulling out schools if they have funding issues? CK – The Local Authority took an arbitrary decision around banding that has financially impacted some of the schools. CK did not think it was fair to ask trusts to do this. It has to be equitable and fair across all schools. RH – SEAX reserves sit in Thriftwood. Those reserves will reduce.

DR – Concerns about Oak View and their budget is in August. When can they be considered? DR knows the budget is very challenging. How will this be dealt with?RH – Schools were given ample opportunity and warning about this. Other academies have set budgets.YSW – I would expect schools to be planning ahead.DR – They will have missed the opportunity for Oak View.RH – That is the Forum’s decision.RL – They have missed the opportunity for this meeting.RH – Bring back to the July meeting if they have further information.CK – Trying to put this to bed. Moving forward with support for schools that need this. We do not have overall position of financial information to take a view. Given this is a one year proposal only and looking at 2021/22 if other

Page 32 of 62

schools fall into trouble and come back with consideration at the Forum that would be moved into the overall review for 2021/22.

Cohort 2RH reported this now includes Castledon and Cedar Hall. The balanced position was shown in Table 5.15.

Questions

BT – Some schools are saying a deficit, and some are not. Is the problem where some schools are not managing their finances as well as some of the other schools or is it bigger than that? RH – It is about income. Schools income from top up can vary if earlier in the process when banded. When a new cohort it is the difference between income which creates the problem.

BT – What is the gap between one year and the next?RH – If school in the first year managed to have a large number of young people banded and they were evenly distributed within the school, the problem would take longer. If in a school where not many are banded, the income is significantly lower. There is uneven distribution within the school and across the Local Authority. Banding in the higher end as pupils left; that is the default as well.

GS – Reiterated there were no surprises in some of original papers percentages of children banded in specialist schools and the north of the county had a significant variance than others; 46% banded. It is those schools where banding has not been implemented which are suffering the most. We set a budget based on income and need of the children and staff fees. Made the point of the need to increase any banding since 2011. The inequalities of funding from mainstream to special schools is massive and hard to take.

PC – added special schools and PRUs are funded differently from schools; £8k per pupil, £11k in 2011. The top up is extremely difficult to budget. All costs have gone up year on year when budgeting for mainstream schools and budgeting for special schools. PC agreed with GS in the detail in budgeting. It is extremely difficult to set budget when do not know what income is coming in.

MB – I remember when the decision was made over banding that it was for an emergency decision to stop increasing the transfer from mainstream to special schools.RH – there has been an increased flow of children into special schools and money should come to special schools.MB – It is how much money each child takes with them from the system pot.GS – If their needs are such that they had previously and that does not change.

Page 33 of 62

MB – There is not much money in the system and that affects all of us.

CK – Understood MBs point. We know there are huge pressures on the HNB and responded to individual problem. We cannot look at overall of HNB and needs of the children. In isolation of this, CK and RH have had many conversations and had difficulties. If had not increased the number of children in special schools and money would have increased for children in out of county schools. It is a complicated matter. If there is any further consideration, then we will take those points into consideration. We need a fair system. CK acknowledged we need to look again at HNB which will require a degree of scrutiny of mainstream schools.RH – If create 255 new special school places, if all funded £3.8m would be the cost straightaway.

SD – You have not mentioned around the influx of children into special schools is the complexity of young people brings therapeutic intervention if not able to provide which would push parents to use NMI placements where better funded independent schools have a better level of provision. In SEMH since 2014 we have seen the complexity of young people we have been working with. Funding needs to go above and beyond what traditional schools used to provide. Level of support to provide is increasingly expensive and add on to that pension costs of people you are bringing in and this is escalating.

MS – Agreed with SD that this is only a short-term patch. There needs to be a longer-term sustained input to resolve some of the needs required for individuals and families. It is increasingly recognised that trauma plays a big part in the journeys of these children and addressing some of the basic things in speech and language is difficult. In these extraordinary times there has been a raised awareness of CPE outside of the county. It is a one year budget at the moment but there is concern how to maintain going forward.

Cohort 3 – SEMH Schools

RH described the proposal to increase the day placement top-up to £15,000 and the residential placement top-up to £18,000 which is a decrease for Wells Park, however this is mitigated by the £5,000 increase in the day placement top-up. The eligible schools will be required to comply with the conditions set out in 5.13.

Questions

SD – We have found ourselves in the situation where the new proposal for this funding has come at a time when going through a staffing restructure exercise and had to review. We are pleased we are seeing that additional funding coming in. We have stripped back the proposed structure to where it is today but have still had to make a lot of sacrifices with funding proposed. We have cut therapy to zero; no speech and language. We had

Page 34 of 62

to use structures rather than teachers for 25% of the teaching population. Other emphasis was on admin, pastoral support and site management. If the funding does not enable us to provide outreach etc. pupils will spill out into NMI and cost the Local Authority more money. This is where lack of investment has been seen in other counties.

RH – There is a need to ensure a uniform top-up across the three SEMH special schools for the model which is the same for each school rather than individual arrangements.

MS – Wells Park School has provided support to maintained families right across Essex which is a slightly different model than that provided by others. We dip into resources we do not have to support families outside of the normal intake of other schools from Harwich to Thurrock and across east and west which comes at a considerable cost. Resources are taken out of main pool.RH – We are proposing 10% increase in your overall funding.

There was confusion about the conduct of this meeting where a lot of people were chipping in as observers.RL – It is for the Forum to make a decision. The normal practice of the meeting is that the Forum have the discussion and anyone else is an observer at the meeting. PL – We have spent an hour of this meeting and we only have until 11.15. We need to make some conclusion or once again it will have to be deferred.RH – RH referred to the SEN Sub Group in February when they agreed to invite special schools to ask questions rather than make points.

Cohort 4 – SLD Schools

Questions

JR – queried about the Glenwood school.RH – The staffing structure is significantly different from Lexden Springs. I am telling the Forum there is a significant difference between the two schools.JR – What is in the paper is a snapshot not what the value is at the end of the year.RH – It is information taken from the school.JR – That money is to support additional places.RH - It will be for the Governing Body to use that money. We did not ask for additional money for 2020/21 between the two as discussed at the SEN Sub Group.JR – There is a difference between the two staffing models on a like for like methodology.RH – I am more interested in the outcomes. The Local Authority is looking for the structure to achieve the outcome for young people staying in the

Page 35 of 62

school and not move to the independent sector. Both schools have a method, but the cost is significantly different.JR – There is a risk to the provision if it is not funded at the full rate and an understanding of what would be able to be delivered with reduced funding. RH – It is not reduced. It is what is required on top of the structure since it was first put in place.JH – With regards to Glenwood and the money at the end of this financial year we will not be able to afford to subsidise boarding. There has been a significant amount of money used to restructure staffing. Have expanded greatly at Glenwood and if did not do restructuring and put more management structure in we will fail for our pupils and there will be a significant impact. Previously when the detail was sought of all the Glenwood money, there is no spare money that can be used to prop up. The Forum has to take this into account. JH forwarded an email that there is no way Glenwood can do any subsidy at all which we have to pay for. Overall it is a cheaper option than not doing anything.

MF – raised comment about the fact of the financial pressures on the whole system.

Recommendations:

To support each school in deficit or forecasting to go into deficit in 2020/21 through a one-off solution with the additional funding required for each school to not to end 2020/21 with a deficit balance which will cost £463,000 (5.7 to 5.8);

To agree that no additional funding in 2020/21 is required for schools with less than 5% balance in 2020/21 and forecast to go into deficit in 2021/22 (5.10-5.13);

To increase the day placement top-up to £15,000 and the residential placement top-up to £18,000 for the Essex SEMH schools, excluding Ramsden Hall, for 2020/2, which will cost £545,000 (5.23-5.24);

To agree that no additional funding is required for the SLD schools with residential provision for 2020/21 (5.26);

To note the additional pressures on the High Needs Block and the options for mitigating these in 2020/21 and 2021/22 (4.7 and 5.29-5.31).

To commission an external and comprehensive review of funding for 2021/22 and beyond to cover both mainstream and special school top up, IPRA funding and the Essex pupil referral units. (5.7, 5.12, 5.24, 5.26):

Voting – JH and ED declared an interest and did not vote.

Page 36 of 62

Agreed – 15.3 Constitution and Membership of Schools Forum – Yannick Stupples-

Whyley

YSW presented the report which considered the current membership of the Schools Forum in the light of the continuing transfer of maintained schools to the Academy sector and the change in pupil numbers.

Under 3.5 there are four Headteachers and six Governors. Sean Tobin has resigned. Table 4 showed a revised structure.

QuestionSB - With regards to 3.8 we need it for nurseries under maintained schools in both tables.YSW – It is based on how the DfE recommended but we can do that.ED – I am retiring. ESSET is electing a new member to replace me from September.JF – Vacancy on the church representatives. Is there anything we need to be doing as well as looking at the situation?RB – No-one has come up with anyone each time I have spoken to the church. It has to go to the Diocesan Board of Education before they do anything.JF – Reminded the church representative is for joint representation between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Diocese.

SM – I am happy to approach Brentwood Diocese. Educational support provision has been struggling over the last two years. I can see if I can get a positive answer.

PL – Do you want me to forward election information to Primary Headteachers to fill the maintained school vacancies?YSW – Yes.

Recommendations:

To agree to remove the vacant primary academy headteacher vacancy and to re-designate one of the two vacant primary maintained governor vacancies to a primary maintained headteacher vacancy at 3.6

To agree the new structure shown in Table 4 at 3.7.

To note the members who are approaching their end of term in the 2020/21 financial year at 3.8.

To note the list of members in Annex A and attendance of members in Annex B.

Page 37 of 62

Voting21 in agreement, carried.

4 Any other business and feedback from schools through Associations. Feedback from Schools Forum representatives on other Bodies.

ASHESTh reported have been dealing with the Coronavirus. STh expressed thanks to CK for all work she has done with her team on behalf of schools throughout this time. STh had been on the Co-ordinating Group and had really valued the support and leadership from the Local Authority. It has been an issue for secondary heads and enormous time taken up and working actively on proposals for phased rebanding after half-term.

EPHAHPK reiterated similar comments regarding the Coronavirus. Have been working closely with the Local Authority and ASHE. HPK was extremely grateful to CK for support during this crisis and hard work to all schools and this has been greatly welcomed by school leaders. There has been an impact on partial closures and staying open during holiday periods. The messages from the Government have presented us with challenges. There have been additional issues regarding PPE, school meals and staffing reimbursement. Also, recruitment for September has posed a challenge. There is concern about the impact on the Census day if we have not got pupils in school by then.

ESSETDR expressed appreciation for great support from CK and RH. Have looked at EHCP plans and rebanding document with Essex. Their guidance has been excellent. There has been confusing information from the DfE. Most schools have remained open and it has been very challenging times.

PRUsComments from the Local Authority agreed with and the trust in us making the right decision has been appreciated. There is some uncertainty about additional costs about transport and getting children into the centres. Overall take-up has been low but have had to provide transport. Safeguarding issues have been low but think it will change with the easing of the lockdown. Biggest barrier is online learning and lack of access for the internet and the limited data.

Local Authority support has been excellent from CK and support from the PRUs to get significant laptops. Have been in weekly contact with CK and direct access to Jo Barclay.

Early YearsSB reported both nurseries have stayed open. SB was grateful for support

Page 38 of 62

from CK which had allowed decisions to be made on own risk assessments. There were slight concerns about social distancing for 3-4 year olds which is not going to be possible. A third of families would like to return on 1st June 2020. We may not be able to open and will be losing a lot of money.

YSW reported on behalf of CD that although there has been a drop in private income there has been no need to furlough staff and have remained sustainable. It is uncertain if this is representative of the sector though.

ESGARB reported not having met over the last two months. RB recorded a huge thank you to Joyce Woodham who had been a really good Governor. RB thanked her for all her hard work.

UnionsJF thanked CK for negotiating sensibly unlike the Government talking about something and doing something different. Union concerns about pressure to make sure meet all the needs being asked and aware supporting more members with stress and other issues because we have ensured they know who to go to. There has been a lack of clarity from the Government of the rationale. It has been merely the Local Authority and teachers who have been managing the Government guidelines and growth. Long-term there will be issues where people are going to get tired and worn out.

CK thanked everyone including every headteacher and support staff. CK acknowledged the work of all school leaders and school staff during this difficult time.

JH thanked CK. JH had been talking to a headteacher in another Authority. JH had noted the leadership which has happened in Essex has been excellent and wanted this acknowledged. It has been really first-class.

JH expressed the importance of the number of hours headteachers and staff have put in on preparation for rebanding of schools. JH thanked everyone on behalf of Governors.

Church RepNo report.

SEN Sub Group The group had met on 4th May 2020.

5 Minutes of 15th January 2020It was noted a correction was required at the beginning of the minutes which should read 15th January 2020.

Page 24, Section 2

Page 39 of 62

JF wondered whether the Forum should lobby the Government as the education system is operating in a commercial environment and is being expected to run like a commercial organisation.

This should read:JF wondered whether the Forum should lobby the Government regarding the education system to reflect plans did not need to be the same as commercial organisations.

Voting – All agreed.

6 Minutes Action Log

YSW reported the Growth Fund is ongoing and will report back at the next meeting.

YSW confirmed the pension fund is being discussed later in this meeting.

Church representative was mentioned earlier in this meeting (Item 3).

7 Early Years and Childcare Update – Carolyn Terry

CT updated the Forum on the forecast budget requirement for 2020/21 of the two, three and four year old Free Early Education Entitlement (FEEE), including the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP), to update Forum that the Early Years DSG accumulated overspend has been paid back in full and to update the Forum on the impact of Covid-19 on the Free Early Education Entitlement funding and to update the Forum on the impact of Covid-19 on the Free Early Education Entitlement funding.

Table 1 showed the 2019/20 in-year under spend. CT explained there had been issues about the Government guidance whereby childcare providers may be unable to re-open which will have an impact on providers and disadvantage families accessing those settings. CK has asked for clarification which is awaited. Communications have been sent out to Early Years audience and this has been well-received. Childcare providers have been supported to access finance packages via district councils and boroughs. It has helped them understand the childcare market and those relationships have been working really well. We are doing an impact assessment of different sectors and all the Early Years sector. It is expected this will continue until the autumn term. The sector can prepare for lower numbers in September by having higher numbers in the summer term, but this has not happened this year. Some might re-open and may not be able to continue in September.

COVID-19 response will be information to prepare for the Sub Group. We can provide forecasts but difficult to do with settings closed but will update at subsequent meetings.

Page 40 of 62

YSW advised on behalf of CD that the EY Sub Group met in October 2019 not December.

QuestionsSB thanked CT for the work she has been doing in Early Years.

RL – It is a very difficult time and very challenging at the moment.

CT agreed to work with Carla Deluca and Sally Brisley and will bring proposals back to a future meeting.

Recommendation:

The Forum noted the Early Years Block forecast expenditure for 2020/21 at 5.4.

That Forum noted the Early Years DSG accumulated overspend has now been fully recovered

Forum noted the impact of Covid-19 on the Free Early Education Entitlement funding.

8 Schools Budget Draft Outturn Report 2019/20 – Yannick Stupples-Whyley

YSW presented the paper which updated Schools Forum on the draft outturn position for the year ended 31 March 2020. YSW highlighted the changes in 3.2 and informed we are implementing Option 2.

Questions

GC – Clarification of Item 4.4.6. YSW was happy to provide GC with a breakdown of underspend and minor variances.GC – reported £1/2m.YSW – If add together £1.1m underspend.GC – 4.4.9 SEN. I am not familiar with what comes under that heading.YSW – Anything the Local Authority provides is not direct funding to provision. Will provide breakdown.RL – Expenditure of this is non-recovering expenditure. Equipment spent is normally less than 157.YSW – Normally 157 is slightly higher. JF – Something recognised balancing figure put in. JF – Question on 3.2 (ii). Clarification: if next year in a deficit situation it is the amount of money being rolled forward to the following year, does that have to be dealt with in that year or potential overspend? YSW – As closed 2020/21 we get to choose which option. It is not necessarily to be dealt with in two years but if over a long period we justify

Page 41 of 62

which is applicable in a year’s time.

Recommendation:

The Forum noted the outturn position at 31st March 2020.

9 Education Functions Budget Draft Outturn 2019/20 – Yannick Stupples-Whyley

YSW presented the paper updating Schools Forum on the draft outturn position for the year ended 31 March 2020.

JF – With regards to 5.5 comment about top-slicing funded for shortfall. Is that going to be top-sliced from the top of the budget or only maintained schools? Historically premature retirement costs handled. YSW – There will be a deep dive to see which schools it relates to. If we need to do it, it will be from the top.CK – Confirmed we have agreed to do a deep dive. It is the first action we will do.RL – Regarding 5.3.2 it is a big number for retirement costs.CK – Understood how much is historic. The second proportion will be historic.

Recommendation:

The Forum noted the provisional outturn position for the year ending 31st March 2020.

10 School Funding Review 2021/22 – Yannick Stupples-Whyley

YSW presented the paper which provided the Schools Forum with a high level overview of the review of the school funding formula for 2021/22.

The Finance Review Group has been meeting monthly to review the Essex Funding Formula for 2020/21. The timescales have been put forward in the paper. Schools Forum will meet on 9th September 2020 to agree proposals to be consulted with schools

Recommendation:

The Forum noted the report.

11 Forward Plan – Yannick Stupples-Whyley

YSW presented the paper which updated the Forum of the Forward Plan and confirmed the dates of future meetings.

YSW drew attention to an extra Schools Forum meeting to be held on 9th September 2020.

Page 42 of 62

PL – Requested for the next meeting an agenda item – impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and impact on schools, the DfE reimbursement or not, ongoing pressures if schools are not back fully by the Census date in September.

Recommendations:

The Forum noted the dates of future meetings. That additional items as proposed by Schools Forum are included in the Forward Plan

10 Chair’s Closing CommentsRL thanked everyone for attending in different circumstances and having embraced Microsoft Teams thanked everyone for their contributions.

Date of next meeting – Wednesday, 8th July 2020 at 8.30 a.m.

Page 43 of 62


REPORT TITLE: Minute Action Log

Date of Meeting Report Action Owner Action Response Status15th January 2020 Agenda Item 7 –

Education Functions Third Quarter Budget Update 2019/20


Identify from which pension funds that the majority of the expenditure is coming from.

Deep-dive to be undertaken.

Ongoing

25th September 2020

Agenda Item 7 – Constitution & Membership of Schools Forum

Ruth Bird To speak to Tim Elbourne regarding church representation on Forum

Nomination has been suggested to the Diocese Board.

Ongoing

Page 44 of 62

Page 45 of 62


SEND and PRU Capital Project Update

Confidential Paper

Page 46 of 62


REPORT TITLE: SCHOOL and ACADEMY BALANCES



1.1 To update Forum on the level of School Balances for maintained schools at 31st

March 2020 and academies at 31st August 2019.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That Forum notes the reports and suggests any areas for further investigation.


3.1 There are no specific powers or responsibilities in relation to school balances.

4. Background

4.1 The combined balances for maintained schools and academies are £127.7 million, which is an increase of £779,000 compared to last year. Table 1 shows the total balances at 31st March 2020 for maintained schools and 31st August 2019 for academies.

PhaseNo. of

Schools

Maintained School Balances

31st March 2020£’000

Academy Balances 31st August 2019

£’000

TotalBalances

£’000Nursery 2 135 0 135Primary 447 27,904 36,557 64,461Secondary 79 1,838 46,510 48,348All-Through 1 0 467 467Special 19 3,103 6,903 10,006PRU 6 1,095 3,235 4,330Total 554 34,075 93,672 127,747

4.2 Table 2 shows a breakdown of the movement in balances for maintained schools between 2018/19 and 2019/20. Balances held on behalf of consortiums have been excluded.

Page 47 of 62



2018/19£’000

2019/20£’000

Movement£’000

%Change

Nursery 91 127 36 39.6Primary 31,374 27,353 (4,021) (12.8)Secondary 2,133 1,825 (308) (14.4)Special 3,136 2,945 (191) (6.1)PRU 1,159 1,095 (64) (5.5)Total 37,893 33,345 (4,548) (12.0)

4.3 Overall balances for maintained schools have decreased by £3.8 million partially due to 14 schools converting to academies (£1.8 million) and the remaining £2 million due to 141 (56.2%) of the 251 maintained schools having in-year deficits. Maintained schools are also holding £729,000 on behalf of consortiums.

4.4 Table 3 shows a breakdown in the movement of academy / free school balances between the 2017/18 and 2018/19 academic years.

2017/18£’000

2018/19£’000

Movement£’000

%Change

Primary 34,446 36,557 2,111 6.1Secondary 44,941 46,510 1,569 3.5All-Through 0 467 467 -Special 6,048 6,903 855 14.1PRU 3,640 3,235 (405) (11.1)Total 89,075 93,672 4,597 5.2

4.5 Overall academy balances have increased by £4.6 million, of which £1.8 million is due to 14 schools converting to academies and the remaining £2.8 million due to 170 (56.1%) of the 303 academies having in-year surpluses.

4.6 Table 4 shows there are 50 schools in deficit compared to 35 schools a year ago.

Maintained Academy TotalPrimary 10 24 34Secondary 0 14 14Special 1 1 2Total 11 39 50

4.7 Table 5 shows for maintained schools and academies the number of schools above the recommended thresholds of 8% for nursery, primary and special schools and 5% for secondary schools. There are 331 schools (59.7%) with excess balances above the defined DfE thresholds.

No. of No. of

Page 48 of 62

Phase No. of Schools

Maintained Schools above

Threshold

Academies Above

Threshold

Total No. of Schools above

ThresholdsNursery 2 1 - 1Primary 447 115 148 263Secondary 79 2 45 47All-Through 1 - 1 1Special 19 3 11 14PRU 6 3 2 5Total 554 124 207 331

4.8 Table 6 shows the trend in balances for maintained schools between 2015/16 and 2019/20.

2015/16£’000

2016/17£’000

2017/18£’000

2018/19£’000

2019/20£’000

Nursery 36 19 3 91 135Primary 41,265 35,026 33,432 31,374 27,904Secondary 3,072 3,197 2,764 2,133 1,838Special 3,082 2,778 2,905 3,136 3,103PRU 3,300 3,855 1,256 1,159 1,095Total 50,755 44,875 40,360 37,893 34,075

4.9 Table 7 shows the trend in academy balances between the 2014/15 and 2018/19 academic years.

2014/15£’000

2015/16£’000

2016/17£’000

2017/18£’000

2018/19£’000

Primary 21,802 25,684 27,477 34,446 36,557Secondary 60,716 50,361 49,063 44,941 46,510All-Through 0 0 0 0 467Special 2,101 2,722 3,444 6,048 6,903PRU 122 235 2,790 3,640 3,235Total 84,741 79,002 82,774 89,075 93,672

4.10 Chart 1 shows the trend in total school balances for the last 5 financial years for maintained schools and the last 5 academic years for academies. It can be seen below that overall balances have fallen from £135.5 million in 2015/16 to £127.7 million in 2019/20, however over the last 2 years balances have increased.

Page 49 of 62

4.11 Table 8 shows a breakdown of balances for all schools by district.

District2018/19

£’0002019/20

£’000Movement

£’000Basildon 18,110 18,213 103Braintree 8,822 8,530 (292)Brentwood 6,930 7,109 179Castle Point 10,812 12,287 1,475Chelmsford 15,322 17,037 1,715Colchester 18,486 18,025 (461)Epping Forest 8,516 8,465 (51)Harlow 7,639 7,050 (589)Malden 6,144 5,476 (668)Rochford 4,083 3,881 (202)Tendring 16,159 16,321 162Uttlesford 5,945 5,788 (157)Total 126,968 128,182 1,214

4.12 Across the twelve districts, school balances increase in five districts and decrease in seven districts.

Page 50 of 62

4.13 Chart 2 shows for maintained schools the planned use of balances.

4.14 As with previous years the two main planned use of balances are general contingencies and to balance the current budget.


5.1 Annex A – Maintained School Balances

5.2 Annex B – Maintained Schools Planned Use of Balances

5.3 Annex C – Academy Balances

Page 51 of 62


REPORT TITLE: SCHOOLS BUDGET FORECAST OUTTURN REPORT – QUARTER 1 (MAY) 2020/21



1.1 To update Schools Forum on the outturn position for the year-ended 31st March 2021.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That Forum notes the forecast outturn position for the year ended 31st March 2021.


3.1 Table 1 shows the relevant responsibilities that Forum has in relation to the Schools Budget, which are taken from the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s Schools forum powers and responsibilities published in September 2018.

Local Authority Schools Forum DfEDe-delegation – proposes Decides Adjudicates where

Forum disagrees with the Authority’s proposals

General Duties for maintained schools – proposes

Decides Adjudicates where Forum disagrees with the Authority’s proposals

Growth Fund and Falling Rolls Fund – proposes


Central Spend on Early Years and Central School Services – proposes


Central Spend on High Needs – Decides

None, but good practice to consult.

None


Page 52 of 62



4.1 The forecast outturn for 2020/21 at Quarter 1 (May 2020) is set out at Annex A to this report.

4.2 The total forecast dedicated schools grant allocation for 2020/21 after academy recoupment is £492.2 million.

4.3 At Period 2 (May 2020) the DSG budget is forecast to under spend by £2.3 million. The significant outturn variations (above £100,000) contributing to the forecast 2019/20 outturn position are as follows:

High Needs Block - £4.1 million under spend

4.3.1 Top-up funding for Maintained Schools, Academies, Free Schools and Post 16 FE - £379,000 overspend

The overspend is due to a higher than expected number of Education and Health Care Plans (EHCPs) at the January 2020 Census.

4.3.2 Top-up funding Independent Providers - £2.8 million overspend

The overspend is due to an increase in placements from 291 in May 2019 to 332 known placements in May 2020. The forecast includes 96 potential new starters.

4.3.3 SEN Support Services - £9.2 million underspend

The original zero-based budgeting (ZBB) exercise undertaken in September 2019 resulted in £4.8 million being available to reduce the cumulative overspend.

The ZBB for special school funding assumed 3,203 places of which 183 were residential and 3,093 were Essex pupils. The actual places for 2020/21 are 3,164 of which 171 are residential and 3,058 are Essex pupils. The actual funding is £6 million less than the ZBB forecast. At the last Forum meeting in May, Forum approved an additional £1 million to support special schools in financial difficulty.

Staffing budgets are reporting a £606,000 overspend. A deep dive will be undertaken as costs should not be higher than those agreed as part of the SEND OD.

4.3.4 Other Alternative Provision Services - £2 million overspend

The ZBB assumed 82 pupils would be funded through the IPES contracts, however the current forecast is for 134 pupils to be funded. The forecast assumes all pupils will receive the full 15 hours education each week.

Central School Services Block - £1.8 million overspend

4.3.5 Contribution to Combined Budgets - £599,000 overspend

Page 53 of 62

Forum will recall that £1.1 million has been carried forward from 2019/20 to offset the reduction to the Central Schools Services Block in 2020/21. Due to the DfE’s changed requirements to reporting DSG balances this is shown as an overspend.

There is an underspend (£489,000) within the school effectiveness partners teams due to eligible expenditure being charged to the School Improvement and Brokerage Grant.

4.3.6 Prudential Borrowing - £1.2m overspend

Forum are aware from the 2019/20 outturn report that the profile of expenditure for the SEND capital project does not necessarily match the annual £2.9 million contribution from schools The overspend represents the amount carry forward from 2019/20 which is shown as an overspend as explained in 4.3.5 above.

4.4 Table 2 shows the risks and opportunities for 2020/21.

Opportunities£’000

Risks£’000

HNB – risk that assumed level of exclusions could be insufficient

Tbc

HNB – the review of enhanced provisions risks that more places are required.

Tbc

HNB – risk that students requiring SEN support in Post 16 may increase in the new academic year

Tbc

HNB – risk that growth in EHCPs will exceed forecast. Complexity of pupils is increasing which will increase costs.

Tbc

HNB – as new pupils start in special schools there is a risk that the banded cost may be higher than the default band

Tbc

HNB – risk that the number of pupils requiring medical support will be more than estimated

Tbc

HNB – opportunity if not all high needs places are filled as top-up funding will be recovered

Tbc

HNB – opportunity arising from Provide Therapy being delivered online which will save travel costs

Tbc

HNB – opportunity that funding for special schools may be recovered if not required.

Tbc

EYB – opportunity that late claims will be less than the budget set

Tbc

Page 54 of 62

4.5 Table 3 shows the forecast DSG position at 31st March 2021

SchoolsBlock£m

CentralSchools

Block£m

HighNeed

sBlock£m

EarlyYearsBlock£m

Total£m

Opening Balance 2020/21 (0.2) (3.7) 10.1 (0.8) 5.42020/21 Forecast Outturn 0 1.8 (4.1) 0 (2.3)Closing Balance 2020/21 (0.2) (1.9) 6.0 (0.8) 3.1

4.6 The DfE announced on 25th June 2020 that within the 2020/21 DSG Conditions of Grant any local authority that has an overall deficit on its DSG account at the end of the 2019/20 financial year, or whose DSG surplus has substantially reduced during the year, must co-operate with the Department for Education (DfE) in handling that situation. In particular, the local authority must:

1. Provide information as and when requested by the department about its plans for managing its DSG account in the 2020/2021 financial year and subsequently.

2. Provide information as and when requested by the department about pressures and potential savings on its high needs budget.

3. Meet with officials of the department as and when they request to discuss the local authority’s plans and financial situation.

4. Keep Schools Forum regularly updated about the local authority’s DSG account and plans for handling it, including high needs pressures and potential savings.




7.1 Annex A – Schools Budget Forecast Outturn 2020/21

Page 55 of 62

SCHOOLS BUDGET PROVISIONAL OUTTURN REPORT 2020/212019/20 Budget

Forecast Outturn Variance

1.0.1 Individual Schools Budget (after Academy recoupment) 360,440,450 360,440,450 01.0.2 High Needs Place Funding 16,118,399 16,118,399 01.1.7 Licences/subscriptions 87,056 87,056 01.1.9 Staff costs – supply cover for facility time 61,871 61,871 01.1.10 School Improvement 1,319,939 1,319,939 01.2.1 Top up funding - maintained providers 9,255,061 9,353,391 98,3301.2.2 Top up funding - Academies and Free Schools 24,902,643 25,183,695 281,0521.2.3 Top up funding - independent providers 20,413,999 23,197,494 2,783,4951.2.5 SEN support services 23,537,225 14,318,138 -9,219,0871.2.7 Other alternative provision services 6,237,055 8,243,243 2,006,1881.2.8 Support for inclusion 1,720,939 1,697,453 -23,4861.2.10 PFI and BSF costs at special schools 56,294 56,294 01.2.13 Therapies and other health related services 1,277,691 1,277,691 01.3.1 Central expenditure on children under 5 3,121,793 3,083,367 -38,4261.4.1 Contribution to combined budgets 2,792,307 3,391,769 599,4621.4.2 School admissions 1,448,512 1,448,512 01.4.3 Servicing of schools forums 30,229 30,229 01.4.4 Termination of employment costs 93,254 93,254 01.4.5 Falling Rolls Fund 99,018 99,018 01.4.7 Prudential borrowing costs 2,900,000 4,126,736 1,226,7361.4.10 Pupil growth 6,638,011 6,638,011 01.4.11 SEN transport 2,404,500 2,404,500 01.4.13 Infant Class Sizes 600,000 600,000 01.4.14 Other Items 1,393,850 1,393,850 01.5.1 Education welfare service 1,170,000 1,170,000 01.5.2 Asset management 333,000 333,000 01.5.3 Statutory/ Regulatory duties 1,577,000 1,577,000 01.6.3 Asset Management 348,106 348,106 01.6.4 Statutory/ Regulatory duties 793,057 793,057 01.6.5 Premature retirement cost/ Redundancy costs (new provisions) 1,063,486 1,063,486 01.8.1 TOTAL SCHOOLS BUDGET 2020/21 492,234,745 489,949,009 -2,285,737

1.9.1 Dedicated Schools Grant for 2020/21 -492,234,745 -492,234,745 0

Net Budget 2020/21 0 -2,285,736 -2,285,737

Schools Forum Agenda Item 12Page 56 of 62

Date: 8 July 2020

REPORT TITLE: EDUCATION FUNCTIONS BUDGET UPDATE Q1 2020/21



1.1 To update Schools Forum on the forecast outturn position for Education Functions for the year ending 31st March 2021.

2. Recommendations

2.1 To note the forecast outturn position at 31st March 2021.


3.1 Table 1 shows the relevant responsibilities in relation to education functions which is taken from the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s Schools forum powers and responsibilities published in September 2018.

Local Authority Schools Forum DfEProposes Decides Adjudicates where Forum

disagrees with the Authority’s proposals.

4. Background

4.1 At the meeting of 30th November 2019 Forum agreed the authority’s proposals for all schools shown in Table 2.

Education Functions – All Schools £’000Education Welfare 1,170Strategic Management 1,577Asset Management 333

3,080

4.2 Maintained school members agreed to de-delegate from maintained school £58.00 per pupil to fund the services shown in Table 3.

Education Functions – Maintained Schools £’000

Page 57 of 62



Asset Management 353Statutory & Regulatory Duties 803School Improvement 1,338Premature Retirement Costs 1,078

3,572

4.3 The budgets shown in Table 3 above decrease each time a maintained school converts to an academy.


5.1 Table 4 shows the impact of academy conversion up to 1st May 2020 on the budgets for education functions for maintained schools.

AssetManagement

£’000

StatutoryDuties£’000

SchoolImprovement

£’000

PrematureRetirement

Costs£’000

Original budget 353 803 1,338 1,078Recoupment (5) (11) (18) (14)Revised budget 348 792 1,320 1,064

5.2 Table 5 shows the forecast outturn at Quarter 1 (May 2020) which overall is a forecast overspend of £317,000.

Education FunctionsBudge

t£’000

ForecastOutturn

£’000Variance

£’000

Education Welfare 1,170 1,394 224Strategic Management 1,577 1,589 12Asset Management – all schools 333 333 0Asset Management – maintained schools 348 348 0Statutory Duties 792 792 0School Improvement 1,320 1,320 0Premature Retirement Costs 1,064 1,145 81Total 6,604 6,921 317

5.3 Key variations (above £75,000) are described below.

5.3.1 The overspend for Education Welfare (£224,000) represents the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) which has resulted in no penalty notice income for the Summer term. The forecast also assumes no income for the Autumn term however, the Government has since announced that parents will be fined if pupils do not return to school in September unless there are good reasons that pupils do not attend school.

5.3.2 The overspend for premature retirement costs (£81,000) reflects that people who retire early are living longer than previously and therefore costs increase as new decisions are taken to retire school staff early.

Page 58 of 62




Page 59 of 62


REPORT TITLE: Forward Plan



1.1 To bring the Schools Forum Forward Plan and confirm the dates of future meetings.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the Forum notes the dates of future meetings.

2.2 That additional items as proposed by Schools Forum are included in the Forward Plan

3. Background

3.1 Following a review of School Forum Agendas a Forward Plan has been created. The items included are as follows:

Regular and Administrative items

Apologies Any other business and feedback from schools through AssociationsFeedback from Schools Forum representatives on other bodiesMinutes from previous meetingsForward Plan and dates of next meetings Sub Group updates (SEN, Early Years, Formula Review)

Page 60 of 62



Date of Schools Forum Agenda Items9th September 2020 School Funding 2021/22 (D)

30th September 2020 SEND and PRU Capital Investment Project (D / I)Half Year Budget Update 2020/21 (I)Half Year Education Functions Budget 2020/21 (I/D)Scheme for Financing Schools (D)High Needs Funding 2021/22 (I)High Needs Block StrategyDe-Delegation 2021/22 (D)Falling Rolls Fund (I)Apprenticeship Levy (I)

Wednesday 21st October 2020 School Funding 2021/22 (D)

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Early Years and Childcare Update (I)Scheme for Financing Schools (I)High Needs Block StrategySEND and PRU Capital Investment Project (D/I)Constitution and Membership of Schools Forum (D / I)

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Third Quarter Budget 2020/21 Update (I)2021/22 DSG Budget (D)Third Quarter Education Functions Budget Update 2020/21Election Chair / Vice Chair (D)High Needs Block StrategySEND and PRU Capital Investment Project (D/I)

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Falling Rolls Fund (D/I)Schools Budget Draft Outturn Report 2020/21 (D)Education Functions Draft Outturn 2020/21High Needs Block StrategySEND and PRU Capital Investment Project (D / I)Constitution and Membership of Schools Forum (D /I)Early Years and Childcare Update (I)

Page 61 of 62

Date of Schools Forum Agenda ItemsWednesday 7th July 2021 Apprenticeship Levy Update (I)

School Funding 2022/23 (D/I)Falling Rolls Fund (D/I)High Needs Block StrategySchool and Academy Balances (I)Schools Budget Update Q1 2021/22 (I)Education Functions Budget Update Q1 2021/22 (I)SEND and PRU Capital Investment Project (D / I)Apprenticeship Levy Update (I)

Page 62 of 62

Documents

3. · Web view2020/09/09 · 3.2The Authority shall appoint school members following a nomination and, if required, an election process. All schools within the relevant phase where