Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education,...
Transcript of Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education,...
![Page 1: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
To: All Members of the Schools Forum Other School Heads and Governors for information
Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing
PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB � 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118 937 2168
Schools Forum/Agenda/Mar 13 Your Ref: Direct: � 0118 9374706 e-mail: [email protected]
15 March 2013
Your contact is: Chris Pett - Education & Children’s Services (0118 9374706)
NOTICE OF MEETING – SCHOOLS FORUM – 21 March
A meeting of the Schools Forum will be held on Thursday 21 March 2013 at 4.00pm at the Avenue Room, Avenue Centre, Reading. The Agenda is set out below.
AGENDA Page No
1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES -
2. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10 JANUARY 2013 1
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES/ SCHOOLS FORUM MEMBERSHIP ISSUES (STANDING ITEM)
4. SENSORY CONSORTIUM SERVICE (INFORMATION ITEM) 8
5. BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13 (INFORMATION ITEM) 12
6. SCHOOLS BUDGET 2013/14 UPDATE (INFORMATION, CONFIRMATION OF DECISIONS AND DECISION ITEM)
16
7. EARLY YEARS BLOCK 2013/14 (INFORMATION AND DECISION ITEM) 25
8. HIGH NEEDS BLOCK 2013/14 (INFORMATION ITEM) 34
9. REVIEW OF THE 2013-14 SCHOOLS FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PAPER (INFORMATION ITEM)
37
10. TRAINING FOR SCHOOLS FORUM MEMBERS (DISCUSSION ITEM) -
11. AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS (STANDING ITEM) -
12. DATE OF NEXT MEETINGS -
![Page 2: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1
Draft minutes of the School Forum Meeting (Subject to agreement at next Schools Forum)
10th January 2013
7pm – 9pm
Conwy Room, Avenue Centre In Attendance: Donna Boseley Minute Taker Russell Dyer (RD) RBC Chris Pett (CP) RBC Sue Bourne (SB0 Head Teacher - Avenue School Cllr John Ennis (JE) Lead Member for Children Peter Kayes (PK) Chair and Governor for Ridgeway Primary Bev Pennekett (BP) EFA Lisa Telling (LT) Head Teacher – Southcote Primary Ann Snowdon (AS) Head Teacher – George Palmer Charlie Clare (CC) Head Teacher – Geoffrey Field John Cosgrove (JC) Representing Mo Galway – Wilson Primary Sarah Mitchell (SM) Head teacher - Blagdon Eileen McElligott (EM) Governor for English Martyrs Rose Turner (RT) Vice Principal – Reading College Mhairi Lavender (ML) Representing Viv Angus – Reading Girls Kate Detheridge (KD) Head Teacher - Churchend Kim Bergamasco (KB) Reading Borough Council Rob Ketley (RK) JTUC Chair Avril Wilson (AW) Director of Education, Social Services and
Housing Kevin McDaniel (KMc) Reading Borough Council Neil Dimbleby (ND) Deputy Head Teacher - Highdown Ashley Robson (AR) Reading School Nicola Maytum (NM) JMA Apologies: Mo Galway Wilson Primary School John Casey Blessed Hugh Faringdon
1. Welcome and Apologies Bev Pennekett from the EFA was welcomed to the meeting. Eileen McElligott was welcomed to Schools Forum.
2. Minutes of meeting held on 6th December 2012 Minutes of 6th December were approved.
![Page 3: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2
3. Matters arising from the minutes/Schools Forum Membership Nurture Groups – KB advised of current proposal – A nurture group has been piloted at English Martyrs, running for approximately 6 months, this has been successful. The Nurture Group pilot at Whitley Park has not been as successful. KB advised the information about 4 nurture groups being set up will go out in the Schools Bulletin next week. Item 3: Item to be discussed later in the meeting. Item 4: DSG monitoring report – it was decided not to bring to meeting as change has been minimal. Item 4: KMc looking into his actions relating to access to the additional places at The Avenue and will provide an update at a later meeting. Action: KMC to provide update on places. Item 4: SEN Provision: KB advised there are discussions currently taking place regarding the future of SEN and it being officer led. KB advised a SEN strategy is being looked at and that Head Teachers need to be involved in decision making process. KB requested that Schools Forum delegates a Head teacher to attend meetings and felt it would be beneficial to have a small group of Head Teachers attend the commissioning meetings to ensure that the decision making is robust and decisions are challenged. SM advised there is a timetable in place for these meetings. Dawn Cox has expressed an interest in attending. KB requested that those Head Teachers interested in taking should contact KB or PK (Secondary) or MG (Primary). LT asked if SENCOs could also be involved. KB felt this would be very helpful. Item 5: Underspend in Early Years – KD advised there was still no clear understanding of why this happened in last years budget. It was agreed that this will be explored at the next Schools Forum meeting. Action: Early Years Underspend to be discussed further at March Schools Forum meeting. Item 5: Schools Forum was advised that a meeting had been set up for next week regarding further actions. Item 6: School Meals consultation has been sent.
![Page 4: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
3
AOB Item – How Schools Forum is working - Suggestion is to hold an open discussion that is facilitated on how Schools Forum operates, if anything needs changing or whether the Forum takes on a more strategic role. AW advised 360 degree process is web based and it takes around 40 minutes to complete and feedback is a further 20 minute process. AW advised it would take around 1.5 hours. PK advised for Schools Forum if they agreed to 1 extra meeting to complete this task. AW explained the 360 degree process to Schools Forum. AS said that now is the time for Schools Forum to look at how it operates. Action: School Forum agreed to organise a further meeting to complete the 360 degree review process.
4. 2013/2014 Budget Settlement and Timetable (information item) RD spoke to report. Schools Block – Funding announced. RD referred to appendix and highlighted that money transferring between blocks is outlined for transparency. High Need – appendix 1 in report – further work underway in relation to this. Early years – Meeting next week to discuss. Pupil Premium – link attached within report. Appendix 2 – RD drew attention to the calculation of growth fund. Carbon reduction scheme – unclear when the scheme is going to end – will keep rolling for the time being. Growth Fund – Flagged up that it maybe a requirement to fund new academies and free schools – further clarity being sought from the department regarding this. Timetable – Same as last meeting. Action: 2 year old funding to be discussed at next School Forum Meeting. 6.1 – SM queried the figures and asked why there is an impact on the EY block as result of LSS costs. CP explained inter-block transfer further and advised that the money will go to the West Primary Schools. KD asked if the money would go to individual schools. CC advised the money will no longer go through the cluster but direct to schools. LT
![Page 5: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
4
advised this has huge HR implications and that there are huge costs involved. KD asked when decision regarding money will need to be made. CP advised it will be for the coming financial year (2013/2014). CC asked who the compensatory authority is? LT advised past meetings and discussion had concluded that it was the cluster that picked up costs. KMcD explained that the Local Authority is the responsible employer for community schools so staff would not loose out; however as community schools are part of the LA, the process is that redundancy is funded by the departmental budget – i.e. the DSG. AS advised that people need letters alerting them that their jobs are at risk. LT feels it will be difficult to have a joint decision in the West. LT explained historic difficulties. RD advised de-delegation of funding could take place for schools in difficulty which offers budget protection. SB asked how many staff this affects – LT advised 5. Action: Local Authority will go back to HR to discuss issues further and report back to Schools Forum. KMcD to ensure follow up. Action: Conversations in each of the Clusters to take place. JC asked about high needs block funding – CP explained funding and how provisions are made. EP –Carbon reduction credit – unlikely to take place in 2014/2015. Growth fund – for maintained school and academies and free schools where there is a requirement/basic need. CP asked if we are expected to pay anything out of the DSG – KMc explained further.
Schools Forum Noted Report 5. De-Delegations and Central Expenditure (decision item)
KMc handed out supplementary report. Responses received in total 23 – just under ½ schools in Reading. Summary of responses have been handed out. LT asked how buy back feeds into this – KMc explained these services are in addition to buy back. CC – Historic Liabilities data in error – KMc advised it should be a gap of 15 and therefore out of place on list. KB – behavior support – summary p3 – KB spoke to item and explained consequences of not buying back. Behavior support figures – KD felt there must be a reason why people are
![Page 6: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
5
unhappy with the service and questioned if further explanation is required to find out why a lot of schools are not buying into behavior support. KMc advised that feedback to SLA workshop prior to Christmas found that those who use the service value it, but a limited number of people used it. KB advised that a number of schools using the service regularly. JC advised that Cluster discussions had taken place and it was felt that if all Schools money was put together they could do some very good work without using behavior support services. AW felt there needs to be further discussion and consideration about making financial decisions without thinking about implications. AW outlined concerns regarding CATs and School Improvement. AW asked Schools Forum to identify items of concern as a group to take and look into further over a period of 3-6 months. NM agreed with AW and advised more information is needed to make decisions. RT asked if this is something the group can look at in the future. CP advised budgets need to be delegated by 01.04.13. KB asked if the identified issues could come back to schools forum next year and until then Schools Forum can complete a scrutiny of Head Teachers and report back with an informed decision in a year’s time. KMc agreed with AW and felt that alternatives should be looked at for the next financial year. PK asked if the decision was made to disband the service could this then happen part way through the year – KB advised No. ML explained that it could take up to a year for clusters/schools to set up a new service so it would be useful to spend the next year analyzing the service. AW suggested 4 areas to that needed to be focused on: Behavior Services CATS School Improvement EAL Item 6 - Schools Forum voted on Central Expenditure Decisions - all schools were asked to vote: In Favor – 10 Against - 0 Abstentions – 1 School Forum agreed for School Improvement and CAT Teams funding to be retained for 13/14
![Page 7: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
6
Item 7 – Schools Forum voted on funds to be De-delegated for Central Expenditure Decisions, only maintained schools eligible to vote by phase. The votes for each of the four areas taken separately were the same as follows: Primary schools votes : In Favor – 5 Against – 0 Abstentions – 0 Secondary School votes: In Favor – 1 Against – 0 Abstentions – 0 Schools Forum agreed to Behavior Services, EAL funding, Union Facilities Agreement and the final year of Whitley Park transitional funding to be retained for 13/14. Action: Review of services to take place on: Behavior Services CAT Team EAL School improvement In time for decisions to be taken in Autumn 2013 for budget setting 14/15.
6. Transitional Protection Scheme (decision item) PK explained this is a consultation for Schools Forum to make a decision at March meeting – Schools Forum being asked to approve the consultation proposal. CP explained the consultation and spoke to report. PK – explained the adopted formula – protection has to done on a voluntary basis and the table within the report shows how this can be done. Under the formula a small number of schools will lose a large sum of money. Schools Forum had previously agreed that transitional funding should be provided to avoid individual schools suffering substantial losses in one hit . Llimiting the loss for any school to no more than 1.5% was proposed but EFA had advised this could not be part of the formula. Therefore the method proposed was to ask schools whether they were willing to make a voluntary contribution from their budget to achieve this. Schools to be consulted about whether they are happy to go along with the process. JE asked if the big losers are the smaller schools – not necessarily, however JC said that proportionately the schools that are losing have fewer pupils. KD asked if the figures include pupil premium. CP advised they do not. KD asked where the extra money had come from. CP explained and advised that most schools are better off. Consultation asks the Schools receiving more money will give up a small
![Page 8: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
7
portion of their money for those Schools hit the hardest. KMc recommended transparent information and explanation of the principals is included in the consultation. KMc said as a group could School’s Forum advise him and CP what information they would like included. ACTION: Consultation paper to be simplified and distributed. CP and KMcD
Schools Forum agreed to the consultation as proposed 7. AOB
NQT Funding – SB asked if the funding for the last financial year for academies would be provided. Action: EP to obtain further information regarding the provision of NQT funding for the last financial year. ICT working group – KMc would like a Schools Forum Representative for the working group. LT agreed to attend.
8. Date of next meeting Thursday 21st March 2013 – 4pm – 6pm – Avenue Room, Avenue Centre.
![Page 9: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
8
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING
TO: Reading Schools Forum
DATE: 21 March 2013
AGENDA ITEM: 4
SUBJECT: SENSORY CONSORTIUM SERVICE
SERVICE: Education, Social Services
& Housing
WARDS: All
AUTHOR: Michael Beakhouse
TEL: 0118 9373170
JOB TITLE: Childrens Commissioning
Officer (DESH)
E-MAIL: [email protected].
uk
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To inform the forum of RBC’s intention to award a new contract for the Sensory
Needs Support Service to the Berkshire Sensory Consortium Service.
1.2 To allow the Schools Forum an opportunity to give their thoughts on the service,
thereby informing future contract monitoring. The service is funded via the high
needs block, which is within the schools budget.
1.3 The Local Authority has decision making powers over this area, but has a duty to
consult with Schools Forum.
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.1 For the contract for the Sensory Needs Support Service in Reading to
be awarded to Berkshire Sensory Consortium Services for a three year
period commencing on 01 April 2013 and expiring on 31 March 2016.
2.2 For the Schools Forum to have a vehicle for delivering feedback on the
service to the Commissioning Officer, so that their views can inform
contract monitoring.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Provision of a sensory need support service is a statutory duty and to date the
Government has requested that this provision is not delegated to academies.
3.2 Reading’s Sensory Support Need Service is provided by Berkshire Sensory
Consortium Service (Berkshire SCS), a pan-Berkshire joint arrangement hosted
by RBWM since 1998. Based around their particular needs, each authority
purchases a different amount and type of support from the BSCS (based on local
need). Reading’s share of the contract value is 20.97% of the total cost of the
![Page 10: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
9
service based on past usage which results in a projected figure of £296, 837 per
year from 01 April 2013.
3.3 The current contract expires on 31st March 2013. A new contract is proposed,
commencing on 01st April 2013 and expiring on 31st March 2016. There is an
option to extend the contract for a further two years, to 31st March 2018.
3.4 Berkshire SCS offer a specialist education support service for young people aged
0-19 with hearing, visual or multi-sensory impairments. The service maintains
specialist qualified staff, which is a statutory requirement for learners with
sensory impairment. Schools and parents have ready access to advice, expertise
and a wide range of provisions for learners with sensory impairment:
• Information, advice and guidance following identification of sensory support
needs.
• Maintenance and distribution of specialist equipment.
• Tiered levels of support provided to pupils with visual- and hearing
impairments within mainstream and specialist schools.
4. PERFORMANCE TO DATE
4.1 Thus far Berkshire SCS has improved outcomes for young people throughout
those boroughs purchasing their provision, while a recent audit of the service
against national quality standards commended their ethos, partnership work and
track record of empowering families. The service has consistently been reported
as an example of good practice in national reports, including the Green Paper
Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and
Disability (Department for Education, March 2011).
4.2 Berkshire SCS has provided value by reducing the need for expensive out-of-
borough or non-mainstream placements for learners with sensory impairments;
and by reducing the need for spot-purchases from commercial providers.
Management costs have been kept to a minimum via the consortia approach to
purchasing.
5. MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS
5.1 Berkshire SCS is monitored by a Joint Management Group (JMG) consisting of
representatives from the purchasing authorities. The JMG meets twice a year to
scrutinise and contribute to the service’s strategy and delivery. RBC will
maintain a strong presence at these meetings to ensure that the service meets
the authority’s requirements and continues to deliver value for money. A
comprehensive range of targets have been attached to the service spec,
providing a more detailed insight into their performance:
• Positive feedback from schools demonstrating that sensory impaired (SI)
pupils maintained or made progress as a result of SCS intervention.
• Positive feedback from parents demonstrating that their SCS teacher had
helped them to feel confident in helping their child.
![Page 11: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
10
• % learners attaining Key stage, GCSE or A Level results equivalent to non SI
learners.
• SCS staff meeting all their appraisal targets including those identifying pupil
progress.
• National Association of Sensory Impairment Providers (NATSIP) outcome
reporting showing that outcomes for SI learners supported by SCS do as well
or better than 80% of other sensory need support services.
• Service delivery occurring within the agreed budget.
5.2 In addition to this, RBC is currently working with the service to develop their
communication & partnership working with schools, following receipt of
feedback which indicated that these were an area for improvement.
Additionally RBC will meet with the service every term to review the
effectiveness of these joint working arrangements; outcomes achieved for high-
needs pupils; and proposed equipment purchases. This will also provide more
opportunities for RBC to progress any ideas and feedback received from schools.
6. PROPOSED ACTION
6.1 Berkshire SCS has been successfully delivering the service. There appear to be
no clear alternative providers who could provide a better service while offering
better value for money. The service’s targets include the requirement that they
match and exceed other national sensory needs support services. The additional
new targets attached to the service, combined with RBC’s increased level of
service monitoring, will ensure that the service continues to meet the public’s
needs.
6.2 The current joint purchasing arrangement offers savings and a greater range of
expertise, with staff able to move across authorities to match expertise where
required and respond to significant changes in caseload. This model has been
referred to by the Department for Education as an example of good practice. It
is therefore the recommendation of this report that the contract with Berkshire
SCS is renewed.
7 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED
7.1 To put to the service out to tender = At present Berkshire SCS appear to be the
sole provider of sensory support need services in Berkshire. Tendering could
cause a temporary instability in the service and not necessarily lead to better or
more cost-effective provision.
7.2 To bring the service in-house = It is unlikely that the local authority would be
able to employ the right skills mix within the existing budget to meet the needs
of the local population. This could result in a higher number of spot purchases
at independent and non maintained special schools at higher cost from
commercial providers.
7.3 To stop providing the service = There would be a failure to meet the statutory
needs of SI learners. Additionally the lack of sufficient expertise to support 0-5s
![Page 12: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
11
could mean that children would not reach attainment levels by the start of
school to support entry to local provision.
![Page 13: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
12
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY COUNCIL RESOURCES
TO: Reading Schools Forum
DATE: 21 March 2013
AGENDA ITEM: 5
TITLE: 2012/13 Budget Monitoring
SERVICE: Education & Children’s
Services
WARDS: All
AUTHOR: Russell Dyer
TEL: 0118 937 2398
JOB TITLE: Head of Finance DECS E-MAIL: [email protected]
1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT
1.1 The report summarises the 2012/13 latest view for monitoring purposes.
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR SCHOOLS FORUM
2.1 To note the position on the 2012/13 schools budget (incorporating the
contingency) namely a forecast £430k underspend.
2.2 To note that any surplus at the year end will be carried forward into the
new financial year.
3 POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 The Council has strategic aims to establish Reading as a learning city and a
stimulating and rewarding place to live and visit, to promote equality, social
inclusion and a safe and healthy environment for all. Education and the
funding of education is a key factor in the achievement of this aim.
4 BACKGROUND
4.1 The DSG funds schools and is ring fenced for school pupil activity. The DSG is
based upon actual pupil numbers from the January pupil count preceding the
actual financial year. The grant received is split between the:
• Individual School’s Budget – the ISB or delegated budget – this is formula
driven;
• Centrally Retained School’s Budget – the non delegated budget.
![Page 14: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
13
4.2 Overspends on the DSG are carried forward and are a first call on the new
year’s allocation of DSG. Underspends on the DSG are carried forward to
support the future year’s school’s budget.
4.3 The Authority must ensure that DSG is correctly spent and needs to describe
the outturn position as to inform the impact upon the new years budget
position. The budget monitoring of the Authority distinguishes between how
services are funded, namely by DSG or by the Local Authority.
5 BUDGET 2012/13
5.1 The budget for 2012/13 is prepared on the basis of an estimate of grant
(based on pupil numbers in January 2012) as is indicated in the table below.
The difference below can be funded from the funds of £53k set aside for that
purpose.
Table 1: RBC’s final DSG allocation (before academy recoupment) for 2012-13
DSG
allocation
(£m)
Total DSG budgeted 2012/13 90.126
Final total DSG confirmed by
DfE
90.083
Over / (under) estimate 43
6 CONTINGENCY UPDATE
6.1 The key changes made on contingency since the last meeting are: -
• The Ridgeway have made a £15k claim on the contingency fund – this is
currently being considered by the Panel
6.2 The table below gives an update on the forecast outturn position on
contingency. We would note that currently we have provided for a £50k
deficit for Upcroft School following academy conversion, this is subject to
completion on the balance and may be subject to some change.
Table 2 Contingency Forecast 2012-13
Category 12-13 £000
Variance £000
Infant Class Size allocations 159 (75) Newly Qualified Teachers 261 (69) Statemented Pupils adjustments 111 0 General Contingency 104 (48)
![Page 15: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
14
DSG adjustments and formula errors 53 (10) Language Link 20 (20) SEN overspend 50 (21) ASD resource unit at a primary school 16 0 Resource units 50 (38) CRB checks 27 0 Expanding Schools 343 77 The Avenue expansion 224 0 Possible expansion of Phoenix 90 (90) In year admissions 50 0 Early Years 250 (100) Early Years Full time places 90 (50) TOTAL 1,898 (444)
7 MONITORING POSITION 2012/13 AS AT MONTH 10 (January 2013)
7.1 The table below is the forecast position as at the end of January 2013. The
only variance outside the Central Education Budget is the £661k favourable
variance arising from the surplus being carried forward from the 2011-12
financial year, as noted earlier in this report.
Table 3 RBC’s forecast position on the Schools Budget as at 31 January 2013
DSG allocation
(£m)
Varianc
e
(£m)
Forecast
(£m)
Carried forward DSG surplus 0 -0.661 -0.661
ISB Delegated (per S251) 57.299 0 57.299
Central – Education Budget 14.644 +0.231 14.875
Less Other Income (1.096) 0 (1.096)
Total 70.847 -0.430 70.417
7.2 All delegated funds are transferred to schools, and any overspends or
underspends on individual schools budgets are carried forward on the schools
budget. The current forecast variances on the Centrally Retained Budget are
highlighted in the table below.
Table 4 RBC’s forecast position on the Schools Budget as at 31 January 2013 with key variances
Total Budget
(£m)
Variance
(£m)
Outturn
(£m)
External Placements 2.781 +0.370 3.151
SEN Recoupment 3.200 +0.800 4.000
Support for Schools in difficulty 0.200 0 0.200
![Page 16: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
15
Contingency 1.898 -0.444 1.454
PRUs 0.959 -0.055 0.904
Support for Inclusion 0.567 -0.090 0.477
Behaviour Support 0.426 0 0.426
Education out of school 0.524 0 0.524
SEN Provision With statements 1.226 +0.025 1.251
SEN Support Services 0.207 -0.050 0.157
School meals & milk & kitchens 0.219 -0.060 0.159
Admissions 0.108 +0.020 0.128
Licenses and Subscriptions 0.004 0 0.004
Staff supply costs 0.112 -0.010 0.102
14-16 More Practical Learning
Options
0.414 -0.070 0.344
SEN Transport 0.100 0 0.100
Combined Budgets 0.803 -0.030 0.773
Support to underperforming
groups
0.419 -0.175 0.244
Miscellaneous 0.070 0 0.070
Redundancy 0.025 0 0.025
Carbon Tax 0.100 0 0.100
Capital + Prudential Borrowing 0.247 0 0.247
Schools Forum 0.020 0 0.020
Other 0.015 0 0.015
Total 14.644 +0.231 14.875
7.3 The reported variances as noted above have remained relatively stable since
the last meeting with any changes in either direction being largely
immaterial, with the exception of an increase in the level of contingency.
The underlying pressures within the budget remain SEN related, which are
offset by the carried forward surplus and underspends in other service areas.
The outturn surplus will be carried forward into the 2013/14 financial year.
7.4 Funding for 3 and 4 year olds within the maintained and PVI amounts to
£3.15m in 2013/14. As this is based upon participation levels under the EYSFF
this does make it somewhat difficult to forecast. However, at present we
anticipate that the outturn will be broadly in line with the budget, with any
variances being noted within the early year’s lines of the contingency as
noted above in table 2.
7.5 A report on the provisional outturn will be given to the Schools forum meeting
in May.
![Page 17: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
16
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY COUNCIL RESOURCES
TO: Reading Schools Forum
DATE: 21 MARCH 2013
AGENDA ITEM: 6
SUBJECT: 2013-14 SCHOOLS BUDGET UPDATE
SERVICE: Education & Children’s
Services
WARDS: All
AUTHOR: Russell Dyer/Chris Pett
TEL: 0118 937 2398
JOB TITLE: Head of Finance E-MAIL: [email protected]
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To update Schools’ Forum regarding the Schools’ Budget for 2013-14. To confirm
two decisions taken by Schools’ Forum members by e-mail since the last
meeting. To seek a formal decision regarding the methods of allocations from
the Growth Fund.
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.1 FOR NOTING: To note the contents of the report.
2.2 FOR DECISION: To agree methods of allocation from the Growth Fund.
2.3 TO CONFIRM: The decisions on LSS restructuring costs de-delegation and
Schools Kitchens and Equipment Capital from Revenue retentions.
2.4 TO ADVISE: On next steps with regard to the Transitional Protection
Scheme flowing from the consultation results.
3. FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENTS
3.1 The Department for Education announced the School Funding settlement for
2013-14, including allocations for the Dedicated Schools Grant and illustrative
allocations for the Pupil Premium. Details, including a letter to Directors of
Children Services, can be found at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/schoolsrevenuef
unding/a00218077/funding-settlement-2013-14
3.2 The Early Years block figure (£7,433k) is indicative based on January 12 census
data. The allocations will be updated during the financial year so that by the
end of the year the funding received for the three and four year old element of
![Page 18: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
17
the Early Years block will based on a combination of the January 13 and January
14 census pupil counts.
3.3 These figures are before inter block transfers (identified at Appendix 1 of this
report).
3.4 Additional funding for the new free entitlement for two year olds from deprived
backgrounds (£1,908k) will be added to the three and four year funding in the
Early Years block. This funding is based on a target number of eligible children
determined by the DfE. More information regarding the Early Years block is
provided in a separate report.
3.5 The provisional high need block allocation of £15,809k for 2013/14 has been
announced. This figure is before inter block transfers (identified at Appendix 1
of this report). Further adjustments to the High Needs block are expected. More
information regarding the High Needs block is provided in a separate report.
4. SCHOOLS BLOCK
4.1 The final schools block allocation of £68,899k in 2013/14 has been announced
together with an allocation of funding for NQTs of £24k. These allocations are
before inter block transfers (identified at Appendix 1 of this report).
4.2 The final Pro-forma formula details was submitted to the DfE by the deadline on
the 22nd January 13. The EFA have since confirmed the formula was compliant
with the regulations. Schools have been notified of their final formula budget
allocations including de-delegations.
4.3 In addition to their formula allocations schools will receive the following where
applicable: -
a) Pupil Premium. The DfE have confirmed the rate as £900 per pupil known to
have been eligible for FSM during the previous six years, £300 per pupil from an
Armed Services family and £900 per ‘Looked After Child’.
b) Allocations from the Growth Fund.
c) Top-ups for High Cost pupils.
d) Funding for Resource Units, both the place element and top-ups.
e) Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) allocations.
![Page 19: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
18
4.4 Please see below a table showing the allocations from the Schools’ Block.
Primary
£m
Secondary
£m
Total
£m
Schools Block funding net of inter-block transfers
(see appendix 1)
69.475
Formula allocations
Formula allocations before de-delegations 44.386 22.610 66.996
Less de-delegations approved by Schools Forum -0.556 -0.039 -0.595
Formula allocations net of de-delegations 43.830 22.571 66.401
Central Budgets
De-delegations
Behaviour Support 0.214 0.025 0.239
Support for under achieving EAL groups 0.158 0.012 0.170
Staff supply cover – Union Duties 0.049 0.002 0.051
Learning Support Service restructuring contingency
(approved by e-mail)
0.090 0.000 0.090
Whitley Park Primary transitional protection 0.045 0.000 0.045
Total De-delegations 0.556 0.039 0.595
Other Central Budgets
Growth Fund 1.027 0.000 1.027
Equal Pay claims 0.168 0.022 0.190
Prudential Borrowing 0.042 0.006 0.048
Termination of Employment costs 0.021 0.003 0.024
Admissions 0.091 0.012 0.103
Carbon Reduction Commitment allowances 0.084 0.011 0.095
Servicing of Schools’ Forum 0.017 0.002 0.019
Capital Expenditure from Revenue (Kitchen
Equipment) – approved by e-mail
0.142 0.000 0.142
Contribution to combined services 0.708 0.093 0.801
CLA and MPA copyright licenses 0.021 0.009 0.030
Total Other Central Budgets 2.321 0.158 2.479
Total Central Budgets 2.877 0.197 3.074
Total allocations plus central budgets 69.475
4.5 Please note that apart from de-delegations all figures in the above table include
recoupment academies.
4.6 The above table includes an amount de-delegated from primary schools to
create a contingency for Learning Support Service re-structuring costs that
might result from the funding changes. The de-delegation was approved by
relevant Schools’ Forum members by e-mail.
![Page 20: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
19
4.7 The above table also includes an amount for Kitchen Equipment costs (reported
as CERA). A decision was deferred from the last meeting of Schools’ Forum
pending the results of the School Meal Service buy-back consultation. The
retention was approved by Schools’ Forum members by e-mail.
4.8 The above table includes an amount set aside for charges from the DfE for CLA
and MPA licenses that they have negotiated on behalf of schools. Schools will be
the licensee but will not need to pay for these particular licenses. Note there
will be other licenses required by schools not included in this agreement that
schools will still need to fund from their delegated budgets.
5. GROWTH FUND
5.1 The last meeting of Schools’ Forum approved the retention of £1.027m for a
Growth Fund. Please see appendix 2 for a breakdown of the calculations
supporting the figure of £1.027m.
5.2 The observer from the EFA felt that although Schools’ Forum had agreed the
amount to be retained, the method of allocation had not been agreed.
5.3 The Council requests Schools’ Forum approval to allocate funds from the Growth
Fund using each of the following three methods: -
a) Formula basis – For each expanding school or school taking a new bulge class
from September 13 additional funding will be provided using the following
formula: Number of children (usually 30 per class) * AWPU * 7/12ths. For a
primary school taking an additional class of 30 children from September 13
this would equate to £56.5k.
b) If a school faces exceptional costs as a result of agreeing to expand, and it
would be unreasonable for the school to meet these costs from its delegated
budget, the school could apply to the Schools’ Forum contingency panel for
additional funding. A contingency of £50k for this purpose has been included
in the calculation of the amount for the Growth Fund.
c) Formula basis for in-year Infant Class Size adjustments. Allocations would be
made each term to qualifying schools using the formula described in the
retention consultation document. A contingency of £100k for this purpose
has been included in the calculation of the amount for the Growth Fund.
5.4 As academies are funded on an academic year basis an expanding academy will
need additional funding for a twelve month rather than seven month period. If
an academy expands from September 13 as well as providing funding using the
formula in 5.3a) above from the 2013-14 Growth Fund, the LA will seek Schools’
Forum approval to retain 5/12ths funding for the period April to August 14 in the
2014-15 Growth Fund to be paid to the academy.
6. TRANSITIONAL PROTECTION
6.1 A proposal was presented to the previous meeting of Schools Forum for a
transitional protection scheme that would operate outside of the formula and
Minimum Funding Guarantee protection arrangements.
![Page 21: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
20
6.2 The scheme would involve some schools voluntarily giving up some delegated
budget to other schools based on calculations showing the impact of formula
changes after MFG on schools.
6.3 The Council has consulted schools and academies regarding the proposed
scheme. Appendix 3 shows the financial impact analysis included in the
consultation document.
6.4 The consultation asked three questions: -
a) Do you agree with the transitional protection scheme as outlined?
b) If you agree, which approach do you prefer: scaling or capping?
c) Please indicate your willingness to take part in the Scheme.
6.5 The Council received responses from 28 primary schools (from 36) and 3
secondary schools (from 6). Of the eight primary schools that did not respond to
the consultation four would benefit from the scheme.
6.6 Of the schools that responded to the consultation all except two thought there
was a need for the scheme. Of the schools that thought there was a need for
the Scheme all bar one expressed a preference for the scaling option.
6.7 As this is primarily a voluntary scheme Schools Forum is asked for their views as
to how to implement for those agreeing to take part. We would suggest the
following:
• only those consenting and responding positively take part in the scheme
• the scaling option is used
• net gainers contributory payments are held as appropriate at the suggested
level; and
• that protection payments to net losers are scaled back as appropriate.
7 CAPITAL
7.1 On Friday 1st March, the DfE confirmed the capital allocations for 2013/14 and
also in parts for 2014/15. Reading has been allocated around £10m in this fund.
The department also announced a new national ‘Targeted Basic Need
Programme’, which has £982m to be allocated towards new places. Each local
authority can lead the bidding process and seek funding for: -
a) New academy/free schools;
b) Expansion of academy schools;
c) Expansion of good/outstanding community schools.
7.2 All bids for this programme have to be in by 30th April, with decisions due in
June/July 2013 and the space in use by September 2015. Overall this is
potentially good news for Reading, however, there is a lot of competition for
the funding and we’ll have to move fast. Kevin McDaniel has already started to
talk with schools in the area of need with potentially viable schemes.
![Page 22: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
21
7.3 The formula for Devolved Formula Capital allocations will be unchanged from
2012-13 that is £4,000 per school plus a per pupil amount that is weighted for
the type of pupil: £11.25/£16.875/£33.75 for primary/secondary/special & PRU.
8 EDUCATION SERVICES GRANT
8.1 The grant has been announced as £1.8m for the 2013/14 year. This is used to
support LA funded Education Services and may change during the year subject
to any academy conversions as this forms part of the new LACSEG
arrangements.
![Page 23: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
22
Appendix 1
Inter Block Transfers
Schools Block Reconciliation
Total Schools Block per DfE DSG
notification 68,899,000
Funding for induction of NQTs 24,000
Total per DfE notification before
transfers 68,923,000
Inter-block transfers
Academy Resource Unit funding to High
Needs/Cost* -382,913
Delegation of bands 4,5 and part of 6
from High Needs 1,100,958
AWPU of pupils in Resource Units to
High Need -271,054
LSS funding previously held by Norcot from
Early Years block 157,010
Transfer of funding for nurture groups
to High Needs block -52,000
Net Inter-block transfers to Schools
Block 552,001
Schools Block after inter-block
transfers 69,475,001
* Academy Resource Unit funding
Technical adjustment required as this funding was part of academy formula funding that was not
deducted from total 12-13 DSG to create the High Needs/Cost block baselines. The Schools Block
baseline was the remaining balance after baselines were calculated for the High Needs/Cost and
Early Years block baselines: -
Prospect 2012-13 Resource Unit funding 292,648
Highdown 2012-13 Resource Unit funding 90,265
382,913
![Page 24: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
23
Appendix 2
Additional Growth Fund Requirement
Centrally retained (subject to Schools Forum approval)
Growth Fund
Retention of expanding schools
contingency 343,000
Retention of Infant Class Size contingency 159,000
Retention of expanding schools formula
allocs 117,143
Funding retained from 2012-13 619,143
Estimate of additional funding required ** 407,842
Total Growth Fund 1,026,985
** Calculation of additional growth fund requirements
12 New classes of 30 pupils per class from September 13 677,499
Cost of existing expanding schools: -
Katesgrove (15 Yr 5 + 30 Yr 3) = 45 pupils 84,687
New Christchurch 9 (used to be funded 12 per year, but
now only need 9 more children to be at full capacity) 16,937
St Johns 22 Yr 2 41,403
Wilson 30 Yr 3 56,458
Allowance for exceptional applications 50,000
Infant Class Size contingency 100,000
Total 1,026,985
Less already set aside -619,143
Extra funding required 407,842
![Page 25: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
24
Appendix 3: Financial Impact Analysis for Transitional Protection Scheme
-1.50% 4.31% -5.11%
New
formula after MFG
Total adjusted 2012-13
plus new delegation
s
Gain/ -Loss
% Gain/ -Loss
Transitional protection
Cap option
Scaling
option
A B C D E F G
E P Collier Primary 665,990 695,606 -29,616 -4.26% 19,182 0 0
St Mary's & All Saints CE (VA) Primary 1,466,341 1,509,819 -43,478 -2.88% 20,831 0 0
Coley Primary 816,194 838,579 -22,385 -2.67% 9,806 0 0
Meadow Park Academy 1,101,912 1,130,131 -28,220 -2.50% 11,268 0 0
Caversham Park Primary 752,601 768,712 -16,111 -2.10% 4,580 0 0
Churchend Primary 883,554 901,278 -17,723 -1.97% 4,204 0 0
St Anne's RC (VA) Primary 746,058 760,293 -14,235 -1.87% 2,831 0 0
St Martin's RC (VA) Primary 557,629 567,724 -10,094 -1.78% 1,579 0 0
All Saints CE (VA) Infant 334,544 337,279 -2,735 -0.81% 0 0 0
Highdown School 5,024,685 5,012,571 12,114 0.24% 0 0 -619
Reading Girls' School 3,278,877 3,263,602 15,275 0.47% 0 0 -780
Ranikhet Primary 1,161,592 1,153,798 7,795 0.68% 0 0 -398
Geoffrey Field Junior 1,213,844 1,203,605 10,239 0.85% 0 0 -523
Emmer Green Primary 1,645,796 1,630,073 15,723 0.96% 0 0 -803
English Martyrs RC (VA) Primary 1,435,969 1,421,556 14,413 1.01% 0 0 -736
Christ the King RC (VA) Primary 1,342,921 1,326,885 16,036 1.21% 0 0 -819
Kendrick School 2,283,581 2,252,782 30,799 1.37% 0 0 -1,573
Reading School 2,562,333 2,514,899 47,434 1.89% 0 0 -2,422 Blessed Hugh Faringdon Catholic School 3,538,152 3,466,983 71,169 2.05% 0 0 -3,634
Prospect School 5,922,679 5,798,026 124,653 2.15% 0 0 -6,365
Manor Primary 1,252,348 1,225,012 27,336 2.23% 0 0 -1,396
Oxford Road Primary 1,033,482 1,010,092 23,390 2.32% 0 0 -1,194
New Christ Church CE (VA) Primary 850,223 830,897 19,326 2.33% 0 0 -987
The Ridgeway Primary 894,718 873,631 21,086 2.41% 0 0 -1,077
New Town Primary 1,005,850 980,715 25,135 2.56% 0 0 -1,283
George Palmer Primary 1,723,911 1,679,595 44,316 2.64% 0 0 -2,263
Redlands Primary 915,971 890,918 25,053 2.81% 0 0 -1,279
Alfred Sutton Primary 1,711,160 1,663,472 47,688 2.87% 0 0 -2,435
St John's CE (VA) Primary 1,211,428 1,177,501 33,927 2.88% 0 0 -1,732
Micklands Primary 1,350,300 1,312,304 37,996 2.90% 0 0 -1,940
Wilson Primary 1,222,186 1,184,593 37,593 3.17% 0 0 -1,920
The Hill Primary 1,448,634 1,399,315 49,319 3.52% 0 0 -2,518
Battle Primary 1,699,708 1,639,559 60,149 3.67% 0 0 -3,071
Park Lane Primary 1,539,579 1,480,207 59,372 4.01% 0 0 -3,032
Caversham Primary 1,570,589 1,508,666 61,923 4.10% 0 0 -3,162
Katesgrove Primary 1,909,201 1,833,688 75,513 4.12% 0 0 -3,856
St Michael's Primary 987,961 946,274 41,688 4.41% 0 -903 -2,129
Geoffrey Field Infant 974,748 931,230 43,518 4.67% 0 -3,382 -2,222
Thameside Primary 1,331,092 1,271,303 59,789 4.70% 0 -4,996 -3,053
Southcote Primary 1,496,061 1,428,275 67,786 4.75% 0 -6,228 -3,461
Whitley Park combined 2,373,472 2,262,138 111,334 4.92% 0 -13,835 -5,685
Moorlands Primary 1,758,038 1,642,249 115,789 7.05% 0 -45,008 -5,912
Total 66,995,913 65,725,834 1,270,079 74,279 -74,353 -74,279
![Page 26: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
25
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF RESOURCES
TO: Reading Schools Forum
DATE: 21 March 2013
AGENDA ITEM: 7
SUBJECT: EARLY YEARS BLOCK FUNDING
SERVICE: Education & Children’s
Services
WARDS: All
AUTHOR: Russell Dyer
TEL: 0118 937 2398
JOB TITLE: Head of Finance (DECS) E-MAIL: [email protected]
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of the report is to update Schools Forum on the development of
free entitlement to child care for two year olds, clarify statutory duties and
financial arrangements for 2, 3 and 4 year old places, and to note interim rates
to be paid for 2, 3 and 4 year old places until end August 2013. The report
outlines proposals on existing and new funding to be retained centrally for the
early year’s block where Schools Forum has decision making powers.
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.1 For noting: Reading’s statutory duties to provide free early years
provision from September 2013 for an expanded cohort of two year
olds; the challenges faced and proposals for overcoming those
obstacles to enable sufficient sustainable provision from September
2013.
2.2 For noting; To maintain current hourly funding rates for 2, 3 and 4
year old places (as set out in para 3.6 below) until September 2013,
pending further research and consultation with the EYSFF group to
develop credible, affordable and sustainable rates from September
2013. A proposal will be made to Schools Forum to either the May or
July meeting.
2.3 For decision: To approve central expenditure retention of the early
years block for 2013/14, including trajectory funding of £537k to
enable further place development work and confirm approval for £60k
of other central costs.
![Page 27: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
26
3. BACKGROUND
Statutory Duties and Financial Arrangements
3.1 Reading has a statutory duty from September 2013 under the Childcare Act 2006
to provide free early education to all two year olds (from the term after they
turn two) whose family circumstances would qualify them for free school meals,
children with protection plans and looked after children. per Appendix 1
3.2 This entitlement will apply to an estimated 448 children, of whom DfE estimate
85% will take up their entitlement. This is a challenging increase in scale from
the current programme, which is delivering free places to 72 eligible children.
3.3 In line with national guidance, and the evidence showing that high quality
provision makes the most difference, Reading proposes to offer places in
settings rated as “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted. In areas with a shortage of
such provision, more intensive quality improvement support will be required.
3.4 The main funding for this programme within the current Financial Year (2012-
13) comes from the Early Years Block within the Early Intervention Grant. For
the Financial Year 2013-14 funding arrangements change significantly, and
resources earmarked for the programme will consist of:
• The early years block within DSG, the statutory funding for 2,3 and 4 year old
places
• The high needs block within DSG, which funds additional needs for 0 -19 year
olds, within current funding levels, recognising that any additional growth
will need to be funded
• Trajectory funding within DSG for 2013-14 which is aimed at developing the
two year old programme
• capital funding
3.5 The detailed breakdown is shown below:
Description 2013-14 (£000s)
Early Years Block - for 2 year old places 1,908
Early Years Block - Statutory funding for 3 and 4
year old places
7,433
Less: LSS transfer (157)
Full Time Places (see section 6 of the report) (90)
Central Retentions for Early Years Block (see Section
4)
(60)
Trajectory Funding to for two year old places (see
Section 4)
(538)
Available to fund 2 year old core participation
activity
1,370
Available to fund 3&4 year old core participation
activity
7,126
![Page 28: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
27
High needs block (covering 0-19) TBC
Capital Funding for 2 year old places (LA to
determine use)
357
3.6 Schools forum is now responsible for some funding decisions most notably with
regard to central retentions for revenue. The local authority also consults on
other areas notably the rates.
3.7 3 and 4 year old funding is participation based. Therefore, the amounts of
funding through the EYSFF included within the final budget are indicative and
will be updated during the year after each pupil census in May 2013, October
2013 and January 2014. The funding allocations for 2 year olds are fixed and
don’t reflect uptake.
Challenges to Delivery
3.8 There are two major work strands in successfully developing the programme:
• Increasing the number of available two year old places; and
• Identifying and engaging eligible parents to take up the offer.
Increasing Two Year Old Provision
3.9 Additional places will be commissioned from existing providers, across the
maintained, voluntary and private sectors who either have vacancies, or who
are able to expand or reconfigure their provision to increase the number of
places for two year olds. Terms and conditions of funding are in place setting
out requirements and expectations of providers. The Council needs to make an
affordable and sustainable offer, which is clear and viable for providers. This
entails:
• a base hourly rate for each type of provision;
• a credible and responsive package of financial and other support where
additional needs will require additional resources.
Setting Hourly Rates
3.10 Current 3 and 4 year old rates are as follows:
Provider type SFF hourly rates 2012-13
Deprivation supplement -
Rate including deprivation supplement
Maintained Nursery 4.83 1.39 6.22
Newbridge Nursery 5.19 1.39 6.58
Primary classes 3.30 1.39 4.69
Private and Voluntary settings
4.00 1.39 5.39
Independent Schools 3.56 1.39 4.95
Current 2 year old funding rate is £5.00
![Page 29: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
28
3.11 It should be noted that the Reading allocation from the DfE provides a rate for
two year old places which is very similar to most other non-London local
authorities, but the Reading rate for 3 and 4 year old places are significantly
above average, other than for Primary classes. The DfE assumed rate for two
year old places is approximately on par with Reading’s current 3 and 4 year old
rates. This may not be sustainable in the medium to longer term.
3.12 It is therefore proposed that current three and four year old rates continues for
the Summer 2013 term, to give provider near-term certainty.
3.13 New hourly rate proposals for the 2, 3 and 4 year olds will be brought forward to
School Forum in May/June, with supporting evidence, for revised rates to apply
from September 2013 which are affordable within designated budgets and viable
for providers in all sectors.
3.14 With two year old rates confirmed until September 2013, the Early Years service
team will seek to steadily expand the number of providers in the programme,
and the number of places they are able to offer. Progress will be reported to
Schools Forum in the May and July meetings.
Identifying and Meeting Additional Needs
3.15 The two year old development check by health visitors currently provides the
best universal means of assessing needs prior to taking up a place. The early
intervention currently takes a multi-agency approach to those children in Early
Years with high levels of need. It is proposed that this multi-agency approach
will continue. As part of the programme development, we need to develop a
more consistent approach to meeting needs, we will report back to School
Forum on the development of this in May/June.
Increasing take up.
3.16 Reading’s eligibility criteria have evolved during the pilot phase, in line with
national criteria and the availability of data to check eligibility under Free
School Meals criteria for families with two year old children. Details are shown
below.
3.17
Term Needs criteria Eligible Super Output
Areas
Spring 2012 By needs assessment 10% most disadvantaged
Summer 2012 By needs assessment 15% most disadvantaged
Autumn 2012 Entitlement under FSM
criteria + children with
protection plans + looked
after children
20% most disadvantaged
Spring 2013 Entitlement under FSM
criteria + children with
protection plans + looked
after children
30% most disadvantaged
![Page 30: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
29
Summer 2013 Entitlement under FSM
criteria + children with
protection plans + looked
after children
All SOAs
Autumn 2013 onwards Statutory Entitlement
under FSM criteria + SEN
+ looked after children
All SOAs
3.18 The current intake for 2 year old funding comes from Early Years Providers,
health visitors, social care and children centre’s, as a result of meeting the
criteria or family circumstances.
3.19 While this intensive assessment and multi-agency approach is excellent for
those with high levels of need, new ways need to be found to increase
participation amongst those who are, or will become eligible.
3.20 Anecdotally, encouraging an eligible parent with a two year old to take up free
entitlement is straightforward – it is a limited period of time (up to 15 hours per
week), enjoyable and beneficial for the child, and gives the parent time for
other things.
3.21 General promotion of the offer is difficult. The criteria can be stigmatising to
those who are eligible. For those who are not, news of free childcare they
cannot get may not be well received.
3.22 The challenge is therefore to identify eligible families, and engage with them
on an individual basis – and in particular to target those from vulnerable
families. This will involve developing partnerships and active roles for:
• Health visitors, particularly at the time of the two year development check;
Health Visitors are bringing in additional 9-12 months post-natal checks
enabling earlier identification and engagement of eligible two year olds
where risk factors have been identified;
• Primary Schools, who will know families meeting Free School Meals criteria,
and may be aware of younger siblings;
• JobCentrePlus, who know which parents are on eligible benefits, and may be
in a strong position to promote the offer;
• Children’s Centres, to determine eligibility via the council, and broker places
for parents;
• Social Care, to ensure looked after children and those on child protection
receive their entitlement
• the Turn Around Families Initiative, to redouble efforts to increase the
participation of younger children in educational opportunities at all ages.
4. CENTRAL EXPENDITURE RETENTIONS
4.1 Two main areas to examine and make a decision to approve:
![Page 31: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
30
• Early years block historic ongoing funding (£60k). These areas have been
discussed and agreed at the EYSFF meeting on 4 March and adjustments have
been subsequently made to the approval request following discussion and
agreement with the group where it felt that the services were not relevant.
The bulk of the expenditure (some £40k) relates to School Meals and Kitchens,
the central retention of which has already been approved (see 2013/14 budget
report on this meeting’s agenda). The remaining amounts are small notional
amounts held for statutory services and liabilities which were considered by the
group to be relevant.
• One Off Trajectory Funding (£537,733) – The purpose of this funding is to
develop the two year old offer. It is envisaged this will be used for:
o supporting providers to develop new two year old places, or improve the
quality of their offer
o workforce development
o IT processes and systems for the recording, tracking and making payment
o funding a steadily increasing participation in the pilot programme, in the
lead up to September 2013
o meeting additional needs until April 2014
The EYSFF group discussed and agreed these areas at their 4 March Meeting,
recognising that the plans are evolving and subject to change.
5. HIGH NEEDS
5.1 Current funding for statemented children under 4 of £170k comes from the high
needs block. We want to develop a way of funding any 2 year old children who
need additional support in 2013-2014 using the trajectory funding, but this is
only a short term measure and sustainability will need to be built into the
funding system. We will consult the EYSFF group on this as well as SEN and
Commissioning.
6. FULL TIME PLACES
6.1 A report on progress in relation to the £90k previously set aside for full time
places is attached as Appendix 2 to the report. Having reviewed the uptake in
this year and use of the budget, it has been agreed that budget provision can be
reduced to £50k for financial year, which the balance being released into the
general funding pot for provider’s rates.
![Page 32: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
31
Appendix 1 – Criteria for 2 year old funded Children from April 2013
The 2 year old entitlement starts at the beginning of each term following a child’s 2nd
birthday.
Below shows when a child becomes eligible to claim.
Born Between Eligible Term
1st January—31st March Summer (April to July)
1st April—31st August Autumn (September to December)
1st September—31st December Spring (January to March)
To be eligible for the funding, families must meet either criteria below and be
registered with their local Children’s Centre.
Criteria one
The parent or carer must be in receipt of one or more of the following benefits:
• Income Support
• Income Based Job Seekers Allowance
• An income-related Employment and Support Allowance
• Support under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
• Child Tax Credit (provided they are not entitled to Working Tax Credit) and
have an annual income (as assessed by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) that
as of 6 April 2011 does not exceed £16,190
• The Guarantee element of State Pension Credit
Criteria two
In order to ensure we reach the most vulnerable 2 year olds, Reading has also set a
local criteria. Children claiming under the new criteria two need to be recognised as
one of the following:
• Child on the child protection register
• Looked after Child
![Page 33: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
32
Appendix 2
Report for Schools Forum - Update on Full time places – April 2012 to March 2013
During the past year 43 children nursery aged children benefited from an additional
10 hours of funded education. 19 of the children living in deprivation funding
areas).
Funding was allocated to 12 settings. Of these 4 were maintained nursery schools
and classes and 9 were day nurseries. All the settings were judged as good or better
as stipulated in the guidance.
The cost during 2012-2013 for additional hours was £38,437.60
Reports on the impact of the funding were received once the children had left. 23
children have left during the year, 22 of those left in July 2012.
12 Impact of funding reports were received (see summary below and overleaf)
Summary of impact of progress
In every case attendance improved.
Impact on progress:
All the reports identified that the children made good progress. , especially with
developing confidence and social skills. Many had learnt routines and coping
strategies.
Impact on language development
Additional time was key for language development with many accessing SLT and or
some 1:1 support. The additional funding impacted in improvements in speaking and
listening skills.
Bilingual children had longer working in a rich in English environment.
Impact on health and wellbeing
Many children benefited from a nutritious hot meal. All the children had improved
health and wellbeing.
Feedback from parents
10 of the forms included feedback from the parents. Most parents commented on their
child’s happiness and increased confidence and language development. One parent
said her child was calmer and was more interested in doing new things. Another
believed the additional hours has meant he can go to a mainstream school.
Conclusion
The full time places group looked at every application in detail and a number of
applications were rejected because the children did not meet the strict criteria. For
those children who have received the additional hours, all children made progress and
were much more ready for the next stage of their education.
![Page 34: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
33
SJM on behalf of the full time places group – January 2013
Appendix 1 - Impact of funding
2012-2013
12 returns
Impact on progress – improvements in the following areas
Social skills- 9
Increased confidence - 7
Concentration and listening skills - 4
Opportunities for focussed 1:1 work – 1
Fine motor control – 1
Attainment on leaving was age expected – 2
Following routines - 4
Fine motor control – 1
Opportunities to reinforce concepts - 1
Impact on language development - improvements in the following areas
Non verbal skills – 1
Specific speech and language targets met – 5
Social communication – 2
Use of PECS -1
Increased language (including EAL where applicable) – 5
Impact on health and wellbeing - improvements in the following areas
Experience of having lunch and receiving a nutritious hot meal – 7
Managing transition to next setting – 3
Independence with personal hygiene & clothing – 1
Self esteem – 2
Expressing and controlling emotions - 2
Other specific benefits- Parents comments:
Increased contact gave the time to ensure the correct next placement and transition
arrangements.
Additional support has prevented my child having to go to special school
![Page 35: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
34
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF RESOURCES
TO: READING SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE: 21 MARCH 2013
AGENDA ITEM: 8
SUBJECT: HIGH NEEDS BLOCK 2013-14 UPDATE
SERVICE: EDUCATION & CHILDREN’S
SERVICES
WARDS: All
AUTHOR: Russell Dyer
TEL: 0118 937 2398
JOB TITLE: Head of Finance,
Education and Children’s
E-MAIL: [email protected]
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To update on progress in relation to the above. This builds upon the last report
previously reported in October and brings the Schools forum up to speed with
the latest development
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION – TO NOTE
2.1 The breakdown of the £15.4m high needs block for 2013-14.
2.2 The funding risk framework for the high needs block for 2013-14
2.3 Progress in relation to developing the arrangements for this area in
the areas highlighted.
3 BREAKDOWN OF HIGH NEEDS BLOCK
3.1 The budget breakdown of the high needs block is shown in the table below:
Table 1 High Need block 2013-14
13£000
Top up funding (funding over and above placement funding)
8,193
Placement led funding (first £10k per place) 2,980
Cranbury College (PRU) 1,758
School Contracts (Speech & Language, Sensory Consortium Service, OT and SEN Transport)
680
School SEN Services (Pre School Teachers, ASD, hard to place fund and Travellers)
540
Post 16 478
Projects for Transition and Prevention (nurture groups, Haven, Snowflakes. JMA)
360
Central costs 187
![Page 36: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
35
Personal Education Allowance 113
Hospital Education 111
TOTAL 15,400
3.2 There is a separate report on the agenda on the Sensory Consortium Service
(annual cost of £297k pa) which is funded in the high needs block.
4 FUNDING RISK FRAMEWORK
4.1 Because of the change in funding systems, all of the funding risk around high
needs now falls to the local authority as the safeguards previously put in place
to share risk have now been removed and are no longer available to us.
However the funding pot for schools (the DSG) is a set allocation, so if the high
needs block was to overspend in year it would need to be recovered from the
DSG in the following year, which under the present regulations is subject to
Schools Forum approval or failing that Secretary of State approval. The
mechanisms to do this would be to reduce the top up banding values or move
funding from the schools block to the high needs block. This would in effect
reduce every school’s delegated budget. Increased demand against the high
needs block will affect all schools.
4.2 Given past experience of this area and the changes in the funding system, this
area will continue to represent a higher risk in terms of overspending. However
there are more opportunities to gate keep funding, although this will be in the
face of limited capacity with the Council. As identified in the sections that
follow we have disseminated the new system to all appropriate settings.
5 SPECIAL SCHOOLS AND RESOURCE UNITS
5.1 Place led funding for the above has been largely agreed. Additional funding for
£157k has been secured from the EFA following issues raised by the Council. In
addition the EFA has clarified the position on place led funding for the NASS
school. The EFA have noted the concerns raised by the Council with regard to
growth more generally for top ups.
6 NON MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS
6.1 Place led funding on these providers has been agreed. The balance of funding
for the placements will be via top ups.
7 POST 16
7.1 The Authority has submitted the place led funding returns for the relevant
schools and further education providers. With the exception of Reading College
where 15 places have been agreed, all funding will be provided via top ups to
allow maximum flexibility. This approach has been agreed with the EFA and
RRP and the approach will be communicated to all of the providers.
8 BANDS 4, 5 AND 6
![Page 37: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
36
8.1 Schools have now been written to with regard to their notional SEN funding
allocation, clarification that the £10k per child (£4k core funding plus £6k
additional needs) is included within the formula budget and the system for
accessing top ups where costs exceed £10k. The letter also included frequently
asked questions about the new system of funding to ensure that there is clarity
over process.
8.2 In addition other local authorities with Reading high cost children have been
written to with regard to the revised system.
9 EARLY YEARS
9.1 This is considered in a separate report. It is expected that any additional
growth in this area will need to be considered as part of the 2014-15 budget
setting process with trajectory funding being in place for the 2013-14 financial
year.
10 WORKING WITH OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES
10.1 A further meeting hosted by Hants CC was held with neighbouring authorities to
ensure a consistent approach between local authorities and to identify issues by
comparing budgets and practice across the group. In some cases this identified
areas of common practice and for other areas it identified areas that were not
common practice. Two area which require further investigation were:
• The comparatively high level of top ups at this authority, thought to relate to
Special School within the borough
• The fact that this council did not use lower prior attainment within its formula
as an indicator of high need, although this largely flowed from consultation
responses from schools in this regard and this is also being examined as part of
the national funding consultation for 2013/14 which is also on the agenda for
this meeting.
![Page 38: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
37
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF RESOURCES
TO: READING SCHOOLS FORUM
DATE: 21 MARCH 2013
AGENDA ITEM: 9
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE 2013-14 SCHOOLS FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
SERVICE: EDUCATION & CHILDREN’S
SERVICES
WARDS: All
AUTHOR: Russell Dyer
TEL: 0118 937 2398
JOB TITLE: Head of Finance,
Education and Children’s
E-MAIL: [email protected]
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To update Schools Forum on the recent funding consultation paper and propose
a suggested response.
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION – TO NOTE
2.1 The summary of the key issues on the consultation paper.
2.2 The comparison with other local authorities (attached as Appendix 1
and 2).
2.3 That the response will be made to the consultation questions, as noted
within the report, by the due deadline of 26 March, subject to
consultation with Schools Forum at this meeting.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 13 February 2013, the Department for Education (DfE) published a review of
the 2013/14 School Funding arrangements. The document summarises how the
2013/14 funding arrangements have been implemented, outlines some specific
concerns that have been raised and considers making small changes in 2014/15
to address some of the concerns raised.
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/
schoolsrevenuefunding/a00221523/review-of-2013-14-school-funding-
arrangements
1.2 The document also seeks views on 23 specific questions and the closing date for
responses to these is 26 March 2013. Our funding consultant has prepared a
draft response to the questions and we are seeking the views of the Schools
![Page 39: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
38
Forum as to the suggested responses. Schools, Academies and Schools Forum
are of course free to make separate representations to the DFE.
2 NATIONAL FUNDING FORMULA AND THE MOVE TOWARDS PUPIL LED FUNDING
2.1 DfE reaffirms its desire to move towards a pupil led funding system that targets
the funding of needs of the pupils and not the circumstances of the school. It
also reaffirms that a national formula will be introduced sometime after 2015
2.2 In an Annex to the document, DfE presents an analysis through a series of charts
of how funding is currently being distributed across the country based on an
October pro forma that authorities had to return to the DfE. Specifically, DfE
wants to understand whether we are moving towards a more pupil-led system,
and where the greatest variation has arisen. The annex is included as appendix
1 to this report and we have shown on each chart Reading’s position relative to
others.
2.3 The data shows that there is still variation in how local authorities have
distributed their Dedicated Schools Grant, which DfE states is to be expected
given that per-pupil funding allocations vary across the country, making each
local authority’s starting point different from its neighbours.
2.4 The majority of primary Age Weighted Pupil Units (AWPUs) are in the range of
£2,250 to £3,250 and overall, the proportion of funding being spent on the
AWPUs varies between 60% and 87%, with half of local authorities allocating
between 75% and 80%.
2.5 DfE states that the data shows that good progress is being made towards the aim
of moving to a more pupil-led system. It cites the fact that authorities are
allocating at least 77% of funding through a combination of the pupil-led factors
(i.e. the AWPU, deprivation, prior attainment, EAL, looked after children and
pupil mobility) and around 49% of authorities are allocating between 90% and
95% of funding in this way.
2.6 DfE is keen to ensure that even more money is targeted to the needs of pupils,
rather than to the circumstances of schools and so is considering whether to set
a minimum threshold for a combination of all the pupil-led factors.
Q1: Should we set a minimum threshold for the pupil-led factors and, if so,
at what level?
Response: This proposal should be rejected on the basis that LAs and Schools
Forums should be given as much flexibility as possible in determining funding
allocations as they are best placed to judge the needs of pupils and schools.
2.7 There are two other questions within this section
Q2: On what basis did local authorities decide on the quantum or
proportion of funding to target to deprived pupils?
![Page 40: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
39
Response: To limit turbulence Reading allocated funding through the nearest
equivalent factor to the 2012-13 formula. Therefore, the proportion of funding
targeted to deprived pupils is similar to the proportion of funding targeted
through the 2012-13 formula.
Q3: On what basis did local authorities decide on the per-pupil amounts for
the prior attainment factors?
Response: As a result of consultation responses from primary school head
teachers who raised concerns about the use of the Early Years Foundation Stage
Profile as a suitable basis for the allocation of funds and the small proportion
of 2012-13 funding that was allocated through low prior attainment Reading
decided not to allocate any funding through low prior attainment in the new
formula.
3 AREAS OF CONCERN AND POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR 2014/15
3.1 Prior Entitlement
3.1.1 DfE asks whether the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) is a suitable
factor to identify low cost SEN in primary schools and if not, what is an
alternative factor. It asks:
Q4: Do you agree that local authorities should continue to use EYFSP data as
an attainment-related proxy or should we consider use of a different
indicator to identify low cost SEN in primary schools? If so, what indicator?
Response: Reading does not use EYSF but we note that there has been
considerable criticism nationally of its use with some authorities pointing to
the turbulence that it has caused while others have questioned its relevance.
Further, there is not a currently available alternative which is sufficiently
robust and quantifiable.
3.2 Pupil Mobility
3.2.1 The current pupil mobility factor is intended to address the administrative costs
incurred by schools that experience high levels of pupils leaving and joining
throughout the academic year. DfE has received concerns that the factor, as
currently designed, does not differentiate between a school that has few mobile
pupils (and therefore incurs significantly lower administrative costs) and a
school that has significantly larger numbers of mobile pupils (and therefore
incurs higher costs).
Q5: Would it help to allow an additional weighting to be given if a school
experiences in-year changes to pupil numbers above a certain threshold? If
so, where should this threshold be set?
Response: We use a mobility factor and are content with the current weighting
![Page 41: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
40
3.3 Lump Sum
3.3.1 DfE introduced the single lump sum predominantly to provide sufficient funding
for those necessary small schools, particularly in rural areas, that may not be
able to operate on the basis of their per-pupil funding alone. It has, however,
become apparent that the current lump sum arrangements are causing
concerns, particularly in relation to small schools in rural areas, and DfE is
considering the possibility of introducing an optional school-level sparsity factor
for 2014-15, specifically to target funding at necessary small schools in rural
areas.
Q6: In areas with large numbers of small schools, could the problem of having
a fixed lump sum be overcome by reducing the relevant AWPU?
Response: This is not of relevance to Reading but in principle one option could
be for Local Authorities with a large number of small schools to reduce the
AWPU to increase the lump sum. Another option could instead be to base
funding levels on a set number minimum number of pupils per school with
different minimum numbers for primary and secondary schools.
Q7: Would having the ability to apply a separate primary and secondary lump
sum avoid necessary small schools becoming unviable? If so, how should we
deal with middle and all-through schools?
Response: This is not as issue for Reading but in principle the costs that the
lump sum is intended to fund will inevitably vary between the primary and
secondary sectors and having a differential rate would allow this variation to
be accounted for.
Q8: We said in June that we would review the level of the lump sum cap
(currently £200,000) for 2014-15 in order to establish whether it is the
minimum cap needed to ensure the sustainability of necessary small schools.
If we continued with one lump sum for both primary and secondary, what
would be the minimum level of cap needed to ensure the sustainability of
necessary small schools? If we had separate lump sums for primary and
secondary, what would be the minimum cap needed for each in order to
ensure the sustainability of necessary small schools?
Response: Again this is not an issue in Reading and because of this we have
never carried out the detailed work in this area to respond to this question
Q9: Would using a school-level sparsity measure to target a single lump sum,
based on distance between pupils and their second nearest school, avoid
necessary small rural schools becoming unviable?
Response: No view
Q10: What average distance threshold would be appropriate?
Response: No view
![Page 42: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
41
Q11: If we had a sparsity measure, would it still be necessary to have a lump
sum in order to ensure that necessary schools remain viable? Why? What is
the interaction between the two?
Response: No view
Q12: What alternative sparsity measures could we use to identify necessary
small schools in rural areas?
Response: No view
Q13: Would the ability for both schools to retain their lump sums for one or
two years after amalgamation create a greater incentive to merge?
Response: Yes, there should be an incentive for schools to merge but rather
than two years, local authorities may prefer to retain flexibility to fund a lump
sum over a longer period to ensure that economies of scale have been fully
realised before the lump sum is removed.
3.4 Targeted Funding to Deprived Pupils
3.4.1 Some local authorities have expressed concern that the 2013-14 arrangements
have resulted in funding moving away from schools with high numbers of
deprived pupils. DfE recognises that the removal of certain factors (such as floor
space and other premises-related issues) and a greater focus on pupil-led
factors may cause some schools to experience changes to their budgets and it
want to understand why the 2013-14 arrangements could have resulted in
deprived schools losing funding and asks
Q14: If you think local authorities will be unable to use the allowable
deprivation indicators in order to prevent significant losses to schools with a
high proportion of deprived pupils, why do you think that is the case?
Response: I would be surprised if this is an issue in Reading or most authorities
given that there are various indicators such as FSM, Ever6 and IADCI that can be
used to channel resources to deprived areas. So if this is the case then the
suggested response is ‘no evidence of significant losses arising from this in
Reading’
3.4.3 DfE has received a number of representations from schools with large numbers
of service children that have expressed concerns that they are set to lose
funding as a result of the new arrangements. DfE asks therefore:
Q15: Do you have any evidence that service children (once we account for
deprivation, mobility and pastoral care through the Pupil Premium) require
additional funding in order to achieve as well as non-service children?
Response: This is not a significant factor in Reading and we are not aware of
any of our schools having such problems.
![Page 43: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
42
3.4.4 DfE is also concerned that it is not overlooking vulnerable groups of children and
asks:
Q16: Have the 2013-14 reforms prevented local authorities from targeting
funding to groups of pupils that need additional support? If so, which?
Response: No evidence for this in Reading
3.5 Falling Rolls
3.5.1 The government’s policy is that successful expanding schools should be
rewarded, and that pupils should be free to attend the school of their choice
without the funding being locked in at a different school. If a school has falling
rolls, DfE advises that it should consider its longer term viability and may
consider merging or federating with other schools in order to save money but
also to improve its leadership capacity and quality. The DfE’s changes to the
Minimum Funding Guarantee have enhanced this policy, removing protection
from schools with falling rolls.
3.5.2 The review document has highlighted one potential issue with this policy –
where the demographic trend has meant that secondary school pupil numbers
have reduced but a bulge is imminent as more primary pupils move up. DfE
suggests that in such cases, local authorities can retain a small fund for schools
in financial difficulty and be used to help bridge the gap between the falling
rolls and the imminent bulge. And it also asks:
Q17: In cases where a population bulge is imminent, what is preventing good
and necessary schools from staying open?
Response: One possibility is where a school loses a significant number of pupils
which when combined with high pupil entitlements results in a significant loss
of funding; which is not matched by an equivalent reduction in costs over the
same timeframe.
Q18: Are there any other circumstances in which falling rolls are unavoidable
in the short term?
Response: Not aware of any.
4 ADJUSTING FOR HIGH NEEDS FUNDING IN 2014-15 AND BEYOND – ISSUES FOR
2014/15 AND BEYOND
4.1 Top up Funding
4.1.1 As part the 2013-14 reforms, DfE introduced a new framework for funding
provision for children and young people with high level needs, including special
educational needs (SEN), learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD) and those
requiring alternative provision (AP). DfE believe it is too early to consider
![Page 44: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
43
changes to High Needs SEN “Place Plus” and will therefore look at this as part of
a subsequent review. Whilst we agree that there has been significant change to
this aspect of school funding, there are still a significant number of issues and
concerns that are outside the scope of this review. There are still many points
to be resolved before the new system can achieve what the DfE intended it to
do.
4.1.2 Turning to the issues that are considered in the document, the first issue relates
to the concerns that some local authorities have expressed relating to
limitations on the formula factors which they can use, which they argue do not
allow them to target funds to those pupils with particular needs or to schools
which attract a higher number of pupils with high needs because they have a
good reputation for meeting those needs. DfE therefore has allowed local
authorities flexibility to use their high needs block to make additional
allocations outside the formula to schools that have a disproportionate
population of pupils with high needs, after consulting the Schools Forum.
4.1.3 DfE is also planning to introduce to the schools census, from 2014, a marker that
will indicate those pupils who receive top-up funding. According to the
Department, this high needs marker could be used to target extra funding to
schools that have a disproportionate number of high needs pupils, but cannot be
introduced before 2015-16 because the census data will not be available.
Q19: Would a formula factor that indicates those pupils who receive top-up
funding be a useful addition to help deal with the funding of high needs?
Response: The inclusion of a marker on the census in 2014/15 will provide
useful but limited information. It would indicate the number and location of
children with a top-up but it would not record the level of top up. But any
additional data on high needs pupils is to be welcomed but it must be left to
the Forum to decide whether to use this indicator to target funding.
4.1.4 DfE notes that while it has recommended that authorities should construct their
schools’ notional SEN budgets so that schools are required to contribute up to
£6,000 towards the additional support costs of their pupils with SEN, some
authorities have adopted a different threshold as a transitional arrangement.
This then creates differences in the base funding between neighbouring local
authorities, and therefore in the top-up funding levels they are implementing.
This according to DfE could be a problem as commissioning authorities, are
likely to be dealing with schools in more than one authority area. It asks:
Q20: To address the variation in base funding between neighbouring local
authorities, how fast should local authorities be required to move towards
the £6,000 threshold? Should it be made a requirement from 2014-15?
Response: If there is to be a county wide or regional agreement, there needs to
be consistency in the base position from which the top up is funded and so
consideration can be given to moving to the £6,000 threshold from 2014-15.
Q21: Should the Department play an active role in spreading good practice
and model contracts/service level agreements?
![Page 45: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
44
Response: Yes, a collation and dissemination of good practice by DfE would be
useful and the publication of model contracts and service level agreements may
help reduce some of the extra administrative burden associated with carrying
out these tasks.
4.2 Pre and post-16 arrangements
4.2.1 The Department is aware that the administrative processes pre- and post-16, in
the run-up to 2013-14, have not been co-ordinated as helpfully as they might
have been. It is looking to improve this substantially for 2014-15 but also wishes
to look at how arrangements can be brought closer together so that they are
easier to understand and use for local authorities, colleges, schools and
Academies. It asks:
Q22: Do you have ideas about how the pre and post-16 high needs systems
might be brought closer together?
Response: DfE needs to develop a much more consistent approach at a national
level to pre and post 16 frameworks with a proper and accepted link between
the two. A uniform funding period would further remove complexity but in the
longer term consideration, may be given to introducing a uniform funding
system.
5 SCHOOL FORUMS
5.1 DfE heard concerns that Schools Forums were not always operating fairly or
transparently in the past (examples include meeting papers and agendas not
being published and voting rights being spread too widely across a range of
members) and in response made a number of changes which came into effect on
1 October 2012.
5.2 It is not proposing to make any further changes for 2014-15 but asks:
Q23: Do you think that Schools Forums are operating more democratically
and transparently? If not, what further measures could the Department take
in order to improve this?
Response: We do not recommend any changes but it should be recognised that
LAs and Schools Forums now have less scope and discretion to allocate out
funding because of the rigidities of the new funding regulations.
6 GENERAL COMMENTS
6.1 We are concerned that this is once again a consultation with a very short
timescale, which on this occasion, is taking place at a time of year when
finance staff are very busy finalising budgets for schools and contributing to the
Council budget setting process.
![Page 46: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
45
6.2 It is also difficult to see the value of the consultation given that the new system
will not take effect until 1 April 2013 and all the consequences both foreseen
and unforeseen will not have had time to manifest themselves. Surely it would
have been better if DfE had waited until the end of April so that local
authorities, schools and academies would have had the time to properly
understand and evaluate the implications of the Schools Funding Reforms on
their school.
6.3 Finally the scope of the review is not sufficiently broad enough, ignoring many
issues previously raised by this and other local authorities in relation to Schools
Funding issues.
![Page 47: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
![Page 48: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
![Page 49: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
![Page 52: Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and ......Avril Wilson Director of Education, Social Services and Housing PO Box 2624, Reading, RG1 7WB 0118 937 3737 Fax: 0118](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060417/5f147e8f9bd4d01e1a4514b1/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)