Agenda item

The Chairman drew the Forum’s attention to the recommendations within the report under paragraph’s 2.2 and 2.3. All Forum Members would be required to vote on recommendation 2.2 (To agree the centrally retained budgets as set out in Tables 2 and 3) and all primary and secondary maintained school Forum Members would be required to vote on recommendation 2.3 (To agree the additional de-delegations as set out in Tables 4 and 5).

Ian Pearson introduced the report, which set out proposals for the Schools Block Budget for 2017/18.

The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) schools block allocation for 2017/18 was confirmed on the 20^th December 2016 and totalled £96.7 million. In addition it was estimated that there would be a £300k under spend in the Growth and Falling Rolls fund, which could be carried forward and included within the amount for allocation.

In the past the Government had given the local authority an Education Services Grant (ESG), which amounted to just under £2 million. However, in 2017/18 this grant was being cut. Statutory services provided by the local authority for maintained schools would become a de-delegation from individual school budgets. All schools would have to pay for these services. Academies would also receive a cut to the grant they received to pay for these services (though will receive transitional relief), and they would however have to continue to purchase them.

Paragraph four of the report gave an overall picture of the School’s Block. Table Two illustrated services currently provided by the DSG and would continue to be met by the schools block DSG. Table Three showed services that were previously funded by the ESG and would have to be met from the schools block DSG going forward. Table Four highlighted central statutory services previously funded by the  ESG that would not be transferred to the DSG but would need to be de-delegated from maintained school’s budgets as they would remain as statutory. Table 5 set out the proposed cost of the school improvement de-delegated services for 2017/18 and this was covered in more detail under Appendix F to the report. There was also a separate report under Appendix E regarding Health and Safety, which had been discussed in great detail at the Heads Funding Group.

Paul Dick noted that the servicing costs of the Schools Forum had increased by 50%. Claire White explained that in the past school finance regulations set by the Government had not allowed the Local Authority to put up the budget of this service in line with what it had actually cost and it had been capped at what the cost had been three years ago. Funding had been moved around to ensure this service could continue despite increasing costs. The 50% increase shown reflected the Governments recognition that the cost of this service had increased and therefore resulted in removal of the cap. 

Paul Dick felt that with schools facing ever reducing budgets it seemed unfair for any budget to increase by this amount. Claire White stated that the budget in question provided posts that supported the Schools Forum, including administration of all the meetings provided by Strategic Support. Keith Watts asked what would the result be if the budget in question was reduced to £42k and Claire White confirmed that the Forum could not be serviced. There was a statutory requirement to have five Schools Forum meetings per year.  The Chairman acknowledged the point that was being made however stated that in the grand scheme of things the amount of money in question was relatively small.

The Forum then moved on to consider the reports under Appendix E and F.  Appendix E included proposals for Health and Safety provision for maintained schools.

Mike Lindenburn (Health and Safety Manager), presented Appendix E of the report, which considered Health and Safety Services in line with the changes to the Education Services Grant (being that the statutory element of this service would now need to be met by schools) and how this fitted in with the current traded service with maintained schools and academies.

Mike Lindenburn stated that his report set out the legal requirements expected of schools and that they had to be provided with access to competent advice. Within the report there were a number of proposals to be considered on how the Health and Safety Service would be funded into the future.

Option 1: Combine the costs of the provision of schools health and safety service currently split and funded through the ESG and through buy back income, thus removing the differing level of service and maintaining current staff levels.

Option 2: Combine the costs of the provision of schools health and safety service currently split and funded through the ESG and through buy back income, thus removing the differing level of service but reduce current staff levels by one full time post.

Option 3: Maintain the current choice based service options, with all schools equally and equitably sharing the cost of the provision of the Level One schools health and safety service.

Mike Lindenburn explained that Options 1 and 2 offered a different way of delivering the Health and Safety service. Option 3 would require no changes.

Peter Hudson noted that Option 3 was what was currently provided in terms of health and safety and queried whether schools needed to be Level Two in order of being considered adequate. Mike Lindenburn commented that legislation stated that advice had to be provided however legislation did not provide scope on how advice should be provided. There was a debate as to whether Level One schools fully met the legal requirements.

Chris Davis asked if there was any evidence to support that schools opting for Level One were missing something. He also asked if Level One schools could look elsewhere for the provision of Level Two services. Mike Lindeburn stated that he was not aware of any other arrangements for health and safety advice or any other forms of external support. In regards to Chris Davis’ first question, Mike Lindenburn reported that there was a usual spread of scores across need assessments. One advantage to schools choosing to be Level Two was that they had access to up to date training.

Keith Harvey reported that his school had been Level One for many years however, felt that if schools were forced to become Level two there would be more advantages for them and therefore this was preferable.

Chris Davis was concerned that some schools might have made financial investment into a set up that ensured they were a Level Two school. Options 1 or 2 would mean that such schools would be forced to pay for something they were already doing in a different way.

David Ramsden thanked Mike Lindenburn for including a third option within his report, which had not been included when the report was discussed at the Heads Funding Group. David Ramsden expressed that he did not support Options 1 or 2 as he felt schools should not lose their freedom to choose. Sheilagh Peacok stated that many of her colleagues would not want to be forced into buying Level Two services.

Anthony Gallagher asked for clarification on the cost of Option 3 and Mike Lindenburn confirmed that they would try to retain any existing charges.

Peter Hudson noted that Option 3 would result in a lower level model, where schools could then buy into Level Two services. Mike Lindenburn stated that in reality with just one post, Level Two was not something that was achievable.

Ian Pearson noted that conversations seemed to be supporting Option 3 and he reminded Members of the Forum that this could be reviewed next year. David Ramsden supported this and felt that an early review of the system would be helpful.

John Hewitt stated that he was speaking on behalf of special schools and noted that costs for them would increase however he noted they were unable to vote. Claire White confirmed that special school, nurseries and PRUs would have to pay for the services decided by their primary and secondary colleagues. There had been no clear response from the Department for Education on when she had raised this query.

Ian Pearson drew the Forum’s attention to Appendix F regarding a proposal to de-delegate formula funding for 2017/18 for school improvement services for maintained schools. The changing national landscape of school improvement was one of transition from local authority led to a system-led model of school improvement with subsequent reduction to local authority funding. The proposal concerned the support for transitional school improvement funding in two stages; April to August 2017 and then September to March 2018. Although national school improvement funding was being reduced, statutory functions were not being reduced and the Local Authority would retain responsibility for these. It was reported that the Department for Education (DfE) had recently announced that there would be a contribution to transitional funding to support statutory functions from September 2017 to the equivalent of £1800 per school per year. This sum did not fully meet the cost of transitional arrangements or the delivery of statutory functions.

Ian Pearson reported that page 55 of the report detailed the non statutory core offer. Page 52 included a table, which set out the cost at a  total net cost of £256k for financial year 2017/18. The second period of time from September to March brought the cost down to £0k.

Ian Pearson stated that the original cost per pupil had been £45. At the Heads Funding Group this had been reduced to £19 per pupil and had since reduced again to £16.50. Graham Spellman asked for clarification on the noticable cliff edge between August and September and Ian Pearson confirmed that the offer would move from a statutory plus offer to just a statutory offer. Graham Spellman further queried what would happen to Officers involved at that point and Ian Pearson reported that the team would have to be reduced and the Local Authority would be actively looking into this.

Chris Davis referred to the paragraph at the bottom of page 52 and was concerned that schools would be paying for something they would not receive. Ian Pearson reported that schools categorised as A or B would receive a degree of support. They would receive what they were receiving at present between April and August and this would then reduce between August and March. Ian Pearson confirmed that schools could change to a different category and these were reviewed two or three times per year.

The Chairman queried what would happen if a vote was not passed on the items in question. Ian Pearson stated that it was hoped that a position would be agreed however, if it was not then the item would have to be referred to the Secretary of State.

In line with paragraph 2.2 of the report, the Chairman invited Members of the Forum to vote on if they were in agreement with the centrally retained budgets as set out in Tables 2 and 3.

RESOLVED that all were in favour of agreeing the centrally retained budgets set out in Tables 2 and 3.

In line with paragraph 2.3 of the report, he Chairman invited Members of the Forum to vote on if they were in agreement with the additional de-delegations as set out in Tables 4 and 5.

RESOLVED that no Forum Members were in favour of Option 1 under Table 4.

RESOLVED that no Forum Members were in favour of Option 2 under Table 4.

RESOLVED that all Forum Members were in favour of Option 3 under Table 4.

RESOLVED that all Forum Members were in favour of agreeing the additional de-delegations as set out in Table 5.